One interesting phenomenon I’ve picked up on in the hobby is the vast differences of perspective in regards to the burden of proof and authenticity.
One viewpoint is that a piece is as the seller claims and that the burden to prove otherwise is on potential buyers and/or critics to prove otherwise. Though the seller/owner does not share any material facts to prove the piece authentic, he or she expects compelling evidence to debunk the piece.
Of course, the converse view (held by myself) is that the seller must come to the table with material facts and evidence that support his or her claims of authenticity and use in the property (film or television product).
Which view is correct? Or is their some “happy medium”?
Authentic Until Debunked
In my opinion, this is a fairly common viewpoint – that a piece is as claimed by the owner or seller, unless someone can prove irrefutably that it is not. This is especially common among sellers/dealers in marketing a piece, as it serves their interests in selling the prop.
As I understand the logic, in the extreme, provenance and authenticity is whatever the owner/seller claims it to be. With this view, anyone questioning the authenticity of the piece, or how it is characterized in terms of use and stature, must prove otherwise with material facts and evidence. The burden is placed on the potential buyer to disprove authenticity.
Further, those that ascribe to this philosophy and viewpoint generally take everything at face value, on the word and honor of others. So this process builds as the piece changes hands, to the point where the current owner may not even know the original source of the “story” or attributes attached to the very prop he owns. Essentially, it is wholesale blind trust.
The prop is simply considered “original”, with no chain of ownership or material facts supporting this claim.
This eventuality demonstrates to me exactly why this logic and viewpoint is faulty – it is all about assumptions, lack of research, and blind trust and faith in people known and not known. It is the antithesis of authenticity. And it is prevalent in the hobby.
Inconclusive (or Unknown) Until Authenticated
The viewpoint I subscribe to is that a piece begins as inconclusive/unknown, and authenticity must be proven.
For me, determining authenticity is a “building” process – some facts and information are more important and more compelling than others, and are weighted accordingly. Once research is completed, all of those facts and factors, both positive and negative, are subjectively weighed with and against one another, and I come to my personal position on the authenticity of the prop.
I believe that, for someone to say a piece is original and authentic, he should be prepared to back-up that assessment with the facts and information upon which he came to that conclusion. More, if a piece is claimed to be a hero piece, or a screen-matched piece, etc., then there must be compelling facts that support such characterizations.
Navigating a “Hopeful” Marketplace
If you share, or lean toward my own viewpoint, how do you make your way through the hobby and considering prop acquisitions? Especially with those that seem to ascribe to the opposing view?
As a guideline, the most important thing is to not accept a piece as “original” and “authentic” based on nothing more than marketing, words, stories, and promises.
Ask questions. [see article, The Original Prop Purchase Checklist & Questionnaire]
Be aware of red flags. [see article, The Red Flags of Authenticity]
Conduct your own research. Use the tools at your disposal to do research above and beyond what has been shared with you. Review the film. Network with other collectors. Think outside the box.
Don’t forget – every piece is unknown until authenticated.
Jason De Bord