posted 02-20-2022 02:40 PM            

It is hard to believe that as professionals they value a pair of pants worn by some Star Trek actor for 30 minutes (to go absolutely nowhere beyond a Hollywood lot) more than material that was flown to the lunar surface. The upcoming Heritage Auctions' Star Trek auction is a case in point: lot 89009 Dr McCoy outfit (one of several) $21K ($26K with buyer premium) versus a lunar surface flown bible (one of several as well) for $14K at Heritage a few months ago.

I think the majority of curators don't know what this stuff is worth and cannot attach the proper historical context and value to this achievement of humanity. It is unacceptable to see them sell some rather impressive flown items for less than a Kodak photo or a pair of Shatner's socks.

I think going forward any of us consigning should demand high reserve prices for top notch flown material and not let the randomness of who shows up determine where this market should trade at. Apart from the Armstrong collection sale (and even there I argue a Apollo 11 flag at $250K is still worth less than some comic book they have sold in the past), the vast majority of auction for space material show a dispersion of results in prices that is symptomatic of the curators not setting the levels consistently where they should be. Until that happens, collectors should not consign.

posted 02-20-2022 03:11 PM               

Most people think John Glenn went to the moon and don't know the name Alan Shepard or Michael Collins, much less other astronauts. They don't really care if something was flown or not and I think that this will only get worse. I bet that people in the 30's could name different WW1 aces, but not anymore. I am vaguely familiar with them because Snoopy liked to fight the Red Baron. However, I bet most people sill remember that Toto was on the yellow brick road.

posted 02-20-2022 04:31 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by spacemc:
...for less than a Kodak photo

---

posted 02-20-2022 05:17 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by spacemc:
...and not let the randomness of who shows up determine where this market should trade at.

---

I consigned a dozen items to RR's space auction in the spring, several of them flown. If I demand high reserves, that won't make bidders willing to pay more than they would have to pay in dozens of other places. My items just won't sell.

posted 02-20-2022 05:20 PM            

I have myself sold large prints created six months ago and signed shortly thereafter for prices exceeding flown material. I think it's crazy and although I would love to keep exploiting this market inefficiency, I also think that ultimately it creates a trend that's unhealthy.

There are enough serious collectors here to be able to tilt the trend. I know people who are not super familiar with the whole history of the space program who nevertheless are serious serial collectors and can discern fluff from quality even in this niche. I can go on with the stories but I am sure we all agree it's time the auction houses put competent people in charge to set consistent valuations.

Some families of astronauts consigning are realizing much less than items are worth if they were the negotiate with a private collector directly. That in of itself is ridiculous.

quote:

---

Originally posted by stsmithva:
The price bidders are willing to pay is solely what determines where the market trades.

---

posted 02-20-2022 06:48 PM               

There may only be one lunar surface flown item of a specific sort, but unless you have at least two bidders with healthy wallets that item won't really go anywhere.

While cS members may have no significant interest in Star Trek memorabilia, ask yourself, if you were to go to a space convention or a Star Trek convention, which convention would you expect to find more people at? In my opinion, Star Trek by a landslide.

posted 02-20-2022 08:18 PM               

Personally, I like that it's possible for average people to own pieces of these things. I've been a fan of the early space program for my entire life, but until recently I didn't know it was possible to own flown artifacts. And when I did learn, I was even more surprised to find that someone on my modest income could afford some of them. I could never afford the high-end material. But I'm so grateful that a nobody like me can own a piece of something that means so much to me. I'd rather see these artifacts in the hands of the people who will cherish them the most, not just the ones who can pay the most.

And in the few short years I've been collecting, I've seen prices rise quite a bit. Every time there's a major auction, I see people here worrying that they may be getting priced out of the hobby. So I think prices will only continue to spike.

posted 02-21-2022 01:53 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott:
If I see an auction item that indicates it has a reserve, I lose interest immediately and go on to the next item.

