I'm not dismissing them because of their intelligence. I'm talking about that only in regards to you point about what's popular now. In a fairer respect I should have said, "These are the same people who made Paris Hilton a celebrity!" The point being that while any schlubb may know/like Raiders better, any discerning movie connoisseur will agree that the sled from Kane is so much more important to Citizen Kane than the gun that Indy didn't even have in the second film was to Raiders to the point that they're not even comparable which, if you read CTF's post, was to make them appear on the same level. If it was a hat, whip, jacket, hell, even the bag, I'd see it more.
Raiders of the Lost Ark, Smith & Wesson sells for $65,000 at auction.
- Thread starter agent5
- Start date
I'm not dismissing them because of their intelligence. I'm talking about that only in regards to you point about what's popular now. In a fairer respect I should have said, "These are the same people who made Paris Hilton a celebrity!" The point being that while any schlubb may know/like Raiders better, any discerning movie connoisseur will agree that the sled from Kane is so much more important to Citizen Kane than the gun that Indy didn't even have in the second film was to Raiders to the point that they're not even comparable which, if you read CTF's post, was to make them appear on the same level. If it was a hat, whip, jacket, hell, even the bag, I'd see it more.
Here's the thing. I actually agree with you that the sled is more important to the plot of Kane than the gun is to Raiders. But, once again, I'm looking at it from the stand point of the film "classic". Raiders is a wonderful film that most discerning movie connoisseurs would recommend. It's number 60 on AFI's top 100 all time movies list, very well reviewed by most film critics and very popular with a whole generation of people. It's for this reason that the gun sold for as much as it did. It's a testament to the film more than the prop. And let's remember the gun was part of the Indiana Jones outfit.
The buyer of this piece thought it was worth the money. I get that you don't. As I stated before, if I had that kind of money to blow there are certainly props I'd blow it on. Would I have spent that kind of money on any Raiders prop? Nope. I like the movie a lot but not that much. I wouldn't spend that much money on Kane's sled either. However, find me an original hand phaser...
BTW, Indy's jacket (from Last Crusade) sold for $94,400 at auction a couple of years ago.
WinstonWolf359
Master Member
Maybe the guy that bought the $65,000 gun could use it to rob the guy with the $94,000 jacket...That's like $150,000 worth of Indy props for only 65K... :lol
See, in perspective, $65,000 doesn't seem that bad.
See, in perspective, $65,000 doesn't seem that bad.
CTF
Sr Member
No, no I didn't.
If you read it again you'll see I said, "...throw away prop, or not". I know it's not that clear, but I wasn't comparing Indy's revolver to Rosebud -- not at all. I only mentioned the 'Berg buying Rosebud as the post before said that if George and Steven wouldn't buy something from their own films (emotional connection, and all that), why would someone else? Because that said prop, even if it is just a throw away prop, could be special to that said person. I totally agree that Rosebud is more important in the scheme of things (film history), but that doesn't mean it's important to a person down the street who likes Indiana Jones. My post wasn't that clear, so I hope you know what I mean.I find it hilarious that a lot of members here are saying that this person who bought the revolver is crazy for spending that kind of money... yet most won't blink an eye at dropping 1K or more for a Stormtrooper or Vader helmet (and some have dubious history). Do I judge them? Nope... more power to 'em. I wanna do the same! :love I look at film props as art, and like art, there are good and bad props (it's all personal) -- just because you don't like a particular film or prop, doesn't mean that it's not important to somebody else. Even a prop from the most hated film [insert what you want here] could mean more to an individual than a sled from what I even consider one of the greatest films of all time (it changed the way a story is told, optical and make-up FX were ahead of their time, and so much more -- and even just the stories behind the making of it). But that doesn't mean I wouldn't choose some other prop in place of Rosebud. The Mona Lisa is more respected than say, a de Lempicka, and the former is priceless... but if I had to choose one it would be the de Lempicka.
(But in reality I'd sell the Da Vinci and buy all of Tamara de Lempicka's work. :lol)People will spend money on whatever they like... members here should know this, especially. And remember how much the real Kane spent of his money on the real Rosebud.
"He's CRAZY!" :rolleyesmarvinrsouw
New Member
I know that these posts are 18 years old, but I just want to add my two cents in; I worked part time at Little John's Auction Services from around about 2002, up until 2019 when the owner and proprietor retired and closed the service down. In 2007 (when most of these posts were posted), Little John's presented the Stembridge Auction, in which Syd Stembridge consigned a very large number of movie prop guns. These ranged from old Western movie and TV classics, to more modern day shows, many of them huge memorable hits, and others ... maybe a bit less of a hit.
