posted 12-05-2010 12:12 PM               

If these covers gain the notoriety of the 'Sieger' covers then I'm glad I will have one (because those covers have become very desirable).

posted 12-05-2010 12:33 PM               

Also, just on the caveat emptor part -- photos as provenance proof are "nice to haves" but not iron clad. Photos can be photoshopped. The stack of covers in front of Gene, I am sure, was done, and is as it was -- but, it is then photoshopped against a backdrop of a period photo....which raises photo shop questions. (Such as if that backdrop was photoshopped in, what else might have been? (Not saying that anything hinky was done in this case, but it is not much of a value adder these days. That's all I'm saying.).

Also, the COA is worth just that: not much. It is, after all, just a copy of a COA. Not sure how a notary can notarize a copy of a signature as authentic unless they were at the signing of the original document, but understand that the intent is that the notary notarized these as copies. So, from a pure provenance perspective what does the collector get? A photo shopped photo and a copy of a COA as well as a copy of a ceremonial receipt.

Again, not to take away anything from anyone, and said with all due respect -- but you have to clear the smoke and mirrors and look at the object for what it is.

These are the same Cernan crew signed covers, as type and in intent, as are available elsewhere, and for some time. Period. If the extra adornment and relatively meaningless spin and copies and stampings are worth the other stuff to you, fine. I just don't see it adding much, just labeling them as Frohman/Ball types of these particular crew signed covers.

posted 12-05-2010 12:39 PM               

I also have issue with claiming this is a "new discovery" and that the "insurance covers" were ones that were a "held back" lot of covers not distributed to collectors prior, when fact shows that they had been distributed to collectors, via Novaspace. It is the parsing of fact and language that is inviting this additional scrutiny.

Again, I say this with all due respect and civility, hoping you see my side as a collector who values space artifacts and memorabilia as much as you or any other person does.

posted 12-05-2010 12:56 PM               

Putting these covers in a row with Sieger covers, Riser covers and (not spoken out) Armstrong Peachstate fakes is totally off.

In defense of Sieger I must say I'm not aware of any suspicious or faked item he has sold in decades. This guy even had gold stamps examined chemically to know for sure they are gold stamps. Sieger is most likely one of the most honest and fair dealers you can deal with. Nobody else offered so much research and background info on the stuff he sold than him.

Riser has sold fakes, that's it.

Peachstate has sold fake Armstrongs but also tons of good stuff nobody will ever question.

posted 12-05-2010 01:02 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by NAAmodel#240:
I will take you off my list and beg your pardon.

---

posted 12-05-2010 01:06 PM               

You, as a dealer, don't mind that the COA and the altering of the cover might be misleading to a less knowledgeable collector, and that a noted authority in astrophilately doesn't apparently have a problem with it either?

I have no problem with a person making a buck. None-what-so-ever. However, when an item becomes misleading, that's where I have a problem -- and simply posit the question. People can buy what they want.

I honestly believe this offering does those of us who have the other non-marked up versions of this cover a favor, by creating a pristine pool, separate from the Frohman/Ball types. That's all.

posted 12-05-2010 01:07 PM               

And using a 'broad brush' to suggest that collectors should avoid everything associated with Peachstate is just unjustified. Sure there was an issue with the Armstong WSS lithos. Maybe David was fooled himself, maybe not. But look at the other items that he's sold over the years, many of which were bought by highly respected members of collectSPACE. There are some outstanding items with undeniable provenance.

Once again I never bought anything from Peachstate until yesterday, and have nothing to gain personally from defending these covers. All I'm trying to do is to give the collecting community ideas to think about.

Keep in mind that if this is a scam then Captain Cernan has the ability to speak out and put a stop to it. And, as I've mentioned before, regardless of how they are labeled they are still authentic Apollo 17 crew-signed covers at a reasonable price. Personally I would be more concerned if I was paying a lot more for them specially because they are labeled 'Insurance' covers. But at $495 I'm willing to 'roll the dice'.

posted 12-05-2010 01:21 PM               

You logic is wrong, I fear, on these being special because one knows that THESE covers come from Cernan. The other covers are directly tied to Cernan (via Novaspace), or tied to Evans (via his family).

