Prop Collecting for future gains???

[theforce]

If some one wants to make a prop from (scratch) not cast it off an original I am all for it.

I agree with that wholeheartedly.

I think Jedifyfe and anyone else has the right to make props from scratch.

Jedifyfe asked two questions in his original post.

I have two questions for you all:

Do any of you that do own an original or screen used prop (myself included) hope that someday you will be able to resell them for future financial gain? Or are you just happy to have the props you have.

What would you guys do? If a prop collector of the original prop asked you not to sell a replica of that prop that you made from scratch, would you comply?

I am interested to know what the majority would say.

Brad

I don't understand why the person who contacted Jedifyfe would say they never purchased an original prop as an “investment” or for “financial gain”.

That's not the truth. They have.

That same person owned and consigned all three props mentioned in my earlier post.

Wolverine claws from Xmen (sold at profiles in history) for $40,250.00 (2007). Purchased by consignor for @ $12-$15,000....a large "financial gain" for the consignor.

Back to the Future hover board (profiles) sold for $55,000 (2008) Purchased by consignor for @ $12-$15,000 (which may have included a trade, with screen used).... the second large "financial gain".

Donnie Darko mask (profiles) sold for $25,000 (2008).... A third "financial gain".

This person was not truthful, so they have no right to say what is right or wrong concerning replica prop creation.

 

[jdebord]

There is nothing wrong with buying something as an "investment" or for "financial gain". I understand sometimes it may benefit you, sometimes not.

I don't understand why someone would not be honest about it though.

After laughing, you should ask why he sold more than one of his originals for "financial gain" then later state he has never done that.

Can only the person who took issue with you, make "financial gain", deny he ever did that, then tell you not to make replicas for profit?

I don't understand why the person who contacted Jedifyfe would say they never purchased an original prop as an “investment” or for “financial gain”.

That's not the truth. They have.

This person was not truthful, so they have no right to say what is right or wrong concerning replica prop creation.

"Hal":

To my knowledge, we have never met or communicated in any fashion (or at the very least, I've had no interactions with anyone who has identified himself to me as "Hal").

As of the time of this response, the RPF has more than 38,000 topics, 615,000 posts, and 7,000 Members...

It's unclear to me why you elected to join the RPF to dig up an old topic and call me out as a liar over and over and over and over and over.

Candidly, your approach toward discourse – unrelenting and repetitive personal attacks predicated on poor reading comprehension and faulty logic – doesn’t warrant a response of any kind.

What I actually wrote:

I’ve never purchased an original prop as an “investment” or for “financial gain”.
​

What I did not write, which you seem to have imagined, is that I have stated that I've never sold any property for more than I originally paid. I've never made any such statement, and it's a preposterous suggestion.

With every single original prop and costume that I have purchased over the years, my intention was to buy it for my collection.

As with most hobbyists, my collection has evolved over the years, and I have built my collection by buying, trading, and selling.

Some things I trade or sell at cost, other items for a loss, other times for a gain.

In any event, based on your public, successive, harassing, unfounded, untrue, and defamatory statements posted about me in this topic, I believe a public apology and retraction of your comments about me would be appropriate.

Jason

 

[GeneralFROSTY]

I had an interesting delema here recently. I own an original prototype of the ooze canister from TMNT 2 and a member asked for all the specifications to replicate it. At first I was a little hesitant because I did not want the replicas to de-value my original, but then I thought about it and realized that the replica could NEVER devalue the original. Certainly, It could devalue the demand because the replica would be cheaper and more accesable, but since I don't plan on selling my original, there really is no problem.
I remember years ago I wanted to get some detailed info on the Mattel Hoverboard and contacted a certain someone who was extremely against sharing any info on this prop, for reasons as stated above.
There really are no set rules in this hobby - that's either a good thing or a bad thing...

 

[Onkelpsycho]

I had an interesting delema here recently. I own an original prototype of the ooze canister from TMNT 2 and a member asked for all the specifications to replicate it. At first I was a little hesitant because I did not want the replicas to de-value my original, but then I thought about it and realized that the replica could NEVER devalue the original. Certainly, It could devalue the demand because the replica would be cheaper and more accesable, but since I don't plan on selling my original, there really is no problem.
I remember years ago I wanted to get some detailed info on the Mattel Hoverboard and contacted a certain someone who was extremely against sharing any info on this prop, for reasons as stated above.
There really are no set rules in this hobby - that's either a good thing or a bad thing...

