Alleged Screen Used Hero TOS Phaser up for auction (now the aftermath)
- Thread starter Anakin Starkiller
- Start date
- Status
USS Endeav
Sr Member
That explanation seems plausible but it seems to only serve the suspicions Duncanator mentioned.
I would imagine that an opening bid amount is the equivalent of eBay's reserve. Any bid less than that amount does not secure the item and thus, the lot and consigner are protected from releasing the item for less than a desired minimum.
In the case of live bidding, the auctioneer saying...let's start with....just seems like an effort to get the ball rolling and while it might amount to the same thing, it doesn't have the appearance of impropriety.
JMSupp
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't try to read too deep into what the the website says is happening, until the bidding actually begins. Sometimes auction houses use multiple software packages they don't play well together. They might have one for in house tracking, one for the the in person bidding, one for the on-line bidding, etc... and you might have to jump through some hoops to make them all work together.
Just because the website looks like a bid has been made, doesn't necessarily mean a bid has been made, it could just be a way to display an opening or starting bid. Since the "live" bidding is the only one that really matters, all the other software has to cater to that.
As far as an auction house doing "protective bids", there are a lot of ways that can play out without anything nefarious implied. They can bid up to the reserve, even against a single bidder, in order to try reach a minimum acceptable bid. If the auctioneer thinks its worth more then the reserve, or if there is no reserve, the auctioneer can place bids in order to "protect" the item. If, for some reason, it's a bad auction day, it makes no sense to sell a $10k tractor for $5, if that's all someone wants to bid. It would tick off the seller, and hurt the reputation of the auction house. Better not to sell something then to sell it at an embarrassing discount. Usually this is done by having a reserve, or having a high opening bid acceptable to the seller.
Unfortunately, this can lead to shill bidding, or other unethical or possibly illegal practices, or at least the appearance of bad practices. It's a grey area, and one that is constantly debated in the auction world.
Also, the reserve may not be the opening bid, it may be below or above that bid. All the opening bid does is act as a starting place where the auctioneer thinks the bidding should start in order to sell. Some auction houses open at half the reserve, but there is nothing requiring that. The reserve usually remains confidential until the bidding has passed it. Usually. Sometimes, the auctioneer can even sell under the reserve, and pay the difference out of pocket just to make the sale. That way, they make at least some money on the commission.
Just because the website looks like a bid has been made, doesn't necessarily mean a bid has been made, it could just be a way to display an opening or starting bid. Since the "live" bidding is the only one that really matters, all the other software has to cater to that.
As far as an auction house doing "protective bids", there are a lot of ways that can play out without anything nefarious implied. They can bid up to the reserve, even against a single bidder, in order to try reach a minimum acceptable bid. If the auctioneer thinks its worth more then the reserve, or if there is no reserve, the auctioneer can place bids in order to "protect" the item. If, for some reason, it's a bad auction day, it makes no sense to sell a $10k tractor for $5, if that's all someone wants to bid. It would tick off the seller, and hurt the reputation of the auction house. Better not to sell something then to sell it at an embarrassing discount. Usually this is done by having a reserve, or having a high opening bid acceptable to the seller.
Unfortunately, this can lead to shill bidding, or other unethical or possibly illegal practices, or at least the appearance of bad practices. It's a grey area, and one that is constantly debated in the auction world.
Also, the reserve may not be the opening bid, it may be below or above that bid. All the opening bid does is act as a starting place where the auctioneer thinks the bidding should start in order to sell. Some auction houses open at half the reserve, but there is nothing requiring that. The reserve usually remains confidential until the bidding has passed it. Usually. Sometimes, the auctioneer can even sell under the reserve, and pay the difference out of pocket just to make the sale. That way, they make at least some money on the commission.
USS Endeav
Sr Member
Your explanation has only affirmed the nefarious result while gently explaining that the intent was benign. Now I realize you do not represent Heritage but look at your example, "...it makes no sense to sell a $10k tractor for $5, if that's all someone wants to bid. It would tick off the seller, and hurt the reputation of the auction house." It is my opinion that rules should not protect stupid people. If someone was dumb enough to forgo a reserve, then the loss is on them. If I don't do my research or pay attention to the resistance and candlesticks of a stock, I have no one else to blame for my loss and shouldn't expect someone to be my safety net.
No matter the verbiage, the result is the same, the auction house is stacking the deck. I always through eBay was bad but this language under the Heritage T&C is beyond that.
JMSupp
Well-Known Member
I get what you're saying, and I tend to agree. I'm just explaining how it is, not how it should be.
The key thing, is auction houses don't work for the buyer, they work for the seller. They're in the business to make money, usually by commission. If they sell an item, they get paid. If they don't, they lose money.
I'm not saying what they're doing is right or wrong, just that it is what it is.
They are under no obligation to sell anything to you. They aren't necessarily required by law to sell at a price that would cause them, or the seller to lose money. Sometimes they are, in the case of bank auctions, but a business that is required to sell their products at a loss won't last.
USS Endeav
Sr Member
Auction houses don't sell product that is their own. They facilitate the sale of items belonging to others so, technically, they always make money if an item sells as their income is in a fee. They just want a larger commission but they always have a commission on every item sold. Imagine if eBay operated this way, working either actively or passively against a buyers interests.
As said, this is common, and seen in auctions. In my $60,000 example, if no one bids $60,000 when said, let's start there, then the auctioneer can even just say, "Not sold" even if the seller has not placed a reserve. Watch enough auctions, and you will see this, even semi-often in some cases. To quote the Mandalorian, "This is the way."
thebionicbigfoo
New Member
I think it can be argued that this phaser does not match 4 found on the invoice. But, we do not know if any subsequent phasers were ordered. Heritage does not state this is one of the four referenced. I have experience with game used bats. For example, these is an existing ledger page at Louisville Slugger that shows a month's worth of bats ordered by Babe Ruth during 1927. An example of a bat matching that order exists, but several other bats from the 1927 circa have surfaced that do not match that one single months' order. This does not make those fake, it just proves that that bat doesn't match the record from that single month. Troy R KinunenOh, for heaven's sake! I have no skin in this game. I've been following this debate purely because it's interesting... in all sorts of ways, historical and psychological!I have nowhere near the expertise and knowledge of others on this thread on the topic of Star Trek props in general and phasers in particular. But I do know a logical fallacy when I see one.
It's actually you who are demanding proof of a negative. Not the (for want of a better word) sceptics.This is why.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. That's axiomatic. And the onus of proof is on the person making the claim.
I could claim that I have the true Ark of the Covenant in my back bedroom. That's an extraordinary claim. Which it's up to me to prove. I can't just say 'no, you prove that I haven't'. That's not how it works.
As I understand it, there is existing documentation in the form of an invoice that four hero phasers were commissioned and built. That's inarguable. Those four hero phasers have been identified and seen on the show, and their distinguishing marks have been traced back to four known physical props (counting P1 and P2 as 'one prop'). Also inarguable.
So, all the available evidence is of four hero phasers, all of which are accounted for.
Now, the claim is being made that a fifth hero phaser (both P1 and P2) exists, additional to, and different from, those documented four. Again, as I understand it, there is no known contemporary documentation to support this fifth phaser, and this fifth phaser has never been identified visibly on screen. Nevertheless, this 'extraordinary claim' is being made. It may be so; it may not.
So it's up to those making the claim to prove that claim. In the absence of incontrovertible evidence (not imaginary shy residents of San Francisco), the onus of proof is on you.
Yet, when asked for the proof for your extraordinary claim by those who are doubtful in the face of the lack of any such evidence; when asked to prove that this fifth phaser exists, you're the ones saying 'no, you prove it doesn't'. You're the ones asking others to prove a negative.
USS Endeav
Sr Member
I accept what you are saying, I am just stating that to me, in the least, it is a form of deception and at its worst, it is "shill" bidding.
I don't participate in many auctions and admittedly, I've not read the T&C of sites where I have. I figured if eBay of all places took steps to remove scenarios where the seller can actively interfere with the auction value, then surely more reputable auction sites did as well. Clearly that is not the case because no matter the vernacular, every example cited above amounts to artificially raising an items value. Anything the consigner/seller/auction house does to push or drive the bidding other than to highlight the item itself is artificial. That goes for creating the illusion of bid activity, which isn't the standard definition of a shill.
