|
Author
|
Topic: Value of signed Apollo 11 moonwalk photo
|
sanleonjohn
Member Posts: 14
From: Dickinson, TX, USA
Registered: Nov 2013
|
posted 10-07-2014 12:31 PM
   
Trying to determine value of signed, original Apollo 11 moonwalk photo. Photo shows astronaut standing next to equipment with flag and lunar module in background. Signed by all three astronauts. My dad was flight trainer at NASA for 20+ years. I am sure of its authenticity. Hung on the wall of our Clear Lake home for many years. (Not very good photo, lighting was poor. Photo not as faded as it looks.)  |
garymilgrom
Member Posts: 1966
From: Atlanta, GA
Registered: Feb 2007
|
posted 10-07-2014 04:32 PM
Judging by the photo you posted, not very much. If you're serious about wanting to sell this or getting a good opinion on its worth, get a good photo of it. Surely someone you know owns a good camera, or a scanner; if not have it photographed or scanned professionally. |
calcheyup
Member Posts: 125
From:
Registered: May 2014
|
posted 10-07-2014 07:10 PM
Is it such a reach for this fellow to simply inquire what this photo would be worth if it were authentic and in good shape? While your point is duly noted and taken, surely cS has those with the knowledge to ballpark an estimate predicated on those conditions, not merely dismiss him down because the photo he posted was not of ideal quality. |
SpaceyInMN
Member Posts: 355
From: Andover, MN
Registered: Dec 2013
|
posted 10-07-2014 07:43 PM
It's hard to tell from the provided photograph if the photo in question is touching a pane of glass in that frame. I'm not going to speculate as to the value, since I honestly have no idea. I would, however, highly recommend removing it from the current frame if it is touching the glass and/or if you're not 100% certain that the backing behind it is acid free, which I suspect it's not. Minimally, get it into an acid free protective sleeve until you decide how to go about selling it, or whatever you choose to do with it. If you are at all concerned about the photo sticking to the glass during removal, you may want to take it to a professional frame shop for assistance, or call your state's historical society and inquire about a good conservator to assist you. I would hate to hear that some of the image peeled off on the glass during removal. Been there, done that with my own items, unfortunately. Best of luck! |
Tykeanaut
Member Posts: 2212
From: Worcestershire, England, UK.
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 10-08-2014 03:28 AM
The signatures look fairly nice and bold. Luckily for you the infamous fading blue pen wasn't used!If you're serious about selling I'd email Steve Zarelli directly with a scan for his opinion. |
Lunar rock nut
Member Posts: 911
From: Oklahoma city, Oklahoma U.S.A.
Registered: Feb 2007
|
posted 10-08-2014 04:40 AM
I will speculate the value is 5k+. I would get in touch with Steve Z. and have it appraised for a more accurate figure. |
fredtrav
Member Posts: 1673
From: Birmingham AL
Registered: Aug 2010
|
posted 10-08-2014 10:08 AM
Gary's point is right on the money (or lack thereof). Without a good picture of the photo out of the frame, there is not a way of giving an accurate price. It could be $1500 or $5,000 depending on condition. Since it has hung on the wall of his home, I imagine, and it looks like, the photo has faded. The signatures are good with the Collins a bit faded apparently. A similar photo sold for a little less than $2200 with just Neil's signature, but it was in good shape. Condition matters a lot here. So in answer to calcheyups question about giving a ballpark figure, yes it is hard to do, especially when he is asking so he can sell it. |
calcheyup
Member Posts: 125
From:
Registered: May 2014
|
posted 10-08-2014 12:07 PM
quote:
Originally posted by fredtrav:
So in answer to calcheyups question about giving a ballpark figure, yes it is hard to do, especially when he is asking so he can sell it.
