|
Author
|
Topic: "New" moonwalker autgraphs?
|
BrianB
Member Posts: 118
From: Kamloops BC Canada
Registered: Oct 2001
|
posted 01-11-2004 07:48 PM
   
Here's one for discussion.Say you are fortunate enough to have a piece signed by all of the moonwalkers, or one autgraph from each mission (as an example). Do you attempt to add any new sigs, when/if another moonlanding happens, or do you keep your "original 12" original? BrianB |
chet
Member Posts: 1506
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 01-11-2004 08:44 PM
I'd keep the original 12 separate from any new moonwalkers. But of course, it's all a matter of personal preference.-chet |
Richard
New Member Posts: 5
From: Morrisonville, New York USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted 01-11-2004 09:26 PM
Definitely keep them separate. They are apollo while the new mission is...well...something else. It is kind of like saying you have a picture signed by all of the original M7 astronauts. Why would you add a shuttle astronaut signature. With such reasoning, you could say that they both went into space, so what is the difference. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-12-2004 01:58 PM
I would think if you had two pieces signed by all 12 moonwalkers (yeah, we can all dream) that using one to continue collecting signatures of the "new" moonwalkers would be an interesting project.As an aside, I believe "bridge" pieces, signed by Cernan and Schmitt and the next two (or more) moonwalkers would be striking, as would Cernan and the next "first" to return. |
FFrench
Member Posts: 3161
From: San Diego
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 01-12-2004 02:11 PM
I would imagine that it would also depend on how many new moon walkers there are. As these Moon / Mars plans are currently all hypothetical - what if a new program involved only two more landings, say, with two people on each, before the push on to Mars? I'd think it very appropriate to have all 16 moon walkers on one photo. If it becomes a more open-ended return - keep them on different items. What would be wonderful is to have Armstrong and the first woman on the moon on the same item. FF |
SUBHUMAN
unregistered
|
posted 01-15-2004 08:08 PM
I have a 16x20 Photo of the moon, signed by all who have walked on the surface.I will gladly let any new moonwalkers sign the photo if they ever walk on the surface in the future.My philosophy is this--my photo would not be complete with "all" moonwalkers if the future moonwalkers failed to sign it.Just my 2 cents worth. (4 cents worth due to inflation) |
chet
Member Posts: 1506
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 01-15-2004 08:54 PM
To each his own, certainly, but I think adding any "new" moonwalkers would seriously devalue any piece that was signed by the original 12, as the "new" moonwalker crowd would be open-ended, and thus turn your completed photo into an incomplete one. I don't think there's any question that "incomplete" signed items aren't worth as much as "complete" ones.
Of course, as Robert suggested, I think a piece signed by Neil Armstrong, the 1st of the 1st generation of moonwalkers, and whoever becomes the 1st of the new generation of moonwalkers, would gain in value, not lose.-chet |
JasonB
Member Posts: 1091
From:
Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 01-15-2004 08:58 PM
That would be a perfect item to continue to get signed, and it's big enough for many more sigs. You should get a few copies of that same picture if you can. That way when(if) you run out of room, you just start another one. My dad did that with pictures of the Hollywood sign. He'd get 30-40 movie stars on one and then start another one. HMMMM. This raises an interesting dilemna. If I applied the logic of some of the John Young thread-in the name of "fairness" you will have to pay every future moonwalker you get on it $10,000-$20,000 to sign it! Just a interesting prospect that crossed my mind when I read what you have, and what you might plan to do with it in 15-20 years. |
JasonB
Member Posts: 1091
From:
Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 01-15-2004 09:05 PM
I forgot to mention I was beginning to slobber on myself thinking of a 16x20 signed by all 12 moonwalkers. If you ever run out of heirs keep me in mind.  |
Richard
New Member Posts: 5
From: Morrisonville, New York USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted 01-15-2004 09:56 PM
Again, I would not get any "new moonwalkers" to sign a piece like SUBHUMAN's (by the way, I'm also jealous). I seem to think that it would devalue the piece. For instance, I would much rather buy a picture of say the earth with all M7 signatures autographs than a picture with all M7 autographs and Drew Gaffney's just thrown in with it. It just sort of destroys the historical significance.Furthermore, it seems that with the multi-signed photos, each new signature added has only limited returns. For example, Robert was on Antiques Roadshow and I believe they gave an estimate on his signed book for 10K (I could only get the sound to work, so I'm not quite sure). I would think that if you you were able to sell each signature on its own, it would be worth a lot more. I guess you could state my argument like this: How much would you pay for a picture signed by all the crew members from A1 to A17. Now how much would you pay for a similar picture that also had Lousma's autograph added. You could argue that although he was technically an Apollo era astronaut, his signature makes the picture more complete and therefore more desirable. However, I believe that the picture would be worth the same or even less. This is because the new signature (although by itself has value) just somehow doesn't fit into this set and therefor may actually detract from the piece. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-15-2004 10:08 PM
