posted 07-16-2014 09:26 AM               

The maps were carried on the flight to provide global reference for the crew in the event Earth touchdown had to take place away from the prime recovery zone. Each 6" x 4" display is therefore unique, as each featured map section shows a different alternate landing area for the Apollo 10 CM. (The map section dimensions are not uniform across all the displays; they instead range in size from just under 3 to just over 5 sq.inches each).

I currently have 10 displays available (of just 50 total being produced), with these initial pieces priced at $385.00 each (including U.S. shipping).

posted 07-17-2014 01:24 PM               

There seems to have been a consensus formed on these boards over the years that while the cutting up of artifacts is generally discouraged, for obvious reasons, the cutting up of certain artifacts is not considered detrimental to the goal of preserving space history. Examples would be the use of kapton foil, heat shield fragments, insulation blankets and the like for use as materials for commemorative displays and presentations.

But as with most things in life, there are grey areas that come into play, and no easy way to carve out specific boundaries that can or cannot be crossed without causing offense or "harm". An example might be the cutting up of a whole flown beta patch, with ensuing controversy surrounding whether an item taken on a mission more for commemorative than utilitarian purposes is "fair game" for dissection for turning into numerous displays where only one could exist before.

Others can disagree, obviously, but given everything I know about these Apollo 10 Earth maps, and the number of them used (and why), and how I went (rather meticulously) about dividing them up for use in these displays, I don't believe anything fractious or constituting a setback to the preservation of space history has at all occurred.

To the contrary, and if I may shed a bit of unnecessary humility in this instance, I think these displays are well executed and worthwhile assets insofar as making space history more widely known and available to a greater number of people, and strike the necessary balance, in my view, between "destruction" and preservation by dissemination, of such artifacts. (I could have produced hundreds of such displays using similarly sized map sections, or thousands if the maps were micro-divided, but there will be only 50, by conscientious choice).

posted 07-17-2014 02:30 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by fredtrav:
The book with 71 terrain photos and 207 landmark maps sold for $43,319. That make each page worth about $155, not including the covers.

---

posted 07-17-2014 10:19 PM               

These pieces not only provide me with the visual joy of having them displayed at home, but also serve as a catalyst of inspiration. I find myself more inspired to learn about what went on around these missions and how they came to be.

In a young person, this enthusiasm is infections and creates a chain reaction amongst peers. Does it not benefit the entire space community to have more people interested in this stuff?

posted 07-18-2014 06:15 AM               

Most collectors can afford a few hundred dollars.

But if Chet cuts up the pages into six pieces per page. and sells the displays at his quoted price he would net an estimated $321,100 for a net profit of over...

$275,000 Wow. So you can see my point of cutting history for profit. It is not enough to double your money for some dealers it has to be five times or more profit.

I have purchased several whole flown pages from auction houses and dealers always with a reasonable price. I would never buy a cut display as it encourages the taking of huge profit over history.

posted 07-18-2014 07:14 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chuckster01:
So you can see my point of cutting history for profit.

---

But it is also a red herring. Suppose for the moment that Chet needs $300,000 to pay upcoming medical bills in an attempt to save his dying [insert close family relative here]. Suddenly, the same exact money is no longer the vilified profit it just was, but instead a desperate act of love.

Then again, maybe Chet just really wants to buy a trio of Tesla Roadsters.

The point is, whatever Chet wants to do with the money is (a) none of our business, and (b) inconsequential to the decision of whether to divide an intact artifact.

Personally, I wouldn't have cut the map apart. I might even be hesitant to divide it into individual pages. Given personal experience in how hard it is to reconstruct an incomplete artifact, my opinion is that intact artifacts should stay intact if and when possible.

At the same time, I also understand the view of sharing the wealth. If it weren't for divided up pieces of space history, I may have never started collecting space memorabilia and so there may have never been a collectSPACE for us to have this discussion.

We all have to start somewhere, and in this hobby, that somewhere is very often with small fragments.

Chet mentions there is no easy way to carve out specific boundaries about what is and what is not acceptable to divide. Simply saying that intact artifacts should remain intact and partial fragments can be further divided does not suffice for a number of reasons.

My personal approach would be to consider if the artifact is museum display (or archive) worthy. As a general example, most museums are not looking to display a fragment of kapton or a square of netting, but they may also not be interested in internal spacecraft components, unless they are visually interesting, historically unique or have a compelling story to share with the public.

posted 07-18-2014 07:27 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
As a general example, most museums are not looking to display a fragment of kapton or a square of netting, but they may also not be interested in internal spacecraft components, unless they are visually interesting, historically unique or have a compelling story to share with the public.

