Author
|
Topic: [RegencySuperior] Space Auction (Jan. 2017)
|
Robert Pearlman Editor Posts: 42988 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-12-2017 09:09 AM
RegencySuperior's next space memorabilia auction will be held on Jan. 19, 2017 beginning at 11 a.m. CST (1700 GMT). The auction catalog, listing 321 lots, can be viewed online.The auction is also listed on Invaluable. |
SpaceAholic Member Posts: 4437 From: Sierra Vista, Arizona Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-12-2017 12:00 PM
RS has revealed contrary to the historical record that Apollo 1 flew. Nice work! Apollo 1 AS-201 1966 Flown AblatorApollo S/C 009 ablator piece (approx 1" tall) housed in 3" tall half cone shaped piece of Lucite with curved bottom. Identification inside display reads 'Apollo S/C 009 Ablator/18000 mph reentry 26 Feb 66.' Ablator is crucial component of heat shield without which heat shield would fail to function. AS-201 was first unmanned test flight of Command Module & Service Module on Saturn 1B launch vehicle that was not a boiler plate. |
rgarner Member Posts: 1193 From: Shepperton, United Kingdom Registered: Mar 2012
|
posted 01-12-2017 12:10 PM
Well that didn't take long. |
yeknom-ecaps Member Posts: 660 From: Northville MI USA Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 01-12-2017 06:03 PM
AS-201 was first unmanned test flight of Command Module & Service Module on Saturn 1B launch vehicle that was not a boiler plate. The missions of AS-201 and AS-202 (1966) with Apollo spacecraft aboard, unofficially known as Apollo 1 and Apollo 2 missions, carried only the aerodynamic nose cone.In the spring of 1967, NASA's Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight, Dr. George E. Mueller, announced that the mission originally scheduled for Grissom, White and Chaffee would be known as Apollo 1, and that the first Saturn V launch, scheduled for November 1967, would be known as Apollo 4. The eventual launch of AS-204 became known as the Apollo 5 mission (no missions or flights were ever designated Apollo 2 and 3). From NASA SP-4204, Moonport, A History of Apollo Launch Facilities and Operations. |
SpaceAholic Member Posts: 4437 From: Sierra Vista, Arizona Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-12-2017 07:02 PM
CM 009 carried aloft on AS-201 was a fairly complete Block I spacecraft. |
music_space Member Posts: 1179 From: Canada Registered: Jul 2001
|
posted 01-14-2017 12:52 PM
If anyone ever wanted to put together an entire set of cutlery flown in space, here the time! |
rgarner Member Posts: 1193 From: Shepperton, United Kingdom Registered: Mar 2012
|
posted 01-14-2017 01:29 PM
Pretty sure they haven't been cleaned either, so if you have a cloning device you can make your very own Alan Bean, Pete Conrad and Jim Irwin!Note to self: Buy spoons and make cloning machine. |
SkyMan1958 Member Posts: 867 From: CA. Registered: Jan 2011
|
posted 01-14-2017 05:08 PM
With all due respect, what makes you think the assorted cutlery was flown? I do not see any accompanying documents such as a CoA that would indicate they were flown. All I have is Richard Stonely's word on it, which, let's just say, they've been known to be wrong before. |
capoetc Member Posts: 2169 From: McKinney TX (USA) Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 01-14-2017 07:49 PM
This was my first thought as well. If there is documentation, then it likely would have been mentioned in the listing. I do not know whether there might be serial numbers on the individual pieces that could be referenced. |
Chuckster01 Member Posts: 873 From: Orlando, FL Registered: Jan 2014
|
posted 01-15-2017 08:36 AM
If there are any part numbers on the utensils they are not pictures or listed. There is no provenance of any kind listed in the auction except that they are from the Richard Stonely collection. This would seem to be an awkward position for Regency as the proclamation of flown to the moon status greatly effects value but these could have been used in training, prototypes or extras that were never used. It's hard to say but I see no reason to believe they are flown. Has anyone seen flown cutlery from these missions on any other past auction? |
Ken Havekotte Member Posts: 2915 From: Merritt Island, Florida, Brevard Registered: Mar 2001
|
posted 01-15-2017 09:05 AM
Yes, I've seen some here at the U.S. Astronaut Hall of Fame and elsewhere, but know that Stonely specialized in flown and used utensils (I think used in training as well). He had more utensils from several of the Russian cosmonauts, however, in regards to any U.S. Apollo/Skylab/Shuttle utensils, there should be serial numbers on all of them and probably can be checked for their flown or unflown status. |
drifting to the right Member Posts: 114 From: SW La. Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 01-15-2017 11:28 AM
The flown status of the spoons concerned me as well. On Dec. 19 I asked RegencySuperior regarding the Duke spoons, and was told "these spoons do not have a written provenance from Duke." I then sent them quotes from whom I thought to be Mr. Stonely (Mercurypgm) written in a Dec. 2, 2012, thread on collectSPACE regarding the Rita Rapp unflown spoon spares/prototypes, in which Richard said regarding both the Duke and Conrad spoons that he had "full documentation." I urged Regency to check with the heirs for same, but got no response. In my collection are flown spoons from Apollo missions 10, 13, 16, and 17. These were acquired through Heritage, and all carry full letters of provenance directly from the astronauts. My heirs all know the importance of keeping these relics and letters matched. By the way, none of the spoons carry serial or part numbers. |
spaced out Member Posts: 3110 From: Paris, France Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 01-16-2017 01:38 AM
I exchanged some e-mails with Richard Stonely after I put together the page on cutlery on my SpaceFlownArtifacts site.The items being offered at Regency are consistent with what he told me he had in his collection but I'm sure he had written provenance for everything. If that's not being offered with the items that's very unfortunate, to say the least. As mentioned above, NASA cutlery items from the Apollo era don't have serial numbers engraved, stamped, or printed on them. The individual bags for the spoons sometimes had a part number on a plastic band wrapped around the bundle, but this had no serial number either as far as I've seen. |
