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."

Refund? Sure. Damages???

[winkydink]

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?

Re:

[Courageous]

There are probably some real damages, in terms of distress and so forth, with hard-to-quantify monetary value. However, if the scam was deliberate, punitive damages are certainly called for.

C//

Re:Refund? Sure. Damages???

[winkydink]

I agree that he'd be entitled to punitive damages if this were a scam, but I find it hard to fathom that Christie's would knowingly commit fraud.

Re:Refund? Sure. Damages???

[Courageous]

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//

Re:Refund? Sure. Damages???

[Deadstick]

Putting it differently, if the only consequence of being caught in fraud were having to give the money back, fraud would be consistently profitable. Cheat ten people out of $100 apiece, get caught twice, and you're $800 ahead...so we have punitive damages to discourage that.

You could call it a large-scale version of shortchanging...same principle.

rj

Re:

[Gorobei]

In general, the auction house is just selling stuff, not standing behind its authenticity.

For art, and other one of a kind items, they rely on provenance - essentially a chain of ownerswhip back to the original source. For some items, they may rely on an outside expert (e.g. for a newly "discovered" Picasso.)

If they've done this, they are assumed to be acting in good faith, and you have little chance of collecting damages for fraud - be happy the transaction is cancelled, and you get your money back.

Re:

[Courageous]

While this comment is well-taken, I'm suspecting that Christies would object to having the same level of authenticity for products as Ebay. :-)

C//

Re:

[Marful]

Didn't even read the full post did you?

Christie's spokesman Rik Pike stood behind the authenticity of the auction and said the disgruntled buyer's case had no merit.

Nor did you read the actual article:

According to the lawsuit, Spiner recognized the visor as the one that had been sold by Christie's and told Moustakis that it wasn't the real deal. The actual visor had been sold by the actor himself some time ago.

Regardless of any indemnification on Christi's part on their website, by stating publicly that you stand behind the authenticity, they are de-facto guaranteeing the authenticity.

Re:Refund? Sure. Damages???

[badasscat]

I agree that he'd be entitled to punitive damages if this were a scam, but I find it hard to fathom that Christie's would knowingly commit fraud.

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.

Re:Refund? Sure. Damages???

[Kenrod]

I have the official Christie's catalog - it says it was "worn by Brent Spiner as Data" in "Descent, Part I" and "All Good Things".

Re:Refund? Sure. Damages???

[sentientbeing]

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.

Re:

[kerrbear]

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:

[siride]

It doesn't matter what we know, it only matters what he is talking about. And he implied in the second part of the sentence that he did not believe it was a scam. But if it were, he says, then he agrees about some point. It may certainly be true that it is a scam, and if agreed that it was, then you would be right. But that is not the case, so you are wrong.

Re:

[Dachannien]

"Distress"? I say, whine more, noob. Why should he get a windfall, even if Christie's was pulling a scam?

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???

[TooMuchToDo]

If you don't institute punitive damages (in essence, "punishment") when a company deliberately takes action to defraud someone, they could just built the cost of settling/going to court into their cost of doing business, as they have built their electric bill and employee costs into their prices.

And that is definitely something you don't want companies doing.

Re:

[The One and Only]

If you don't institute punitive damages (in essence, "punishment") when a company deliberately takes action to defraud someone, they could just built the cost of settling/going to court into their cost of doing business, as they have built their electric bill and employee costs into their prices.

Surprise! They do anyway!

Re:Refund? Sure. Damages???

[rhyder128k]

"Christie's spokesman, a Ferengi trader of rare and unusual items..."

I might have known!

Not Quite Obligatory Futurama Quote

[ari_j]

Galactic Emporium: Dealing in legal items, etc.

Re:

[Znork]

"Maybe not him but Christie's should definitely get stung for a large wad of cash."

More appropriately, they should be required to, for each item auctioned, state that the item they're selling may or may not be authentic and as far as they're concerned they make more money if you think it is.

"IIRC, their business model rather depends upon the legitimacy of the items going under the hammer."

The actual legitimacy isnt as importance as the appearance of legitimacy. Which may be why auctioning houses have a long

Re:

[mrmeval]

Punitive civil damages. A way of bitch slapping them so they won't do it again. In Indiana the government keeps 90 percent of such judgments. The left over is usually eaten up in attorney fees or the attorney will gamble and take all of that 10 percent even if there is zero awarded the client then pays no fees and keeps the whole refund.

Re:Refund? Sure. Damages???

