Ugh. editing my response for irrelevance.
The only part I will leave for "Highliners" is:
Thanks for leaving !
The only part I will leave for "Highliners" is:
Thanks for leaving !
Last edited:
Alleged Screen Used Hero TOS Phaser up for auction (now the aftermath)
- Thread starter Anakin Starkiller
- Start date
- Status
Highliners
Well-Known Member
"And lastly, I didn't bother reading the rest of your garbage after the "pre-adolescent" ********,"
What? Too afraid to read it? --- Here's real proof of the validity (without inaccurate slang) of my comments! Keep digging that hole! And best of luck you!
USS Endeav
Sr Member
The abject truth would include naming the source for the authentication that is the basis of the claim for authenticity. Without transparency, it appears as if the narrative is being controlled and as logic suggests, that control would be the same entity which serves to gain by it.
Your expertise could not be accredited without knowing who you are. You didn't want to reveal this, which is your right but as the axiom goes, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
It is widely known that no one has come forward as the original builder and no one has come forward with knowledge of who was.
Images of the interior having similar construction techniques has been responded to and addressed, several times. The response was simple, the majority viewed them but simply did not arrive at the conclusion you wanted. The images are not the conclusive "smoking gun" that you suggest they are.
It is funny you mention Idiocracy. I have always thought that movie, at least the first 15 minutes or so, was a bona fide documentary. There are several youtube videos that discuss the films creator and his intent with the movie.
You speak as if you were the person Heritage employed to authenticate the auction prop and that the discussion here from dissenting opinions is a personal attack on your credentials to have done so.
ghostryder
Legendary Member
Attitude and condescension aside, I'm missing the point trying to be made here.
Highliners
Well-Known Member
"Your expertise could not be accredited without knowing who you are. "
Now that is actually funny, and here's why:
---As I have provided in my "screen" name, the necessary information is right there for finding out who I am, and with only a few simple keystrokes. Therefore your comment is false. It seems so many on here are just plain lazy.
Conversely, not a single one of you has revealed yourselves and that by definition is Hypocrisy... "For thee but not me". So I'd appreciate you giving your name, how about it?
---By your own definition, this negates every single one of you on here as a "non-starter" with absolutely no clout, only babblings. You've in effect canceled every single commenter on here as being pointless and without any valid meaning.
You didn't want to reveal this, which is your right but as the axiom goes, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
Nope, I am sorry, but I am not looking to eat cake. To be honest, very few who have ever been employed in this field would come on here. And you people should ask yourselves why that is true.
1) The "Objective Truth" stands alone as an accurate depiction regarding the events in question. I have nothing to do with it. As I have already said, I am but a messenger. Also, I am tired of all the negativity found on here as opposed to an open minded questioning of known and valid, provable facts.
2) Define "widely known" or please spare me and refrain from attempts at "logic".
3) When I said what I said (about the Phaser interiors) no comments regarding dimensional accuracy had yet been broached.
4) Mike Judge's intent was and is obvious. It also applies to some of what is occurring here.
5) "You speak as if you were the person Heritage employed to authenticate the auction prop" ...that is your opinion. You do need to say that otherwise you've gone ad hominem.
All of you simply and only talk. No credentials?? Then all I or any of you people have is talk!
---I'll suggest this to any and all with an "opinion" here on the Replica Prop Forum, which was created for the creators of props and replicas there of: Put up some images of what you have created, preferably from scratch as in from raw materials. This as a request to establish any expertise in order to validate skills. Otherwise you guys, it's naught but talk!
How about it? Choose your best three examples of your work, and post three images of each of your achievements, a total of nine images. Let us see who is and who isn't actually capable of judging: "Form and Contour" from 2 dimensional images.
I expect there will be a lot of whining and carrying on that it's "unfair" etc.
Yet every single one of you with an opinion is out to shoot this Phaser down as a "fake" when I an others know beyond any doubt it is not. As I have also said,
I believe this is in an effort to damage its value in the upcoming auction. That is my opinion and I believe is what has set so many of you on your collective "ears."
