posted 04-18-2006 09:23 AM               

Applying that topic to our niche, why are patches produced by third-parties (other than those hired by the artist to do so) of interest and/or acceptable to collectors?

Among autograph collectors, labeling an autopen as an autograph is generally frowned upon, if not downright criticized. With few exceptions, the market for autopens is nil, even though they do have a degree of authenticity, having been issued by the space agency itself.

Stamp and coin collectors have no tolerance for counterfeit products. Riser and his covers are just one example.

Artifact collectors are always seeking provenance. While replicas are offered and purchased, there is an insistence that they are marketed as such and most manfucturers voluntarily add minor mistakes or changes to their product to avoid later confusion.

posted 04-18-2006 11:51 AM               

I understand your point-but I think the better question is why do those who manufacture replicas get away with not identifying them as such.

Nitro's on the mark when it comes to the price tag. I think your average collector just wants to own a patch that reflects the artwork accurately.

I used to think of myself as an educated collector-that is until I joined cS. I started collecting patches in 1969 but was never interested in Lion Bros. because I heard that AB emblem was the "official" supplier. But I've seen patches from overseas that are a better quality than AB. I've mentioned this before: during STS-32 I brought to my boss' attention that the patch we offered wasn't accurate because the two symbols at 9:00 and 3:00 were missing. He showed me a copy of a letter from Dan Brandenstein stating that those symbols could not be embroidered accurately (by AB Emblem) so they would not be on the embroidered patch. I have a replica that shows those symbols beautifully.

I'd like Ed H. or one of our other photo gurus to post a photo of the STS-32 crew to see their patch.

The best rule is to know what you are buying.

Tim

posted 04-19-2006 12:03 AM               

Not everyone can own an original of the Masters, and if you want to see one, you either visit a major museum or read a book. The CBS story related to thousands of these full size reproductions as being sold to people who want to enjoy them in homes, offices, and public places. Why NOT?

The quality of embroidery that Tim referred to in his post is another example of why people will buy patch copies. AB emblem has had issues with quality for a long time, even as far back as the ones manufactured in the Apollo era. Finding an original is not the problem for these, but finding one that was made correctly is. The artwork has certainly changed from the patches they produced at the time of the mission to the ones currently being produced. Gene Dorr’s website is a wonderful example of a collector that admires a patch that most closely matches the artist’s concept and work. He indicated to me recently, that some of the best patches matching original artwork are recent repros that he included on his site, in his words “because they are darn good.”

The most active posting on the CS “patches and pins” message board this year is the one with 72 posts advocating “quality reproductions”! Yes, it was pretty much a unanimous decision that patch collectors needed to have exact “REPLICAS” down to the “i.e. sizes, colors, features*, version, etc. (* e.g. for Gemini 5, do we want to attempt having a piece of fabric sewn over the "8 Days or Bust"?).” It seemed like every known collector on Earth chimed in to endorse and be a part of “making a copy of an original patch”

This is history we are collecting. You don’t have to have Kennedy’s hand written copy of the speech at Rice University to get excited about our space program. Reading a copy or having a copy as part of your collection captures and expresses that moment. In my mind, so does a patch copy!

posted 04-20-2006 10:40 PM               

This is an excellent question. My answer focuses on US manned spaceflight patches, but might apply to other space patches.

My view is that an authentic or official embroidered patch can be established for every manned flight from Gemini 5 to the present under the definition that it was either sewn onto the crews' pressure suits, or, in the case of Apollo 7 through ASTP, it was worn by the crewmen aboard their recovery ships (or had crewman ground use at the time of the mission).

Any variant to those runs of patches therefore becomes "unauthentic." Collectors who recognize that can correctly call them replicas or copies even knock-offs. One of my favorite terms is "commemorative."

I believe the major reason these replicas became acceptable to many collectors is that until Apollo 13, authentic patches were not commercially-available. Today as a result, I don't believe any single complete collection of authentic patches from Gemini 5 through Apollo 12 is in private or perhaps even government hands.

The problem arises when the remakes are misrepresented as duplicates of the official patches and have a big price tag attached. Then I think the label "counterfeit" starts to apply.

With regard to nitro's comments on a 61-E patch: I admit that's true in terms of numbers, and in a sense that's what "collecting" is all about. But is an authentic 61-E patch worth more than an authentic Apollo 11 patch? Probably not.

