|
Author
|
Topic: Aurora September 2010 auction
|
stsmithva
Member Posts: 1933
From: Fairfax, VA, USA
Registered: Feb 2007
|
posted 09-17-2010 10:02 PM
   
I noticed that Aurora Galleries is having an auction on 9/25, featuring about 900 aviation and space program lots. I had been browsing for a couple of minutes when I noticed Lot 356: "Apollo 1 Chaffee, White and Grissom Autograph on a February 3, 1967 "Life Magazine" profiling the 3 astronauts. Chaffee signed in black ink, White in blue ink and Grissom in black Sharpie. Good condition with toning." Yes. They were being profiled in that issue because they had died in the Apollo 1 fire the week before. Usually when I notice a pretty big error or very questionable item in an auction catalog, I try to be helpful and send them an e-mail. I can't in this case, because it would consist solely of "Come ON!" in 144-point type. |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 09-18-2010 01:50 AM
I don't know who's dumber...the forger who created this item or the auction rep who approved this for the auction.This goes to show just how closely the people at Aurora review their items before putting them up for auction. |
gliderpilotuk
Member Posts: 3398
From: London, UK
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 09-18-2010 04:31 AM
Good effort by the forger, but no cigar  |
GerryM
Member Posts: 244
From: Glenside PA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 09-19-2010 12:26 AM
Another major blooper! Check out lot #192. It claims its a photo taken of Gordon Cooper in 2008. Cooper passed away in 2004! From the small image of the photo posted, it looks more like Mickey Rooney than Cooper. |
dsenechal
Member Posts: 539
From:
Registered: Dec 2002
|
posted 09-19-2010 07:30 AM
quote:
Originally posted by GerryM:
it looks more like Mickey Rooney than Cooper.
Not only doesn't this person remotely look like him, I last saw Gordon Cooper a year or two before he died, and recall him being rather thin and frail in appearance. The gentlemen in the photo may be frail, but he doesn't seem very thin.
|
gliderpilotuk
Member Posts: 3398
From: London, UK
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 09-19-2010 08:21 AM
But is does say "Gordo" in the top left photo 
|
dsenechal
Member Posts: 539
From:
Registered: Dec 2002
|
posted 09-19-2010 09:55 AM
quote:
Originally posted by gliderpilotuk:
But is does say "Gordo" in the top left photo
From Wikipedia: Gordo was one of the first monkeys to travel into space. As part of the NASA space program, Gordo, also known as "Old Reliable", was launched from Cape Canaveral on December 13, 1958 in the U.S. Jupiter AM-13 rocket. The rocket would travel over 1500 miles and reach a height of 310 miles (500 km) before returning to Earth and landing in the South Atlantic. Unfortunately a technical malfunction prevented the capsule's parachute from opening and, despite a short search, neither his body nor the vessel were ever recovered. I'm guessin' the monkey in the picture is Gordo, while the main subject of the picture is just some guy who had his picture taken in front of pictures of monkeys. Probably sometime in 2008. I'm guessin'... |
Bob M
Member Posts: 1746
From: Atlanta-area, GA USA
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 09-19-2010 10:49 AM
Being curious after seeing the Apollo 1 blooper and the "Gordo Monkey" photo, I did some quick browsing of the space lots in the Aurora auction, as it's always interesting to see what's offered by Aurora, keeping in mind their less than stellar reputation. To be fair, they do offer a lot of quality material, but I only briefly checked out some of their autograph material, and it contained the usual good, bad and ugly. Here's my opinion on a few lots: - Lot 213A 5 of 7 Mercs: bad
- Lot 216 Shepard and Grissom signed Mercury flight checklist: very good!
- Lot 216B Grissom liftoff: very good!
- Lot 366 Apollo 8 composite: probably bad
- Lot 391 Armstrong: ugly
- Lot 396 Armstrong and Collins on newspaper: bad
- Lot 399 Apollo 11 FDC: bad Aldrin and probably others
- Lot 494 Apollo 16 cover: ugly
As mentioned, the Apollo 1 is also something to stay away from, but they do have a lot of interesting space hardware and artifacts that should interest plenty of collectors. |
steelhead fly fishing
Member Posts: 29
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Aug 2010
|
posted 09-19-2010 07:30 PM
I'd appreciate any input or opinions on the following items: 421 (Conrad) and 439 (Roosa). I'm a little wary since some of the items are in question. |
Philip
Member Posts: 5952
From: Brussels, Belgium
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 09-20-2010 11:09 AM
quote:
Originally posted by stsmithva:
They were being profiled in that issue because they had died in the Apollo 1 fire the week before.
