Prop Store

Star Trek Prop Authority

Discussion in 'Production Made Costumes and Props' started by Room8, Oct 26, 2011.

  1. Room8

    Room8 Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    566
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2011
  2. Apollo

    Apollo Legendary Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    5,035
    Don't believe everything Gerald has to say! :lol
     
  3. BrundelFly

    BrundelFly Sr Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Self Appointed "PROP Authority"?

    Say it isn't so....
     
  4. BrundelFly

    BrundelFly Sr Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Lots of pictures and Name Dropping does not an expert make.

    That's a great source for pics of that, there is no doubt.

    I dont know "Gerald" from Adam. I'm in no way challenging him or anyone else, but here is an example of what Im talking about.

    You decide for your self.


    From the web site you get this:

    [​IMG]

    My comments are:

    [​IMG]

    Now, I have no idea if this chap owns a real communicator, or not. He probably does,
    I hope he does. I do.

    HOWEVER, there is no way on God's Green Earth the two pictures above are of the same prop.

    Sorry, you can see what ya want if you look hard enough, but those are two different props.

    The point Im making to fellow TREK Prop folks, is never believe anything.
    Unless you walked off the set with it, you will always be trusting someone else's word at best.
    Who can you trust? Your own eyes and actions. That's pretty much it.

    However, "Your eyes can deceive you, don't trust them" said the wise wizard.

    "The Communicator has been copied 10 different ways to Sunday. There are so many really nice fakes out there, who know's what is real. Mark English made some great copies. "

    Im paraphrasing above, but Greg Jein himself told me the above quote. Yeah I can name drop too.
    It doesn't mean I have any more authority than,.....anyone reading this.

    Does anyone really think it was only RECENTLY that someone figured out the master was the STERLING PENCIL BOX? How many of HAD the Sterling pencil box as a kid, and said "HEY! THis looks like the COMMUNICATOR!!" So, matching dimensions of the body, or comparing HIGH DEF pictures to FUZZY Screen captures saying THIS PROVES you have a real one, sorry, just doesnt work.

    Regaring the site, and again, some of the other pics look more of a match to whatever is being compared. For example, the shot of the communicator rear with Velcro. However, even though it's in the same place, it doesn't prove for certain that it is the same prop. WHo knows? A true statement would be that anyone creating a fake, probably had the same reference.
    You have proof it matches a picture. That's pretty much it.

    I just find it amazing, in my years of prop collecting, I have found no less than 17 or 19 people swearing they have a REAL COmmunicator, when only 10 were made.

    Collectors, beware, be wise.
    Choose carefully who you take as "authority" on, well..... anything.
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2011
  5. slave1pilot

    slave1pilot Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,476
  6. phez

    phez Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,487
    I don't want to rain on the guys parade but he is discussing how light is reflecting off of solder joints and matching half cut circles but did not notice the fact that the prop in the screen cap has 12 holes across when the one he is comparing it to only has 10... what??? :lol:lol:lol
     
  7. CMANavy

    CMANavy Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,476
    BrundelFly - Could you post pics of your Com? I would love to see that.
     
  8. BrundelFly

    BrundelFly Sr Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Which one?
    My Crappy Marco Ent one that was the first replica I ever bought?
    My Steve Horsch (May he RIP) one?
    The four I made and had signed by "The Fab Four" (Nichols, Koenig,Takei, Doohan) in 1998? Came home from that con to receive horrible family news, threw the coms in a box. I dont think I have looked at them twice since.
    I think I have about 1/2 dozen others including one with some pretty cool sounds/voices.

    One of the funniest things that ever happened to me was a friend sent me pictures of "original" communicators. One of the photos was one I had made from scratch.
    Keep in mind the this was long ago and there was not the plethora of kits and info that exists now. From the right angle, and with vaseline all over the lens, my abomination almost looked decent. Which goes to show ya, the camera is very forgiving, and even something way off can look closer than is warranted.
     
  9. 22 Stars

    22 Stars Member

    Trophy Points:
    181
    I think CMA was asking for pics of your real communicator. I would love to see it too!
     
  10. feek61

    feek61 Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,486
    Well, I'm no expert but I do know how to count and there are more holes across the lid from the screen cap than there are on his replica. He even points out the number on the screen cap and clearly his replica has fewer.
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2012
  11. Galactifan

    Galactifan Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,241
    Cool links. Thanks for posting!
     
  12. BrundelFly

    BrundelFly Sr Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Where did I ever say I had a real one? If I even did, Im not sure I would even say so, because people like me, wouldnt believe it was real anyway.

    So whats the point?

    ;-)
     
  13. CMANavy

    CMANavy Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,476
    Let me introduce my alter ego, Captain Obvious...

    EDIT: caught the ;-)

     
  14. Apollo

    Apollo Legendary Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    5,035
    No offense Bro but go back and re-read the post



     
  15. BrundelFly

    BrundelFly Sr Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    I see the confusion.

    Ironically, it reinforces my point, You can READ something and have it say something completely different than the intent much like seeing something and have it appear differently than reality.

    "Now, I have no idea if this chap owns a real communicator, or not. He probably does,
    I hope he does. I do."

    Poor grammer. Period should have been a Comma.

    "I hope he DOES, I do."
    "I do" should have been read as "I DO HOPE", reinforcing the previous statment.
    "I hope he DOES have a REAL Communicator, I do (hope so for his sake)"
    Because if not, he probably got $$$ BURNED.


    See what I mean? Thanks for bringing that to my attention and letting me clarify.

    Im not the "NANER NANER I GOT ONE YOU DONT! TYPE" Im more of the "DOUBTING THOMAS TYPE" .
     
  16. moffeaton

    moffeaton Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    3,860
    Frank, I have 11 REAL Comms, from the 60s. They have digital watches inside to keep the moires spinning, or something. I forget exactly... the guy in the back alley that sold them to me was talking really fast, and it was dark. They even have "Made in China" stamped on the back, and I think Wah Chang was Chinese or somethin?

    Anywhoo, I'll send you a couple, since I have so many.

    :lol
     
  17. phez

    phez Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,487
    He did get burned on that (I remember there was a big ruckus about the person that sold it too him knowing that it was fake and still selling it).

    The person who owned it before him bought it thinking it was real. Once he found out it was fake he put it on eBay. A bunch of people eLynched him and he pulled the auction. A bit later Gerrold posted pic's of his new "Screen Used" Communicator and it was the fake one that was being passed off as real. Unfortunately he was warned it was fake but did not heed the warning.

    Now days it would be very difficult for him to recover his money on it. There is way too much reference available to pass a forgery that is that far off :rolleyes. It really is not very close to any screen caps that you compare it against (much less Hi-Res pictures of the real ones).

    :lol:lol:lol:lol
     
  18. micdavis

    micdavis Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    3,326
    Isn't it taken as read that if you use the words Expert, Official, or Authority, in your self-proclaimed title, you usually aren't. That's how I usually see it.

    ...and they tend to prove that out over time.
     
  19. Jsimon999

    Jsimon999 Active Member

    Trophy Points:
    361
    I remember coming across one of those pencil boxes in the mid-70's in school. I remember being fascinated by it and thinking there was something oddly familiar about it. I just couldn't put my finger on it.

    Wow. Little did I know it was the basis of the ST TOS communicator. Wah Chang was a genious.

    Jon
     
  20. Apollo

    Apollo Legendary Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    5,035
    He sure was and an Artist as well


     
  21. newworld

    newworld Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    747
    Wah Chang was indeed a genius and artist and every Star Trek fan owes him big-time for inventing so many classic Trek items – tricorders, communicators, aliens – he did it all!

    As to the subject that this thread started with, while Gerald's site is wonder of Star Trek minutia, it is also riddled with mistakes, half-truths and blatantly awful "research". Calling oneself an "authority" does not make it so. Check out the aforementioned "communicator comparison". It's laughably bad. And now that Gerald is a member here (gbg1701) I find his silence on this subject...interesting.
     
  22. phase pistol

    phase pistol Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    2,940
    So say we all. :cheers
     
  23. gbg1701

    gbg1701 Active Member

    Trophy Points:
    330
    Don, you have a very nice web site, BTW! You folks are all certainly entitled to your own opinions; as I am to mine.

    Very Kind Regards,
    Gerald
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2012
  24. feek61

    feek61 Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,486
    Gerald, do you still maintain that your comm is an original?

    Years ago before the information we now have was available; it was much harder to make a definitive identification on screen-used TOS prop (or easier to mistake a screen-used prop for a replica). We as a community are much more able to identify fakes from the real thing. Your comm is obviously and most definitely NOT a screen-used piece. To be honest if you do maintain that your comm is an original; you have lost all credibility and can hardly be considered any sort of authority of TOS props. You have looked for confirming matches on your comm while ignoring obvious evidence to the contrary. A lot of people have spent a ton of money on TOS fakes but you have to call it what it is; a fake.

