I can’t say I had immense expectations for the recently-merged Goldin / Studio Auctions following their debut debacle, but I hoped I might at least avoid another immediate headache… or three.
This will be a lengthy post, but hopefully fairly straightforward and painless; as with that DL-44, none of these issues require specialized prior knowledge to discern at a fundamental level (especially the latter two). I’ll divide the discussion by lot, ordered from most to least complicated.
TLDR Version:
Lot 96 – Harrison Ford "Indiana Jones" MGC Holster Sitter from Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom
--> INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE FOR ATTRIBUTION TO FORD / INDY, WITH MULTIPLE REASONS FOR DOUBT.
Lot 99 – Harrison Ford "Indiana Jones" Signed Holy Grail Diary from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
--> UNDECLARED REPLICA WITH IMPLIED FALSE PROVENANCE.
Lot 01 – Harrison Ford "Indiana Jones" Original Scene-Specific "Dragging" Hero Whip from Raiders of the Lost Ark
--> SFX / STUNT DESIGNATION INEXPLICABLY UPGRADED TO HERO.
Lot 96.
I emailed Goldin / Studio Auctions on June 26, four days before the sale went officially live, in relation to a publicity appearance on WGN Morning News. Prominently featured was a toy revolver – commercially produced and unmodified – attributed not just to Temple of Doom, but specifically to Ford / Indy in the opening Shanghai car chase. “Scene-specific,” they termed it, which they defined thusly in a later promo for another piece:
“When you get something from a movie, you don’t know how many they made. When you get a ‘scene-specific’ prop, it means that it’s a certifiable piece that was used in the movie, and you’ll even know what scene it’s from.”
I requested any info that may supplement the eventual listing; presuming authentication would be addressed, but expressing interest in any and all evidence that may be provided to aid in specifying and corroborating the attribution. I also inquired as to the term “holster sitter,” in light of the fact that at no point in the film do we ever see Indy’s holster occupied. Credit where credit is due: a swift reply arrived within a few hours, sharing an early look at the LOA. Unfortunately, that’s also where my concerns began. The letter is detailed, but essentially boils down to two points:
* The consignor, who works in Hollywood, did a small uncredited fabrication job for Last Crusade via informal contract with a credited leadman (set dec).
* The leadman, who apparently did not work on Temple, brought and offered the revolver as payment, indicating to the consignor his understanding (through unknown means) that it “had been used in” Temple as a “holster sitter,” which he defined as a “hero beauty prop that is non-functioning.”
Improper use of “hero” aside… that’s basically it. The consignor implies association with the Indy/Willie scene, but makes no mention of the leadman himself connecting those dots (which one would think you’d include if he had), and to his credit, the consignor refrains from explicitly connecting them.
It would seem as though the explicit connection originates with Goldin / Studio Auctions.
I replied June 27 with a few questions, principally clarifying that the leadman wasn’t on Temple, asking whether a “pistol like this one” meant that the one handed to Willie could be an MGC, and asking for any production reference that lends confidence to the attribution and/or corroboration for the consignor’s possession since the 80s. I also passed on a minor note that the consignor’s recollection of the reason for his Crusade contribution appeared to be ever-so-slightly fuzzy in the context of the behind-the-scenes literature (understandable 37 years on).
Another swift reply came, confirming my understanding of the leadman, indicating that they couldn’t verify whether this particular gun was on screen (sort of a given; I was asking about consistency), and… disappointingly, offering no reference or corroboration evidence. Instead, they offered that they could arrange a call with the consignor – a nice gesture on its face, though worryingly suggesting that Goldin / Studio Auctions hadn’t asked.
To be clear: I’m casting no aspersions on the consignor. For all I know, he’s a reputable guy and it’s an honest letter to the best of his memory.
It’s just that that’s not really enough when it amounts to a second-hand account of the sourcing, and a third-hand account of even the bare-bones attribution, for an off-the-shelf otherwise $100 item starting at $12,500 with BP. Especially when, as I told Goldin / Studio Auctions, I could locate virtually no info on the Crusade leadman whom the consignor cites, beyond his IMDb.