---

posted 02-22-2022 03:28 AM               

Collecting is a slow hobby and people will wait till the prices are more in line with current trends.

posted 02-22-2022 07:01 AM            

Ultimately it is hard to believe anyone at HA or RR or anywhere else can with a straight face tell us that a pair of Spock ears or a comic book can be worth more that a real historical artifact like flown to the moon or an Egyptian mummy for that matter. They are able to obtain material from sellers who really don't fight for their material to get the recognition it deserves.

posted 02-22-2022 09:10 AM               

Even within the space memorabilia category itself, souvenirs often sell for more than artifacts. The most ever paid at a public auction for a piece of space memorabilia was for a manufactured collectible rather than something that was critical to making history.

People are going to like what they like. Yes, you can convince some that an item category is worth more (e.g. NASA red-numbered glossies), but those arguments are rarely, if ever, based on historical importance.

posted 02-22-2022 03:55 PM               

Some of the "old salts" on the board might find this conversation ironic considering conversations on collectSPACE in 1999 and 2000. The topic back then was trying to figure out a way to drive the auction prices back down to pre-1999 Christie's space auction levels.

Auction houses are probably that best entity to determine fair market value on any object. Most houses like HA or RR or Sotheby's, operate on the ascending bid or English auction. The basics of the English process is that regardless of the reserve, bidders bid higher values based on their perceived worth of the object in question. It is usually driven by the number of bidders until it gets to the point where only two bidders are left. Then it becomes a matter of game theory risk management. In theory, one bidder may have more information about the lot that drives his bid. The term for it is "asymmetrical information."

The better educated the bidder is about the lot drives his reason for outbidding his competitor. The adage of "knowledge is power" holds true in all auctions. The lack of knowledge (as well as a large disposable income) usually results in high bids for items that most knowledgeable collectors would consider of minor value aka buyer beware.

As for setting reserves, many states have laws that determine how the auction will be listed. One state has a law on the books from 1898 that only allows the house to bid only once on a lot with a reserve. That means that if the seller puts a high reserve on a lot, the house can only bid once on the lot. A second bid by the house, to reach the seller's reserve, would be illegal to do. If only one bidder is interested in the lot, then the sale would stall and not reach the seller's reserve.

There are many states that require the opening bid to be a certain percentage of the reserve, so a high reserve requires a higher starting bid. That would defeat the high reserve strategy that has been proposed on this thread.

In response to hiring knowledgeable curators, most auction houses actually consult with collectors knowledgeable in a particular field of collecting. Also, in the era of the internet, houses can find the values of most flown objects in past auction resources. The auction houses are doing their homework to get the best value for their consignors. Otherwise, they would not be in business too long.

While I like your theory of driving up the prices of artifacts of true exploration, it won't easily work for a couple of reasons. It is illegal to price-fix at an auction. Sotheby's and Christie's found that out in 2000 when they settled a federal lawsuit for $512M and paid as much as $15M in fines for price colluding.

The other reason is that it all depends on the bidder, his threshold of risk and his knowledge. As one space expert who set up space auctions for Christie's, Bonham's and Sotheby's once told me, "There are people out there with a lot of money and no time to study the market, so they bid high on things that they think will look nice in their offices."

posted 02-22-2022 06:13 PM            

I just want to clarify that I am not suggesting price manipulation of any sort or collusion, just inviting collectors to re-evaluate what they have and think really hard whether the auction houses are transacting in their best interest within the context of what makes historical sense in terms of value. My argument stems from the fact that I hear more and more in the collecting community grumblings about "that photo went for more than my unique flown flags" or "that bra from the space shuttle mission can't be worth more than an Apollo artifact." If enough people re-evaluate and have constructive conversations with the auction houses they might educate them even.

Ultimately the auction house acts as a 'clearing,' matching buyers and sellers and collecting a fee (like real state brokers really) and they might not have an opinion that is that sophisticated (even if they consult with sophisticated collectors like you every now and then). They are a volume business, and on average make out well regardless of the dispersion of asset prices.

