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.


Rogviler

Well-Known Member
Yeah, I think everyone has done all they can with the existing photos and information. Unless and until something new comes out it's pretty much a flatline. Something can be said for not beating a dead horse as well.
 

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

Apollo

Legendary Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Was looking for this thread last night had dropped to pg 4

What is more to be said?

Untill new Pics or info comes out this has pretty much been debunked .
 

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

Gregatron

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

Unlikely. They’ve gone radio-silent ever since that lawsuit threat, without even an explanation for their supposed change of heart on the matter. Highly uncharacteristic.
 

feek61

Sr Member
We already know that each of the known four hero phasers were unique in their construction and if the HA phaser is authentic; what does that mean to our understanding of these props? The most important of the implications is that there was more than one mold for the P2's because the HA is different than any other identified hero or surviving Midgrade (I am mostly talking about the side ribs which flare out on the HA and do not on any other phaser). In addition, the P1 appears to maybe be a different shape so it too would have a different mold than other hero P1's. We know there were originally four heros based on the on-screen ID, Wah's invoice for redressing them and the inventory memo so additional heros would have been ordered after the 7/14/66 memo date. All four redressed heros were seen in the phaser locker in "The Galileo Seven" which was filmed on 9/27/66. At this point since the balance of the locker was filled with non-hero phasers so we are reasonably sure there were only four heros on the 27th filming date (or they certainly would have used them in this scene). The Midgrades appeared first in "The Devil in the Dark" filmed at the end of January, 1967 so the Midgrades were probably made the weeks leading up to that episode, lets say 3-4 weeks which puts the commissioning of them right at the first of the year, 1967. Since after the introduction of the Midgrades, the heros were basically no longer used or needed, that means that between the end of September and the first of the year 1967 (a three month period) is most likely when additional heros would have been ordered. So why would the HA phaser be from a different mold if it most likely would have been made before the Midgrades which have the same rib features as the GJ hero P2? Why would the cash strapped production order more hero phasers after the introduction of the Midgrades when the four heros they had were not being used? Why if additional hero Phasers were ordered after the Midgrade were introduced and presumably rarely used (evidenced by it's zero screen time) would the paint be so sloppy (seems like it should be pristine). To me this makes no sense which is why I remain skeptical about the authenticity of the HA P2 based on the available information. I hope I am wrong because a new hero P2 would be amazing, particularly since the techniques used in its construction vary so much from the GJ. Thoughts?
 
Last edited:

KojiroVance

Sr Member
I have not kept up with any of the discussion, haven't even noticed what this Heritage Auctions piece sold for ... but there seem to be strong opinions about its authenticity (or lack).

I can't imagine a Desilu propmaker coming up with new hero phaser months after making "enough" for the production. Why would they? I think midgrades got plenty of use, and were sufficient for use on-camera. The hero mechanism really wasn't used much. There are examples of it being set up, and even one of Shatner operating it on-camera ("Return of the Archons," firing down an alleyway).
 

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

TristanArtSD

New Member
I don't have anything academic I can add to this thread but I would like to say it's been a wild read, and I've learned a lot about the original phaser props! I'm too young to have watched TOS during its original run, but I did grow up watching TNG during its actual run and they used to play an episode of TOS before TNG and I loved every bit of it. All these years (decades!) later, I really enjoy digging into the details behind the props. Now I'm inspired to get back to working on my (extremely inaccurate / long neglected) wooden P1 and P2 replica.
 

Rogviler

Well-Known Member
Did anyone look further into the thought that it perhaps contains some original part(s), even just fragments, that were then cobbled together more recently? If they used some replica parts and perhaps even mistakenly used a replica as a reference, that would explain a lot. I know it seems to be a black or white debate about whether it's real or not, but it's a nagging thought that supposedly these experts deemed it genuine and that there's some mysterious information that was shared with the buyer that satisfied them as well. What if that info was that some of it's real but it was "seamlessly" (ha) restored to its original state using new parts? A little Bondo here and glue there...voila. I know restoration of antiques can be a touchy and even taboo subject, so I could see that being the case with props and entertainment memorabilia as well, hence the tight lips from all involved.

