Slashdot Log In
Trekkie Sues Christie's for Fraudulent Props
Posted by
Zonk
on Sat Dec 29, 2007 01:30 PM
from the watch-out-for-those-tricky-starfleet-types dept.
from the watch-out-for-those-tricky-starfleet-types dept.
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."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Refund? Sure. Damages??? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
C//
Re:Refund? Sure. Damages??? (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Refund? Sure. Damages??? (Score:5, Insightful)
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//
Parent
Re:Refund? Sure. Damages??? (Score:5, Interesting)
You could call it a large-scale version of shortchanging...same principle.
rj
Parent
Re:Refund? Sure. Damages??? (Score:5, Interesting)
Didn't read TFA posted here, but there was an article/interview in the NY Daily News the other day with this guy and he said one of the things Spiner told him when they met was "I told them not to sell" the visor because it was fake. If that's true - and it seems like you'd have to take the word of the guy who supposedly wore it - then there could be a case for fraud. Christie's at that point went ahead with an auction they were warned about by one of the principals involved with the merchandise.
Of course, it also depends on how these items were presented. I read the catalog for this auction at the time and many of the items were presented as rehearsal props or backups, or were otherwise never claimed to have actually been used on the show. Maybe this guy *believed* this visor was used on the show, but Christie's never said so. If that's the case, he's gonna have a tough time collecting anything from them.
Parent
Re:Refund? Sure. Damages??? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Refund? Sure. Damages??? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Look I know its a long shot but has anyone considered its Data who might be the one lying?
Actually it's the same visor but hundreds of years later it was given to Data on his birthday and later he brought it back in time and sold it for bus fare.
Re: (Score:2)
But yes, his monetary damages of $6000 should be reimbursed if the item was indeed a fake.
If the item had been sold for $5000 instead of $6000, though, he could have filed this case in small claims court and gotten his just compensation a lot faster. He could have even ended up on TV because of it.
Re:Refund? Sure. Damages??? (Score:5, Insightful)
And that is definitely something you don't want companies doing.
Parent
Re:Refund? Sure. Damages??? (Score:5, Funny)
I might have known!
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Refund? Sure. Damages??? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Damages in any suit are almost never awarded to the total asked for by the plaintiff. The common-law court system operates a little oddly: the plaintiff is responsible for figuring out all the details of the rules under which damages could be awarded and presenting the judge with a list of which ones should be considered, and what rang
Re:Refund? Sure. Damages??? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:Refund? Sure. Damages??? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Refund? Sure. Damages??? (Score:5, Insightful)
That gives me an idea for "Step 2" . . .
1. Sell N pairs fake Star Trek underpants for U dollars each.
2. Get caught M times, refund M*U dollars.
3. (N-M)*U dollars Profit!!!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As Rob pointed out (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure a _lot_ of people would consider a life of crime, if the only punishment were, "if you get caught, you must give it back."
I mean, seriously, then what would be the deterrent to, say, stealing cars? If you get caught you give the car back, if not, you fence the parts. It's guaranteed profit.
There has to be _some_ punishment above and beyond giving back what you stole, or there is no deterrent.
And if you want to say, "that's not equivalent", yes, in a sense it is. If I steal your wallet (or empty your account via ID theft), get caught, and give you your wallet and your money back, what more can you want from me? You got your money back, didn't you? All's settled and fair, and I can go back on the street, right?
Well, chances are you'd want _some_ kind of punishment to both punish and deter further crime. You wouldn't want me back on the street looking for another wallet to swipe, with essentially nothing lost except a day's work.
Now for crimes like above, ok, we have jails. But for companies we can't throw the whole company in jail, and jailing the directors is stuff we keep for more serious stuff. So slapping them with a fine is thought to be an acceptable substitute. The idea is to slap them hard enough that repeating the offense doesn't even remotely look profitable. That's all.
Now the US system does look funny seen from Europe, and, I gather, seen from the USA too. It's easy to see it as "OMG, some greedy guy's trying to get rich off Christie." And it could even be the case. But, really, it's just one of the possible ways to deter companies from doing antisocial stuff. Whether it's a bunch of guys wanting big money (in punitive damages or as a settlement) or a government agency doing the same, well, the end effect is the same: the company is slapped hard enough for doing bad stuff.
In Europe we have government agencies looking out for us, and dishing out huge fines. In the USA, I gather, you couldn't trust the government as far as you could throw them, and the whole system is geared towards a more personal "lawyers at ten paces at high noon" approach. End effect, nevertheless, the company gets slapped. We could bitch about details, like that that causes lawyers in the USA to breed like rabbits, but in the end it's one way to keep companies in line. Can't see anything wrong with that underlying idea.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The US government does indeed dish out substantial fines when a company violates the public trust. The difference is that in a civil suit no crime necessarily needs to have been commited, for the government to dish out fines the law must
Whorf? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Dang, You Mean Sci-Fi Props Aren't Real? (Score:5, Funny)
Something tells me... (Score:5, Insightful)
MAD PROPS (Score:3, Funny)
Ferengi Used Car Salesmen (Score:2)
Damn, my "transporter duplication accident" line ain't workin' anymore.
