posted 01-31-2010 11:35 PM               

Considerable discussion about Spacemike appears in this thread on CS. In that thread, Scott Cornish posted an image of an item claimed to be signed by all 12 moonwalkers that came from Anderiasch. That item has what appears to be an Armstrong forgery of the same style as the one currently for sale on eBay.

All of the above evidence strongly appears to back up my earlier suspicion that this item has a German source and could very well be a forgery.

posted 02-01-2010 03:08 AM               

David has a fine collection, so I was somewhat concerned when a potential buyer pointed out this item to me. The Collins and Aldrin look ok, but the Armstrong is definitely of the "German" style and not something I'd want in my collection.

posted 02-01-2010 10:11 AM               

1. If these are fakes, they're very good ones!
   
2. Collecting autographs is a real minefield...

posted 02-01-2010 11:23 AM               

But if anybody would like a laugh check out this item on ebay: 160399382383

posted 02-01-2010 02:15 PM               

I asked David (Poofacio) three times for closeup photos and he never sent them. When I asked David where he obtained this photo, he responded with:

The photo came from spacerelics.com It is item A1151. When you say "if it turns out to be a forgery" on what criteria? Half the "experts" haven't got a clue what they are talking about, and at best one gets differing opinions. In response to "do I give refunds" the answer is no, I am not guaranteeing the autographs so I expect people to do their home work before they bid!

The piece in question Peachstate acquired in a trade years ago, and I am told that it originally came from the German space dealer "Spacemike".

The Aldrin and Collins on the item look fine to me.

However, several years after we sold the item, some began questioning the style of Armstrong that was on this item (and many others that we did not sell).

I honestly don't know... it could certainly be fine. However, given that doubts were later raised about this style of "German" Armstrong, we made an open-ended offer to take the item back.

I hope that this helps.

posted 02-01-2010 02:23 PM               

This particular launch photo seems to be a popular image to use for forgeries, as Peachstate distributed a number of these, and when I first saw it on eBay, I immediately thought that another "Peachstate" had surfaced. But, no, as Mark pointed out, the style differs significantly from the cruder Peachstate Armstrong style. No, Frohman/Peachstate can take no credit for this one, but can take credit for being its distributor. We have to wonder how much business that Peachstate did with Space Mike, since a visit to Peachstate's Website shows quite a few sold autographs attributed to Space Mike?

posted 02-01-2010 02:49 PM               

I just received a response to my email to David and he told me not to bid on this item. My question to him is below and his response, telling me not to bid on this photo, tells me he's well aware that the photo he's selling is a forgery.

David, the "expert" I'm referring to is Scott Cornish, who is the leading expert that authenticates all of the autographs going through RR & Heritage auctions. Scott is also the most respected guy in the field, besides being the most diligent investigator into the German source for Armstrong forgeries that have flooded the market.

Do you have a COA from Spacerelics? I just checked out the link and this is a Peachstate piece. Are you familiar with the issues dealing with Armstrong forgeries sold through Peachstate? It's common knowledge that most of their Armstrongs were forged and they've been refunding everyone's money.

For the third time, can you send closeup photos of each autograph?

Ray, I'm forwarding this email to David Frohman and do not bid on this photo.

posted 02-01-2010 02:50 PM               

David, I also sent David Frohman an email asking if this piece was legit or if it was one of the famous Peachstate forgeries, that is covered by their refund guarantee, after he was caught selling many hundreds of forged Armstrongs.

I'm guessing that your piece is fraudulent, both from your refusal to send me closeup photos of this piece and your refusal to stand behind the authenticity & originality of the piece.

Whenever a scumbag tries to ripoff others, they use the caveat of "know what you're buying" or "I don't know if the autographs are authentic" or other little catch phrases that give them a way to keep your money, while selling forged garbage.

It's unfortunate that a cS member would intentionally ripoff unsuspecting collectors, who would take your word that this is genuine. If you're not willing to stand behind your item, that's a pretty clear indication that you know this is a forged piece.

As far as bidding, don't worry, but I will be putting out the word that you're selling a more than likely bogus piece and not to bid on it. As you know, the space collecting community is very small and as a result word spreads quickly. At least you have 1 bid for $1k, so you'll sell it, but shame on you for ripping off some other collector, to get a refund on your piece.

Secondly I did not refuse to send you close ups, I just didn't bother as you had obviously had your mind made up for you already.

Thirdly I had already cancelled the one bid on the item as the bidder said he did not want the item. I had also added a link to this thread and advised people to read it before they bid.

I then ended the item after Scott finally made his thoughts known.

posted 02-01-2010 03:37 PM               

You knew this came from Peachstate, but you didn't put it in your description or add it as provenance, why? Because you knew if you did, it would be suspect and that no serious collector would bid on it. So were you expecting a new collector to buy it or just hoping nobody would ask about the history of it?

In my opinion, as experienced collectors in a very tiny field of people, I expect there to be a higher level of trust and honesty between us. Maybe with the economy being what it is, people are desperate to sell their stuff, regardless if it's genuine or not, but that doesn't give you the right to sell a well known forgery.

