posted 08-04-2011 02:46 PM               

I inherited an album of photographs from my father, Riley Wilson, who worked at the LRL during Apollo 11. The photograph is personalized to my father.

posted 08-05-2011 02:53 PM               

I can't offer any further advice on that topic, but it's been discussed on cS before and you'd likely need the opinion of one or more businesses that offer this service. It would too certainly be preferable if anyone offering such services were able to provide some sort of guarantee above and beyond their service fees.

I'm sure it's contentious but in the end it's a personal or "business" choice that you may want to make, particularly since the person you sell it to may also consider the prospect.

posted 08-05-2011 03:15 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by george9785:
In many ways it's a distasteful idea...

---

Not only do you risk permanently damaging the photo, but the only way that removing the personalization significantly increases the sale price is if the seller does not acknowledge that it was done — at best a purposeful act of deception.

In my opinion, it is much better to leave that decision to the buyer.

posted 08-05-2011 03:35 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
... but the only way that removing the personalization significantly increases the sale price is if the seller does not acknowledge that it was done...

---

posted 08-05-2011 06:33 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mjanovec:
That's a decision best left for the potential buyer to make.

---

posted 08-06-2011 11:18 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by gliderpilotuk:
You might fool some people ...

---

How about we discontinue the comments that deception was any part of what I suggested to Christie as an option/choice - it wasn't what I suggested and I don't think it should have been implied from what I wrote.

On the other hand, if the quality of the removal was such that it was next to impossible to tell there ever was a personalization, I would leave it to the seller's discretion to disclose or not. Personally, I would and I would use the knowledge of the personalization before and after its removal (including with pictures), to help support its authentication especially if I were working with an authenticator.

posted 08-06-2011 11:30 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by george9785:
I think you're applying your opinion too much from the perspective of the buyer Mark.

---

A seller should always try to look at things from the perspective of the potential buyer. That's just smart business sense.

Removing the inscription will be viewed by a lot of potential buyers as either harming the piece or tampering with it (whether it is done with deception or not). There are many collectors who are okay with the personalization and actually prefer the provenance that they sometimes provide. At the very least, a potential buyer probably prefers to have a choice over whether to keep the personalization or not. Once you remove that choice, you also remove some of the potential buyers.

The seller owns the nicest Apollo 11 signed crew photo I've seen for sale in quite a while. In my opinion, it's ill advised to try tampering with a photo that already looks perfect.

quote:

---

Originally posted by george9785:
On the other hand, if the quality of the removal was such that it was next to impossible to tell there ever was a personalization, I would leave it to the seller's discretion to disclose or not.

---

posted 08-06-2011 12:00 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mjanovec:
A seller should always try to look at things from the perspective of the potential buyer.

---

The targeted potential buyer in the case where a decision is made to remove a personalization is the buyer who prefers it without the personalization and is willing to pay the premium without it. The original owner therefore excludes those other potential buyers who will possibly purchase the item with the personalization and not pay the premium. That's the business choice the original owner makes (or doesn't make if it was never a consideration).

quote:

---

Originally posted by mjanovec:
So you're saying that it's okay to be deceptive as long as the removal won't be noticed?

---

I'm saying that it shouldn't make any difference to an objective and reasonable mind whether the personalization was ever there if the end result is such that it might as well never have been there (for disposition purposes) because it's, for all intents and purposes, impossible to tell or to distinguish it from another that never had the personalization to begin with.

posted 08-09-2011 01:11 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by capoetc:
... in my opinion a period-inscribed photo to someone involved in the program would be worth far more to most collectors than would the same photo with a removed inscription.