I did not realize he was attempting to sell it on this site at the time of my comments. Obviously that changes things pretty significantly.That said, I'm not sure you understood my point; yes, it is difficult or impossible to assess this particular photo, but significantly easier to give him a ballpark figure assuming authenticity and good quality (in fact, you did so yourself), and then work down from there with any flaws taken into account once a proper scan is provided. The original reply (and I concede may be missing something due to things being 'lost in translation' over text) just seemed unnecessarily curt and uncooperative, in my opinion, hence my post. |
fredtrav
Member Posts: 1673
From: Birmingham AL
Registered: Aug 2010
|
posted 10-08-2014 02:22 PM
I am sorry if I came across as being curt or uncooperative in my reply. You seemed to be annoyed that no one had as of yet answered the original posters question satisfactorily so I was trying to explain why that had not been done, as well as perhaps answering the original poster. Condition means a lot when giving a ballpark figure. The photo posted was posted in a very unflattering way to give a good estimate. It would be a disservice to the original poster to give him a figure based on the picture posted. Knowing from another thread posted earlier that his intention was to sell it, if someone gave an estimate of $1500 and he sold it based on that, and the picture was in actually very good condition, he would have sold it for far less than it was worth and lost himself money. Conversely if it was assumed it was in very good condition and he sold it for $5000 or more, and then it turned out to be in poor condition he would either have it returned or have a very unsatisfied buyer. On something of this potential value, to give a decent ballpark figure you have to be careful and get as much info as possible on the condition. |
calcheyup
Member Posts: 125
From:
Registered: May 2014
|
posted 10-08-2014 02:51 PM
quote:
Originally posted by fredtrav:
The photo posted was posted in a very unflattering way to give a good estimate. It would be a disservice to the original poster to give him a figure based on the picture posted.
Yes, I understand this; however, I don't think that preempts a reply saying "if it's in good condition, it's worth around this, and if it's not, it's worth around this." I understand the points you and Gary are making completely, but I feel like the initial reply to OP's question was immediately standoffish because of the poor quality of the scan and offered absolutely no help on the matter.Incidentally, I wasn't saying I felt your reply to be curt or uncooperative at all. In fact, it was a textbook reply that I would expect from cS members and basically the exact type I was referring to in my first post in this thread: that is, to assess it properly a better scan is needed, BUT here are some general price points if it is what you say it is. |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 10-09-2014 01:53 AM
Some of you are over-thinking this too much, since estimating value is (at best) an inexact science. Yes, the more we know about the photo, the better we can attempt to estimate the value...but even if those variables are all known, it's still impossible to determine what a photo will fetch on any given auction day. It might do great on one day...and it might bomb on another day.What the OP needs is a range of likely values. And I think that is perfectly feasible based on what we know (with some caveats, of course):
- It's a color photo from Apollo 11.
- It's signed by all three crew members (and I believe all three signatures to be authentic at a cursory glance).
- It's unpersonalized.
- It's in relatively good condition, with decent signature contrast...assuming there is no damage from framing or mounting.
With the above known variables, I would place value in the $5,000-$10,000 range. On a really good day in a good auction, it might go beyond that range. What might help enhance (or detract from) the value are these factors: - Are the signatures on a NASA red serial glossy or NASA lithograph?
- Is the photo trimmed at all...or does it still retain its original dimensions?
- Is there any fading, yellowing, water damage, etc. that is not showing up in the photo that was posted?
Knowing the above three items can help modify the estimate...but it's still an estimate (and therefore an inexact science). |
Lunar rock nut
Member Posts: 911
From: Oklahoma city, Oklahoma U.S.A.