So, I proceeded to investigate consistency, such as I could using the low-res WGN News screenshot. And you’ll never guess...
I discovered pretty quickly that we actually can verify the question of Indy potentially handing Willie an MGC on screen, but sadly in the negative. In the center of the above graphic is the auction lot's appearance on WGN; below it a clearer view of another MGC (to confirm relevant feature alignment); and above it a real Colt Official Police. At least two areas of inconsistency are sadly apparent: the hole/screw/pin placement in the frame between the cylinder and trigger space, and the ejector rod head shape.
[Note that the Indy hand-off and Willie fumble are one continuous five-second shot. The gun leaves frame momentarily, but the above screenshots straddle this moment. And apart from a drop insert – which I’ll address shortly – the rest of the shots are Indy through the rear window with a live-fire.]
Plus… a visit to the Internet Movie Firearms Database revived a vague sense that additional characters beyond Indy and Willie handle a 4” barrel Colt Official Police (or close-enough equivalent) in the film: so does a Lao Che gangster in the same car chase (riding on the left of the pursuit car), along with a Thuggee guard in the mine cart chase (technically, the Thuggee guard's receives double the screen time of Indy’s).
I replied with these findings on June 28 – two days before the start – and remarked on my puzzlement at what had convinced Goldin / Studio Auctions to accept the consignment. I told them I appreciated the offer to speak with the consignor, and was not unwilling, but unsure what he might be able to add, since if he'd documented his ownership decades prior, or possessed other corroboration, I'd suppose he logically would have already shared it. In the meantime, I expressed that I couldn’t help concluding that attribution to Indy based solely on the letter felt wishful, and in-effect misleading.
Goldin / Studio Auctions acknowledged my findings on June 30 – with approval, and no counterargument, other than to reiterate no screen-use claim. They also confirmed an absence of documentation, and therefore reliance on A) the letter and B) the consignor’s “reputation.” Which, again, amounts to a half-way measure; even if I fully trust the consignor’s memory, and further trust that the leadman sourced it as claimed to the consignor... I'm still a step removed as to how the leadman confidently pinpointed an attribution specifically to Ford / Indy. [If he did at all; again, the letter doesn’t say.]
However, they promised to revisit the listing and indicated openness to my input, as “transparency is always our top priority.” So, I replied the same day with three recommendations: 1. Remove specific "Harrison Ford / Indiana Jones" attribution from the lot title. 2. Avoid language along the lines of "like this one," especially in reference to the Indy/Willie scene, as this language generally implies consistency. 3. Assuming the Indy/Willie scene remains referenced, use language along the lines of "not seen on-screen" – at least relative to that scene.
I also included, in light of their reverence for transparency, a brief plea for Goldin / Studio Auctions to publicly address the fake Han Solo blaster… and a separate inquiry about another Indy lot, the Grail diary.
I figured I’d give them a bit on account of the approaching 4th of July weekend, but then noticed that July 06 brought fresh social media advertising, including both problematic Indy lot titles. [Well, most of the titles; in their attention to detail, they labeled the revolver a “Harrison Ford ‘Indiana Jones’ MGC Holster.”] They also added screenshots, and THIS was their curious choice to accompany lot 96:
Yes, a famously-empty holster in a totally different scene from the one referenced.
Not only that, though, I realized it undercuts the argument for an Indy attribution by highlighting a well-known prop inconsistency: Indy's holster throughout Temple, in what must have been a conscious deviation from the custom holster of Raiders, is a large Webley - designed for the more hefty Webley “WG” that he (probably not coincidentally) goes on to carry in Crusade, and larger than what one would use for a 4" barrel Colt Official Police.