Plus any US stamp and coin reproductions must be a different size or have some way to permanently differentiate them from the real ones.

I'd say that like any hobby, the "serious" or hard-core space patch collector strives to only own the authentic patches (recognizing, like some stamps, that some will never be available to them).

The rest seem to me to be essentially placeholders and each collector must decide what value to put on them. Would a good analogy be having color photocopies of a stamp cover or an autograph in your collection of covers/photos?

I am uneasy about making up patches that never existed, however, since there's therefore no "originals" to compare them with. I worry too many collectors will come to regard these as genuine "period" patches when they are more recent remakes.

As far as duplicating a current patch that's not available, it's true there's not the "era" factor but still the danger of misrepresentation...

John Bisney

[This message has been edited by Go4Launch (edited April 20, 2006).]

posted 04-21-2006 02:51 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Go4Launch:
The rest seem to me to be essentially placeholders and each collector must decide what value to put on them. Would a good analogy be having color photocopies of a stamp cover or an autograph in your collection of covers/photos?

---

posted 04-21-2006 09:13 PM               

It's also true that "the crews took patches by many companies with them on missions. NASA also used all kinds of patches in official presentations." But how can the 'real deal' be anything except duplicates from the original runs of what these amazing men actually wore. I personally define that for Apollos 7 through 17 as recovery ship jumpsuit use.

Still, is it really "taking things to an extreme there by restricting things to the 'official' patches?"

I don't suggest anyone restrict their collections except by their own desires; but I also collect only authentic autographs and covers, etc. so while it clearly comes down to what each collector personally values, the marketplace alone (and I think some respect for history and authenticity) says there's SOME premium on patches that are tied as closely as possible to the mission.

I also call replicas "placeholders" because I abide by the collecing school of thought that likes to "upgrade" an item when possible when something more mint or authentic comes along.

[This message has been edited by Go4Launch (edited April 21, 2006).]

posted 04-22-2006 05:20 AM               

I think the only way to avoid being scammed is for us collectors to educate ourselves. I understand the idea of a hallmark - but couldn't an unscrupilous (sp) manufacturer recreate the hallmark?

We have to be aware who makes the embroidered patch for the crew. The problem arises when the crews wear more than one patch. Take Apollo 10 for example - the crew wore one patch on their WSS for their portrait and another on their coveralls after splashdown. (for the sake of this discussion I'm only talking embroidered patches).
IMHO - we can only try to put patches in our collection that recreate the original artwork as faithfully as possible. Thats the reason we want to recreate the Gemini series.

The reason we collect them is to share an "espirit de corps" with the crews and those who put them in space. There will always be people who try and take advantage of a collector - but if we educate ourselves with the help of people like Gene, Jacques, Ron and cS - we can avoid being duped.

In my collection I've got vintage AB, current AB, Lion Bros, and only one I consider authentic, my flown Exp 11. But I consider them more than placeholders because I don't have the time or resources to track down every "official" patch out there. But thats just me. In no way would I criticize anyone else and their collection or criteria.

So while I endorse your idea of a hallmark, I don't think it will stop those intent on scamming.

posted 04-22-2006 09:08 AM               

I also have some experience collecting political items. There are no shortages of reproductions in that area, but many are marked and if you know where to look for where it says COPY you are covered. If you also look to that spot and see an unusual mark that looks like it has been scraped off, you should also assume it is a copy.

Both areas have been hit by what are called “fantasy” pieces. These are items made by collectors or dealers which never existed either before, during, or after the real thing. These dupe both experienced and inexperienced collectors alike. The political collectors threw a fellow out of their organization because he had made a number of political buttons up passing them off for original when they were really creations from his imagination.

posted 04-22-2006 11:26 PM               

On the question of whether exactness outweighs a hallmark - A cleverly-hidden hallmark likely would not detract from the appearance. I think any replica made by/for collectors intended to be so faithful to an authentic patch of significant value that it would tempt unscrupulous sellers to misrepresent it as such should always be marked.

John

posted 04-23-2006 08:25 PM               

They are replicas of an emblem.

posted 04-24-2006 02:32 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Go4Launch:
I was amazed to see the fake Lion Bros. patches as shown in an earlier thread here. Can they be worth that much effort??

---