The issue here PURELY is the identification of this subset of covers as 100% insurance covers over the others, and the way in which it is implied. Period. Like you, just asking for people to think. And if one thinks, then this sub-set of these cover types raise questions that so far have not been answered...at least, in my opinion.

And I assert - my opinion means very little. I'm just one person. Not a noted author or dealer. Just a collector. So, I leave my thoughts to this thread, and like you, suggest that the market should simply settle this.

posted 12-05-2010 01:34 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by randyc:
By the way, I don't agree with the conclusion that the covers without the additional markings are 'more desirable'. As I mentioned these are directly associated with Captain Cernan via the photos and CoA from Cernan to Peachstate.

---

Note that the Novaspace covers also come with a COA stating that they originate from Cernan's collection. To me, that's as much direct association as what is provided by Peachstate. (The only thing missing is a photoshopped photo of Cernan sitting behind a stack of covers.)

Also, keep in the mind Peachstate's ill-advised altering of this Apollo 1 photo. Yes, they added direct proof to the photo that it came directly from Cernan's collection. But I also believe they severely damaged the market value of the photo in the process.

posted 12-05-2010 01:35 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by rjurek349:
Randy, you and I are probably going to have to agree to disagree. I'm not sure you are reading my postings right.

---

As far as all of these covers originating from Gene Cernan, whether marked or not - I agree that some have a Novaspace CoA and some have a Peachstate CoA. But many insurance covers have no CoA, like my Apollo 11 covers. Sure, we all know that they came from one of the astronauts, but I don't have a direct link. And the market has shown that covers with a direct chain of ownership, like the insurance covers that have been annotated by the astronaut that they are from his personal collection, sell for more than the exact same cover without the inscription. Right or wrong that's the way it is. So you can either buy them from Novaspace, or buy them from Peachstate. The Peachstate covers are more, so it's up to the collector to decide which one they prefer.

posted 12-05-2010 03:41 PM               

So perhaps this is Cernan's first release of the anniversary cancels with the December 7th date on them. (Has anyone seen the December 7th anniversary cancels before now?) Additionally, I wonder if other cancels exist...such as December 11 (lunar landing) and December 19 (splashdown)...and whether those cancels are in circulation or whether they are still being retained by Cernan. Indeed, I also wonder if all of the Peachstate covers are all December 7 cancels or not.

posted 12-05-2010 04:23 PM               

I would like to dispel the notion that I am an “expert”. When I wrote my book I called on the real experts in the field of Astrophilately. That’s why it is also written by Ben Ramkissoon, Beatrice Bachmann, Ross Smith, Owen Murray, Steve Durst, Ray Cartier and a half dozen others. I do love the hobby, have been a member of Space Unit for 25 years, and have an opinion on this subject.

posted 12-05-2010 04:24 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mjanovec:
In all fairness, I should point out that (on further review) I noticed the anniversary cancels on the Novaspace sold covers differ from the cancels on the Peachstate sold covers.

---

Since the discussion is on if these covers should be considered "insurance covers" maybe we should agree on the exact definition of an insurance cover. Then see if these covers meet or don't meet that definition.

posted 12-05-2010 05:01 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by yeknom-ecaps:
Since the discussion is on if these covers should be considered "insurance covers" maybe we should agree on the exact definition of an insurance cover. Then see if these covers meet or don't meet that definition.

---

It seems to me that, up until now, the definition of what constitutes an Apollo Insurance cover was well established.

