Slashdot Mirror
Trekkie Sues Christie's for Fraudulent Props
Token_Internet_Girl passed us a link to an MSNBC article on a very disappointed Star Trek fan. Mr. Moustakis of NJ bought a poker visor he thought was worn by Data in Next Generation at a Christie's auction for some $6,000. When he brought it to a convention to have it signed, actor Brent Spiner explained that he'd already sold the well-known visor in a personal sale; like Senator Vreenak, Moustakis had been given a fake. "Christie's spokesman Rik Pike stood behind the authenticity of the auction and said the disgruntled buyer's case had no merit. The lawsuit, filed in state court in Manhattan, demands millions of dollars in punitive damages and a refund for the visor and two other items Moustakis bought at the 2006 auction."
Without knowing the details intimately, I'm sure if he would have been offered a prompt refund instead of a denial from Christie's we wouldn't be talking about here on /.
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask where they're goin' and hook up with 'em later.
In TFA, plaintiff's attorney claims "It's negligent misrepresentation." To me (and as far as I know, the law) negligence is not exercising the due care expected of one, given the wider standards of due care that other people or businesses take in similar situations. Supposing that plaintiff's merchandise is indeed fake, I would argue that it is surely appropriate to begin a process of discovery, to determine if Christies was negligent. One does have to wonder how they sold at auction fake merchandise, and what process they used to make sure it wasn't fake. This is something that they have every imperative to avoid.
Christies does have the opportunity to avoid the discovery process. They could settle, and probably should. Having the world find out that they auctioned off fake merchandise, however inadvertently, is damaging to their reputation per se, as is continuing press on the matter.
C//
I found a web site where someone posted they were interested in the same item until the Chrisitie's auctioneer noted that it was a spare visor and never worn. Here is the web site: http://www.originalprop.com/blog/ Relevant section quoted in another post below. At any rate, it would appear, if this other post is true, that Chrisitie's accurately represented the item and Moustakis is paying the price for not paying attention.
Here is what most people don't understand about this:
Most film/TV props are NOT unique. Even for a single use, usually 5 or 6 copies are made, mainly to ensure that there is no delay in the event of breakage. (Extra Prop == $$$$, Delay == $$$$$$$)
So the filmshoot or series ends and the props wind up scattered to the winds... some go into the prop houses' cavernous closets; some get lifted by cast or crew; some are thrown in the trash and salvaged by random persons. And people soon forget that other copies exist, or in the case of folks not in the biz, never knew that in the first place.
Eventually, one or more of these MULTIPLE COPIES makes its way to the collectibles market. Since extra copies exist, situations like this one sometimes arise (this isn't the first I've heard about; indeed, it's not the first reported here on slashdot), where everyone swears they alone have THE ONE TRUE PROP.
So... chances are that BOTH are genuine; that is, were made for the show. Chances are also good that only one was ever worn by Brent Spiner, and he may have never seen or known of others.
The collectibles dealer usually has no way to know how many copies of a given prop exist; all they have is a general provenance, such as that it was known to be a discard from a given production.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
The guy has enough of an obsession that he spent $24,000 on mostly Data props, and Brent Spiner told him he was ripped off. I doubt his feelings of humiliation are based on who else was in the line.