Case Study: Questioning Authenticity on eBay (Elstree Props)

Article Summary: A case study of analyzing selling tactics employed in an actual eBay listing, and practicing the art of being a discerning collector by raising questions of authenticity in evaluating the marketing of a prop on eBay.

Case Study: Questioning Authenticity on eBay (Elstree Props)

I’ve received a lot of interesting feedback about my article a few days ago, The Red Flags of Authenticity. As I’ve explained to a few collectors privately, in my initial draft, I actually had examples for each of the “red flags” I had outlined in the article, but removed most, in that it almost became a distraction from the article itself.

Instead, I’ve decided to draw attention to various marketing tactics put in use, via listings on eBay or other offerings of original props elsewhere on the Internet, for the purpose of discussion and analysis. As such, I will ask questions about the specific elements of these auctions that I find problematic and share my observations through case studies.

In short, I will attempt to put into practice the art of being a discerning original prop collector.

With this exercise, I am not making any claims that the piece under study is not original.

What I am saying is that, in my personal opinion, in evaluating the information provided by the seller in the marketing of it, it has not been proven to my personal standards that the piece is original.

As noted in other articles, I approach any potential purchase assuming the piece is not original and put the burden on the seller and the piece itself to prove to me that it is original and authentic.

Perhaps by asking appropriate questions of such public “for sale” offerings, we can begin to construct and convey the expectations of collectors so that sellers/dealers can take such concerns under consideration and, as a consequence, perform better research and include more material information with their offerings.

The first such example and subject of this case study is a current eBay listing (Item #260107649171) from e11e or Elstree Props titled STAR TREK TNG KLINGON PISTOL FILM PROP, EXCELLENT ORIGINAL PIECE. [static page save: Elstree Klingon Disruptor]

My first consideration in reviewing this piece, regardless of the seller, concerns the property itself – Star Trek props in general pose specific challenges, in terms of verifying authenticity.

• Star Trek props are highly replicated.

• As with all non-hero and non-functional hand props and/or stunt props (which this piece is), they are very easy to make castings of, with replicas often being nearly indistinguishable from original props.

• Given that it is a Star Trek piece, there are many different productions it can have been made for or used in, in both film and television, so it can be a challenge determining what piece was used in which film(s) and/or which television series. There were a total of 10 films and 5 television series spanning several decades. It’s a Wrap is currently handling Star Trek auctions in an official capacity for CBS Paramount Television, and does a fairly good job identifying the episode(s) and/or film the pieces were featured in.

• The prop makers from the production have also made reproductions for the Star Trek: The Experience gift shop in Las Vegas that are made as the originals were made, which is another inherent risk in acquiring original pieces from unauthorized sources or as resale pieces (i.e. outside of It’s a Wrap or the Christies auction last year). LINK to HMS Site:

“The Star Trek Experience at the Las Vegas Hilton carries a line of authentic props, masks and makeup appliances, and other items in their “Admiral’s Collection” gift shop that while they were not “used in production,” they are made using the same molds and techniques, and by the same people, as those used on Star Trek; and they come with Paramount’s Certificate of Authenticity.”

Now, with this specific piece offered on eBay, I have many immediate considerations given the particulars of the listing – the seller, the description, the information provided and lack of information, etc.

The piece is a Klingon disruptor, which were used quite frequently in the many productions.

So, getting to the eBay listing specifically…

Click for Full Auction Archive

The seller is Elstree props, which is a well known prop dealer offering pieces via eBay, ElstreeProps.com, and consignment via auction houses such as Profiles in History.

If one were new to original prop collecting, how would they likely interpret the eBay seller information? As a seller that has been a member of eBay for over 7 years, with 99.5% positive feedback of over 1,000 transactions, that is also a Power Seller. Additionally, the seller describes itself as a film studio (“Elstree Film Studios”, “Elstree Film Props”).

However, looking at just the title of the item, “STAR TREK TNG PISTOL FILM PROP” raises some questions.

“Pistol” probably isn’t the best word choice for the Trek prop – since it’s a disruptor.

Also, “TNG” (The Next Generation) is a television series, not a “film”.

Now, sometimes eBay listings have somewhat inaccurate or misleading titles in that sellers may attempt to catch potential buyers with keywords in title searches. But here, in the body of the marketing description itself, the same mistakes noted above are compounded: “Klingon Pistol” and “Star Trek – The Next Generation” with “From The Movie”.

