posted 05-27-2005 04:01 PM               

I do not think Zee meant any malice by asking the image be added to this thread but it shouldn't have been done (if anything, a link to your site should have been posted).

The assertion that there is no copyright over items posted to the net is incorrect; to the contrary: copyright is assumed unless an image or selection of text is specifically stated as being public domain. Suffice to say, all material - other than that posted by its members - is copyrighted. It may not be copied without prior written permission.

That aside, the issue here is not a matter of copyright, its a matter of this board's rules to which everyone posting agreed to when registering.

Members are entitled to express an opinion without being accused of questionable motives. It is my opinion that worrying about sharing knowledge because you might teach the forgers is a weak excuse. We should be concerned about teaching each other, improving our knowledge and staying a step ahead of the forgers and not vice versa.

posted 05-27-2005 04:08 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Davies:
Aha, the latest edition of the ongoing saga that is "Trial by Collectspace", that well known collection of inexpert opinion and hidden agendae.

---

How about defending the autograph style instead of attacking the messenger? "Inexpert opinion"? This post from someone who not too long ago sold a Soyuz 11 crew "signed" photo for $4,000 as is, with no guarantee? Apparently some are so close to the learning curve that they can't see they're on it along with all the rest of us.

Michael, I assume by "legitimate message" you mean one with which you agree?

posted 05-27-2005 04:32 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by gliderpilotuk:
I'm sure no-one meant to cast a shadow over MW's otherwise outstanding collection

---

posted 05-27-2005 07:04 PM               

I just spent about an hour perusing your website and am totally blown away!

Your collection is absolutely incredible!!!

Congratulations and best wishes to you!!!

posted 05-27-2005 07:31 PM               

But those of us who are brave enough to have Websites that display our collections for the whole world to see, should be prepared for some comments, criticism, and questions. As one of those who has a Website that displays highlights from my autograph collection, I have been prepared for scrutiny and expect it and it doesn't scare me. I have paid great attention to autograph authenticity and am probably almost a fanatic about it. If anyone questions any autograph on my site, I can usually tell them when I got it and under what circumstances. Any autograph that is questioned and I become unsure of would be removed. It's important to realize that where an autograph comes from & when means quite a lot in determining authenticity.

posted 05-27-2005 09:18 PM            

Personally, I'd like to see this forum used for constructive purposes ONLY
(again, no knock on any one in particular here; I don't know enough about any
individual
to try to guess the level of expertise they may possess, let alone what might
motivate them
to contribute what they do), so I make this suggestion. Individual pieces or
autographs
shouldn't be commented on here,....PERIOD. If someone is truly coming here
just for advice and
guidance, all they need to do is post their question, and make their email
address available. This way
there's no public debate over the particular piece in question - - just the
opportunity for those with a desire
to know more to have a place to post their questions and receive helpful advice
from those who care to
give it....PRIVATELY. There's no "bomb-throwing", no personal agendas driving
the flow of information, - - -
just helpful answers for people SEEKING advice, and all in confidentiality.

Bob, I can appreciate your position, but I have a problem when you say "very
rare and potentially valuble [complete]
autographed pieces, such as what Zee had displayed, require, even demand, solid
provenance".
If I may ask, required, demanded, by whom? The only person with a legitimate
right to require or demand provenance
for any given piece is one who is interested in acquiring it (or otherwise
making some kind of financial investment in,
or restitution for, it). Others may WANT to know, but having a curiosity
doesn't grant or bestow any rights whatsoever.

Michael Wright's indignation at what has transpired here is certainly
understandable, and it needn't ever happen
again if my suggestion is taken up by Mr. Pearlman; I hope he gives it serious
consideration.

I know what I'm proposing may (in fact, almost certainly will) end up aiding
forgers and the like, but the antidote to them,
I believe, lies in better educating those with a true desire to know, NOT in
making public pronouncements over
items where certainty is elusive. In our American justice system,
we presume all to be innocent until proven guilty because we realize it is a
greater injustice to convict an innocent man
than it is to let a guilty man go free. I believe the same principle should
apply to space collectibles.

posted 05-28-2005 04:31 AM               

My vote is to continue open debate.

posted 05-28-2005 05:22 AM               

I for one hope that Robert does NOT go along with your suggestion.