Agree to that. Thats what I thought and think after all the years in prop forums. A replica is not the original prop and never will be... But I think that point is not enough for some collectors.

I know a lot of people, that are not very helpful if you ask for details. They dont want to give you the sizes of props, and tell you that they dont want to have exactly replicas around.

So, why not?

They own the screenused prop, why arent they happy with the prop and let others make replicas. They can always think: Its a nice replicam but I own the original. After all, this feeling to own the screenused one, is still not enough for the people. They DONT want that there are other kind of props.

Ive got a lot of respect for these people, invest their money to get a piece of history.

But where were the Proptopia or GBfans if no-one share results, pics, photos and informations about size, weight, material....

I nmy opinion sometimes its a kind of jealousy. They cant say anymore, that they are the only one with that prop, no-one is admiring them anymore, because everyone can make or get parts like that...

anyway, Im happy that so many people share information, paper props or sell any parts. I think its a wonderful hobby, and everyone whos interested, should have the chance to collect or build props...

 

[BulldogBite]

anyway, Im happy that so many people share information, paper props or sell any parts. I think its a wonderful hobby, and everyone whos interested, should have the chance to collect or build props...

Wonderful roundup!
I think, that´s why we are all here?!

And: an original will always be an original - no replica can gain that status.

 

[franz bolo]

They own the screen used prop, why aren't they happy with the prop and let others make replicas.

Ego and perceived elitism. Not all screen used collectors are like that but I've seen many who are. To some, prop replicators are the Scum of the Earth! :lol

FB

 

[theforce]

"Jason":

I am here to share and contribute with the replica prop community.

I do not subscribe to your style of presenting only one side. Yours.

An rpf staff member recently messaged me to basically not let this get out of hand. I do need to clarify a few of your comments, and will do so only once to keep my word to him.

"Hal":

To my knowledge, we have never met or communicated in any fashion (or at the very least, I've had no interactions with anyone who has identified himself to me as "Hal").Jason

Nothing to with this thread.

"Hal":
As of the time of this response, the RPF has more than 38,000 topics, 615,000 posts, and 7,000 Members...Jason

Good to know.

"Hal":
It's unclear to me why you elected to join the RPF to dig up an old topic and call me out as a liar over and over and over and over and over.Jason

Not true. I choose to join the rpf to share and contribute.

Since you are so practiced at spin and parsing your words, I will do the same.

I did not call you "a liar". The words I used were "not truthful". I also said I did not understand why someone would "not be honest" about acquiring props for "investment" and or "financial gain".

"Hal":
Candidly, your approach toward discourse – unrelenting and repetitive personal attacks predicated on poor reading comprehension and faulty logic – doesn’t warrant a response of any kind. In any event, based on your public, successive, harassing, unfounded, untrue, and defamatory statements

Jason

You publicly mentioned your involvement with this thread. Neither Jedyfyfe or myself did.

I never attacked anyone personally. I stated facts without emotion or malice.

You publicly and personally attacked me for my "poor reading comprehension" and "faulty logic", but I forgive you for that.

You said the following:

I’ve never purchased an original prop as an “investment” or for “financial gain”.

You sold the following at a "financial gain":

Wolverine claws from Xmen (sold at profiles in history) for $40,250.00 (2007). Purchased by consignor for @ $12-$15,000....a large "financial gain" .

Back to the Future hover board (profiles) sold for $55,000 (2008) Purchased by consignor for @ $12-$15,000 (which may have included a trade, with screen used).... the second large "financial gain".

Donnie Darko mask (profiles) sold for $25,000 (2008).... A third "financial gain".

Which one of those statements are untrue and defamatory?

It appears my mentioning your selling those three original props at a "financial gain" after your saying you, "never purchased an original prop as an “investment” or for “financial gain”, has upset you greatly.

It was never my intention to upset you. I only wanted to share and contribute.

 

[Die Hard Props]

There is a difference between buying something with the intention of selling it on and making a profit, and buying something for your collection and later selling it on, for it to make a profit.

As far as i'm aware, those pieces Jason bought were from well known dealers (Screenused.com), at well above asking price at that time. Is it his fault that he comes to sell it later and makes some money on it?

Going by your logic, would you suggest to the collectors buying Stormtrooper helmets now for £50,000 for their collections not to sell them on in 15 years time for anything less than what they paid?

Our hobby is in its infancy. These original props that many of us cherish will without a doubt appreciate in value over the coming years, i'm sure of it. Values will always change and collections always change.

