Space News
space history and artifacts articles

Messages
space history discussion forums

Sightings
worldwide astronaut appearances

Resources
selected space history documents

Websites
related space history websites

  collectSPACE: Messages
  Auctions - Reviews & Results
  [Regency-Superior] May 2013 Space Auction (Page 1)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search


This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   [Regency-Superior] May 2013 Space Auction
NPetteys
New Member

Posts: 3
From: St. Louis, MO
Registered: Apr 2013

posted 04-08-2013 10:04 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for NPetteys   Click Here to Email NPetteys     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
[Regency-Superior] May 2013 Space & Autograph Auction

Greetings! Regency-Superior proudly presents its Space and Autographs Auction, May 24th at the annual NOJEX show in Secaucus, New Jersey beginning at 11am (ET). 601 lots are now available online for viewing and bidding.

This sale includes the well documented $20 United States 'Double Eagle' gold piece placed on a boulder for three days on the lunar surface by Mission Commander Gene Cernan (Lot 258). This one-of-a-kind item is believed to be the only gold piece to be exposed to the surface of the Moon – no doubt the Holy Grail of space and coin collectors alike.

Another incredible auction item is a 'Command Module Service Propulsion System rocket engine' (SPS) of the kind used to place an Apollo spacecraft into and out of lunar orbit. This item weighs about 3,000 pounds and stands taller than five feet in height. This is one of few in existence and the only one, to our knowledge, in private hands.

This eclectic sale includes strong selections of space and aviation related autographs, photos, patches, badges and stickers. Highlighted here is Deke Slayton's hardhat from the Mercury era (Lot 88), plus original badges worn for different missions by Kurt Debus, former German V-2 rocket scientist, who became 'Father of the Kennedy Space Center.'

Other Key Highlights Include:

  • Magnificent and rare Gemini spacecraft lobby display model from Rocketdyne
  • A Series 1981A US one dollar bill signed by the crew of the ill-fated STS-51L Challenger
  • Several Neil Armstrong signed pieces
  • Many badges from MSC Houston owned and worn by KSC Director Kurt Debus
  • Apollo era food packages
The Apollo section is perhaps the largest with many Armstrong related findings, including an Apollo 11 spoon with Neil Armstrong's name engraved on the handle (Lot 180). Other hardware, covers, cutlery and signage round out this impressive space and aviation sale. Explore our online catalog today.

The auction will be held live on the internet beginning at 11am (Eastern Time) on Friday, May 24th. Viewing and bidding are available 24/7 at RegencySuperior.com. Or, attend the auction in person on Friday, May 24th in Secaucus, New Jersey. For specific questions regarding this auction, please contact Alan Lipkin at alipkin@RegencySuperior.com.

Happy bidding!
Alan Lipkin
Senior Vice President

SpaceAholic
Member

Posts: 3023
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 04-08-2013 10:29 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for SpaceAholic   Click Here to Email SpaceAholic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by NPetteys:
This is one of few in existence and the only one, to our knowledge, in private hands.
Certainly not the only example in private hands, a more complete SPS engine (Block II variant) was sold to a private collector in 2003 (Aurora); this chamber being offered is a Block I. Also the weight should be in the 200-300 kilogram range (not 3000 pounds).

NJSPACEFAN
Member

Posts: 91
From: Princeton, NJ, USA
Registered: Dec 2000

posted 04-08-2013 04:28 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for NJSPACEFAN   Click Here to Email NJSPACEFAN     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by NPetteys:
This sale includes the well documented $20 United States 'Double Eagle' gold piece placed on a boulder for three days on the lunar surface by Mission Commander Gene Cernan (Lot 258).
I may be wrong and will gladly stand corrected - but I do not believe that Cernan had placed the gold coin on the boulder, but that he is indicating that the Lunar Module would be in the distance of the far right of the top of the boulder and that was where the coin would be - inside the Lunar Module in his PPK, and not on the boulder; as they went to three different locations for the EVAs. There would certainly be a difference in exposed to the outside lunar surface as to being in the Lunar Module on the surface.

