ObiWan's brown cloak on auction, ended at $100,000+

[phase pistol]

So... who is the more foolish, the fool, or the fool who buy's the fool's cloak? :angel

 

[bigbaddaddyvader]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(micdavis @ Mar 8 2007, 06:03 PM) [snapback]1434843[/snapback]</div>

It'd be nice if you guys could actually back-up your negativity with some facts about this item and the ones in the Sci-Fi museum.

"Labels do not make arguments."

Show us your "proof".
[/b]

The stitching is wrong,there are hems and seams where there shouldn't be and it is clearly the wrong material.I do not believe this piece can be screen-matched in any conclusive manner.

 

[gjustis]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bigbaddaddyvader @ Mar 8 2007, 06:45 PM) [snapback]1434899[/snapback]</div>

The stitching is wrong,there are hems and seams where there shouldn't be and it is clearly the wrong material.I do not believe this piece can be screen-matched in any conclusive manner.
[/b]

Absolutely. As always, we're in the same company here. :thumbsup

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(micdavis @ Mar 8 2007, 06:39 PM) [snapback]1434889[/snapback]</div>

Well....I've also "heard" that the thing didn't sit in a closet for 30 year but was used many times. Possibly accounting for the differences that seem to exist. Sound plausible to me.

I've never understood why people think something 30 years old, that no one gave two shakes about for 25 of those years, should look exactly as it originally did.
[/b]

Alrighty, man....you want to drop $104,000 on anything but a damn sure thing, feel free.

 

[micdavis]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bigbaddaddyvader @ Mar 8 2007, 12:45 PM) [snapback]1434899[/snapback]</div>

The stitching is wrong,there are hems and seams where there shouldn't be and it is clearly the wrong material.I do not believe this piece can be screen-matched in any conclusive manner.
[/b]

And WHO makes these claims.

Was there only ONE Ben cloak, I bet not, could the seams have been sewn in for another movie, WHY not? Do samples of the "original" exist to compare it too? Would even John Molo even recognize it if he saw it?

You all seem so sure of yourselves.

 

[bigbaddaddyvader]

It is my opinion that if you cannot screen-match a piece DEFINITIVELY then you simply cannot claim it is an original piece particularly also in light of the "discovery" of this piece which was found in a half a mile of costumes in amongst other monk robes.It is this lack of any real evidence,and so many glaring differences, which can conclusively point to it being the one used on screen that I feel should and must prohibit it's garnering of such a premium.There is simply no way to prove this is the screen Obi-Wan cloak from ANH and therefore no justifiable reason for it to fetch this price.
I am sure enough of these facts to know that anyone spending this money on a highly questionable,at best,piece is foolhardy.

 

[RKW]

It's a bit late to cry about it after the event.

If certain people are so sure it's a fake then surely they have a responsibility to notify the auctioneers. It's up to us the prop buying market to regulate ourselves.

 

[vaderdarth]

The fabric is the giveaway..........it's possible things get reused and altered as far as seams etc go............but that fabric is not right. It's almost shiny in certain photos. I think this is a big scam.

Dave

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bigbaddaddyvader @ Mar 8 2007, 02:35 PM) [snapback]1434935[/snapback]</div>

It is my opinion that if you cannot screen-match a piece DEFINITIVELY then you simply cannot claim it is an original piece particularly also in light of the "discovery" of this piece which was found in a half a mile of costumes in amongst other monk robes.It is this lack of any real evidence,and so many glaring differences, which can conclusively point to it being the one used on screen that I feel should and must prohibit it's garnering of such a premium.There is simply no way to prove this is the screen Obi-Wan cloak from ANH and therefore no justifiable reason for it to fetch this price.
I am sure enough of these facts to know that anyone spending this money on a highly questionable,at best,piece is foolhardy.
[/b]

 

[bigbaddaddyvader]

Let's be frank.Most auction houses even when informed will not take these things seriously as big money is involved or they would have done the research themselves but dont have to as they hold themselves unaccountable through innumerable clauses and disclaimers.I wholeheartedly agree that we must be a vigilant and self-regulating community and the only way to stop this kind of thing is to create awareness in general in the prop community,encourage thorough buyer research and vote with your wallets.The main problem is,however,with many items such as this that garner the ludicrously high-end of the market you may generally find these buyers are not,in fact,the average collector that you will find in our community but rather people with more money than sense and even less knowledge.
If anyone out there who has any doubts on a piece such as this but is willing and can afford to throw this level of money at something with highly dubious provenance more power to them.Sounds like madness to me but,at the end of the day,neither I nor the average collector are the market this is aimed at.

 

[micdavis]

Am I the only one that thinks that the people with the resources to purchase something at $104,000 would be stupid enough to just throw down the cash without questioning it.

Disclaimers be damned, if you have the resouces to even consider paying $104,000 for a cloak then you probably have a lawyer on retainer who will gladly sue the pants off someone at the drop of your hat.

That auction house has been around since 1793. They have an aweful lot to lose if they are wrong.







<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vaderdarth @ Mar 8 2007, 01:43 PM) [snapback]1434942[/snapback]</div>

It's almost shiny in certain photos. [/b]

You're joking right? It's too shiney in a photo? You understand the fabric is 30 years (or more) old.