If Jason had bought those props to sell on for financial gain, why did he pay top dollar for them with the dealers? because he wanted them for his collection.

I have some props that i bought to sell on for a profit, and some that i didn't. Some of the ones that i didn't buy to sell on, i have since sold on, and they have made me a profit. Because i have made money on those pieces, does that mean i bought them for that purpose? with the intention of making money on them? Not at all.

Simon

 

[Ttaskmaster]

Cor, that's a can of worms, isn't it?


Firstly, owning an original doesn't make someone elitist.
Thinking that ownership makes them special or above everyone else does.


Secondly, no-one has any right to reproduce anything without the permission of the copyright holders (assuming the thing is copyrighted). This is why companies produce Licenced Replicas. Profit or not, it is basically breach of copyright and/or counterfeiting.

This covers everything, from football shirts to software.


Thirdly, you can't actually stop people from building replicas for themselves. I used to make movie spacehips out of Lego when I was a kid. As people like me grow up, we learn better methods. We want to build things better than the originals were built.

If original owners want to hog and hide away their props, that is fine. It's their property and their right. Those who do share are equally welcome to do so and, hopefully, appreciated. But it's no different to whether or not a museum displays something, surely?

 

[tomstrong]

I don't want to dive in on either side of the arguments, but it's safe to say that any time people are willing to pay a lot of money for something they will be worried about how to protect the value of what they have, either by ensuring the authenticity of what they have or by trying to ensure its scarcity (or both).

There are a lot of props out there that nobody can afford to obtain, if we want one then we need to settle for a replica or copy. Whether that copy is a licensed one, one we make ourselves, or one we buy privately and the acceptability of those different options seems to be something on which there will never be agreement, at least on the finer details.

 

[KojiroVance]

Fascinating discussion, thanks for reviving this....

The elephant in the room that no one seems to want to point out ... is the replica maker who openly refuses to add any tell or maker's mark on the "replica," thereby making as close as possible to an identical copy of a prop (based on available information -- and this is probably why original prop owners are careful about what is divulged, and to whom).

The intent is key. If you make an exacting replica of something that is fabricated like the original (like early "Mark English" ST TOS replicas), then you're at least honestly making a replica, but the conditions under which you sell it can be critical. If you then age, weather, or otherwise distress your replica to pass off as a potential screen used (or just original propmaker's inventory) prop (that I understand "Mark English" later did) and sell it with or without a claim as to the piece's provenance, you could be accused of making a forgery IMHO.

The replica maker who incorporates "tells" (hidden or clearly in view) is arguably insuring AGAINST the accusation of producing a forgery. I don't think it's asking too much for this.

A replica maker who refuses to incorporate a tell or clear mark indicating the maker's identity or the piece's origin (e.g. date marking), has questionable motives IMHO. Whether it's a tiny paper prop or a huge styrene/plastic/kydex/resin piece, putting a mark somewhere that isn't easily seen but CAN be found upon examination, does NOT make a replica "inaccurate."

License or no license, I just don't think it's ethical to make a replica just like an original prop, simulating not only appearance but material, manufacture, weathering, damage,... and then claim "buyer beware" if someone else tries to pass off the replica as the original item at a later date. You've created a forgery that is only a "replica" if you attach to it your CLAIM that it's not original. But the buyer doesn't have to repeat that claim, and your replica is now a plausible forgery. Putting a tell on there or changing a detail that would invalidate it as a possible original is the best way to prevent this. Refusal to prevent this rather puts the maker in the role of an accomplice if only after the fact of the first sale.

Does this make sense?

 

[Die Hard Props]

Very well said KojiroVance.

Simon

 

[Ttaskmaster]

License or no license, I just don't think it's ethical to make a replica just like an original prop, simulating not only appearance but material, manufacture, weathering, damage,... and then claim "buyer beware" if someone else tries to pass off the replica as the original item at a later date. You've created a forgery that is only a "replica" if you attach to it your CLAIM that it's not original.

Forgive me on this, but I like to play Devil's Advocate...

I have a particular Airsoft gun.
It's the exact same model from the same manufacturer as used in a movie. Does that therefore equate to me owning a 'forgery'?

I don't see how something made from, say, found parts by a prop maker, which is then copied using the same methods and parts by an enthusiast equates to a forgery unless the enthusiast claims it to be the original.

Does that mean everyone who makes plastic chainmaille themselves is forging WETA chainmaille?