One more thing, to list your email address in the body of a thread would make one a sure-fire target for those nice folks that send "spam" to a few billion email addresses each and every day. If you think listing your email address is such a good idea then why do you not have one active on your cS user profile?

This board respects the wishes of the individual user and if that user doesn't want his email address made public then your suggestion of having someone make their email address visible for the whole world to see is not particularly helpful, especially for those wishing to seek advice on a particular item.

- Derek

posted 05-28-2005 10:20 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by earlyduke:
If someone is truly coming here
just for advice and
guidance, all they need to do is post their question, and make their email
address available.

---

Perhaps you should start with yourself? I note you have no email address available.

posted 05-28-2005 02:03 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by earlyduke:

Bob, I can appreciate your position, but I have a problem when you say "very
rare and potentially valuble [complete]
autographed pieces, such as what Zee had displayed, require, even demand, solid
provenance".
If I may ask, required, demanded, by whom?

---

Glad you asked, "earlyduke." What I meant was, collectors should require and even demand detailed and accurate provenance from the seller before buying anything of extreme worth and rarity, such as anything signed by all 12 moonwalkers. But, unfortunately, from what I've seen, collectors in general ask few questions and often just accept as automatically good whatever an established dealer or auctioneer presents. When a "passable" Armstrong forgery can transform a $3,000 item signed by 11 moonwalkers into a potential $10,000+++ item, I'd think a smart and wise collector would want to know everything possible about every autograph on the item - I sure would.

Bob Mc.

posted 05-28-2005 02:12 PM            

What about the interests of sellers, and owners? What just happened in this
one thread with Michael Wright's piece is all the example necessary
to illustrate my point, and it happened less because certain posting guidelines
weren't followed (i.e., the posting of Michael's piece without his consent),
but because there was open debate as to the authenticity of the piece.

If I may, I'd like to illustrate how well it might work if my suggestion were
followed, and one needn't look any further than a recent examples right here on
cS.
On May 23rd, cS member "Crsh4Csh" posted the following message, under the thread
titled "a VERY special thanks to Ken Havekotte and
Steve Hankow !!": "just wanted to publicly thank those two gents for there
help and advice on ebay item # 3975871117 i am glad to now have it in
my sons collection...thanks again guys, nice example of members here helping
other members with advice, and expecting absolutley nothing in return... Eddie".

Eddie was interested in a particular item, and PRIVATELY sought out the advice
of others before making his purchase. There was no open debate,
thus there was no chance that the seller might've had his piece undermined in
any way if the debate had turned contentious as to whether the piece
was authentic or not. What's important here is that Eddie got his advice, and
nobody got hurt. There is, of course, a flip side to this example, and it
appears in a cS thread dated May 27th, titled "Signed copy of First to the
Moon". cS member "mdmyer" links to several Ebay auctions, and is
"soliciting opinions". I'm not trying to attack this cS member, but am just
pointing out that he appears to be calling for an open "debate" about the
authenticity of these items even though it's pretty clear he has no intention of
making any bids; in other words, the intention of his post was to simply
draw attention to the items for derision. Would this have been okay if the
items were authentic? Well maybe they are. I'm not stating my opinion one
way or the other, but I hope you see my point. In fact, you can see in that
thread how several cS posting guidelines are violated: Gerry states that the
items are forgeries, and mikelarson states that he "stays away from anything
this guy sells". Some might think this is all well and good, but I've seen
instances here on cS where even fellow members' items have been publicly
trashed, all under the banner of open debate. How fair is that?

To answer Derek, may I ask, respectfully, just how many posts should I have
under my belt for my suggestion to
not be "staggering"? Your comment seems irrelevant - - either my argument has
merit, or it doesn't; what difference does it make how long I've been around?

posted 05-28-2005 03:20 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by earlyduke:
And finally, Scott, my email address isn't made available because I'm not
soliciting any private advice. I wish we could avoid trying to personalise the
issue in any way, and strictly argue the merits.

