your own little piece of rock history... and a grape.

August 11, 2008 9:24 AM

Surely one of the most memorable musician photos ever is this one: Johnny Cash, making his feelings known with customary aplomb. But did you ever notice he was wearing a jumpsuit in that photo, and not his more standard black shirt/trousers ensemble? Well, that very jumpsuit just went for a handsome $120,000 at auction. Someone else just paid $300,000 for one of Elvis' peacock-emblazoned jumpsuits. And remember that little necklace John Lennon wore on the cover of Two Virgins? Yep, the only thing he wore. Fetched a cool $528,000. Meanwhile, in Japan, a bunch of grapes just went for $910. What a bargain!

I recommend perusing the just-auctioned rock memorabilia here, there's tons of stuff, it's like a museum.

posted by flapjax at midnite (21 comments total)

This, for some reason, is the most awesome thing on there.
posted by Jofus at 9:34 AM on August 11, 2008 [1 favorite]

Interesting how many items didn't meet the reserve, though. A search for 'Nudie' brought up a guitar strap used by Jerry Garcia in concert that at $20K had no action. Keith Rchard's worn-in-concert Nudie suit had no takers at $50K.
posted by fixedgear at 9:44 AM on August 11, 2008

Well, these are bargains--and investments--because you're not really buying material goods in the ordinary sense. You're buying and keeping alive a piece of human history and culture--in most cases extremely positive, pivotal history.

Now the grapes are different; $600 per pound? Obviously $4.50 is not enough for the organic Bing cherries that I harvest every year from my one, huge, 65 year-old tree. I figure they're the best in the world. Dip them in dark chocolate and you'll think you've gone to heaven. Must sell to Japan next year.

And I kick myself for throwing out those old Converse All-Star high tops.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 9:55 AM on August 11, 2008

Gosh, just think what this stuff is going to be worth in 100 years!
posted by mygoditsbob at 10:01 AM on August 11, 2008

How much for Keith Moon's head in a jar?
posted by Navelgazer at 10:04 AM on August 11, 2008

How much for Keith Moon's moon on a platter?
posted by adamms222 at 10:40 AM on August 11, 2008

Who the heck is Keith Moon anyways?
posted by Vindaloo at 10:58 AM on August 11, 2008 [1 favorite]

That Elvis jumpsuit is pretty damn sweet.

(I would totally love to wear that to the first day of class, just to mess with them. They have no idea how cool and messed up their professors can be.)
posted by oddman at 11:05 AM on August 11, 2008

They don't give a shit that Moon is dead.
posted by Meatbomb at 11:14 AM on August 11, 2008

ABBA turd or GTFO.
posted by 2sheets at 11:21 AM on August 11, 2008 [1 favorite]

> They don't give a shit that Moon is dead.

On the contrary. It means that things associated with Moon are a finite resource, inflating the resale value of random bits of trash you and I would throw out if we didn't know a celebrity had been photographed in them.

A famous drummer's drumkit can still trade for big bucks while he's alive, especially if he's autographed it, because that's the tool that made him famous. But the detritus of his life -- the teeshirts, underpants and socks he's worn -- will only have a nonzero value after he's died.

There's no risk that Keith Moon's going to be polluting the collectibles market by touring shopping malls and signing thousands of drumsticks for ten bucks a pop.
posted by ardgedee at 11:42 AM on August 11, 2008

*Gets Meatbomb's "Jools and Jim" reference, feels cool for a second, then realizes that record came out in 1980, dodders off to fetch weak tea and warmer socks*
posted by BitterOldPunk at 11:44 AM on August 11, 2008 [1 favorite]

Wow, a guitar signed by The Highwaymen only went for $30k.

And only a grand for a custom Keith Haring! I would not hesitate a blink to pay that.
posted by paisley henosis at 11:55 AM on August 11, 2008

$528,000 for a leather necklace?! That's just stupid. I'm a big Lennon/Beatles fan, but I think idol worship to this degree is silly. If Lennon were to have foreseen this auction and written a song about it, I"ll bet the lyrics would have been a clever commentary something along the lines of "A fool and his money soon go their separate ways".
posted by Daddy-O at 12:00 PM on August 11, 2008

I"ll bet the lyrics would have been a clever commentary something along the lines of "A fool and his money soon go their separate ways".