Fans have therefore long suspected that Indy's revolver in Temple was supposed to be a Webley. It’s an older model than his Raiders Smith & Wessons (whereas the Colt Official Police is a later model), plausibly imparting a visual indicator of a prequel. And from preliminary drafts onward, Indy was meant to lose a revolver early in the film. This also means it would have been intentional from the pre-production stage for Indy’s holster to be empty nearly throughout the shoot, with filming of the Shanghai car interiors (along with the plane interiors, where the gun’s loss was first scripted) left to the end of production in the US. In 2009, a breakthrough came with research conducted by Brandon Alinger in association with Syd Stembridge: according to Brandon’s posts to the Club Obi Wan forum and summarized on IndyGear, the US rental company’s records show that a Webley “WG” was rented, and moreover, they received in advance from the UK prop department continuity information on specific guns. Among them were apparently a Colt Official Police marked “Chinese gangster on left hand running board,” and a Webley marked “IJ personal gun.”
Why the rented Webley did not make it to screen is still a mystery as far as I can gather; perhaps there was a case of miscommunication / assumption (as the Official Police is roughly similar in form to the Raiders S&W models that would have been naturally associated with Indy), or maybe the Webley’s heaviness turned out to be a poor fit when tested with Willie's delicate fumbling. Admittedly speculation... but it suggests the real likelihood of a last-minute switch as opposed to planned usage involving the procurement of a corresponding "holster sitter."
After all, consider: If the Temple crew had the time and went to the relative trouble of procuring this 4" barrel Colt Official Police MGC for Indy – because it was important to maintain overall consistency of form with the Colt hero – then why is the gun that drops out of the vehicle identifiably a 5" barrel S&W?
Why would they not have used this auction example, or another background / stunt Colt?
While it would require evidence just the same, I think I’d find an Indy-intended stand-in Webley attributed to Temple a bit less surprising.
I sent this argument on July 07, and received a reply… no counterargument, but also not particularly reassuring. According to Goldin / Studio Auctions – writing over a week after acknowledging issues – the revolver still had to run through a process of discussion with the consignor, etc., which would take some time. Now, I get that to an extent. However, what floored me was this line: “We have a month to come up with a satisfactory resolution.”
Sorry, no. A company allowing up to five weeks to fix misleading labels on a TV-publicized five-figure listing isn’t playing fair with bidders, or the public.
I appreciate that they have other inquiries. But they’re the ones who chose to go forward on a super-famous character-specific attribution on the basis of an unfortunately-unverifiable third-hand letter – even going beyond the letter’s explicit claims – while neglecting rudimentary research steps.
And as much as it stinks for the consignor (who again, for all I know is perfectly on the level), he evidently chose to accept the piece without proof.
I replied to this effect on July 08, suggesting that I didn’t see why the revolver shouldn't be resolvable within another week (and the Grail diary sooner).
I sent a follow-up asking for any update July 15… crickets.
Still no edit three weeks after acknowledgement.
Okay, one down. But the other two are far simpler and quicker to explain (though in a way, that makes them more frustrating).
Lot 99.
Amidst the revolver discussions, I emailed Goldin / Studio Auctions on July 01 – a day after the official start – to express confusion over apparent mixed messaging in their presentation of a Ford-signed Grail diary… object. Judging by the photos and starting price, it’s a low-end replica. Yet the title and description make no replica declaration, and read as though it’s original, clearly implying that the lot was made by the creator of the original film props Keir Lusby, and “studio distressed.” I’ve been assured by a helpful RPF Grail diary expert that Keir Lusby has never offered diary replicas.
On July 07, Goldin / Studio Auctions confirmed that the diary is a replica, and promised to revisit the listing. No reply to a July 15 request for an update.
Still no edit two weeks after acknowledgement.
And finally…
Lot 01.
This one I only noticed since Goldin / Studio Auctions stopped communicating, but could be the most consequential of the three given the dollar value and potential for spread of the observed tactic. I’ve seen non-hero items accidentally (or at least hopefully accidentally) listed with a hero designation and needing to be downgraded to SFX or stunt; I can’t recall another instance where an item was accurately designated non-hero, and then inexplicably upgraded to hero halfway through a sale. But that’s what Goldin / Studio Auctions have done with their headliner lot, a special effects bullwhip – or less precisely but still acceptably a stunt whip – attributed to the Raiders truck chase.