Registered: Feb 2007
|
posted 10-09-2014 05:58 AM
Thank you Mark. I did not want to get into a lengthy explanation in my earlier post. My point was to send it to Mr. Zarelli for a hands on inspection. It would definitely be worth the postage to do so. |
sanleonjohn
Member Posts: 14
From: Dickinson, TX, USA
Registered: Nov 2013
|
posted 10-09-2014 10:02 AM
Many thanks for replies here. As stated, photo is faded, but is uniform fade with only one small flaw that is impossible to see unless viewed at an angle in the right light. Have since taken better pics in different lighting. Probably do need to remove from original frame at this time and get into protective sleeve. There is no glass, but still concerned about taking it apart myself. Anyone know someone in Houston area that does this sort of work? Also, what is difference between a red glossy and a litho? Assuming a red glossy is an original print, which this probably is. Didn't want to go through hassle of sending it off somewhere, but thinking maybe I should at this point. Once again, many thanks for replies. |
garymilgrom
Member Posts: 1966
From: Atlanta, GA
Registered: Feb 2007
|
posted 10-09-2014 12:06 PM
Gentlemen; It was not my intent to start a flame war but I stick with my original post. Fred seems to understand my point - the photo shown is faded to green in one area, faded to brown in another, faded to red in two areas and has an overall bluish color cast. The signatures appear red and the OP says it was displayed in a home for 20 years. As there's no reflections in the photo it seems to have been exposed to UV light for that time. If you're comfortable offering $10,000 for this condition of photo be my guest. If the poster really wants to know what's it's worth please put a clear, sharp photo up for us to see. Thank you. |
sanleonjohn
Member Posts: 14
From: Dickinson, TX, USA
Registered: Nov 2013
|
posted 10-09-2014 02:50 PM
First picture take under direct bright light in kitchen. Second pic taken in hallway, indirect lighting. Third taken outdoors in indirect sunlight. Discoloration at bottom of third pic doesn't exist. 
|
sanleonjohn
Member Posts: 14
From: Dickinson, TX, USA
Registered: Nov 2013
|
posted 10-09-2014 04:30 PM
Also have a signed, personalized crew photo. I know personalization usually detracts from value of signed photo. However in this case the message at top actually thanks my dad for the Apollo 11 descent procedures. Wondering if that changes things. Also curious as to who wrote message.Will try to get image posted. Once again not a very good pic, but that's not the point here anyhow. Not looking to sell at this time.  |
JasonB
Member Posts: 1091
From:
Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 10-09-2014 04:44 PM
It looks like Armstrong wrote the inscription on your dad's photo. Nice photo but get it out of that frame quickly! It looks like it's already got some toning to it. Good luck. |
fredtrav
Member Posts: 1673
From: Birmingham AL
Registered: Aug 2010
|
posted 10-09-2014 04:50 PM
I agree with Jason, it looks like Armstrong wrote the inscription. As he said, get it out of that frame. If you wish to continue to display it, make sure it is matted with acid free materials and put behind UV resistant glass. Also keep it out of an area where it gets direct sunlight. If you don't display, get it into an archival sleeve and store away from light. |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 10-09-2014 05:46 PM
quote:
Originally posted by garymilgrom:
Gentlemen; It was not my intent to start a flame war but I stick with my original post... If you're comfortable offering $10,000 for this condition of photo be my guest. If the poster really wants to know what's it's worth please put a clear, sharp photo up for us to see.