It does seem curious to me that the commemorative envelopes from Cernan's collection previously sold by Novaspace were never considered to be insurance covers (rightly so). Now suddenly these covers become insurance covers based upon new information released in 2009. Makes my brain hurt, so I think I'll stop thinking about it...

posted 12-05-2010 05:38 PM               

I'm sure Frohman went through his inventory, photograph, receipt ritual with the Peachstate Armstrongs, also. Then he publishes an "Armstrong signature study" with a fake Armstrong, with a "To Dave" inscription, attempting to authenticate the hoard. He then convinced the Manuscript Society to write an endorsement of the bogus study. Sound familiar, Mr. Ball?
Gene wouldn't sign ANY covers until we came to the Burbank show in 2004. He was vaguely afraid of another Apollo 15 scandal. We convinced him it was OK, though he insisted on $275/cover.

I have a box full of Cernan's cover collection, largely foreign. Not worth much, if anything. Also a book on stamp valuations, indicative of someone who is attempting knowledge of something complex and obtuse, like me trying to pick stocks.

Frohman convinced Gene he is THE expert, (with a flowery signature and a coat-of-arms!) and these looked like the long-rumored insurance covers. He then made Gene a cash offer.

posted 12-05-2010 06:07 PM               

I would and have no problem with accepting Cernan's word that he intended these envelopes to be insurance covers. In fact, if I were to advise him of anything, it would be to emphasize that these were insurance covers in the making.

Clearly it was not ideal for these covers to be missing Schmitt's autograph prior to the mission launching. Further, one can imagine had Schmitt signed prior to the flight, then the next desire would have been to have them canceled for the launch date.

For whatever reasons, that didn't happen.

Returning from the Moon safe and sound, Cernan -- or more aptly, his family -- no longer needed the covers as insurance and so he took it upon himself to do what was natural -- complete the crew's signatures by adding Schmitt's autograph.

In the years that followed, Cernan decided to have the covers postmarked for anniversaries. Again, perfectly reasonable as these were not complete covers (insurance or otherwise) without some type of cancellation.

Ultimately, we reach modern day and Cernan decides to sell these anniversary-canceled, crew-signed covers that were once almost insurance covers.

Presented in that light -- without the overt attempt to convince buyers that these are full-fledged insurance covers but rather an aborted attempt at such, which was then best completed by Cernan as he personally thought fit -- I think you would have absolutely no trouble selling out the lot at the price being asked.

Instead, what this marketing effort has created is an artificial separation between a set of covers that does not serve the collector community, Cernan or the dealer well. It is a missed opportunity to engage an interesting "what-could-have-been" chapter of astrophilatelic history in favor of a hard-sale approach that is not fitting the item or the community involved.

posted 12-05-2010 06:10 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by poofacio:
I have/had one of each, cancelled on the 7th, the 10th and the 17th December, they all came from Novaspace. They are all numbered (written on the back or the front). I recently sold the one cancelled on the 10th.

---

posted 12-05-2010 06:46 PM               

I say that because for the Cernan and Evans families, if they were indeed signed before the launch they WERE insurance covers. Regardless of whether they were signed by Dr. Schmitt and cancelled during the mission, had the Apollo 17 astronauts not returned the Cernan and Evans families (and perhaps even the Schmitt family) could have (and probably would have) sold them to raise money to support Cernan and Evans wife and children. And regardless of the missing Schmitt signature and the lack of a cancellation, you know collectors would have bought them. Thus they would have achieved their intended purpose.

We also don't know why Dr. Schmitt didn't sign them and why they weren't cancelled. Could it be that after Cernan and Evans signed them they gave the covers to Dr. Schmitt to sign and he either forgot, was too busy or, since he was a bachelor, didn't feel the need to sign them because he didn't have any dependents (wife and/or children)? Remember, insurance covers weren't always signed by the crew at the same time (i.e. while they were together). So it's possible that they were sitting in Dr. Schmitt's room at the Crew Quarters at KSC when the mission was launched. Or maybe someone forgot to give the covers to Dr. Schmitt after Cernan and Evans signed them? Or maybe someone forgot to get them cancelled? Who knows?