An occasional prop can blur the lines between hero and non-hero. The just-announced Vader lightsaber might be one; I lean towards the stunt argument in that case, but at least there’s some argument.
In no universe is this whip a hero by the accepted definition, regardless of whether you add “dragging” in front of the word. That’s no slight; it’s just plainly either a SFX or stunt whip, and it concerns me to see not just passive but active misuse of one of the few standardized terms this market has, because it threatens to dilute the term’s meaning and spur needless future confusion. It’s not like Goldin / Studio Auctions isn’t aware of the distinction; they specifically state in a print catalog page written before the shift and posted to the listing: “there are hero props, stunt props, and FX props.”
Then again… incidentally… THIS is the rest of that paragraph:
Yes, you read that right.
And astonishingly, it’s worse than an extra-zero typo; the primary David Morgan whips used in the films were 450-series models (#453 and #455). So, either that passage was written by AI… or a staff member came across a reference to the “450” whips, and failed to engage critical thinking skills on a spectacular level.
Clearly the top-notch expertise you assign to research the most important of artifacts.
To wrap up, I just want to emphasize that leaving labels and descriptions uncorrected for weeks on end, and incorrectly inflating a label mid-sale, are not just problems in the isolated context of an auction. They end up cited in news articles, in books, on TV. On fan websites, and podcasts, and social media. On museum placards. It affects public understanding of the historical record, and of how original props (and replicas) in general are discussed.
Avoiding confusion, for bidders and the public alike, requires that top priority of Goldin / Studio Auctions: transparency.
Going three weeks and counting without public acknowledgement of insufficient evidence for a major attribution doesn’t suggest transparency.
Going two weeks and counting without public acknowledgement of a replica with implied false provenance doesn’t suggest transparency.
Abruptly changing a SFX / stunt prop’s designation to hero without explanation or conceivable basis doesn’t suggest transparency.
Going months and counting without making things right over the colossal fake DL-44 blunder doesn’t suggest transparency.
Thanks for reading; I hope it made sense. And while I received no factual pushback, if anyone spots a hole in my logic, by all means let me know.
This will be a lengthy post, but hopefully fairly straightforward and painless; as with that DL-44, none of these issues require specialized prior knowledge to discern at a fundamental level (especially the latter two). I’ll divide the discussion by lot, ordered from most to least complicated.
TLDR Version:
Lot 96 – Harrison Ford "Indiana Jones" MGC Holster Sitter from Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom
--> INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE FOR ATTRIBUTION TO FORD / INDY, WITH MULTIPLE REASONS FOR DOUBT.
Lot 99 – Harrison Ford "Indiana Jones" Signed Holy Grail Diary from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
--> UNDECLARED REPLICA WITH IMPLIED FALSE PROVENANCE.
Lot 01 – Harrison Ford "Indiana Jones" Original Scene-Specific "Dragging" Hero Whip from Raiders of the Lost Ark
--> SFX / STUNT DESIGNATION INEXPLICABLY UPGRADED TO HERO.
Lot 96.
I emailed Goldin / Studio Auctions on June 26, four days before the sale went officially live, in relation to a publicity appearance on WGN Morning News. Prominently featured was a toy revolver – commercially produced and unmodified – attributed not just to Temple of Doom, but specifically to Ford / Indy in the opening Shanghai car chase. “Scene-specific,” they termed it, which they defined thusly in a later promo for another piece:
“When you get something from a movie, you don’t know how many they made. When you get a ‘scene-specific’ prop, it means that it’s a certifiable piece that was used in the movie, and you’ll even know what scene it’s from.”
I requested any info that may supplement the eventual listing; presuming authentication would be addressed, but expressing interest in any and all evidence that may be provided to aid in specifying and corroborating the attribution. I also inquired as to the term “holster sitter,” in light of the fact that at no point in the film do we ever see Indy’s holster occupied. Credit where credit is due: a swift reply arrived within a few hours, sharing an early look at the LOA. Unfortunately, that’s also where my concerns began. The letter is detailed, but essentially boils down to two points:
* The consignor, who works in Hollywood, did a small uncredited fabrication job for Last Crusade via informal contract with a credited leadman (set dec).