Memorial services for the AS-204 crewmen were held in Houston 30 January, although their bodies had been flown north from Kennedy for burial. Grissom and Chaffee were buried in Arlington National Cemetery and White at the Military Academy at West Point. |
fredtrav
Member Posts: 1673
From: Birmingham AL
Registered: Aug 2010
|
posted 09-20-2010 02:26 PM
Does the heading at the top of lot 216 in red letters DAFT mean you would have to be daft to buy it? |
fredtrav
Member Posts: 1673
From: Birmingham AL
Registered: Aug 2010
|
posted 09-20-2010 03:02 PM
Sorry Bob after looking harder yes it is good. What is your thought on 205A? |
gliderpilotuk
Member Posts: 3398
From: London, UK
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 09-24-2010 03:33 PM
#356 already has one bid from an educated collector |
cosmos-walter
Member Posts: 691
From: Salzburg, Austria
Registered: Jun 2003
|
posted 09-25-2010 04:52 AM
The Russian/Soviet sections contains very bad forgeries. #949 and #950 show that the guy who faked the signatures is not very familiar with Latin handwritings. Lots like #937 and #944 are not flown. |
spaceflori
Member Posts: 1499
From: Germany
Registered: May 2000
|
posted 09-25-2010 06:51 AM
#356 - 2 bids now : reminds me of Einstein's words: There are two things that are infinite - the universe and stupidity though I'm not sure on the universe... Indeed as Walter point out - the amount of Russian forgeries is shocking.Most of the early signatures have the typical traits of a notorious eBay dealer often discussed here. |
stsmithva
Member Posts: 1933
From: Fairfax, VA, USA
Registered: Feb 2007
|
posted 09-25-2010 03:36 PM
quote:
Originally posted by spaceflori:
#356 - 2 bids now
Top bid was $1000. That's $1200 after the premium and shipping. Come ON. I actually did e-mail Aurora before the auction to point out the problem with this lot. They didn't pull it. Seriously, has there ever been a more blatant astronaut autograph forgery having been offered for sale? There have been lots of terribly done Armstrong forgeries on eBay, but a dishonest seller could argue they were signed in a rush or something. The only way #356 could possibly have been genuine would have been through time travel. I wonder how the buyer is finally going to realize the problem. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 09-25-2010 04:17 PM
quote:
Originally posted by stsmithva:
I wonder how the buyer is finally going to realize the problem.
In a situation like this, I say the buyer got exactly what s/he deserved. The sale demonstrates that the buyer has absolutely no regard for the history that the autographs represent. S/he wasn't fooled by a master (or even poor) forgery; s/he simply didn't care enough to do even the most basic of research. And if s/he cares that little about who the autographs (real or fake, regardless) represent, then I find it difficult to feel any remorse for him/her. "A fool and his money are soon parted." — Thomas Tusser
|
Greggy_D
Member Posts: 977
From: Michigan
Registered: Jul 2006
|
posted 09-25-2010 04:46 PM
I disagree, Robert. The auction house shoulders the blame for offering blatant fakes, especially since they were warned by one of our members. The item should never have or be offered for sale. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 09-25-2010 05:03 PM
Whats being developed in this and previous threads addressing Aurora's behavior is a perception that the auction house is engaged in nefarious practices to defraud. Hopefully those who have standing (i.e. individuals who have purchased this garbage) will ultimately come to their senses and consider a class action against the company. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 09-25-2010 05:13 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Greggy_D:
The item should never have or be offered for sale.
I don't disagree -- it shouldn't have even have been accepted as a consignment -- but I have no sympathy for the buyer in this case. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 09-25-2010 05:22 PM
quote:
Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
Hopefully those who have standing (i.e. individuals who have purchased this garbage) will ultimately come to their senses and consider a class action against the company.