---

You Sir were asking in your previous posts for advice and guidance.

This idea that people wildly and irresponsibly trash items is a joke. There are many collectors that post on cS who have many many years of experience collecting
and have seen thousands of authentic exemplars. When a new signature variation appears suddenly after many years (particularly when the new style comes from a specific seller or sellers), then it is noticed. Some people care to share this with others.

Be grateful there's people who care enough to stick their necks for free and get berated just to try and keep you from getting ripped off.

posted 05-28-2005 03:39 PM               

We need to watch each others' Backs!

posted 05-28-2005 03:50 PM            

First, I did earlier solicit an opinion, and expected an answer to be posted,
which is what happened.
I've since been reminded how this system can malfunction, and badly. Just ask
Michael Wright.

Second, it is hardly a joke when items get "trashed" here, which HAS happened.
I'm trying to keep it from happening again in the future.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with most of what you wrote; I don't doubt
for a minute that there is great expertise here, along with much good intention.

That is not the issue. The issue is how that knowledge and good intention and
information gets conveyed to those who need it. I illustrated the example of
how
cS member Eddie went about it. What's wrong with that approach? I never
suggested that the advice available on this forum be restricted, only that it be
dispensed
with greater care and discretion. Can you say that nobody has ever been harmed
by the type of public debate you are obviously advocating be maintained?
There are instances right here on cS that back up my contention that people have
been harmed. I think it's important to address that.

posted 05-28-2005 03:51 PM               

There is a thinly drawn line between being proactive with one's warnings and spreading paranoia. That is not to criticize those who offer their advice but to recognize that their responses carry more weight than they may intend or even recognize.

posted 05-28-2005 04:27 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
The end result has been several very prominent collectors exiting the hobby while others losing their interest in autographs all together.

---

... AND many collectors who have been spared from wasting hundreds or thousands of dollars. You forgot to mention that one. BTW, do you think soaring signing fees have not caused any collectors to leave the hobby? Be a little more balanced with your condemnations.

posted 05-28-2005 05:13 PM               

There are both beginning and experienced collectors who have written to express their fear that no individually obtained autograph (a.k.a. not part of a commercial signing), no matter how well respected it is now, will be able sustain the onward advancement of thumbs up/thumbs down scrutiny by others. They believe - based on what they witness here and elsewhere - that we are destroying our own hobby by labeling everything as suspect.

They aren't concerned specifically with the forgers because they aren't buying third party autographs. Instead, they are fearful of collectors deciding that pieces that were previously "known" to be good are now bad because of a minor flucuation in a scribble of ink.

Regardless if it is right or wrong, there is a growing impression that we are sooner than later going to start throwing the proverbial baby out with the bath water.

The forgers are a major problem. That is without debate. However, we must balance the efforts to combat them with a degree of humility.

Certainly, suggesting that you are either with "us" or against "us" is not helping.

posted 05-28-2005 05:15 PM               

A long time ago I bought a Neil Armstrong Signature thinking to be authentic. Years later, I saw the famous armstrong 'Forgery' on this website:
http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-033100a.html#article

posted 05-28-2005 07:00 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
They believe - based on what they witness here and elsewhere - that we are destroying our own hobby by labeling everything as suspect.

---

Everything is NOT being labeled as suspect. Why do you repeat these fallacies? Why don't you look at the opinions expressed on collectSPACE, for starters? Every Armstrong signature that's not laughable (i.e., worthy of being included in the Hall of Shame) that is asked about here is most of the time given a thumbs up. Have you even bothered to check?

The problem is the expert forgers and their distributors. I tell you, nothing would encourage and delight them more than squelching debate and saying everything is real until ironclad proven otherwise (for example, a Polaroid of the forger creating it). There is something known as circumstantial evidence (for example; multiple examples of an atypical, new style, appearing from a single source, with no verifiable provenance given). You have not even displayed any willingness to help in a couple of cases, such as asking someone simple questions about where they obtained their atypical pieces. You seem to just wish it would all go away. Well it's not going away.