* The leadman, who apparently did not work on Temple, brought and offered the revolver as payment, indicating to the consignor his understanding (through unknown means) that it “had been used in” Temple as a “holster sitter,” which he defined as a “hero beauty prop that is non-functioning.”
Improper use of “hero” aside… that’s basically it. The consignor implies association with the Indy/Willie scene, but makes no mention of the leadman himself connecting those dots (which one would think you’d include if he had), and to his credit, the consignor refrains from explicitly connecting them.
It would seem as though the explicit connection originates with Goldin / Studio Auctions.
I replied June 27 with a few questions, principally clarifying that the leadman wasn’t on Temple, asking whether a “pistol like this one” meant that the one handed to Willie could be an MGC, and asking for any production reference that lends confidence to the attribution and/or corroboration for the consignor’s possession since the 80s. I also passed on a minor note that the consignor’s recollection of the reason for his Crusade contribution appeared to be ever-so-slightly fuzzy in the context of the behind-the-scenes literature (understandable 37 years on).
Another swift reply came, confirming my understanding of the leadman, indicating that they couldn’t verify whether this particular gun was on screen (sort of a given; I was asking about consistency), and… disappointingly, offering no reference or corroboration evidence. Instead, they offered that they could arrange a call with the consignor – a nice gesture on its face, though worryingly suggesting that Goldin / Studio Auctions hadn’t asked.
To be clear: I’m casting no aspersions on the consignor. For all I know, he’s a reputable guy and it’s an honest letter to the best of his memory.
It’s just that that’s not really enough when it amounts to a second-hand account of the sourcing, and a third-hand account of even the bare-bones attribution, for an off-the-shelf otherwise $100 item starting at $12,500 with BP. Especially when, as I told Goldin / Studio Auctions, I could locate virtually no info on the Crusade leadman whom the consignor cites, beyond his IMDb.
So, I proceeded to investigate consistency, such as I could using the low-res WGN News screenshot. And you’ll never guess...
I discovered pretty quickly that we actually can verify the question of Indy potentially handing Willie an MGC on screen, but sadly in the negative. In the center of the above graphic is the auction lot's appearance on WGN; below it a clearer view of another MGC (to confirm relevant feature alignment); and above it a real Colt Official Police. At least two areas of inconsistency are sadly apparent: the hole/screw/pin placement in the frame between the cylinder and trigger space, and the ejector rod head shape.
[Note that the Indy hand-off and Willie fumble are one continuous five-second shot. The gun leaves frame momentarily, but the above screenshots straddle this moment. And apart from a drop insert – which I’ll address shortly – the rest of the shots are Indy through the rear window with a live-fire.]
Plus… a visit to the Internet Movie Firearms Database revived a vague sense that additional characters beyond Indy and Willie handle a 4” barrel Colt Official Police (or close-enough equivalent) in the film: so does a Lao Che gangster in the same car chase (riding on the left of the pursuit car), along with a Thuggee guard in the mine cart chase (technically, the Thuggee guard's receives double the screen time of Indy’s).
I replied with these findings on June 28 – two days before the start – and remarked on my puzzlement at what had convinced Goldin / Studio Auctions to accept the consignment. I told them I appreciated the offer to speak with the consignor, and was not unwilling, but unsure what he might be able to add, since if he'd documented his ownership decades prior, or possessed other corroboration, I'd suppose he logically would have already shared it. In the meantime, I expressed that I couldn’t help concluding that attribution to Indy based solely on the letter felt wishful, and in-effect misleading.
Goldin / Studio Auctions acknowledged my findings on June 30 – with approval, and no counterargument, other than to reiterate no screen-use claim. They also confirmed an absence of documentation, and therefore reliance on A) the letter and B) the consignor’s “reputation.” Which, again, amounts to a half-way measure; even if I fully trust the consignor’s memory, and further trust that the leadman sourced it as claimed to the consignor... I'm still a step removed as to how the leadman confidently pinpointed an attribution specifically to Ford / Indy. [If he did at all; again, the letter doesn’t say.]