---

posted 07-18-2014 07:44 AM               

But no one has a crystal ball either. Three dimensional-imaging may someday become so advanced and ubiquitous in the future that the idea of trying to display, let alone preserve, any physical objects may be seen as archaic.

Or it could go in the opposite direction, should humanity become disenfranchised with the current trend of all things going digital.

posted 07-18-2014 10:36 AM               

In creating the 50 displays I did, less than 2% of the contents of the Earth Landmarks book was utilized! (For those who may not be great at math, that means over 98% of the book's contents have been left intact). I don't know what some collectors' understanding of the word "rapacious" may be, but perhaps a little more thought could be put into some of the "slicing and dicing" assumptions made here before throwing the term about so wantonly.

Thank you to some of the more reasonable posters on this thread for injecting some sense of proportion into the debate. And thank you especially, Robert, for always trying to be a moderating voice of reason here. But perhaps others need reminding Robert's website is not named preservedinamberSPACE.

I am quite mindful of the need to protect the legacy of our space program for future generations, and dare say I have probably done more than my "fair" share in that department. In truth, there are many ways to go about being a good and conscientious conservator of that legacy; I don't personally believe running a posse of "profit-police" is necessarily one of the better ones.

posted 07-18-2014 11:18 AM               

I've never understood a holier than thou attitude about people hating other peoples profits. Profit was the reason the map was available in the first place (otherwise it'd probably be in Gene Cernan's garage). Profit is the reason I can still buy a Neil Armstrong signed photo (I was 22 and didn't care about space when he stopped signing). Profit is the reason I've met most of the Astronauts I've seen (they're all nice but they're not there to hand out freebies). Profit is the main thing that makes these possible.

posted 07-18-2014 12:19 PM               

I think if an item is an "inconsequential" piece that doesn't distract from the item as a "whole," whatever your definitions of those are, then it's fine to sell them. For me, I'd be OK with bits of kapton and heat shield material that came off and were recovered, that sort of thing. I'd also be OK with cutting up and selling a blank page (even if there's writing, "This page left intentionally blank") because it doesn't seem to me like that page matters to the whole of the item.

But anything else, I don't like. OK, you have to take samples for engineering study - I get that. Some Liberty Bell 7 pieces just are too corroded to fit back in, I get it.

But deliberately cutting up a flown parachute? Like looking at the flag that flew during the War of 1812, it's a bit distracting seeing the missing pieces from it. Granted, most people are not going to see the full length of rescue line or full FDF, and yes, there are scans of a document, but I feel the document should have been left intact.

posted 07-18-2014 01:17 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by chet:
In creating the 50 displays I did, less than 2% of the contents of the Earth Landmarks book was utilized! (For those who may not be great at math, that means over 98% of the book's contents have been left intact).

---

posted 07-18-2014 01:37 PM               

What we're left with is an argument over degrees, and working definitions of terms.

posted 07-18-2014 02:07 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by chet:
...by the Smithsonian not having the entire command module cordoned off behind a velvet rope with every flight component inside it identical to its configuration when it hit the water in the Pacific.

---

posted 07-18-2014 02:29 PM               

Historically (and not you personally) if 50 of these sell well, a new round of 50 slightly different will appear until there is no market left.

I own many flown artifacts and do my best to preserve every one so when I die others can carry on.

We are only the temporary stewards of the artifacts we now possess. When we all pass from this earth I hope the history, the excitement and the artifacts of this golden age will out live us all.

posted 07-18-2014 02:59 PM               

The point has been made here at cS many times that collectors are sometimes better custodians and caretakers than professional institutions, especially when it comes to exhibiting artifacts that might not otherwise see the light of day.

Often the question comes down to one of simply asking, who gets to make and enforce certain rules, and what balances are being struck to reach the most optimal of situations. Obviously I like to think my views and practices are in line with striking such balances.

posted 07-18-2014 05:08 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by moonnut:
As far as the 98%/2% comment, Chet, tear out 2% of a book you plan on reading, you may get the gist of the book, but never have the full story.

---

The telling of a story is completely dependent on a running narrative in a specific and unchangeable order for it to make sense. That is not at all the case with the Landmarks book.