I believe that most collectors identify insurance covers as being signed by the entire crew and being cancelled on a day during the mission. While those may be the most desirable form of an insurance cover, my definition is that the cover be signed before launch and available to the family or families to do as they saw fit should the crew not return. Getting the entire crew to sign the cover and cancelled is a bonus. But even if only one astronaut signed the cover before launch for his family it's still an 'insurance' cover.

posted 12-05-2010 07:29 PM               

I think we also can agree that these can be called "annniversary covers" since they are postmarked on anniversary dates and not during the Apollo 17 mission itself.

What we disagree about is whether they are "insurance covers." This depends on one's definition of that term. They do not fit my definition, but that is my personal opinion.

posted 12-05-2010 08:19 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by randyc:
...had the Apollo 17 astronauts not returned the Cernan and Evans families (and perhaps even the Schmitt family) could have (and probably would have) sold them to raise money to support Cernan and Evans wife and children.

---

If on the other hand "insurance covers" are called such because there was a clear intent by the astronauts in creating them that they serve as a source of financial support for the fallen crew's families, then these Apollo 17 covers are at best insurance covers in the making because the lack of Schmitt's autograph and the launch date cancellation demonstrate a lack of intent, or at the very least a failure of completion.

quote:

---

...would it have been better if Cernan didn't cancel them at all when they failed to get cancelled on a date during the mission?

---

posted 12-05-2010 08:28 PM               

And regarding adding Schmitt's signature - the addition of Swigert's signature AFTER the Apollo 13 crew returned increased the value of those insurance covers SIGNIFICANTLY.

posted 12-05-2010 08:40 PM               

Frankly it baffles me that collectors feel that if the cover isn't signed by the entire crew it can't be considered an insurance cover. Regardless of what other crews did before their mission, just because it wasn't signed by everyone doesn't mean it wasn't an insurance cover for the astronauts who signed it. Sure, had this crew, or any other crew not returned ANYTHING signed by them could be sold by the families. That can be said for any manned mission; Mercury, Gemini, Apollo etc.

I think collectors are getting too hung up by the number of signatures and not the intent. There were covers taken to the surface of the Moon by Dave Scott and Jim Irwin that are signed by the entire crew. But on Apollo 16 Charlie Duke brought covers to the lunar surface and only his signature is on them. Does that make Duke's covers any less desirable? Or any less authentic. Once again it's the intent, and based on a letter signed by Cernan that was the intent. The fact that it may disagree with what he told Kim years earlier is interesting, but perhaps the way it was described to him at that time was misinterpreted. Maybe, maybe not.

posted 12-05-2010 08:54 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by randyc:
How do you know there wasn't a 'clear intent' by the astronauts to use these as insurance in case they didn't return?

---

Could Cernan's and Evans' (if not also Schmitt's) families sold the incomplete covers in the wake of a tragedy? Yes, of course. But was it Cernan's intent to leave them in the condition they were to be considered complete insurance covers? Cernan's own post-flight actions with these covers suggest the answer is "no."

quote:

---

...the addition of Swigert's signature AFTER the Apollo 13 crew returned increased the value of those insurance covers SIGNIFICANTLY.

---

posted 12-05-2010 09:59 PM               

"But was it Cernan's intent to leave them in the condition they were to be considered complete insurance covers? Cernan's own post-flight actions with these covers suggest the answer is "no."

I don't believe that because he ended up having the covers cancelled on anniversary dates it implies that his intention wasn't to use these as 'insurance' covers. He probably thought, or was told, that collectors prefer covers that are cancelled on mission dates, but since that didn't happen the next best thing to do was to have them cancelled on anniversary dates.

posted 12-05-2010 10:48 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by yeknom-ecaps:
David - since you worked with Peachstate on this can you provide any background on the details of the "new discovery" beyond the wording provided in the presentation?