Just thinking out loud, really. My very first thought when I saw it was that this was a possibility but it was overcome by the evidence for fakery. But like I said, that nagging thought of, "Still, the experts liked it..." is hard to shake. Either there really was something they saw in it or we must conclude that it was all a made-up show, or at the very least they were all duped and we're the only ones smarter than them. :unsure:
 

ID10T

Sr Member
I’m just waiting for the expert(s) that looked at it and decided it was not a “fake” to explain themselves. In full or in part

I know less about this prop than I do about constructing nuclear weapons but I know people well enough…

If it does contain “parts from global sources” why would it look so aged and dusty inside? Restoring (guitars and amplifiers in my case) we took old stuff and made it look like it was just collected at the music store. No “added” dust or dirt- we cleaned that all out.
 

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

Jintosh

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Did anyone look further into the thought that it perhaps contains some original part(s), even just fragments, that were then cobbled together more recently? If they used some replica parts and perhaps even mistakenly used a replica as a reference, that would explain a lot. I know it seems to be a black or white debate about whether it's real or not, but it's a nagging thought that supposedly these experts deemed it genuine and that there's some mysterious information that was shared with the buyer that satisfied them as well. What if that info was that some of it's real but it was "seamlessly" (ha) restored to its original state using new parts? A little Bondo here and glue there...voila. I know restoration of antiques can be a touchy and even taboo subject, so I could see that being the case with props and entertainment memorabilia as well, hence the tight lips from all involved.

Just thinking out loud, really. My very first thought when I saw it was that this was a possibility but it was overcome by the evidence for fakery. But like I said, that nagging thought of, "Still, the experts liked it..." is hard to shake. Either there really was something they saw in it or we must conclude that it was all a made-up show, or at the very least they were all duped and we're the only ones smarter than them. :unsure:

Black and white. Yes, I tried to explore whether this could be one of the 3 missing heroes, modified , but was met with resistance. (here) It's all good though, no hard feelings, but in short, the shell is wrong, and the battery is wrong for the 3 heroes. And since the emitter is replica, and the plug is potentially replica, then there's really nothing of substance LEFT to be original. It would be like restoring a car and only keeping the original WINDSHIELD from the vintage car. Such a car would not be original or vintage. This one is a bust.
 

Rogviler

Well-Known Member
If it does contain “parts from global sources” why would it look so aged and dusty inside? Restoring (guitars and amplifiers in my case) we took old stuff and made it look like it was just collected at the music store. No “added” dust or dirt- we cleaned that all out.

My thought was not that it was done in the last year but perhaps the last decade or maybe even 20 or 30 years ago. The idea that it was pieced together for someone's kid to play with is certainly one route. It being a much older "restoration" would make more sense to me regardless. It's not the "recently discovered" part that I have a problem with. That could be true whether it's real-ish or fake. I'm sure there are fake objects that have been sitting in basements for hundreds of years.


Black and white. Yes, I tried to explore whether this could be one of the 3 missing heroes, modified , but was met with resistance. (here) It's all good though, no hard feelings, but in short, the shell is wrong, and the battery is wrong for the 3 heroes. And since the emitter is replica, and the plug is potentially replica, then there's really nothing of substance LEFT to be original. It would be like restoring a car and only keeping the original WINDSHIELD from the vintage car. Such a car would not be original or vintage. This one is a bust.

Well, people have done just about that with cars, haha. Especially if it was one of only 2 known examples. ;) But I do see your point and we may all be going in circles now.
 

Gregatron

Sr Member
At this point, there have been more than enough shenanigans--combined with the physical evidence--to convince me that the piece is 100% fake (not "repaired", and not utilizing "some production-made parts"), and that a combination of greed and ego allowed for all of the criticism and dissenting voices to be simply swept under the rug in favor of making a sale. Sloppy, highly-questionable (perhaps even falsified) provenance and glaring problems with the piece itself were clearly not enough to generate even a glimmer of honesty from those in a position to do something about it. Instead, zero transparency, legal threats, and suppression at every turn. A classic case of profit winning out over truth.

It sets a disturbing precedent. Although it's certainly happened before, but not quite like this, I think. The perpetrators of this fraud clearly did not reckon on the vigilance of (what remains of) the STAR TREK fanbase.
 

ID10T

Sr Member
ULTIMATE facepalm
96436FB9-FEB9-4687-9078-39A93E868155.png
 

JPH

Sr Member
Sadly, no degree of evidence matters.

Folks posted brilliant evidence *against* the legitimacy, but the argument was simply reset by stating, "we have proof, but we aint gonna provide it."

can I add a, "nyah nyah" with thumbs in the ears ?

This thread was a wunnerful education on phasers, but it could have died after a few pages if the "PROOF" had been displayed.

The question now is, "will this thread light up again (if and) when a lawsuit is filed regarding the legitimacy of the phaser?"
 

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