Author
|
Topic: 231013705430: MSCL-58 Large Moon litho
|
benfairfax Member Posts: 199 From: NSW Australia Registered: Jan 2011
|
posted 07-10-2013 09:00 AM
Someone just got the bargain of a lifetime: Apollo 13 Lithograph Vintage NASA Image |
garymilgrom Member Posts: 1966 From: Atlanta, GA Registered: Feb 2007
|
posted 07-10-2013 01:11 PM
Is that image particularly rare? It doesn't seem cheap to me. Look how much shipping is too. |
benfairfax Member Posts: 199 From: NSW Australia Registered: Jan 2011
|
posted 07-10-2013 02:07 PM
I only know of one collector that has it, and this is the first one I've even seen. i'm sure its rarer than the MSCL-1. For sure. This went really cheap. |
Besixdouze Member Posts: 235 From: Hebden Bridge, West Yorkshire, United Kingdom Registered: Jan 2011
|
posted 07-10-2013 03:48 PM
Check out this thread for more information: Hard-to-find and rarely seen NASA lithographs |
liftoff1 Member Posts: 235 From: Cumberland, Wisconsin Registered: Aug 2001
|
posted 07-10-2013 04:51 PM
Really? I received one of these in a group of lithos directly from NASA back in the 90's. I mailed it to Lovell and Haise who obliged my autograph request. Unfortunately I sold it years ago. |
J.L Member Posts: 674 From: Bloomington, Illinois, USA Registered: May 2005
|
posted 07-10-2013 05:11 PM
I have one... |
Beau08 Member Posts: 159 From: Peoria, AZ United States Registered: Aug 2011
|
posted 07-10-2013 08:29 PM
I think this version of the Apollo 13 litho is so rare that not many collectors even know it exists. |
randy Member Posts: 2176 From: West Jordan, Utah USA Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 07-10-2013 10:11 PM
It can't be that rare if I have one. |
benfairfax Member Posts: 199 From: NSW Australia Registered: Jan 2011
|
posted 07-11-2013 06:03 AM
Randy, it's rare. This one sold in less then 3 minutes of being on eBay. It is a hole in most people's MSCL collection. But hey, if you don't think it's rare I'll buy yours for $50. |
garymilgrom Member Posts: 1966 From: Atlanta, GA Registered: Feb 2007
|
posted 07-11-2013 06:11 AM
Wow. Very interesting. The niches and sub niches of our hobby are fascinating. MSCL means what? Thanks for all the responses. |
Beau08 Member Posts: 159 From: Peoria, AZ United States Registered: Aug 2011
|
posted 07-11-2013 09:06 AM
Manned Spacecraft Center Lithograph |
kosmo Member Posts: 388 From: Registered: Sep 2001
|
posted 07-11-2013 09:14 AM
There's another one on eBay item # 310642521224 for a BIN of $28.69 |
bruce Member Posts: 916 From: Fort Mill, SC, USA Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 07-11-2013 10:22 AM
I've got a mint condition one signed by both Lovell and Haise. |
lspooz Member Posts: 384 From: Greensboro, NC USA Registered: Aug 2012
|
posted 07-11-2013 11:40 AM
I've been looking for one of those for a while too (but Hardmetal's more common-type eBay BIN is not it...). Eventually it will be signed. |
rgarner Member Posts: 1193 From: Shepperton, United Kingdom Registered: Mar 2012
|
posted 07-11-2013 12:41 PM
While we are on the topic of rare pictures, are the McDonnell Aircraft Corporation photographs of any value these days? They had quite a few decent images of the early Apollo/Gemini missions. |
Robert Pearlman Editor Posts: 42988 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 07-11-2013 12:51 PM
quote: Originally posted by lspooz: Eventually it will be signed.
If the litho is as rare as everyone makes it out to be, why would you choose to deface it with autographs? Why not get a more common litho signed and preserve the rarity for what it is?(I'm not necessarily directing this at any specific person, just in general.) |
benfairfax Member Posts: 199 From: NSW Australia Registered: Jan 2011
|
posted 07-11-2013 05:12 PM
I agree Robert, I personally would leave it unmarked. |
lspooz Member Posts: 384 From: Greensboro, NC USA Registered: Aug 2012
|
posted 07-11-2013 06:23 PM
Good point — I've generally thought of most books or lithographs as common enough to be signable, but as a collector one should be more of a custodian of really rare or important items. You've certainly educated me — if I come across any rare lithos or rare first print books they will not be altered or signed. |
Hart Sastrowardoyo Member Posts: 3445 From: Toms River, NJ Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 07-11-2013 06:32 PM
I don't know. I'd enjoy the litho - after all can't take it with you after you're gone. I'd get it signed regardless. |
Beau08 Member Posts: 159 From: Peoria, AZ United States Registered: Aug 2011
|
posted 07-11-2013 07:02 PM
I think some might be confusing the pictured litho with its very close but much more common cousin such as the one from the eBay BIN quoted above. |
kosmo Member Posts: 388 From: Registered: Sep 2001
|
posted 07-12-2013 06:03 AM
Can you educate us on the differences between the two different Apollo 13 lithographs? |
mjanovec Member Posts: 3811 From: Midwest, USA Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 07-12-2013 02:11 PM
quote: Originally posted by Robert Pearlman: If the litho is as rare as everyone makes it out to be, why would you choose to deface it with autographs? Why not get a more common litho signed and preserve the rarity for what it is?