So do me a favor and don't get in my face over this because you know you were wrong to post this forgery in the first place.

By the way, David Frohman just emailed me and said:

Indeed, the so-called "Peachstate" Armstrongs" were sold in the 1990s, and represent only a tiny percentage of our total sales to date (1% or so).

I am sure that you want to be accurate in your statements, so I appreciate the opportunity to make you aware of these facts.

I have suggested to the seller that they cancel the sale and pull the item. It is a shame that "spacemike" is not around
anymore so that we, in-turn, can get a refund!

posted 02-01-2010 05:38 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by liebeek:
Are we sure this spacemike is not active anymore on eBay and other sites but under another name?

---

I bought seven signed space covers off Michael's website last year, all of which were authentic signatures I am sure. I even bought an Apollo 9 cover signed by McDivitt and Schweickart which I have since had completed by Dave Scott.

The other signatures on the various covers included Alan Shepard, Ed Mitchell, Al Worden, Ron Evans, Charlie Duke and Alan Bean, and all look good.

posted 02-03-2010 12:47 AM               

Most of you don't know DW personally: I do! Not as a customer, but as an acquaintance who shares with all of us a genuine passion for collecting. I would bet that he never had the intention of deceiving anybody and is confused and hurt by some of the comments that have been made.

The bottom line, I suppose, is trust...

I sell a lot of Jerry Cz's lovely acrylics, many of which contain pieces of kapton. Encased as they are in lucite, there is no way of checking whether they really originated on the outside of an Apollo CM or Jerry's easter egg! But! They come with provenance from Jerry and from Ken Havekotte, both of whom I trust.

posted 02-03-2010 01:48 AM               

I hope that this is not the case with your friend and that this is all a misunderstanding. Now that Mr. Frohman has responded perhaps your friend will get a refund for this item. The point is buyer beware, while at the same time the seller, especially a fellow cSer, should provide enough information to make the buyer comfortable in purchasing your item.

posted 02-03-2010 02:39 AM               

You missed my point, I think: I was highlighting the fact that we ALL buy things on trust and with a heavy element of caveat emptor! I admire Jerry's work and we have a great business relationship. But we know very little about each other! I buy from Ken H: he buys from me: but we rely on our gut feelings about each other. There are no certainties!

posted 02-03-2010 03:26 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by David Bryant:
A lot of collectors I know who don't post on cS have phoned or mailed to discuss DW's item and most say the same thing: the autographs are so authentic-looking that they would happily have paid good money for them at a show.

---

Surely, that is the whole point of forgeries...to create such a convincing replica of one's signature/handwriting so as to convince as many people as possible of it's authenticity...AND convince them to part with their money. Like any area of collecting where forgeries and counterfeiting exists, the astronaut autograph collecting hobby has seen it's range of forgers with varying degrees of skill. Some forgeries are quite easy to spot, as they are hastily created for the uneducated eBay buyer looking to pick up a collectible without doing any real research first. Whereas others, like the apparent German forgeries, are aimed to fool almost all experienced collectors...with the hopes of drawing in top dollar bids.

posted 02-03-2010 03:28 AM               

You're right, trust is an important factor when you deal with people. Furthermore can a collector who is a cS'er that has an "impeccable background" can also be considered a trusted seller? I'm saying that his listing was incomplete and makes one wonder despite his reputation on this board and support from his acquaintances. I would expect more from him. Again, I will give him the benefit of the doubt and that all has been a misunderstanding.

posted 02-03-2010 05:32 AM               

Well: I meet and communicate with thousands of people a year: I reckon the vast majority are totally trustworthy, and I value the contributions they make to my life and work: Jerry, Paulus, Dave, Jason, Florian, etc etc. and most recently Ken H.

posted 02-03-2010 07:40 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by David Bryant:
The vendor is a cS-er with impeccable background!

---

Enough of the semantics.

posted 02-03-2010 08:18 AM               

The reason for listing at that price is it keeps the eBay fees down and will make what it will make anyway, half the world looks at eBay.

Where on the listing did I hold myself out as a knowledgeable collector?

I never offer refunds if the item is a photo or similar that can be clearly seen for what it is (as this clearly was). I am in no way a dealer and on what basis is a refund claimable? If x y or z says it may or may not be genuine? I have witnessed many occasions when the experts disagree, read above if you need to see incoherence.

"either you know it's real or not" Really?

Look at the posts above, that statement is patently untrue. Having had in excess of 35500 separate visits to my website, including most of the experts, the only person who has even queried the photo is Gerry and that was only last November. He would not say it was wrong but suggested I asked Scott to check it. I emailed it to Scott three times but he did not reply (again no blame attached the poor man is probably snowed under). Incidentally, unsolicited, Scott kindly emailed me and pointed out an item that was bad a couple of years ago (a footprint on the Moon item) and it was removed and destroyed as were several items that Ken and Bob pointed out to me. This item was there for all to see during the whole of that time.

