Christopher Reeve's Belt Buckle from Superman 1978

[thegreatgalling]

I have done a lot of research regarding the various Reeve Superman costumes and have seen a lot of great sources for information (bless Jason and the Original Prop Blog).

I saw something offered by Star Wares and figured I would bite. It was listed as an original belt buckle worn by the Man of Steel himself in 1978.

Of note, my research showed that the buckles were *usually* attached to the belt by paper fasteners. The belt buckle, which was yellow painted resin, was usually bored with a hole, and the top of the paper fastener was glued in the hole.

My belt buckle seems to have been attached by velcro. I am also aware that various Superman belt buckles have appeared in the marketplace at various times, including an alleged cast of a screenused buckle (sold as such).

Here is Star Wares' photo of my buckle:

Granted, I would backflip across the house if I ever received confirmation this thing was actually on Superman's costume, but I am putting it out there before I spend too much on displaying the thing! I really trust Star Wares, so for now, I am focusing on how great it makes me feel, and less about my usual panick-stricken attitude about screenused items.

So at least for now, this is one of my prized possessions, please enjoy!

 

[Martin-El]

It looks great-
Did Star Wares offer anything as provenance or details regarding it's use?
Not to burst your bubble but as you rightly pointed out- I've yet to see another example of the belt where the bored-in paper fasteners weren't used and with good reason as that small tab of Velcro simply would not be enough to secure it properly. In my experience having offered replicas 'allegedly' cast of screen used buckles I wish a tab of velcro would have done the job- it would have saved considerable effort.
Having said that- who the hell knows. Yours could easily be a real piece- I only hope you paid a reasonable amount for it as, being such a small, simple design it would be so easy to fake- there is no difference whatsoever in your pics above and the casts I used to offer which is why I hope Star Wares provided something solid as proof for you...

 

[thegreatgalling]

Really appreciate your response!

I inquired a little about the piece when I bought it, and Star Wares simply confirmed that based on their information, it WAS worn by Christopher Reeve and it WAS from the first film.

Like Screenused and Propstore, Star Wares simply provides their own certificate of authenticity.

I paid enough to sting, but little enough to take the risk. If I remember correctly, I caught the auction at its end and didn't have enough time to ask about it before hand.

I put in a message to Star Wares about it. I often find myself in these situations, but it tends to work out some way or another!

 

[Xenophon1]

The issue with Star Wares is that they're more or less a retailer, and have gotten items from a variety of industry sources and collectors over the years. So while almost all of what they sell is legitimate, occasional pieces aren't and it's hard to tell. Even they don't know the provenance for some of the items they acquired over 20+ years.

As an example, a couple years ago they listed 2 separate costume lots attributed to M.A.S.H.; they were so similar you'd easily assume they both came from the same source. I bought one, and started doing some research--turns out, I was able to find not one but two previous records of its sale online. Star Wares had bought it from a well-known auction house, where the consignor was listed as a company which the Original Prop Blog has covered extensively for fraud--pictures of the handwritten name markings in the auction listing prove it's the same lot. Bad news. However, my digging also turned up a previous sale in 2003 of the same lot--auction pictures of the handwritten names prove telling--this time from another consignor with the buyer presumably being the fraudster company, so it traces cleanly to before the fraudster took possession. Even better, that earlier auction listing included an image of an authentic inventory tag (lost or discarded between then and subsequent auctions) from The Costume Collection, a now-defunct source which did indeed handle some authentic M.A.S.H. wardrobe. Since then, the fraudster company I mentioned before introduced inauthentic items with forged Costume Collection documents into the market, but the tag in the picture and handwriting on it agree with some known-good Costume Collection tags I've seen with other items. So fortunately, my M.A.S.H. lot has good provenance that absolves it from the taint of a company which was known to sell fraudulent items, including fraudulent M.A.S.H. items. But the path it took is interesting:

The Costume Collection -> Private Collector -> Public Auction (sold with good original tag from TCC) -> Known Fraudster -> Public Auction (sold with Fraudster's now-worthless COA, tag from TCC gone) -> Star Wares -> EBay Auction (sold with Star Wares COA) -> Me

However, the second similar lot sold by Star Wares in the same timeframe isn't so lucky. As far as I could tell it traces to the fraudster company, and no further back than that. As such, it will always have the taint of possible forgery on it, unless the buyer can trace it back further. I got lucky, because I just as easily could have purchased the tainted lot.

Unfortunately, this can be a complicated hobby...

 

[EvilRocketeer]

screen-used collecting is a tricky thing. Great research on your part to discover the provenance of your items.

It happens from time to time that auction houses or screen used dealers sell something that isnt legit. The Christies Auction and the Profiles in History Darth Vader items are being called into question right now which some members pointed out the PIH Vader helmet isnt a production original. Sometimes even though evidence is shown, the company would still stand by the item. Like PIH with the lightsaber fiasco which they ended up pulling.

i been to star wares headquarters once and they had tons of props laying around. Everything was labeled. I purchased two items from them and with my research was able to confirm the authenticity.

Also, I recommend making friends with other collectors in your particular subject. It is always a good thing to have a second opinion on your item especially since they have done research as well

 

[thegreatgalling]

Thanks Xenophon1 and ER, I really appreciate your insight.