[phoebusQ]

Fraud is one of the few cases in tort law where punitive damages are somewhat commonly awarded...not usually on the order of what this guy is asking, but still to some degree.

Re:

[asuffield]

Fraud is one of the few cases in tort law where punitive damages are somewhat commonly awarded...not usually on the order of what this guy is asking, but still to some degree.

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???

[tinkertim]

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?

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.

Re:

[xenocide2]

Punative damages aren't from anticipatory value in resale. As the name suggest, they're a punishment. The idea is that they act as an extra deterrent to fraud, or whatever the crime is.

Re:Refund? Sure. Damages???

[greg1104]

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'.

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.

Re:

[Buran]

Certainly, damage to your reputation if you claim (and believe) that you have an authentic widget and then are laughed at by other people when they find out you (unintentionally) lied to them. The auction house advertises the goods as authentic and sells them as what they are claimed to be. If you sell goods that aren't as advertised, isn't that fraud?

Re:

[Nossie]

Tell that to Ebay :-|

Re:

[Buran]

Why should ebay be responsible when they are not the ones who write the descriptions, are not directly selling the items, and never claimed to research the provenance?

It's a legit reason to not trust ebay, but blaming them for not doing something they never claimed to do is silly.

Re:

[Nossie]

And Christie's does?

Do you really believe there is a difference between them? My point is nothing against Ebay as such but more against the reputation that Christies has, taking their very long legal get out clauses as evidence that they care almost as much about the 'customer' as the online auction houses.

All of them suck
All of them have get out clauses that say you are buying what the description says on the good faith of the seller.
All of them would sell sand to an arab or ice to an eskimo if they thoug

Re:Refund? Sure. Damages???

[Rob the Bold]

If it's fake, he should get his money back, but damages?

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!!!

Re:

[NerveGas]

Pretending to be Worf? Obviously, you've never seen the dentists' family on "Trekkies", and heard what people really do when they're pretending to be Data...

As Rob pointed out

[Moraelin]

As Rob pointed out, if you don't slap them _somehow_, then it's actually profitable to run a scam. At 6000 a pop, if you sell 1000 fakes and even as high as 80% of those realize it's a scam (though it probably will be a lot less), you've still made over a million profit off the remaining 20%.

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.

Re:

[servognome]

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.

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?

[jpellino]

That's it. Hand over the ears and membership card and go to your room.

Re:

[bickerdyke]

OTOH, it was proof that at least there, he has some hair left :-)

Dang, You Mean Sci-Fi Props Aren't Real?

[NeverVotedBush]

And I was so hoping to buy a real phaser at auction.

Re:

[v1]

Easy to come by. charging them however, can prove problematic.

Something tells me...

[milsoRgen]

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 /.

Re:

[uhlume]

There's no indication from the article that he requested a refund before filing the suit. Seems like the kind of pertinent detail they might mention in the story if it had actually happened — but who knows. Regardless, I wouldn't assume anything, either way, without additional information.

MAD PROPS

[The Media Mechanic]

Yo homies in da house - lissen up good - Im sendin a shout out to my dogg Christies n MAD PROPS ta Christies for sellin dem FAKE PROPS to sum un-suspektin dude an bein all like, aint nothin bro, its all good, its still cool, dont sue me bro, less work sumthin out, ya know, sum freebies an' shiiiiiiiit.

Re:

[ImaLamer]

This generation of 7 digit slashdot user's talk a language I don't understand.

Ferengi Used Car Salesmen

[Tablizer]

... to have it signed, actor Brent Spiner explained that he'd already sold the well-known visor in a personal sale

Damn, my "transporter duplication accident" line ain't workin' anymore.
     

Christies Apparently Said It Wasn't Worn...

[NeverVotedBush]

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/ [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. ;-)

Re:

[fermion]

It seems to me that the antiques business is on par with the used car business. In both the product is subservient to the sales talent of the staff. In both total honesty results in loss of profits. Both primarily sell junk of dubious quality that the owner does not want any more. If one is talking about antiques, one is probably talking about something that no one really wanted in the first place, so it just sat around in th attic. If one is talking about curiosities, well that is another story. One

Props are SELDOM unique

[Reziac]

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.

Re:

[Lumpy]

Exactly, most props used on the two films I helped with were bought at local stores. People paying huge $$$ for a common item that can be purchased for $1.95 at a gaming store is not only incredibly silly, but in it's self shows the incredible crazyness involved with people that buy that crap.

