There is a news story in the New York Post about a collector who bid on and won items at the Christie’s “40 Years of Star Trek: The Collection” event in New York held in October 2006.
This was one of the biggest live auction events in the history of the hobby, with extensive press coverage.
The collector featured in this article is apparently suing CBS and Paramount Studios and Christie’s for $7 million dollars, claiming that the pieces won at auction were inauthentic.
Coincidentally, the visor that is referenced in the article as the piece Spiner told the collector was not his visor, was a piece I was interested in for myself at the time of the auction. I had asked a friend in attendance to place a bid for me. After reading this story, I immediately remembered that the auctioneer had noted, before opening the item for bids, that there was an updated description for the item, and that it was made for the show/character, but was not the one seen/used. I don’t have the exact quote from the live webcast, but my note on a private forum at the time (we were making notes and discussing in real time) was as follows:
I asked Brandon to bid $1600 on Data’s visor (up now)…
Not even worn! I’m okay to miss that one then!
Because this was broadcast on the web and via the History Channel on television, I’m sure the exact remarks by the Christie’s auctioneer/representative prior to bids placed will have an impact on this case.
In any event, I do have sympathy for the collector, if he feels what he purchased did not meet his expectations. However, I do not see how that amounts to a refund plus $7 million dollars in damages, nor do I see any specifics raised in the article about the other two items he purchased.
In the abstract, I think the expectations of the casual collector and the realities and complexities of authentication and the employment and specific use of props and the marketing of those props within the hobby is very problematic, and this result is not surprising to me, regardless of the details or outcome.
For casual collectors, the hobby is a minefield, and, unfortunately, many lessons are learned the hard way, which I believe leads to disappointment and attrition.
Here is a link to the full story (LINK):
TREKKIE VS. CHRISTIE’S
SUIT OVER ‘FAKE’ MEMENTOS
By DAREH GREGORIANDecember 28, 2007 — Now playing in a Manhattan courthouse – “Star Trek 12: The Wrath of Ted.”
Lifelong Trekkie Ted Moustakis has boldly filed a $7 million lawsuit against the show’s producers and Christie’s auction house, saying they sold him bogus “Star Trek” memorabilia at a heavily hyped auction last year.
In papers filed in Manhattan Supreme Court, Moustakis says Christie’s was aware the goods it received from CBS Paramount were fakes but sold them anyway.
“They were given strong reason to believe certain items were not authentic,” said the restaurateur’s lawyer, Richard Borzouye.
“This was done knowingly.”
Representatives for Christie’s and CBS Paramount Television did not return calls.
The 46-year-old father of six attended the auction celebrating the 40th anniversary of the sci-fi franchise after winning a lottery to get in.
The New Jersey man bought three items having to do with Data, his favorite character on “Star Trek: The Next Generation.”
Moustakis shelled out $6,600 for a poker visor, $6,000 for a uniform worn by Data on the show and $11,000 for a poker table.
“I was so proud to have these items,” he said.
That pride was photon torpedoed a year later, when Moustakis attended a “Star Trek” convention in Las Vegas and shelled out $200 for a photo-op with the actor who played Data, Brent Spiner.
He brought along the visor in hopes of getting Spiner to autograph it.
“When I approached, he saw the visor, and he said, ‘That’s not my visor. You bought that at Christie’s’ ” Moustakis recalled.
He said Spiner told him he had sold off the visor himself on eBay and had warned the auction house they had a fake.
A dejected Moustakis then researched his other items and found CBS had been selling numerous versions of Spiner’s “one-of-a-kind” uniform and that the table he had bought had slight differences from the one that was on the show, he said.
He said Christie’s told him it was standing behind its experts who verified the goods.
The suit seeks a refund as well as millions in punitive damages.
Full coverage of this story can be found on the Original Prop Blog series of articles (Auction Houses and Prop Dealers | Christie’s | Christie’s ‘Star Trek’ Lawsuit):
Jason De Bord