posted 07-03-2007 02:54 AM               

More importantly, should I have it signed at all?

Are the rare artifacts that we collect more valuable "undisturbed" or do they gain value and authenticity by having an Astronaut/Cosmonaut sign them?

I have seen so many rare pieces signed and sometimes I think that we are destroying their uniqueness by changing what they were.

Perhaps I am way out there but I would appreciate all opinions.

posted 07-03-2007 06:24 AM            

Of course, I'm not too keen on three-dimensional items for signing... I stick to photographs.

Others may differ.

posted 07-03-2007 07:27 AM               

------------------
Scott Schneeweis

posted 07-03-2007 08:28 AM               

I had planned to bring an LM cue card to Phoenix for Duke to sign. To be honest, my heart said not to do it (the item already has illustrated documentation from Duke and I hesitated to alter it from its original, flight-used appearance), but a couple of sincere people argued that it would be a very good idea to get the actual card signed. They convinced me by pointing out that Duke would not be available to sign it forever and that some day I might regret not doing it.

posted 07-03-2007 09:30 AM               

I had a package of bread cubes signed by Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins as all evidence (that exists) points to it having flown on Apollo 11 but as it wasn't obtained from either astronauts' collection and as NASA records no longer exist to track individual food packages, I felt their signatures at least helped visually associate the cubes with the mission.

On the contrary, I have documentation for the flown Apollo 13 meal I own and as such have decided not to have Lovell or Haise sign, favoring as others have replied, to leave the artifact in the condition in which it flew.

I also believe it depends on the type of item. Having an astronaut sign and inscribe as flown a U.S. flag (for example) that was carried on his/her mission greatly adds to the provenance as it could always become separated from its presentation certificate.

On the other hand, though it came from his collection and I purchased it after it had been signed, I would have rather had it if Michael Collins did not sign the back of an acrylic display that encased a flown piece of RCC panel used on STS-1 through STS-3. As acrylic is clear, the signature (in reverse) shows through when on display.

I had a beta cloth accessories bag signed and inscribed as flown by the entire Skylab 3 crew, and while I debated it at the time, I believe by having done so, it not only enhanced the bag's provenance (it has its NASA and contractor tags attached documenting its flight use) but also greatly added to its appearance when displayed.

I most recently had Jeff Hoffman sign the outer bag that holds his valsalva device that he used on his first spacewalk. As the signature is separate from the artifact, it is both preserved as flown while enhanced by the signature.

I likewise had Bob Crippen and Bo Bobko (and hopefully someday Bill Thornton) sign the back of the cleaned for service pouch for a trash bag used inside SMEAT.

Paul, depending on how you plan to exhibit the Gemini food in your own home, you might be able to have the astronauts sign a related photo which you can then frame with the food or sign the base of a display on which you will place it, therefore enjoying the best of both worlds.

posted 07-03-2007 09:48 AM               

If the piece is signed in an unobtrusive place on the artifact, then I feel it will benefit the piece. The comment about inks damaging the piece over time have yet to be proven. Most times the ink will immediately damage the piece by bleeding through the artifact or feathering out from the original signature, so care must be taken from the outset.

I have several pieces that were signed over 30 years ago in two different inks, marker (Flair, Pentel or Sharpie type ink)ink and ballpoint ink and I have seen no damage to any of those pieces. Frankly, the Sun and open air cause more damage to artifacts. Using food as an example, displaying food in a framed shadowbox or display case can actually cook the food if allowed to even be near sunlight. I have seen that done in one museum display and that was too bad.

I have signed food and unsigned food. I have signed cue cards and unsigned cue cards. The signed ones offer more to the viewer.

Again, this is my opinion. I used to wonder about how a curator of a museum would think, but many of the pieces I purchased from Gene Cernan were inscribed and signed by him at the request of the curators at the Kansas Cosmosphere. Max Ary being one of them at the time. Max's reason as he explained to me was to insure that the pieces were certified as flown in space (or to the Moon)in the event that Gene was no longer around to confirm the artifact's flown status.

Cernan's artifacts (then on loan to the KC) were signed in the 1980's and 1990's at Max's request. When Gene saw one of the pieces that I had purchased, he commented that he signed the piece long ago, since he had signed Eugene A. Cernan on the artifact. For several years now, he has signed Gene Cernan only.

The reason I have had any new artifacts signed is that the COA's can become separated from the artifact over time. If the COA becomes lost over time, then the artifact can stand alone in the future.