Regardless of the seller, this makes me question what they know about the property (Star Trek) overall, let alone this specific piece.

Getting to the actual description, my concerns are compounded:

“This auction is for a very rare piece from a classic movie, STAR TREK TNG.”

There is no such film titled, “STAR TREK TNG”. This is worsened by the fact that it is heralded as “classic”. So with both the title of the listing itself and title and first line of the actual description, I find the seller’s credibility on this specific prop (or any Trek pieces) suspect. A simple IMDB.com search could easily list all of the titles of the various Trek films and television series.

The second line is the only sentence in the entire listing that actually describes the prop:

“This is approximately 12 inches long and beautifully detailed”

That is the total amount of information about the prop that is shared – the length, in inches.

What is it made out of? Resin? Rubber?

Is there any wear or damage?

Weathering?

Identifying marks?

Is it all cast as one piece? Or segments?

Are there any applications or adornments?

The next two lines confirm my suspicions about the seller lacking in regards to understanding of the property in question:

“We are not experts on Star Trek so any trekkies who can give us more info on this piece will be creditted [sic]. But we have been told thois [sic] is a rare Klingon pistol.”

So some unnamed/unidentified third party told the seller it is a “Klingon pistol”. Further, no indication is given as to whether this third party is an expert, someone connected to the show, a prior owner, a consignor, etc.

Just as no more than one line was taken to describe the physicality of the piece, just one line was utilized to describe the background, provenance, and research conducted to arrive at a conclusion of original and authentic.

From the Red Flags article, this would be representative of what I call “Adoption” [The seller presents himself as overly forthcoming in noting that someone else sold him the piece as original - or - an unidentified third party authenticated the piece as original].

The answers to some or all of the following questions should be presented to the prospective buyer in the marketing description (which would make it a much more attractive proposition):

What film(s) or television show(s) was the piece used in?

Where is a screencap showing this piece or a similar such piece in use in the final release of the product?

Or, in the case of Star Trek, a scan from one of the countless books and other collateral showing a similar such piece?

What is the provenance?

Chain of ownership?

What leads Elstree Props to believe it is original?

Was it made for production, at the time of production, intended to be used in production?

Is there any kind of paperwork to accompany the piece?

Studio COA?

Letter from cast or crew?

Expert assessment?

“We were going to frame this individually in a special case but are now concentrating on original pieces from movies made here at Elstree Film Studios. So now this is for sale at £350 pounds!”

How would the abandoned plans to frame this piece be of relevance to a potential buyer?

As an aside, the Buy It Now price is of the listing is 550 GBP, not the 350 GBP noted in the description…

The next section of marketing description about the prop truly has nothing of substance to do with the prop:

“We are based at Elstree Film Studios and have been since the 1970′s. We worked in mechanical effects on over 120 movies including the original Star Wars Trilogy, the Indiana Jones Trilogy, Dark Crystal, Flash Gordon, Labyrinth, The Shining, Superman, Alien and many many more.”

Thus, Elstree outlines past work as a film studio, but the most recent film noted is from 1989, and none are related to the prop offered – Star Trek. It is also unclear as to the relationship, if any, between “Elstree Props” and “Elstree Film Studios”. The marketing description makes it appear to be synonymous, but I honestly do not know if that is the case.

From the Red Flags article, this would be representative of “Name Dropping” [the seller of a piece tells you with whom he is acquainted and/or of activities in the entertainment industry - either or both as evidence that the piece is authentic].

“So buy with confidence, everything we sell has a full studio COA stamped and signed, and our unconditional guarantee. We don’t have credits on all the movies we worked on, as in those days you had to pay for the privilege !”

The prospective buyer is encouraged to “buy with confidence”, but we know 1) next to nothing about the prop or 2) where it came from or 3) why it is considered “original”.

The seller has offered, in lieu of substantive material information, a “studio” COA (even though Elstree does not claim to have any connection to the Star Trek property in the list of films cited), “stamped and signed” (of what benefit or consequence is this?), with the Elstree Props “unconditional guarantee”.

This is part of the “Guarantee Arsenal” tactic described in the Red Flags article [The seller “guarantees” his pieces via inclusion of a Certificate of Authenticity, Letter of Authenticity, and/or other vague, boilerplate, or non specific paperwork (stamped, signed, notarized, etc.). Some sellers also offer a "money back" guarantee and/or a “lifetime” guarantee and/or an unspecified "guarantee"].

I assume “unconditional guarantee” means money back guarantee, but what are the conditions and parameters for this?

Would the burden be placed on the buyer to prove it to be non-original, rather than the seller demonstrating that it is original?

How long is the guarantee? For the life of the business? The buyer? Is it transferable?

How does the caveat in the description “[w]e are not experts on Star Trek” relate to the guarantee?

I don’t understand what the “pay for the privilege” line means…

The next section, again, does not speak to the prop being offered or its provenance and authenticity:

“We also work closely with the Elstree Heritage group to preserve our local history, and are always looking for donations and items to purchase for our archive and museum display. We can assist if you need to sell high end props by using our private collectors database and links with all the major auction houses.”

Offering to sell “high end props” has no bearing on the offering and is astray from the purpose of the listing – to describe merchandise available for sale.

“We worked with Robert Earl when he was opening the Planet Hollywood chain, and we supplied many of his pieces.”

This is an unusual segue, in that the prospective buyer is left to wonder if this is misplaced “about the seller” fare or if it has any bearing whatsoever to the specific piece being offered (i.e. was Planet Hollywood in the chain of ownership of this specific piece?).

In reviewing other e11e offerings on eBay, it appears to be the former (i.e. about the seller and irrelevant to the authenticity of the prop). In terms of the Red Flags article, this would fall under “Name Dropping” [when the seller of a piece tells you with whom he is acquainted or of activities in the entertainment industry as evidence that the piece is authentic].

The description of the piece is closed with no further information about the specific piece:

“We will start this in our store so you could snap this up for just £350 but eventually all of our items filter onto the live auction page of eBay where we start at just a pound to see what they are truly worth! Full COA included from the Film Studios. Shipping by courier includes careful packaging in a strong box and is £8.50 within the UK, £30 to Europe and £40 to the USA.”

Again, the price that is inconsistent with the actual Buy It Now price (which is significantly higher) as noted, but that observation has nothing to do with authenticity either.

Also, again, the note about a COA “from the Film Studios” is offered; the studio that produces the Star Trek films is Paramount Pictures. This is misleading, in that a “Studio COA” has a very specific meaning in this hobby, and I would guess that it does not fit in this instance.

Interestingly, on the ElstreeProps.com website, under Frequently Asked Questions, is the following:

How much is my prop worth?

We value props according to

a. The film they are from;

b. The provenance they come with;

c. Their prominence in the final release of the movie;

d. the craftsmanship that has gone into the piece;

e. How many there are!

Going by the information provided in this eBay listing, here are the answers to those Elstree questions for this specific prop:

a. The film they are from:

• Since “STAR TREK – TNG” doesn’t exist, we can’t answer this question based on the marketing description

b. The provenance they come with:

• Judging from the listing description, all we know is that an unnamed third party said it is a “Klingon pistol”

c. Their prominence in the final release of the movie:

• Film/Television Program remains unidentified/misidentified

d. The craftsmanship that has gone into the piece:

• Judging from the listing description, all we know is that it’s 12 inches long

e. How many there are:

• Not addressed

So given Elstree Props’ own tests of worth, the information provided in this listing does not substantively address a single one of the five questions/criteria for determining value.

Again, just to be very clear, I’m not saying that this prop is original or is not original. In my personal opinion, a prospective buyer reading the eBay listing cannot come to a determination of “original and authentic” with the information provided.

My goal in performing this analysis and case study was to simply share with other collectors my personal perspective and questioning process in evaluating an eBay offering of a prop described and marketed as an “original” prop.

The piece is question is listed in the eBay category, “DVD, Film & TV > Film Memorabilia > Props > Original” and described in the subtitle of the listing as an “EXCELLENT ORIGINAL PIECE”.

Contrary to that, in the actual description, the seller notes “[w]e are not experts on Star Trek” and “we have been told thois [sic] is a rare Klingon pistol”.

Provenance and authenticity always falls somewhere on a scale from strong to weak. In my opinion, this offering, as marketed, fails to establish the piece as original.

I think if a seller publicly offers an “original” piece with no material information to back up that claim, it should be open to public discussion and scrutiny.

Perhaps by openly discussing and drawing attention to these issues, sellers will begin to learn what collectors expect by way of convincing material information pertaining to authenticity and adjust accordingly. This would benefit the hobby significantly.

Jason De Bord