Last edited:
JMSupp
Well-Known Member
I'll happily reveal my secret identity, that I hide behind my screen name... James Supp.
You a can Google me. The first two pages or so are probably me, except for the guy in the 1940 census and the church pastor.
I'm more then happy to send a resume, references, or anything else you require that would qualify me to question a few photos and a paragraphs about one of the more important Science fiction props of the 20th century.
Part of what makes sites like the RPF exciting is that you have a mix of professionals, amateurs, and enthusiasts mixing together to try to teach, learn, and understand. That's pretty amazing!
Berating people who dare question "The Facts" is just about the least helpful way to make a point. Sure, you probably know more then me about Star Trek Phasers, so do a whole lot of people. That's not hard.
Sharing what you know, and have a positive impact in the community is a lot harder. Most of the people here try to do that. I'd try that, you might get a better response.
James Supp
ghostryder
Legendary Member
While it's not my job to out them (nor would I), there's some serious talent here from both sides of the camera. Hell, I've been "employed in this field" for decades, and your lack of awareness of the other RPF industry pros here do nothing to help your credibility.
Highliners
Well-Known Member
Thanks for being candid James. So far you are the only one.... which says a lot about those "others" here.
And I'd appreciate your relating to the majority on here of why so many of the people in question refrain from offering the requested information and their take on such things. I have tried, but have only been attacked and it isn't for my "delivery". The treatment I received, that of condescension, derision etc. was well in excess of anything I initiated.
It appears to have far more to do with as I have repeatedly said: an Objective Truth. One that the "group" refuses to entertain as possible let alone acknowledge. This is: "group think". Plainly, it has "been officially agreed" that this "...can't be an original" and everyone of these self proclaimed what have you's, in lock step blindly agrees with this pronouncement.
As an alternative, I've asked for examples of one's work, well? How about it everybody? Let's see what you can do and therefore others may ascertain for themselves your skills when it comes to you ability to find out for yourself "The Objective Truth". This when looking at the photographs you are all posting that my very good friend who was there, took and has most generously shared.
I do have fact based information as to the validity of this screen used, authentic Star Trek "Hero Phaser". I attempted (with humor that was overlooked and or ignored) to relate that information to the abundant nay-sayers found here. Also, I do happen to know the opinion that "significant" others have of this website, the very one's those on here have asked about, and in a word, "It Ain't Pretty".
And I'd appreciate your relating to the majority on here of why so many of the people in question refrain from offering the requested information and their take on such things. I have tried, but have only been attacked and it isn't for my "delivery". The treatment I received, that of condescension, derision etc. was well in excess of anything I initiated.
It appears to have far more to do with as I have repeatedly said: an Objective Truth. One that the "group" refuses to entertain as possible let alone acknowledge. This is: "group think". Plainly, it has "been officially agreed" that this "...can't be an original" and everyone of these self proclaimed what have you's, in lock step blindly agrees with this pronouncement.
As an alternative, I've asked for examples of one's work, well? How about it everybody? Let's see what you can do and therefore others may ascertain for themselves your skills when it comes to you ability to find out for yourself "The Objective Truth". This when looking at the photographs you are all posting that my very good friend who was there, took and has most generously shared.
I do have fact based information as to the validity of this screen used, authentic Star Trek "Hero Phaser". I attempted (with humor that was overlooked and or ignored) to relate that information to the abundant nay-sayers found here. Also, I do happen to know the opinion that "significant" others have of this website, the very one's those on here have asked about, and in a word, "It Ain't Pretty".
Highliners
Well-Known Member
So give your name.
Highliners
Well-Known Member
Show proof.
ghostryder
Legendary Member
No idea what this means. Define "significant" - ?
ghostryder
Legendary Member
Highliners
Well-Known Member
Technically speaking, "going from photographs" is risky. You really need to know the focal length of the lens, understand the affect parallax has on objects and other distortion issues found with and in every photograph. These distorions have been ignored in a good many of the posed opinions on here. To be honest, you have to have handled the real ones, you have to be familiar with the materials used, you have to have experience in fabrication in metal plastic and the proper use of machine tools, otherwise..... I will get hit again!
