posted 12-15-2010 10:08 AM               

...I suppose what concerns me is the generalized statement that all astronauts are not to be believed or trusted. Especially, when NASA's paperwork has been proven time and again to be spotty even in a court of law.

posted 12-15-2010 02:24 PM              

In most cases, the only thing that makes an item flown vs. not is the astronaut certification.

posted 12-15-2010 02:35 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by freshspot:
In most cases, the only thing that makes an item flown vs. not is the astronaut certification.

---

The existing inventory documentation — as flawed as it may be (and it is clearly less than ideal) — must be taken into consideration.

posted 12-15-2010 04:20 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leon Ford:
I'm afraid we are getting into a time now when certification will always be an issue.

---

posted 12-15-2010 04:34 PM               

There's still some risk of an item being misidentified and a slight risk that an item might be remembered as being from the wrong flight in the case of multi-mission astronauts, but this will be rare.

One of the main reasons we can be confident is that its unlikely the astronauts saved many unflown items of hardware or equipment, especially not items like umbilical cords, straps, netting, wiring, seat fabric and the like.

posted 12-15-2010 04:37 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by spaced out:
One of the main reasons we can be confident is that its unlikely the astronauts saved many unflown items of hardware or equipment...

---

posted 12-15-2010 05:06 PM            

The vast majority of items used in training which have come from the astronauts have been checklists, pens, and items like that... not key components from the trainers equivalent to straps, COAS, seatback materials, hand controllers, etc. There have been exceptions to that rule, but it is much more uncommon.

On the other hand, the Mercury to Apollo era astronauts had the opportunity to acquire items directly from their flown spacecraft post-flight. The trainers were still in use for virtually all the crews who flew as the next mission was coming into the trainer while they were leaving it for their mission.

In my short time in this field, I have had to review the provenance of many, many items and I have discovered that the documentation of component history performed by the spacecraft and space hardware manufacturers (and NASA) was not the same as the "Quality Assurance" control procedures that were utilized during my 20 years as a Submarine officer in the U.S. Navy. They were, actually, quite good... but they are not ironclad. One has to use a preponderance of the evidence to support flight certification for any artifact.

The best situation is, obviously, when the astronaut's recollection, paperwork, and ID info on the artifact all match. Anything less and it is up to the buyer to evaluate and determine if they feel the evidence justifies the classification as "flown." It can ALWAYS be debated... and sometimes should.

posted 12-18-2010 10:56 PM               

Furthermore, these astronauts often have relevant information that they have chosen to keep private while engaging in these commercial transactions. We all trust and rely upon astronaut certifications to prove that flags, patches, beta cloths, coins, etc. flew on a mission; yet the contemporary lists they filed (for Apollo flights) with the Astronaut Office have never been made public.

The claim of privacy, while reasonable when these were personal souvenirs, has become disingenuous when dozens of these items are routinely sold for thousands of dollars in commercial transactions. Furthermore, it is hard to imagine anything on these contemporaneous lists being embarrassing to an astronaut today when, for example, flown Playboy nudes are being sold with astronaut COAs.

The astronauts should be, and should have been, willing to back up their COAs with this information. Their failure to do so has me wondering why. If trust but verify is a reasonable approach, without giving any slight to any astronaut, their refusal to do so is unsettling.

It is also reasonably clear that on the later Apollo missions, there was documentation prepared after a mission which was used to identify the flown items which were later delivered to the astronauts. Once in a while a copy of part of such a document is included with a flown artifact. What happened to these documents? It is hard to see why it sometimes is provided by an astronaut, but often is not. Yes it is possible that an astronaut kept all the flown artifacts and he remembers specifically that they were flown but never kept the lists he received along with all the flown items, but maybe not.

posted 12-19-2010 07:34 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by SRB:
Furthermore, these astronauts often have relevant information that they have chosen to keep private while engaging in these commercial transactions.

