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

Quote: "skepticism is no longer possible."

Good lord, man...what does that even mean??

Moving forward:

That necklace could easily be faked if one were so inclined. As for proving it. Why? There's no money in it so why bother? The earth can be flat if you want it to be my man; no concern of mine. Hell, I'll forget to even look at this thread again for days.

That said, I know it frightens the Trek enthusiast, but a ratty piece that was cobbled together decades ago hardly poses a challenge to any dedicated prop maker with the proper tools.

You are of course aware that technology makes it possible to literally wave an electronic wand over "any" object and it can be sent to print in any material one chooses, right? I can trace an engine block in an hour and make a duplicate in an afternoon without ever lifting a pen. You don't think a piece of plastic on a chain somehow poses a challenge do you?

The chain for the necklace is the only difficult part of this prop but it too is readily available without the frosted links. I have a spool of it in my tool box!

All one need do is sandblast and reassemble for an identical finish. Water slide decals would do the rest. My position of 'devils advocate' is not to say that the piece at auction is or isn't real, but to simply suggest, healthy skepticism is a good thing and if someone wants it bad enough, "Anything could be faked."

Again, I'm not interested in proving the point. I have a 20 year pedigree that rather suggests I could if I wanted to which is as far as I need go with regard to this particular piece. Rogue prop makers have wreaked havoc in the collectors market for decades. I maintain that without irrefutable provenance, the visual identification of any such piece is nothing more than worthless speculation.

Let me say that again so it's perfectly clear. I maintain that without irrefutable provenance, the "visual identification" of any such piece is nothing more than worthless speculation.

-Rylo

newworld said:

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.


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.

Click to expand...

Apollo said:

Have you physically handled the Prop in question on Auction?

Click to expand...

Of course not. So now you'll say "then you can't know for sure". And I'll agree. I can't know 100%. All I can do is make an educated conclusion, nothing more. I've presented my case. If you disagree, no problem, I can totally respect that.

Rylo said:

Let me say that again so it's perfectly clear. I maintain that without irrefutable provenance, the "visual identification" of any such piece is nothing more than worthless speculation.

Click to expand...

Rylo, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, honestly. I know that anything can be faked, especially Trek stuff. That said, I've never seen a replica of this that totally matches the known production versions 100%. Not saying it can't be done, only that I've never seen one. Ever. If you have, cool.

On the flip side, this has no inconsistencies with a production made piece. Does that mean it's a 100% certainty that it is indeed production-made? Nope. Perhaps a forger figured out what the found item was that these were made from along with the specific chain and created this version. That is not beyond the realm of possibility and if I have implied that it is, I apologize for that. It was not my intent.

But for my money – and that's what we're talking about here, my money and reputation – given what I know of the production pieces, I think this is the real thing. And I don't think it's a stretch to come to that conclusion. Respectfully, if you do, no problem.

No actually I was going to say that one should be cautious about offering ones opinion on a piece they have not examined in person.

Back in the day quite a few Experts were fooled even after personally examining certain props


Having collected TOS Screen-used props since the 70's, I can say that in todays market with so much info out there, and the level of tools and technology, if one were so inclined this piece could easily be faked to where I am certain a few of us would be fooled

newworld said:

Of course not. So now you'll say "then you can't know for sure". And I'll agree. I can't know 100%. All I can do is make an educated conclusion, nothing more. I;ve presented my case. If you disagree, no problem, I can totally respect that.

Click to expand...

Even then, bullet proof, irrefutable provenance should be required, otherwise it's a best guess.

I'm called on regularly to label something as 'screen used' and I don't put my name on **** without solid documentation. I value my reputation more than that and anyone who plans to be in this game for the long haul should operate in a similar manor.

I consider it reckless and damaging to the hobby/market when "any" self proclaimed expert presumes to grade a prop on merely visual identification. Now, one can indeed make an educated guess and sometimes that's as good as it gets, but I wouldn't put my name and reputation on a guess...that's rather the point.

There's a big difference between attesting to something as 100% screen used and saying, " I think it's real based on these reference pics..."

It's a leap of faith on the part of the collector at this point. Is 'close' good enough? Is, "I'm pretty sure it's real" good enough for your insurance company?

Regardless. Can it be faked? Yes, of course. Is it fake? I don't know. All we've got is a story and loose provenance. I prefer safer bets, is all.

Having handled what I believe to have been a screen used necklace; if someone solicited my opinion on this particular prop, I still wouldn't "guarantee" it's authenticity based on everything I've already said. It does look right, the patina is correct, the chain is correct, the numbers appear to be the proper 'letraset' from the 60's; which is what many consider to be the 'tell' on these.

All of that being said, I'd still need more by way of documentation before labeling it as 100% authentic. I simply can't look at a piece like this without thinking, "I could make it, if I wanted it" and the simple fact that there are bandits in the woods makes me skeptical.

-Rylo

Apollo said:

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"

Click to expand...

Me too!

You know what would be handy would be an Ax-Gun.

You could shoot the bandits AND chop wood for the fire!!

Rylo said:

there are bandits in the woods makes me skeptical.

Click to expand...