When I first started collecting, autograph dealers on average possessed much greater knowledge and expertise than the average collector. That is not true anymore IMO. The sharp rise in autograph values has created a large number of new dealers, and not all of them are experts. At the same time, this increase in values has naturally caused the average collector to be much more careful of what they spend their hard-earned money on. They are asking more questions now. Some of the dealers may not like it, but that's the way it is. It is a function of autograph values, and the large number of forgeries that has precipitated. Again, stop blaming the messenger.

posted 05-28-2005 07:19 PM               

Of course I am aware of what actually is happening and what is actually posted, and for the most part, so are they - but the perception continues. And its certainly not going to go away so long as those involved refuse to even acknowledge there is an issue.

When discussing the validity of thumbs up/thumb down opinions, the message and the messenger are synonymous. If you want the messenger to be separated, then you need to back each opinion with an explanation. Which of course brings us full circle to earlyduke's comments.

And though I am not ready to adopt an e-mail only policy of sharing opinions for all posts to this forum, given what happened in this very thread, I am going to restrict comments to items that are offered for public sale or are posted for opinion by their (verified) owners. If you have a question or concern about something you see on someone else's website that is not for sale, then e-mail the owner and let him/her decide whether it should be posted for public discussion.

posted 05-28-2005 07:42 PM            

I would still like to have you (or anyone) lay out a clear and convincing case
why it would be too detrimental to have questions about authenticity
answered out of the public realm. It worked beautifully for Eddie. Many here
at cS with expertise obviously have much useful knowledge to offer.
What's wrong with offering it only "behind the scenes"? Yes, it would probably
make forgers happy, but they're happy now. The only difference,
as I see it, is that it would make many collectors happy too.

Robert, your job is a difficult one indeed, but I cannot say I'm not
disappointed with your "solution". Examined closely, it is practically no
change in
policy here at all, and will do nothing to stop the "character assassination" of
pieces that takes place sometimes when autographed items come up for scrutiny.

posted 05-28-2005 08:00 PM               

Once an item is posted for sale, the seller should be confident enough in its authenticity to defend anyone suggesting differently. No one said that only buyers and collectors can post here. Dealers are welcome to offer the specific details of why they know their item is authentic (assuming such information is not already in their sale descriptions).

Its hard to debate with a thumbs up/thumbs down opinion, as no justification is given. However, if those offering their advice, also posted their reasoning than dealers can then reply (as they deem is warranted) with their own thoughts as to why what is being said is incorrect (assuming they disagree). Unlike eBay, which goes out of its way to insure communication to and from the dealer is limited, I think there is merit in back-and-forth discussions between parties so long as it remains civil and focuses on the item being sold, not the person doing the selling or the buying.

posted 05-28-2005 08:03 PM            

There is also, for example, always a problem when an item lacks provenance.
Lack of provenance doesn't equate to inauthenticity,
necessarily, but the "formula" usually goes something like this:

"Less-than-classic" appearing signature + lack of provenance = tainted
item,.....and then the item's value drops precipitously as others
chime in how undesirable it would be to have that item in one's collection. And
bear in mind, this could be a perfectly good, i.e., authentic, item.
I've seen it here over and over. It's the "Trial by Collectspace" Joe Davies
alluded to, and if left unchecked will, unfortunately, continue.
And even when an item's "flaws" are "fleshed out", as Scott did with the piece
in question in this thread, that still doesn't necessarily mean an item isn't
authentic.
(There are flaws in Scott's analysis of this Armstrong, for example, but the
compilation of assertions alone acts like a body blow against the item in
question,
and the damage is done. What happens when a seller just isn't very good,
perhaps, at being able to competently piece together a good enough rebuttal to
defend his or her possibly authentic piece against a very persuasive sounding,
yet flawed, challenge? I don't mean to single out Scott here, but this thread,
and what's transpired here, make for very effective examples).

I commend your acknowledgement that a serious problem exists, Robert; it's more
than Scott, so far, has been willing to do.
But that is still a far cry from taking the steps necessary to ameliorate it.

posted 05-29-2005 01:33 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by earlyduke:
[B]
(There are flaws in Scott's analysis of this Armstrong

it's more
than Scott, so far, has been willing to do.

