Original Prop Provenance & Authenticity, Part I

Article Summary: This is an opinion piece discussing the basics of provenance and authenticity of original props.  Topics include the definition of provenance, types of COAs (Studio, Dealer), auction house catalogs, “screen-matching”, firearm-specific information, and other considerations and issues.

Original Prop Provenance & Authenticity, Part I

Why is this “Part I”? It’s an ongoing topic that requires much deliberation and comment, so I expect to draft follow-up articles on this same topic (Part II, Part III, Part IV, etc.).

First, what is provenance?

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) – CITATION

Prov·e·nance (prŏv’ə-nəns, -näns’)
n.

1. Place of origin; derivation.

2a. The history of the ownership of an object, especially when documented or authenticated. Used of artworks, antiques, and books.

2b. The records or documents authenticating such an object or the history of its ownership.

As related to original props, it is essentially the information available that largely addresses the authenticity of the piece.

This could be paperwork, certification from a principal of the production (a producer, propmaster, actor, director, etc.), a documented chain of ownership, a studio COA, etc.

In my view, I believe that there is a distinct, growing trend of late of hobbyists and dealers being lazier and lazier in this regard – which could be described as “good enough”. There will be a future article in more detail about the phenomenon that I refer to as “I Want To Believe”.

My personal perspective is that it is critical to: 1) Perform significant due diligence on every piece, regardless of the source, working from a starting point of assuming the given piece is not original/legitimate, and 2) limit acquisitions to pieces that have more than one compelling element that secures and speaks to solid provenance.

As such, I think it is productive to begin to outline those building block elements that can be used to outline the overall authenticity of a piece.

Studio COA

A Studio COA is a Certificate of Authenticity issued by the studio or an officially endorsed studio reseller (such as Disney Auctioneers, Premiere Props, Hollywood Vault/Rainmakers, the recently defunct New Line Auctions, etc.).

I believe this is a great foundation for provenance. However, its usefulness can be affected by whether the owner is the first owner (obtaining direct from the source) or a subsequent owner.

If, as an example, you personally obtain a piece directly Hollywood Vault, you have personal knowledge that the piece has come directly from the production by an agent of the studio. Having said that, you still can’t know that the piece was actually used and/or filmed, as these studio resellers frequently sell unused back-up pieces, prototypes, etc. They are still “original”, but without additional information, you might not be able to take it any further than that.

If you are buying second hand (a piece offered as a resale prop, from someone other than an agent of the studio and outside of the officially sanctioned venue), you have to be more cautious and discerning.

For instance, as is the case with clothing (especially from dramas and comedies or other works in which “ordinary” clothes is worn), “off the shelf” wardrobe is often employed for the obvious cost savings (as opposed to custom made and designed wardrobe). Depending on the value assigned to the true and original piece, this opens up an opportunity for fraud, as someone can acquire the original wardrobe piece, identify it by way of the label/style/manufacturer, and purchase new pieces off the shelf and pair the with the original or forged Studio COAs.

As a second example, a rubber stunt pistol from I Robot is easily replicated by simply acquiring an original, molding it, and making duplicate rubber castings that are virtually indistinguishable from original stunt pistols from the production.

So even though a piece has a Studio COA, acquired second hand, there is still a very real element of risk.

These are examples of why, to me, there is always a need for due diligence, even on a piece backed by a Studio COA, if the piece is offered second hand as a resale piece.

And, as noted, even if a piece is authentic, original, and is assigned a Studio COA, there is no guarantee it was filmed or used or seen on screen unless you do further independent research (and in the case of Premiere Props and Hollywood Vault, their descriptions and determinations of what pieces are and how they were used can be incorrect).

Dealer COA

A Dealer COA is a Certificate of Authenticity issued by a Dealer/Reseller (such as Propstore of London, ScreenUsed, Propmasters, Moviebits, etc.).

My view on this is that it can mean many different things and have more (or less) validity depending on the dealer in question and the piece in question. While “nice to have”, in my eyes, it is not the be all, end all on provenance.

Regarding how the type of piece has an impact, as an example, one particular dealer may be a specialist or have a reputation in regards to a certain property (as is the case with ScreenUsed and Back to the Future props). Another dealer may have arranged to acquire the bulk of a particular production (as is the case with Propstore of London and Serenity). In these instances, the Dealer COA would hold as much weight as a first hand Studio COA.

In other cases, I would not rate them as highly, such as a one off piece with unknown origins and/or chains of ownership.

Having said that, the “guarantees” offered by the various dealers are not apples to apples, so a stronger guarantee at the very least provides piece of mind that, in the event a piece is discovered to not be as it was marketed, you have an opportunity to potentially reverse the transaction. Note: an upcoming article will discuss this notion of COAs, LOAs, “lifetime” guarantees, etc.

Auction House Catalog

An Auction House Catalog listing and/or asset tag indicates that the piece was at some point authenticated by and sold through in some live public and/or online event.