I too have spoken with some of them and they are as baffled as we are on the realized prices of some items chalking it up to the inexperience of first time buyers (which opens up a whole different can of worms in terms of are they taking advantage of first time buyers on items of no or little value?).

posted 02-23-2022 08:53 PM               

I found it interesting that 20 years ago we were asking for a reduction in value of space flown or astronaut owned objects and now we are looking to increase the values. What has changed? Has the hobby moved from the collecting phase to the investing phase?

I, too, have watched large format photos with long inscriptions sell at auction for tens of thousands and it used to baffle me. I guess that those inscribed photos are enough of a rarity to people to make them more valuable than a piece of equipment flown in space.

As I indicated above, I am torn between the notion higher and lower valuations. As a buyer, I want lower values as a seller I want higher values.

As for Shannon Lucid's bra, I did bid on both of her bras and lost them both, since my thoughts on the value were less than my competitor. They were very novel items with a story. Flags are not as novel, but they are symbolic. Novelty or story leads to the next subject of "type of collector."

I have always thought of collectors as either "hardcore" or "novelty" collectors. Hardcore collectors have been in the hobby for a while and collect mostly space objects. Whereas the novelty collector collects just to acquire something that is unique enough to interest them. It is very difficult to change people's tastes.

I believe you are correct in your comments about auction houses, but to a point. You would be correct about the generalist nature of most auction houses. They have generalist experts on fine art, jewelry, rare books, etc. Now is space too small to afford the hiring of a full-time expert? Maybe not since Sotheby's is looking to hire a full-time space, science, and technology curator. RR Auction has said it is one of their highest valued sectors in their house.

Has space collecting come of age? I believe that it has for now. Still, most retail sales outlets are still catching up with this change. Which is probably why they expect the consignor to be able to fill in the blanks on any lot description. The consignor is usually in the best position to be able to write the description for their objects placed at auction. If the consignor can't, then he is no better than the auction house for lack of expertise.

As for the first-time buyer and the auction house, everyone is a first-time buyer at one point. It is up to the collector, and not the auction house, to educate himself.

I started out as a perfect example of the lack of education in a novice collector. I initially started collecting astronaut autographs and I wound up owning different Armstrong forgeries from three of the more infamous forgers.

Collecting is a learning experience that puts the onus on the collector and not the seller or auction house. One would like to think that an auction house would help with the education, but that is not their job. So, buyer beware.

posted 02-23-2022 09:34 PM               

I sold three pieces at auction in 2019 that helped me turn my hobby into a home: I was able to to put a 25% deposit down on a house that cost €200000, turning my hobby and passion into a home! I hate that I sold those items, and hope to replace them down the line but my hobby has improved the life of me, my partner and children.

I can see how prices are increasing and I often feel I got in on a downwards facing curve; but I'm unsure, prices seem to have leveled off, I can't see them getting higher but who knows!

I often kick myself thinking I should have bought or put a deposit on a flown to the moon item over the past five years, alas I was a student and trying to get things going so here I am!

Just to add: I only buy things now that stay in my collection, I on occasion will pick up something on eBay or the likes tho might upgrade down the line for something I enjoy more, but never as an investment! I'm not a fool saying my collection isn't worth something but I'd like to stress that it's for my pleasure above monetary value.

posted 03-16-2022 12:09 PM               

At open days on dig sites people are typically absolutely thrilled and completely transported when they hold a Roman coin or Iron Age piece of pottery that we've dug up. Partly this is the tangible connection with a remote unknowable past; partly it is the sense of a privileged chance to touch something from the other side of the 'glass screen'.

But monetarily? You'd be surprised how financially near valueless such things are. Go on eBay and you can find collections of worn Roman coins changing hands for under a dollar a coin everyday of the week. As for pieces of pottery - just trash.

But take that same worn Roman coin, hand it to someone in a field, and watch their eyes widen.