However, they promised to revisit the listing and indicated openness to my input, as “transparency is always our top priority.” So, I replied the same day with three recommendations: 1. Remove specific "Harrison Ford / Indiana Jones" attribution from the lot title. 2. Avoid language along the lines of "like this one," especially in reference to the Indy/Willie scene, as this language generally implies consistency. 3. Assuming the Indy/Willie scene remains referenced, use language along the lines of "not seen on-screen" – at least relative to that scene.
I also included, in light of their reverence for transparency, a brief plea for Goldin / Studio Auctions to publicly address the fake Han Solo blaster… and a separate inquiry about another Indy lot, the Grail diary.
I figured I’d give them a bit on account of the approaching 4th of July weekend, but then noticed that July 06 brought fresh social media advertising, including both problematic Indy lot titles. [Well, most of the titles; in their attention to detail, they labeled the revolver a “Harrison Ford ‘Indiana Jones’ MGC Holster.”] They also added screenshots, and THIS was their curious choice to accompany lot 96:
Yes, a famously-empty holster in a totally different scene from the one referenced.
Not only that, though, I realized it undercuts the argument for an Indy attribution by highlighting a well-known prop inconsistency: Indy's holster throughout Temple, in what must have been a conscious deviation from the custom holster of Raiders, is a large Webley - designed for the more hefty Webley “WG” that he (probably not coincidentally) goes on to carry in Crusade, and larger than what one would use for a 4" barrel Colt Official Police.
Fans have therefore long suspected that Indy's revolver in Temple was supposed to be a Webley. It’s an older model than his Raiders Smith & Wessons (whereas the Colt Official Police is a later model), plausibly imparting a visual indicator of a prequel. And from preliminary drafts onward, Indy was meant to lose a revolver early in the film. This also means it would have been intentional from the pre-production stage for Indy’s holster to be empty nearly throughout the shoot, with filming of the Shanghai car interiors (along with the plane interiors, where the gun’s loss was first scripted) left to the end of production in the US. In 2009, a breakthrough came with research conducted by Brandon Alinger in association with Syd Stembridge: according to Brandon’s posts to the Club Obi Wan forum and summarized on IndyGear, the US rental company’s records show that a Webley “WG” was rented, and moreover, they received in advance from the UK prop department continuity information on specific guns. Among them were apparently a Colt Official Police marked “Chinese gangster on left hand running board,” and a Webley marked “IJ personal gun.”
Why the rented Webley did not make it to screen is still a mystery as far as I can gather; perhaps there was a case of miscommunication / assumption (as the Official Police is roughly similar in form to the Raiders S&W models that would have been naturally associated with Indy), or maybe the Webley’s heaviness turned out to be a poor fit when tested with Willie's delicate fumbling. Admittedly speculation... but it suggests the real likelihood of a last-minute switch as opposed to planned usage involving the procurement of a corresponding "holster sitter."
After all, consider: If the Temple crew had the time and went to the relative trouble of procuring this 4" barrel Colt Official Police MGC for Indy – because it was important to maintain overall consistency of form with the Colt hero – then why is the gun that drops out of the vehicle identifiably a 5" barrel S&W?
Why would they not have used this auction example, or another background / stunt Colt?
While it would require evidence just the same, I think I’d find an Indy-intended stand-in Webley attributed to Temple a bit less surprising.
I sent this argument on July 07, and received a reply… no counterargument, but also not particularly reassuring. According to Goldin / Studio Auctions – writing over a week after acknowledging issues – the revolver still had to run through a process of discussion with the consignor, etc., which would take some time. Now, I get that to an extent. However, what floored me was this line: “We have a month to come up with a satisfactory resolution.”
Sorry, no. A company allowing up to five weeks to fix misleading labels on a TV-publicized five-figure listing isn’t playing fair with bidders, or the public.