I am in no way criticising or blaming any of those in saying this, just pointing out that what appears to be so blindingly obvious to all the muck slingers now seems not to have been quite that obvious until now. I did not buy the photo from Peachstate, until this episode I was unaware of the fact that they had ever owned it. I bought it from a well known member of cS (I am sure he had no idea it was wrong if indeed it is).

If anyone is interested I will send them off line the string of foul mouthed profane abuse I have received from one of the members you probably hold in high esteem (it is none of the above obviously).

posted 02-03-2010 08:27 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by poofacio:
If anyone is interested I will send them off line the string of foul mouthed profane abuse I have received from one of the members...

---

posted 02-03-2010 08:41 AM               

When I first saw the listing and your handle, I said to myself wow, something to think about, especially coming from a cSer that has a great collection.

Again, I believe everything was an honest mistake, but at the same time sellers should be more forthcoming and back their items accordingly, especially with all the bad stuff out there. I am somewhat concerned that you stated above that Gerry contacted you back in November regarding this item and yet despite his concerns, you still proceeded. Also, I agree that Scott must be inundated from many collectors asking for his opinion without anything in return. According to rrauctions.com, one can get an item certified by Scott for a fee, which I think is very reasonable.

I'm sure that if you bought something from me and found it to questionable, you would ask for a refund and I would honor it, not because I am obligated, but it's the right thing to do and I hope that others would do the same for me - good karma.

posted 02-03-2010 01:02 PM               

What I do want to stress is that because we are a small community, a certain level of expectations are required at both ends. I have found that this is a very passionate hobby for most people here and things tend to get a little bit heated. The main goal is that everybody is happy with their purchases and that people are willing to work things out. David has done that, he has removed the listing. I am satisfied. Again, I apologize if I stirred things up.

posted 02-05-2010 12:47 PM               

Also, even if they do "rank as the best forgeries out there" as paulushumungus posted, I am embarrassed that I was willing to bid on them. (Yes, mine was the one bid placed on eBay before the auction was ended. More about that later.)

Reluctantly, I've decided that this is the kind of information that needs to be discussed so that, as andrewcli noted above, people can think about the certain level of expectations in our small collecting community. This isn't some triumphant "gotcha!" I'm going to present some facts, comment on them a little, and then see what other members think. I won't mind being told that I'm wrong about something.

I noticed the photo on eBay last week. Seeing that it was being sold by poofacio (David Worrow), whom I knew had an extensive collection of amazing items purchased at top auctions over the years, and believing the autographs were genuine, I placed a bid at just over the $1000 minimum. Knowing that I'd get outbid later, but wanting to know more about the item before I bid higher, I wrote to him on 1/29 through eBay asking for its provenance. In my note, I mentioned that "I've read your many posts on collectSPACE," which I believe is relevant later on.

David wrote back through eBay on 1/30: "Re provenance, not really, it came from an ex NASA employee with a lot of other stuff about 8 years ago."

This collectSPACE discussion started the next day. After mjanovec posted above on 1/31 that the item had a documented Anderiasch (Spacemike)/Frohman past (incidentally, the photo has now been removed from the Frohman website), I wrote to David saying that I would not be paying if I was still the top bidder when the auction ended.

He cancelled my bid, and wrote back to me on 2/1: "I was told the photo originated from a NASA employee."

A few hours later, after more cS critiques, he ended the auction.

The discussion continued, and on 2/3 David wrote above: "I did not buy the photo from Peachstate, until this episode I was unaware of the fact that they had ever owned it. I bought it from a well known member of cS (I am sure he had no idea it was wrong if indeed it is)."

Those are the facts. Now for a few comments:

David's 1/30 response to me about the item's provenance was deliberately misleading at best. He clearly wanted me to think that it had been in his collection for eight years, and that he got it from an ex NASA employee. He might now say that he was just simplifying the provenance chain by saying where he was told it originally came from by the person who sold it to him, but since when is that acceptable practice?

And since I specifically mentioned in my message that I was a collectSPACE member, why didn't he tell me then that he bought it from another member?

David's 2/3 post has a couple of problems. First, his claim that he had been unaware that Peachstate had ever owned it is interesting, since on the webpage linked above, which until a couple of days ago showed that exact photo, are items that he's known to have bought directly from Frohman, such as Charlie Duke's headset from the Apollo 11 landing.

Also, he said that he is sure the cS member he bought it from "had no idea it was wrong if indeed it is." Yet this member apparently wasn't honest about its provenance, saying that it was "from an ex NASA employee" when in fact it was from Spacemike/Frohman.

In closing, I just want to thank the cSers who started and commented on this discussion, and especially mjanovec (Mark) for catching the true provenance. If this hadn't happened, I might have ended up the top bidder on a real lemon... "from an ex NASA employee."

posted 02-05-2010 01:18 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by poofacio:
This is getting boring.

---

Suddenly, the boredom is over.