But is market value really the most important consideration? Is it a consideration at all? No one can answer these questions for you, as there is only one correct answer: yours. For example, I don't care about the monetary value of my Who's Who -- its not for sale, nor will it ever be (and it will serve whatever descendant of mine good if he/she gets a depressed return for daring to try to profit off what should be a family heirloom). The ARS appearance was more out of affection for the show than a true interest to hear what the appraiser had to say. So, for those with moonwalker sets considering whether you should add more signatures, you need to ask yourself why are you are collecting: if you care any bit about a return on investment, then by all means take the good advice posted here; if you'd sooner see the piece destroyed then sold, then do what will bring you the most pleasure. [This message has been edited by Robert Pearlman (edited January 15, 2004).] |
Richard
New Member Posts: 5
From: Morrisonville, New York USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted 01-16-2004 10:11 AM
I would have to definitely agree with you on that point. I am very sentimental also about things and would never sell anything that was given to me personally or autographs that I recieved in person. There just isn't a price high enough for me to sell. Those are part of my personal connection to these history makers.However, there are alot of collectors who haven't had the opportunities that you have had in collecting. I would suggest in those instances the market value does play a major factor. For instance, I have never or will never meet Grissom. He died before I was born. Therefore, his signature in itself does not have much sentimental meaning for me. Yes, I would love to have a bunch of photos signed by him because of his historical significance, but if I had to choose between a correspondence between me and Alan Bean versus a letter from Grissom to some stranger, the choice would be easy. The Alan Bean letter holds much more meaning for me personally regardless of the value. Now if I had to choose between a signed photo of Grissom or a signed photo of Jim Irwin, then market value would play a big factor. Yes, now your point is valid, However, in regards to moonwalker's signatures, the market value will play more and more a role in collecting. This will be expecially true in the future with new collectors who will not have such a connection. |
Richard
New Member Posts: 5
From: Morrisonville, New York USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted 01-16-2004 10:13 AM
By the way, I would love for you to write an artical about your backstage experience on the ARS. Also, was your book the only thing you brought to the show. |
spaced out
Member Posts: 3110
From: Paris, France
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 01-16-2004 10:34 AM
quote:
if you'd sooner see the piece destroyed than sold...
Eek! I'm hope you don't mean that literally Robert. I understand that for you the monetary value of items in your collection is irrelevant, and I'm sure most of us feel the same way about our own items as long as we have enough resources to get by in real life.That shouldn't mean though that if circumstances beyond our control force us to have to part with something that it would be better to destroy the item! The fact that items get sold should not somehow tarnish the way they were obtained in the first place. If you had to sell an Armstrong autograph that you had obtained in person it shouldn't be seen as an insult to him or a betrayal of his trust, assuming it was not your intention when you got it. I think it would be better to look on the brighter side of it and think about how much pleasure you're giving to the person that buys that hard-to-get item. Most likely it will go to a collector who will cherish it and who has no other way to get hold of such a thing. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-16-2004 10:49 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Richard:
Now if I had to choose between a signed photo of Grissom or a signed photo of Jim Irwin, then market value would play a big factor.
When you say that market value would play a decision, is that based on what you could afford or which you would desire more? quote:
By the way, I would love for you to write an artical about your backstage experience on the ARS. Also, was your book the only thing you brought to the show.
Here you go! http://collectspace.com/ubb/Forum23/HTML/000092.html [This message has been edited by Robert Pearlman (edited January 16, 2004).] |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-16-2004 11:12 AM
quote:
Originally posted by spaced out:
Eek! I'm hope you don't mean that literally Robert.
I didn't mean to advocate that collectors should destroy their items rather than choose to sell them, or that by selling, you are necessarily cheapening its sentimental value. Like my earlier comment regarding how a person should choose to collect signatures on an item that has been multi-signed, I believe that how one disposes with their collection should be a personal choice. For myself, for one specific item, my autographed Who's Who, there are only two reasons I could ever see offering it for sale: (1) It was an absolute matter of life and death, i.e. someone in my family or I needed emergency surgery that I nor others could afford by any other means; or (2) Someone was crazy enough to pay me $25 million. $5 million would be used to expand collectSPACE to the business I have dreams of it being, and $20 million would be used to buy a seat on the next Soyuz to the International Space Station -- effectively accomplishing both my life's dreams. Otherwise, selling it would bring as much grief as finding it was destroyed, and I think I would prefer the latter. [This message has been edited by Robert Pearlman (edited January 16, 2004).] |
Richard
New Member Posts: 5
From: Morrisonville, New York USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted 01-16-2004 01:41 PM
Robert,
Thanks for the link! That really is a great story!By the way, to your other question, I would have to say both. |
advertisement