    I’m not trying to start any sort of fight but I am pointing out the obvious. Your comm; although a nice replica is certainly not screen-used from TOS.
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2012
  25. newworld

    newworld Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    747
    Counting is not subject to opinion. 10 is 10 and 12 is 12 and brilliance is not needed to discern the difference. Only common sense.

    I got taken on a fake once, and when I discovered it I then resold it. As a replica. It sucks but it happens. Ignoring reality doesn't change it, though it can make one look rather pathetic.
     
  26. gbg1701

    gbg1701 Active Member

    Trophy Points:
    330
    Don, I'm not certain why I'm wasting my time in this response; since you most assuredly will find some other stunning "tell" to fixate on as evidence of forgery; but it is not a matter of 10 holes versus 12 holes.

    Here's a pic of my Communicator antenna grid; it does have a more rounded curvature near the sides of the grid that evidently cast an appearance of only 10 holes in that particular photo. Truly, many rows actually have 13 holes ... like the row where I've numbered the individual holes.

    [​IMG]

    I've never claimed my communicator was the exact one seen in that screenshot; in that particular photo I was focusing on a different aspect of its construction (I think the serrated bottom edge of the grid) that matched aspects of screen used construction. Though there are other screenshots with amazingly similar construction faults to my prop - like those on the rear velcro in a different comparison photo. My study established a ton of identical dimensional measurements between my prop and the Allen communicator and a ton of identical construction methodologies -- all of which would seem to be virtually impossible to replicate decades ago given the lower resolution imagery available. I am perfectly content with the expert opinion I do have from true TOS experts and veteran collectors (including Greg Jein as recently as a few years ago) and I'm perfectly content with your dissenting opinion. So be it. I'm certain that no matter how much further discussion we engage in; we won't change each others opinion. So I really have no intent to commence an ongoing dialogue debating all the minutiae with you. I've published much on my site (which you are free to disagree with) where I know I've found faults with the HeroComm agenda ... they denied the existence of those Desilu stunt comms we see the female android crushing in her hand in "I, Mudd" then conveniently modified their facts after being proven wrong; and there are many other screenshots on my site that I believe illustrate non-Wah Chang communicator midplates and manually drilled antenna grids. Those details are even clearer with the new BlueRay DVDs. It's wonderful you have your own different opinions. Just like you were convinced my prop had 10 holes per row ... maybe you still think it does. Live Long and Prosper.

    Gerald
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2012
  27. gbg1701

    gbg1701 Active Member

    Trophy Points:
    330
    I think in this other photo it can be seen there should be some rows in the Paul Allen communicator which also have 13 holes ... factoring in a hidden hole on the right "side" of the antenna grid that is invisible due to the angle of the photo. This is my last post in this thread; I really do not care for an endless debate filled with mean spirited insults directed my way.

    [​IMG]

    I'm glad you derived enjoyment at my expense from the 10 versus 12 issue for the last 8 months or so! Gosh, I would never have thought to try to match the number of holes in a row across the communicator grid!

    Very Kind Regards,
    Gerald
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2012
  28. NormanF

    NormanF Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    2,516
    It is right up there with every other build thread being "definitive".

    Sent from my Etch-A-Sketch
     
  29. feek61

    feek61 Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,486
    Gerald,

    Not sure why you seem so hostile in your response. If I personally owned a screen-used comm I would enjoy and welcome the opportunity to prove to any skeptic its validity. Your comm does not appear an authentic screen-used prop. You obvious believe it is so why not post hi-res photos and open a discussion so that we can all be convinced (even in your photos the shells appear smooth and in the comparison photos with the Dywer; yours is out-of-focus)? The 10 hole verses 12 hole question is on the flat surface before the bends; not across the entire area. Still, depending on where the bend is in relation to the holes;the variation should not be off more than one hole so of course that raises red flags. Your comment regarding Herocomm.com is a little disturbing. Isn't it common practice to modify conclusions based on new information? I think everyone would welcome a legitimate comm, however, just like the Kirk tunic discussion it will have to be proven. So far the information provided on your comm certainly has not done so. The fact that it appears like the many fakes seen over the years and the fact that it has many differences from the other verified screen-uses comms of course makes people skeptical.

    I encourage you to open a debate on this and lets put it to rest. Again, I am not trying to start a fight here but are we not all looking for the truth? I for one would welcome a civilized discussion on this. Perhaps we can all learn: yes?