I don't participate in many auctions and admittedly, I've not read the T&C of sites where I have. I figured if eBay of all places took steps to remove scenarios where the seller can actively interfere with the auction value, then surely more reputable auction sites did as well. Clearly that is not the case because no matter the vernacular, every example cited above amounts to artificially raising an items value. Anything the consigner/seller/auction house does to push or drive the bidding other than to highlight the item itself is artificial. That goes for creating the illusion of bid activity, which isn't the standard definition of a shill.
wayouteast
Sr Member
Precisely. That's exactly the point. We do not know. There's evidence - from contemporary documents and from screen matching - of four hero phasers. Of course it might be that one, two, seven, eight, or one hundred and fifty additional hero phasers were ordered and are out there, undiscovered. Anything's possible. But without similar incontrovertible evidence to that for the four known heroes, those additional heroes are hypothetical. Seemingly, one of these hypothetical additional hero phasers has turned up, and is now being auctioned. It's for the auction house or the seller(s) to prove that this phaser is what it's claimed to be. Not for anyone else - on this forum or otherwise - to prove it isn't.
Just the same as if a painting turned up all of a sudden which formed a matching pair with the Mona Lisa. Or someone found a manuscript which purported to be the undiscovered fourth volume of Lord of the Rings.
The answer to the question of where the burden of proof lies in all these cases is quite simple. Isn't it?
Precisely.
If someone walked up to you on the street, pulled the Mona Lisa out of their trenchcoat--along with a signed LoA from Leonardo--, and offered it to you for $5,000, would you make the purchase? Or would the burden of proof be on the seller and his sketchy circumstances? Could he prove to you it was the REAL painting, and not a print? How did he get it? Did he steal it from the Louvre?
And so it is with this. The phaser has suddenly been pulled out of someone's trenchcoat and offered for sale, with LoAs and a story behind it (and invoking the name of one of STAR TREK's many Leonardos--Wah Chang), but no real concrete facts or evidence. And also screencaps/photos of phaser props which the piece has NOT been matched to, in order to help sell it by showing examples of the props which were actually used in the show.
USS Endeav
Sr Member
This isn't even the looming issue as I've conceded it may very well be a genuine studio asset but is by all account, not screen used which is how it is being represented, even if only indirectly. Setting aside for the moment the memo of four phasers, as I have stated many times, there may very well be a memo or invoice showing x number of additional assets ordered but those assets were not seen on camera and cannot be screen matched. That is the rub which for me, designates this auction as disingenuous and a fraud.
Just went for a top bid of $200k
Last edited:
feek61
Sr Member
Well, there is a note from the executor of Wah's estate that list all of the invoices in his records and it says reworked 4 practical phasers but no mention of any other work on other practical phasers. The fact that the studio inventory memo says there were 4 practical phasers, Wahs records show he only redressed 4 practical phasers and only 4 are identified on screen is pretty strong evidence that there were 4 heros. It makes absolutely no sense that they would have commissioned more because the ones they had were not even being used. We only see the 4 heros together only once in the phaser locker scene in "The Galileo Seven" and other than that we only see two onscreen together at any one time. Due to the introduction of the mid-grades in "Devil in the Dark" we don't see the heros again except for a very few close-ups. The commission of the additional mystery hero phasers would have been done in the 6 months between the inventory memo and the filming of "Devil in the Dark" which seems unlikely since they were not needed and because of the tight budget of the show. Bob Justman complained about the cost of the orignal 4 hero phasers made by the Desilu prop shop so it is incomprehensible that he would have had more made that were not needed. More likely is this mystery 5th phaser is a forgery and I will never believe it is anything but a forgery unless some compelling real information is presented to prove otherwise.
This, this, this. Absolutely this.
Anyone familiar with the production timeline of the show and the history of the props should be asking why there would even be a need for more heroes, especially after the end of the first season. As has been noted many times, the midgrades became the de facto heroes for the rest of the series, outside of a mere handful of insert closeup shots showing the heroes.
Sure, any "new" heroes built after "Dagger of the Mind" (the first appearance of the Wah-reworked gray phasers) might vary in construction details, having started out as gray phasers, and NOT being reworked from black-and-white phasers, as the four known heroes were. But that would all seem like a little too convenient way to explain the discrepancies.
Would Wah even be needed to build new phasers, since the people who built the originals could just have based the new ones on his reworked gray models? If Wah didn't build these new phasers, then the studio craftspeople did. And if the studio craftspeople did, then why would they even need to send the props to Wah for "repairs"?
- Status
Similar threads
