"Star Wars" blaster prop sells for more than $1M

[gunnerk19]

Alright, which one of y'all is this?

Han shot first: ‘Star Wars’ blaster prop sells for more than $1M​

 

[Tommy]

Already a dedicated thread (you're in for a fun read!):

Han Solo ANH Blaster From RIA, Prev on Pawn Stars

So, supposedly the original Han ANH blaster is going to be on Pawn Stars https://ew.com/tv/2019/12/23/pawn-stars-han-solo-blaster-star-wars-exclusive/ Thoughts?

www.therpf.com

Long story short:
The auction house presented virtually nothing to back up their claims about the base C96 gun apart from an uncorroborated second-hand memory as told by the consignor. The scope/mount are mostly original; the rest seems to have been wishful thinking.

 

[bobasfett]

Sad. I haven't read the auction verbiage and am taking you at your word, so I wonder what recourse the buyer would have should they find out later on that it was a misrepresentation.

 

[Vagabond Elf]

Sad. I haven't read the auction verbiage and am taking you at your word, so I wonder what recourse the buyer would have should they find out later on that it was a misrepresentation.

I haven't read the other thread either, so I don't know what the evidence is for that not being one of the original props. But looking at the auction, the serial number of the weapon is still readable, and Bapty is claiming that said serial matches their records for what was rented to Lucasfilm in 1976. On the strength of that, then, Rock Island hasn't misrepresented anything, so the buyer would have no recourse from them.

If it truly is a misrepresentation, the buyer would have to establish, in court, that:

a) Bapty's claim that this weapon was rented by LucasFilm is incorrect, and

b) that Bapty's knew or should have known that fact before they listed the weapon, or

c) that whoever consigned the weapon to the auction house knew that this was untrue.

Establishing those two things would give rise to a claim for negligence. If the buyer can also establish that Bapty's deliberately misrepresented the truth, that would give rise to a claim for fraud. Either of those claims would probably allow the buyer to get their money back, either from Bapty's or from the consignor, and might allow them to recover the costs of their suit. Of course, if they go after Bapty's they'd probably have to sue in the States and then sue again for Enforcement of Foreign Judgement in the England & Wales. (The United Kingdom is not a single jurisdiction for civil suits.)

That, of course, is assuming that the buyer and the consigner can't come to a deal without involving lawsuits.

 

[Tommy]

Sad. I haven't read the auction verbiage and am taking you at your word, so I wonder what recourse the buyer would have should they find out later on that it was a misrepresentation.

I haven't read the other thread either, so I don't know what the evidence is for that not being one of the original props. But looking at the auction, the serial number of the weapon is still readable, and Bapty is claiming that said serial matches their records for what was rented to Lucasfilm in 1976. On the strength of that, then, Rock Island hasn't misrepresented anything, so the buyer would have no recourse from them.

It's probably best to continue this in the already-established thread (it's been going since a 2019 appearance on Pawn Stars).

If you'd like a rough summary (albeit still lengthy), I posted a letter I wrote in a fruitless attempt to reach out to journalists:

Han Solo ANH Blaster From RIA, Prev on Pawn Stars

Feel free to ask any questions in that thread, and someone will be more than happy to offer clarification.

To answer your current points, though:

Regarding the buyer, I suspect they're either a fool who's going to be convinced no matter what, or a billionaire who just decided "screw it, I want the screen-used scope regardless of the cost." So my guess is either they don't care, or they already know. The red flags should have been obvious to any prospective buyer, several of them even without any prior familiarity with the DL-44. The REAL people who have been misled are the fans - the thousands of convention visitors who've walked away thinking they definitively saw Han's original blaster. That's what's sad. Many of their claims do still remain theoretically plausible, but that's a far stretch from "undoubted."

Regarding serial numbers, no one - neither Bapty nor the auction house - claimed this serial number matches any records. No such records appear to survive (or at least they have yet to come to light). Only two DL-44s are known to have existed: one blank-fire hero used in the UK (with a known non-matching serial number based on production photos) and one reconstruction built in the US on a MGC replica for close-up insert shots in the Cantina scene (which also clearly does not match the auction lot based on production photos). There isn't even evidence that there were stunts. So this auction's claim is of a completely previously unknown and undocumented hero just appearing out the blue with almost nothing to back it up.

I hope this helps, and again, there's a wealth of information available on the other thread.

 

[kpax]

But hey. The scope IS original!