posted 03-13-2010 10:05 AM               

A little history on them: These pictures are my mother's who worked for NASA for over 35 years and retired in the 90's. Within the past week, I have just begun to go through her collection of memorabilia and thought I would ask about the Apollo 11 signatures. She also has patches, pins and medallions for the Apollo flights.

I am curious as to what they may be worth, I do not intend to sell them anytime soon and plan to have them framed for her as a gift. I think she will get a kick knowing that what she has stored in a cabinet for 20+ years may be worth something.

I have blurred out her name in the pictures to respect her privacy. Please let me know what you think they may be worth. Thanks.

posted 03-13-2010 10:31 AM               

The individual portraits are nice. There's not much demand for personalized Aldrin photos so I'd say that's worth maybe $50-100. The Collins would be worth more, perhaps $150-250. The Armstrong is neat and shows no sign of fading. It may be worth $1500+.

Of course all are probably worth more as family mementos.

I'd be very wary of framing them. Framers who are unaware of the value of the items might mount them in a way that is irreversible. More importantly, displaying photos exposes them to UV light which can rapidly fade the image and the pen ink. Many Armstrong signed photos have signatures that are almost invisible today because they have been put on display for years and the ink has bleached.

posted 03-13-2010 10:45 AM               

Now, on to business. First of all, the 3 individual signed photos all look authentic, and it is even easier to verify the authenticity since they are also inscribed.

The crew signed litho is actually signed by an autopen machine (not authentic signatures). They are fairly common, although still collectible -- the Apollo 11 crew autopen-signed litho is probably worth around $25-75 or so, give or take a bit.

The individual photos have a few things going for them. First, they are all official NASA photos, and they look like they are in great condition. Second, they are all (presumably) personalized to the same person (your Mom), so they are a matched set. Third, not only are they personalized to the same person, but that person was employed by NASA during Apollo, which makes them more desirable to some collectors.

I am not an expert on valuation, but others on this site are and they can probably give you a better estimate. I would say the signed and inscribed photos would realize at auction:

• Armstrong: $1300-1500
  
• Collins: $200-350
  
• Aldrin: $150-200

Now, on to the most important part: DO NOT FRAME THESE PHOTOS!!!!!

The reason the photos are in such great shape is because they have not been exposed to light. If you frame them and hang them on a wall, even with the most archival framing methods available, they will fade.

Instead, have high-quality scans made of the photos, print those scans on high-quality photo paper, write on the back of each "scanned photo copy of the original" so no one ever mistakes them for authentic, and then frame the copies. The copies will look just as nice as the originals on the wall, and if they fade you can just print another copy and replace them in the frame.

Finally, place the signed photos into archival quality Mylar sleeves (I use archivalmethods.com) and put them someplace safe and out of the light.

I hope you find this info useful. Good luck with whatever you decide to do.

posted 03-13-2010 11:15 AM               

If anyone is interested, I can also scan the signed pictures I found of Deke Slayton, Scott Carpenter, Joe Kerwin, John Glenn Jr., Gordon Cooper, Alan Shepard, Walter Schirra, Apollo 15 crew photo and Max Faget.

I only made is about a quarter of the way through her filling cabinet so I expect to fine more memorabilia the next time I am at her house. I have enjoyed researching the history of several of the astronauts and it has also brought back some good memories for my mother.

posted 03-13-2010 12:23 PM               

Very nice things it are, believe, that the they treasure families are also. Very you root.

posted 03-13-2010 12:35 PM               

Your other photos will all be interesting to see. Some may be Autopens, others might be secretarial signatures (e.g. Shepard).

There are plenty of other items of NASA memorabilia from that time that could be very valuable. Some of the more obvious ones are flown flag awards made to the employee. It's also worth asking if she was ever awarded a Silver Snoopy award. If so the pin and certificate are worth tracking down.

No matter what type of item you dig up you will be able to get free and reliable advice here on rarity and value.

posted 03-13-2010 03:01 PM               

And framers don't strike out on their own and mount something. That's extra time and money. If you don't want it mounted, they won't.

I'd frame copies, too. With Photoshop, you can easily get rid of the yellowing, and even put a mustache on Mike!

posted 03-13-2010 07:27 PM               

There is nothing that can be done about the fact that the items are signed on paper that will deteriorate. The point should be that the photos can be preserved as long as possible, I should think.

Finally, as far as value is concerned, even though vintage NASA photos will fade more quickly than modern ones, is it not true that many collectors will pay a premium for signed NASA photos?

If my points are, in fact, correct, then why did you start your post with "sorry"?

I apologize if my response sounds a bit testy, but your post made Chris and I sound like inexperienced collectors. Perhaps you are right, and if so I would appreciate being educated so that next time I will either (a) keep my mouth shut since I obviously don't know what I'm talking about, or (b) have more knowledge so I can give credible advice.

posted 03-14-2010 02:24 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by capoetc:
What's your point, Kim?

---

1. Old Kodak paper is extremely unstable in all respects, and no amount of care will stop that, only slow it down. IMPLIED was that modern photographic paper (used by NASA and most others) doesn't have these limitations. YOU implied that keeping them in a binder in the dark would preserve them.

2. Framing them is not a death sentence. An original Monet is more valuable than most autographs, but I don't know anyone who would not show it off.

3. Framers don't mount things willy-nilly.

posted 03-14-2010 05:54 PM               

Believe me when I say I've seen signed photographs that have been glued to mounting boards as a cheap and cheerful way of mounting them so I know it can happen. Most high street framers are more used to dealing with posters and mass-produced prints than valuable signed photos, or Monet's for that matter. That's the kind of service I was warning about.

In fact the right kind of framing can be a very good way of protecting a signed print long-term.

My main concern about framing was the idea that they might end displayed up on a wall somewhere exposed to bright daylight. I'm sure we all agree that in the wrong conditions these wonderful photos and/or signatures could be bleached to invisibility in a just a couple of years. That's what I was trying to avoid by my comments.

As for the stability of old Kodak photos, most 40 year old "A KODAK PAPER" watermarked NASA photos I've seen (and I've owned hundreds) are in very good shape as long as they've been stored properly. I've not seen any major systematic deterioration in the paper or color.

posted 03-14-2010 07:01 PM               

But I think the world is much more enlightened now. I worry more about the do-it-yourself shops. Some folks cannot believe that it costs more to frame something than the object cost itself, so he 'cheaps out." That's OK for a cheap poster, but ultimately the buyer must make a decision on present, future, personal, or resale value, and spend accordingly.

posted 03-15-2010 05:24 PM               

Not sure how that is keeping a secret, so I'll just sign off.

Good luck to the OP on however you decide to preserve your Mom's signed photos.