The support for that statement, is that if more than the 4 heroes were made, it would likely be FOUR more heroes, not one. There would be no point in making ONE extra hero. This is logical. (said is Spock's voice)
Alleged Screen Used Hero TOS Phaser up for auction (now the aftermath)
- Thread starter Anakin Starkiller
- Start date
The support for that statement, is that if more than the 4 heroes were made, it would likely be FOUR more heroes, not one. There would be no point in making ONE extra hero. This is logical. (said is Spock's voice)
NathanM
Well-Known Member
Hey guys. I posted a new thread here: ( Some Star Trek "Props" I Came Across Today. Thoughts? ) as to not muck up this one. Have a look if you're interested.
The support for that statement, is that if more than the 4 heroes were made, it would likely be FOUR more heroes, not one. There would be no point in making ONE extra hero. This is logical. (said is Spock's voice)
And, as I noted, the heroes were seen only very infrequently after the midgrades hit the scene. The heroes were most frequently used during that first season. Why would they bother to make more heroes during the first season when they filled the need for more (and less fragile) phasers with the midgrades? Alternatively, why would they need to make more heroes during the second and third seasons, since they already had all of those midgrades?
Once the midgrades hit the scene, the heroes were pretty much just relegated to static close-ups when beauty shots and/or the emitter tip lights were needed. And, even then, midgrades were also used for occasional close-ups.
QuasiOdo
Well-Known Member
Wow. Some quite unhinged responses in this thread. I think we can all safely say that until we've heard from GJ, we still won't have enough info to go on (accepted- and very valid- observations aside.) We do know that: 1) Fakes down to the smallest tells ARE possible. And 2) Getting emotional over prop details doesn't help arguments, pro or con. So I suggest everyone be cool. It'll all come out in the wash. It always does.
So I suggest everyone be cool. It'll all come out in the wash. It always does.
My thoughts are, if I had possession of what was presented as an original prop, and I had absolute confidence in the provenance and authenticity of said piece, I would welcome the analysis and evalaution of the replica prop community, rather than reacting with any measure of defensiveness or attempting to quash the conversation.
The approval the community would only add to the acceptance of the prop as “the genuine article”. A great example of this is the very open community analysis of the Alpha communicator, that took place years ago.
I am hopeful that additional information may be openly offered that allows for such an analysis of this piece and its provenance.
The approval the community would only add to the acceptance of the prop as “the genuine article”. A great example of this is the very open community analysis of the Alpha communicator, that took place years ago.
I am hopeful that additional information may be openly offered that allows for such an analysis of this piece and its provenance.
Last edited:
I’ve been mainly focusing on the P1 details, but, when comparing the auction piece with screencaps of the various P2s (particularly the Nona and Lenore), the discrepancies continue to leap out. The slanted top of the forehead tower (vs. the horizontal tops of the screencapped heroes and midgrades), the side dial not intersecting the P2 shell’s side ribs, the length and thickness of the P1 cradle ribs, etc.
Again, there’s solid evidence that the heroes and midgrades came from the same molds (although the hero mold was presumably modified—or the buck modified and then re-molded—to enlarge the trigger box), and that cutout markings for the drop-in parts (P2 side dial and rear fin cutout, P1 thumbwheel, sight cover) we’re all a part of those molds. You can see the scribed lines for the P1 sight cover and the two original black and white power buttons on some of the surviving midgrades.
So, for example, when all of the known heroes and midgrades have consistent features, likely due to their all coming from the same molds (like the side dial intersecting the side ribs), a new “hero” which does not also share those traits comes off as…suspect.
Again, there’s solid evidence that the heroes and midgrades came from the same molds (although the hero mold was presumably modified—or the buck modified and then re-molded—to enlarge the trigger box), and that cutout markings for the drop-in parts (P2 side dial and rear fin cutout, P1 thumbwheel, sight cover) we’re all a part of those molds. You can see the scribed lines for the P1 sight cover and the two original black and white power buttons on some of the surviving midgrades.
So, for example, when all of the known heroes and midgrades have consistent features, likely due to their all coming from the same molds (like the side dial intersecting the side ribs), a new “hero” which does not also share those traits comes off as…suspect.
No kiddin'! Yow.
You'd think someone had found some scrolls that they claimed were early Biblical.
WinstonWolf359
Sr Member
I agree. The outer shell of both P-I and P-II should match the rest of the phasers, which this does not. I would love to see an attempt to mix and match the right and left halves of the GJ and this auction phaser. I think that would further tell some stories of just how far off this new phaser is.
For me the story that the supposedly "separated at birth" P-I and P-II could just magically fit together isn't much of a revelation. One, if the story was true OF COURSE they should fit together, they were literally designed to do that. Two, you could probably pull off that same magic trick with a Wand Co. phaser or probably a half dozen other replicas.