---

Ideologically maybe but not in reality with respect to commercial (monetary) value and under the assumption that the removal was successfully achieved (near impossible to tell whether it was ever personalized). The opening poster's inquiry sought a commercial valuation not an ideological one. The sales data, which are real and can be relied upon, provide objective market values and include the input of those who would place a monetary value on such ideals. Unfortunately, they/we don't put a high value on them since there wouldn't otherwise be such a large difference in market value in this case between personalized and non-personalized. This is also evidenced by the market value collectors place on period pieces such as most awards to NASA support employees like certificates, etc. Most people only want to "worship the heroes" per se and once an item like Christie's leaves the family, few people/collectors will care too much about Mr. Wilson. That's just the hard truth.

Just for those that would consider removal of a personalization however, please note that when I referred earlier to having it professionally removed, I wasn't considering your local photo/print shop, a dry cleaner, or such similar places. Due to its value, one would want to only entrust such a process or opinion to a conservator/restoration professional who handles archival materials and is familiar with the latest technologies and providers of such services whether they be energy or chemical based.

Just to also try and get a message across that I partly wanted to make, ask yourself the following:

posted 08-09-2011 02:15 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by george9785:
Ideologically maybe but not in reality ...

---

The bottom line here, George, is that your opinion clearly differs from that of other collectors who have posted here. You really don't have to respond to every single one -- we get it that you think it would be great to remove the inscription.

In my opinion, the only way that photo with the inscription removed is worth MORE than with the inscription is if the seller were to mislead the buyer into thinking it was an uninscribed signed photo.

Your opinion is clearly the opposite of mine (and most everyone else here, I might add), so no need to respond and state it again.

Oh, and ... by the way, there are MANY instances of collectors wishing to preserve the original nature of items that came directly from folks who worked in the program. I have several of these kinds of items in my collection, and each is accompanied by photos, interviews, oral histories, magazine articles, and/or other things that chronicle not only the item itself but also the connection of the item's previous owner to the program. Your opinion may be that this is rubbish, but the facts say differently.

posted 08-09-2011 02:42 PM               

Stop thinking about the extra money that COULD POSSIBLY be made and start thinking about how you could mess up an original that only one of a kind exists. Someone thought enough of you to care for what they thought the world of. Now all you're going to care about is what you can get for it??? Have a little compassion for history, the photo and who owned it before you.

posted 08-09-2011 03:13 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by capoetc:
...we get it that you think it would be great to remove the inscription.

---

posted 08-09-2011 03:37 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christie35:
I was simply trying to assume what monetary value the photograph had since it is known that Mr. Armstrong had stopped signing for more than 15 years.

---

posted 08-09-2011 06:23 PM            

Leave the inscription. It shows a link with the LRL. If you have other documents that you can include to show this, so much the better.

I imagine three signed crew portraits as this one, inscribed to different people:

1. To Charlie Duke
   
2. To Riley Wilson
   
3. To the McFuzzle family

posted 08-10-2011 08:45 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by george9785:
...you may wish to consider the possibility of seeing whether you can have the personalization professionally removed from the photo.

---

I don't fully understand matting process so this may not be possible.

posted 08-10-2011 10:00 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by george9785:
It's interesting how you're able to speak for the group and state that John when I never even communicated such a thing and for that matter, offered very little opinion but mostly facts. ...

---

George, here are snippets from your posts above, posted every single time someone suggested that perhaps inscription removal might not be the wise way to go:

… I believe that a seller can acknowledge the removal of a personalization during its sale and that it likely would significantly increase the sale price …

… Why shouldn't the original owner (his daughter in this case) have that choice to potentially realize more of the commercial value of what they own?

… On the other hand, if the quality of the removal was such that it was next to impossible to tell there ever was a personalization, I would leave it to the seller's discretion to disclose or not. …

… There really is no need to be discussing the removal of a personalization or other written comments from an item like this and liken it to doctoring a document because of some gut reaction that might lack objectivity. …

I'm saying that it shouldn't make any difference to an objective and reasonable mind whether the personalization was ever there if the end result is such that it might as well never have been there (for disposition purposes) because it's, for all intents and purposes, impossible to tell or to distinguish it from another that never had the personalization to begin with.

posted 08-10-2011 11:42 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by capoetc:
Your opinion may be that this is rubbish...

