posted February 03, 2008 11:07 PM               

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 $200-400, 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 $800-1000...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.)

posted February 04, 2008 09:32 AM               

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.

As Larry McGlynn has so wisely suggested elsewhere on this board, buy gold instead!

posted December 16, 2008 03:57 PM               

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.

Another question I have for current day copies. Glossy or matt finish? What are pros/cons for glossy vs. matt? Do astronauts tend to prefer one over the other for signing? Personally I like glossy.

Bill