It is fairly standard operating procedure for auction houses to include an indemnification clause in both their consignor and bidder registrations. If you have standing, you have no legal standing. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 09-25-2010 05:25 PM
Hence class action (civil procedure)... however if criminal conduct is alledged there may be other legal remedies available under federal/state statutes as interstate commerce is involved. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 09-25-2010 05:31 PM
I may be mistaken but I believe indemnification covers all forms of legal action; you agree to waive any responsibility on the part the auction house.And that said, why wouldn't you want to bring the forger to justice? Blaming the sale's venue, whether it be an auction house, eBay, classified ad, message board, etc., won't stop the forger from going elsewhere with their fraudulent wares. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 09-25-2010 05:44 PM
I dont believe indemnification extends to protection against criminal conduct including conspiracy to defraud. Any laywers in the readership willing to weigh in? |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 09-25-2010 06:44 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
In a situation like this, I say the buyer got exactly what s/he deserved.
While I would agree that it's foolish for anyone to bid on this item... and I would hope that most collectors have better knowledge of space history than this... I have trouble saying that anyone deserves to be ripped off like this. In the end, it'll be the consignor and the auction house who will walk away from this with profit in hand. Regardless of what we think the bidder deserves, I can say with absolute certainty that the consignor and the auction house do not deserve to make any money from this item... especially if it turns out the consignor is the forger of these signatures. I would argue that buying from Aurora is worse than buying from eBay. At least with eBay, one is aware that it's a buyer-beware atmosphere. With Aurora, there is an expectation that these items were given some sort of review before being accepted for auction...creating a false sense of security among bidders that items are generally authentic. As we can see with Lot 356, no thorough review of the item took place whatsoever... not even considering that a set of Apollo 1 signatures would be one of the showcase items in any auction. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 09-25-2010 07:03 PM
quote:
Originally posted by mjanovec:
I have trouble saying that anyone deserves to be ripped off like this.
Well, consider the flip side: what if the autographs were authentic? Does a bidder with little to no interest to know even when the Apollo 1 crew tragically died deserve to own their rare signatures? Note that I am not suggesting the hypothetical bidder doesn't have the right to buy what s/he wants, but for those who consider autographs more than a-dime-a-dozen collectibles, can you honestly say s/he deserves to own them? Personally, it bothers me when I see collectors who purchase space memorabilia -- of any type, but in particular, rare examples -- without first understanding at least the basic facts about the history they encapsulate. Worse (although not relevant to this discussion) are those who never take the time to learn about the history of the items they already own). |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 09-25-2010 07:21 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Well, consider the flip side: what if the autographs were authentic? Does a bidder with little to no interest to know even when the Apollo 1 crew tragically died deserve to own their rare signatures?
In an ideal world, a buyer would know enough about what they're buying in order to have a full appreciation of the history behind what they own. But I wouldn't go so far as to say what collectors do (and do not) deserve to own...as long as the item doesn't break any laws. Should we institute a litmus test to see which collectors are worthy of owning the items in their collections? Besides, one could argue that a collector can fully appreciate the impact of the loss of the Apollo 1 crew without knowing all of the dates and details associated with the tragedy (and therefore not realizing that the magazine came out after the fire). Of course, they'll realize their mistake as soon as they open up that magazine. I still stand by my statement that the real shame should be on the auction house and the forger in this instance. If anyone should be required to know their space history before buying/selling items, it should have been the auction house. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 09-25-2010 07:39 PM
quote:
Originally posted by mjanovec:
Should we institute a litmus test to see which collectors are worthy of owning the items in their collections?
No, because as already established, everyone is free to own whatever it is they desire (within the confines of the law, of course). That said, that doesn't mean that others need -- or even should -- feel any sympathy for those who skip doing their homework and accept the sales pitch at face value... quote:
If anyone should be required to know their space history before buying/selling items, it should have been the auction house.
Again, no disagreement here... |
Greggy_D
Member Posts: 977
From: Michigan
Registered: Jul 2006
|
posted 09-25-2010 08:02 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Does a bidder with little to no interest to know even when the Apollo 1 crew tragically died deserve to own their rare signatures?