    Take care,
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2012
  30. Nobby

    Nobby Sr Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    2,261
  31. gbg1701

    gbg1701 Active Member

    Trophy Points:
    330
    Again, not 10 versus 12 because 13 across is the true measure for a piece of grill which has been manually curved at its edges; but here's your 12 along the bottom most row.


    [​IMG]

    Gerald
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2012
  32. Nobby

    Nobby Sr Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    2,261
    You are definitely adding extra holes there!
    We're not talking about the ones around the corner, just the ingress in the flat, unbent piece of grille.
    Why is that so difficult to see and understand??
     
  33. Nobby

    Nobby Sr Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    2,261
    Even your mention of the 'cut holes' doesn't match up between the two pictures!
     
  34. feek61

    feek61 Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,486
    Gerald,

    Is your assertion that your comm was made by the Desilu prop department and is not one of Wah's originals provided to the studio? I seriously don't understand why you would be unwilling to prove your claims of an authentic comm. I think we could all benefit from your knowledge if indeed you can prove the validity of your claim. Without substantial proof however, your claims and quite frankly your credibility are in question. You may not care but leaving things as they are; it certainly damages the perception that you are an expert. I know there are personalities at work here; I understand that but I personally only want to get to the truth. Your comm is unlike any of the verified screen-used comms, looks to have different jewels, antenna difference, etc. We are all curious as to why that is and thus the doubts about the authenticity of your comm. Certainly you can understand that. Please explain why and help us to understand.

    Take Care,
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2012
  35. gbg1701

    gbg1701 Active Member

    Trophy Points:
    330
    Hi Will:
    Desilu made ALL the phasers, Wah Chang admitted to redressing some pistols (adding the thicker silver side bands seen in "The Galileo Seven" phaser locker scene) and some repainting (some after the series completed filming); Desilu made its own Tricorders in addition to the Wah Chang heroes (and performed repairs at the soundstage, even possibly "swapping" components between the Chang models; Desilu built those soft vacuuform hand crushable stunt communicators seen in "I, Mudd" (vehemently and blindly denied to even exist by Herocomm for years before altering portions of their site after proven wrong), and, as I've shown on my site with certain screencaps ... there are Comms seen in TOS which definitely do not have Chang built midplates and have antenna grills with manually drilled holes which would be another hallmark of a non-Chang built communicator. (By the way, speaking of the impeccable known screen-used TOS tricorders - they are a study in the non-Standardization of parts - with silver metal versus gold metal versus silver cloth speaker grills (in the Seamstress model) and leatherette versus vacuuform versus fiberglass versus cardboard - with round sewing pin heads versus crystals - with multiple shaped delta contours on the drawers - and multiple style carrying straps and different TV screens with different aspect ratios, etc. There is actually far less variation in construction between my Comm and a Chang one than one sees across the range of the 100% impeccable different screen used TOS Tricorders. And every time some "brilliant" Internet forum expert proudly presents a "smoking gun" tell to prove a forgery without ever bothering to study a good selection of TOS screen captures, I've come across screenshots to disprove that theory. (I'm thinking of one "brilliant" TOS tricorder screen size claim). Please advise me how my TOS Tricorder hood can be made of 1966 era vacuuform (identifiable by its unique "haircell" fingerprint pattern which changed in the early '70s) and still be a replica.

    Gerald
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2012
  36. YenChih Lin

    YenChih Lin Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,205
  37. gbg1701

    gbg1701 Active Member

    Trophy Points:
    330
    It's such a thrill to deal with folks who think I can't count beyond 10 and that easily proves without a shadow of a doubt that a prop is a replica.

    Gerald
     
  38. feek61

    feek61 Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,486
    Gerald,

    I know that in addition to Wah, the studio built props which is why I asked the question in the first sentence of my last post. I am no stranger to TOS props and certainly I hope you realize that I am someone who does vehement research. I am not a internet troll trying to give you the business. You have not addressed any of the issues at hand with this comm. Can we enter into a civilized dialog and discussion about this. Can you post some hi-res photos? If there is something to learn about the original comms please show us. To be honest right now you are coming off as a person in denial. You are presenting no facts about the validity of your claim and you are going off on things that are not relevant to your comm. What is the problem with proving your claims and entering into a discussion without being so defensive? I'm really trying to understand here; please help.


