posted 10-22-2011 01:23 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mjanovec:
Do the complete blankets lack provenance?

---

posted 10-22-2011 01:48 AM               

Obviously it would be nice if the checklists could be kept together for posterity but they are items that are already made up of individual pages which can be distributed without physically damaging them.

Many of the astronauts have split their checklists and sold individual pages over the years, so dealers and other collectors who do the same are only following the example of those astronauts.

Few can afford to buy complete lunar flown checklists but there is (and always has been) a strong market for individual pages.

posted 10-22-2011 03:33 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by spaceflori:
I wouldn't either...

---

posted 10-22-2011 06:55 AM              

quote:

---

Originally posted by spaced out:
Incidentally, I'd also place flown checklists in a different category.

---

But I will be somewhat inconsistent in saying that I give a pass to the ASF acrylics (although I do not own one). Some of those are mylar which someone else has already said are in a different category, but others were chopped flight pages etc. But those acrylics were/are done with the explicit permission of the original astronaut owners, as a non-profit and for a morally worthy cause. And they appear to be much larger pieces than the practically microscopic Skylab bungee cord remnants.

posted 10-22-2011 07:19 AM               

In particular I view their destruction of the Apollo 16 Pyro System Schematic page flown to the moon surface as appalling. This in my book is a far more historically significant artifact than the Skylab bungee discussed in this thread.

I have not yet seen a commercial dealer who has taken such destructive action.

posted 10-22-2011 07:48 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by calleva atrebatum:
Although you produce and sell acrylics that contain segments of John Young's Apollo 16 bungee cord? And Apollo 7 presentations that contain a segment of Wally Schirra's flown exercise rope

---

Yes, I have used parts of the Young stowage strap though again the major part is intact and will remain intact. I wouldn't consider this a complete artifact however.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mjanovec:
Except for the Apollo 8 checklists I presume? It's painful to see the "map" for mankind's first journey away from the planet being torn apart and sold piece-by-piece.

---

posted 10-22-2011 08:26 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by spaced out:
Obviously it would be nice if the checklists could be kept together for posterity but they are items that are already made up of individual pages which can be distributed without physically damaging them.

---

quote:

---

Many of the astronauts have split their checklists and sold individual pages over the years, so dealers and other collectors who do the same are only following the example of those astronauts.

---

Also, the astronauts are not necessarily the best role models for artifact preservation. They generally don't view these items with the same sense of historical value that a conservator or historian would... it's just not in their nature. To them, these are just everyday objects they used in their careers that are now sitting in boxes in their closets... and some dealer is promising them a lot of money to sell them.

quote:

---

Few can afford to buy complete lunar flown checklists but there is (and always has been) a strong market for individual pages.

---

posted 10-22-2011 08:49 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by spaceflori:
The Apollo 7 rope is fully intact and has been sold to a known collector, I just took some strands from the rope, 98% incl. the entire rope is still intact.

---

posted 10-22-2011 09:32 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mjanovec:
You seem a little confused between a "fully intact" rope and a rope that is 98% intact.

---

posted 10-22-2011 09:40 AM               

After 51L, the astronauts were no longer allowed to keep their flown FDFs. In essence, that leaves just 24 flights (STS-1 thru 61C) where the FDFs could potentially hit the market.

We've already seen other examples of shuttle checklists broken up. Paul Weitz's STS-6 Ascent Checklist and Bob Overmyer's STS-5 Ascent Checklist come to mind. Now we have Jack Lousma's STS-3 Orbit Pocket Checklist essentially destroyed.

posted 10-22-2011 09:45 AM               

If the members of this community could draft and agree upon such a code, it could then also be taken to the various dealers and auction houses. I don't expect 100% adoption, but those who do, would agree to abide by its tenets, including rejecting items for sale that violate the code.

If deemed a good idea, maybe a few collectors could get together at the upcoming Astronaut Scholarship Foundation show and pull together a first draft (it's generally easier to do such things in person) and then it could be placed online for comment and critique.

posted 10-22-2011 11:40 AM               

And this code should be helpful to dealers, as it would assist them in avoiding any activity that could be alienating them from a segment of the market.

posted 10-22-2011 12:34 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spaceguy5:
Though, should there be a minimum size for these?

---

The easiest way to do that would be to adopt a tenet that you keep the item in the same condition that you received it, with the exception of allowing for display modifications (framing, mounting, etc.) so long as the artifact itself is not harmed in the process.

This would do away with cut signatures, for example, but would allow for matting to create a similar effect.

posted 10-22-2011 01:07 PM               

It also creates a situation where certain people become self-appointed "policeman" and will bad mouth other people simply because they dont do exactly what the other person thinks they should do ("So and so just cut up something!!! He's not doing what we want!!! Lets get him!!!"). It's funny in a way, but sad and a little scary in another.

