"I, Mudd" Star Trek TOS necklace on Ebay – the real deal?

There's a piece on Ebay that is claimed to be an original prop from TOS. Since most of those claims turn out to be bogus, I thought I'd check it out and see what I could see.

Get the full story here:

wrathofdhanprops

it's the real deal. I use to have a few.

newworld said:

There's a piece on Ebay that is claimed to be an original prop from TOS. Since most of those claims turn out to be bogus, I thought I'd check it out and see what I could see.

Get the full story here:

wrathofdhanprops

Click to expand...

Yep...sure is real.

TOS stuff is so hard to get, but I don't really care for this one.

Somebody will love it........

Amazing to me when people say it with such conviction.

There have been some pretty good replicas that can easily be aged down to look identical.

Nothing wrong with some healthy skepticism.

NCC1968 said:

Yep...sure is real.

TOS stuff is so hard to get, but I don't really care for this one.

Somebody will love it........

Click to expand...

Guess it depends on what/who ya know as to how a given question will be answered.

But yeah....question everything........

Just how many did they make of number 118? The one they compare it to in that article is certainly not the same one, so is that the light-up version? Clearly the 1's are spaced differently and there's a step around the edge of the screen version and the EBay prop is rounded.

So I'm not clear on why it is certain to be real. Is it because others have pieces that match the Ebayer's version? Seems there would be a better screen match to use than that one. Unfortunately, I don't have that episode handy.:rolleyes

Edit: Ok, checked the photos on EBay and I realize now there's a 118 on both sides, but the screen capture must be the lit-up version. It does look legit though. The chain seems to match.

The first 2 posters are both in the top 5 people I'd ask..............that helps LOL

Rylo said:

There have been some pretty good replicas that can easily be aged down to look identical.

Click to expand...

Really? Then by all means show us one. I've seen many replicas, all of which were very nice but none of which were 100% accurate.

Due to those that might try to pass a replica as real, I have kept my observations to a general level. There's 2 specific tells that I don't even mention that no replica gets right. The Ebay version does.

So with that said, please show us a replica that can match a screen version perfectly, aside of the aging. I, for one, would be very interested in seeing something I've never seen before. I enjoy learning new things.

Rylo said:

Nothing wrong with some healthy skepticism.

Click to expand...

Of course not. Which is how I approached identifying this piece – very skeptically. I assume all TOS pieces are fake until they prove otherwise. But once you've put in the due diligence and identified it for what it is, skepticism is no longer possible.

If you don't think my evaluation is worthwhile, no problem. To each their own.

newworld said:

...... But once you've put in the due diligence and identified it for what it is, skepticism is no longer possible.

If you don't think my evaluation is worthwhile, no problem. To each their own.

Click to expand...

In an analysis regarding this pendant, in respect of 2 of these being made, elsewhere on the net, you said :

"BTW, this number had to have at least 2 versions made, since 118 is the number worn by the 2 girls that talk with Chekov and they both appear in the same frame. And they would never have made light-up versions that were not needed, IMO, due to cost and turnaround. We know how tight things were."

Screencaps say the following





While I personally think it is possible that two of these were made, I think one aught to take more care when making statements based on 'due diligence'.

Forgive me if I therefore remain skeptical.

I am not disputing the pendant's authenticity, but I would certainly not buy this item based on the certainty of it being authentic, particularly based on one of the premises that is erroneous.

the necklace is definitely authentic.....i made it myself

Don't get me wrong Michael, I'm not disputing authenticity.

The only thing I can ascertain with 100% certainty is that the one on sale is not the one that lit up, as in fact claimed by the seller herself.

This is the one on sale (auction pics)



It is clear that the pendant has decals on both sides (missing tip & erosion on the other side)

However, the one that lit up had a 'lip / step' at the top, which the one on sale does not have on either one of the sides.

i was joking....haha

just find it so funny how some people can be so adamant that it is screen-used when others have good reason to believe it is a replica....PIH and Juliens always comes to mind

it just sucks sometimes when you cant tell if it is screenused or not....and it sucks more buying "an authentic item" and then finding out it is a replica....

maybe some one can ask the member Linnear on what he thinks....i believe he is a star trek archivist for paramount

EvilRocketeer said:

maybe some one can ask the member Linnear on what he thinks....

Click to expand...

On the count, it seems this time that Don & Alec are in agreement.

The Star Trek Prop, Costume & Auction Blog: I. Mudd Necklace on eBay

The following is just a ramble, meaning nothing except asking questions that I think are interesting about this prop in general, and that maybe someone with more insight can shed some light on.

/end disclaimer/

--------------------------------------------------------

I have unfortunately been unable to screen-match the pendant for sale. I scoured the episode to try and match at least the decals from either side of the ebay one to a cap, but none of the other 118's are of any quality that would allow a certain match to be made.

We do know, however, that the clearest screencap of the lit 118 is not the one on sale on ebay.

Yet, what I did notice from the episode is that there are many more numbers that are seen in off and lit up mode.

There are, at a glance, 7 more that are seen off and lit - 1, 471, 2, 27, 210, 11, 3, besides the 118.

Did they produce 8 light & non-light up versions of the same numbers, their budget being restricted & all ? Those things must have cost a small fortune in those days.

If not, then why was 118 an exception and 2 were made of that ?

