Raiders of the Lost Ark, Smith & Wesson sells for $65,000 at auction.

[agent5]

Yes, you can get the same gunsmith who did the original gun to make you the exact gun today, which is probably where Lee went to, or did he do it himself? They are getting a bit more expensive because on top of gun collectors and militaria people the Indy people want them too. I guess it's a bit like the Graflexs' only not as extreme.

Lee actually had the gun from the auction at his house many, many years ago and took it to the range too. The link below shows a pic of it on his table at home from his short stint with it. Second pic down from the top. Same exact gun that just sold at auction.

http://www.indygear.com/gear/guns.shtml

 

[yodakiller1138]

I don't believe Lee did it himself. As you say he probably had the barrels made to RAIDERS SPECS by the gunsmith from the film. My checkered grips are not chipped and it has medallions. Did they take them off for the film? At the time, I seem to remember Lee telling me he had the REAL GUN in his possession.

 

[agent5]

At the time, I seem to remember Lee telling me he had the REAL GUN in his possession.

See my above post. :cool

 

[gnrlotto]

Thing I think is funny, is the people with the, "They're rich, they can blow money like we blow smoke!" attitude. Sorry, but the truly rich (i.e., Bill "I'm a Self-Made Billionaire" Gates vs. Paris "Daddy Gives Me Money" Hilton) stay rich not by spending crazy amounts of lettuce, but by being frugal.

 

[agent5]

Thing I think is funny, is the people with the, "They're rich, they can blow money like we blow smoke!" attitude. Sorry, but the truly rich (i.e., Bill "I'm a Self-Made Billionaire" Gates vs. Paris "Daddy Gives Me Money" Hilton) stay rich not by spending crazy amounts of lettuce, but by being frugal.

Some do and some just have the money to spend. Some will always buy things they know will only increase in value to keep their investments solid. Your point is certainly valid to some extent but definitely for not all rich people. Some are just rich enough. Think of the interest made off of billions. Would you care to be so frugal?

 

[Jedi-72]

I disagree... if you've got the means, then why the heck not? I know plenty of people that would think people are crazy for paying $700.00 for a raw cast of a Vader lid, that is 'bout 10 generations from the original. All of this stuff is only worth what people will pay for it, and that's a lot, it seems.

You obviously just don't get it.

That's true enough. I never really have "gotten" insanity, whatever you want to call it. Whether you're talking about something as silly as this, or people who take up smoking two packs a day knowing that they'll get cancer.

Just a silly, silly waste of money. No matter how much cash you may have, there are far more useful and humanitarian ways to waste that much money. Even the guys who made these movies wouldn't plunk down that kid of cash for a throw away prop. Lucas sure as hell isn't waxing nostalgic and paying five or six figures to buy back the lightsabers or blasters, etc. that made him richer than he ever dreamed. He'd be the first to say, "These people are crazy". And who has more personal and nostalgic connections to such "iconic" pieces as these, than the guys who actually did it?

I'm waiting for the day they auction off the star wars figures from Elliot's room in E.T. I mean, you can get Greedo and Walrus Man at any vintage store for a few bucks. Who wouldn't be willing to pay...20 or 30K to own the figures that actually appeared on screen?! :lol

Glad to say, "I don't get it".

 

[gnrlotto]

Some do and some just have the money to spend. Some will always buy things they know will only increase in value to keep their investments solid. Your point is certainly valid to some extent but definitely for not all rich people. Some are just rich enough. Think of the interest made off of billions. Would you care to be so frugal?

That was the point. Those that have truly hit the stratosphere of wealth do thing like dabble with charities. Those "rich" who buy things like this are those who will never be the Bill Gates of the world.

 

[CTF]

That's true enough. I never really have "gotten" insanity, whatever you want to call it. Whether you're talking about something as silly as this, or people who take up smoking two packs a day knowing that they'll get cancer.

Just a silly, silly waste of money. No matter how much cash you may have, there are far more useful and humanitarian ways to waste that much money. Even the guys who made these movies wouldn't plunk down that kid of cash for a throw away prop. Lucas sure as hell isn't waxing nostalgic and paying five or six figures to buy back the lightsabers or blasters, etc. that made him richer than he ever dreamed. He'd be the first to say, "These people are crazy". And who has more personal and nostalgic connections to such "iconic" pieces as these, than the guys who actually did it?

I'm waiting for the day they auction off the star wars figures from Elliot's room in E.T. I mean, you can get Greedo and Walrus Man at any vintage store for a few bucks. Who wouldn't be willing to pay...20 or 30K to own the figures that actually appeared on screen?! :lol

Glad to say, "I don't get it".

Funny, Spielberg didn't make Citizen Kane, yet he bought Rosebud for $50,000.00. Throw away prop, or not -- it's a piece of movie history, a piece of art -- if you love it, why not?

 

[Noeland]

Lets imagine we all live in a world where we could all afford to purchase a $24,000 screen used revolver. Would we?

Now, I can understand a hand crafted, 1 of a kind, hero enterprize selling for $200,000 or whatever it sold for at Christies. I can understand "hand crafted" and "custom" pieces selling for tons of money. But I never would have figured a plain jane revolver going for that kind of money, no matter what film it was in.

I agree, the gun is a part of movie history. It's one of my favorite movies at that. And I do agree it has value, but even if I could afford it, I'm not sure I'd of paid that. It's just an assembly line smith and wesson revolver right?

But that is the beauty of auctions. IMPULSE.