---

posted 12-19-2010 05:50 PM               

While, as Leon mentioned, some of this may be shown to a few people or selectively disclosed, they have not been made public. There are a few limited exceptions such as one or two Gemini PPK lists that came into the public domain when they were sold.

posted 12-19-2010 07:59 PM               

As for people using this information to write phony COAs, I think it cuts the other way. If, for example, you knew that astronaut X carried 25 American flags in his PPK and you suddenly began seeing dozens appear, you would know something was wrong. Now you don't.

posted 12-20-2010 02:40 PM               

A few years back I was in a cubicle at the offices of a very well known auction house, writing descriptions for 100+ aviation/military artifacts I was consigning. In the cubicle next to me I overheard a conversation that changed the way I collect. This well known head honcho of the auction house was on the phone to a client who was consigning space artifacts. The client was obviously concerned about misrepresenting his artifacts and the lack of provenance to the items he wanted to sell.

The auctioneer was trying to alleviate the sellers concern that they didn't have any provenance of the items. The auctioneer, who we all know very well, was telling the consignor to send his artifacts for the next auction and let them determine the history. The auctioneer said in no uncertain terms to the seller, "If I say your items are flown... then they're flown and nobody is going to question it."

posted 12-20-2010 10:56 PM               

When I presented the item to Jim Lovell at the recent Astronaut Scholarship Foundation show (paperwork in tow) for adding his signature to Fred Haise's some-time-ago signing, neither could certify it as "flown" since they - understandably - couldn't recall that particular item tacked to the CM lower equipment bay.

I have no issue with the flown provenance given other documentation but just an example of the care with which these two gentlemen at least consider their personal certification. I do understand their position. I'm also glad for the backup.

posted 12-22-2010 10:31 AM               

However, there seem to be a few who are willing to authenticate or claim things are flown, when there's a question of provenance. I have spoken to astronauts who would sign anything put in front of them for a fee, including items purported as flown, but that is the rare exception.

I think we all agree there are dealers/collectors, like Kim Poor, MoonPans, Larry McGlynn, Ken H, John Fogheiser, Scott Schnewiss and others, who go to great lengths to guarantee and research the provenance of an artifact. My post was to let others know, there are well known and well respected auction houses who manufacture provenance of artifacts, where none previously existed.

I remember an auction a few years back when the Irwin family sold items as "flown" by Jim Irwin, when in fact they were not. This is not an isolated incident and given the prices commanded for flown items, I think it's more common for artifacts to be intentionally misdescribed or fabricated through an auction house looking to make large profits, than we allow ourselves to believe.

Let's also not forget about Scott Cornish being the only one to discover Neil Armstrong forgeries, that were so good as to be previously sold by many auction houses without question. Granted there are a great many more NA autographs than flown artifacts on the market, but it still shows that auction houses are willing to do whatever they can to increase profits.

posted 12-24-2010 01:41 PM               

This includes eye witness accounts (astronauts, ground crew, family, transcript mention, etc.), documentation (ASHUR lists or PPK lists or NASA memos, etc.), and photographic (video as well as still images), historic precedence (items of such nature carried? others on the flight? etc). All will have elements of influence on provenance (astronaut vs. family member vs ground crew memory or statement, for example.)

Even then, ALL items are subject to human error and interpretation - by both the astronaut as well as the researcher. (I have seen my share of researchers take an item out of context, or try to extrapolate one instance into an "if it happened once, it must have ALWAYS happened stance). Researchers also classify their data points into primary, secondary, and tertiary levels of value among the data points -- which should also apply here.

I say all this to say -- there are NO ABSOLUTES in provenance. Not in any hobby or endeavor -- not for art works, coins, stamps, historic documents, sports memorabilia, etc. etc. We can debate this all we want, but in the end it comes down to a preponderence of the evidence - or what one person in the WSJ today referred to as "the mosaic of intelligence gathering." You view all these research data points (astronaut COA, ASHUR list, flight transcripts, photos, nasa memos and documentation, etc.) as pieces of a puzzle that, when taken together, create a "mosaic of" the evidence, which allows you to make a judgmental leap of faith -- this item did or did not fly.

Some data points hold more weight than others, and the threshold of "evidence" is a sliding scale depending on the artifact (a PPK personal memento, say, where the astronaut COA would be paramount) vs. a piece of hardware that was gifted to the astronaut or part of the material they reclaimed -- How was it used? Where was it used? was it LM or CM? Did it fly or was it a flight spare or training? etc. Such items demand more of a "mosaic patern" of the preponderance of the evidence.

posted 12-27-2010 12:41 PM               

In all seriousness, I hope that in the future I can ask you for help on the research of objects. I consider you extremely knowledgeable in the equipment area.