Rylo said:

There's a big difference between attesting to something as 100% screen used and saying, " I think it's real based on these reference pics..."
-Rylo

Click to expand...

I agree, which is what I thought I did. I never said "screen-used" but gave my reasons for feeling it was original.

But you make a good point here, and I made a rather glaring error in my original Blog post – I declared it real without saying "in my opinion". And that is a real issue. I go on to say why, but I should always stick to the fact that I'm giving an opinion and that opinion could be wrong. Opinion is not fact, and I never meant to imply any "guarantee", only educated insight.

Please know that I didn't casually look at this auction and do a write-up. I've researched these things for several years and compiled a lot of info on such a small piece. Only then did I form my conclusion.

I'll go on record saying that I can't state it's 100% authentic. Only that I think it is for the reasons I have given.

newworld said:

I agree, which is what I thought I did. I never said "screen-used" but gave my reasons for feeling it was original.

But you make a good point here, and I made a rather glaring error in my original Blog post – I declared it real without saying "in my opinion". And that is a real issue. I go on to say why, but I should always stick to the fact that I'm giving an opinion and that opinion could be wrong. Opinion is not fact, and I never meant to imply any "guarantee", only educated insight.

Please know that I didn't casually look at this auction and do a write-up. I've researched these things for several years and compiled a lot of info on such a small piece. Only then did I form my conclusion.

I'll go on record saying that I can't state it's 100% authentic. Only that I think it is for the reasons I have given.

Click to expand...

Nobody is perfect, but many people trust you and your methods as much as anyone.

newworld said:

I agree, which is what I thought I did. I never said "screen-used" but gave my reasons for feeling it was original.

But you make a good point here, and I made a rather glaring error in my original Blog post – I declared it real without saying "in my opinion". And that is a real issue. I go on to say why, but I should always stick to the fact that I'm giving an opinion and that opinion could be wrong. Opinion is not fact, and I never meant to imply any "guarantee", only educated insight.

Please know that I didn't casually look at this auction and do a write-up. I've researched these things for several years and compiled a lot of info on such a small piece. Only then did I form my conclusion.

I'll go on record saying that I can't state it's 100% authentic. Only that I think it is for the reasons I have given.

Click to expand...

Don, please point me to the place on your blog where I can stick half a dozen Gold Stars for this post :cool

:thumbsup

There ya go, much better. :thumbsup

-Rylo

newworld said:

But you make a good point here, and I made a rather glaring error in my original Blog post – I declared it real without saying "in my opinion". And that is a real issue. I go on to say why, but I should always stick to the fact that I'm giving an opinion and that opinion could be wrong.

Opinion is not fact, and I never meant to imply any "guarantee", only educated insight.

I'll go on record saying that I can't state it's 100% authentic. Only that I think it is for the reasons I have given.

Click to expand...

That was my problem as well with what you posted.

Alls well that ends well!

newworld said:

I made a rather glaring error in my original Blog post – I declared it real without saying "in my opinion". And that is a real issue.

Click to expand...

Cool! thumbsup:thumbsup

There are two ways you can authenticate a TOS prop.

1) Screenmatch

2) Provenance

I have not done any work on # 1. But I have read everything and some people do a great job and some don't. You can never be 100% sure when there aren't definitive screencaps. Of course, some "experts" have denied authenticity even with definitive screencaps of items. The discussion here is excellent.

As to # 2, from what I understand, the piece came from Greg Jein, the # 1 collector of TOS props out there. Greg has the original Hero Phaser, a Cage Laser, and a ton of TOS costumes. He has been collecting longer than anyone I know, and wisely, doesn't authenticate any TOS items anymore.


There is good detective work and there is mediocre work. And I think anyone can do the same quality detective work if they put in the effort. Some guy who only started screencapping props in the past couple years doesn't have any more credibility than any one of the regular members here in my book. And 95% of Star Trek collectors only started within the past 6 1/2 years. What you need is PROCESS and LOGIC. You need to understand what you need to do and what conclusions you can draw. And then you need to be OPEN MINDED.

Also, how many people can you get to concur? Do people agree with your conclusions and your process? When I authenticated the Kirk tunic, I worked with 3 different experienced Star Trek costume people. (and hell, it wasn't until I screen matched the tunic that I believed their unanimous judgment that is WAS Kirk's).

I would much rather have a bunch of people work together, and challenge each other, than take the word of someone who holds themselves out as an "expert". I have never claimed to be an expert (despite some claiming I have). But I know a lot of people who have a lot of experience who I rely on. TOS costumes? I have a group of very experienced people I go to. TNG era props? I have another group of prop makers who I go to. There are real experts who have been doing this for decades I would rely on. Rarely do they come to this forum.

BUT screenmathcing and logical reasoning are not the provenance of any one group. Anyone can do that and a lot of you have here. That is why I have sat back and watched.

Conclusions? I am pretty sure it is real from everything I have heard and read. But that is only good for me. I wouldn't state that for anyone but me to rely on. But I think the discussion here is good and allows anyone interested to make up their mind when you take in everyone's opinion.

And writing a blog doesn't make me or anyone else an "expert". It means we have free time.

Alec

Wow! The I Mudd necklace just went for $3673.00...nice. I think it went cheap.

Anyone here get it?