It's one thing to buy an original 1967 Series 3 Dalek, rubber alien head appliance, or even a tricorder prop or Phaser, items that are made by propmasters.. but buying standard commercial crud found at any store??

are

Re:

[The Evil Couch]

It depends. If the auctioneer at the actual auction was claiming that it was worn by Spiner, then there's still a case to be had there.

Speaking from personal experience . . .

[CleverNickName]

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.

Anyone else having trouble...

[jjohnson]

feeling any sympathy for this guy?

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.

Re:

[Pyrion]

It's his money, not yours. What do you care?

The thousands of dollars a year you spend smoking I could more efficiently waste on things that I enjoy. That's a lot of computer hardware right there. But again, it's your money, not mine, and I don't care what you do with it.

Re:

[jjohnson]

Mod parent up +1 clever.

Senator Vreenak reference

[AtariDatacenter]

Is anyone else, like me, totally ashamed that they got the (deceased) Senator Vreenak reference, without having to look it up?

Re:

[morari]

I too would be ashamed if I knew the Deep Space Nine episodes so intimately. And here we were talking about Data's visor, who comes from a perfectly decent series instead.

Re:

[cnettel]

As noted in russlar's post, that episode is one DS9 episode I wouldn't be the least bit embarassed about remembering. I generally call bullshit on the claims that DS9 is superior by being darker and more real, but here is one of the few episodes where that overall idea really shines. Depending on the mood, you can actually feel bad about feeling that the episode ended "well".

Re:

[ScrewMaster]

Nope. Besides, I've always liked Stephen McHattie, the actor who played Vreenak (not that you can tell under all that latex.)

Re:

[irving47]

Ashamed? No way. Damn good episode.

Re:

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

No, you didn't reach for the nearest cylindrical object and go, "IT'S A FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKE."

Well

[Daimanta]

I wonder what the trekkie said when he found out the item was not authentic.

Re:Get a life

[pla]

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.

Re:

[UbuntuDupe]

Let's not forget Christie's is a prestigious auction house. While I'm no trekkie, and kinda creeped out by them, I find it even more repulsive that an auction house with a reputation to protect would be so cavalier about the authenticity to make this mistake. How is the buyer's admiration any different from people's obsession with Princess Diana or Jackie Kennedy? How big would the damages be if Christies defrauded people over one of those items?

I also saw a comment where someone said he was supposed to "

Re:

[Buran]

I didn't submit the story, but I'm female, on Slashdot, and a Trekkie (though not the die-hard hardcore sort, though at times I can admire people who are wholeheartedly into their hobbies, whatever they may be, including the hardcore Trekkies/Trekkers, and some of the costumers do amazing work).

Re:

[Tony Hoyle]

I didn't submit the story, but I'm female, on Slashdot, and a Trekkie

Quick someone trace her IP address!!

Re:

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Didn't know any girls were ever into star trek, but whatever.

You have got to be kidding.

Re:

[fahrbot-bot]

Didn't know any girls were ever into star trek, but whatever.

You have got to be kidding.

Remember this is /. What UbuntuDupe meant was: "I don't know any girls."

Re:Get a life

[v1]

one has to consider the possibilities as to which way to go. There are two possible truths, and two possible reactions.

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.

Re:

[Volante3192]

Get over it! It's just a canvas with paint splattered on it!
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:

[ScrewMaster]

No, but when you put it in front of your eyes it will make you blind like Geordi.

Re:Get a life

[Buran]

*sigh*

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.

Re:

[lgw]

That site reads like the Time Cube site.

Re:

[UnknowingFool]

Suing for millions is a little over the top, his suit has some merit if his allegations are correct. Did the auction house actually say that the items he won were worn and used by the cast and crew? I say he is at least entitled to return the items for the money. It doesn't matter that he's a trekkie. Suppose he bought the tuxedo worn by Sean Connery in Dr. No only to find out it was never worn by Sean Connery, would his suit have more merit then?

Re:

[Artifakt]

Or suppose he bought a pair of diamond cuff-links that were never worn by anyone in any movie or TV show, but they turned out to have half the karat weight described (One little each slipped into the text...)? Or they were Zircons instead? Or they were described as high clarity yellow, and were in fact dirty brown? Or they were described as cruelty free Canadian diamonds and they turned out to come from De Beers #4 Namibian mine? If frauds in general don't justify a lawsuit, then how about it Slashdotters,

Re:Get a life

[lluBdeR]

Way to completely ignore most of TFA. Just to help you get your head around it: (from TFA)

According to the lawsuit, Spiner recognized the visor as the one that had been sold by Christie's and told Moustakis that it wasn't the real deal. The actual visor had been sold by the actor himself some time ago.

