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."
If it's fake, he should get his money back, but damages? What was damaged? His fantasy of pretending he's Data while playing poker with somebody in a Whorf costume? Or was it his hope to resell the visor for a ton more movney on eBay once it was signed by Spiner?
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
And I was so hoping to buy a real phaser at 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.
I am certainly a major trekkie myself
...
;-)
IT IS A FLIPPING GREEN TRANSLUCENT VISOR!
Well proven, my friend!
I have to admit, I know the episode, but couldn't actually have described the visor off the top of my head.
Value these days is indeed anticipatory. If you bought a house that was guaranteed to be atop a famous grave, that purchase is more or less an investment. If it turned out that John Q. Public was underneath, that would be bad for business. Similarly, if you bought a stock based on reports from cooked books, you'd have a similar gripe.
What's interesting about this is, does value equal what you thought you could make, or the price you paid for whatever you bought? This guy was in a line with (at best) 10 people in earshot of what was said, not quite worth what he's suing for if the merit is based entirely on the buyer being 'humiliated'.
Something tells me this lawsuit could have been better if a lawyer wasn't so eager to grasp at straws. It looks like the guy was sold a fake, nonetheless, so avoiding that auction house until this is settled might be a good idea.
Was looking for information about a duplicate set of Dorothy's ruby slippers (I think there was a similar thing about them - a couple of pairs - one worn and one not - and this web page came up:
;-)
http://www.originalprop.com/blog/
Quote:
"Coincidentally, the visor that is referenced in the article as the piece Spiner told the collector was not his visor, was a piece I was interested in for myself at the time of the auction. I had asked a friend in attendance to place a bid for me. After reading this story, I immediately remembered that the auctioneer had noted, before opening the item for bids, that there was an updated description for the item, and that it was made for the show/character, but was not the one seen/used. I don't have the exact quote from the live webcast, but my note on a private forum at the time (we were making notes and discussing in real time) was as follows:
I asked Brandon to bid $1600 on Data's visor (up now)...
Not even worn! I'm okay to miss that one then!
Because this was broadcast on the web and via the History Channel on television, I'm sure the exact remarks by the Christies auctioneer/representative prior to bids placed will have an impact on this case."
End Quote...
If this is true then the guy probably has no case but does have an expensive spiffy green visor.
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//
"Christie's spokesman, a Ferengi trader of rare and unusual items..."
I might have known!
Michael Reed, freelance tech writer.
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?
He's also complaining about a uniform he bought. FTA: "He said that . . . the uniform appeared to be one of several made for the program, not a one-of-a-kind, as [he] believed it to be."
It's possible that this guy was mislead about or misunderstood the rarity of these costume items, but either way, I believe it's incorrect to claim that they're fraudulent.
Speaking from personal experience, there are no "one-of-a-kind" spacesuits for regular cast members, because the studio needed to have several doubles in case one of our costumes got dirty or damaged in some way (I once fell while running to the set, and tore the knee out of my hideous gray suit from Season 2, for example.) We never had just one of anything, unless it was expensive to make, or for a guest star who was appearing in just one show.
This guy also says that Brent told him that the visor he bought wasn't the one Brent wore, because Brent already sold that one years ago. Again, Brent could have been talking about a visor from Best of Both Worlds, and this guy got a visor from All Good Things, or something like that.
It doesn't make sense that CBS an Christie's would defraud fans the way this guy alleges, and I think it's more likely that this guy has buyer's remorse, and is looking for a way to get his money back.
Look I know its a long shot but has anyone considered its Data who might be the one lying? He might have sold tons of these to make some cash. I know hes a machine and they cant tell lies but he gets more and more human all the time.
------
beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
That's it. Hand over the ears and membership card and go to your room.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
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.