|
Author
|
Topic: Segmentation of Skylab II flown bungee cords
|
p51
Member Posts: 1642
From: Olympia, WA
Registered: Sep 2011
|
posted 10-24-2011 11:37 PM
   
quote:
Originally posted by mjanovec:
You seem a little confused between a "fully intact" rope and a rope that is 98% intact.
Yeah, I don't get it either. I doubt I ever will. "I preserved this important artifact, a small piece cut from another small piece of something nobody would recognize without me telling them what it was. I can't believe some horrible person cut it into several even smaller pieces afterward!" Am I one of the few people here who realizes how silly that sounds? 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?
quote:
Originally posted by Spacepsycho:
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.
Very good points, both. In many cases, it's not even a matter of money. I know of a person with a LOT of cash who badly wants an original A7L space suit from the Apollo program. He has one which was made for a Hollywood movie and a halfway decent commercial replica, both with dummies mounted inside. He's not a name any of you would know as he's not a space collector, he just loves that spacesuit type. But no matter how much coin he has, he'll never legally own one and he knows it. He'd buy a part of one and smile when he does it. But it's just not out there. So we wonder why people cut stuff up... really? |
arjuna
unregistered
|
posted 10-26-2011 04:39 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Spacepsycho:
As long as space artifacts continue to sell for substantial money, dealers, astronauts and collectors will continue the practice of cutting up, breaking apart and fragmenting rare artifacts to sell.
I appreciate Spacepsycho's perspective and think he makes several good points, but ultimately I don't agree. A "best practices", 'code of ethics", or however you want to call it can put a sort of Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval that confers legitimacy to an artifact (or alternatively, as Spaceaholic suggests, the seller), which is important if/when it comes up for sale. To say simply that "it won't change anything" seems a bit facile. The power of the market is such that a "cS imprimatur" should generate higher selling prices relative to artifacts that lack it, thereby incentivizing good practices among owners (i.e. potential future sellers) not to violate the code. So I agree with David Carey's and Scott's (Spaceaholic) take on this in support of Robert's proposal. There are lots of complicating details (as others have pointed out) that would have to be examined in coming up with a such a code, but it would be important not to get too distracted by them. A general but clear set of normative principles is do-able. Unfortunately I can't make it to the ASF event coming up, but otherwise I'm happy to pitch in. |
Spacepsycho
Member Posts: 818
From: Huntington Beach, Calif.
Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted 10-26-2011 11:16 AM
It's not that I disagree with the code of conduct proposed, but from my perspective, those who are motivated to preserve historical artifacts, already practice good stewardship. I'd love nothing more than keep rare pieces intact, but until the market is saturated, there's no reason for this practice to stop.When a large profit motive is involved (ie: well forged Armstrong autographs), there will no shortage of people willing to cut up or separate artifacts because they're ONLY interested in money. Not to rag on the folks at the ASF, but the gentleman from the ASF who said they could generate a lot more money by cutting up the Apollo 14 flown beta patch, sums up the prevailing attitude with many artifacts. There are a lot more people who can afford a $200 piece, than a $1500 artifact and the ASF made $10,000 from the one patch. The profit motive is obvious and I don't see much changing, regardless of what is said or done here. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 10-26-2011 11:59 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Spacepsycho:
The profit motive is obvious and I don't see much changing, regardless of what is said or done here.
Of course, this assumes that people/organizations are motivated first and foremost by profit, and conversely, that there isn't profit to made by responding to the concerns of the community. There is no reason yet to suggest that the Astronaut Scholarship Foundation (for example) or other organizations won't sign on to this effort, particularly since it hasn't been defined yet. It therefore seems premature to start prognosticating what impact such an effort might have before it has even been written. |
Charlie16
Member Posts: 494
From: Italy
Registered: Dec 2010
|
posted 10-26-2011 05:56 PM
ASF cut not for profit but to give scholarships to young people. It seems to me a good reason, and cut pieces that would definitely cut by others to make a profit. At least it's for a good cause. We can certainly ask to Charlie Duke or Linn Leblanc to also evaluate the possibility of acceding to the idea of Robert. (Sorry for my English...) |
JasonB
Member Posts: 1091
From:
Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 10-26-2011 09:30 PM
Let me get this straight. If a dealer cuts something for money then he's an outcast, but if the ASF does the exact same thing its okay if its for a "good cause"? Who exactly gets to decide what a "good cause" is? And who gets to decide that they're the Grand Poobah who makes these decisions anyway?I'd love to have a piece of Armstrong's spacesuit. If the ASF cuts that up does that make it okay? Do I have wait for someone else's permission or get the Executive Council's thumbs up before I buy it or will buyers be blacklisted or "outed" along with dealers? Does the whole idea behind this thread and all the inconsistencies, favoritism for some, gotcha witch-hunting for others, seem as ridiculous to anyone else as it does to me? |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 10-26-2011 10:09 PM
Please read my earlier replies.This idea revolves around a whitelist, not a blacklist. This not an effort to police or punish; it is perhaps best thought of as an open letter or petition by like-minded collectors, dealers, museums and other organizations to express a common set of desires. Plenty of petitions are turned down and/or ignored; they don't generally result in those who don't sign being pursued. You don't like the ideas expressed? Don't sign. |
fredtrav
Member Posts: 1673
From: Birmingham AL
Registered: Aug 2010
|
posted 10-26-2011 10:12 PM
quote:
Originally posted by JasonB:
Does the whole idea behind this thread and all the inconsistencies, favoritism for some, gotcha witch-hunting for others, seem as ridiculous to anyone else as it does to me?