Translation: Brent Spiner had the real one. Brent Spiner sold the real one. According to the transitive property, the buyer got ripped off.

Christie's spokesman Rik Pike stood behind the authenticity of the auction and said the disgruntled buyer's case had no merit.

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?)

[snip] after he brought it to a convention in August to have it autographed by the actor who played Data, Brent Spiner.

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:

Get a life! Real or not, I guarantee it won't have any mystical or special powers. It won't make your brain compute on the level of Data's. It won't make you a member of Star Fleet.

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.

It isn't an "investment".

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?

Re:

[iluvcapra]

I'd say it's an investment, just not one that returns monetarily.

Collectibles and antiques can appreciate considerably, though they aren't dependable on a year-over-year income basis as, say, stocks or bonds, or as an absolute store of value way as, say, gold. You do have to claim valuable collectibles you own or aquire as assets for tax purposes, among other things, and you just need to watch one episode of the Antiques Roadshow to see just how valuable a piece of entertainment memorabilia can be worth.

Re:

[foobsr]

Why is it so wrong for someone to be so into Star Trek that they might actually experience negative physical effects from such an ordeal?

Ask a psychiatrist, if none is available, a psychologist would be fine as well.

CC.

Re:

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Ask a psychiatrist, if none is available, a psychologist would be fine as well.

Oh, please. We don't call people crazy when they pay shitloads of money for some piece of abstract art that looks like something done by a moderately talented three-year-old with finger paints, but happens to have a famous name attached to it. (Mind you, I think it's kind of dumb, but it's not crazy.) And we very definitely wouldn't call them crazy if they then found out it was a fake, and got pretty upset about it.

People put

Re:

[NeverVotedBush]

"Oh, please. We don't call people crazy when they pay shitloads of money for some piece of abstract art that looks like something done by a moderately talented three-year-old with finger paints, but happens to have a famous name attached to it."

I do. ;-)

Re:

[Cromac]

We don't call people crazy when they pay shitloads of money for some piece of abstract art that looks like something done by a moderately talented three-year-old with finger paints, but happens to have a famous name attached to it.

Yes we do, most people do. The ones who don't are the NEA, holier than thou art snobs who think anyone who disagrees and think that crap is actually crap just doesn't understand the "art".

Re:maybe not such an expert trekkie after all?

[phoebusQ]

While I agree in spirit with your arguments, the fact is that this was a Christie's auction, and their reputation stands heavily on their authentication methods. This auction in particular could be considered "high-confidence" in regards to authenticity, as it was essentially a single-source auction between the studio and Christie's.

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.

Re:

[CaptainCarrot]

Or low confidence. Who else would Christie's normally consult about the authenticity of film or TV props if not the studio? If there's a sole source for the items, then there's also a sole source to authenticate them, and if they're mistaken then there's no real way to tell.

Re:maybe not such an expert trekkie after all?

[NeverVotedBush]

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/ [originalprop.com] 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.

Re:

[Reziac]

And even assuming it's not a knockoff -- this guy doesn't grok that even genuine studio props are seldom unique; spares are routinely made as a hedge against breakage (and subsequent costly production delays), but often go unused.

Re:

[Nazlfrag]

Still, that was a last minute update and the original catalogue states it as the authentic visor worn in two episodes. Perhaps he still has a case, though it does seem that Christies have covered their arses more than adequately.

Re:

[Buran]

That's my opinion too. Why should you have to spend a ton of time researching something when it's the auction house's job to do that? That's part of their pre-auction processes, and their reputation (as you can see) rests heavily on their making sure the goods are legit and doing their work. Don't auction houses have appraisers whose job includes researching the provenance of what they sell?

Re:

[Kopiok]

It's not a problem of authenticity, because the prop was an authentic Star Trek prop. The problem is they made more than of of said prop. One was worn by the actor and, it seems, was kept and later sold by said actor. In the Christie's auction it seems that it was noted (however late) that the prop in question was not one worn by the actor, but was indeed an authentic prop.

Re:

[Walt Dismal]

Howdy y'alls. I'm a-sellin an authentic data bit once used by Linus Torvalds. I'm lettin it go for cheap cause I need the money for my ailin gramma, and some pseudoephedrine purchases. Please email me at backwoodshacker at appachiatech.com with best offer. Hurry, these are rare and it'll go fast. I have 12 offers already, from some guy named Darl McBride.