I appreciate that they have other inquiries. But they’re the ones who chose to go forward on a super-famous character-specific attribution on the basis of an unfortunately-unverifiable third-hand letter – even going beyond the letter’s explicit claims – while neglecting rudimentary research steps.
And as much as it stinks for the consignor (who again, for all I know is perfectly on the level), he evidently chose to accept the piece without proof.
I replied to this effect on July 08, suggesting that I didn’t see why the revolver shouldn't be resolvable within another week (and the Grail diary sooner).
I sent a follow-up asking for any update July 15… crickets.
Still no edit three weeks after acknowledgement.
Okay, one down. But the other two are far simpler and quicker to explain (though in a way, that makes them more frustrating).
Lot 99.
Amidst the revolver discussions, I emailed Goldin / Studio Auctions on July 01 – a day after the official start – to express confusion over apparent mixed messaging in their presentation of a Ford-signed Grail diary… object. Judging by the photos and starting price, it’s a low-end replica. Yet the title and description make no replica declaration, and read as though it’s original, clearly implying that the lot was made by the creator of the original film props Keir Lusby, and “studio distressed.” I’ve been assured by a helpful RPF Grail diary expert that Keir Lusby has never offered diary replicas.
On July 07, Goldin / Studio Auctions confirmed that the diary is a replica, and promised to revisit the listing. No reply to a July 15 request for an update.
Still no edit two weeks after acknowledgement.
And finally…
Lot 01.
This one I only noticed since Goldin / Studio Auctions stopped communicating, but could be the most consequential of the three given the dollar value and potential for spread of the observed tactic. I’ve seen non-hero items accidentally (or at least hopefully accidentally) listed with a hero designation and needing to be downgraded to SFX or stunt; I can’t recall another instance where an item was accurately designated non-hero, and then inexplicably upgraded to hero halfway through a sale. But that’s what Goldin / Studio Auctions have done with their headliner lot, a special effects bullwhip – or less precisely but still acceptably a stunt whip – attributed to the Raiders truck chase.
An occasional prop can blur the lines between hero and non-hero. The just-announced Vader lightsaber might be one; I lean towards the stunt argument in that case, but at least there’s some argument.
In no universe is this whip a hero by the accepted definition, regardless of whether you add “dragging” in front of the word. That’s no slight; it’s just plainly either a SFX or stunt whip, and it concerns me to see not just passive but active misuse of one of the few standardized terms this market has, because it threatens to dilute the term’s meaning and spur needless future confusion. It’s not like Goldin / Studio Auctions isn’t aware of the distinction; they specifically state in a print catalog page written before the shift and posted to the listing: “there are hero props, stunt props, and FX props.”
Then again… incidentally… THIS is the rest of that paragraph:
Yes, you read that right.
And astonishingly, it’s worse than an extra-zero typo; the primary David Morgan whips used in the films were 450-series models (#453 and #455). So, either that passage was written by AI… or a staff member came across a reference to the “450” whips, and failed to engage critical thinking skills on a spectacular level.
Clearly the top-notch expertise you assign to research the most important of artifacts.
To wrap up, I just want to emphasize that leaving labels and descriptions uncorrected for weeks on end, and incorrectly inflating a label mid-sale, are not just problems in the isolated context of an auction. They end up cited in news articles, in books, on TV. On fan websites, and podcasts, and social media. On museum placards. It affects public understanding of the historical record, and of how original props (and replicas) in general are discussed.
Avoiding confusion, for bidders and the public alike, requires that top priority of Goldin / Studio Auctions: transparency.
Going three weeks and counting without public acknowledgement of insufficient evidence for a major attribution doesn’t suggest transparency.
Going two weeks and counting without public acknowledgement of a replica with implied false provenance doesn’t suggest transparency.
Abruptly changing a SFX / stunt prop’s designation to hero without explanation or conceivable basis doesn’t suggest transparency.
Going months and counting without making things right over the colossal fake DL-44 blunder doesn’t suggest transparency.
Thanks for reading; I hope it made sense. And while I received no factual pushback, if anyone spots a hole in my logic, by all means let me know.
Last edited:
