posted 07-28-2003 09:46 PM               

Anyone's opinion would be welcome.

posted 07-28-2003 10:08 PM               

I don't know if that should or does hold true.

Any item that flew in space is rare (when compared to everything that hasn't flown).

Any item created for use in a spacecraft is rare (when compared to everything that exists separate from a spacecraft).

Limiting our discussion to space memorabilia, I think anything that was not mass produced -- which includes every part of a spacecraft (as all parts were custom made; nothing, even today, is off-the-shelf) with the exception of souvenirs carried along for the ride (i.e. flags, patches, etc.) is truly rare. Especially when you consider that most of that material was assigned to the Smithsonian post-flight.

(To be clear, the flown souvenirs are also rare, but to a lesser degree.)

posted 07-28-2003 10:37 PM            

Hows that?

Rizz

Okay...after some more thought, I think a space artifact being considered a rare artifact is something that there are not very many of, and little or no chance of anymore becoming available.

Moondust certainly comes to mind.

I would think that all artifacts from the Apollo Missions are rare, unlike flown shuttle stuff for example, although that stuff may become obsolete very soon as well.

Good question!

posted 07-28-2003 11:06 PM               

To use coins for example: Liberty Head nickels are very rare today. You don't find them in change. You don't find them on the street. And you don't find them at the bank. ANd there won't be any liberty head nickels minted anytime, soon. You've got to buy/trade for them. So they are rare relative to current nickels.

However, within the set of Liberty Nickels, there are levels of rarity based on discrete factors -- population of the nickel, grade of the nickel, mint mark on the nickel.

Then, within that context, there is the relative "Value" assigned to the grading service used on the nickel (PCGS, NGC, not graded, etc.).

And let's not even start on the subjective argument of preference for a Liberty Head nickel collection, versus Buffalo or Jefferson Nickels! :-)

In Robert's example -- I would agree. Everything that goes into space is, indeed, rare by definition. (Same as authentic meteorite samples are rare relative to the other rocks all about the planet. Then there are irons, chondrites, martian, lunar, etc.) That sets up one context of relative rarity, in my mind.

Then, among that context, comes the next level -- earth orbit, lunar orbit, lunar surface, lunar surface EVA (as we often have seen as a scale to "judge" a space artifact by many dealers, collectors and auction houses).

Then, of course, there are other contexts to consider -- souvenir item (beta, cover, flag) versus mission hardware (i.e., checklist, map, food, etc.) versus personal item (religious medal, family picture, watch, etc.).

What other contexts of rarity could be included? Perhaps hand signed/flight certified, versus only attached to a NASA cert that says an item has flown.

Then there is the amount or volume of material for the given sample at hand (say a little beta swatch, versus a full beta, versus a beta logo that was cut out of the full 9inch x 9 inch beta).

Given the above, and the uniqueness of many of the items flown -- the term "rare" would also, in my mind, have to be applied to the amount of any one item per flight (i.e., 100 betas, versus 80 Robbins medallions, versus 40 flown $2 bills, versus 15 flown covers, etc.)

Then within those subsets -- perhaps there is another level of rarity: does it have moondust? What condition is it in? Is it part of a numbered series? Etc.

All of these factors should make its way into the equation -- at least in some level along a continuum of relative rareness.

If you move away from the Flown side, and just talk about autographs -- there is the obvious volume context to rarity (how many Alan Bean signatures versus how many Ed White's, for example), as well as the demand side (how many Neil Armstrongs versus how many Alan Sheperd's)and the historic side (a moonwalker versus a mercury/gemini/shuttle astronaut, for example) as well as the ease of access to an example.

Therefore, in my mind -- it is a very delicate balance and mix. They are all rare on a basic level; but also everything we collect also has a relative level or rarity.

This of course excludes all the mass produced items (commemorative medallions, covers, patches, models, stamps, records, lithos, etc.). They, too, have their contexts and levels of rarity -- as well as demand points, and avid collectors that ebb and flown supply/demand to create either rarity (i.e., difficulty to find or get ahold of at "low" prices) or commonplaceness (i.e., ability to easily buy, sell or trade for an item).

Sorry for all the ramblings! Just my 2 cents...

posted 07-28-2003 11:30 PM               

My other comments are more subjective measures to try and come to terms with the different degrees of magnitude for rareness/price/value, etc.

posted 07-29-2003 12:36 PM               

It is certainly fair to call a signed WSS portrait from Neil Armstrong rare, since there are only a set, and relatively small, number of them out there. In general, this also makes such an item valuable, which they are. But as a collector of manned spaceflight models, vintage artifacts, and in-person autographs, I would not pay 20c for one. In fact, I do not WANT one in my collection unless it was signed in-person - which Neil respectfully chooses to no longer do. We each make choices as to what we collect. We each make decisions as to what we desire. We don't actually decide what is rare.

posted 07-29-2003 01:28 PM               

UNIQUE is an inscibed photo (to my daughter) from Paul Weitz.
Good post Larry McGlynn.

posted 07-29-2003 04:57 PM               

"Rare" is everything in Larry McGlynn's collection.
; )

Seriously, I think quantity makes items rare. Neil Armstrong signed WSS shots are not rare at all, however they are highly desirable. There are literally thousands out there, and for the right amount of cash, you can buy as many as you like. The quantity is actually plentiful.

Now, take a Neil Armstrong signed beta patch or Neil signed flown items and you've infinitely reduced the quantity he has signed over the years, so these are definitely much more rare, and still highly desirable.

Personally, I don't define rarity by the market, but rather by the quantity of specific items available.

posted 07-29-2003 10:41 PM               

valuable - something that someone is willing to pay a lot for

desirable - something you want ( and typically cant afford )

posted 07-31-2003 12:29 PM               

"Not everything rare is valuable, but everything valuable is rare".

It's supply and demand -- If something is available in large quantities, the value tends to go down. If it's only available in very small quantities, then it's valuable -- IF there's a demand for it.

A somewhat facetious example -- Examples of my poetry are rare. But they aren't valuable, because there's no demand (and deservedly so!)

Value can be (somewhat) independant of actual rarity. An example from another hobby of mine (old aircraft) -- P-51 Mustangs are relatively common warbird aircraft, with dozens of flying examples around the world. Despite being so 'common' (relatively speaking), they command prices in line with, or even higher than, much rarer aircraft with only a few surviving examples.

(Someone could probably come up with an analog for Space Collecting -- I couldn't think up one on the spur of the moment.

Another definition -- Rare -- "Stuff that you could have gotten at affordable prices 20 years ago, but didn't!"

Martin

posted 07-31-2003 01:07 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Zarelli:
RARE is an UNsigned copy of Encounter With Tiber

;-)

---

Even rarer is an UNsigned of Encounter with Tiber that was read, and to the last page.
;-))

posted 08-02-2003 12:17 PM               

Very Heinleinesque, in my opinion.