---

posted 08-10-2011 06:19 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by fredtrav:
If current owner (seller A) sells it to buyer B with the inscription for $3,000, then buyer B has the inscription removed and he turns around and sells it to buyer C for $5,000 what is the difference? It is the owner who should decide what to do with it...

---

Now I'm in total agreement with that. As to the difference...

posted 08-10-2011 09:00 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by george9785:
Before you go, why don't you do the same for this as well John. I must say I'm very unimpressed with you and your lack of objectivity.

---

I was merely pointing out that you said multiple times that it would be okay to remove the inscription, in your opinion. In fact, if I recall correctly, you are the one who brought up the idea of removing the inscription originally in this thread.

I fail to see how my pointing this out makes me un-objective, and if you are saying I should have included my own quote in the list of your quotes, then I would counter that such action would make my post confusing to the reader.

I suppose there isn't much I can do about you being unimpressed with me -- I'll lose lots of sleep over that prospect tonite.

posted 08-11-2011 02:05 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by capoetc:
...do the same for what as well?

---

Provide my statements where I called NASA support worker memorabilia "rubbish" ...and "...let others decide whether I ever said such a thing..."

If you have trouble understanding the concept of market value and how such is derived and who contributes to market value, you should seek assistance from someone other than myself. You shouldn't be attempting to disparage me by twisting my communications to assist you in making your arguments. I called nothing "rubbish" - I communicated/translated a sense of the monetary value placed on such things by the market. While I am part of the greater market, I am not the market.

Part of what I was and am attempting to communicate through this discussion is that one shouldn't try to pressure another into following their own sensibilities on such a matter, particularly when it's based on some dogmatic attitude that may be more dominantly held here on this forum and not based on a moral or ethical issue. Some here, innocently in most or all cases, introduced deception into the picture to maybe get morality or ethics added to the mix, but it didn't have to be and wasn't intended to be by my initiating consideration of the removal of a personalization into the discussion.

posted 08-11-2011 08:44 AM               

In the stamp market there are sellers who buy hinged stamps, re-gum them and and sell them for a significant profit (as an aside I've always wondered why late 19th/early 20th century unhinged stamps are worth such a premium in the US. In Australia the difference is much smaller). This is universally condemned as it should be. Isn't removing an inscription equivalent?

I do however, agree that if the inscription is removed it should be noted on the back.

posted 08-11-2011 11:37 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by george9785:
Provide my statements where I called NASA support worker memorabilia "rubbish" ...and "...let others decide whether I ever said such a thing..."

---

For the record, I never said that you called NASA support worker memorabilia rubbish. Re-read my post. Here is an excerpt, not taken out of context:

"Oh, and ... by the way, there are MANY instances of collectors wishing to preserve the original nature of items that came directly from folks who worked in the program. I have several of these kinds of items in my collection, and each is accompanied by photos, interviews, oral histories, magazine articles, and/or other things that chronicle not only the item itself but also the connection of the item's previous owner to the program. Your opinion may be that this is rubbish, but the facts say differently.

My point, which you apparently missed, is that it appeared that you may think the idea that a collector would actually want to preserve an historical item in its original format in order to preserve the connection to the original NASA employee is rubbish. I never said that you said the NASA support worker memorabilia itself was rubbish.

In closing, it is most unfortunate that a simple question from someone resulted in such an escalated exchange. I honestly wish I had just not posted at all. I keep saying I'll stop getting involved in this stuff so I'll just go back to lurker mode now.

posted 08-11-2011 01:09 PM               

Originally, I was only inquiring about the differences in quotes, now I see that the "inscription" is the difference.

I appreciate your passion in delivering an answer that delves both in the moral and ethical views of inscription removal as it plays into whether the seller is purposefully being deceptive, or is just looking to cash in.

I am in no way attempting to deceive anyone. I am very proud of my father's acheivements. My initial reason for selling the photograph was due to financial strain, but now I see the true value...inscription included.