Alan Lipkin
Member

Posts: 76
From: Beverly Hills, CA USA
Registered: Mar 2006

posted 04-08-2013 05:44 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Alan Lipkin   Click Here to Email Alan Lipkin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Word-for-word quote from Gene Cernan's, hand-written letter that is part of the display of this lot:
"If you look just to the right of the top of the boulder you will see the place your (our) $20 gold piece lived for three days."

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 27328
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 04-08-2013 05:58 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Alan, as Art (NJSPACEFAN) writes, what Cernan is referring to the Lunar Module seen off in the distance "just to the right of the top of the boulder."

It would have been impossible for the coin to have spent three days on the boulder, because Cernan and Schmitt only visited that site on Dec. 13, 1972, on the third of their three moonwalks, and they left the moon on December 14.

If you look at the full resolution version of the photo, you can see the lunar module, right where Cernan says it is.

The coin remained inside the lunar module, inside Cernan's Personal Preference Kit, for the length of the astronauts' time on the surface.

Alan Lipkin
Member

Posts: 76
From: Beverly Hills, CA USA
Registered: Mar 2006

posted 04-08-2013 06:14 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Alan Lipkin   Click Here to Email Alan Lipkin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Art and Robert, thank you both very much for the input. The phrasing of Cernan's letter was open to interpretation. The gold coin still spent the three days on the Moon's surface, just not exactly where we indicated. It is still the same great, unique lunar surface item that we described.

SpaceAholic
Member

Posts: 3023
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 04-08-2013 08:06 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for SpaceAholic   Click Here to Email SpaceAholic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Unique? Was this the only gold coin carried in a PPK to the lunar surface?

capoetc
Member

Posts: 1705
From: Newnan GA (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005

posted 04-08-2013 08:49 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for capoetc   Click Here to Email capoetc     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Whew! Tough crowd!

drifting to the right
Member

Posts: 55
From:
Registered: Aug 2006

posted 04-08-2013 09:26 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for drifting to the right     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
We have had some recent discussion regarding cutlery, flown and unflown, e.g. Ms. Rapp's samples. Please be aware that the following flown Community spoons, with respective astronaut provenance letters, remain in my personal collection:

James A. Lovell, Jr.
LM-7 CDR

John W. Young
Apollo 16 CDR

Gene A. Cernan
Apollo 17 CDR

Thank you,
G. A. Louviere, M.D.

Tykeanaut
Member

Posts: 1624
From: Worcestershire, England, UK.
Registered: Apr 2008

posted 04-09-2013 10:25 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Tykeanaut   Click Here to Email Tykeanaut     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Will there still be a facility for 'Or' Bids?

Alan Lipkin
Member

Posts: 76
From: Beverly Hills, CA USA
Registered: Mar 2006

posted 04-09-2013 12:00 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Alan Lipkin   Click Here to Email Alan Lipkin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hello all – Donnis Willis here from Regency - Superior. I was going through the space auction lots this morning to identify which lots needed an extra online photo or two for which there was no room in the catalog.

For instance, lot #324 needs the photo of Kurt Debus wearing that AS-500F Rollout access badge.

Anyway, I arrived at lot #100, which is the Gemini 3 crew-signed dollar bill. This is one of many signed bills from this consignor, and when describing it, I assumed it was nothing special from the rest. He told me he had gotten them all signed in person.

However, this morning on a lark, I looked up its serial number in the GT-3 flown list and it was there! So this is indeed one of the $1 bills that flew into space aboard Gemini 3 (no certificate). It's unfortunately too late for the catalog, but the title and description will be changed in the online version.

Alan Lipkin
Member

Posts: 76
From: Beverly Hills, CA USA
Registered: Mar 2006

posted 04-09-2013 12:33 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Alan Lipkin   Click Here to Email Alan Lipkin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Tykeanaut:
Will there still be a facility for 'Or' Bids?
There is no "live" way for or bids during the sale. You may provide or bids to our St. Louis office via email, phone, fax or snail mail and they will be executed from the floor as if you were there in person. Alternatively, you may use an agent (contact info in catalog).

mjanovec
Member

Posts: 3593
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005

posted 04-16-2013 03:13 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for mjanovec   Click Here to Email mjanovec     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I strongly suggest that Regency take a second look at Lots 70 and 71. In my opinion, both appear to be crudely-executed Grissom forgeries.

Also, Lot 171 (Armstrong WSS) begs for a second opinion. This particular item has been a "hot potato" lately.

(Edit: My posting above was made after only a cursory review of the Regency listings. Looking through the lots more closely, I see several other items that I believe would benefit from further review.)

chet
Member

Posts: 1246
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 04-16-2013 06:55 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for chet   Click Here to Email chet     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Sorry to say I have to disagree with Mark here.

While both Grissoms are problematic, I'd not go so far as to say I consider them forgeries (although of course that can't be ruled out).

And while the Armstrong could be viewed with some trepidation, there isn't enough wrong with it to really make me think it's likely not authentic (though I think doubts about it wouldn't necessarily be out of line).

spaceflori
Member

Posts: 1376
From: Germany
Registered: May 2000

posted 04-16-2013 11:59 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for spaceflori   Click Here to Email spaceflori     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Agree with Chet, at least the second Grissom 71 doesn't look too bad. It may be the scan of the ballpoint pen on a glossy surface that make it look odd, but the overall appearance looks fine.

Having seen several samples (inperson) from a collector in Houston I also think this Armstrong is good. There are lots of real traits of an Armstrong signature.

It doesn't help the community either to put question marks on anything that isn't 100% in line with known samples.

chet
Member

Posts: 1246
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 04-17-2013 12:59 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for chet   Click Here to Email chet     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
And sorry to say I have to disagree with Florian here.

Small deviations aside, putting question marks around fairly atypical signatures may be warranted; exclamation points...perhaps not.

mjanovec
Member

Posts: 3593
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005

posted 04-17-2013 01:35 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for mjanovec   Click Here to Email mjanovec     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by spaceflori:
It doesn't help the community either to put question marks on anything that isn't 100% in line with known samples.

That's a philosophy that forgers will wholeheartedly support.

Questioning items that don't fall in line with known exemplars is how new forgery styles are often identified. Most well-executed forgeries will have multiple traits that appear to match authentic examples. (FYI - That's how the forger designed it to look.) It's often just a few traits that don't match which end up being the clues that expose a forgery.

Of course, some atypical examples end up being deemed authentic on further analysis. I don't know with 100% certainty if Lot 171 is a forgery. But I see enough problems with it that I feel it needs a second analysis.

As a collecting community, we shouldn't be afraid to question items which are atypical. The more we study these signatures, the more we can learn. Indeed, sometimes a second look can uncover a mistake made by a dealer or auction house.

spaceflori
Member

Posts: 1376
From: Germany
Registered: May 2000

posted 04-18-2013 03:08 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for spaceflori   Click Here to Email spaceflori     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by mjanovec:
That's a philosophy that forgers will wholeheartedly support.

Quite the opposite - confusing collectors makes it even easier for forgers to distribute their stuff!

Any public discussion from self-proclaimed experts of questionable items at the end helps forgers and destroys the hobby when new collectors get totally confused by comments like those stated above.

There is nothing against a second analysis — then do it professionally and post your results here instead of playing devil's advocate and always post tongue-in-cheek comments.

gliderpilotuk
Member

Posts: 3043
From: London, UK
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 04-18-2013 05:43 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for gliderpilotuk   Click Here to Email gliderpilotuk     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Well I wouldn't touch Lot 70 with a bargepole. The others that Mark quoted are worthy of examination in my opinion.

We've had this debate about validly questioning items many times in the past, usually when vested interests took offense to knowledgeable people highlighting forgeries, or at least items that were questionable.

I for one, would rather have someone wave a "caveat emptor" flag that merely tells a buyer "go and do some homework", than blithely (and naively) accepting that all consignors are honest and knowledgeable people, overseen by top-quality scrutineers at the auction houses (we know this isn't the case).

Any public discussion of questionable items doesn't help the forgers - no one has mentioned the traits that give rise to questioning these items. It can only help the less-experienced collectors - and sellers should have the conviction to support their claims of authenticity, or the good grace to acknowledge they are wrong.

Bob M
Member

Posts: 1367
From: Atlanta-area, GA USA
Registered: Aug 2000

posted 04-18-2013 12:55 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Bob M   Click Here to Email Bob M     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Have to agree with Mark and Paul. In my opinion, their concern about both Grissoms is justified and I understand that the Armstrong (lot 171) was not accepted by at least two other big auctions houses previously, and has now surfaced with Regency. Both Grissoms can be realistically considered atypical and it would benefit any serious collector to wait on a better Grissom to come along and, ideally, one that has a Steve Zarelli LOA accompanying it.

I've always believed it's wise to heed or at least consider the advice of experienced collectors not connected with the sale of autographs to receive objective and unbiased opinions and advice.

chet
Member

Posts: 1246
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 04-19-2013 06:45 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for chet   Click Here to Email chet     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I received some emails from a few people making clear their disagreement with what I posted here, so thought I should try to clarify my position in case others may have read my comments the same way as those who wrote me.

Apparently calling the autographs in question only "problematic" wasn't satisfying enough for some folks (which I can understand based on one's own point of view), but even calling them "only" problematic is hardly what I'd consider a ringing endorsement of them. My comments had less to do with voicing support for the autographs in question than with Mark's calling them likely forgeries; I believe using such desciptors does more overall harm than good (especially if it could ever be demonstrated any of the three were positively authentic, however unlikely that may be).

There are forgeries that are SO bad that it's clear to almost anyone they couldn't possibly be real. Then there are autographs, such as those under scrutiny here, that fall into a more questionable "grey" area. Do I think the signatures here are authentic examples? Since I can't know for certain, there's a simple yardstick I use to answer that question for myself: would I bid on it? (My answer for all three here would be simply, no.) But deciding on my own to not have enough confidence in a particular autograph to have it in my collection is different than declaring a particular autograph, on an open forum, to be a likely forgery (even if it is stated as just an opinion). I simply believe it makes more sense (and does less harm) to urge collectors to use greater caution when considering certain autographs over others; the warning is made without tarnishing a piece that may, in fact, be authentic.

Bill Anders' use of multiple signatures provides a perfect example of why caution should be exercised when making strong (but unsubstantiated) statements about autograph authenticity. I've been guilty of such mistakes myself, and have tried to learn from them. I very much respect Mark's opinions, but felt his comments were a little off base here, and thought attempting a bit of clarification would be a good thing. I'm certainly no expert, but it just seems to me a more careful consideration of certain word usage could be more constructive in instances where an observer is perhaps not in the best position to publicly make such determinative calls.

(By the way, I am not the consignor of any of the above pieces, nor do I have any knowledge whatsoever of the consignors identities.)

Mercurypgm
Member

Posts: 212
From: Houston, Tx
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 04-21-2013 11:08 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mercurypgm   Click Here to Email Mercurypgm     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
With regards to flown spoons the following are in my collection.
  • Apollo 12 Conrad CMD, LM
  • Apollo 15 Irwin LM
  • Apollo 16 Duke CMD, LM
  • Apollo 17 Ron Evens CMD
  • Skylab Conrad (3 utensils)
  • Skylab Weitz (4 utensils)
  • Skylab Bean (4 utensils)
  • ASTP spoons Stafford, Slayton, Leonov
  • Apollo 11 (lunar lab)... Obviously not flown
  • Three trial CDR, LMP, CMP (obtained from the Rita Rapp collection). Obviously not flown and I regret having bought these.
  • Numerous Shuttle utensils, Russian utensils (MIR and ISS).
None of the Rita Rapp items are flown and should not be described as possibly flown as none of them were.

There was a discussion about these unflown utensils on cS and I was provided with a list of items the consignor had, but that now seems to be incomplete as no reference was made to an Armstrong spoon. It is a pity as I predicted some would hit the auction houses and be incorrectly described. In my opinion all of these are curious items and the value is no more than one would pay for a novelty item and documentation from the consignor should be provided clearly describing where they came from and that they were either trial or backup items.

NPetteys
New Member

Posts: 3
From: St. Louis, MO
Registered: Apr 2013

posted 04-26-2013 09:01 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for NPetteys   Click Here to Email NPetteys     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Take a gander at the May auction's selection of autographs and documents. Including a 1970's Neil Armstrong...

Larry McGlynn
Member

Posts: 805
From: Boston, MA
Registered: Jul 2003

posted 05-19-2013 06:51 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Larry McGlynn   Click Here to Email Larry McGlynn     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
What is the date of the gold coin? Why is attached to the matte with the reverse side up?

The obverse side with the date is so much prettier and would tell us more of the story.

Larry McGlynn
Member

Posts: 805
From: Boston, MA
Registered: Jul 2003

posted 05-22-2013 04:24 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Larry McGlynn   Click Here to Email Larry McGlynn     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Still no answer to my initial question on the gold coin.

I would like to know the date of that coin? A specific year is on the coin that makes it real.

What is the year of the coin?

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 27328
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 05-22-2013 04:53 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
It appears that the coin in question (Lot 258) has been pulled from the auction.

Larry McGlynn
Member

Posts: 805
From: Boston, MA
Registered: Jul 2003

posted 05-22-2013 07:29 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Larry McGlynn   Click Here to Email Larry McGlynn     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
About time.

ilbasso
Member

Posts: 1494
From: Greensboro, NC USA
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 05-24-2013 10:24 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for ilbasso   Click Here to Email ilbasso     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Did anyone who had submitted early bids and then was watching the live bidding get the feeling that they were bidding against themselves? There was no feedback as to whether the floor bids were from your own early bid or someone else's. You only got the "You are the high bidder" notice if you were bidding live.

I panicked the first time and submitted a couple of bids which I think ended up being against myself. The listing of items won or lost on the "My Account" screen was well behind the bidding. I thought I had lost one item, because it went from the "Winning" screen to the "Losing" screen, then 45 minutes later was back in the "Winning" screen again. I ended up bidding against myself on one item because a prior item had gone into the "Losing" screen at a hammer price less than what I had submitted, and I thought that my prior bids had not been saved properly.

I was also a little surprised that the bidding sometimes jumped dramatically. I assume that it was because there were multiple pre-submitted bids and only the higher one went live. But on one item, the progression went: Internet bidder $170, Floor bidder $500, Internet bidder $525, Floor bidder $600. That last jump was more than the increment was supposed to be at that price point. Those big jumps happened twice with lots for which I had submitted a bid before the auction opened, so obviously I have an interest in finding out exactly how this was supposed to work.

GACspaceguy
Member

Posts: 1394
From: Guyton, GA
Registered: Jan 2006

posted 05-25-2013 04:21 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for GACspaceguy   Click Here to Email GACspaceguy     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I have to agree that lately, not just this auction but others as well, I have felt that I was bidding myself up. This time I just went live. However, I felt that the prices were just too high for what was being sold (especially with today's high buyer's premiums) and did not buy a thing.

Tykeanaut
Member

Posts: 1624
From: Worcestershire, England, UK.
Registered: Apr 2008

posted 05-25-2013 04:48 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Tykeanaut   Click Here to Email Tykeanaut     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I'm glad a couple of you feel the same, I thought it was just me? I did have my eye on a couple of items but in the end didn't bother. Unfortunately I think the hobby is being exploited by folks as a commercial venture. Which is fine, that's freedom and democracy but it's a shame that the resulting high prices along with fees and shipping are excluding many geniune collectors perhaps?

Rick Mulheirn
Member

Posts: 2458
From: England
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 05-25-2013 06:29 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Rick Mulheirn   Click Here to Email Rick Mulheirn     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Anybody notice what lots #295 and #296 went for?

Tykeanaut
Member

Posts: 1624
From: Worcestershire, England, UK.
Registered: Apr 2008

posted 05-25-2013 09:34 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Tykeanaut   Click Here to Email Tykeanaut     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hi Rick, $1050 and $950 respectively.

spaced out
Member

Posts: 2597
From: Paris, France
Registered: Aug 2003

posted 05-25-2013 09:35 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for spaced out   Click Here to Email spaced out     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Rick Mulheirn:
Anybody notice what lots #295 and #296 went for?

Lot 295 - $1050 hammer ($1249.50 with fees)
Lot 296 - $950 hammer ($1130.50 with fees)

Rick Mulheirn
Member

Posts: 2458
From: England
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 05-25-2013 10:01 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Rick Mulheirn   Click Here to Email Rick Mulheirn     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Thank you Chris.

idrvball
Member

Posts: 143
From: Burke, VA USA
Registered: Mar 2009

posted 05-26-2013 11:31 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for idrvball   Click Here to Email idrvball     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I thought the auction went well. Bought some things.

The thing that I had concerns about was that I won two lots. On the screen in the bottom right, it said, "You Won Lot #xxx for $xxx" and when I went to my account, it said I had lost. So, I took a photo of the screen showing I won and called the toll free number, and they said i had lost.

Anyone else encounter this?

ilbasso
Member

Posts: 1494
From: Greensboro, NC USA
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 05-26-2013 10:57 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for ilbasso   Click Here to Email ilbasso     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Regarding Tykenaut's comment about commercial exploitation, I do have to say that one of the most frustrating feelings in the world is being outbid by $25 on an item you really wanted, only to see that item go up for sale a few months later at twice the price. If there's something you really, really want, you have to go for it.

My hunch is that if the people who are intent on reselling items are acting rationally, they won't bid up an item so high that they can't get a good profit out of it in the near future. That tells me then that if you have a real desire for an artifact to add to your collection and are willing to pay a little more than it is "rationally" worth, you can win it. You just have to determine how badly you want it and if it's worth the money to satisfy your desire.

It would be nice to have the deep pockets that many of the high-end collectors have. They have amazing collections of rare artifacts that rival some of the best museums. I know I will never play in that league, and so I try not to waste my emotional energy fretting that I'll never own a flown Apollo 11 checklist. I'm learning to be happy with owning some 'second-tier' pieces that still represent important parts of our space exploration history. They're certainly more affordable!

Blackarrow
Member

Posts: 2024
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 05-27-2013 10:18 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Blackarrow     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
What kind of items do you consider as "second-tier"?

ilbasso
Member

Posts: 1494
From: Greensboro, NC USA
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 05-27-2013 02:38 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for ilbasso   Click Here to Email ilbasso     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I should maybe have said A- to A instead of A+++. Just conjecturing here, but something like a lunar-surface flown checklist or a Wernher von Braun ID card would be an A+++. An Apollo badge worn by Kurt Debus or an astronaut might be an A+. A badge from another named person, not as famous as von Braun or Debus (e.g., Melvin Brooks or Sy Liebergot) might be an A- or A.

Having said that, there's a story behind every artifact if you can dig deep enough. To the extent that I can tie the artifact to a person or location, it increases its appeal to me. So even a badge from one of the 400+ people sitting at a console in the Firing Room might not mean anything to the average space enthusiast (certainly not to the man on the street) -- so it's not "top tier" -- but it nonetheless tells an important story about the people who made the space program happen. Those are the types of artifacts that are most affordable and still historically significant in their own way.

ilbasso
Member

Posts: 1494
From: Greensboro, NC USA
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 05-27-2013 03:16 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for ilbasso   Click Here to Email ilbasso     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
You could make the case that none of these items have any "real" value, outside of what you would get from selling the materials for recycling or scrap. Any increase in value above that is entirely due to "sentimentality," for lack of a better word - the value we ascribe to an item solely because of our association or identification with it and its place in history or culture.

The point I was originally trying to make is that it is still very possible for a space enthusiast with a limited budget to put together a respectable collection representing the missions or programs that they like the best. If you can't afford a Kurt Debus Apollo 11 Firing Room badge for $1250, you can still find other Apollo 11 badges of various sorts for under $50 on eBay. You still have a "piece" of the mission. It may not be from a celebrity-status person, but its original owner most likely put in just as many long nights and weekends to make a mission successful as did the more famous people on the program.

gliderpilotuk
Member

Posts: 3043
From: London, UK
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 05-28-2013 03:19 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for gliderpilotuk   Click Here to Email gliderpilotuk     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by idrvball:
The thing that I had concerns about was that I won two lots. On the screen in the bottom right, it said, "You Won Lot #xxx for $xxx" and when I went to my account, it said I had lost.

Sort of: I was unable to bid live so placed my bids in advance. I hooked into the live auction just after my bids had gone "live" but my account showed I had been outbid on everything - even one item where the "winning" bid was lower than my max! But, to my surprise I received an invoice for the 2 items I really wanted including a "bargain" Apollo 11 signed anniversary brochure.


This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 

All times are CT (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | The Source for Space History & Artifacts

Copyright 1999-2012 collectSPACE.com All rights reserved.


Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a





advertisement