|
Author
|
Topic: Do autographs enhance or deface artifacts?
|
J.L
Member Posts: 674
From: Bloomington, Illinois, USA
Registered: May 2005
|
posted 09-06-2008 05:10 PM
   
I don't want to offend anyone here, and this is only my opinion of course. Am I the only one in this forum that that thinks most items other than photos and covers are better left un-signed? I see countless manuals and flight plans that I feel would have been better left in their original state as opposed to having one crew member sign. Exceptions of course are items that are flown and the signature is being used for authenticating. When I see a nice original flight plan that is 30-40 years old that has been signed by one of three crew members, it gives me the feeling that the item has been de-faced. Just my two cents, but I will take a clean copy any day. Save the signatures for photos. |
DChudwin
Member Posts: 1096
From: Lincolnshire IL USA
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 09-06-2008 05:30 PM
I have been in the same quandry. I was at the Apollo 11 launch in l969 and had original copies of the flight plan and other documents. Knowing that I could never get all three crew members to sign, the question was whether to have Buzz Aldrin sign the flight plan. I decided to go ahead. The rationale was that there are hundreds of 1969 copies of the flight plan, but only a few autographed by crew members (even if not the complete crew). Also, the autograph in some ways authenticates the flight plan as a document from that particular mission. I do think that autographs add to mission flights plans, checklists and maps-- even if they are not flown. |
nasamad
Member Posts: 2121
From: Essex, UK
Registered: Jul 2001
|
posted 09-06-2008 05:52 PM
I do think it adds to the item, providing that the signee is associated with the particular mission.I while back in an Aurora auction it seemed there were piles of items signed by Dave Scott, personally for me this spoiled them as a lot of them were for missions that Scott had not flown on. I would have preferred a separate sheet signed by him stating that they were from his personal collection rather than his signature on the front of them. I have an Apollo 15 flight plan in my collection that is already signed by Al Worden. Now it would be easy to get Dave Scott to sign it but I'd rather leave an item signed by one just member of a crew than have 2 thirds of the crew sign it and never be able to complete it! That said, there's plenty of photo's I think should be left unsigned! |
spaced out
Member Posts: 3110
From: Paris, France
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 09-07-2008 02:00 AM
I don't think it's too bad on non-unique items but definitely questionable on unique stuff.Although the idea of having an astronaut write directly on an item that it was flown on the mission gives seems logical-enough it does deface it and alter it from its original condition at the same time. I would argue that if an item can be proved to have been flown (e.g. by serial numbers etc) without the inscription it would definitely be worth avoiding. I'm particularly thinking here about space suit parts, beta cloth pockets, sunglass pouches.. that kind of thing where the original item ends up with with bright blue marker pen all over it. That makes me wince sometimes. If it were me and I wanted an item like that signed I'd consider having the signature placed discretely inside the item (e.g. under a flap) so that the original appearance is unaffected. |
Rick Mulheirn
Member Posts: 4167
From: England
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 09-07-2008 06:40 AM
quote:
Originally posted by spaced out:
If it were me and I wanted an item like that signed I'd consider having the signature placed discretely inside the item (e.g. under a flap) so that the original appearance is unaffected.
I agree with Chris on this one. If the signature endorses the flown status of an item such as a flag I am for it. Something more substantial with good provenance then keep it discreet and tucked away. Otherwise I would not bother. |
dfox
Member Posts: 208
From: Scarsdale, NY, United States
Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 06-05-2010 12:23 PM
Any opinions on obtaining signatures on contractor models. Does it enhance or detract? I asked the organizer of the Bonham's auction this question. I was very surprised to be told that he felt that it detracts from the value of the model! |
J.L
Member Posts: 674
From: Bloomington, Illinois, USA
Registered: May 2005
|
posted 06-05-2010 12:45 PM
quote:
Originally posted by dfox:
I asked the organizer of the Bonham's auction this question. I was very surprised to be told that he felt that it detracts from the value of the model!