---

I had the opportunity to examine the envelopes and the material signed by Captain Cernan that verified his intent to have the covers sold if he did not return. Peachstate has handled other Cernan material (maps, checklists, etc.) for some time. He has also worked with Aldrin, Conrad, Mitchell, and Duke.

The "discovery," as I mentioned before was Gene Cernan's statement that they were Insurance covers. I had read the cS threads speculating about whether Insurance covers existed including a prominent cSer who claims he was told (by Captain Cernan) that ones might see the light of day in the future.

I also saw the picture of Gene Cernan sitting at a table with the envelopes he sold to Peachstate. The background is a Photoshop mural of a younger Gene and crew just before their flight. Since the 250 covers are identical (except for a number) and in stacks of 50 on the table I doubt there was any attempt to suggest that the photo was a CoA.

posted 12-06-2010 07:52 AM               

In looking at the history of the Apollo 17 covers in question, one must consider that Apollo 17 flew just a year and a half after Apollo 15. The astronauts were under a microscope at that time. To me, this seems the best explanation why these covers were not completed as insurance covers-- because NASA had, in effect, forbidden them.

For those who do not know about the Apollo 15 incident, here is a brief summary from Wikipedia:

The crew of Apollo 15 took 398 commemorative postage stamp covers with them on their trip to the Moon (400 were printed, but two were damaged and destroyed prior to being packaged), with the understanding that, when they returned, 100 of the covers were to be sold to the German stamp dealer who provided them. Those 100 covers are known today by philatelists as the "Sieger covers," named such after the dealer, Hermann Sieger. The remaining 298 covers were to be kept by the crew members as souvenirs but were later confiscated by NASA when the public sale of Sieger's covers was discovered soon after the mission. The crew's 298 covers were not returned until 1983, after the astronauts filed suit against the government for their return, citing NASA's partnership with the U.S. Postal Service to sell covers flown on the space shuttle.

Although taking souvenirs into space was not illegal nor prohibited by NASA at the time (in fact, the Apollo 15 crew had 243 authorized covers on-board in addition to the 398 unauthorized covers), the discovery of the Sieger covers' sale caused Congress to take notice and led to NASA taking disciplinary action against several Apollo astronauts..."

posted 12-06-2010 08:58 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by DChudwin:
Those who were not around during the Apollo 15 cover controversy do not understand the seriousness of the situation at the time... In looking at the history of the Apollo 17 covers in question, one must consider that Apollo 17 flew just a year and a half after Apollo 15... To me, this seems the best explanation why these covers were not completed as insurance covers -- because NASA had, in effect, forbidden them.

---

Apollo 16 flew 9 months after Apollo 15, so one would think that they were as well aware of the Sieger-covers controversy as the Apollo 17 crew would have been. Or was there a timing issue with how long it took for the Apollo 15 repercussions to occur? Could it be that the full weight of the repercussions occurred after Apollo 16 but before 17 (which launched 8 months after 16)?

Still, regardless of the circumstances that led to the Apollo 17 insurance covers not being completed at the time, it seems that recent events have been an effort to "manufacture" the appearance of insurance covers meeting the established insurance covers standard. These Apollo 17 covers were apparently used as insurance, as Cernan has stated, but that does not make them "insurance covers" ...in my opinion.

posted 12-06-2010 10:45 AM               

NASA issued a release on September 15, 1972 from Administrator James Fletcher, which reads in part:

On Sept. 2, 1971, Scott mailed the 100 specially certified covers to Eiermann, who at that time was in Stuttgart, Germany. Eiermann delivered these covers to Sieger. Sieger paid Eiermann an unspecified sum for the covers and then advertised them for sale. By November 1971, 99 had been sold at an average price of $1,500 each. When the public sale in Germany came to the attention of the astronauts, Scott telephoned Eiermann to request that sales be stopped and the covers returned.