Re:

[Buran]

So who is going to know what they wore while doing a particular job than the person who wore that item of clothing/accessory as part of their job?

This guy is the guy who played the character who wore the visor (and I remember it very well, I can still visualize that particular weird fluorescent shade of green). He didn't use it just once but a number of times -- the poker game was a recurring minor subplot, and sometimes used to impart important dialogue. Sometimes it even shows up in Trek novels and I've s

LIS, Props are not necessarily the ONLY copy

[Reziac]

LIS above... The visor Data used may not even have been the SAME one on all the episodes mentioned. Actors don't get to keep props and take them home at night. Props go back into the prop box.... where there might be 5 or 6 copies of said prop, made as a hedge against breakage and subsequent (expensive) delays.

It's quite possible that BOTH are genuine; one just happened to get given to (or lifted by) the actor, the other got into the world by another route (usually by discard).

It's also possible that the pl

Just an off-the-shelf retail item?

[AHumbleOpinion]

It's also possible that the plaintiff's visor is a fan-made knockoff

I find it much easier to believe that the prop/costume people went to the local Wal-mart and bought a visor for a dollar than hand made something. I always thought the visor was supposed to be something replicated to resemble an item from a "classical" era of history. So buying something off-the-shelf at a convenient retailer makes sense, fans would only have to find something that came from the same assembly line. There could be millio

Re:

[Reziac]

Props are frequently just off-the-shelf items with added spray paint and glitter. That makes 'em cheaper and easier to replace as needed.

Re:

[Buran]

I had no reason to doubt the actor's story as the show ended production some years ago (after a seven-year run which was pretty impressive). Some productions do allow actors to have some props when they won't be needed anymore, while selling others at auction. I think your middle paragraph is most likely, but the auction house should have clearly disclosed that the prop was a backup in the auction catalog. Still authentic but not the one that was used in front of the camera, and it sounds from the story lik

Re:

[Reziac]

Per a blog someone linked to above, the auction house apparently *did* disclose that this was an unused backup prop, not the one used on camera. Which doesn't make it less authentically a "real prop from the real series"; it just isn't one with Data cooties on it.

Re:

[Buran]

If they did, then why is he suing? There wouldn't be a case, would there?

Re:

[sholden]

Because he's an idiot who didn't listen when they announced that the description was wrong and it was an unused prop, before actually auctioning it.

Re:

[Buran]

If that is actually what happened (we weren't there), then I'm surprised a lawyer would take his case.

How can actor be so sure there is only one?

[AHumbleOpinion]

So who is going to know what they wore while doing a particular job than the person who wore that item of clothing/accessory as part of their job?

Do you think the prop/costume department only acquired a single visor? Did the actor take that first visor worn home and bring it back for every future episode? Did the actor mark that visor so he knew it was the same one? Unless he was hoping to cash in at some future date why would he even pay such close attention to a particular prop like this to ensure it

Re:

[Buran]

On the other hand, consider the fact that it's normal for clothes to acquire wear as time goes on, so I don't think it would be necessary to replace the prop after every X takes. More likely, the prop actually used has small tool marks or other small variances that don't show up on camera, or could be slightly bent, or whatever, or might have an inventory tag in a spot where it can't be seen (maybe where it fits over the ear).

I think it's a plausible scenario but to know for sure if it's true or not you'd h

Re:

[Antique Geekmeister]

Unless Spiner himself took it back to his dressing room, precisely to give it or sell it off. That was a neat scene, with Stephen Hawking in his wheelchair playing himself in the holodeck. Mr. Hawking was apparently delighted to portray himself.

Re:

[CaptainCarrot]

Really? You must not have edited on Wikipedia very much.

9x is the usual cap for punitive

[AHumbleOpinion]

Err... millions of dollars or something he paid 6,000 for? How can that be? IANAL, so please explain.

IIRC, in the US, something around 9x is the usual cap for punitive, well in judge's minds. Even then something particularly heinous usually needs to have been done. So he *asks* for millions, the court awards $15,000 (2.5x) in damages, he runs for the courthouse with the check giggling with joy. If he asked for $15,000 the judge might only award $12,000. So to keep the 9x ($54,000) in play you should pro

Re:

[Arimus]

Same reason why when I'm asked for a budget for a project I carefully work out the cost then add a nice contingency - usually just about double ;) - then when I get half what I asked for (usual in my place) I actually get when I wanted in the first place...

The accountants win as they show a cost saving, I win as I get the funds needed. Everyone is happy, and everyone knows what is really going on :)