Highliners
Well-Known Member
The above is a perfect example of what I mean by immaturity.
This excrement precludes any honest discussion from taking place on this thread, and why those specific individuals who's expert opinions you people seek, will never come on here and also, think of you as I do.
robn1
Master Member
This hero phaser build was commissioned by The Western Costume Company, and is on display there. The goal with this build was not to copy every tiny detail warts and all, but to incorporate all of the prop's working features in an idealized build that would look good on display.
robn1
Master Member
There's plenty of that to go around.
JMSupp
Well-Known Member
I work primarily as an appraiser, and have worked for estates, auction houses, museums, you name it, evaluating and valuing historic items, including props from movies. I've been doing this a long time, and I'm always learning.
The standard for "authenticity" varies dramatically depending on the context. What's good enough for an auction description is nowhere near what is required for an IRS appraisal, or a court case.
As far as my opinion of the phaser in question, I don't know enough to make a decision on it's authenticity. There are a lot of questions to be answered.
The auction description has no names, no references, only inferences. And that's fine, for an auction. As much as we'd all love them to do all the research and screen matching, most auction houses don't have the time nor expertise to do so.
So by asking questions here, a lot of us enthusiasts can learn a lot, usually without being attacked.
As far as damaging it's value at auction... Umm. No. No it won't... If it's authentic, it'll withstand the scrutiny. I can almost guarantee that the amount of questioning and scrutiny this phaser endures is nowhere near what many artworks go through during their authentication process... Which somehow managed to have little or no effect, once the market has a consensus.
And that's the kicker. Consensus in the market is what drives the market. It only takes two bidders to drive the price up, and chances are, they are not reading this thread. Probably.
Now, if it gets pulled by the auction house because the consensus is it's not real, it's probably not going to because of what is said on the internet, it's because it doesn't meet the authenticity standard of the market it's being sold in.
The standard for "authenticity" varies dramatically depending on the context. What's good enough for an auction description is nowhere near what is required for an IRS appraisal, or a court case.
As far as my opinion of the phaser in question, I don't know enough to make a decision on it's authenticity. There are a lot of questions to be answered.
The auction description has no names, no references, only inferences. And that's fine, for an auction. As much as we'd all love them to do all the research and screen matching, most auction houses don't have the time nor expertise to do so.
So by asking questions here, a lot of us enthusiasts can learn a lot, usually without being attacked.
As far as damaging it's value at auction... Umm. No. No it won't... If it's authentic, it'll withstand the scrutiny. I can almost guarantee that the amount of questioning and scrutiny this phaser endures is nowhere near what many artworks go through during their authentication process... Which somehow managed to have little or no effect, once the market has a consensus.
And that's the kicker. Consensus in the market is what drives the market. It only takes two bidders to drive the price up, and chances are, they are not reading this thread. Probably.
Now, if it gets pulled by the auction house because the consensus is it's not real, it's probably not going to because of what is said on the internet, it's because it doesn't meet the authenticity standard of the market it's being sold in.
USS Endeav
Sr Member
As a matter of habit, I do not "Google" people. That said, Googling your avatar name is by no means an indication to your identity.
Good lord, if that has to be explained to you.....
I choose not to publicize my name for security, privacy and quite possibly, the same reasons you didn't, lest us not forget, unlike James, you did not volunteer your name, it was provided by another. You cannot now claim the credit for having provided that which you are berating others for not. Pot calling out the kettle... tsk tsk tsk.
You've already been taken to task for assuming there aren't prop professionals on here. I know of a few myself and I am but an ant on this forum.
You've given absolutely ZERO verifiable facts. You have provided a circumstantial explanation for pictures which have not been verified and have not been established as fact.
Widely known means well documented, as is the case but you know this, you are simply employing a red herring. Nice try.
I do not need to preface each of my remarks with "the following is a reflection of my opinion and not a confirmed fact", if I do, you've given me far too much credit. If not, then I've given YOU far too much credit. Probably the latter.
- Status
Similar threads
