I wouldn't say "given to". We actually had to pay for everything, although they did let us borrow a few filming stunt props that we returned.
As far as whether or not any were used in filming, we have no way of knowing. Most of the pieces were absolutely mint looking, others had scuffs and scrapes here and there, and a couple had been really roughed up. Since the production's position is that they are the only ones who have screen used props from LOTR, they would never confirm or verify anything sold to a licensee as such anyway, even if it was.
A the owner of the collection offered at Juliens earlier this month, I wanted to chime in. Kit is correct in that Peter Jackson's production company, Wingnut has an official stance that there is nothing screen used in private hands. Obviously this is not the case as there are a great deal of items in private hands that are well documented to be screen used. Every prop gifted to principle cast when filming wrapped (a practice well documented in the Behind The Scenes features of the LOTR DVD's and confirmed in conversations I have had with cast members) were screen used. Many friends of the production, like Stephen Colbert were very publicly gifted the real deal. All 9 props given away through the Hasbro/New Line "Win The Sword of Aragorn Sweepstakes" were screen used with paperwork from the film's producer, Barrie Osborne. Lots of items (Orc Mask, Uruk Helmet, Gandalf Fireworks, Ringwraith Costume, etc.) sold through New Line Online Auctions were documented as screen used. That is not even getting into the large amount of items that went to licensees like UC, Sideshow, Games Workshop, EA Games, etc as well as stuff that was gifted or retained internally by cast and crew that made it off the set. *
For the collection of items that I purchased from Kit, my understanding based on correspondence with Kit, as well as paperwork received from Kit, as well as my own physical examination of the items comparing to other confirmed screen used items, is that a number of props were used filming/shooting props. Kit referenced specific conversations where he was told by the New Line/Weta representatives that helped him with procurement about a number of pieces specific on-set usage. Kit's physical examination of the props also indicated filming usage to him in some instances (wear and tear, repairs, dirt, damage, hair stuck inside a helmet, etc.). For my sale, I did not want to over-promise on what the items were, nor did I want to use language that might compromise Kit professionally, so I stated "production made" and followed the language that he used on his own COA’s for the pieces with a United Cutlery lineage and where Kit himself or his paperwork indicated that something was a used filming/shooting prop, I tried to include bits of that language as well. Additionally, anyone looking at the online auction could see Kit's paperwork as well which would indicate “shooting prop” where he understood that to be the case. Again though, it was not my intention to over promise and guarantee screen use beyond what had been indicated or put in writing. Had I chosen to go the route of dropping the word “screen used” left and right, the auction very likely would have been a lot more successful, but that was not the direction I wanted to go in and I stand by my approach. Often in this hobby, folks are very quick to assure potential buyers of screen use where they honestly can not back it up. People want to believe… and often they are wanting to believe so bad, they don’t do their due diligence and research. This kind of over-promising has become standard practice for some, and you see it all the time and it is severely hurting the hobby, in my opinion. There is a lot to be gained financially by being able to sell something as “screen used” versus anything else, and things become extra tricky when a large auction house or dealer throws around verbiage indicating filming use where they don’t actually have evidence to back it up, as many collectors assume that if something has come from one of the big auction houses, then it must have been vetted, which as we here all know, is generally not the case.
Take the Frodo sword offered in the upcoming Profiles auction.*I passed on it fairly recently (a couple months ago) when offered to me privately as I was absolutely certain that it wasn't a screen used filming prop. The most obvious reason for my conclusion was that the vinyl “elven leaf” sticker applications on the handle were applied in the reverse direction of every single example of this prop I have ever seen in person, in behind the scenes filming and photography, as well as how it is consistently depicted on screen throughout the films. The owner of this prop made it very clear that they had no first hand knowledge from Weta Workshop of the piece's history, only that he believed it to be screen used. He said that he had not been on set and he was not part of the group of Sideshow Toys employees who handled the procurement of the pieces gifted to Sideshow. I examined detailed images of the sword (and remember, my confirmed screen used Sting sword was also an Aluminum Stunt created with the same materials as the Profiles offering) and the only conclusion that made sense to me was that the prop was most likely “finished” specifically for Sideshow Toys and that the vinyl stickers on the handle were intentionally applied in reverse so that the piece could not be confused with a screen used version. In the high res images I have of this piece, you can still clearly see the tracings on the handle showing the direction the stickers were supposed to have been applied had this piece been "finished" properly (in continuity) for filming. The weapon also has none of the studio weathering (I'm not even talking about filming damage and wear, of which there is also none) that is consistently present on the filming Sting swords I have seen. That all said…the Catalog description states very matter of factly that versions of this sword with the details reversed like this example WERE used during production. I have no idea where this statement would have come from and the description gives no details to back up the assertion… but the statement reads like a confirmed fact. This is clearly not a statement that came from the owner of this sword (as I corresponded with them at length about what they knew, which was next to nothing) and I can’t imagine it is a statement that would have come from anyone involved with the film's production as again, Peter Jackson’s production company has a specific stance stating there is nothing screen used in private hands and therefore they would not have offered Profiles an official statement or opinion on this piece. In my opinion, this statement is incredibly misleading about the potential that this sword may have been used during filming and we are potentially talking about six figures should people feel confident they are bidding on a screen used Sting sword, which in my knowledgeable opinion, they would not be. *If the film production was going to create a specific stunt version of Frodo's sword with intentionally reversed out detailing for some specific shot or shots, they would have needed to create a version of this sword with the engraving on the cross guard and blade reversed out as well, not just the Elven handle details. Given the amount of time and effort needed to hand-apply all the vinyl sticker pieces to the handle and that there was clearly already a stencil laid out showing the correct direction for the application, I can not fathom this was a mistake…and given how OCD Weta Workshop was about continuity and the extreme care and love that they put into creating the props for these films, in my opinion, there could not have been any circumstance under which a sword like the one being offered was ever anywhere near being photographed on set. That all said, this just my opinion of this piece and I absolutely could be mistaken, but I would wager I have probably handled more filming props from this franchise than anyone else outside of those involved with making the films and Kit Rae. Short of a screen shot showing a reversed version in use, or someone knowledgable from the production (like Weta Master Swordsmith, Peter Lyon) directly confirming that variations of this prop like this (with out-of-continuity detailing and no studio aging or wear or any physical signs of use) were utilized during filming, in my opinion, there is no reason to believe that this piece could have possibly been used during filming…but there you go. As always, buyer beware.