Also, why does the buyer not have to reiterate that it's a repro when selling something on? Or at least state that they don't know either way?
Surely unless they have certification, it's to be assumed as a repro?


Not arguing, just asking so that I can understand better.

 

[KojiroVance]

... The intent is key. If you make an exacting replica of something that is fabricated like the original (like early "Mark English" ST TOS replicas), then you're at least honestly making a replica, but the conditions under which you sell it can be critical. If you then age, weather, or otherwise distress your replica to pass off as a potential screen used (or just original propmaker's inventory) prop (that I understand "Mark English" later did) and sell it with or without a claim as to the piece's provenance, you could be accused of making a forgery IMHO.

The replica maker who incorporates "tells" (hidden or clearly in view) is arguably insuring AGAINST the accusation of producing a forgery. I don't think it's asking too much for this.....

Forgive me on this, but I like to play Devil's Advocate...

I have a particular Airsoft gun.
It's the exact same model from the same manufacturer as used in a movie. Does that therefore equate to me owning a 'forgery'?

I don't see how something made from, say, found parts by a prop maker, which is then copied using the same methods and parts by an enthusiast equates to a forgery unless the enthusiast claims it to be the original.

... Also, why does the buyer not have to reiterate that it's a repro when selling something on? Or at least state that they don't know either way?
Surely unless they have certification, it's to be assumed as a repro?

First off, Devil's Advocates never ask for forgiveness.

If you have the same Airsoft gun that some filmmaker used, no it's not a forgery, it's clearly a commercially available Airsoft gun. End of line. It probably has the manufacturer's marque right on the gun. Duh.

If you take that Airsoft gun and add resin and plastic and paint markings to closely match what was done for a production (e.g. Bruce Willis' gun from FIFTH ELEMENT?), then what? If you idealize it (make it better than the propmaker did, or don't distress it like the production prop was during use) is it a forgery or a replica?

All kidding aside, what I meant, and you can read again, was "intent is key." If you reproduce a light saber from the same authentic parts that the 1976 propmaker did, are you making a forgery? Probably not. If you weather and age it, put in scratches that you can see the original has, are you making a forgery? Arguably yes, but just as arguably not if you insist you're just making "a replica of the real prop as it appears today." How you sell it, and describe it, can make a big difference. Reference the suit against Christie's and IIRC Paramount by the owner of a "screen used poker visor worn by Brent Spiner," who subsequently learned that it is at best one of several used on the production. He seemed to think he was getting a one and only costuming piece, and was dismayed to find it was not. How did Christie's describe it? QED.

You raise a good point. If a reseller presents it without a COA confirming the source of this prop is an original production prop, and says, "provenance unknown," or words to that effect, is it misleading? Only IMHO to the buyer who deludes himself/herself. But if the seller says, "possibly original production prop, no COA offered or provided," is the buyer still obligated to be skeptical, or is the seller misleading. Again, if the replica maker puts a tell or mark on it indicating manufacture later than the production, the point is moot. A couple of recent Ebay auctions of "original Star Trek props" are fine examples. Sellers said things like, "the lady we got this from thinks it's from the production, we don't know either way," or "estate auction from a collector known to have bought screen-used originals," or "think this is a stunt prop from the production, but I have no way of knowing." In these cases, I was able to identify two of them as replicas based on identifiable tells (that even a n00b like me could see), and two sellers backpedaled. The third dunsel refused to quantify any doubt, and couldn't sell the "unpainted resin stunt prop" for $49. :unsure


Please, don't let your imaginations run away here. I'm not proposing gashing your masterpiece up with a Diamond Deb file, or printing in 24pt font "REPLICA" on the face of an ID card. A small mark like silversmiths put on cutlery, or a 6pt notation, in an inconspicuous place is sufficient. A maker here of a James Bond credit card has valid dates 07/07 - 07/17. Unless CC's have 10 year spans in the UK, that's a pretty good tell that it's not a real CC.

 

[clarence]

In answer to your questions Jedifyfe


Question 1, Yes

Question 2, If he/she owns the original he/she has rights to it! It is his/her property

If someone scratch builds that prop then its none of his/her business what you do with it or them

I think thats what you asked:angel

 

[Jedifyfe]

In answer to your questions Jedifyfe
Question 2, If he/she owns the original he/she has rights to it! It is his/her property

Well this is not entirely true. Even though a private collector owns an original prop, they don't have the "rights" to it. The "rights" are still owned by the company or studio that originally produced this prop/item.

