Alleged Screen Used Hero TOS Phaser up for auction (now the aftermath)

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.


Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

dbuck

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
I can’t really speak for anyone at HC, I wasn’t there. But if HA threatened me because IN MY OPINION the phaser was likely a fake I’d probably still roll with that opinion no matter how badly they didn’t want that result.
HC just dumping that phaser into their website as a fifth hero shocked me, Even if they thought it a might be real posting it to their site like that was incredibly disappointing. It needs more evidence posted to get the normal TOS fan to buy in.

If HA really did bother to sue, we’re it me, I’d print out most of the pages of this thread, the stuff from HC, and hand It over to the court.
We here know all the differences and problems between a real screen used hero and the auction phaser. HA didn’t even call it a production model, annnnnd they didn’t call it screen used but used pics of what it isn’t to imply it is. I don’t think a lawyer would have much of a problem chewing up HA in court, and any of us might even do a good job.
 

Jintosh

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
I don’t think a lawyer would have much of a problem chewing up HA in court, and any of us might even do a good job.
I've had fantasies about defending this thread in court, and HA having to hand over their irrefutable proof that it's real....and the Judge just laughing her head off when she reads it, and then saying, "CASE DISMISSED" for lack of evidence. For HA to prove any case against someone that says it's a modern replica, HA would have to PROVE it's NOT a modern replica. And at this point, I am very very very sure that they cannot do that.
 

Duncanator

Sr Member
What could HA even sue someone for?
It's not illegal to have an opinion, or to debate whether it is real or not.
Maybe if someone took out an advertisement that said "HA is a fraud", then they could go after them for defamation.

But there is nothing to sue someone over who is asking for more proof or pointing out issues to determine the item's true provenance.
 

USS Endeav

Sr Member
↑ They wouldn't, which is the whole point. It was an empty threat. They could start a suit, sure. It would even go so far as the first day of trial, probably a bench trial at the request of Heritage but I don't see it surviving a motion to dismiss. Not based on what is a matter of public record.
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Stairstars

Well-Known Member
↑ They wouldn't, which is the whole point. It was an empty threat. They could start a suit, sure. It would even go so far as the first day of trial, probably a bench trial at the request of Heritage but I don't see it surviving a motion to dismiss. Not based on what is a matter of public record.
I believe the option of a bench or jury trial is up to the defendant.
 

USS Endeav

Sr Member
I believe the option of a bench or jury trial is up to the defendant.
I may be wrong but I believe in state level civil cases, either party may request a bench trial. In Federal court it always defaults to jury trial though some of what I read seemed to indicate this was only true in instances where the defendant faces incarceration and even then, a defendant may waive a jury trial. I'm not a lawyer and I'm only going by things I have read over the years, usually pertaining to where I lived and related to someone or a contractor I was suing. Luckily for me, I'm 4-0 with no losses. ;)
 

Gregatron

Sr Member
I suppose we should start collating data and making a list of the inconsistencies of the piece in comparison with the Jein and other confirmed heroes, to aid people with research. Here’s my first attempt:

P2:

* No match to any screenused prop.
* Extremely gloopy/sloppy paintjob, which does not match Wah Chang’s onscreen work.
* Non-tapered emitter acrylic.
* Metal emitter piece looks different from the Jein, and is possibly a modern replica. Hole in mounting stem is centered, whereas the Jein’s is off-center.
* Sight window plexi looks thicker than the Jein’s, and is not yellowed with age.
* Side ribs flare out from the P2 body shell at the front, rather than being consistent thickness.
* Side knob is different, with thicker details than the Jein (which, if it wasn’t a found part, could simply be the result of being handmade).
* Body shell shapes (forehead tower slant, bottom rear curvature, P1 cradle ribs, etc.) are inconsistent with both the Jein and the known authentic midgrades.
* Rear fins appear to be made from thicker aluminum stock than the Jein.
* Longer aluminum trigger than the Jein.
* Handle buttplate appears to be commercially-available replica, with differently-shaped/sized cutout between the screws.
* Different construction for tenturn knob, with a large screw at the bottom of the mount.
* Larger-diameter nail head for the rear internal P2 emitter spring to hook onto.
* Brass tubing used to hold the brass strip/trigger spring mount appears to have greater wall thickness than the Jein.
* Threaded brass strip that receives the screw which holds the shell halves together is rounded instead of square-edged, a trait seen on various fan replicas.

P1:

* No match to any screenused prop.
* Same sloppy paintjob as the P2.
* Crispy appears different from confirmed authentic versions.
* Appears to use modern Velcro.
* Details specifically replicate the Jein (no gem, same numbers under power meter).
* Acrylic parts (power meter, sight) do not appear yellowed with age (or have yellowed glue) like the Jein.
* Shell shapes are different (rear edge is straighter, rear shell has slightly less taper, etc.)
* Aluminum side rail installed into a slot cut into the shell, rather than being glued to the outer shell, as on the Jein and TMOST heroes.
 

feek61

Sr Member
This list is a very good start to definitively say this is a forgery. With so many discrepancies how could any intelligent person still believe this is any more than replica? There are actually many more problems with it but I am not interested in helping the forger(s) with their next attempt at fraud. The fact alone that the P2 shells don't match, the P1 shells don't match, and the front nozzle (with fake weathering), butt plate, etc. are replicas tell you everything you need to know about this piece.
 

Gregatron

Sr Member
This list is a very good start to definitively say this is a forgery. With so many discrepancies how could any intelligent person still believe this is any more than replica? There are actually many more problems with it but I am not interested in helping the forger(s) with their next attempt at fraud. The fact alone that the P2 shells don't match, the P1 shells don't match, and the front nozzle (with fake weathering), butt plate, etc. are replicas tell you everything you need to know about this piece.

Yep.
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

AJK001

Master Member
Speaking of crappy paint jobs, what is the reasoning behind making a modern replica, I'm not talking about the HA Phaser, and then distressing it to match the known Phasers the way they look today? Wouldn't you want it to look like it did on set? I know I would. I felt the same way when I had my Comm's from the JLong kit built, there is minor distressing but they still look good.
 
Last edited:

Gregatron

Sr Member
There’s certainly a niche of the prop community which likes replicating props as they are now, with all of the warts, weathering, and damage. Some people prefer the on-set look, and others try to go for what the in-universe item would look like. The majority of replicas and models tend to feature some degree of idealization, rather than replicating the real-world flaws.

Every single model of the TOS Enterprise which has a finished/mirrored port side is technically inaccurate to the studio model, after all.
 

Gregatron

Sr Member
The Diamond Select Phaser does have the flared out trimlines at the front near the emitter and above the knob.

I just checked mine, and the ribs appear to have consistent thickness down their entire length.

B7CFCE48-FE5F-411E-95D8-9F6F6738E255.jpeg
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

AJK001

Master Member
There’s certainly a niche of the prop community which likes replicating props as they are now, with all of the warts, weathering, and damage. Some people prefer the on-set look, and others try to go for what the in-universe item would look like. The majority of replicas and models tend to feature some degree of idealization, rather than replicating the real-world flaws.

Every single model of the TOS Enterprise which has a finished/mirrored port side is technically inaccurate to the studio model, after all.
I guess I would like the in universe look the best. That was why I liked the MR TOS and First Contact Phasers, they felt real.
 

Gregatron

Sr Member
Isn’t it interesting that interest in this whole thing has dropped right off? With no one at this point particularly interested in discussing the details or trying to replicate this supposed “authentic” prop? This is something which would be unthinkable, really. A new hero prop to study, yet no one really seems to care.


I’d say that the tribe has spoken.
 

dbuck

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
I am peeking in on Herocomm occasionally, just to see if something changes regarding their acceptance that it’s real.
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. Your new thread title is very short, and likely is unhelpful.
  2. Your reply is very short and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  3. Your reply is very long and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  4. It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose.
  5. Your message is mostly quotes or spoilers.
  6. Your reply has occurred very quickly after a previous reply and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  7. This thread is locked.

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Top