---

Firstly, you sure seem to have an issue with me. I and others have a feeling you're not the stranger newbie you pretend to be, but who's to know when you post anonymously.

You may have a right to post anonymously, with not even an email address given, but I have a right to not respond to someone posting against me anonymously, so this will be my last post to you. Feel free to contact me directly at the email address above.

There are indeed many authentic autographs that have no provenance. Your characterization of what is involved in labeling an example as suspect is a gross oversimplification.

posted 05-29-2005 02:03 PM               

1. "VALUE" - it's interesting that the debate is often turned into one about the diminished value caused by our debate. As far as I'm concerned that has never been an agenda item. The interest lies in validating (or otherwise) specific items as a means of spreading wider awareness. It's usually someone with a dealing connection who claims that such debate is "diminishing value" (aka profit) and I'm sad to see that this is an increasing excuse for stifling debate OR WORSE: turning a blind eye. It's also ironic that these same people are theoretically in the best positions to provide validating examples....but they never do.

2. Public or private debate? Kill the debate here and it will just migrate to another discussion forum or will be held privately amongst a number of collectors. It won't and shouldn't go away.

posted 05-29-2005 03:15 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by gliderpilotuk:

It's usually someone with a dealing connection who claims that such debate is "diminishing value" (aka profit) and I'm sad to see that this is an increasing excuse for stifling debate OR WORSE: turning a blind eye. It's also ironic that these same people are theoretically in the best positions to provide validating examples....but they never do.

Paul Bramley

---

That's something that needed to be brought out. While no one, publicly or privately, is obligated to give any information on any autograph of theirs, any information that could lead to the ultimate source of an autograph that is questioned, could be quite enlightening & useful - not just for them but for others.

We've often seen that any attempt at tracing an autograph's history back usually ends at Dealer A, B or C. Dealer A, B or C then gets offended and that's the end of that. Reputations and business are at stake and that does seem to stifle cooperation. There are those who are in the position to help with the astronaut autograph forgery problem, but it's often left up to us "common collectors" to struggle with the problem.

posted 05-30-2005 12:07 AM            

Paul, it is not my intention to stifle debate, as I've written. There have been many debates here, and many have been exremely valuable. But some debates have had some unintended harmful consequences; I don't think that can be denied, and that is the issue I've been trying to address. You are quite right when you say that the debate may migrate elsewhere, but it will not go away. And you're right, of course, that it shouldn't go away.
I've NEVER advocated that the forgers should just be able to ply their trade, and that we should do and say nothing about judging and evaluating autographed material. I acknowledge there is a downside to moving such debates out of the public realm, and over to a more private setting. But there are advantages and powerful reasons for doing just that, and it is my opinion, and hypothesis, that the advantages outweigh the
disadvantages. I asked for some input so the matter could be debated further, and tried to counter arguments with points that, I think, are logical and reasonable. Some have refused to see that, but I don't think you and I, Paul, are working at cross-purposes.

Scott, if you'll just go back and read my posts, you'll see that I've commended you, and that my comments regarding you have been largely respectful and complimentary. What is causing you to bristle so much at what I write here is quite beyond me. And, like Derek, you seem overly concerned with my identity and "length of service", and not enough with the ideas I present; I already told Paul I'm no newbie, but a long time lurker. Can't we just discuss my PROPOSALS in a reasonable way? Why must the issue become personalised? You are, of course, free, as you said, to refuse to address me further, if that is your preference. But as someone who can add much to the discussion I wish you would join the debate instead. It has been frustrating for me that you have so far refused to acknowledge that there is even a problem, despite clear and undeniable evidence to support that indeed one exists.

If you'll let me know here that I won't be talking to a wall, I'd be happy to go into greater detail as to why I believe your analysis of the Armstrong was flawed, and to defend why my characterization [of what is involved in labeling an example as suspect] was not oversimplistic.

posted 05-30-2005 09:20 AM               

The reasons for this are manyfold:

1. Is it a dealer whos opinion could potentially be suspect because there is some sort of stake in it for them? (And those reasons are many and varied).