    Will
     
  39. feek61

    feek61 Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,486
    Is this really necessary? Can we not have a mature conversation about the facts? What is the problem with proving your claims about the comm? Legitimate questions have been asked and you seemingly refuse to address them which is very disturbing coming from a TOS prop authority. On the internet anyone can make bold claims and deflect persistent questions by redirecting the conversation. WHAT ABOUT THE COMM? Why won’t you further the conversation about the comm? Enough of the attacks and petty bickering and lets talk about the comm please!!!!!
     
  40. gbg1701

    gbg1701 Active Member

    Trophy Points:
    330
    There was much in my recent paragraph that you should have realized sets the foundation for the existence of Desilu communicators in TOS; and a couple of points regarding comm screenshots that further establish the presence of non-Wah built comms in TOS. And the build variations found on Desilu manufactured props also leads to direct inferences about comm construction. If you think I totally changed the subject -- you are in your own state of denial or deliberately misrepresenting the tone of my earlier comments. I should certainly have the option of continuing a dialogue or not; and since I have little respect for the methodologies or analytical abilities of those open-minded individuals who were blind and wholly negatively biased in the TOS Shatner / Kirk discussion ... who have the audacity to show a blurry, incorrectly shaped wrinkle and call that a double gusset and then lecture me about my analytical techniques ... I could truly care very little about the opinions of those would would employ such tactics.

    And I should not have to serve up hi-res photos and analysis here that I've already provided in significant detail on my site. I'm sure Mr. Hillenbrand suspects my 12 foot by 10 foot Enterprise D saucer section filming model is a replica as well.

    Gerald
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2012
  41. gbg1701

    gbg1701 Active Member

    Trophy Points:
    330

    And you are apparently just as lacking in impartiality and have negative bias just as the others. It's 13 holes across the unique sheet of antenna grid that is the true measure; because the manually worked corner bends at the bottom can affect the hole count in that last row of holes. And the curvature along the sides (again manually worked) affects the central, flat area hole count.

    Very Best,
    Gerald
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2012
  42. newworld

    newworld Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    747
    What happened to "This really is my last entry"?

    If you wanted to insist that your comm is a real one and that you just hadn't found a match yet, fine. But you haven't done that. You've taken facts and twisted them to your liking, while ignoring the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

    If you can demonstrate how the info in this photo can be reconciled, I for one would be happy to acknowledge your piece as authentic, just as I did with the Kirk tunic once an actual photo match was shown. That is, of course, impossible, but knock yourself out. This image is from YOUR photo which you claim shows an identical comm. Nothing was changed or retouched in any way. Anyone can reproduce these results.

    [​IMG]

    If you are saying that the 2 "missing" holes are around the corner or one is the one in the lower corner, anyone can plainly see that is not the case. The 2 shots are done at a similar enough angle that these should seamlessly match if they were showing the same source material.

    If you claim that these 2 photos show the same comm unit, then that is the end of it. Because that means you are incapable of seeing what the most ignorant person can see. Or more correctly, that you are unwilling to see it. Which is why your title of "Authority" is a joke.

    Had you kept this claim to yourself, then who would care? If you made it on a forum, who would care? But you announce it on your blog under the title of "Authority" and that is somehow supposed to give it weight. Guess again.

    For the record, years ago when Gerald was faced with the well-founded opinion that his piece was not authentic, he then put it on Ebay and tried to get his money back, while simultaneously and KNOWINGLY swindling someone else. That is the behavior of a thief, not an "Authority" and should not be respected in any way.
     
    USS Spaniard likes this.
  43. gbg1701

    gbg1701 Active Member

    Trophy Points:
    330
    If you were in any way attentive to my earlier remarks or the content of my website article; you would know that I in no way claimed my communicator was the same identical communicator in that screenshot -- and I was just comparing certain construction features which were common between the two. That's the absolute truth - which I suspect you actually know but are deliberately trying to misrepresent. It is difficult to write "a last entry in this thread" when I see some followup thoughts that are so ill-conceived and totally misrepresent what I said in my earlier comments -- but I shall try to do so now. By the way, just curious about the provenance on your walking tribble - I think it might be a replica.

    Kind Regards,
    Gerald

    And, as is usual for you, Don, you have misrepresented the facts about ebay. You can't win on an objective analysis of the facts; so you become profane and attempt character assassination. It is quite apparent why you have been banned in some internet forums.
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2012
  44. feek61

    feek61 Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,486
    Gerald,

    I have tried openly to discuss your claims about your comm without attack. I am sorry that you have decided to attack me apparently because I don't agree with you and because I want to see proof. I have been respectful to you and I only am asking for facts and proof which you seem unwilling to provide. Why?

