Trend: “I Want To Believe”
April 7, 2007 by Jason DeBord
Article Summary: This opinion piece explores a phenomenon within the hobby of collectors coming from a perspective of wanting to believe a piece is authentic, rather than being discerning and skeptical to properly vet a piece to ensure its marketing matching up with material facts.
Trend: “I Want To Believe”
I identified a trend some time ago which I’ve dubbed “I Want To Believe” (originally posted on the Movie Prop Forum HERE).
This article is a revisit and significant update and expansion of that original topic.
Background
I honestly haven’t been in this hobby for long, but I’ve seen and been privy to a lot of information and experiences (first and third hand), some of which I haven’t shared for various reasons. But there is an overwhelming amount of naiveté and misplaced faith, trust, and hope in the hobby, and it certainly has an impact on the hobby at large, because undiscerning collectors affect the state of the game.
Laziness, enthusiastic exuberance, inexperience, misplaced trust, and a variety of other factors lead to an “I want to believe” mindset. It is the easy path, the path of least resistance, and the path that is encouraged and expected, generally speaking.
En masse, this significantly contributes to a weakening of standards of provenance and authenticity; it lowers the bar for what is an acceptable amount of research required to assign a status of “authentic” or “genuine”.
There are opportunists passing fakes on eBay and via other venues and alternative selling platforms every day. Because determining authenticity is such a subjective exercise (and given the nature of the hobby, it truly is case-by-case), this is a huge problem.
Even setting aside the issue of frauds and con men actively seeking and pursuing opportunities to explicitly take advantage of and defraud collectors, the other issue that is left mostly unaddressed is the problem of previously burned collectors passing their questionable piece(s) onto the next less discerning (and unsuspecting) collector.
Things get passed about, person to person, collector to collector, collector to dealer, and back again, and it just gets muddier and muddier.
Again, it is a problem that grows, and affects everyone.
“Trust No One”
Authenticity should not be based on the trust of one person. The other catchphrase from the X-Files (opposite of “I Want To Believe) is more appropriate in maneuvering through this hobby: “Trust No One.”
Trust facts, trust information.
Seek out documentation.
Don’t accept just one component of authenticity – it likely isn’t good enough.
Corroborate more than one of the key components of authenticity – a screen-match and a studio COA, or a letter from a principal of the production and a dealer COA.
And whatever you do, don’t buy some piece with a story and nothing more…
Research. Verify.
Too many members put too much faith in reputations of sellers and generic COAs that don’t tell you anything of substance about the piece.
Just because people are accustomed to COAs being the ‘be all, end all’ in other hobbies does not mean that it translates over to the Original Prop Hobby – it simply does not. Sure, it might make you feel good, but you still don’t know what you have, unless you have asked direct, specific questions and received direct, specific, verifiable answers in return. COAs are an excuse to be undiscerning about what you just spent your money on.
If you want to participate in and contribute to the cultivation of a legitimate pursuit in finding, enjoying, and preserving this art of film and television – these artifacts of significance and importance – we all must play a role in elevating the standards by which we recognize a piece as “original” and “authentic”.
If you want to take pride of ownership in possessing a proven collection that you have no doubts about, you’ve got to do your own research.
Knowing Your Limits, Asking Questions, Networking With Experts
Know what you know, and go to experts for that which you don’t. No one knows everything. Experts are out there, and happy to help, you just need to know where to look and who to ask.
If someone openly asks for opinions about the authenticity of a piece, and you don’t have a clue, my advice is to not offer any uninformed “opinions” per se, as it can be counter productive. I’ve seen too many times, on the forums, people chime in with advice just to participate, even though they do not know any details about that which they speak. It can give a false sense of authority when there is not history or experience to back it up.
Who does that serve? And if you do offer advice that lacks substance (such as simply noting “looks good to me”, etc.) with no actual experience with the piece or property itself), not only are you not helping anyone, you are doing damage by adding noise to the signal, sometimes drowning out informed insights.
However, and more importantly, there is always the old adage about there not being a stupid question. Asking questions is great, because it leads to answers, or no answer (which can also be revealing and productive, in some circumstances). You can not know much about a prop, but still contribute to the analysis and discussion by way of asking insightful questions. This adds to the discussion and investigation.
I’m all about participation, probably more than most, but it’s important to consider in what ways your participation can be helpful. The impulse to help is wonderful – so it’s best to make it count and have it actually be beneficial, and I’ve found asking questions – direct, specific, thoughtful, respectful questions – has no real downside.
Personally, I have never felt more of a need to be highly discriminating in this hobby than I do right now.
I “like” a lot of people in this hobby – that does not mean I place wholesale trust their judgment and assessment of any piece carte blanche. Every piece and every circumstance is unique and different. Everyone makes mistakes.
Make no assumptions.
Trust in facts and that which can be verified.
Be creative in thinking about a piece, researching a piece.
There is too much “I Want To Believe” and too much straight up fraud going on today with lots of dollars at stake and in play. If you aren’t looking out for number one (YOU), I can guarantee that no one else is. But to contribute to the foundational challenges of the growing, emerging hobby we all love by going about wanting to believe is irresponsible and an affront to those of us that strive to keep the hobby clean and the players on the up and up (or outs, as the case may be).
Provenance & Authenticity: At Odds With Business Objectives, At Odds With “Fun”
There are two forces at play in all transactions – those selling and those buying.
The sellers are looking to make a profit – it is business. Business is about making the most amount of money with the least amount of effort. Researching provenance is typically extremely challenging and time consuming, so it is inherently at odds with the business mechanics of the hobby. A paradox.
The prop source is looking to sell the piece either direct to the actual customer or through an intermediary (a dealer, an auction house, etc), so the source is often going to view provenance as a given or trump it up to maximize a return/profit on the piece.
If an intermediary is involved, that adds another complication to the proposition. They hope to buy low, and sell high. The margin is expanded further, so there is profit for both the source and the intermediary. Also, there is more competition than there used to be – if an intermediary asks too many questions in authenticating the piece, the piece or the source itself could be lost to another, less discriminating intermediary.
So, in many ways, intermediaries are forced, through competition in the marketplace, to find some balance between certainty in authenticity and acquiring the piece and closing the deal.
Ultimately, the piece is offered to the marketplace, to the buyers, to the collectors. This is where the buck stops. And this is where it can become further complicated.
Many collectors view this first and foremost as a hobby, as an escape, as fun. But it doesn’t change the fact that the suppliers are coming from a business perspective first and foremost.
I think this is the biggest challenge collectors face:
- To enjoy the process of transacting, to feel that high of finding and securing and being excited about that new prospective piece, or
- to come from the more sobering position of assuming it is not legitimate and letting the piece “speak for itself” via facts that can be verified.
I think many will never be able to get adopt the latter, because it just squeezes the “hobby” out of it for them.
And that is why this is such an important issue.
Because even if you are in the minority, and you are a cautious, contemplative collector that prioritizes provenance and authenticity over acquiring the piece and closing the deal, it is an uphill battle, because the majority of the players in the hobby do not have the same priorities.
Many pieces are, quite literally, “one of a kind”, and having an opportunity to take the time to think about an acquisition is rare – time is of the essence, and there is usually a pool of potential buyers on an important piece. Just as is the case with an intermediary securing the piece from a source, a more discerning buyer can drop down further down the list of people pieces are offered to because he’s become “the guy who asks too many questions”.
Sources want to move the piece, regardless of good or bad intent, as quickly as possible and for as much return as possible.
Intermediaries want to have long-term relationships with long-term sources, and at some point, it is likely to shift more and more to a “trust-based” relationship. An intermediary might be more discerning at the outset, and through logic and human nature, begins to take pieces “on faith”, because prior pieces were the real deal. But, again, with this hobby, you can never lose sight of the fact that every single piece is different, and provenance and authenticity is a case-by-case exercise.
The buyers also become comfortable with direct sources or intermediaries, and also frequently fall into trust-based relationships.
Every piece is unique.
Every piece has its own history, its own chain of ownership, often extending beyond the intermediary, beyond the source, and somewhere into the production (and sometimes never into the production – which is the point of doing the research).
Another wrinkle is that once a piece passes to an intermediary (dealer, auction house, etc.), any prior paperwork, COA from a competing dealer, chain of ownership, history, etc, is often broken away from the piece, unless it is an ultra-compelling component of provenance that literally adds monetary value to the piece (such as a letter from a principal of the production or studio COA). Again, it is a business, and this is how business decisions are made. Dollars trump provenance, unless provenance adds dollars. It becomes more about branding the piece by way of COA and protecting sources than it is about retaining the history of the piece with the piece.
Conclusion
In any event, my goal with this blog and these articles and insights is to change a few of those “I Want To Believe” collectors into “Trust No One” collectors.
I also hope that shining a light on these issues will influence some dealers to further recognize the importance of provenance to many seasoned collectors. My view is that the dealer that emerges as “The Provenance Dealer” will have the most long-term success in the hobby by virtue of cultivating a stellar reputation in regards to this issue at the heart of the hobby. A grand opportunity.
This hobby is in its infancy. Not in terms of actual years, but overall maturity, infrastructure, identity, rules (written and unwritten), expectations, standards…
Every collector can make a difference. Every collector can have some impact.
It’s important to ask yourself, periodically, what you want out of the hobby, and to consider what you have to offer in return.
How can you have an impact?
Jason De Bord
Jason,
I, applaud this effort to get valuable information out,in a venue, readily available to the public, and look forward to seeing this evolve into a hot spot on the Internet.
It might be necessary, however, to paste the threads you use links to, from the MPF, as only members may view those posts and, of late, it is nearly closed to new membership. That, would seem to defeat the purpose of everyone being able to gain from the information.
rick
Hi Rick,
Thanks for the support.
Regarding the links to the MPF, I am currently linking to them as a citation and acknowledgment that I may have discussed such content previously – I don’t think it’s necessary to view that content to understand the articles (though I do endorse such review for those who have access).
I do not believe it is feasible to copy over entire topics of discussion over to here – I think the best solution is for any interested non-members to contact the MPF to request direct access.
Thanks again for the support.
Jason
Great article.
I found it interesting what you said about the chain of ownership becoming ‘lost’ once in the hands of an intermediary. It is nice to see original letters of authenticity be passed onto a new buyer when sold in this way, either through a dealer or through an auction house.
Its a shame we can’t get a ‘Prop History’ booklet with each and every prop. Much like a Cars ‘Log Book’ which lists each and every owner from point of purchase through to current ownership. That way, Once inspecting the prop, the potential buyer could request to see the ‘Log book’ and find out where the prop came from. Which would then determine weather or not the new buyer wanted to take a risk with the sale. If the log book showed a less than trusting chain of ownership, they would know to pass.
Another great post Jason!
“How can you have an impact?”
I think one of the biggest ways we can have an impact in this hobby is to have an area of specialization. One advantage I see, more so with seasoned collectors, is there are niche areas many focus on, be it a particular film, actor, or prop (i.e. guns, shoes, etc.).
I myself specialize in props and costumes worn by my favorite actress, Kate Winslet, and consider myself the resident expert in the hobby. Not only do I have extensive knowledge by speaking with several people who have worked on her films, but I have also learned how many of certain items were made, what was rented vs. purchased, what she kept after filming, what has been sold on the open market, in the private market, etc.
A lot of what has been sold I have no interest in, but I keep records anyway, as I feel it’s my job to protect future buyers if and when possible. Many items have been sold that were listed incorrectly. I want to make sure future buyers can be made aware of what they are buying. This brings up two questions:
1)Do we have an obligation as collectors to protect uneducated buyers?
2)Why should you trust me?
To answer the first question, I think we do. This hobby is about more than our own personal gain. While we are not required to help others, I think anyone who wants to build a solid reputation needs to have a history of honesty and credibility, which often comes from word of mouth. The bigger and better your reputation gets, the more you put yourself in a leadership position whether you choose to or not, and we should always lead by example.
As for the second question, that’s a bit tougher to answer. While I do agree with the “trust no one” statement, sometimes I feel you have no choice but to take a leap of faith and put your trust in others. While I feel it’s everyones responsibility to do their own research, you can certainly use others as a stepping stone. If I decide to collect Freddy gloves or Jason masks, I know who and where to start. I will use that information to assist me, but ultimately it comes down to my own research if the provenance is not rock solid through paperwork and/or ownership.
A comment you made here is something that certainly would be great to see:
“I also hope that shining a light on these issues will influence some dealers to further recognize the importance of provenance to many seasoned collectors. My view is that the dealer that emerges as “The Provenance Dealer” will have the most long-term success in the hobby by virtue of cultivating a stellar reputation in regards to this issue at the heart of the hobby. A grand opportunity.”
A lot of times we do not have the necessary resources to research some pieces, which often come from dealers. Sure, I understand their need to keep their sources private, as otherwise many collectors would go directly to the source (or try to anyway). This is a tough one to answer. I see it from both sides, and think we both have valid arguments. As the buyer, of course I want all the information I can get. As the dealer, I want to protect my future business, which relies on my sources being held private.
I have purchased a few items from big dealers (non-studio dealers) with no provenance, and only their COA to back it up. Am I doing a disservice to the hobby? Maybe some feel I am, maybe some don’t, but I do have criteria I go by in what I refer to as a “blind purchase”.
1)The dealers are very well known and respected in the hobby.
2)The items were not of any significant value
If I’m going to buy a high ticket item, I must know the background of the piece, and will do any and all research I can. With time of the essence in this hobby, I have purchased and researched later, but in these scenarios the dealers I have purchased from will take the item back if I find out it’s not as described. If I feel a dealer will not refund me after a purchase, I probably shouldn’t be buying from them in the first place.
An example of a “blind purchase” for me was a set of Wonka bars. They are heavily replicated and have flooded the market, but it was an inexpensive buy, and if I ever learn they’re fake, I won’t be terribly upset. My authenticity here is based on who the seller is and their reputation. Again, some may disagree with this method of buying, but it’s few and far between, and the key thing here is they will refund me.
I really don’t have an answer for this, but I feel it is a game of trust. As we (the buyer) build relationships and put our trust in some dealers, they in turn should put their trust in us by providing some, if not all the information on a piece. I am more likely to buy from a dealer who will provide me with this information, therefore getting more business in the future. I think you are correct in “The Provenance Dealer” having the most long term success.
I can understand dealers not relaying this information to a new and/or unknown buyer, and this might seem a little unfair, but it really is a hobby established on trust (or lack of), and you do have to establish yourself within the hobby. No one said life was fair, and just as with anything else, often it’s who you know. This is not an easy hobby to be in, and by no means do I consider myself a veteran. I feel for those new to the hobby with little or nothing to go on, and this is why I see it as our obligation to lead by example, whether we want to or not.
Shawn
Shawn, Simon – thanks for the response and comments/opinions.
~
I like your idea, Simon, about the “Prop History” book. It would be nice to try to implement some standards in this regard – owner, dates of ownership, etc. Even in a case in which one owner feels some aspect needs to remain confidential, such as a source, it could still be “genericized” (such as “Production FX Artist”, as opposed to naming the individual).
~
Shawn, I totally agree with your suggestion about all of us collectors looking to find a niche or area of specialization – we all can’t know everything, but through various pursuits, we all tend to become experts in this or that simply by pursuing and researching pieces.
Regarding your two questions:
“1)Do we have an obligation as collectors to protect uneducated buyers?”
I’ve always had a strong opinion with this – an unequivocal “yes”. I think it’s very important that we look out for one another, because it’s the right thing to do; turning a blind eye to it perpetuates it, and do unto others and all that…
“2)Why should you trust me?”
I think trust and respect go hand in hand – I’m not out to disrespect people – but I think it’s appropriate to pair trust with both investigation and hard facts. Everyone makes mistakes, and trusting the one person you know often entails trusting strangers by extension, in that the person you are dealing with (the person that you know) had to rely upon the integrity and expertise of those that came before him. A chain or extension of trust.
Regarding trusting the top dealers, I think there are some pieces that can be bought “on faith”, given facts and variables in play.
The Wonka bar – that is a great example.
Back in July of 2005, there was a discussion about this on the MPF:
“Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Wonka Bar” – http://mpdf.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1584
The Propstore of London made note that they had obtained these props directly from Warner Bros along with with officially sanction Warner Brothers COA’s and secured world wide exclusive rights for the sale of all original props and costumes to be released from the film.
So, in that case, the pieces from PSoL were clearly authentic, studio endorsed, and offered first hand via an extremely reputable and well-regarded and respected dealer. You can’t get much better than that.
As another example, getting back to trust and chain of ownership…
I personally believe that if a piece has been in the custody/ownership of certain individuals, that serves as “anti-authenticity”, which needs to be further counterbalanced with compelling elements of strong provenance.
This is an example you yourself will be familiar with, Shawn, as you were a participant in the topic on the MPF:
“Donnie Darko – Frank the Rabbit” – http://mpdf.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2678
Reading the response in the topic from ScreenUsed, the dealer, you would be led to believe the “crew member” story.
Upon my pressing the dealer for more information, they disclosed to me (after I received the item) that there was no “crew member”, but it was one of several items consigned to ScreenUsed by Jerry, a member banned from the MPF.
But I think this is a great example of “faith-based” transacting – even in the face of public comments to the contrary by the dealer, further digging can still bring facts to the surface that potentially impact authenticity and legitimacy.
With the piece in question, while I very much didn’t appreciate the notion of unknowingly dealing (by extension) with someone I would absolutely avoid, looking at the piece objectively and also taking into consideration the letter from the production, the timing, the screen-matching, and other factors made me completely confident in the piece.
But again, I had made crystal clear over the years quite publicly that I avoid and I urged others to avoid dealing with that individual, and here I found myself (after the fact) to have dealt with him indirectly.
So I’m sure you can appreciate how this and other events I’ve been quite public and transparent about would make me generally cautious and deliberative regardless of who I am dealing with.
Like I said though, every piece is different and unique. Every circumstance is different. I trust some people far more than others. But I like to go into any potential purchase from “ground zero” and assemble and consider all elements of provenance to build confidence in a piece, rather than starting from a perspective of believing it’s real and working backwards.
Great comments and insights, Shawn.
Thanks again,
Jason
‘starting from a perspective of believing it’s real and working backwards’
I find that comment to be very interesting, and in most cases true. I find that some collectors (Myself included – when i first started collecting) would believe that a piece is genuine, then try and prove themselves wrong. Where as it would make much more sense, and in most cases save money, if the collector started, as Jason said, from ‘Ground Zero’ and then looked into proving said item was as described.
When i first started collecting i baught a stunt gun that came from Ellis Props, with an Ellis Props COA. Even after reading about the fiasco with the inventory clearance, and hearing about them, I went ahead and baught the prop. Only after, Did i start looking into it and trying to match it etc. As it happens, Everything looked ok. But it could have quite easily gone the other way, A lesson i learnt from the offset.