In short, NO.I think it is a very good idea, however, the devil is in the details. Let's see what Robert and the others come up with before we dismiss it out of hand. I do not see where this will be favoritism for anyone. As far as buyers, I do not think anyone has said anything about buyers. If this works as hoped, then the buyers will tail off for these items and hopefully they will no longer be attractive to produce. I do agree with you on the pass being given the ASF, good cause or not, they should have found something else. |
JasonB
Member Posts: 1091
From:
Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 10-26-2011 11:05 PM
Well speak for yourself but I doubt you speak for every other person on this forum when you say no in big letters. It certainly sounded like Spaceflori had a different opinion earlier in this thread.And considering this thread went about five seconds before people started badmouthing a respected dealer like Spaceflori, I can only imagine what would happen if people thought they had some sort of signed document implying they are the holiest of holy behind them. I'm just judging this by where it's obviously going — having people call out and try to destroy others reputations simply because they did something they didn't agree with (broke up a checklist, cut up something, whatever). I think if you could set some sort of rule to not be badmouthing or calling people out on here ("You broke up a checklist three years ago!") like has already happened on this thread I'd at least not be hostile to it because then it wouldn't be an outright witchhunt on some people. It's one thing to simply say "I don't like people breaking up items," It's a totally different thing to say "Joe Blow is the lowest of the low because he broke this up and is trying to make money!" |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 10-27-2011 12:05 AM
I don't recall anyone speaking those words you put in quotation marks. Nor do I recall anyone even implying that someone was the lowest of the low.Also, nobody even directly accused Spaceflori of cutting up artifacts in this discussion until Florian himself decided to enter the debate, making the claim he wouldn't break up a significant flown artifact. I felt it necessary to point out that he had already done so, in my opinion, with the Apollo 8 checklist. There's a difference between "badmouthing" and making pointed criticisms of certain selling practices. |
fredtrav
Member Posts: 1673
From: Birmingham AL
Registered: Aug 2010
|
posted 10-27-2011 12:09 AM
quote:
Originally posted by JasonB:
Well speak for yourself...
I don't pretend to talk for everyone else. I also do not like name calling and finger pointing. Florian did not agree with some of the posts, but I think he will wait and see what comes out of this before he makes his judgment as will David and other sellers.The concept is a good idea. Let's get it together and see if it works before dismissing it out of hand. The way I see it there will be a whitelist of sellers who pledge to abide by a code. There will be no blacklist and sellers are still free to market whatever they wish and how they wish. Buyers will still be able to buy what they want. The list will simply inform some buyers of those who pledge to live up to the code. When I say some buyers, I mean mainly here. I doubt it will have much impact on eBay, but it may have some impact on auction houses. Basically give it a chance to work before passing judgment. |
Rizz
Member Posts: 1208
From: Upcountry, Maui, Hawaii
Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted 10-27-2011 12:22 AM
While I think this is a noble cause, the genie has already been let out of the bottle. I'd have to agree that this may be a wasted effort, as it will undoubtedly get so detail oriented that it may in fact alienate people.It does intrigue me that some folks complain about what other people are doing with artifacts that they are acquiring. My thinking is, if you believe an artifact is going to be cut up and resold, and that bothers you - then buy it yourself, and you protect it. I can understand the preservationists' point of view, and also respect that idea. But where do you draw the line? Many of my flown Apollo artifacts are small samples, for example an Apollo 11 CM Kapton foil with a swatch from the Wright Brothers 1911 Model B Flyer, an Apollo 13 CM couch sample courtesy Lovell, an Apollo 14 beta cloth swatch, Mitchell and an Apollo 17 panel from LM Systems Data Manual, from Cernan to name a few. These are priceless artifacts in my collection that fit my budget over the years. They are proudly displayed and great conversation starters. I've also given plenty of small swatches and pieces of flown artifacts away to kids for educational purposes. These opportunities of sharing small pieces of history are far more rewarding than an intact piece of flown material that will never see the light of day. I'm thankful the astronauts have shared their goods and treasures over the years, and hats of to the ASF for raising money and awareness. It's a magical feeling being able to hold something in your hand that traveled to the moon and back. That's my take on this.
