|
|
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Signed Apollo 1 photo
|
ampeg
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 11-21-2002 11:43 PM
   
Hi all this is my first post here so please excuse me if I'm not up on Space collectables like most here appear to be , I would like to know just what this photo is worth these days, it's a b&w photo of all 3 crew of Apollo 1, my father got it while fliming for ABC , he also got me a signed photo of the crew of Apollo 9, I'll try tp post a link to view the photos,
Cheers, Jaime http://members12.clubphoto.com/jaime589000/1009798/owner-32c8.phtml
|
apollo11lem5@aol.com
unregistered
|
posted 11-22-2002 12:16 AM
Jaime..... Very nice Apollo 1 signed photo. I believe that such an SP currently sells for a "going rate" of about 5000.00. Then again....I am NOT an expert. There are several experts on this message board. Perhaps they will chime in ? Thanks for sharing !! Best Always....Donald Brady |
Joe Davies
Member Posts: 258
From: UK
Registered: Jun 2000
|
posted 11-22-2002 05:24 AM
Nice photo. Its quite a tough one to appraise. Its an unusual candid photo of the crew that I have never seen before, let alone signed. Sounds like it has a good provenance if your father obtained the signatures in person, if that can be documented then it would significantly add to the piece. That provenance and the unusual photo up the value. Condition is very important and its not possible to really tell that in the images. Also size is very important, with 10x8 inch being optimal. That its B&W and personalised reduce the value downwards.
My own feel is that it is worth quite a bit less than the official crew portrait.
The selling venue will also make a quite a difference to the value, some venues get better prices than others.
A nice piece that would have appeal to collectors, as to its actual "value" its almost impossible to say. If you are looking to keep it and need a value for your household insurance then that will probably be quite a bit more than what the market would actually pay.
There are probably several collectors and dealers who would like to acquire this photo from you. Of course what you really wish to know is what it is worth. Almost impossible to say with any degree of accuracy, my own feel is more than $2000 and less than $5000.Joe |
chet
Member Posts: 1506
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 11-23-2002 02:44 AM
Hate to be the one to chime in with
bad news, but all 3 signatures on this
Apollo 1 piece look fake to me. The only one that comes somewhat close is the Chaffee.
The White is particularly bad.
I could be wrong in my assessment, but
I don't think I am. Perhaps others would
care to add their opinions? -Chet |
Joe Davies
Member Posts: 258
From: UK
Registered: Jun 2000
|
posted 11-23-2002 07:18 AM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
Hate to be the one to chime in with
bad news, but all 3 signatures on this
Apollo 1 piece look fake to me.Perhaps others would
care to add their opinions? -Chet
The sigs look good to me. They are hardly classic variants, but I don't have a problem with them. At first sight they do have some anomolies but I think thats more likely to be a result of the piece being signed on the fly (for example it being held in one hand and signed by the other hand while signing rather than being signed on a desk).
Joe
|
chet
Member Posts: 1506
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 11-23-2002 12:54 PM
Hi Joe!
It's certainly possible that these sigs
were signed "on the fly", as you describe,
and that could account for the "sloppiness"
and uncharacteristic variations in the
signatures. (As I said, the Chaffee looks
not too off). I'd be VERY wary of this
piece however.-Chet |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 11-23-2002 12:57 PM
Chet, before I offer my own opinion, what is your impression of the Apollo 9 crew signatures? |
chet
Member Posts: 1506
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 11-23-2002 03:02 PM
Hi Robert!
I see where you're going with this, and I certainly think your point (not yet made!)
is well taken. The Apollo 9 sigs look good as gold to me, (with the Schweikart signature being just a bit "strange", but ok nonetheless). The Apollo 9 photo certainly
lends greater "credibility" to the Apollo 1
piece, in that it renders the possibility
that Joe brought up, that these were
"on the fly" signatures, more likely.
That being considered however, the Apollo 1
piece, even if authentic, on its own and
separate from the back-up crew photo, will
always be questionable. With that in mind,
I'd be skeptical as to any lasting value.