    You say: And the build variations found on Desilu manufactured props also leads to direct inferences about comm construction.

    These are well known facts with other props but have never been proven with the comms. Are you using this "inference" as part of your proof? We all know a crude crushable comm was made for "I Mudd" but where are the others that confirm your assertions? That is why I am interested in your comm. In any case you obviously are not serious and could careless about proving your claims which is very strange behavior for someone making the claims that you are making. Your refusal to prove what you are saying is typical of internet B.S. Put your money where your mouth is and quit making the personal attacks and misdirected post and talk specifically about the comm. I can only guess that you are afraid that the truth will devalue what you think you have.

    Why wouldn't you take this opportunity to prove that your comm is authentic? The blurry photos on your site prove nothing but you certainly have an open door here to prove the doubters wrong. I am hoping that you do that here with a reasonable tone and act like the "authority" that you say you are instead of continuing to hurl insults and accusations while side-stepping the subject at hand. Why are you avoiding proving your claims?

    Be the professional you claim to be.
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2012
    USS Spaniard likes this.
  45. gbg1701

    gbg1701 Active Member

    Trophy Points:
    330
    Yes, Will.
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2012
  46. feek61

    feek61 Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,486
    Gerald,

    I am disappointed with the above response. You obviously are not serious about this discussion and most definitely are not a professional. Typical internet behavior and I must say I expected more from you. Your unwillingness to prove what you say completely discredits you. I gave you the respect and opportunity to prove what you have with the comm but you cant seem to understand that or perhaps you know what you have and can't prove what you are saying. Your position as any type of "authority" is very much in question but your perception as a professional is very clear; you are not. I was trying to help you and your reputation by giving you a stage to prove your assertions. I am sorry to say that I guess what they say about you is true. In any event I act like a professional and deal with professionals which you sir certainly do not act like; so adieu.

    Please prove this with screen caps if you can: "and a couple of points regarding comm screenshots that further establish the presence of non-Wah built comms in TOS"
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2012
  47. newworld

    newworld Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    747
    Thanks. Since it's a dead ringer for yours, I was afraid it might be. The difference between you and me is that I'm actually trying to figure out whether or not it's real.

    I see you chose your words carefully. You are correct. I went from memory and I should know by now that I should never do that. It was actually a fake Tricorder and you were trying to sell it on the Prop, Costume & Auction Forum, not Ebay. My apologies for misrepresenting your sale – it was not my intent. I also note that as a result of that attempted sale, you were banned from that Forum and your new best friend Alec had this to say at the time:

    "he is very insistent that ME (Mark English, well-known prop forger) does not exist and that his fakes are real. He was a real pain in the * on my forum, and as pointed out, refuses to accept logic or fact."

    And you also have my apologies for misconstruing your photo. I took this statement:

    "Several might even be deemed sufficient to establish a perfect match with a particular on screen prop; "

    to mean you were showing matches, but you are correct – "several" does not mean "all". Since that's not the case, but only SOME are matches, please show us which ones. Again, I do NOT want to put words in your mouth. Please show us a shot like this:

    [​IMG]

    Similar shots were shown of the Kirk tunic which finally proved the claim. If you can do this same thing here you will have my sincere admiration and heartfelt congratulations.

    And BTW, I'm banned from ONE forum because I choose to be. If the Emperor has no clothes, I'll be damned if I'll say otherwise.
     
  48. gbg1701

    gbg1701 Active Member

    Trophy Points:
    330
    Do you mean my Tricorder which just happens to be made of 1966 Vacuuform???

    [​IMG]

    The haircell pattern changed in the early '70s. Go read up about TOS tricorders on my site, Don. You may learn something. Mine are absolutely authentic.
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2012
  49. gbg1701

    gbg1701 Active Member

    Trophy Points:
    330
    The good thing, if any, about all this very good natured and highly diplomatic debate is that I completed my 20 post requirement as a new member rather quickly.

    Gerald
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2012
  50. gbg1701

    gbg1701 Active Member

    Trophy Points:
    330
    Don, the color of the fur on your walking tribble looks nothing like mine and appears quite different from all the tribble fur visible in TOS screenshots. Going from memory, I think the photo on your site showed some distinct yellowish regions. Please provide an episode screencap to absolutely confirm authenticity. (And please don't show the one with the yellow-ish looking tribble in the food replicator that actually is proved to have white fur in the very next screenshot when the tray is removed from the replicator.) Did I mention my dog has adorable white fur ... could make a fine tribble!

    Gerald
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2012

Share This Page