Posts: 436
From: USA
Registered: Jun 2014

posted 03-08-2017 02:27 PM               

---

I recently picked up a Deke Slayton ASTP WSS autograph, with the serial number (JSCL-119) in the lower left corner and the Government Printing Office identification in the other corner.

Upon receiving it, I was a bit surprised to find that the back of it was completely blank. Is that common for lithos of that era? I admittedly don't have a lot of experience with regard to NASA official photos/lithos, so any help would be and is appreciated. Thanks!

Posts: 3445
From: Toms River, NJ
Registered: Aug 2000

Posts: 2914
From: Merritt Island, Florida, Brevard
Registered: Mar 2001

Posts: 355
From: Andover, MN
Registered: Dec 2013

Posts: 2914
From: Merritt Island, Florida, Brevard
Registered: Mar 2001

posted 03-08-2017 05:08 PM               

---

To help answer your question, Jason, the majority of my astronaut portrait lithos are blank on back.

It appears that the original issues of individual portrait lithos, going back to the 1960's when the astro-groups were first chosen, do have the black NASA meatball logo and text print on their reverse.

But if you're talking about Apollo and Skylab crew lithos, on the other hand, most of mine do have their complete backings.

Oddly enough, though, many of my original 60's NASA Gemini crew lithos have no backing at all, including most of the Mercury-era individual astronaut lithos.

Posts: 1397
From: Kew, Victoria, Australia
Registered: May 2003

posted 03-08-2017 05:35 PM               

---

I have a few thousand lithos (and as Ken said) some blank on the rear but most not throughout the years based on the program. Not one with a GPO in the right corner though.

I see them on eBay and just pass.

Posts: 436
From: USA
Registered: Jun 2014

posted 03-08-2017 06:03 PM               

---

Should I be concerned about the authenticity of the signature?

The paper/cardboard stock felt right, so I'd be surprised if someone took the time to make a reprint on the proper stock but neglected to print the back as well, but stranger things have happened.

In checking online, I can't find any examples where someone posted the back of the litho in question to know if it was issued with a blank back. I've checked Google Images, as well as every eBay listing (both current and recently ended) and it doesn't look like anyone is showing the back.

Posts: 248
From: Andover, MN
Registered: Apr 2013

posted 03-08-2017 06:36 PM               

---

Mike, just cause the back is blank has no bearing on the signature. Post a pic and we can give advice.

As far as some lithos that typically have info on the back, like MSCLs and JSCLs, they can still be okay. I know when I received a signed WSS litho directly from Jim Lovell to auction off as charity for my neighbor's child that had luekemia, I was surprised to look at the back and see there was no NASA info. Also, the lithos of Jim Irwin that are signed and have the pre-printed message have a blank back. These examples I presume were made specially for the astronauts for signing, etc.

Posts: 1397
From: Kew, Victoria, Australia
Registered: May 2003

posted 03-08-2017 06:41 PM               

---

Only way to know that is to see it Mike.

My Slayton is blank back as well. I just have a personal aversion to those "lithos" with the GPO on the front bottom RH corner but JSCL 119 was NASA printed ... they DO exist but with the print number on the rear and name centered on the front. You simply have a different style of print.

You can see my email and forward it to me as Deke's signature is really hard to fake though reprints come into play.

Posts: 355
From: Andover, MN
Registered: Dec 2013

posted 03-08-2017 07:20 PM               

---

Interesting topic.

Ken, for the record, it makes no difference to me whether or not there's printing on the back. I don't generally collect lithos, and the ones I have are either signed or framed with signed index cards and end up hanging on my wall. I don't really look at the back, anyway. I was just stating that I had acquired a blank back litho to contribute to the conversation.

And I should have stated earlier, that I don't think any others that I have are blank on the back, but to be honest, I'd have to take them out of their frames to verify for certain. It's just not something I've focused on previously.

Posts: 436
From: USA
Registered: Jun 2014

posted 03-08-2017 07:20 PM               

---

Here's a link to the image.

It looks good to me, as far as being his handwriting (or as close to it as I can tell).

I did a fair amount of research before I bought it, and everything checked out. It's just that I was expecting writing on the back and was thrown through a loop when I saw it was blank.

I don't usually work with NASA lithos, as the signatures I get are generally cheaper if purchased as signed books or DVDs and the like, or modern photolab prints for through the mail signings.

To be honest, this is only the third NASA printed litho I've dealt with in my life. Of the other two, only one is in my personal collection and both had the (what I assumed was obligatory) printing on the back.

Posts: 1397
From: Kew, Victoria, Australia
Registered: May 2003

posted 03-09-2017 05:28 AM               

---

I see nothing wrong with it Mike. Others should pass comment as the days go by, but looks fine to me.

Worry not about the lack of rear printing. Just the times as they were. Thousands (try hundreds of thousands) of smiling Armstrongs were blank on the rear, but his non-smiling portrait does have a JSCIL code on the rear. No rhyme or reason to it and I've got plenty of shuttle portraits that are identical but with different codes on the rear.

Their coding system has beaten the best of us and without naming the guys in the States, they are experts on the topic and even they're lost.

Posts: 916
From: Fort Mill, SC, USA
Registered: Aug 2000

Posts: 436
From: USA
Registered: Jun 2014

posted 03-12-2017 01:46 PM               

---

Much appreciated, all!

And please feel free to continue discussing the generic "blank back" topic — it's enlightening, to say the least.