Adding the autographs doesn't make the litho any less rare. And if there is some thought put into signature placement and pen selection, it can make this litho all the more desirable. It all comes down to personal preference. Portrait WSS lithos of John Young are relatively rare too. But I don't recall anyone questioning those who had them signed at the Novaspace signings. For many people, the logical choice was to have them signed when the opportunity presented itself. Robert - As an aside, do you think some of your relatively unique flown artifacts (e.g. your Apollo 11 flown bread cubes) were defaced when the astronauts signed them? Those artifacts are significantly rarer than the litho in question. |
Robert Pearlman Editor Posts: 42988 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 07-12-2013 04:07 PM
quote: Originally posted by mjanovec: Adding the autographs doesn't make the litho any less rare.
Adding the autographs does make the unsigned litho rarer. quote: It all comes down to personal preference.
I agree, which is why I wonder if litho collectors — as opposed to autograph collectors — consider signatures as an unnecessary, if not also undesirable, addition to lithos. quote: Portrait WSS lithos of John Young are relatively rare too.
My understanding, and perhaps I am mistaken, is that Young-signed WSS portrait lithos are rare, but that the litho itself is fairly common. At one time I had a stack of at least 30 of them, sourced directly from NASA. quote: As an aside, do you think some of your relatively unique flown artifacts (e.g. your Apollo 11 flown bread cubes) were defaced when the astronauts signed them?
I do. I believe I made a mistake by having the few artifacts signed. I should have preserved them in their original state. |
mjanovec Member Posts: 3811 From: Midwest, USA Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 07-12-2013 05:34 PM
quote: Originally posted by Robert Pearlman: My understanding, and perhaps I am mistaken, is that Young-signed WSS portrait lithos are rare, but that the litho itself is fairly common.
They probably aren't extremely rare, but nice condition copies were quite difficult to come by at the time that Young did his signings...and I recall unsigned copies that easily sold in the $200-300 range. Perhaps that was due more to a temporary spike in demand than an overall lack of supply. quote: Originally posted by Robert Pearlman: I believe I made a mistake by having the few artifacts signed. I should have preserved them in their original state.
I can understand the regret, especially if one wants to follow museum standards for preservation. I admit that I cringed a bit when seeing some of those Heritage auction catalogs full of unique flown items, where the astronauts wrote "From my personal collection" in large letters in paint pen (or permanent ink) on the front surfaces. It seemed so unnecessary...and indeed, it seemed to detract from the items (though I'm sure others may disagree). |
benfairfax Member Posts: 199 From: NSW Australia Registered: Jan 2011
|
posted 07-12-2013 08:44 PM
The Young WSS litho belongs to a common and relatively small collection being the Apollo moonwalker WSS litho collection. More people want a signed one than not. I have both signed and unsigned but first wanted the signed one. I have not seen many unsigned ones or signed for sale. I believe they are rare. The MSCL-58 large moon versus small moon lithos form part of a much larger collection and not so common. It takes years sometimes to know you are even missing a litho from your collection. |
Mike Dixon Member Posts: 1397 From: Kew, Victoria, Australia Registered: May 2003
|
posted 07-12-2013 09:39 PM
quote: Originally posted by benfairfax: I have not seen many unsigned ones or signed for sale. I believe they are rare.
Very true... WSS Young autopens are common. Unsigned are not. Much like WSS Ken Mattingly and perhaps others. |
Beau08 Member Posts: 159 From: Peoria, AZ United States Registered: Aug 2011
|
posted 07-13-2013 12:30 PM
quote: Originally posted by kosmo: Can you educate us on the differences between the two different Apollo 13 lithographs?
The difference of the two lithos is the center right photo. In both versions of the litho that panel is labeled "distant Moon" and as you can see in the photo above it clearly is not a depiction of a distant moon. Thus the unofficial "large moon" name. I assume a number of these were printed before someone noticed the distant moon wasn't so distant and corrected it to the more common version. The verbiage on the back of the litho is identical as well referencing the center photo as NASA #AS13-61-8867. So the error photo and the small number that escaped before detection makes it rare in the litho world. |
ilbasso Member Posts: 1522 From: Greensboro, NC USA Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 07-13-2013 02:54 PM
For comparison's sake, here's the corrected version with the distant moon: |
benfairfax Member Posts: 199 From: NSW Australia Registered: Jan 2011
|
posted 07-14-2013 07:41 AM
After this post I noticed that 2 BIN items have popped up on eBay at larger than usual prices. Are sellers goggling, trawling this forum or are members here trying to take advantage of people's lack of understanding of this litho? |
canyon42 Member Posts: 238 From: Ohio Registered: Mar 2006
|
posted 07-14-2013 09:25 AM
For what it's worth, the splashdown photos in the lower right corner aren't the same image either. |
David Carey Member Posts: 782 From: Registered: Mar 2009
|
posted 07-14-2013 04:59 PM
quote: Originally posted by Robert Pearlman: I believe I made a mistake by having the few artifacts signed. I should have preserved them in their original state.
An admirably honest and frank comment on an interesting topic. Since we're in the Opinions and Advice section, I'd be curious to hear others' views. My approach on flown/rare items has been a hybrid depending on circumstances: Crew-use item already signed by one or more when acquired: Added other crew signatures when the opportunities presented. Seemed to round out the experience and the artifact. Individual astronaut sourced/signed items: Can't change the past but left as-acquired. Presentations (mat-board/hard-board collections with flown items): Added 'freshened' certification and signature to the backs; remains original from the front but with bolstered provenance on the reverse. Unsigned artifacts with otherwise solid provenance: Have thus far added no signatures and always left intact to the extent as-acquired. Not sure of applicability to rare lithos, but that's been my informal approach elsewhere. It's certainly a matter of personal philosophy in the end - any additional perspectives?
|
chet Member Posts: 1506 From: Beverly Hills, Calif. Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 07-22-2013 02:36 PM
quote: Originally posted by canyon42: For what it's worth, the splashdown photos in the lower right corner aren't the same image either.
Thanks for pointing that out; I hadn't noticed it before. |