|
spaced out
Member Posts: 3110
From: Paris, France
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 10-27-2011 01:56 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Rizz:
It does intrigue me that some folks complain about what other people are doing with artifacts that they are acquiring. My thinking is, if you believe an artifact is going to be cut up and resold, and that bothers you - then buy it yourself, and you protect it.
You can't seriously argue that if you don't buy an item yourself you have no right to be concerned as to what happens to that artifact? Until the case I raised in this thread I had never imagined that a complete piece of flown equipment (or three pieces in this case) sold at auction might be totally destroyed in this manner. But, even knowing now that any item sold by an astronaut might be bought by someone intent on destroying it, my hard-earned but still extremely limited collecting budget certainly won't allow me to buy up every single flown artifact that I would prefer not to see destroyed. I think I already said before that just because someone buys something and has the legal right to destroy it doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do. If someone went around buying up ancient works of art to smash them into pieces, famous paintings to burn them, WWII surviving planes to turn them into scrap, surviving early copies of the U.S Declaration of Independence, the first Gutenberg Bibles... Just because they'd have the right to do it doesn't mean we should accept it without objecting. |
Rizz
Member Posts: 1208
From: Upcountry, Maui, Hawaii
Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted 10-27-2011 02:42 AM
quote:
Originally posted by spaced out:
You can't seriously argue that if you don't buy an item yourself you have no right to be concerned as to what happens to that artifact?
You've got every right to be concerned, I'm just sayin' that complaining about it or belittling someone is useless. With all due respect, its not your artifact, that's all I'm trying to say. (And please understand I'm not being sarcastic either).Again, who's to judge who can sell what. The astronauts piece stuff out, dealers make displays, some are first class and some are cheesy. The buyer is free to pick and choose whatever they like. If it's not on the whitelist, someone will buy it anyway. quote:
If someone went around buying up ancient works of art to smash them into pieces, famous paintings to burn them, WWII surviving planes to turn them into scrap, surviving early copies of the U.S Declaration of Independence, the first Gutenberg Bibles...
The items you refer to are hardly in the same category as cut up springs, fastening studs or threads from a bungee cord.And that is where part of the problem lies. Who gets to determine what's fair game, what artifacts are important, and which are trivial? Apples - oranges. It's going to be a long journey, and an even longer thread. |
Charlie16
Member Posts: 494
From: Italy
Registered: Dec 2010
|
posted 10-27-2011 04:24 AM
quote:
Originally posted by JasonB:
If a dealer cuts something for money then he's an outcast, but if the ASF does the exact same thing its okay if its for a "good cause"?
I never wrote that If the dealer cuts something for money he's outcast. Will always be buyers to choose from. No black list, but white list.The suit, Neil Armstrong is a paradox that never happens. ASF cut only the items donated by the astronauts themselves who were the owners, so conscious of doing so for a good cause. You say that astronauts they are wrong? You can write to them not to do it again or continue to buy and support ASF for a good cause. We talk about objects if cut lose their historical value and remain just a small reminder of the mission. All is fair, but we're talking about code of ethics, not to ban anything, if you do not want to join feel free to do so, but the associations are free. |
spaced out
Member Posts: 3110
From: Paris, France
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 10-27-2011 04:50 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Rizz:
It's going to be a long journey, and an even longer thread.
It's certainly not a clear cut issue. Some people draw the line at checklist division, others at beta cloth patches, others at complete pieces of equipment, others at certain categories of equipment. For some there's no line at all - you own it, you can do what you want with it.I started this thread because I personally was saddened to see some complete pieces of flown equipment destroyed and wanted to highlight it here, in the hope that at least the person who'd done it might understand that there were arguments against doing something similar in the future. As I said at the start they're not the most glamorous pieces of equipment but they still deserve to at least be preserved for posterity, in my opinion. |
gliderpilotuk
Member Posts: 3398
From: London, UK
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 10-27-2011 04:55 AM
quote:
Originally posted by arjuna:
The power of the market is such that a "cS imprimatur" should generate higher selling prices relative to artifacts that lack it, thereby incentivizing good practices among owners (i.e. potential future sellers) not to violate the code.
