posted 05-16-2024 12:43 PM               

When it came to deliver how much the collection was worth, this was mentioned:

It has not been until probably the last 10 years that collectors have really started to value these original, vintage prints and they are doing quite well at auction.

posted 05-16-2024 01:30 PM               

Maybe, at least at first, the collectors who were paying the significantly higher prices weren't space collectors nor were they Hollywood collectors. Maybe they were film and photo collectors. To them, a vintage print would be a vintage print, regardless the subject.

It reminds me of Jay Walker, co-founder of Priceline. He has an eclectic collection of historic relics, including space artifacts. But when he was profiled by the Robb Report in the early 2000s, he spoke specifically about his fascination with old NASA film reels and negatives. For some period of time, he was buying them up when they showed up at auction.

posted 05-17-2024 08:19 AM               

I was however more concerned with answering your specific question "Or did all vintage prints in all categories rise at the same time?"

posted 07-29-2024 11:16 AM               

Only asking because each NASA center has their own large photos, short run lithograph artists renditions, team and staff photos, launches, contractor art and other various media made then sent out to be professionally framed for display in administration buildings on base as well. I'd assume some of those examples would have value and be desirable, but from what I've found out not nearly as much as I thought.

posted 07-29-2024 02:59 PM               

An exception to this have been large-format NASA prints of famous Apollo photos (e.g. Earthrise) that can be traced back to the space agency.

It should be noted (as is elsewhere on this forum) that red-numbered, versus blue or black, means absolutely nothing. The ink color was just the choice of the machine operator, but for whatever reason, red ink has performed better at auction than the others.

Lithographs (photo prints on matte paper, regardless of their pedigree) are not in as demand as glossies.

posted 07-29-2024 06:27 PM               

I do have one print from that era, which is a color image of the lander on the moon, 18" 24". The negatives for the other prints I have were mostly from shuttle launches at KSC or engine tests, mostly from 80's, 90's, and 2000's. Some of the photos have brass engraved plaques inserted in the presentation too, explaining what they are.

posted 08-03-2024 05:34 AM               

Type III – A 2nd generation photograph, developed from a duplicate negative or wire transmission, during the period (within approximately two years of when the picture was taken).

posted 08-15-2024 11:54 AM               

My understanding is that the Apollo photographs were negatives (taken by Hasselblad camera), and once returned to Earth they had secondary contact negatives taken. All subsequent photos were developed from the secondary negatives. The primary negatives were never used to produce photo images, they are stored to this day.

If I have been misinformed, I stand to be corrected.

posted 08-15-2024 12:46 PM               

Fifteen years ago I purchased a very large collection of B&W and color NASA photos, that were from a NASA graphic artist, Grant Lathe hired in early 1962, just before the Next Nine class was announced. In his collection there are hundreds of B&W training photos from Gemini and Apollo, including the rare series showing Armstrong, McDivitt and White in the vomit comet, trying to figure out a early version of the AMU for White's GT4 spacewalk.

All of the B&W photos have a black NASA stock number on the upper border, some have the purple or black ink description on the back and they all have "A Kodak Paper" or "Kodak" on the 45 degree on the back.

There are hundreds of red number color prints, as well as green, blue and black stock numbers on the upper left corner in the border. I also have a beautiful set of McDonnell color 8x10 prints of White's spacewalk that came from a gentleman who worked on the wiring harness of the Gemini spacecraft. He had some great stories about GT-8 and other Mercury and Gemini missions.

posted 08-15-2024 01:02 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by cdew002:
...per their grading standards?

---

posted 08-15-2024 04:30 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spacepsycho:
I'll ask him if there's a way to tell generations of the photos.

---

posted 08-16-2024 08:27 AM               

I fully accept the statement that the film was positive — I did not know that. I was misinformed on that point. However it still doesn't alter the facts in any substantive way, because as has been expressed, the grading revolves around generational issues, i.e how many copies of copies of copies it is.

posted 08-16-2024 09:07 AM               

For example, the Gemini era photos could be, according to their classification, either type III or IV. However, in reality it is impossible to determine whether these photos were printed within two or more years after the Gemini pictures were taken. Yet at the same time PSA classifies most Gemini photos as Type I. That does not make sense.

posted 08-16-2024 10:13 AM            

When it comes to photos taken in space, unlike sports cards, PSA doesn't offer much value to the consumer (much to the chagrin of those having their Apollo photos authenticated, asking astronomical figures - pun intended).

The value of NASA prints from '65 to '72, seemingly, is much more dichotomous, in that it either is on "A KODAK paper," or it is not. PSA's opinion on a photo's type is irrelevant.

posted 08-16-2024 01:15 PM            

Some time ago I read an article about the colour dyes used for colour prints. If I recall correctly, changes were made in the dyes used in or about the mid-1970s, with the result that after several decades most colour photos from the mid-1970s have turned an orangey-red. This can be corrected by digital scanning, but that's no help to the collector of original colour photos.

I have old family colour photos printed in 1968 which are as bright and natural as the day they were taken, whereas almost every colour photo in my family albums from the mid-1970s (including, I'm afraid, the original prints from my Florida ASTP visit in 1975) have turned orange-red. How significant is this issue in NASA colour print collecting, and did the issue continue much beyond the mid-70s?

posted 08-21-2024 03:29 PM            

Underpinning the photos are NASA negatives/transparencies. My understanding is that the original negatives/transparencies are locked away at NASA. I'll call those "generation 1."

NASA created duplicate negatives/transparencies for their use in creating prints and other materials. I'll call those "generation 2."

NASA also created duplicate negatives/transparencies that were distributed to various parties. I'll call those "generation 3."

At this juncture, does anyone have any information about the value of the "generation 3" negatives/transparencies? In another, older forum I believe I saw that they were not all that valuable, but I don't know if that's changed these days or not.