|
Author
|
Topic: Adding autographs to vintage space prints
|
kosmo
Member Posts: 388
From:
Registered: Sep 2001
|
posted 02-03-2008 07:08 PM
  
As a collector, I'm just wondering how people feel about having astronauts sign red numbered, original NASA news media photos? With as collectible and expensive as the original news media photos have become, is it wise to have modern signatures (which have become expensive as well) put on these? Wouldn't it be wiser to preserve the original photo as is? Everybody's signature changes over time, including the astronauts, so aren't we mixing vintage with current? At some point if these photos are passed on or sold are they going to be misrepresented, maybe not intentionally, but none the less, as vintage/original when in fact there is a current autograph on a vintage photo? |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 02-03-2008 11:07 PM
I know there are several different viewpoints on the topic. The collectability of the vintage glossies seems to have sharply increased in recent years. However, that also points to some volatility in the market too. Price and demand could just as easily decrease in the future. The question is whether current market prices are being driven by dozens (or even hundreds) of collectors, or are current prices being driven by three to four deep pocketed collectors who go after all of the prime photos with great zeal.Astronaut autographs have always been popular with a lot people. The fact that NASA needed an autopen machine in the 1960s shows that autograph requests were numerous even 40-50 years ago. When it comes to items like vintage portrait prints, I personally can't imagine the autograph of the astronauts could lessen the value of that portrait. It's a bit trickier with vintage mission photos of something like the Apollo 8 earthrise, however. A color glossy of this image could fetch $200 to $400, depending on the buyers bidding on it. If you paid $100 to have Borman sign it, would the same people who are willing to pay $400 for the unsigned image still pay $400 for the signed image? Perhaps not. However, if you could get all three Apollo 8 astronauts to sign it, you'd likely have a piece that could easily fetch $800 to $1000, well beyond what the unsigned image is "worth." When it comes to something like lithos, I think the answer is clear. A signed litho (no matter the vintage of signature) will almost always be worth more than an unsigned litho, assuming all other factors are equal (image selection, condition, etc.) In the end, I think it all comes down to having the astronauts sign whatever media you most prefer to have signed. There are definite advantages with both vintage or modern prints. It just depends on what advantages suit your taste. |
spaced out
Member Posts: 3110
From: Paris, France
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 02-04-2008 02:25 AM
I can't disagree with the above. Lithos are definitely worth having signed, as are vintage portrait glossy photos (which are pretty rare).The best vintage glossies are definitely worth more at present unsigned than signed, so adding a signature to such a photo will lower it's overall value, maybe dramatically. At the same time though the item will be worth more than the same signature on a modern glossy. |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2169
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 02-04-2008 09:32 AM
It might be best to concentrate on what you like rather than on how much it might be worth one day.However, it is also important to consider the historical importance of items so they will be preserved for future generations. That concern is probably not applicable (or is it?) to vintage NASA photos, so the signed or unsigned question can simply be personal preference. I might be wrong on this, but I doubt you will be able to send your kids to college on the money you make selling your signed/unsigned glossy collection. |
wmk
Member Posts: 76
From: Carlsbad, CA
Registered: Nov 2007
|
posted 12-16-2008 03:57 PM
I have a few questions about autographs on vintage vs. current day productions.If I had a pristine vintage photograph I would use that for obtaining an autograph, but I am sometimes torn on what to do when I have a vintage photo that has some slight damage. Is there a significant difference in the value of a current day autograph signed on a vintage photo (assuming the vintage is in really nice condition) vs. a current day autograph signed on non-vintage current day photograph? Since it is easy to obtain a current day copy of just about any image (in perfect condition) I would tend to use that if a really nice vintage is not available. Editor's note: Threads merged. |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 12-16-2008 04:28 PM
It depends on the amount of damage. Note that most vintage prints that are 40+ years old have a little bit of wear or light fading to them, and truly mint condition prints are a bit of a rarity. A few light dents or minor creases probably won't detract much, as vintage print collectors are used to them. Photos with more major flaws (that are readily visible to the eye) are perhaps best left unsigned. But it comes down to how badly you want the image signed and how rare the vintage print is too. If you will be happy with it signed, and will enjoy it more than a signed modern print, then go ahead. |
Sayheypa
New Member Posts: 9
From: Sherman Oaks, California
Registered: May 2019
|
posted 08-01-2019 10:09 PM
I would love to get opinions on whether to add a modern signature of an Astronaut to a vintage item signed by other astronauts. Is it always best to complete the crew if possible? I have a vintage red number photo signed by two of the crew and was debating whether to get the final third signature as the astronaut is still alive. Editor's note: Threads merged. |
Mike Dixon
Member Posts: 1397
From: Kew, Victoria, Australia
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 08-01-2019 11:10 PM
Might depend on the crew and the value of the completed item ... assuming the astronaut would sign. |
advertisement