|
Author
|
Topic: 253031506157: John Young signed on the moon
|
gareth89
Member Posts: 298
From: Ireland
Registered: May 2014
|
posted 09-17-2017 12:33 PM
   
Folks, could you give me your opinions on this John Young on the moon piece? It looks good to me but I'm no expert! Cheers!
|
MarylandSpace
Member Posts: 1336
From:
Registered: Aug 2002
|
posted 09-17-2017 01:51 PM
Some really great inscriptions on this seller's eBay. |
calcheyup
Member Posts: 125
From:
Registered: May 2014
|
posted 09-17-2017 02:04 PM
I've seen this seller's items and read the spiel many times. Always found it odd that he says "guaranteed authentic" immediately before launching into a multi-paragraph diatribe about how autographs can never be "guaranteed" authentic. |
gareth89
Member Posts: 298
From: Ireland
Registered: May 2014
|
posted 09-17-2017 03:10 PM
Everything looks so good, too good to be true maybe? I can't find fault with the inscriptions but I still feel a bit iffy. |
Mike_The_First
Member Posts: 436
From: USA
Registered: Jun 2014
|
posted 09-18-2017 07:55 AM
quote:
Originally posted by calcheyup:
Always found it odd that he says "guaranteed authentic" immediately before launching into a multi-paragraph diatribe about how autographs can never be "guaranteed" authentic.
It's not that much different than Kim Poor's words on the subject.Read their "diatribe," as you called it, again. They don't say anywhere that an autograph can't be guaranteed authentic — just that a COA doesn't change the facts or ultimately mean anything. There's a lot more room than you're implying between saying "This is guaranteed authentic" (meaning you get your money back if it's not) and pointing out that COAs are generally worthless pieces of paper, especially when offered by nameless eBay sellers. It's equally possible for both to be true. Frankly, I don't disagree. If the seller is selling it, then they either believe it's real or don't care enough that it's fake to not want to rip off a buyer. Either way, a piece of paper from them say that its real wouldn't say or do anything extra. It's the guarantee that matters — and they (apparently) provide that. A COA would be a superfluous waste of time at that point. Which, again, is their point. |
calcheyup
Member Posts: 125
From:
Registered: May 2014
|
posted 09-18-2017 12:13 PM
I don't disagree much with the seller either. I agree that if you haven't done your homework, you buy at your own risk. It just reads strange to me that he/she says to never take anyone at their word on the subject, but also that this piece is guaranteed authentic. Why guarantee something authentic if you are going to launch into a 4 paragraph lecture about why you should put zero stock in a seller saying exactly that? |
Mike_The_First
Member Posts: 436
From: USA
Registered: Jun 2014
|
posted 09-18-2017 12:35 PM
COAs aren't inherently guarantees. Guarantee implies a warranty.If I give you a sheet of paper that says "In my opinion, I sold you an authentic item," that's technically a COA. If it later turns out that it's not authentic, then you have no recourse. There's no guarantee, just my opinion on the authenticity of the piece. If, however, I refuse to give you that piece of paper that says that I believe it to be authentic, but offer you a guarantee, that's something you can take to the bank. The issue gets conflated because a lot of people use their COA as a warranty, but they're not necessarily the same thing. |
calcheyup
Member Posts: 125
From:
Registered: May 2014
|
posted 09-18-2017 05:01 PM
Sure. |
nasaliftoff
Member Posts: 13
From: FL
Registered: Apr 2017
|
posted 09-18-2017 05:20 PM
Well its an 80% guarantee he/she is offering as they charge a 20% restocking fee.And as for the nonsense at the bottom. Basically the message is discouraging anyone from seeking an expert's advice on any of their items. To me, that (along with the restocking fee) is a very clear message.
|
PeterO
Member Posts: 399
From: North Carolina
Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted 09-18-2017 05:49 PM
If the buyer returns the piece because it is deemed not to be authentic, then it is, in eBay parlance, "Significantly not as described". In that instance, eBay will force the seller to return all of the buyer's money and, in many instances, pay for the return shipping as well.If the buyer wants to return it for any other reason, the seller may levy a reasonable restocking fee. |
rgarner
Member Posts: 1193
From: Shepperton, United Kingdom
Registered: Mar 2012
|
posted 09-18-2017 06:35 PM
All I see is a passive-aggressive message from a seller who probably has very little patience. It isn't uncommon for people to ask what type of authenticity comes with an artifact, autograph or otherwise. I get asked about this daily and I'm always happy to answer. This seller seems like he/she gets annoyed at that question, hence the passive-aggressive message at the bottom of the item description. |
leslie
Member Posts: 231
From: Surrey, England
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 09-19-2017 01:58 AM
In any event, I would not buy it...There appears to be a double impression on the writing, unless it is my eyes. Furthermore, the price is ridiculously cheap and, it made me think of a line from Hamlet... "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." |
Rick Mulheirn
Member Posts: 4167
From: England
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 09-19-2017 03:02 AM
The signed photo in question is nothing to do with me but I suspect the "double - ghost" signature is a result of a failing pen skating on the emulsion of the print at the first attempt. I'm sure we have all witnessed such at Autographica, Spacefest or the likes on occasion.As to value, it is not a classic Apollo 16 image like (the "Jump Salute") and as such would not command quite as much. The signature looks good to me and the calibre of image and pen make it a fair current market valuation, in my opinion. |
Mike Dixon
Member Posts: 1397
From: Kew, Victoria, Australia
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 09-19-2017 04:13 AM
Looks fine by me too. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2454
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 09-19-2017 04:40 AM
Authenticity guaranteed. You are buying this exact photo. Doesn't this imply that it's the photo that is guaranteed authentic, not the signature? |
Mike_The_First
Member Posts: 436
From: USA
Registered: Jun 2014
|
posted 09-19-2017 08:03 AM
quote:
Originally posted by rgarner:
All I see is a passive-aggressive message from a seller who probably has very little patience.
I'll again point out that there's very little difference between that listing and Kim Poor's words on the subject. Farthest Reaches has an FAQ point that raises some of the same. As I've said above, I don't disagree. If a seller lists an autograph as authentic then they either believe that it's authentic or they have no problem committing fraud. Either way, a piece of paper that says that they think the autograph is authentic is meaningless and a waste of time and paper. I don't blame any seller who doesn't have patience for a buyer who asks about a COA rather than an authenticity guarantee. A COA without a guarantee is a waste of paper. A guarantee without a COA is no different than a guarantee with one. Don't ask if they'll give you a piece of paper that says that they think it's real — ask what they'll do for you if it later comes to light that it's a very well executed forgery. Their opinion of whether or not the piece is real is irrelevant. |
advertisement