Personally, I am not happy with the separation or cutting up of artifacts either. That really destroys an historic artifact, but it is done all the time and to the benefit of many collectors. You can't stop it, so you roll with the punches and do what you feels is right for you.

posted 07-03-2007 10:07 AM               

For example, let's take the Lunar Surface flown Apollo 11 checklist that sold for $26,000 this past March at Swann's. If my memory serves me, the checklist was signed/certified by Aldrin. Do you think the item sold for more because Aldrin signed it? Do you think the value decreased because he signed it? I'm leaning towards the value having increased.

posted 07-03-2007 10:36 AM               

As I said in my original reply the signature of a Gemini astronaut on the piece might be taken as implying that it actually did fly. For that reason alone I think most would hesitate or refuse to sign it.

posted 07-03-2007 11:11 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Larry McGlynn:
The comment about inks damaging the piece over time have yet to be proven. Most times the ink will immediately damage the piece by bleeding through the artifact or feathering out from the original signature, so care must be taken from the outset.

I have several pieces that were signed over 30 years ago in two different inks, marker (Flair, Pentel or Sharpie type ink)ink and ballpoint ink and I have seen no damage to any of those pieces. Frankly, the Sun and open air cause more damage to artifacts.

---

There are a variety of chemicals used in modern inks and the truth is without extensive testing to determine they are inert when applied on a given surface, damage may not be ascertainable for many years. The determinental effects of iron gall ink were not expressed in many cases until hundreds of years and now historians/conservators are having to execute damage control to restore pieces. There may be other environmental risks to an artifact that can inflict greater damage but why unnessasarily expose a piece to any degree of damage at all when it can be avoided? As I have stated in previous threads - decisions we make today regarding preservation are germane not only to us but also future generations who deserve the same benefits we currently enjoy when we examine pristine artifacts.

Scott

------------------
Scott Schneeweis

URL http://www.SPACEAHOLIC.com/

posted 07-03-2007 11:21 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by LCDR Scott Schneeweis:
As I have stated in previous threads - decisions we make today regarding preservation are germane not only to us but also future generations who deserve the same benefits we currently enjoy when we examine pristine artifacts.

---

posted 07-03-2007 11:52 AM               

I have to disagree with such a black and white stand. The Iron Gall ink example is outdated for today's inks, because in checking with pen manufacturers, the new inks are not as chemically volatile now.

I purchase rare books (pre 1800's) and know several bookdealers. We have discussed old inks vs new inks. The new inks (post World War Two varieties) are very stable when away from light. The dealers use them in their work. I feel the provenance for the future generations is equally important as pristine artifacts given the amount of training and unflown material that is out there now.

With the above said, I did not have Ed Gibson sign his Skylab 3 IVA jacket at the KSC show, because I was concerned the fabric would cause the ink to bleed or feather. I took a picture of him wearing the jacket. What bothered me the most about the entire signing situation was that Ed could still get into the jacket and zip it up.

Paul actually raised a more cogent question. Why have an astronaut sign an unflown or unrelated package of food? I wouldn't do it unless it specifically was from his mission. Again, that is just me, because I know people who have had every astronaut sign an unflown piece related to their mission.

It also boils down to what the owner plans to do with it anyway. To keep it or sell it? That might be the more appropriate question for the provenance of artifacts.

posted 07-03-2007 03:24 PM               

The Gemini Food Package I have was not flown but was used by the Gemini astronauts during their training. The COA I have states that the package was used for crew training only. I only wish the COA stated what crews. I can only imagine Ed White handling this Food package at one time.

I am pursuaded to not have it signed.

And I appreciate Roberts idea of having an appropriate photo(s) signed and framed with the Food package. Then I can also frame the COA with the photo(s) and the package.

Now the question is what Gemini Astronaut or Crew photo(s)? Ah...The joys of collecting...

Thanks again. As always cS is the best.

posted 07-03-2007 03:25 PM               

When I sold an Apollo 17 surface flown checklist page recently I must have had 10 inquiries or more about the piece. Every interested party was concerned as to whether or not Cernan had flight certified and signed it already.

And one other point... for some time I have been keeping my eyes open for a surface flown US flag. I could not help but notice that Apollo 12 surface flown flags,(available through Dick Gordon for example) command considerably lower prices at auction than other missions. Usually in my opinion, because Dick refuses to write on the flags. Something that does not bother Charlie Duke, Dave Scott or Gene Cernan... whos signed surface flags usually sell for considerably more. It would appear "the market" prefers the artifacts themselves signed.

Regards,

posted 07-03-2007 03:33 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by spacekid2:
Now the question is what Gemini Astronaut or Crew photo(s)? Ah...The joys of collecting...

---