I know a guy that made a Logan's Run sandman costume with a GREEN strip on the chest because he had a photo that showed it that way. Was he right? After all he had a photo. :eek :eek

 

[Tatooine_Todd]

It is my opinion that if you cannot screen-match a piece DEFINITIVELY then you simply cannot claim it is an original piece particularly also in light of the "discovery" of this piece which was found in a half a mile of costumes in amongst other monk robes.It is this lack of any real evidence,and so many glaring differences, which can conclusively point to it being the one used on screen that I feel should and must prohibit it's garnering of such a premium.There is simply no way to prove this is the screen Obi-Wan cloak from ANH and therefore no justifiable reason for it to fetch this price.
I am sure enough of these facts to know that anyone spending this money on a highly questionable,at best,piece is foolhardy.[/b]

This is exactly correct and very to the point. The hobby of collecting screen used props/costumes is virtually a brand new hobby. Things like COA's rarely exist and the only thing to go on is matching to on screen pics. If the item differs, especially as much as this does, it must raise flags.

Let's be frank.Most auction houses even when informed will not take these things seriously as big money is involved or they would have done the research themselves but dont have to as they hold themselves unaccountable through innumerable clauses and disclaimers.[/b]

Also exactly correct. The best example is the Creature mask I mentioned earlier. Many authorities wrote and called the auction house about that fraud with concrete evidence. Rather then pull the auction, they got Bob Burns to write a letter WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE MASK saying it is probably legit. Auction houses are only worried about the bottom line, in these cases.

Am I the only one that thinks that the people with the resources to purchase something at $104,000 would be stupid enough to just throw down the cash without questioning it.[/b]

Many times, these are the most gullible buyers. They buy these items as one would buy stocks and bonds, purely as an investment, they take the auction house at their word, keep the paperwork as proof, and sell again when the time is ripe. I can't say this is the case here, but many times it is.

 

[gjustis]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(micdavis @ Mar 8 2007, 08:19 PM) [snapback]1434968[/snapback]</div>

Am I the only one that thinks that the people with the resources to purchase something at $104,000 would be stupid enough to just throw down the cash without questioning it.

Disclaimers be damned, if you have the resouces to even consider paying $104,000 for a cloak then you probably have a lawyer on retainer who will gladly sue the pants off someone at the drop of your hat.

That auction house has been around since 1793. They have an aweful lot to lose if they are wrong.
[/b]

:rolleyes

I'd recommend checking out the history of ALL the major auction houses, from Christies to Profiles to Bonhams....they ALL shell out mislabeled/non-authentic items. This is certainly nothing new.

I, personally, would rather not have to debate this particular issue, as anyone who pays attention to the original prop & wardrobe market knows full-well the pitfalls and lack of oversight in the hobby. The robe simply isn't authentic...information came from a variety of sources dictating that this is the case. I'd rely on my own eyes (with screen-matching) and the information of experienced sources over the word of Angels any darned day. Despite an apparent demand for a source, I won't discuss them because, simply, I don't have to.

The Obi robe was only one of a large percentage of misrepresented items in this auction...I'm not a big SW fan, and there were other items I was definitely interested in; however, when information came to light and homework was done, the items proved unacceptable. Granted, I myself would never rely on the word of Angels alone, but of course that's just me.

 

[Serafino]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(micdavis @ Mar 8 2007, 12:19 PM) [snapback]1434968[/snapback]</div>

Am I the only one that thinks that the people with the resources to purchase something at $104,000 would be stupid enough to just throw down the cash without questioning it.

Disclaimers be damned, if you have the resouces to even consider paying $104,000 for a cloak then you probably have a lawyer on retainer who will gladly sue the pants off someone at the drop of your hat.

That auction house has been around since 1793. They have an aweful lot to lose if they are wrong.

[/b]

This statement reveals a lack of familiarity with how auction houses work, and with their history with regard to expertise.

In many fields it is understood that auction houses are not a valid source for authentication. One such field is violins, where auctions are a dumping ground for unsaleable items with questionable attributions.

Auction houses almost never take the high ground on these issues, they are in it for the money pure and simple.

Oh and there are PLENTY of really stupid people full of romantic notions who have lots of money and wouldn't know an expert opinion from a used car ad. That's why crap gets dumped to auctions.

 

[vaderdarth]

Mic, I'm not joking at all. Synthetic fibers like what is found on a muppet shine because they are made of plastic. Old ben's robe was natural wool. Though it might reflect light..........certainly wouldn't look like muppet fleece. There are tons of flash photography pics of a real old ben robe on the web...........none of them look like the wool is made of nylon fleece. In fact, even if the real cloak were made of a synthetic fiber(which it isn't), the pattern of the weave on the fabric is ribbed which makes it appear duller than it really is. So NO, it shouldn't be shiny. And it shouldn't have green stripes or purple paisleys or electric blue polka dots. And as for the cut of the fabric..............the hood is all wrong. it is a triangular pointy hood reminiscent of the KKK hoods. It's even got eye holes cut out. From the opening of the hood to the point is inconsistent with the old ben hood. There wasn't quite that much to it. It didn't have a button at the neck and the sleeves were easily 3 times that wide on the original. Yes all those things could be added after the fact, but why would a costume dept. leave a old alec guiness tag inside a completely different costume??? Why didn't they change it to whatever the name of that costume was??? It just smells fishy. If you believe the bloke got a good deal on his old ben robe in this auction, please contact me because I have tons of screen used props you might like to buy........LOL.