Back then, we presented the auction lots physically by actually filming them on tables with digital camcorders and projecting the image up on stage on big monitors. The Stembridge version of Indiana Jones's S&W Second Model Hand Ejector (.45 ACP cal.) came by my camera and inspite the quoted selling price in the aforementioned posts, sold for the hammer price of $118,000. This was Lot 40, and was estimated at $2,000 to $4,000. John Wayne's "Trapper" Winchester Model '92 (Lot 100, estimated at $15,000 to 30,000) hammered for $110,000.
The Star Wars DL-44 Heavy Blaster was actually from the third original movie, Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi; I found it in the scene where Han Solo and Princess Leia were surrounded by Storm Troopers outside the entrance to an Imperial underground bunker, just before Chewbacca arrives to same the day in one of the smaller Imperial Walker Scouts. I checked still images (as I did for the Raiders gun) and the props proved to be a match. The DL-44 was estimated at $3,000 to $6,000, but hammered on my co-workers table for $189,000! These hammer prices do not include the Buyer's Premium or California sales tax, and all had to be DROSed at our FFL (registered) per California DOJ ruling.
Syd Stembridge provided documentation for provenance for each item sold.
Thanks for letting me input this information!
Back then, we presented the auction lots physically by actually filming them on tables with digital camcorders and projecting the image up on stage on big monitors. The Stembridge version of Indiana Jones's S&W Second Model Hand Ejector (.45 ACP cal.) came by my camera and inspite the quoted selling price in the aforementioned posts, sold for the hammer price of $118,000. This was Lot 40, and was estimated at $2,000 to $4,000. John Wayne's "Trapper" Winchester Model '92 (Lot 100, estimated at $15,000 to 30,000) hammered for $110,000.
The Star Wars DL-44 Heavy Blaster was actually from the third original movie, Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi; I found it in the scene where Han Solo and Princess Leia were surrounded by Storm Troopers outside the entrance to an Imperial underground bunker, just before Chewbacca arrives to same the day in one of the smaller Imperial Walker Scouts. I checked still images (as I did for the Raiders gun) and the props proved to be a match. The DL-44 was estimated at $3,000 to $6,000, but hammered on my co-workers table for $189,000! These hammer prices do not include the Buyer's Premium or California sales tax, and all had to be DROSed at our FFL (registered) per California DOJ ruling.
Syd Stembridge provided documentation for provenance for each item sold.
Thanks for letting me input this information!
Thank you for the great insider information! Interesting how the fanbase of the time determines the relative values of John Wayne's Gun, Indy's, and Han Solo's.
Forgive my ignorance, what is "DROSed"? I assume it means deactivated.
Forgive my ignorance, what is "DROSed"? I assume it means deactivated.
marvinrsouw
New Member
Oops! Sorry about that ... DROS (a DOJ term) stands for Dealer Record Of Sale, the Department of Justice's term for "registration". Unless any modern firearm - (that is to say, "officially" defined as modern or manufactured, post 1896) - has been deactivated, it must be registered at an FFL dealer, even movie props. The buyer of the Raiders prop actually bought a number of other props at that auction. From what I was told, he lives somewhere in the Santa Monica, L.A. area, and was going to open a museum commemorating all these big, blockbuster movies. By the way, both Smith & Wesson and Colt made a "Model 1917" revolver, each one a little different per each company's design, both designed to fire the .45 ACP cartridge with special adapter clips to hold the semiautomatic cartridge in place while shooting. Both revolvers were made to specs with 5 1/2 inch barrels.
I have no idea if the propmaster cut the Stembridge gun's barrel to 4 inches, then reamed the cut-off piece with solder to fit over the shortened muzzle in order to reattach the front sight, or just brazed a new sight onto it, but I could not detect a join line. The "barrel band" was only a roughed up area around the muzzle and the front sight. It actually looked like coarse file marks; maybe they did modify the cut-off part, sweated it in place, then hid the join line by filing the whole area. Maybe we will never know ...
Oh, and by the way, unlike the Bapty prop gun, the Stembridge gun was not deactivated - it still worked, but it seemed pretty loose in its lockup when you cycled the action
Dr Jones Sr
Sr Member
A friend of mine owns a software firm he built from nothing. He started it as soon as he graduated from university in his 20's.
His income is millions a month. He's lived in the same house for 40 years. It's no mansion. It's a nice house in a nice neighbourhood but even with our crazy California house prices (my ordinary tract home would sell for $1.2 million today, five times what I paid for it) his house represents around a month's pay for him.
Likewise he's been driving the same $20,000 car for around ten years. Both car and house are long paid off.
To him spending $100,000 on a whim is like me spending a few dollars. But he wouldn't do. It's not how he is.
Last edited:
