As discussed in the prior article, Authenticity & Burden of Proof, I’ve found the notion that a piece is authentic, unless proven otherwise, to be faulty (as a buyer and collector, anyway).
Original props should be demonstrated to be authentic, not assumed “Original” unless proven inauthentic. As noted in the prior article, it places the burden on the buyer to authenticate, in conjunction with or even following a purchase.
I think the prevalence, and general acceptance of, Certificates of Authenticity (COAs) to contribute significantly to this trend. They are widely accepted at face value.
The function of a COA is generally to certify authenticity – without demonstrating authenticity with material information that speaks to source, chain of ownership, and other material facts that would illustrate that a prop or wardrobe piece is or is not “Original” (see article, What is “Original”?).
This article is a follow-up to many prior pieces, some already noted above, but in particular:
The Original Prop Purchase Checklist & Questionnaire
Challenging The Hobby: The COA & The Guarantee
My thoughts of late, a consequence of a series of unrelated events and observations and reflection, focus on the issue of provenance. More, the lackluster provenance (i.e. paperwork) that accompanies most pieces offered for sale and resale.
The Certificate of Authenticity
As discussed already in the “Challenging The Hobby” article, Certificates of Authenticity (COAs) have become the standard for ascribing authenticity to items.
To recap, there are two “types” of COAs used frequently by dealers in the hobby (from the Original Prop Lexicon):
Studio Certificate of Authenticity: A Certificate of Authenticity (COA) issued directly by the studio or endorsed by the studio responsible for the film or television production in question. Well-regarded in terms of provenance, since it is studio-endorsed and officially released into the marketplace. More, there is no gap in the chain of ownership and the first buyer of the piece, outside of the studio sanctioned reseller. See Certificate of Authenticity, Studio Reseller/Dealer, Provenance
Professional Dealer Certificate of Authenticity: A Certificate of Authenticity (COA) issued by a professional dealer. The main function of the Professional Dealer COA is to certify the piece as Original. Another function, which is not typically discussed, is that it frequently “reinitializes” provenance – which restarts history of ownership for both new to market pieces as well as “resale” pieces. Each piece is essentially “reborn” from the newly established Professional Dealer point of ownership going forward, and the prior history of the piece is lost to the new owner (and likely subsequent owners). One of the inherent issues with Professional Dealers buying, trading, and selling original props is that the history of the piece is typically rendered confidential. This is because dealers are typically very proprietary about information. Therefore, in many cases, Professional Dealer (and other non-studio/non-studio sanctioned) COAs are lacking in terms of provenance, since the history of ownership and/or original source is often not cited. Another consideration is that the piece is not necessarily “free and clear” of any legal/ownership issues. Some Professional Dealers do offer varying kinds of “money back guarantees” with or as part of their COA. See Certificate of Authenticity, Studio Reseller/Dealer, Studio Certificate of Authenticity, Provenance, Money Back Guarantee; See article Challenging The Hobby: The COA & The Guarantee
Generally, non-Studio COAs attest to authenticity generally, but rarely addresses any of the key material information. This, in my opinion, is a weak “instrument” (or written document).
This article will look more closely at the various kinds of statements that can be made as well as the material information that should be addresses to outline provenance.
Statements & Material Facts, Events, Information
To really consider what kinds of documents can be drafted in support of the authenticity of a prop or costume, it is productive to break things down into basics.
Kinds of Statements:
- First Hand Statement – Statements of first-hand knowledge and experience
- Second Hand Statement – Statements repeated based on information from others
Material Facts, Events, Information:
- Authenticity – The condition of or conclusion that a piece is or is not “Original”
- Use in Production – Details of actual use of the piece in the production
- Privatization – Circumstances under which ownership was transferred from the Studio to a private party or reseller/agent
- Source – The studio itself (if selling in a studio sanctioned capacity) or the first private party owner
- Ownership – Chain of subsequent owners following Source, including collectors and dealers/resellers
- Production Issued Documents – All documents generated during production or by the studio (at any time) pertaining to material facts, events, and/or information in regards to the prop or wardrobe piece in question
- Post Production Issued Documents – All documents issued post production in regards to this piece, by the studio, any party, any dealer/reseller, any owner or subsequent owner, including Dealer COAs and previously issued COAs, as well as auction house catalogs and other applicable documentation of “for sale” offerings
With any instrument, there are also features that can strengthen its validity:
- Clear and distinguishing photos of item
- Detailed description of item
- Reference to other pertinent documents
- Dates, as applicable
- Statements Attested to with names, addresses, signatures
- Marks, official letterhead, stamps, notarization, or other distinguishing features affixed or part of the document
Obviously, this is a complicated hobby, and every piece is different. But I do not see how one piece of paper (a non-Studio COA) can supplant the myriad of possible records that can be developed for a specific prop or wardrobe piece in an effort to demonstrate authenticity.
Other Considerations
As noted, every piece and every circumstance is unique. The following are just some examples of contingencies in which additional factors can speak to authenticity.
- Screen-match – It is possible (though rare) to definitively screen-match a prop or wardrobe piece with unique marks to what is seen in the film or television program – this addresses both use and originality.
- Rental agreements – With “real” firearms, due to serial numbers that are part of each weapon and the use of rental agreements with the studios (with the armorer being legal owner of each weapon – not the studio), this combination of paperwork and serial numbering (and other legal requirements and transfer of ownership necessitating registration with the government in many cases), this too affirms originality and perhaps use as well, given different variables.
- Parties – There are a variety of parties which may be an owner or seller or authority on a given piece: studio, prop master, principal from production (director, actor, technician), source, dealer, auction house, armorer, reseller, researcher, and more.
- Auction Houses – Many auction houses offer no COA or paperwork of any kind, outside of an invoice and the catalog which promotes the item in question.
The “Chain of Provenance” from the Production
In reviewing and considering the information above, in practice, one can see that it is quite frequent that the “Chain of Provenance” going back to the piece leaving the production (which I’ve called “privatization”) is often unknown.
I’ve developed a few visual aids to outline a few common scenarios of how original props and costumes leave the studio and enter the marketplace.
The first diagram illustrates, in basic terms, how a piece marketed by a “Studio Reseller” would enter the marketplace.
Provenance Example I: Studio Reseller
Some time following the end of production, the props and wardrobe would be “privatized”, and this property would be transferred to or sold into the custody of an officially sanctioned reseller to market and release into the marketplace. These items would therefore be “free and clear” of any ownership issues, and the reseller would issue, in conjunction with or with authorization from the studio, a “Studio COA”.
If this Studio COA is accompanied with the prop or wardrobe piece with each sale, and each owner is recorded into some sort of document outlining the chain of ownership, this maintains a “Chain of Provenance” from whoever the current owner is back to the production.
Generally, Studio COAs do not address “use” in the production, so other information that addresses these specifics bolster overall provenance.
But, with the “Chain of Provenance” leading back to the production, the piece can be described as “Original”.
Now, the second diagram illustrates one of the many scenarios possible with a professional dealer or any private seller/reseller.
Provenance Example II: Professional or Private Dealer
In my experience, with non-studio sanctioned sellers and resellers, it’s less likely you have a true “Chain of Provenance” leading back to the production. As noted, designated by the circles/breaks in certain stages, these are points at which prior information can be lost – often as a conscious decision in selling/reselling a piece.
Also note, it is frequent that it is not known under what circumstances a piece is “privatized”. Was it gifted? Sold? Stolen?
With each “break” in the “chain”, information is lost, and I always ask, why? If the information supports provenance, then it should support a higher value, which means more profit for the seller. Of course, much of it is about protecting sources, which is a larger and long term source of revenue that may trump short term realizations in selling one or a few pieces at a higher price with better documented provenance.
(Preliminary) Conclusion
But these gaps in provenance are largely what contributes to my overall poor opinion of non-Studio COAs – they are often used to supplant true, accurate, relevant, material information that speaks to provenance directly. Having said that, all that Studio COAs guarantee is that the piece is “Original” – not how it was used, who it was used by, if it was filmed, etc.
Yes, a dealer or private party may “certify”, or even “guarantee” (in some cases, with refund) that a piece is Original. But, as noted in the opening and previous article, that puts the burden on the buyer to prove it inauthentic. In my eyes, it is appropriate for the seller to shoulder the burden of doing the research, ensuring ALL documentation is “married” to the piece, and to demonstrate to the buyer that it is Original, along with a true “Chain of Provenance” leading back to the production.
My question to readers of this blog is this: how do we steer the hobby in the right direction?
Jason De Bord