In the meantime, Eiermann opened a $7,000 savings account in a German bank for each of the astronauts with their consent. In February 1972, the astronauts decided not to accept these monies and Scott took steps to assure that the funds were returned to Eiermann. Eiermann suggested, as an alternative to the savings accounts, that each astronaut receive a commemorative stamp album for their families. This suggestion, initially accepted by the astronauts, was rejected in April 1972 after further consideration.

In recognition of the apparent intent of the Apollo 15 crew to gain personally from the exercise of their astronaut privileges in the matter of the unauthorized postal covers, but considering as well their ultimate rejection of such personal gain, Scott, Worden, and Irwin have been formally reprimanded. Their official Efficiency Reports as military officers reflect a formal finding of lack of judgment. These two actions result in severe career penalties, whether the astronauts remain in Federal service or not.

Thus, it appears that the Apollo 15 controversy did not become public until after Apollo 16, but before Apollo 17. There would have been no reason for the Apollo 16 crew not to prepare insurance covers, as had been done by the Apollo 11-15 crew members.

posted 12-06-2010 02:01 PM               

As Dave Chudwin pointed out, along with an earlier post of mine on this topic, the lunar cover episode made an enormous impact that resulting in several changes regarding NASA astronauts and their conduct in such areas.

Not only concerning space covers, but the signing of them, also, in addition to revised strict autograph policies of our nation's space fliers.

With so much being said about the Cernan covers, just maybe, Schmitt and Evans never felt comfortable in signing them in 1972 before their epic voyage--not even for their mission commander.

But, here again, are they insurance covers of anysort? Perhaps the question could best be answered in a variety of ways;

1) If Cernan did actually "intend" for them to be original insurance covers left behind by their families, but were never processed as such, why not advertise them as, "Intended Apollo 17 insurance covers from the personal collection of Cernan..." I would think that the majority of avid space cover collectors, like myself, would not have a problem with such wording.

2) Another suggestion could read, "Intended for use as an Apollo 17 crew-signed insurance cover, however, one or two of the crewmembers did not sign them in advance (before flight) and were not postmarked during the mission."

3) Perhaps another phrase could simply say, "Intended anniversary crew-signed insurance covers from the personal collection of Apollo 17 spacecraft commander Gene Cernan ..."

BUT WAIT; A NEWS FLASH (unless I am mistaken)...

I just came across one of the Cernan (or crew) referred-to covers that does indeed have a launch cancel from KSC signed by all crewmembers! Were any of these yet reported on this thread? Did I miss an earlier posting here?

There is also another one, similar in every way, that came from the brother of Ron Evans. Also cancelled for launch at Kennedy that was auctioned off in a Heritage Oct. 2009 space auction.

posted 12-06-2010 02:14 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mjanovec:
Also, I recall hearing that the Apollo 17 crew was able to obtain life insurance policies that covered their flight to the moon, further lessening the need for insurance covers.

---

posted 12-06-2010 02:31 PM               

Wonderful pieces, and Randy to meet your goal of having (at least) one from each mission, this would be essential and I'd do the same thing.

This has everything to do with some guy who claims to be Cernan's archivist as part of his marketing ploy.

He furthers the "marekting" ploy by calling them Insurance Covers.

Remember, one mans "marketing" is another mans scam.

Peachstate was fortunate to have gotten in on these from Cernan but that certainly does not make him his archivist.

posted 12-06-2010 05:12 PM               

However, my personal opinion and vote is that the beauty of the Insurance Covers is there simplicity. They are straight forward, uncomplicated and few.

This new promotion only dilutes there desirability. Yes, there are specialists who love looking for every variation and that's fine. However, the introduction of every possible variation could potentially lead to 50 or more variations and it just gets sloppy.

There are single signed and non complete covers that were left them behind for their families but they met the very simple and straight forward criteria for an insurance cover, they were canceled on launch day or during the mission. There are even unsigned insurance covers that met the intent but again, they were canceled launch day or during the mission.

We can create some type of heirarchy of desirability -

1. crew signed launch day cancellation
   
2. single or non complete signed but launch day cancellation.
   
3. etc, etc.