|
Author
|
Topic: Opinions about an Apollo 8 Earth print
|
lythium
New Member Posts: 5
From:
Registered: Mar 2017
|
posted 03-15-2017 08:52 AM
   
I bought a print from a live auction site in France. Here is the description of the item given on the site: Earth. Apollo 8. The first image of the Earth carried out by the Man showing the terrestrial sphere in its totality. Photography was taken at a distance of approximately 30,000 km. The south of the terrestrial sphere is with the bottom of the image. One distinguishes South America on the lower part. Africa returns in the shade of the Earth and North America is on the upper part of the image. Vintage chromogenic print on Kodak paper. Classification in the margin. Logo and legend NASA typescripts with the back. 25.4 X 20,3CM with margins.  And here is the print I just received:  I would like to know if you think that the print match the description? I'm really new in the space related items collection and it's my first buy so I'm a little bit confused. Many thanks in advance for your enlightements. |
Lunar rock nut
Member Posts: 911
From: Oklahoma city, Oklahoma U.S.A.
Registered: Feb 2007
|
posted 03-15-2017 09:11 AM
It would appear the first photo is upside down or inverted compared to the second photo. |
lythium
New Member Posts: 5
From:
Registered: Mar 2017
|
posted 03-15-2017 09:33 AM
Yes it's the same picture but upside down, no doubt on that.  But I have some doubt about the "vintage" aspect of the print I received. And I find the auction description deliberately misleading so I would like opinions of experts. |
Go4Launch
Member Posts: 542
From: Seminole, Fla.
Registered: Jul 2003
|
posted 03-15-2017 10:09 AM
Depends on your definition of vintage. The red NASA logotype at the top tells you this was printed no earlier than 1975, so at least seven years after the flight, possibly longer. |
lythium
New Member Posts: 5
From:
Registered: Mar 2017
|
posted 03-15-2017 10:22 AM
My definition of vintage is the one you buy with a lot of money. And I have the feeling to have been fooled... |
spaced out
Member Posts: 3110
From: Paris, France
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 03-15-2017 11:25 AM
It's standard practice in these vintage photo auctions to show only the printed area of the image, which unfortunately hides a lot of very important information when it comes to NASA prints.Looking at the notes on different images from this action the technical details are generally quite specific: - Vintage chromogenic of time on paper “A KODAK PAPER”.
- Vintage chromogenic print on paper “THIS PAPER MANUFACTURED BY KODAK”.
- Chromogenic print, printed later.
Unfortunately your print's description "Vintage chromogenic print on Kodak paper" is vague, as "vintage" could be applied to an Apollo photo printed in the late 1970s or 1980s. Personally I would have classified it as "printed later", or specified the KODAK watermark present on the back (in this case definitely not 'A KODAK PAPER').If you are able to get your money back I would try to do so. General advice however would be to be certain what you are buying before placing any bids. If you had asked for a scan of the front or back of the photo before the auction you would have realized it was a later printing. |
lythium
New Member Posts: 5
From:
Registered: Mar 2017
|
posted 03-15-2017 11:57 AM
I think the auction house will reply something like what you said.When I placed my bid I have zero knowledge of NASA photographies, I was just really excited about the "vintage" side of this kind of photo. I learned a lot since I bought it and I just became a new collector.  But I just feel scammed by this purchase. The only bright side is that It won't happen to me again... ever. Anyway, thank you all for your inputs. |
Chuckster01
Member Posts: 873
From: Orlando, FL
Registered: Jan 2014
|
posted 03-15-2017 12:05 PM
Many of the original Apollo photographs that were initially printed on heavy stock "A KODAK PAPER" were reprinted with the NASA worm logo as the one you purchased. |
lythium
New Member Posts: 5
From:
Registered: Mar 2017
|
posted 03-15-2017 01:29 PM
Does anyone have a street price estimation of my print? |
Chuckster01
Member Posts: 873
From: Orlando, FL
Registered: Jan 2014
|
posted 03-15-2017 04:00 PM
I understand prices are considerably higher in Europe then they are in the U.S. but I would value that print at $10-$40 depending on the day in the U.S. I am sure others can give there opinion. |
Mike Dixon
Member Posts: 1397
From: Kew, Victoria, Australia
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 03-15-2017 06:20 PM
$15 max. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-15-2017 06:27 PM
So, if this site is to be believed, at least a couple shuttle-era vintage chromogenic prints (example) — in this case without any NASA markings — have sold for recently for $850 to $950 recently. That is significantly more than I would pay, but I don't collect vintage prints. |