I would agree with Bonham's on this one. |
Spacefest
Member Posts: 1168
From: Tucson, AZ
Registered: Jan 2009
|
posted 06-05-2010 02:23 PM
I tend to agree, but my customers do not. On McDivitt flown items, for example, they require very specific wording in green ink, endorsing the item in plain sight (if I don't already have it.) I think the part and serial #s tell the story.You purists should put your money where your opinions are. I have to do what the customer wants. |
dfox
Member Posts: 208
From: Scarsdale, NY, United States
Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 06-05-2010 03:27 PM
Interesting. |
kosmo
Member Posts: 388
From:
Registered: Sep 2001
|
posted 06-05-2010 07:54 PM
I have brought this up before with regards to “red numbered” news media photos. Most, if not all the astronauts autographs have changed over time, so having an astronaut sign something “today” is putting a contemporary signature on something vintage. I feel one would be better keeping the vintage news media photo as is and having a modern one signed. I feel the same about other vintage material as well, unless it was signed at the time of its release, leave it unsigned! Just my two cents.Also, I find it interesting that collectors want McDivitt to sign in green ink because his early signatures were signed in green ink (even though he doesn't include his middle initial anymore), but didn't Al Worden sign in brown ink, and how often do you see collectors requesting him to sign in brown ink? |
GACspaceguy
Member Posts: 2474
From: Guyton, GA
Registered: Jan 2006
|
posted 06-06-2010 06:12 AM
For what it is worth, I feel that a signature of the person who flew the mission/vehicle gives the item the human connection. To me it adds to the item, I am not saying it increases the value only that it adds character and to me, more appeal. |
dfox
Member Posts: 208
From: Scarsdale, NY, United States
Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 06-06-2010 03:48 PM
quote:
Originally posted by GACspaceguy:
For what it is worth, I feel that a signature of the person who flew the mission/vehicle gives the item the human connection.
I share that sentiment as well. At the end of the day they are "just" objects. The human connection gives it a more personal meaning. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 06-06-2010 07:18 PM
quote:
Originally posted by dfox:
At the end of the day they are "just" objects.
I think it's important to distinguish artifacts from other "objects."Collectors can do whatever with their collectibles and mementos to their hearts' content, but for those who have taken on the responsibility of caring for artifacts -- and it is a responsibility -- they are temporary custodians. It is our responsibility to do as we can to preserve their original state for future generations. |
dfox
Member Posts: 208
From: Scarsdale, NY, United States
Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 06-06-2010 09:08 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
I think it's important to distinguish artifacts from other "objects."
I guess this begs the definition of what is an artifact (to be preserved/conserved) versus an object (presumably an item of a more trivial nature) that could be signed. The distinction may be clear and obvious for some items (a capsule) it may be less apparent for something else, for argument sake let's say a piece of heatshield or a cue card. Thoughts? |
Rob Sumowski
Member Posts: 466
From: Macon, Georgia
Registered: Feb 2000
|
posted 06-19-2010 08:38 AM
Food for thought:For the sake of conversation, let's use a couple of astronauts who are no longer among us... Pick a Mercury item such as a piece of parchute or another artifact from Freedom 7. Would you rather have it signed by Alan Shepard or not signed? Or a sheet from an Apollo 15 flight plan? Would it be more special or unique if signed by Jim Irwin or not? One might also apply to other historic figures...how about an invitation to Kennedy's inauguration or a pack of playing cards from Air Force One during Reagan's administration? Or a program from a speech given by Wilbur Wright? Would you rather have them signed or not? It is everybody's individual preference, of course, but once one throws in the notion of mortality the answer becomes more clear for me. For what it's worth... |
Machodoc
Member Posts: 207
From: DE
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 07-03-2010 05:57 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Rob Sumowski:
..how about an invitation to Kennedy's inauguration
I actually have one of those, and signed (I also collect political stuff). I have some of my Nick Proach models signed, but those were off the shelf copies. I have the large 1/48 scale Saturns 1B and V, but since those were custom made, I would not want them autographed. I have three pressure helmets, two Soviet and one US that are multi signed, but the helmets themselves are commonly available. The only significant autographed artifact I have is an Apollo lithium hydroxide canister that has several Apollo signatures, but it is not a flown item. When having my models signed, I wanted only those astronauts who flew the spacecraft in question signing it. Therefore, the only signatures I have on my Mercury/Atlas model for instance are Cooper, Carpenter, and Schirra, and I use the same approach for the others. I think having an autograph on something humanizes the object, but I would not want an autograph on a mission specific item from an astronaut who did not fly that actual mission. Having said that, there are some things I can see the logic in not having them signed. In a different hobby, I have a 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle card, which if The Mick still happened to be alive today, I most definitely would NOT want signed given the value and significance of the card. |
advertisement