|
Author
|
Topic: NASA lithographs vs. quality photographs
|
Michael
Member Posts: 309
From: Brooklyn New York
Registered: Jun 2002
|
posted 02-05-2006 09:25 AM
   
I am having a hard time deciding which is more in demand... a NASA lithograph or high quality photo. They both seem to get the about the same price. Am I correct on saying this? |
eurospace
Member Posts: 2610
From: Brussels, Belgium
Registered: Dec 2000
|
posted 02-05-2006 11:40 AM
That depends. Real vintage photo glossies from the period they were made are definitely more expensive than lithos. Vintage lithos are also more expensive than contemporary lithos. Glossies made by NASA are also more expensive than glossies printed by John Doe at the local Walmart. |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 02-05-2006 10:32 PM
I think it also depends on the type of collector. Some people who want to prominently display their photos to others might actually prefer modern re-prints for the sharpest and most vivid colors. Some of the original NASA glossies can be a little faded if they haven't been properly stored.For many serious collectors, however, having the autographs on original (and vintage) NASA-made materials is the most preferred option...so that typically affects price. |
Rick Mulheirn
Member Posts: 4167
From: England
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 02-06-2006 10:14 AM
Lithos and modern quality prints both have their merits. With that in mind prefer to have an astronaut sign one of each (WSS litho and inflight glossy); very straight forward at signing events etc.Much has been said about the archival qualities on lithos, vintage glossies and modern prints. I have all three media in my collection and would suggest vintage glossies offer the poorest prospects for longevity. |
Paul23
Member Posts: 836
From: South East, UK
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 08-14-2009 08:35 AM
Although I've been to a few Autographicas now and met some great astronauts there, I'm still relatively new to the hobby. One thing I am noticing a lot more from reading the threads on here though is that a lot of people choose to have vintage lithos signed over standard photographs. Is there a particular reason for this, i.e. is it the age of the litho that makes the item more appealing or is it more that they hold signatures better? I feel a bit silly asking this now but it would be useful to know before the show. Editor's note: Threads merged. |
Rick Mulheirn
Member Posts: 4167
From: England
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 08-14-2009 08:37 AM
The consesus would suggest each have their advantages and disadvantages.Personally lithos bring back nostalgic memories of mustard coloured NASA envelopes dropping through my door in the 70s and provide iconic and contemporary images of astronauts at the height of the program. If I do end up having a portrait signed at Autographica by Tom Stafford, given the choice of a litho or a glossy, the litho for me wins hands down. |
lm5eagle
Member Posts: 429
From:
Registered: Jul 2007
|
posted 08-14-2009 08:40 AM
I notice that one seller is advertising a Stafford Apollo X litho at $29 and a Dave Scott Apollo XV at $24. Are these the kind of standard prices you would pay for mint condition vintage lithos, or have the prices been inflated in the light of impending autograph shows? |
Rick Mulheirn
Member Posts: 4167
From: England
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 08-14-2009 08:53 AM
Andy, I would suggest the prices you quoted for Scott and Stafford lithos are perhaps slighly higher than "the norm"... but not by much. WSS lithos for Paul Weitz and John Young to name but two typically fetch in excess of $100 on popular auction sites while others as little as $5 to $10 a pop.I have often wondered (yes, I know it is sad...) just how many lithos have been produced by NASA for each astronaut over the years. I base my opinion on no statistics or facts but some astronaut WSS lithos are surely more prevalent than others and this is reflected in the current market values. |
Spacefest
Member Posts: 1168
From: Tucson, AZ
Registered: Jan 2009
|
posted 08-14-2009 12:49 PM
NASA glossies are on rather crappy Kodak paper, and will crack, fade, yellow and curl even if stored in the dark.Lithos have a limited selection. |
marc515
Member Posts: 136
From: Brick, NJ, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 11-06-2009 06:09 PM
The older style NASA lithos appear to be of good quality. The newer style glossy photos used at the astronaut signings also look really sharp.The older lithos don't usually fade or discolor. How do the newer glossy photos hold up? Is the paper and ink of sufficient quality that they will hold up over the years without discoloring? Editor's note: Threads merged. |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 11-06-2009 07:01 PM
quote:
Originally posted by marc515:
The older lithos don't usually fade or discolor. How do the newer glossy photos hold up? Is the paper and ink of sufficient quality that they will hold up over the years without discoloring?
It has been claimed that modern Fuji Crystal Archive photo paper can last 100+ years without significantly fading...though that doesn't guarantee that any inks autographed onto the photo will last nearly as long. As with any autographed photo, where and how you display it (or store it) will greatly affect it's longevity. |
advertisement