Hart Sastrowardoyo
Member Posts: 3445
From: Toms River, NJ
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 03-15-2017 06:41 PM
Gee, maybe then I shouldn't have "ruined" my Joe Allen photo issued by Rockwell (complete with Rockwell info on back) by getting it signed by Allen.... |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-15-2017 06:53 PM
It just goes to show how the same object can be valued completely differently, depending on your perspective. To autograph collectors, NASA prints are the medium for their prize; for print collectors, the pristine photo is a treasure unto itself. |
Mike Dixon
Member Posts: 1397
From: Kew, Victoria, Australia
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 03-15-2017 07:36 PM
That it does Rob. Plenty of red stamps on eBay at prices I would never touch. Each to their own I guess but a worm logo printed long after the event doesn't hold a candle to the original. |
Hart Sastrowardoyo
Member Posts: 3445
From: Toms River, NJ
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 03-15-2017 08:09 PM
Now I'm wondering what my b/w unsigned Alan Shepard photo with a NASA worm on front but a Washington 25 postal code (or whatever it is, before they had zip codes) on the back, would be worth. |
Mike Dixon
Member Posts: 1397
From: Kew, Victoria, Australia
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 03-15-2017 08:38 PM
Why worry Hart? I collect what I must and don't really care and tailor it to my budget. If I fluke a red stamp at a good price, then great (and I have), if I don't, then a worm or a straight litho with meatball works fine, at least for me. The only condition I always apply is there must be an identifying mark of some sort on the front. As I started late in collecting, I took what I could get.Fun hobby is it not? |
Hart Sastrowardoyo
Member Posts: 3445
From: Toms River, NJ
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 03-15-2017 09:17 PM
Not worried at all. Just wondering what someone would pay me, that's all.Me, I don't care what edition litho/photo I get to get signed - I usually collect candids anyway, not the usual portraits. |
Mike Dixon
Member Posts: 1397
From: Kew, Victoria, Australia
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 03-15-2017 10:28 PM
I know mate... I look at them all the time. Some really nice stuff and very individual to you. Have a few like that and treasure them, all signed to me.As for the Shepard? No idea. The market fluctuates so much, impossible to know. |
Chuckster01
Member Posts: 873
From: Orlando, FL
Registered: Jan 2014
|
posted 03-16-2017 04:15 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
So, if this site is to be believed...
If the site you posted is to be believed my NASA print collection has made me a wealthy man. Excuse me if I do not quit my day job. |
spaced out
Member Posts: 3110
From: Paris, France
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 03-16-2017 07:32 AM
There are certainly some very surprising results for later printed photos in some of these auctions but "A KODAK PAPER" originals have long fetched high prices in specialist photographic auctions, particularly in Europe.In terms of red numbered photos being signed there are definitely cases where the photo would be much more valuable (in $$$ terms) left unsigned than signed by an astronaut. Examples of items selling for much more in a particular secondary market than they do in the general market aren't restricted to vintage photos. I note the prices fetched by sets of Lion Brothers Apollo patches over the last few years at Bonhams' space auctions: $1098, $2562, $2375, $3125, $1625, and $1875. Sadly, none of these patches were mine.  |
mmcmurrey
Member Posts: 114
From: Austin, TX, USA
Registered: Jun 2012
|
posted 03-16-2017 11:32 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
...in this case without any NASA markings
I think maybe this example of McCandless is cropped as I have some photos of this sequence that are headed with NASA worm and red numbered (s84-27017) and JSC Houston Tx across the top. |
Mike Dixon
Member Posts: 1397
From: Kew, Victoria, Australia
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 03-16-2017 03:05 PM
They're iconic... I have a few different worm glossies of Bruce in the collection. |
Chuckster01
Member Posts: 873
From: Orlando, FL
Registered: Jan 2014
|
posted 03-16-2017 06:01 PM
In these cases, the shuttle era NASA worm logo photographs are not reprints but original. I have many NASA red worm photos but the majority are not reprints of Apollo era photos. |
mmcmurrey
Member Posts: 114
From: Austin, TX, USA
Registered: Jun 2012
|
posted 03-16-2017 07:57 PM
Agree Chuck. I have both Apollo era red numbered with "A KODAK PAPER" on back and NASA red worm photos of the same numbered photos. The common thread of these reprint Apollo era photos and shuttle era originals is the backs are marked with "THIS PAPER MANUFACTURED BY KODAK". |
advertisement