Or did they simply remove and replace the decals on one or two light-up versions to use in different scenes ? I did not notice more than 2 lit-up at the same time in any part of the episode. I of course stand to be corrected because I got dizzy eventually :wacko

If they had invested in 8 light-up versions, wouldn’t it have been reasonable to assume a scene would have all 8 lit-up on screen ?

If the 118 on sale cannot be matched to the screencap that shows it clearly has the 'lip / step' and is not the same one .... why should I, based on the above speculations, believe that 2 of each were made ?

So again, if not, then why was 118 an exception and 2 were made of that ?

Even if there may have been confusion about a particular scene, in the Kirk scene, similar to the Chekov scene, the numbers are different. No two 118's.



Did they all have decals on both sides ?

I cannot fathom why if that were the case.

Again, then why does the 118 on sale have them on both sides ?

Would they have made non-light up versions that could open / were hollow, like this 188 on sale ?

Wouldn't it have been cheaper to make one or two hollow light-up versions and the rest solid ?

-------------------------------------

Questions questions

Although I would not dare to claim anything concrete about the authenticity of the prop on sale on ebay, my speculation, considering all the above, is that if the prop on ebay is genuine, it was a production / test piece.

That is the only speculation that would fit into the answers I gave myself in reply to my own questions.

..... and that is also why I collect only replicas.

At least, barring screen-matches, I am always 100% certain that they are authentic .... replicas

Alan Castillo said:

While I personally think it is possible that two of these were made, I think one aught to take more care when making statements based on 'due diligence'.

Click to expand...

Thanks – I stand corrected. However, my due diligence has NOTHING to do with that screen cap that I erroneously referred to. It's all about construction and details that never show up correctly on a replica.

I first started examining these several years ago and developed a fingerprint for production-made versions. This fits that fingerprint and no replica that I've ever seen does so.

I have no need or desire to convince anyone of anything since I have no horse in this race. I've offered an educated opinion. Take it or leave it as you please.

newworld said:

Thanks – I stand corrected. However, my due diligence has NOTHING to do with that screen cap that I erroneously referred to.

Click to expand...

Due diligence means researching something thoroughly, and not saying things you are not sure of.

It does not show due diligence when you claim with certainty that 2 of these were made, because 2 of the same appeared in a scene, and that is not the case.

That said, anyone can make a mistake and its not the end of the world.

My point was not to claim something without being 100% sure, nothing else.

Rylo's skepticism was justified. You did not need to be so condescending towards him in your reply to his post.

Plank out of one's eye and all that.

newworld said:

I first started examining these several years ago and developed a fingerprint for production-made versions. This fits that fingerprint and no replica that I've ever seen does so.

Click to expand...

I know you already said that you won't reveal the 'secrets' that identify the authenticity of original pendants, so I won't even ask what they are.

Many have come to expect this sort of secretive mannerism that unfortunately is a habit of many 'erudites'.

Many take it as divine knowledge.

Personally, it always makes me doubt what is being said, as I am not in the habit of swallowing whatever is fed to me.

newworld said:

I have no need or desire to convince anyone of anything since I have no horse in this race. I've offered an educated opinion. Take it or leave it as you please.

Click to expand...

Horse or no horse, bottom line is that you created this thread to give your educated opinion.

If you are unwilling to divulge concrete evidence, then please forgive those of us who remain with doubts in their minds.

That is how I take it.

Always funny when the "Experts" get fooled.

I know of this piece but unless I could Physically examine it, pics and screencaps be damned, no way would I put my rep on the line saying it is "Authentic"

Alan Castillo said:

Rylo's skepticism was justified. You did not need to be so condescending towards him in your reply to his post.

Click to expand...

So my statements need to be backed with 100% certainty, but others do not? Rylo said:

"There have been some pretty good replicas that can easily be aged down to look identical."

That is an absolute statement, and I'd simply like to see proof of it. I wasn't being condescending – for all I know there's actually a replica out there that can stand up to scrutiny. If so, I'd like to know about it. But you demand no proof from him, whereas everything I say seems to be suspect. I am apparently a ****** for not revealing everything I know:

Alan Castillo said:

I know you already said that you won't reveal the 'secrets' that identify the authenticity of original pendants, so I won't even ask what they are.

Many have come to expect this sort of secretive mannerism that unfortunately is a habit of many 'erudites'.

Many take it as divine knowledge.

Personally, it always makes me doubt what is being said, as I am not in the habit of swallowing whatever is fed to me.

Click to expand...

Now THAT is condescending. I won't put info out there that makes it easier for forgers to fake something, it's just that simple. I think it's irresponsible. Obviously you disagree. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

That said, the tells for this piece aren't exactly rocket science to figure out. It just takes some observation.

I never ask people to simply take my word for anything. Everyone has the exact same opportunities to educate themselves about a piece as I have, and that's exactly what I always recommend. If my opinion spurs interest, great. But everyone needs to do their own research and satisfy things for themselves and I've never said otherwise. Here and on my Blog, I emphasize education, first, last and always.

Obviously you think me a dilettante who knows nothing. No problem.

Apollo said:

Always funny when the "Experts" get fooled.

Click to expand...

Been there, had that done to me on things I didn't know enough about. This isn't one of those things.

No worries Don, we'll just agree to disagree :thumbsup

Have you physically handled the Prop in question on Auction?