We've already heard people say that some people like the ASF should be "allowed" to do it simply because they're going to a "good cause", while others should be vilified. That makes no sense to me. Besides the fact that no one on here has, or should have, the power to "allow" anyone anything, it also implies that you'd need someones approval and some sort of good cause to do something with something you own. The ASF cut items up just like the people some have tried to put down on here. It doesn't matter where the money goes. It doesn't excuse them or make them better than everyone else. If your going to put people down for doing it, at least be consistent.

posted 10-22-2011 01:50 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
A 12 inch segment according to the COA.

---

posted 10-22-2011 02:44 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by spaceflori:
The rope consisted of dozens of strands woven into each other - it was such a 12" strand.

---

posted 10-22-2011 04:08 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by David Bryant:
Just a point: many of the items on the artifacts page would be 'outlawed' by these guidelines.

---

I specifically worded my suggestion such that it began with the condition of the item as you received it. What happened in the past, happened in the past (which is why discussing what some may or may not have already done is counterproductive and I suggest as of this reply, ceased).

This code of ethics — and perhaps "ethics" is too strong a word; maybe code of conduct is a better title —  would only address actions going forward. No one can be expected to abide by a set of suggestions before they were even made.

As for Jason's concern, another valid point. My suggestion was not to create a blacklist, but rather a whitelist. A frequent request we see here is for a list of sellers who can be trusted. This would work the same way.

posted 10-22-2011 05:27 PM              

And if someone feels that I was insulting to anyone here - namely, the dealers - I apologize. I respect Florian and his professional integrity. I'm not familiar with David Bryant's work, but I extend the same respect. I think the lion's share of disgust is directed towards the Skylab bungee cord slicer-dicer, who just chopped the thing up and is selling little bits without even putting it into a nice lucite. It's just ugly, disrespectful, and lacks a moral sense of responsibility towards the proper curation of artifacts. That is not how I would characterize Florian's (or, I assume, David's) work - even if it's not my personal preference to sub-divide otherwise intact items.

There is an excellent book called "Getting to Yes" about how to successfully negotiate win-win solutions among parties with very different interests and goals. The strategies for achieving this are to:

• Separate the people from the problem.
  
• Focus on interest, not positions.
  
• Generate a variety of possibilities deciding what to do.
  
• Insist that the results be based on some objective standard.

This seems like a strong set of principles to base discussions on how to forge some sort of best practices statement.

For example, on the second point above: it is also in the interest of people such as Florian that the market not be taken over by careless slicer-dicers flooding the market with crap. Perhaps one idea to explore is that certain dealers with a reputation for integrity are "certified" (not the right word, too "official" since there is no regulating body; maybe "agreed by the community") to legitimately produce limited quantities of such displays, because they are trusted by the cS community to do it responsibly. It should be recognized, after all, that such items do satisfy a certain market price-point, and provide an entry point for new collectors who may not be willing to spend $1000 on a whole artifact as their first move.

posted 10-22-2011 11:42 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
An example which might serve as a template: A Code of Ethics for Collectors of Ancient Artifacts

---

Provenance is a critical aspect for both historical categories but interestingly I've never much encountered the 'fragmentation issue' for antiquities.

Perhaps the market there has matured in a way being discussed prospectively here for space artifacts - keep in mind antiquities were being traded for 100 years plus before we ever got any rocket off the ground. A Greek vase which has broken or needs restoration (many of them) is usually always repaired and sold whole and there is little trade in shards, at least when an approximate whole can be created

Alternatively supply may be just that much greater; there are a lot of authentic Roman oil lamps, Greek Lekythois, and Egyptian scarabs around for 10s to 100s of dollars, intact. It's notable that fakes abound however, even for lower-end items, so caution is warranted.

Despite these differences, and the fact that 'correct' historical artifact collecting lacks a crisp black and white definition, the point stands that a general move towards thoughtful buying and selling is a good thing. Sellers and buyers both have a part to play.

I like Robert's proposal and John's (arjuna's) thoughts as well. As with previous run-throughs on this topic, a healthy discussion.