On that note, Scott, I think you are being too general with your comments. While I agree with some specifics of your comments about older auction houses, the ones that have entered the fray since 2008, have worked to vet the material in their auctions. I can name Heritage, Bonhams and RR Auctions as ones that, once burned, have learned to ask questions on any artifact purported to be flown, even from astronauts. The astronauts are even asking collectors to vet their material before selling it now.

Things have changed. Astronauts are beginning to understand that the stakes are higher now and they need to review any artifact that they are putting up at auction or private sale. They are starting to realize and understand how important provenance is now and they don't want their reputation disparaged. While I will always be leery of families of deceased astronauts, if the proper research is done, even their objects can be vetted too.

I watched one astronaut walk away from a very nice potential payday on an artifact, because he could not find one page of his PPK list that would have identified the piece.

The problem with provenance is that is still an inexact science. People can be wrong, photos can be "photoshopped," Stowage lists have been manipulated (whited out and recopied). So it really comes down to a preponderance of provenance, since no one research direction is exact.

More hardcore collectors use every bit of information (astronaut, Stowage lists) they can get their hands on to further establish provenance of a piece in their collections and do not rely on just one category of information.

posted 12-27-2010 05:44 PM               

I agree with some of the issues that you have brought up about auctions and consignors. I tend to think only in terms of astronaut collections, because that is the title of this thread. We also know if an astronaut is consigning an artifact, because the auction house will proudly announce that fact to the masses.

As for private consignors, flown material should always be suspect unless there is an proven astronaut COA or documentation in the NASA files. I will say that some auction houses are getting better about fact checking the consignor. I will also say that they have taken that step, because of the embarrassment of posting incorrectly attributed information about artifacts that get questioned here on cS.

posted 12-28-2010 07:48 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Larry McGlynn:
I tend to think only in terms of astronaut collections, because that is the title of this thread.

---

posted 12-28-2010 09:13 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
COA corroboration requires a bit more information - the "verify" component.

---

For some items, yes -- but not always - for many items, this is not possible, given poor documenation, or the fact that the item was a PPK piece, or what-have-you. A blanket statement can not be made for ALL items that more than an astro COA is necessary. For some items, it is necessarry, for others not. Just my opinion.

Also -- just a comment, not meant as a slight to anyone -- but I believe we are often taking a few extreme examples out of context and extrapolating their errors across the board to imply that ALL assertions by astronauts or auction houses or all COAs are wrong or not enough. This just isn't the case. The fact of the matter is that the vast MAJORITY are right. It is the minority of cases that are wrong. We can't lose sight of that fact. When we do, that does a dis-service to places that do employee experts in the field to vet the material, and collectors who do their own research, or astronauts (the majority)who do take the veracity of flown/unflown status very, very seriously.

Additiionally, in EVERY endeavor, Caveat Emptor is key -- wether dealing with a museum, an auction house, an astronaut, or another collector. Mistakes happen. People are human. Mistakes happen with the paper work. The lists. Etc. And not everyone has the best motives or intentions -- but those people tend to weed themesleves out over time. (Just read about the Chinese fake coins being created in fake coin-grading-service holders....the coin hobby has its issues as well, when people have been taking, for decades now, the graded slab as certification that a coin is authentic.)

Do mistakes happen? Aboslutely. Are they the majority? No. Do they get corrected when found? In most cases, absolutely. See it all the time in museum collections, when further research turns up the true story on an artifact. (See what happened with the Babe Ruth display at the Hall of Fame recently concerning his first home run?)See it at auctions when they are called on it from threads on cS or elsewhere. Those auction houses that don't do that -- they don't tend to stay around long.

Personally, I think this is the fun of the hobby -- not only the hunt for the artifact, but the spade work on the research.

And I personally think you, Larry, me, and others here are all agreeing -- it is a mosaic of research. Never a "one size" fits all. And like in all things in which money changes hands -- from real estate to coins to art to historic artifacts -- it is always caveat emptor. As well as one's selection of auction houses and sources for artifacts. And we will all have different thresholds of standards.

posted 12-28-2010 10:11 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by rjurek349:
For some items, yes -- but not always - for many items, this is not possible, given poor documenation, or the fact that the item was a PPK piece, or what-have-you.

---

Have previously caveated the exclusive reliance (and risk) of PPK carried items on COA's earlier in the thread.