I too own a few screen used or production used props, and I have given images or scans away of all of them for others to replicate. I have never worried about the value of them decreasing because the original will always differ from a replica.

Brad

 

[Jedifyfe]

The intent is key...

A replica maker who refuses to incorporate a tell or clear mark indicating the maker's identity or the piece's origin (e.g. date marking), has questionable motives IMHO. Whether it's a tiny paper prop or a huge styrene/plastic/kydex/resin piece, putting a mark somewhere that isn't easily seen but CAN be found upon examination, does NOT make a replica "inaccurate."

License or no license, I just don't think it's ethical to make a replica just like an original prop, simulating not only appearance but material, manufacture, weathering, damage,... and then claim "buyer beware" if someone else tries to pass off the replica as the original item at a later date. You've created a forgery that is only a "replica" if you attach to it your CLAIM that it's not original.

Does this make sense?

I agree that there are people that would like to recreate a prop and sell it as original.

I also believe that MOST of us that want to recreate a prop that has the exact wear patterns or markings as the original prop, aren't doing it to be malicous but just want our replica to look as clost to the original as possible.

There are prop makers like GINO that is making a Boba Fett helmet with the exact interior and exterior as the original helmet, not to resell it but rather just to have one that is identical to the real deal. To me, I understand this. Others may see it as GINO trying to pull something over on someone else in the future.

Like you said, it comes down to intent. But the BIGGER elephant in the room is NOT the intent of the maker but the intent on the person that he sells it to. You NEVER know what someone else will do or say in the future.

Brad

 

[KojiroVance]

All-righty then, that's why I would expect a responsible replica maker to put some tell or mark on it that can identify it as a reproduction, not "to look as clost to the original as possible."[sic] You can do that and still be really close. If Greg Jein can put R2D2, a biplane, and a mailbox on the CE3K mothership, you can put a small tell in your replica.

Say for argument that some other @55-clown who knows what a great reproduction you make buys yours, and sells it on eBay with an equally diligent (forged) COA. Whose artistry is responsible for the forgery? Yours. You aren't making the fraudulent claim, but without your artistry, there is no chance of a con. Hence the value in putting your tell on it.

"Wow, that looks like the real thing...." "Yep, chalk it up to so-and-so's talent, there's his mark. Other than that, it's amazingly authentic."

If you're unsure where I'm pointing a finger -- I'll be clear, it's pointing back at you. (Don't take it personally, though. Just professionally. ) We both know there are more than a few bastards out there who would gladly resell your fine reproduction, complete with "wear patterns and markings," as a false original screen-used prop. Your refusal to put some inconspicuous tell in there as a failsafe doesn't shift the responsibility 100% onto someone else's backside.

Ok. I sense topic drift on a grand scale. To get back on the track you started off with...

... I have two questions for you all:

Do any of you that do own an original or screen used prop (myself included) hope that someday you will be able to resell them for future financial gain? Or are you just happy to have the props you have.

What would you guys do? If a prop collector of the original prop asked you not to sell a replica of that prop that you made from scratch, would you comply?

I am interested to know what the majority would say.

Brad

1. I have some original production materials, and no I would not expect to make some profit off them, but if I keep them long enough and they accrue in value, I would like to believe that they could provide some $ that I could reinvest ... in props, in my daughter's education, in my retirement. But it's not the strategy behind my purchase. I don't have an explicit spreadsheet of my investments.
   
2. If the owner of an original prop asked me not to reproduce the prop, I would do my best to assuage his/her fears, and show the owner what tells or defects I'm incorporating into the repro so that it won't pass as an original to a trained eye. If that's not good enough, oh well. At least I know that I'm not making a perfect duplicate/forgery, AND I've been candid with the original's owner how to tell my repro from the original.

 

[Bradleyfett]

Quite frankly, if I am making a reproduction for my own use/enjoyment, I have no interest in putting in any 'tells' nor do I feel any responsibility to do so. At all.

HOWEVER, I do feel a degree of responsibility to do so if it ever leaves my door.

Fair enough?

 

[fuelish]

It sounds, to me, that if you make stuff to sell it would be good business to put a tell on it. Both as a favor to the owner of original item and to protect your investment(In the case of recasting/reprinting)

If you make an item for your self, make it look as dead on as you can. If you ever decide to sell it, you can put a tell on it to protect others from a possible scam.

Either way think of it as a mark of pride in your work.