In the meantime, I'll favor acquiring well-provenanced items towards the intact end of the spectrum whenever possible, buying 'of-the-day' fragments (HS plugs, astronaut-provided pages, etc.) when they are noteworthy, will preserve documentation, and will never further fragment should I sell.

posted 10-23-2011 02:55 AM               

To make my position clear: I don't make acrylic displays (although I do carry a full range of Jerry Czubinski's excellent productions). I use hand-made ash and glass frames for my displays and try to keep the items in them as big as possible (given the fact that I do this for a living, having retired from 40 years of science teaching/lecturing.)

posted 10-23-2011 05:19 AM               

They could, of course, place a proviso on the sale that an item/checklist does not get broken up - if they were sufficiently interested in preservation. Hard to enforce, for sure, but as effective as the "Hippocratic Oath" proposal in that the person who split an item up would be "outed" and arguably less of an infringement of an individual's commercial freedom. I don't agree at all with slicing and dicing, but it seems to me that the primary responsibility for the prevention of segmentation lies with the original owner, not with a secondary buyer.

posted 10-23-2011 09:19 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
The code's registry would only identify collectors and businesses that have agreed to a common set of guidelines. If you agree with those suggestions, than the list will help you find like minded entities. If you disagree, it is no one's place to tell you are wrong. You simply won't be listed.

---

posted 10-23-2011 09:30 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tykeanaut:
At the end of the day though you vote with your own actions, and if you don't agree with how something is being presented then don't buy it.

---

posted 10-23-2011 11:21 AM               

I don't sell on eBay: never have, never will. Nor do I submit items to online auction sites.

I sell from my websites and in person at airshows/autograph shows etc. I imagine that's pretty much true of the majority of professional dealers. I have a loyal customer base who like the style and quality of my displays: I'm sure that's true for Jerry, Ken, Florian and the majority of the others.

posted 10-24-2011 03:45 AM               

As many of you, in my personal collection, or some acrylics. This is normal when you can buy a whole piece, but in this case (object Lousma) it's a mess without style, destroyed in a bad way.

All are free to do whatever they want, but we are free not to purchase...

As you know I have a store, but you will never see an object cut to make money. If you see some lucite or flown pieces are the ones I bought at auction, I never cut anything, they never will.

My soul is that of the collector who finds it difficult to separate from the objects, perhaps a dealer to be true I should have more malice and cunning, but I prefer to stay as they are. It 's always a matter of choice.

For the future code of ethics, I am available to talk about it to give my contribution. Unfortunately I will not be there the next ASF, but I will be present at the celebration of Apollo 16 40th (April 2012).

posted 10-24-2011 10:30 AM               

I'm guilty of cutting up chunks of flown space shuttle tires and scrapped broken tiles to make displays that I give away to kids at my school presentations. I make up these displays in hopes of getting kids excited about space exploration and to teach them about the incredible history of what this country accomplished.

However, when it comes to the dealers cutting up rare artifacts, I don't subscribe to the "it gives everyone the chance to own a piece of history" excuse. Call it what it is, making money and that's not a bad thing. We all know the astronauts and space workers didn't make a lot of money, so to them these items are their retirement. These guys are just doing what they've seen dealers and collectors do with their rare artifacts, make a truck load of money off of them, so they only following suit.

Who on this board has the right to tell an astronaut or their family that they can't sell pages from a flown checklist? Is it right, is it in the best interest of historical preservation or to maintain these rare artifacts? Obviously no, but they're looking at the bottom line, that their rare artifacts will sell for a lot of money.

Until you remove the profit motive behind the cutting up, breaking apart and fragmenting of rare pieces, the practice of destroying artifacts will continue. Take a look at what the ASF did with the flown Apollo 14 beta cloth patch. If they're willing to do that to make money, why should anyone else treat artifacts differently? While the ASF is doing great work with the funds they make, at what point is the destruction considered acceptable? In speaking to an ASF employee, they're well aware the only artifacts that bring any serious money are from the M-G-A programs, with special emphasis on the Apollo lunar landing artifacts. They know when the M-G-A astronauts are no longer around to provide the ASF with artifacts to sell, they'll have to cut many of the scholarships provided.

Regardless of what is said, done or written here, any code of ethics drafted are just nice words on a page. But it won't change anything.

Those of us who are motivated to preserve and protect rare artifacts, already abide by an unwritten code of "do no harm / do not alter / do not destroy", so it's preaching to the choir. The new collectors will still be buying the created fragment pieces because they're cheap (in comparison to intact artifacts) and it allows for them to add multiple displays to a collection.

From what I've seen, there are 50-100 of us insane collectors and dealers who spend a good chunk of our time and disposable income acquiring rare space artifacts. New and trendy collectors bite around the edges of space artifacts when some anniversary, death or the end of a program are in the news. Otherwise, it's the same old crowd.

posted 10-24-2011 06:33 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spacepsycho:
Take a look at what the ASF did with the flown Apollo 14 beta cloth patch. If they're willing to do that to make money, why should anyone else treat artifacts differently? While the ASF is doing great work with the funds they make, at what point is the destruction considered acceptable?

---