The more time I spend looking at the P-II internals I just see more discrepancies to the GJ. I think the larger trigger box on the auction phaser was necessary because of a different, larger Hubbell twist lock being used. The P-I release mechanism is also larger, even though you'd expect those were all built at the same time by the same guy to be placed into the phasers.
Which leads me to the metal parts in general. The front nozzles don't physically match, and the auction phaser's weathering on the nozzle looks artificial. The rear fins are thicker stock on the auction phaser, and the cut-out area is much smaller. The trigger is a different size and shape and is installed a fair bit differently when compared to the GJ.
I think in some ways we're still evaluating the appearance of TOS props through the lens forgers like Mark English used to use; that the props were carelessly painted, poorly made, and rough looking, mostly because it seems like his ability to build a prop wasn't as good as his ability to spin a tale. In actuality, I don't think any of the authentic props are nearly as poorly made as the stories would lead you to believe. Yes, several of them have some rough-looking paint jobs, but the underlying craftsmanship is pretty solid.
The hero phaser especially is so intricate and complicated there's no way I can believe they were simply thrown together using random spare parts and poor-quality castings. One of the details that really jumped out to me looking at the P-I is how, on the same piece, you can have thick smears of what look like filler putty under the paint in one spot, and giant air bubbles a quarter of an inch away. I've seen thick, smeared-on putty and air bubbles on some replicas, but never on any authentic phasers.
Okay, I'll give you that but someone at the TPZ ratted them out and people over there are really ticked off since it had to be a member that did it.
USS Endeav
Sr Member
What exactly was being "ratted" out? The information that HeroCOMM was of the same opinion as most people at the RPF and elsewhere?
Or was it that HeroCOMM was threatened with litigation? Neither of these things are shocking, revealing or secretive in that no one could have guessed either was true.
About the only thing I can see HeroCOMM wanting to keep secret about is the shame of being a coward in not stating publicly what they stated privately regarding a public auction in which there is the potential for someone to be mislead and essentially, defrauded. As has been stated ad nauseum, it defies reason that anyone with a piece they themselves believe to be genuine would not welcome a thorough and complete review from multiple sources to allay any concerns a buyer or community may have. Legalities aside, no legitimate person would want to defraud another or want to live with knowing they caused another to have remorse because it was later learned the item was in fact, not as it was represented.
That is not the behavior we are seeing here. What we are seeing is someone or a group trying to control the narrative through intimidation.
HeroComm was setting in motion plans to get a petition going to submit to HA. Someone--someone who presumably is a member of TPZ--, apparently saw that members-only discussion, and contacted them with the threat of a lawsuit. Since HeroComm has maintained effectiveness because of their anonymity (a suit would put their names in the public record), and since they can't deal with the time and cost of a potential suit, they scuttled their plan.
They said it best, though--the truth is on our side. It'll all shake out, one way or another.
I would call that pragmatism, rather than cowardice.
USS Endeav
Sr Member
I'd agree, it would be pragmatism IF it resolved itself prior to the close of the auction where a buyer is secured. Then it is no longer pragmatism.
"IF" is the single biggest word in the English language, for if the Queen had balls, she'd have been King. The auction date is next month. Wishes and unicorns won't make someone willing to commit fraud to change their mind.
Fraudulent Auction
If this was to serve as case law (It's a case from outside the US), it goes to the argument that someone with sufficient clout and industry knowledge should be contacting Heritage.
Last edited:
asalaw
Sr Member
That is not what happened. I can't go into specifics, but no one at the TPZ ratted anyone out. The party that threatened to sue got their information by means other than the TPZ. I wish I could say more, but Herocomm has specifically asked that the information not be shared.
I can see both sides of the argument, here. I understand why they bowed out, but you're also not wrong.
That being said, it ain't over, yet. Is there anything stopping anyone else from following through on their plan? I'd happily provide a signature and/or a well-reasoned argument (with images) to submit to HA.
Of course, this being the RPF, a lot of eyes are probably already on this thread. People who haven't chimed in, but have a lot of pull in the community. Heck, we have industry professionals and lawyers who are members, here.
Okay, then. Thanks for clearing it up! Some people have speculated that it was an inside job, which is a disturbing prospect. Glad to hear that wasn't the case.
robn1
Master Member
I don't know where the idea came from that the twist plugs are different, They look identical to me. And we've seen the pic with Greg's handle snapped into the auction P2, and the auction handle attached to Greg's handle.
We're all interested in pointing out the differences, but we must also acknowledge the similarities. For example:
The lower front shells appear to be nearly identical, the contours and the "hump".
We're all interested in pointing out the differences, but we must also acknowledge the similarities. For example:
The lower front shells appear to be nearly identical, the contours and the "hump".
Agreed.
robn1
Master Member
Greg's has a build up of paint or filler at the rearmost tip, and the light reflections make it appear different. But I've not seen a replica this close.
Last edited:
WinstonWolf359
Sr Member
When I look at the side by side I see two clearly different female plugs installed.
And here the length of the prongs certainly seem longer on the auction phaser than GJ's.
Similar threads