This is “nice to have” as well, but not enough on its own, in my opinion, for various reasons.

One, Auction Houses have a history of inconsistency in researching provenance, and “bad pieces” have certainly been identified that have sold through and found homes with buyers. Resale of such pieces obviously doesn’t assure authenticity.

Two, Auction Houses often have weak, unenforceable (in all practicality), or non-existent return policies.

Three, it is another exercise entirely to prove the piece in question is the same piece that went through the auction (without additional proof). It is as though one has to establish the “Auction House provenance”, and then move on to the “actual” provenance.

Screen-Match

A Screen-Match is the method by which the piece in question has been literally matched to a screencap (a static frame captured from the film or television program). Usually, this is accomplished via matching up specific marks, damage, weathering/painting, etc.

This is a highly compelling proposition, in that some examples I’ve discovered can stand on their own due to the impossibility of replicating the “match” that is identified.

To me, a screen-match, in concert with some other type of COA (like those above) is probably enough to confirm authenticity, and, as noted, may be enough on its own merits, depending on the piece and circumstances.

In all the pieces I’ve screen-matched, it’s usually in a way that would be impossible to replicate – there’s always little things that “make sense” upon seeing it, but you wouldn’t have guessed it without discovering it upon close examination of the film, as the use of light in film often produces images different than you’d expect they’d look. In other words, I think it would be highly challenging to have a replica, find a close-up shot in the film, and try to “back into” how that would appear on the actual object in hand.

In short, I believe an irrefutable screen-match is the best available foundation on which to build authenticity, in hopes of having additional components of history and provenance to attach as well.

Firearm Serial Numbers, Rental Agreements

Firearms as original props introduce some excellent tools by which to ascertain legitimacy and authenticity.

Due to current laws, studios do not and cannot “own” firearms, so they contract out to armorers to rent such pieces to the production, under the supervision of skilled professionals. Productions often make use of “real”, live fire weapons (with or without modifications) for use as “hero” weapons and/or for effects (such as blank fire pieces). The use of real guns means that the pieces have serial numbers, as all modern firearms do. So when the studios are finished renting these pieces, they go back to the armorers, etc., and may eventually be made available to collectors and hobbyists via private sales.

Because they are rented to the production, rental agreements are produced which include inventories of the pieces by make, model, and serial number.

As a result, said firearms along with original or copied rental agreements provide proof of use in the production. More, the rental agreements typically include dates, which can be matched up with other production collateral such as shooting schedules, etc., so it is possible, in some cases, to determine precisely which weapons were used in which scenes.

Cost Prohibitive

One consideration that may or may not be applicable is what I refer to as the “cost prohibitive test”.

A piece might have been so expensive to originally produce, it wouldn’t make logical sense that it is anything but from the film, especially is the production costs exceeds the value as a collectible original props (this is not unusual). Having access to a full costume budget for a particular film, I was astounded at how much more it cost to create the films when compared to the prices realized in resale.

Custom Letter from Studio (or “Other”)

A Custom Letter is a letter that is typically from a principal from the production noting authenticity, but is not studio-sanctioned or endorsed (and often post-production).

An example of this would be a letter from a producer, actor, propmaster, or other principal, “acting on his own”, if you will.

If it addresses the specific piece, outlines some history/use/chain of ownership and is from a notable source in the production, it is fairly strong. Again, being the “first recipient” of such a piece holds greater value, as it is certain – once it changes hands and enters a resale cycle, the power of this element of provenance is diminished (to what extent is dependent on the circumstances).

COA (Other)

COA (Other) are COAs issued by non-experts/professionals, such as a charity auction. These are typically one time or infrequent events, typically managed by non-experts/non-hobbyists. Another example, in addition to charities, are eBay Dropshippers, who may take on a prop as a consignment piece, but have no knowledge of original props.

As such, it is likely any donated/consigned pieces were taken as “face value”, with no provenance of any kind performed.

Alone, such a COA would be of little value (other than placing the event into the chain of ownership).

COA (Private Party/Hobbyist)

COA (Private Party/Hobbyist) are COAs/Letters issued by individual collectors in an attempt to authenticate/outline provenance/outline chain of ownership.

Given the nature of the hobby, the value of this ranges from worthless to valuable, depending on the circumstances and individuals.

Initial Summary and Concluding Thoughts

Obviously, determining authenticity and provenance is a huge challenge in this hobby. Not only the magnitude of variables (which I’ve only just touched on), but the prospects of both fraud and complacency.

There are individuals who actively seek to defraud collectors out of money through the sale of fake pieces.

There are dealers and resellers who are not as diligent as they can and should be.

There are studio resellers who see props as product, as widgets, with no incentive to use the tools at their disposal to truly identify what they have.

There are collectors who “want to believe”, because the hobby is supposed to be “fun and light”.

And all of these groups keep turning over more and more pieces, and true provenance is often denigrated with each change in ownership.

As I said, this is simply Part I. But you have to start somewhere.

Jason De Bord