Can anyone place this Star Trek prop?

[Alan Castillo]

Again, the bigger question is: Are there really only a few major prop dealers/auctioneers, such as the Prop Store and ScreenUsed, that are fully trustworthy and can be counted on to deliver what they claim? And if so, what does that say about the hobby in general? Collecting screenused props seems like a pretty shifty shady affair much of the time; misrepresentations, little cliques of who-knows-who, private deals kept on the down-low, and all the rest of it. I guess it's not surprising, considering that the whole thing seems to have started with the widespread theft of studio property by collectors (before the studios knew the value of what they had).

From what I've seen ? Most definitely yes, yes, yes, and yes to everything you've said.

I have no hesitation to admit that rather than 'live' with all the potential doubts production-made items sometimes entail, and perhaps end up selling a kidney to buy a Marlyn Monroe bra (only to later find out the auction house janitor grabbed it from his sister-in-law's laundry basket & framed it :lol), I would rather not go into that side of collecting at all.

I think it's all about buying from companies with a reputation and making good for mistakes, which are bound to be abundant in a section of the hobby that entails items that were never made specifically to hit the market in the first place, and thus, no foresight for official record-keeping as we know it was ever even considered.

The horrible part is when sellers deliberately take advantage of this to make money off unwitting buyers, by selling goods of dubious origins and making them out to be authentic.

 

[TerryMcIntosh]

Your questions are valid and make a lot of sense, rkpetersen, especially in this instance where you dropped a respectable chunk of change for an item with the hope that it was screen used. Speaking only for myself, and since I'm rather new to the whole screen-used/production-made collecting scene, posts like yours, and questions like you raise, sure help to educate us newbies on what to look out for and be mindful of. That said, it's a shame that the lesson required you to spend a lot of money for us all to learn it.

In the end what you purchased is still a wonderful piece though. =)

 

[Alan Castillo]

Your questions are valid and make a lot of sense, rkpetersen, especially in this instance where you dropped a respectable chunk of change for an item with the hope that it was screen used.

The key word there Terry is 'hope'.

Randy actually bought it on this premise :

"a Cardassian tricorder from DS9", with no further information."

Not that it was screen-used.

PIH did not say it was (I think ?)

If I am understanding correctly, PIH said hero, and Mike has conformed it is as hero.

Although hero implies screen-used, does it necessarily mean that it was used by an actor, and it can be seen on screen ?

There is a good example of the importance of definitions, and why I feel that one can only be 100% sure with a screen-match.

Maybe he took a gamble that it was screen-used, but knowing Randy, he does not plunk down large amounts of change on a gamble.

Please tell me I'm right Randy :lol

 

[rkpetersen]

If you want to parse every word in the listing, here it is:

WORKING CARDASSIAN TRICORDER FROM STAR TREK: DEEP SPACE NINE - (Paramount-TV, 1993-1999) Hero illuminating Cardassian Tricorder made of grey-painted resin. A small trigger button at the top right illuminates the console. Measures approx. 6 in. long.

As far as 'gambling', well I wouldn't quite put it that way. I did make assumptions which turned out to be incorrect. Could I have done more homework, spending several hours going through 7 seasons of DS9 trying to find it, before bidding? Yes, I could have. I also could have done the same with the dozen or so other lots I was interested in. Maybe even take a few days off work to do so! (jk)

Should collectors have to do this? Some people would say yes, it's entirely the collector's responsibility; caveat emptor and all that. Others would say that it is the implicit responsibility of the auctioneer to properly vet the items they're auctioning, and not just use a superficial description, often provided by the consignors themselves. In other words, they should do the heavy lifting of authentication. If not, then exactly what are we paying for with a 23% buyer's premium? Nothing at all, it seems to me; just another way for auctioneers to extract as much money as possible, with no added benefit whatsoever to the bidders.

 

[rkpetersen]

By the way, I actually was thinking of bidding on that 'Monty Python' helmet. My favorite comedy of all time, and props from it rarely appear publicly.

Very glad now that I didn't!

 

[Alan Castillo]

..... it is the implicit responsibility of the auctioneer to properly vet the items they're auctioning, and not just use a superficial description, often provided by the consignors themselves. In other words, they should do the heavy lifting of authentication.

No argument there, & QFT :thumbsup