Christies Apparently Said It Wasn't Worn... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.originalprop.com/blog/ [originalprop.com]
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.
Speaking from personal experience . . . (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Props are SELDOM unique (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Anyone else having trouble... (Score:2, Insightful)
I mean, if Christie's really did fraudulently represent these as real props, more power to him in his lawsuit. Don't stop until you've got the auctioneer's gavel.
But, holy fuck, $24K on Star Trek memorabilia? The thousands of dollars a year I spend smoking is put to better use than this dude's cash.
Senator Vreenak reference (Score:5, Funny)
Well (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Get a life (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I also saw a comment where someone said he was supposed to "
Re:Get a life (Score:5, Informative)
1) It's authentic (or at least, authentic enough, it may have been a prop double or spare instead of the "hero" prop, and that may count enough), and they refund the money
2) it's authentic and they don't refund
3) it's fake and they refund
4) it's fake and they don't refund
Case 1 shuts up the buyer and may limit the bad press a bit, and 6 grand is not a big hit to take, but leaves other buyers questioning the autheniticity of other items
Case 2 puts slightly more credibility in the auction house at the expense of more bad press and litigation
Case 3 REALLY is no different than case 1
Case 4 sets them up for a double fall, selling bad goods AND trying to get away with it
Right now they are probably trying for case 2, and really if you compare them, is the best possible outcome. It's quite likely that the visor was a prop double, and was not the actual one Spiner used on the set when they made the take. It could easily have been one worn during rehearsal or an alternate previous take, or during a cut additional scene we didn't see. This would make it pretty close to as authentic as described. Things like that they have more than one of, who knows, brent could have dropped it on the floor walking up to the set for a second take and scratched the visor, and so the prop master quickly handed him another one. Which is the "real" one? Most fanatics would be interested in the actual one he wore in the shot they watched, but both were brent's props and were bot worn by him during that episode. It's also possible due to the multiple takes for the scene that he wore two or even three of them during all the shots taken, and brent may only be considering the last one he wore, the one he took back to the trailer and later sold, to be the "real" one.
If you REALLY wanna get dirty, you could say that brent realized the value of the prop later after forgetting it on the set, (or just plain wanted to keep it at the time) and picked up another one in the prop room after being unable to find the one he just took off and left on the set, and sold that as the original.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Quick someone trace her IP address!!
Re: (Score:2)
Get over it! Just a piece of cardboard with a photo on it!
Get over it! Just a circuit board with wires and stuff on it!
Why do paintings sell for millions? Why do baseball cards go in the thousands? Because people perceive them as having value and hence are investments. There will be no shortage of trekkies, so sometime in the future, he would be able to auction that visor off himself for a return, assuming it's an original.
Just because it doe
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Get a life (Score:4, Insightful)
The issue here isn't the specific item, the specific buyer, or the specific value. The issue is that a major auction house has sold something that wasn't what they claimed it was. This is a huge problem for them as the press they are now getting due to the high profile of the item sold (almost everyone has at least heard of Star Trek) is doing damage to their reputation. If Christie's sold a fake to this guy, how do you know that that multimillion-dollar painting you had your eye on in the next Christie's art auction isn't a fake too? So you don't buy it from them, and neither does anyone else due to the bad press, and Sotheby's gets the future business instead
And who are you to make fun of other peoples' hobbies? Don't watch Star Trek if you don't like it, but slandering other people is yet another example of people who have really big Internet high horses and makes you look foolish. One man's piece of junk is another's treasure.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Get a life (Score:4, Insightful)
Translation: Brent Spiner had the real one. Brent Spiner sold the real one. According to the transitive property, the buyer got ripped off.
Translation: What does Brent Spiner know, trust me, you bought the real one from us. (As an aside, does anyone think they deliberately chose this spokesman for his surname?)
Translation: I bought something they claimed was X, turns out it's not, and I was informed of this standing in a line with an assload of people around me.
When you remove the Star Trek slant, it's a case of Person X selling something to Person Y claiming it's Object A when in actuality it's Object B. If you see nothing wrong with this, I have a Ming Vase I'd like to sell you for the bargain basement price of $50,000,000. I just have to go to the dollar store and pick it up.
And from your post:
Who says he's looking for those things? Did you ever think maybe he wanted to own a small piece of a fond childhood memory? Even if he wants it to wear it in the bathroom and relive the moment when Data proved to Tasha Yar he was fully functional, it doesn't change the fact they sold him something that's not what they claimed it was.
Wrong again. I'd say it's an investment, just not one that returns monetarily. Believe it or not, there are many things like that in the world. Are you going to put off having children until you can get a guaranteed ROI?
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Ask a psychiatrist, if none is available, a psychologist would be fine as well.
CC.
Re:maybe not such an expert trekkie after all? (Score:5, Insightful)
As a rule, when buying something from a single-source auction at a place like Christie's, you are not supposed to need to worry about authentication beyond Christie's itself.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:maybe not such an expert trekkie after all? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)