 

[jdebord]

Hey everyone,

I'm working on a series of articles about this auction event, which might be interesting reading (regardless of your opinions on the values realized by original prop firearms):

Little John’s Auction Service: Stembridge Collection - June 5, 2007

Stembridge Armory Collection Auction Report, Part 1: Prices Realized Highlights

Stembridge Auction Report, Part 2: Star Wars Han Solo Blaster Excitement & Drama

Featured Interview Preview: Joe Maddalena, Profiles in History - Stembridge Recap

More to come!

Jason

 

[agent5]

Thanks, Jason, from another Jason.

 

[jdebord]

Thanks, Jason, from another Jason.

You're welcome.

Jason

 

[Blackbirdcd]

Smith & Wesson are now offering newly manufactured 1917 pistols of this same model and type. You can get either a 4" or 6" barrel, both chambered in .45ACP. I'm pretty sure this is the same revolver:

4" barrel
http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/...d=10001&productId=53950&langId=-1&isFirearm=Y

5 1/2" barrel
http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/...d=10001&productId=53952&langId=-1&isFirearm=Y

 

[agent5]

I'm pretty sure this is the same revolver

Not exactly the same, but fairly close. Definitely not $65,000 either. :love

 

[gnrlotto]

Funny, Spielberg didn't make Citizen Kane, yet he bought Rosebud for $50,000.00. Throw away prop, or not -- it's a piece of movie history, a piece of art -- if you love it, why not?

Being that the sled symbolized the purest part of Kane's life in a film in which we see how a man is made up of his conflicting ideals, I'd seriously love a credible argument of how that is as important as a gun that wasn't even iconic enough to have survived more than one film in a trilogy.

 

[NakedMoleRat]

I have mixed feelings about the whole thing. Would I ever pay that much? No! Not even if I had it. $65,000.00 to me is more than a years worth of 40 hours a week, but what is $65,000.00 to Bill Gates?
Then again, I drop about $50.00 a month on sushi. Living in Vegas I see people drop $500.00 to $1,000.00 on slots each month. You could save up that cash pot and buy the gun.
In the end, would I be crazy if I paid that much for it? Yup!
Would the guy who can afford it be crazy? Probably, but he can afford to be.

 

[Blackbirdcd]

Good point - you can bet the folks winning these bids aren't fretting over how their day job at Home Depot will pay for it.

 

[Lost in Trek]

Being that the sled symbolized the purest part of Kane's life in a film in which we see how a man is made up of his conflicting ideals, I'd seriously love a credible argument of how that is as important as a gun that wasn't even iconic enough to have survived more than one film in a trilogy.

If you were to conduct a survey of the average American do you think they would remember ,with great fondness and love, Citizen Kane or Raiders of the lost Ark? Kane is considered a cinema masterpiece. Praise for which it is absolutely deserving. But, in the current culture Indiana Jones is better known.

Let's not forget that Raiders of the Lost Ark is the first adventure in a very popular series of films. It's that first appearance that so many people want to own a piece of. This prop was used by the leading actor, playing an iconic role in a widely popular and influential film.

Would I spend that much on a prop? The truth is if I had it to spend... yes. As many folks on this board I'm sure would admit, this is a pretty expensive hobby. Most of us have spent good chunks of change on various pieces over the years. Could it have been better spent on feeding the world's poor? Couldn't that arguement be made with just about anything people spend their money on. After all how much stuff does anyone need?

Is this piece worthy of such expense as a piece of art or as an important film artifact? As stated in previous posts the buyer certainly thought so. In the end isn't that all that matters?

 

[gnrlotto]

If you were to conduct a survey of the average American do you think they would remember ,with great fondness and love, Citizen Kane or Raiders of the lost Ark? Kane is considered a cinema masterpiece. Praise for which it is absolutely deserving. But, in the current culture Indiana Jones is better known.

Let's not forget that Raiders of the Lost Ark is the first adventure in a very popular series of films. It's that first appearance that so many people want to own a piece of. This prop was used by the leading actor, playing an iconic role in a widely popular and influential film.

Would I spend that much on a prop? The truth is if I had it to spend... yes. As many folks on this board I'm sure would admit, this is a pretty expensive hobby. Most of us have spent good chunks of change on various pieces over the years. Could it have been better spent on feeding the world's poor? Couldn't that arguement be made with just about anything people spend their money on. After all how much stuff does anyone need?

Is this piece worthy of such expense as a piece of art or as an important film artifact? As stated in previous posts the buyer certainly thought so. In the end isn't that all that matters?

Two thirds of Americnas have been proven to not even know where Iraq is on a map, either, so the "People like Raiders more than Kane," argument doesn't work; doesn't increase the validity of a gun that wasn't iconic enough to have been in more than one film. Hell, Indy uses two guns in that film. Shows how important the first one is.

 

[Lost in Trek]

Two thirds of Americnas have been proven to not even know where Iraq is on a map, either, so the "People like Raiders more than Kane," argument doesn't work; doesn't increase the validity of a gun that wasn't iconic enough to have been in more than one film. Hell, Indy uses two guns in that film. Shows how important the first one is.

This isn't about the level of intelligence of the average American. (Why do I have the feeling I've just set up the perfect punchline for someone else).
This is about art and what it means to the culture. To dismiss the opinions of anyone concerning "likes" and "dislikes" because they can't pick out some country on a map seems a little unfair.

However, I do think you raise an interesting question. Is it the prop that's iconic or is it the film that's iconic? I submit that most of the time it's the film. What collectors want is to own, no matter how small, a piece of that film. Look at Kane. The sled by itself is no different than any other sled of it's time. What makes it special is that it was used in a "classic" film. Likewise, with Indy's gun. It's special because it was used by Harrison Ford in a well loved film.

Will it still be valuable 20 years down the road? Who knows. But again, I don't think it matters. For the buyer of this piece, I'm sure, is ecstatic to own his small piece of a modern day Hollywood "classic".