I’d like it to be an original. I just can’t buy the provenance. I do not believe it is vintage Velcro, (if it’s got any rayon in it it’s a fake and I’m not buying that particular hook parttern for the 60’s) and I really don’t buy the circled area. I am not aware of any screen-capped hero having this spacing.View attachment 1469325
Now, I’d love to be wrong. It would be cool to actually have a ‘new’ hero phaser as reference. Until someone can definitively prove it is a match to a screen cap or carbon date elements of this to the sixties, or match some vintage Velcro to the p1, I’m extremely skeptical.
If they allow the action to conclude with a sale and that sale is later part of a lawsuit questioning the authenticity, Heritage will be on the hook. They have been provided with sufficient cause to either delay the auction pending further review or to cancel it entirely. If they do neither, a "Jonnie Cochran" will have no problem with a lawsuit. Fraud has six tenets which almost all courts use to decide if fraud has (or has not) been committed:It appears that HA is standing firm and backing Jein’s analysis of the piece in response to inquiries from some among us who have reached out.
I disagree. HA is relying on the opinion of a recognized expert and making its representations accordingly, so it can hardly be said to be on the hook viz. prong 4 of your analysis.If they allow the action to conclude with a sale and that sale is later part of a lawsuit questioning the authenticity, Heritage will be on the hook. They have been provided with sufficient cause to either delay the auction pending further review or to cancel it entirely. If they do neither, a "Jonnie Cochran" will have no problem with a lawsuit. Fraud has six tenets which almost all courts use to decide if fraud has (or has not) been committed:
- The party makes a representation of fact
- The representation is false
- The representation relates to a material fact
- The representation is made knowingly, recklessly, or without belief in its truth
- The other party acts reasonably in relying on the misrepresentation
- The other party is actually damaged by the misrepresentation
Heritage will have little room to navigate. If I was the buyer, I'd have this thing carbon-14 dated the minute I had it in hand.
A single expert. An expert that was quite possibly duped in the past. Plus Heritage has not conducted a deeper physical test nor has it required the seller to either. Not being certain, I looked up carbon-14 dating and it can only be done on something which was once alive. So this prop can't be carbon dated, unless it has some part of it which is made from leather or wood. Where ever the prop used a battery, if that battery caused corrosion, it is possible to calculate the age of the corrosion. This is reaching, I know but dating it seems the best way to remove the most doubt about it's authenticity.I disagree. HA is relying on the opinion of a recognized expert and making its representations accordingly, so it can hardly be said to be on the hook viz. prong 4 of your analysis.
You want to remember, that was before anyone knew there were fakes floating around and all he had to work with were probably video tapes for reference. He (and a few other collectors) were the ones who figured out how to identify the fakes (that cost them a lot of money) from comparing against the real ones (props that came directly from the the source as opposed to ones with a long convoluted story). I am guessing there were a lot of lessons learned from that.Wasn't it GJ that someone said has made mistakes in authenticating TOS props before?
I doubt very much that HA is worried about GJ's reputation as an expert. They're entitled to rely on his opinon in good faith, and bald assertions to the contrary from the internet hardly rise to the level of constructive knowledge required to show fraud.A single expert. An expert that was quite possibly duped in the past. Plus Heritage has not conducted a deeper physical test nor has it required the seller to either. Not being certain, I looked up carbon-14 dating and it can only be done on something which was once alive. So this prop can't be carbon dated, unless it has some part of it which is made from leather or wood. Where ever the prop used a battery, if that battery caused corrosion, it is possible to calculate the age of the corrosion. This is reaching, I know but dating it seems the best way to remove the most doubt about it's authenticity.
Nothing you stated disproves it either. Both do have motive however to not delve too deeply. I disagree with your analogy, a defendant in a court proceeding that is innocent will want to dig as deep as it takes to disprove the prosecutions case.Both the seller and HA could be unaware of the real possibility that this is a replica. Both stand to make money on this. They're going to trust the expert, since they are not expert themselves. Expecting otherwise would be unusual. That would be like asking a defendant to defend themselves in court when they already have a lawyer.
Even if it proved to be a replica in the end, that doesn't prove deceit on the seller or HA's part.
That's not the standard. The plaintiff in a civil fraud case would have to prove that the defendant(s) knew the item was a fake, or should have known, by a preponderance of the evidence. The defendant does not have to disprove the plaintiff's assertions.Nothing you stated disproves it either.
Both the seller and HA could be unaware of the real possibility that this is a replica. Both stand to make money on this. They're going to trust the expert, since they are not expert themselves. Expecting otherwise would be unusual. That would be like asking a defendant to defend themselves in court when they already have a lawyer.
Even if it proved to be a replica in the end, that doesn't prove deceit on the seller or HA's part.
I doubt very much that HA is worried about GJ's reputation as an expert. They're entitled to rely on his opinon in good faith, and bald assertions to the contrary from the internet hardly rise to the level of constructive knowledge required to show fraud.
I wasn't speaking about legal requirements, I simply said that nothing you stated disproves whether Heritage or the seller is aware of any material reason to question its authenticity.That's not the standard. The plaintiff in a civil fraud case would have to prove that the defendant(s) knew the item was a fake, or should have known, by a preponderance of the evidence. The defendant does not have to disprove the plaintiff's assertions.
Nothing on this board (or others) constitutes prima facie evidence that the item is a replica; indeed, opinions on the boards may be mistaken as well, given that we've only been looking at photos and have not subjected the piece to in-person examination.
I wasn't speaking about legal requirements, I simply said that nothing you stated disproves whether Heritage or the seller is aware of any material reason to question its authenticity.
However, if it should come to pass that the buyer does bring litigation against the seller and/or Heritage, one can presume they will have what they believe is enough to meet legal requirements.
Something I'd like to hear from Heritage, GJ and the seller about is that list showing what the studio ordered. Without evidence of a second order, be it prior to or after, one can safely conclude there should only be four hero phasers, all of which (if I have understood this thread correctly) have been screen matched. This auction fits none of those. Isn't that like a fifth wheel?
I suspect the only paperwork will be the COA signed by Greg Jein.I'm really curious to see the paperwork that goes with this. I don't think it's been made publicly available though, has it?
Is it possible to challenge the auction website itself to have some of the pictures removed from the auction ?
If *THIS* can be reasonably concluded to *NOT* be the phaser in the vintage photos of TOS actors holding a phaser.....then the PHOTOS are fake regardless of whether the phaser is fake. If that phaser in the TOS photo is not the auction phaser, then showing auction pictures of some other object than the auction piece should be against auction rules.