The "incentivization of good practice" should start with the astronauts/original owners - but because this is impractical the next best thing is not the ostracization of secondary sellers through the imposition of guidelines that are non-unanimous in their determination.What policy are you going to come up with to stop Aldrin and Cernan selling individual pages? And what's the difference between that and selling individual Apollo 8 or 13 pages, when the original astronaut owner seems not to care what happens once he has been paid? I'm no supporter of slicing and dicing but to think that a "best practice" policy is going to influence anyone (on the sell side with a higher price; on the buy side with some sort of good provenance statement) outside of the select cS group of collectors is pie in the sky. |
arjuna
unregistered
|
posted 10-27-2011 05:33 AM
quote:
Originally posted by gliderpilotuk:
And what's the difference between that and...
There is a big difference between slicing/dicing and dividing something. One is irreversible. The other - though it may be unlikely - is not. Indeed, short of being properly curated by a museum, from a long-term historical perspective, one can argue that dividing flown checklists (to take one example) is safer - simply because the risk of something bad happening (fire, flood, theft) is spread out. One fire and an intact manuscript is just...poof. Such disasters are low probability in any given year, but we need to think about these objects over longer time frames. So if a checklist is divided out into 200 collections, even if one page may get lost/destroyed somehow, the other 199 pages will still exist. Obviously the goal should also be that responsible collectors will try to ensure that the objects are passed down to others who are equally committed to their preservation. (Yes, that is often easier said than done, but the fact that it is doesn't mean that the goal should not be formalized as something collectors should try to meet.) Really, this all just seems kind of common sense. Some people are throwing out all sorts of ambiguities and complexities - which is fine - but what's needed is a general set of normative principles that sets a standard for collectors to try to adhere to. It is in the best interests of the community to try to set some standards. People can opt out, but then they also will not garner the benefits (which I have already tried to characterize). I think some people are feeling threatened when in my opinion they shouldn't. There is no lynch mob coming for anyone. |
Charlie16
Member Posts: 494
From: Italy
Registered: Dec 2010
|
posted 10-27-2011 08:18 AM
I will don't wait until the association, I think that instead of the words that I read it is better to lead by example. On my website now: Collectionspace is a dealer that is committed not to cut any spatial artifacts. The space artifact or flown item for sale are part of my collection until all stocks. No one should feel obliged to follow my example. I always thought that cutting a piece of it is like to lose something. The money flows away, the history remains. |
BMckay
Member Posts: 3218
From: MA, USA
Registered: Sep 2002
|
posted 10-27-2011 10:18 AM
Why do people put so much stock in items that should go into museums? Most museums don't want them. Take a look at the Boston Museum of Science. Their space section leaves much to be desired and they really don't care about space history. So if more people can get an item that was flown the better.Imagine if someone got a hold of the tether that was flown in 96 and made display pieces using pieces of that. You could have thousands out there. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 10-27-2011 10:55 AM
quote:
Originally posted by BMckay:
Why do people put so much stock in items that should go into museums? Most museums don't want them. Take a look at the Boston Museum of Science.
Stewardship, not ownership is what matters.
|
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 10-27-2011 11:09 AM
quote:
Originally posted by BMckay:
Most museums don't want them.
And you've surveyed how many museums to arrive at this conclusion?We have a fairly large museum curator and conservator (if not also staff and management) contingent as readers and members of this site. Clearly a number do care about space history and what happens to its artifacts. |
Charlie16
Member Posts: 494
From: Italy
Registered: Dec 2010
|
posted 10-27-2011 11:28 AM
I do not think that the Air and Space Museum in Washington, or the Air and Space Museum in San Diego, etc. etc., they thought to yield their treasures... or sell the collection through auctions. The museums do not cut into small pieces the objects (I hope). I saw quite museums participate in the auctions to buy precious heirlooms.Perhaps you spoke of some extemporaneous exposure, or pieces so spoiled by having to be repaired or washed out in some part (see some parts of spacesuit that deteriorate and are removed to prevent them from destroying the suit completely). |
MikeSpace
unregistered
|
posted 10-27-2011 11:36 AM
The last time I saw a grey area this big; astronauts were walking on it![rimshot] :crickets: carry on... |
advertisement