2. Is it coming from someone who has engaged in research and knows whereof he speaks, no matter his explanation?

3. Is it a long time person such as Ken Havekotte, who's word is gold?

And these are 3 examples, I could give many more as to why WHO is giving the opinion, is important.

Hence Earlyduke, secrecy does not help your cause. While I'll appreciate WHAT you have to say, again, I'll take it with a whole salt shaker until I know whereof you speak. Just cause you say its so, does not make it so. It may, but then again I do not know.

Best,

posted 05-30-2005 06:20 PM            

I am deliberately leaving my identity out of the mix for the specific purpose of being able to deal with subjects here based solely on their merits. I don't think anyone who's been a fairly regular reader of these boards can say with honesty that (sometimes heated) emotion is left out of debates here when it is known who is authoring certain posts. If I've bought and sold on Ebay, or elsewhere, and people have been affected by my actions in that regard, it will naturally color their perception of what I write here, and probably not in a neutral way. I can't think of a better way to TRY to keep emotion out of this debate than by maintaining anonymity.

What's been strange though is just how much my desire to do stay anonymous has aroused such resentment from some people. If someone can give me a rational explaination for THAT, I'd love to hear it.

Also, Al, I'd very much like to know anything I've written so far that could be "colored" one way or another just because of who I am; I believe everything I've written thus far is devoid of personal attachment. If I'm wrong I want to be set straight.

posted 05-30-2005 10:07 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by earlyduke:
Al, what you say is certainly correct, insofar as someone offering their opinion as it relates to their level of expertise in space related autographs. Of course, you need not attach any importance to anything I write, but if my arguments are based on reason, not emotional appeal, I don't see how who I am relates to the discussion at hand, as we are not talking about any autograph evaluations by me.

I am deliberately leaving my identity out of the mix for the specific purpose of being able to deal with subjects here based solely on their merits. I don't think anyone who's been a fairly regular reader of these boards can say with honesty that (sometimes heated) emotion is left out of debates here when it is known who is authoring certain posts. If I've bought and sold on Ebay, or elsewhere, and people have been affected by my actions in that regard, it will naturally color their perception of what I write here, and probably not in a neutral way. I can't think of a better way to TRY to keep emotion out of this debate than by maintaining anonymity.

What's been strange though is just how much my desire to do stay anonymous has aroused such resentment from some people. If someone can give me a rational explaination for THAT, I'd love to hear it.

Also, Al, I'd very much like to know anything I've written so far that could be "colored" one way or another just because of who I am; I believe everything I've written thus far is devoid of personal attachment. If I'm wrong I want to be set straight.

---

The resentment comes, my friend, from the vast majority of folks who identify themselves, and allow themselves to take their hits and responsibility, for what they say. I am probably in the top 20 of visible people in this arena (space collectibles) and am confident in myself enough to say who I am - thereby standing behind what I say WITH my reputation as well as my thoughts.

People feel remaining anonymous, no matter the rationalizing is, quite frankly, cowardly. Im not saying thats your motivation nor that you are cowardly - simply that that is the perception. Basically if you feel strongly enough about something, you should stand behind it. Totally, honestly and OPENLY. So not to worry my friend, being anonymous and not accepting responsibility for what you say, then I shan't attach any importance to it.

As far as something you've said that could be colored, well, since I dont know you, or anything about you - how can I say?

So your opinion that your anonyminity makes you more credible - then thats fine and I encourage you to remain as such. These are my opinions, and I just disagree with you. But it's not up to me. What is up to me, is the credence I place on your opinions. Interesting, but, not convincing. That could change of course.

posted 05-30-2005 10:09 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by LarryG:
Now that the Moonwalkers print offers signatures of 11 of the 12 moonwalkers,I am interested in opinions as to whether or not to purchase one. Please advise.
Thanks.
LarryG

---

Getting back to the original question here Larry (sorry for the segue), I don't see where you can go wrong. You have 11 of the 12 moonwalkers? Quite a bit of value in and of itself, good provenance, and remember, NEVER SAY NEVER. Who knows, you may strike up a friendship with Neils nephew someday.

Cheers,