drifting to the right Member Posts: 114 From: SW La. Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 01-16-2017 09:42 AM
Regarding the Duke spoons, if provenance can't be proven I fear that this would become an ever more fragile daisy chain with each successive sale. That said, perhaps Gen. Duke would somehow be willing to provide assurance of flown status, if contacted. Of the two spoons shown, one is from the CM, the other the LM, and if flown should easily command over $10K. In regards to the "rust" noted in the description, this may well be original food debris, as I found the same on my Cernan Apollo 17 flown spoon. Of course food debris does not in and of itself provide proof of flown status. |
capoetc Member Posts: 2169 From: McKinney TX (USA) Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 01-16-2017 11:02 AM
If I recall correctly, the flown cutlery and the ones that were prepared for flight but not flown, and the ones used in training, all looked the same. It is going to be very, very difficult, in my opinion, to verify flown status on these items in the future, barring the consignor producing additional provenance of some sort. In the "flown items" sector of this hobby, "possibly flown" pretty much equals "not flown."That having been said, they are still nice items — but uncertainty regarding flown status hurts the value substantially. |
4allmankind Member Posts: 1043 From: Dallas Registered: Jan 2004
|
posted 01-16-2017 12:04 PM
What hurts more is the fact that in 2017 an auction house isn't willing to prove the status/facts of the items they offer before offering them to the public. |
Chuckster01 Member Posts: 873 From: Orlando, FL Registered: Jan 2014
|
posted 01-16-2017 02:10 PM
What hurts the most is there are people out there who do not read cS, do not question the listing and will bid as if there is provenance just because the listing says it is flown. |
Tallpaul Member Posts: 153 From: Rocky Point, NY, USA Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 01-17-2017 11:09 AM
The same applies to covers that have dubious signatures. Lot #293 in the current auction has an exact rendering of the Gagarin and Tereshkova signatures that were deemed to be forgeries on a cover I purchased many years ago from Regency. The only thing different is the cover. I mentioned this particular lot to Regency a couple of weeks ago, I gather my observation has been ignored. As an auction house they have lost all credibility with me. |
drifting to the right Member Posts: 114 From: SW La. Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 01-17-2017 07:24 PM
This is my December 2016 note to RegencySuperior regarding Stonely's own post about his spoons; his words first, regarding his concerns over the Rita Rapp unflown spoons, and ironically showing concern for "protecting my investment and the integrity of the hobby." My thoughts in the last two paragraphs: Since I own the two flown utensils from Pete Conrad with full documentation, the spoon you show is likely a prototype or used for training.On Chris Spain's site he indicates the flown Conrad spoons were sold at an Odyssey auction, but the original buyer did not pay for them and I later obtained them. The Apollo spoons used during the missions come in a plastic packaging (starting with Apollo 12-STS135 are all made by Community). Also Apollo 11 utensils made by Community were used by the Lunar Receiving Lab as per the January 2010 Regency-Superior auction). The Apollo 12 spoons have a snap to open and close the packaging. They also have velco (red in color, as mine are for Conrad and red signified commander) so the spoons could be stuck to a surface. Bean's have blue Velco and are mounted in his house on a wall with some flown spagetti as that is his favorite food and was glad to have been the first man to eat spagetti on the Moon. I also have Charlie Duke's set of spoons and they are identical in nature. I acquired them directly from him and again have full documentation. I also have numerous other flown Apollo, Skylab, ASTP and shuttle utensils and have been in touch with Chris to see about updating his list, which only addresses the Apollo era. I may ask Chris to add me as owner of the various flown utensils to his site. You will notice he gives me credit for my assistance on the flown utensils. My concern is that while Ben correctly identifies the Apollo 12 spoon (as shown) is unflown but after a few sales down the line someone will pass it off as flown, even though there are some differences in that one spoon. Ben provided me with a list of 20 or so other Apollo utensils he has, so I am even more concerned now that future buyers and sellers will be confused.... I am just trying to protect my investment and the integrity of the hobby for those who will be alive long after me.... This is a post from 2012, which I believe came from Richard Stonely regarding the potential sale of some unflown spoons which were acquired by the relative of a NASA employee. Please note that in both the first and third paragraphs, he states that he has "full documentation" for both the Conrad and Duke spoons. This, if provided, would in my opinion multiply the value of the spoons you are auctioning by at least tenfold, and the provenance lineage could be reliably passed on to a new owner. Are Mr. Stonely's heirs aware of this, such that a more thorough search for the "full documentation" can be done? I have four Apollo flown spoons in my collection, all of which are accompanied by letters of provenance from their prior astronaut owners, and I would hate for my heirs to not have that linkage. Richard was obviously concerned too, as evidenced by the last statement. My desire is not to cause you any problems, but to preserve the integrity of the space collecting hobby. As an aside, the description of "rust" on the Duke spoons may be inaccurate. When I received a documented Apollo 17 Cernan flown spoon, there was what I thought surely rust on it. I proceeded to clean a portion of the handle, and to my surprise and delight, found that is was actually old food residue! The images of the Duke spoons look remarkably similar, and also suggest to me the validity of a flown status. |