Not a flame war, just a difference of opinions that's all. Nobody has said they are "comfortable" offering $10k for the photo at this point... it's just one end of a range of values that have been discussed. After seeing further photos of the framed image, one of my concerns is that the photo was likely trimmed in order to fit the frame. If so, that will hurt the value, since many collectors of signed photos prefer unaltered photos. It's still a valuable photo, but the trimming may cut into the value by 25-40%. Regarding the crew photo, I also concur that Armstrong wrote the inscription. While the general opinion is that inscriptions do hurt value, I think this particular inscription is quite nice... since Armstrong is making direct reference to something that was done for the success of the Apollo 11 mission. He then adds, in his typically understated way "It worked!" While an unpersonalized crew photo might fetch more at an auction, I think this particular inscribed crew photo is more interesting... and has some built-in provenance to boot. |
datkatz
Member Posts: 176
From: New York, NY
Registered: Mar 2009
|
posted 10-10-2014 12:09 AM
Any knowledgeable collector would find that inscription considerably more valuable than an uninscribed photo. |
spaced out
Member Posts: 3110
From: Paris, France
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 10-10-2014 01:30 AM
It certainly looks like both images have been significantly cut down. I would guess both images were red numbered glossies but that all the white borders have been cut away.Unfortunately cutting away those borders to make the photos fit in those horrible $5 frames and then having them exposed to sunlight all these years has likely taken thousands of dollars off their resale value. In any case the Armstrong inscription is a very nice one and even cut down faded photos are still worth something when the signatures are still pretty strong, as is the case here. |
Glint
Member Posts: 1040
From: New Windsor, Maryland USA
Registered: Jan 2004
|
posted 10-10-2014 10:36 AM
I am curious. When did the LMP start signing as Buzz instead of Edwin E. Aldrin Jr.? If this is a piece with signatures from the period, wouldn't he have signed in a fashion similar to his signature on the lunar surface plaque? Guess what I'm wondering is if it may be possible that his [genuine] signature was added to the piece at a much later date.(Sorry if this question was answered in another thread.) |
sanleonjohn
Member Posts: 14
From: Dickinson, TX, USA
Registered: Nov 2013
|
posted 10-10-2014 11:34 AM
Thanks for all your input gentleman. Will attempt to remove photos from frames in the next couple of days. Let you know what I find. I also have some nice space shuttle presentations and complete flight manuals from about 12 shuttle flights, including STS-1. Any value to those? |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 10-10-2014 10:32 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Glint:
...wouldn't he have signed in a fashion similar to his signature on the lunar surface plaque?
The signatures on the lunar plaque are the crew's autopens. Aldrin was signing as "Buzz" at the time of mission, as evident by the signatures on insurance covers (for example). His "Edwin" signature was always his more formal, legal signature up until he legally changed his name in the early 1980s. |
sanleonjohn
Member Posts: 14
From: Dickinson, TX, USA
Registered: Nov 2013
|
posted 10-11-2014 10:10 AM
Removed photo from frame last night. It is a Kodak print, printing on back so faded you can barely make it out. Glass had a matte finish, photo underneath sharper than it appeared in frame. Signatures are strong, excellent condition. Unfortunately, borders have been cut to fit 7"x7.25" frame. Still some border showing on top and bottom, none on sides. It was framed at Clear Lake City frame shop on El Camino Real, circa 1969. Probably the only game in town at that time. May have been done by astronaut or NASA office and given to certain individuals. Can't imagine my dad taking time, trouble and expense. He was very frugal... The visor pic and the flag salute were also part of collection. My sister got those. |
Lunar rock nut
Member Posts: 911
From: Oklahoma city, Oklahoma U.S.A.
Registered: Feb 2007
|
posted 10-12-2014 07:20 AM
In 2007, I was involved with helping a gentleman sell a 7"x7" photo of Buzz ALdrin by the ALSEP. The crew signatures were on a heavily textured matting. After having them authenticated, this item was listed in the June 2007 RR auction. The matted photo with crew signatures sold for over $4k. 2007 cS plug can be seen here. |
mmcmurrey
Member Posts: 114
From: Austin, TX, USA
Registered: Jun 2012
|
posted 10-12-2014 01:03 PM
quote:
Originally posted by sanleonjohn:
The visor pic and the flag salute were also part of collection. My sister got those.
Are the pics your sister received signed also?
|
sanleonjohn
Member Posts: 14
From: Dickinson, TX, USA
Registered: Nov 2013
|
posted 10-13-2014 12:32 PM
Yes they were signed as well. They all hung on the wall of our Clear Lake City home, centered around a large unsigned photo of the earthrise from the moon, which I also have. My sister also won a coin flip for an American flag presentation that was flown to the moon aboard Apollo 17 I believe. Rats... I did have a signed patch presentation from Apollo 15. |
advertisement