Posts: 52523
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 05-16-2024 12:43 PM               

---

This may offer some insight, or it may be simply coincidental, but I was watching "Antiques Roadshow" the other night and the appraiser was discussing a collection of "original" studio-issued Marilyn Monroe film publicity stills.

When it came to deliver how much the collection was worth, this was mentioned:

It has not been until probably the last 10 years that collectors have really started to value these original, vintage prints and they are doing quite well at auction.

Sound familiar? It really hadn't occurred to me to check how other vintage, source-provided prints were performing when we started to see the dramatic hike in prices being paid for NASA-issued glossies ("red-number," A Kodak Paper prints).

It now makes me wonder which came first? If it was the Hollywood stills, was it that market that influenced consignors and auction houses to begin raising the listing prices for NASA photographs about a decade ago? Or did all vintage prints in all categories rise at the same time?

Posts: 472
From: Derbyshire UK
Registered: Mar 2023

posted 05-16-2024 01:18 PM               

---

I don't think there is any correlation between separate but highly connected markets. Each follows a different subset of reasons as to why values are established.

For example, gold and Bitcoin are independent of traditional cash based exchanges, and to a large extent are formulated as a counter exchange, but neither follow or mirror each other...

Posts: 52523
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 05-16-2024 01:30 PM               

---

Unless they aren't separate markets.

Maybe, at least at first, the collectors who were paying the significantly higher prices weren't space collectors nor were they Hollywood collectors. Maybe they were film and photo collectors. To them, a vintage print would be a vintage print, regardless the subject.

It reminds me of Jay Walker, co-founder of Priceline. He has an eclectic collection of historic relics, including space artifacts. But when he was profiled by the Robb Report in the early 2000s, he spoke specifically about his fascination with old NASA film reels and negatives. For some period of time, he was buying them up when they showed up at auction.

While I don't know if he was only buying NASA film reels, given the rest of his collection, it's possible his attraction to the reels was more about them being film artifacts rather than being related specifically to space.

Posts: 472
From: Derbyshire UK
Registered: Mar 2023

posted 05-17-2024 08:19 AM               

---

Yes, it is an open question as to whether they are or are not separate markets, and your illustration is a good one.

I was however more concerned with answering your specific question "Or did all vintage prints in all categories rise at the same time?"

I don't know about all 'vintage' prints, but I can categorically state that some areas of 'antique' prints have not increased in value at the same rate, and indeed some subcategories, such as Victorian dioramas, have actually reduced in value at auction (at least in Bamford's auctions over the last decade).

Posts: 65
From: Tobermory, Argyll, Scotland
Registered: Jan 2019

posted 06-06-2024 03:39 AM               

---

My twopenneth on this is the thought that perhaps the attraction (and value) of vintage (e.g. Hollywood) prints is that they are much more likely to have been produced from the original negatives. That is, light will have passed through the original film to produce the print you hold in your hand.

There is zero to no chance that anything space-related will be available from such a source.