Sorry, but this is an elitist attitude that permeates the collectible realm in general. I have personally seen this type of opinion while collecting M1 Garands. The "elitist" collectors basically killed the fervor interest in the hobby, because others were not "good enough", "worthy enough", or "could not recognize the significance" of rare Garands. quote:
That said, that doesn't mean that others need -- or even should -- feel any sympathy for those who skip doing their homework and accept the sales pitch at face value...
Considering the consignment rates charged to both the seller and buyer, the "sales pitch" sure as hell better be balls-on dead accurate. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 09-25-2010 08:20 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Greggy_D:
Sorry, but this is an elitist attitude that permeates the collectible realm in general.
How is it elitist to suggest that someone should educate themselves about the activity they are participating in? It is not like ample reference material is not freely and readily available to anyone desiring to learn more. To the contrary, I am suggesting more people should become more active in the hobby, not less, by a becoming a part of the community and sharing in its collective knowledge. quote:
Considering the consignment rates charged to both the seller and buyer, the "sales pitch" sure as hell better be balls-on dead accurate.
It costs a lot to buy a car too, but I wouldn't advise trusting the dealer as your only source of information. |
Greggy_D
Member Posts: 977
From: Michigan
Registered: Jul 2006
|
posted 09-25-2010 08:35 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
It costs a lot to buy a car too, but I wouldn't advise trusting the dealer as your only source of information.
A car dealer doesn't clear a 40% commission on the purchase price of a car, nor do they sell fake Chevy Malibus. |
Playalinda
Member Posts: 152
From: Peoria, AZ, USA
Registered: Oct 2009
|
posted 09-25-2010 08:53 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
In a situation like this, I say the buyer got exactly what s/he deserved.
It's a good idea to keep in mind that not all people who love this hobby are as expert at spotting a fake versus a real signature. Some collectors who just started buying autographs go to auction houses trusting that the lots are screened to be original as claimed. Respectfully, just my viewpoint. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 09-25-2010 09:33 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Playalinda:
It's a good idea to keep in mind that not all people who love this hobby are as expert at spotting a fake versus a real signature.
And I do acknowledge this... my comment was in specific regards to the sale of the Apollo 1 autographs on a magazine published after they died -- a sale where one's knowledge about the autographs really didn't matter. The autographs could have been the most expert forgeries capable of fooling the most experienced collector, and it still wouldn't matter so long as the bidders took the time and interest to know the history of the Apollo 1 astronauts and their tragic death. quote:
Some collectors who just started buying autographs go to auction houses trusting that the lots are screened to be original as claimed.
I don't dispute that this happens, but I disagree that it's wise behavior, even if the auction houses were staffed with all highly-respected experts. It shouldn't be labeled as elitist to suggest that one educates him/herself -- or at the very least seeks a second opinion -- before acting upon a desire. |
SpaceSteve
Member Posts: 428
From: San Antonio TX, USA
Registered: Apr 2004
|
posted 09-25-2010 09:39 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Playalinda:
Some collectors who just started buying autographs go to auction houses trusting that the lots are screened to be original as claimed.
Thing is, as President Reagan once famously said about the Soviets; "Trust, but verify." We all trust the auction companies, and all sellers in fact, to offer only genuine, authentic items. It is still our responsibility though as buyers, to verify to our best ability, the genuineness of the item. In a situation such as the lot in question here, it is so simple to verify its non-genuineness, that the lack of any buyer verification is to me anyway, unforgivable. I simply have no sympathy for a buyer who buys a fake, when they haven't even performed the most rudimentary investigation before hand.As for my bidding in today's auction, I placed early bids on lots 213D and 218 (Alan Shepard and John Glenn signed Mercury covers). I thankfully got outbid on both, as after reading this thread, I don't care to send my money to Aurora for anything. They've simply flunked the test and have proven themselves untrustworthy, and undeserving of my patronage. |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 09-26-2010 01:08 AM
I don't think anyone is going to argue that buyers shouldn't educate themselves about what they are buying (especially if someone is going to buy from eBay). But there is an implied review that goes on when specialty auction houses accept items for consignment. To be fair, one doesn't normally expect an auction house to make such an obvious mistake when reviewing a premium item...assuming a review was done at all.Was the buyer's purchase of those signatures a bad decision? Of course. Was Aurora accepting those signatures for consignment an even worse mistake? Absolutely. |
spaced out
Member Posts: 3110
From: Paris, France
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 09-26-2010 02:36 AM
Personally I do think the buyer deserves some sympathy here. They could have been well aware of the details of the Apollo 1 tragedy and even familiar with the appearance of their signatures.The autographs on this item are good forgeries not blatant fakes and thus even someone who had taken the time to research real signatures could still have been fooled. Then reading the description of the item itself they would be under the impression that this issue of the magazine was published pre-flight, thus there was no reason to be suspicious of the signatures being present on such a magazine. It's only if they happened to double-check the date that they'd realize the problem. Of course it's obvious when pointed-out but I can certainly understand someone missing it. In my opinion the blame rests entirely on Aurora. The item description states that the issue is "profiling the 3 astronauts". Presumably to write that description someone at the auction house had to open it up and take a look. You would have thought the fact that the article was covering the aftermath of the fire would have registered with the auctioneer. |
gliderpilotuk
Member Posts: 3398
From: London, UK
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 09-26-2010 04:27 AM
From this side of the Altantic you do have to wonder whether lawyers are running the USA. Trip on the sidewalk, sue. Burn yourself on hot coffee from MacDonalds, sue! Smoke yourself to death..sue! Too lazy to do your homework and end up with a fake...sue! Advising recourse to legal action is a little premature, don't you think? I agree with the fact that Aurora have been careless, complacent and negligent in not removing items which collectors have advised as fake. However, I have NEVER had a problem returning items to them for refund when I have received and examined them. Something has gone systemically wrong at Aurora over the years and that's bad for everyone. |
GACspaceguy
Member Posts: 2476
From: Guyton, GA
Registered: Jan 2006
|
posted 09-26-2010 06:56 AM
I truly wonder if the buyer is a new collector. If this "collector" has very little knowledge of the program why would they jump into collecting signed items by spending $1,200 on three astronauts that did not even walk on the moon? For that kind of money you could buy most of the moonwalkers if you exclude Young and Aldrin. Don't take this wrong these are three heroes in my book but if you are such a novice that you don't know the history why would you spend that kind of money on these three. I believe this is some type of "investment" collector and in that case there should have been plenty of research prior to buying. I know nothing about stamps therefore if I were to buy a collection piece I sure would take some time to search the net to see what I was getting into. Ultimately any scam artist, as this seller is, should be thrown in jail, and the auction house should know better and have pulled the auction, but I am hard pressed to believe that the buyer is some unsuspecting novice. |
freshspot
unregistered
|
posted 09-26-2010 06:56 AM
It seems to me that these sorts of discussions happen frequently regarding autographs. It doesn't matter if its eBay or auction houses or dealers or private sales, the discussions on these message boards frequently digress into autographs. But that's just one aspect of space collecting. I've purchased various bits of hardware over the years through most of the auction houses, including Aurora. And I've gotten some great bargains as this group talks them down regarding the autograph side. It seems to me that purchasing autographs is always fraught with danger. That's why I stopped doing it years ago. Its always one person's opinion against another's and like politics and religion, it is a discussion that has no winners. |
Ross
Member Posts: 472
From: Australia
Registered: Jul 2003
|
posted 09-26-2010 07:59 AM
Surprised as I am by Aurora accepting this item in their auction, I'm shocked that they didn't pull the item as soon as they were notified that it was a fraud. It's not as if that is somebody's opinion, it is a fact based on known dates. One could reasonably argue that continuing to sell an item under such circumstances is criminal fraud. At the very least it is misrepresentation and totally unacceptable.I'm also surprised at the suggestion that US law would allow an indemnification clause under such circumstances. Australian law clearly requires all items to not only be exactly as described but also to function correctly. It also outlaws misleading descriptions. Therefore, even if the description of this item is technically correct, if it leaves out important information it is illegal. An indemnification clause is deemed to be invalid under such circumstances. I have no doubt that if this item was sold in Australia, it would fall under Australian consumer law and the customer could immediately return it for full compensation including associated costs such as postage. |
advertisement