In all seriousness, neither I nor anyone else knows for sure if this is a real cloak that was heavily altered or not. If it was proven to be such, I shall stand corrected and eat my plate of crow like a good boy. I've been studying this particular SW costume for years. It just doesn't seem correct in too many ways.

Peace,

Dave



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(micdavis @ Mar 8 2007, 03:19 PM) [snapback]1434968[/snapback]</div>

Am I the only one that thinks that the people with the resources to purchase something at $104,000 would be stupid enough to just throw down the cash without questioning it.

Disclaimers be damned, if you have the resouces to even consider paying $104,000 for a cloak then you probably have a lawyer on retainer who will gladly sue the pants off someone at the drop of your hat.

That auction house has been around since 1793. They have an aweful lot to lose if they are wrong.







<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vaderdarth @ Mar 8 2007, 01:43 PM) [snapback]1434942[/snapback]

It's almost shiny in certain photos. [/b]

You're joking right? It's too shiney in a photo? You understand the fabric is 30 years (or more) old.

I know a guy that made a Logan's Run sandman costume with a GREEN strip on the chest because he had a photo that showed it that way. Was he right? After all he had a photo. :eek :eek
[/b][/quote]

 

[RKW]

So you're saying there is no come back for an auction house knowingly selling something it's not?

So is this problem unique to prop auctions as you don't hear of too many art forgeries getting past the experts before auction. Surely if an auction house lost the confidence of the market it would be done for :confused

It's this culture of secrecy that breeds a lack of oversight in the hobby.

 

[bigbaddaddyvader]

This is no big secret.The information is available to anyone with the desire to authenticate-or eyes for that matter in a case such as this.However,as has been said,the auction houses have already by and large lost a lot of respect from the prop community but it largely is a moot point as pieces such as this are not primarily aimed at this market.
Take the word of an auction house as to sole provenance at your own discretion and peril.It is,with this kind of money,a relatively new business and there is completely insufficient monitoring or policing.

 

[Serafino]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(RKW @ Mar 8 2007, 01:15 PM) [snapback]1435021[/snapback]</div>

So you're saying there is no come back for an auction house knowingly selling something it's not?

So is this problem unique to prop auctions as you don't hear of too many art forgeries getting past the experts before auction. Surely if an auction house lost the confidence of the market it would be done for :confused

It's this culture of secrecy that breeds a lack of oversight in the hobby.
[/b]

For props, my impression is that the reason auction houses behave as they do is that there simply is no expertise out there. There is no acknowledged authority that you can take something to and get it authenticated as xyz. So thereÂ’s not really any recourse, and a false item can be offered with little or no accountability.

In the violin world there IS expertise regarding a wide range of makers, so for an instrument posing as that of a known maker the auction house may fudge-factor the attribution of an obvious ringer by saying “attributed to xyz” instead of “by xyz”. But if they can point to a crappy authentication by someone with a lousy reputation they will go ahead and say “by xyz”.

In the world of fine art there is a LOT of expertise, so the auction houses are much more careful.

 

[yodakiller1138]

From what pics I have seen of the auction even I, no expert by any means, can tell it's not the screen used robe. I've got reference stills from my various star wars prop books. Doesn't even remotely look like it. SOMEONE GOT TAKEN BIGTIME... :eek

 

[bigbaddaddyvader]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(yodakiller1138 @ Mar 9 2007, 01:23 AM) [snapback]1435243[/snapback]</div>

SOMEONE GOT TAKEN BIGTIME... :eek
[/b]

You got that right.

 

[yodakiller1138]

I just wanted to add that I did see the real thing on exhibit in Chicago in 2001 and got a very good look at it. No doubt in my mind.

 

[Jumpin Jax]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(micdavis @ Mar 8 2007, 10:03 AM) [snapback]1434843[/snapback]</div>

It'd be nice if you guys could actually back-up your negativity with some facts about this item and the ones in the Sci-Fi museum.

"Labels do not make arguments."

Show us your "proof".
[/b]

The Vader isn't even a flash unit Mic. Not even a single piece of chromed pipe. Half is painted silver, and was sold as a "hero." The hero saber was a SOL or Heiland flash unit decked out. It doesn't even match up with the most basic of common knowledge that, thanks to the HD versions, have become even more well-documented. The entire series of auctions was suspect, and considering how long the "Luke lightsaber" was missing, the likelihood that it suddenly appears in Kurtz's collection seems unlikely. You'll forgive the broad statement, but I wouldn't bid blank paper on an auction where Joiner is the only expert on the job. I not another guy in the business of IDing items like this had anything positive to say about these auctions, nor the robe sale. Pass-ola.