(provenance lacking figuring in, of course).-Chet |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 11-23-2002 04:10 PM
Chet, you correclty guessed where I was going with my question, but you stopped short of the conclusion.As another collectSPACE member is fond of saying, you have to look at the big picture. Not only are the A9 crew autographs a consideration, but also the use of the same pen (or what appears to be the same pen) and the choice of the rarer candid photograph. I do agree with you Chet, that if this piece is to maintain its value than it would be a good idea to keep the A9 and A1 crew autographs together. I would also suggest Jamie, that you try to document your father's career at ABC during the time period. Perhaps you have a press pass issued by NASA? Or, if your father is still alive (it wasn't apparent from your post) you might ask that he write you a letter about how it was he came into contact with the Apollo 1 and 9 crews to serve as further provenance. At to its value, I agree with Joe. You are probably looking at a maximum of $5000 in today's market.
|
Joe Davies
Member Posts: 258
From: UK
Registered: Jun 2000
|
posted 11-23-2002 04:30 PM
I think one of the down-sides of the many fakes we see contaminating our beloved subject is that we are all liable to develop a paranoia about almost any signature(s). A healthy sketicism is prudent, but we mustn't lose sight of the important fact that most items were not signed under ideal conditions, and it isn't always possible to compare what firstly appears "like for like". For example, the Apollo 1 signatures that most of us use as our benchmark enimate from that hoard of Apollo 1 crew portraits signed almost certainly in one sitting. The signers were comfortable and undoubtedly seated while signing and the good signatures reflect that. However, in the piece under discussion it is most unlikely they were signing at a desk, if the povenance is true and it strikes me that there is no reason to doubt it, then this may of been a candid taken either by the original recipient or one of his colleagues. One can almost imagine the scanario when next they are shooting news footage of the astos that the guy asks them to sign his photo. Of course they oblige, holding it in one hand, signing with the othe, maybe leaning the photo against a wall. There is something to be said about collecting signatures that look like they have been signed by real people under real conditions. True, they may not be "text book" examples, but then we enter the world of the classic dilema - does one want a signature that is real or one that people perceive to be real. In addition, a quality provenance elevates any signature, and while the provenance of these signatures has not yet been totally verified my feel is that it will most likely be sincere and genuine. I urge all collectors to examine all the evidence and information regarding their possible acquisitions. It is too simplistic to look in isolation at the character formation of one of two letters within a signature and go shouting to the world that the item is fake and by intimation that the seller is a scoundrel. We are fortunate to live in societies where the concept of innocent until proven guilty is one of the core basics of our system of ethics, and as such I believe we should adopt a stance that says a signature is good unless someone can show by technical, forensic or circumstantial evidence that it is bad. A bad "g" or whatever, is NOT the basis for saying signatures are questionable. Joe |
silex
Member Posts: 45
From: Australia
Registered: Oct 2002
|
posted 11-23-2002 05:23 PM
The Ed White is almost exactly identical to an Ed White I bought at a live auction in Connecticut (Alexander Autographs) a week ago.
have a look
http://colonial_collector.tripod.com/mypersonalsite/ What do you think guys [This message has been edited by silex (edited November 23, 2002).] |
ampeg
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 11-23-2002 08:09 PM
Hi all, Well this has been interesting!, Thanks to everyone who chimed in & believe me I understand the suspicion as you don't
know me , as for these 2 photos after my Dad gave then to me I just left them in a envelope & forgot all about them till many
years later when I wondered just who signed them & was shocked to see it was the crew of Apollo 1 (to show you just how
little I know till I posted here I didn't know the the crew of Apollo 9 was the the backup crew) I wanted to check with my Dad
about these 2 photos before I replied , we both thought he got them while filming a show called, "Space in the Age of
Aquarius" or "Space, Beyond the Age of Aquarius" (2-hour TV Special), produced & directed by Hugh O'Brian which had
Jonathan Winters in a # of funny roles (I got to see him doing this & he was VERY funny) but after looking at his NASA
passes & some of the photos he got from NASA of that production it shows it was filmed in Sept. 1970 , so these signatures
most likely were obtained while he was working for ABC News with Jules Bergman , he worked for ABC News from '66 to
'68, but even before then my Dad did a lot of filming at the Cape & at Houston while working for North American on the
Navaho Missile (or the "never-go" as they called it at the time) & later for Lookout Mountain Air force Laboratories, I have a
photo in an USAF mag that shows him & my Godfather checking cameras for a '59 Atlas launch from when he worked at
Lookout Mountain Air force Laboratories, if any of you saw a NBC produced show called "The Rocket Pilots" you saw some
of his Aerial film he shot on the X-15 project at Edwards from the back seat of a F-100F ( I still have the big vinyl press kit he
got at the roll out of the X-15 ) as well as film of the very early Vanguard, Atlas & Titan missile tests at the Cape, the last
NASA related filming he was to do was the landing of STS-51B , I went along & remember him saying when he saw his
camera position which was a very long way form the dry lake bed, "Oh how the mighty have fallen!" cause when he was at
Edwards back in the good old days of Lookout Mountain when asked were he needed to be for the best filming he could say "
In the back seat of a chase plane!" ,
Cheers, Jaime,
BTW I'll add photos of the signatures from the Apollo 9 crew & maybe some other odds & ends if anyone wants to check them
out, |
chet
Member Posts: 1506
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 11-23-2002 08:30 PM
Well, Joe, I don't think I could disagree with you more. Of course it stinks that so many fakers and charlatans
have tarnished our hobby. That being said, how can you possibly take the position that one should adopt the
stance that a signature is good unless demonstrably shown that it is bad? I very much believe in innocence until
guilt is proven, but that is applicable in a court of law, not in autograph collecting.
You stated that most items weren't/aren't signed under ideal conditions; what is your basis for that statement?
It seems to me that the majority of signed materials ARE signed under good writing conditions , usually at
the astronaut's leisure. Isn't that scenario more likely overall, over the many years that astros signed freely,
than astros signing materials thrust their way by excited fans and admirers? Isn't the proof that most astros'
signatures show a definite uniformity over the years?
In getting back to the Apollo 1 piece, I have acknowledged that it may certainly be an authentically signed
photo. I didn't pick on one or two letters, as you intimated, nor did I "shout" that this was a fake and the seller
a "scoundrel". I was merely stating my opinion that the uncharacteristic look of all three signatures made
the piece suspect, and that any purchaser would be wise to scrutinize it VERY carefully, and consider certain
factors that one might otherwise feel more comfortable in "overlooking" if this were a more "conventional" piece.
You stated, "A bad "g" or whatever, is NOT the basis for saying signatures are questionable". Again, I think
that position is entirely wrong. A bad "g" or whatever isn't a basis for stating that something is definitively
a fake, but it is THE basis for stating that something is questionable. (If something unusual about a piece
doesn't make it questionable, then what does?) Taken together with the Apollo 9 photo, the Apollo 1 piece
gains strength, but on its own it will always have to withstand question and doubt, and I stand by my assessment
that its value is therefore greatly diminished in that regard. It may make a wonderful keepsake for whomever
acquired it, and those it's passed on to who trust in its provenance, but on its own, this piece is tainted. IMHO.-Chet |
ampeg
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 11-23-2002 09:33 PM
Guys, first off I hope I didn't start something here, the reason I posted here in the first place is two fold , one day I may want to sell these photos but much more importantly I was trying to get some idea as to just what I have because a few years back we had a bad flood from a burst pipe that did about $75,000 worth of damage & I was just thankful these didn't get wet like everything else, anyway I uploaded a few more photos to the link up top, the NASA patch came off a Space suit they were using during the 1970
show, my Dad was about to film a scene & one of their escorts or handlers said "wait,that's an official Nasa emblem that will have to come off" so it was carefully snipped if off & handed it to my Dad who stuck it in his pocket & forgot about it, Cheers,
Jaime |
chet
Member Posts: 1506
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 11-23-2002 11:31 PM
Hi Jaime.
I don't think you've "started" anything here; no contentiousness, just a friendly
debate. My opinion of your photo wasn't
meant in any way to cast aspersions; you
have a unique photo, and sounds like some other very interesting items. My comments were based solely on the appearance of the signatures on your Apollo 1 photo, and I
don't think there's much controversy as to
the fact they appear different from other
more recognizable samples. That being said,
sounds like you certainly have some unique pieces; thanks for sharing them with us.-Chet | |
Contact Us | The Source for Space History & Artifacts
Copyright 2020 collectSPACE.com All rights reserved.
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a
|
|
|
 advertisement
|