I read somewhere that when John and Yoko would fly, John would check off nearly all the crap in those awful SkyMall catalogues (or whatever it was when John was still among the lving), charge it on his credit card, and then have it all shipped back to the Dakota. Can't get a link for you (yet).

So... troof.
posted by potsmokinghippieoverlord at 1:02 PM on August 11, 2008

Yeah, I love that picture of Johnny Cash -- that picture is what turned me onto Cash in the first place. As for how many clams whose whats are going for, ... what EVAaaar! Spend spend spend have have have. How many authentic pieces of the true cross can there be spread out amonst churchland?

But again, flapjax, great post.
posted by not_on_display at 3:40 PM on August 11, 2008

The dictionary.com word of the day for August 11, 2008 is provenance. Just sayin'
posted by fixedgear at 4:23 PM on August 11, 2008

An original UK copy of "Please Please Me" signed by all four Beatles and Brian Epstein didn't even get any bids?! Damn, I'd have expected that to go for $500,000.

Also, if I had that kind of money, I totally would have bought the Lennon necklace. Not only is it an investment that will increase in value, it's an awesome piece of history and would just be really neat to have. I mean, he was wearing it the first time he and Yoko made love (the Two Virgins picture was taken almost right after they, er, finished). It's like owning a little piece of him.
posted by DecemberBoy at 5:16 PM on August 11, 2008

Well, shoot, that's the damn San Quentin pantsuit.

And if I should happen to win multi-million dollars this week - a rather remote chance since I don't buy tickets but hey, if I do, I am so buying that Keith Moon Nudie Suit and having it tailored to fit. Unless I can get the Gram Parsons one first.
posted by madamjujujive at 6:47 PM on August 11, 2008

Surely one of the most memorable musician photos ever is this one: Johnny Cash, making his feelings known with customary aplomb.

I have a personal connection to this photo of Johnny Cash flipping the bird at the camera. The photographer who took it was Jim Marshall, who is generally more well-known for his photos of 1960s-era rock stars. My cousin Kara used to work as a concierge at a prestigious New York hotel (I think it was the Paramount), which was used as the accommodations for whatever rock group appeared on Saturday Night Live that week. One week, the entourage for the musical guests included photographer Jim Marshall, who proceeded to develop a crush on my cousin Kara while he was there. To make a long story short, when my cousin Kara's brother Tony got married, Jim Marshall ends up taking photos at the wedding, although he wasn't the official wedding photographer. Jim Marshall even gave my cousin Tony a wedding present of a rare photographic print of Janis Joplin and Grace Slick from 1967. Since I was at the wedding too, I also got to meet Jim Marshall. My main impression was that the bridge of his nose had so many zigzags in it, he must have done a lot of cocaine back in the 70s.
posted by jonp72 at 10:37 PM on August 11, 2008 [1 favorite]

"How many authentic pieces of the true cross can there be spread out amonst churchland?"

The work of Rohault de Fleury, "Mémoire sur les instruments de la Passion" (Paris, 1870), deserves more prolonged attention; its author has sought out with great care and learning all the relics of the True Cross, drawn up a catalogue of them, and, thanks to this labour, he has succeeded in showing that, in spite of what various Protestant or Rationalistic authors have pretended, the fragments of the Cross brought together again would not only not "be comparable in bulk to a battleship", but would not reach one-third that of a cross which has been supposed to have been three or four metres in height, with transverse branch of two metres (see above; under I), proportions not at all abnormal (op. cit., 97-179). Here is the calculation of this savant: Supposing the Cross to have been of pine-wood, as is believed by the savants who have made a special study of the subject, and giving it a weight of about seventy-five kilograms, we find that the volume of this cross was 178,000,000 cubic millimetres. Now the total known volume of the True Cross, according to the finding of M. Rohault de Fleury, amounts to above 4,000 000 cubic millimetres, allowing the missing part to be as big as we will, the lost parts or the parts the existence of which has been overlooked, we still find ourselves far short of 178,000,000 cubic millimetres, which should make up the True Cross.

From the 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia.
posted by Jahaza at 12:41 AM on August 12, 2008 [1 favorite]