Star Trek Prop Authority

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.

apollo said:

He sure was and an Artist as well

Click to expand...

So say we all. :cheers

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

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.

gbg1701 said:

How dare he disagree with the omnipotent and brilliant mind of Dhan; thereby invoking "The Wrath of Dhan!!!"
Don, you have a very nice web site, BTW! You folks are all certainly entitled to your own opinions; as I am to mine.
Gerald

Click to expand...

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.

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.



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

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.



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

micdavis said:

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.

Click to expand...

It is right up there with every other build thread being "definitive".

Sent from my Etch-A-Sketch

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,

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.




Gerald

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??

Even your mention of the 'cut holes' doesn't match up between the two pictures!

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,

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

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

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

gbg1701 said:

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

Click to expand...

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!!!!!

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