Unfortunately it's just one of those things, and as I've said before, this hobby plays on sentimentality. You have to be sentimental (and sometimes semi-mental :lol) to put the time and effort into a hobby just because we saw it in a movie. This means our hearts want what we purchase to be real and they can block our better judgement if we aren't careful.

I'll keep you posted on the buckle.

 

[Xenophon1]

Thanks Xenophon1 and ER, I really appreciate your insight.

Unfortunately it's just one of those things, and as I've said before, this hobby plays on sentimentality. You have to be sentimental (and sometimes semi-mental :lol) to put the time and effort into a hobby just because we saw it in a movie. This means our hearts want what we purchase to be real and they can block our better judgement if we aren't careful.

I'll keep you posted on the buckle.

It was a great buy on your part, under the circumstances. I had the same item in my watch list, but other auction expenditures kept me from bidding. For the price, you can't get a better Superman costume piece from the Reeve era. I hope your research fails to match it with a particular line of replicas, and makes the velcro explainable as an early production choice that was abandoned for the paper fasteners when its failure to hold became clear. In the absence of matching it to a known line of replicas or confirmation that velcro wasn't used at all early on, I'd give it the benefit of the doubt considering Star Wares' reputation. It may prove inauthentic, but until then my personal opinion is that it's entitled to a presumption of authenticity based on its backing by Star Wares--although you owe it to yourself and the community to research it to the best of your ability, and of course to not resell it without disclosing any doubtful aspects.

As for the sentimentality of the hobby, it does indeed play a role which can affect our better judgment. Early on in my collecting I made the mistake of being too eager to believe in the claims of some sources, and lost a few hundred dollars on junk. Then again, had I been too disbelieving I would have missed out on some of the crown jewels of my collection, which came from random EBay sources for pennies on the dollar but checked out under later scrutiny.

But personally, my biggest problem as a collector is that I want about 20x more than I can afford. :unsure Few things are more painful than seeing a dream item come up, and knowing that you can't pay for it in time to bid. Right now for example I'd gladly sell a kidney for the Supergirl costume in the next Christie's auction, but unfortunately the auction house doesn't accept kidneys as payment.

 

[thegreatgalling]

Appreciate your words Xeno. I def. agree that its easy to get carried away, and its also easy to be hard on yourself when you know that perfect piece is just TOO much.

I agree it was worth a risk, I don't think I would have hard feelings either way, but I would very much like for it to be the real McCoy. About 5 months ago, a seller offered a screenused Ghostbuster patch. The price was right and was a dream item. Luckily, before I pulled the trigger I got the confirmation I needed that it was NOT real.

In this case, I didn't have the luxury of time, but like you said, I really do trust Star Wares. That trust is encouraging.

 

[Simpson77]

Appreciate your words Xeno. I def. agree that its easy to get carried away, and its also easy to be hard on yourself when you know that perfect piece is just TOO much.

I agree it was worth a risk, I don't think I would have hard feelings either way, but I would very much like for it to be the real McCoy. About 5 months ago, a seller offered a screenused Ghostbuster patch. The price was right and was a dream item. Luckily, before I pulled the trigger I got the confirmation I needed that it was NOT real.

In this case, I didn't have the luxury of time, but like you said, I really do trust Star Wares. That trust is encouraging.

Hi, I have one exactly the same althought you cant see so much glue on the back. I bought mine from Reel Art a few years ago now which came with a certificate of authenticity. I'm in exactly the same boat as you, just hoping it actually is authentic.

 

[thegreatgalling]

Well here's to both of us!

Until we hear otherwise, congrads on an awesome, historic piece!

 

[Simpson77]

Well here's to both of us!

Until we hear otherwise, congrads on an awesome, historic piece!

Well said my good man!!:thumbsup

 

[thegreatgalling]

Just wanted to update the thread as I have recieved some information that eased my mind and has at least for know let me except this belt buckle as the real deal.

Through Star Wares/Kevin Martin, two Reeve Superman suits were entered into the marketplace.

I learned my belt buckle was from a belt associated with one of these suits. It was so damaged over time, Star Wares made the decision of taking it apart and selling pieces of it in displays. Some snips were auctioned in a Bizzaros auction that lists the pieces in its auction description.

In researching, I have independently confirmed that original belts were made of vinyl/leather and there IS evidence some did not well over time. Some have warped, cracked, and shriveled, giving credence to this claim.

While not proof, the absence of the belt on the costume would surely diminish its worth as complete costumes fetch much higher prices. Its hard for me to believe a forger would go to the trouble of making a warped vinyl/leather belt that was unable to be connected to the costume (although possible). I also use this information as evidence this was not a buckle bought independently on its own, but was in fact attached to a belt - disconnecting it from various buckle replicas sold on their own.

I have asked Star Wares for a photo of the original belt, not so much for authenticity reasons, but more because I would like to display it along with the buckle. At least for now, I am happy with the purchase and I think I am confident enough to say it is what it claims to be. Of course I welcome all comments and wish this thread could be more about the piece than the claim!

For those of you interested in Superman Costumes, this has been a helpful resource. This is where I orignally learned most original buckles were fastened and not velcroed, which created the first doubts in my head.

CapedWonder™.com. Christopher Reeve Superman Movie Costumes 1978-1987.

 

[Martin-El]

I'm pleased you found my article helpful, it took a long time to compile...

 

[thegreatgalling]

You wrote that article!!! Holy smokes, I love that site. That is so cool! Thank you soo soo much!


I LOVE THE RPF!