This is a follow-up to an article I wrote back in May, “Authenticity & Burden of Proof“.
In the prior article, I made the argument that a discerning collector should approach a potential prop or costume or other artifact acquisition as an unknown, or inconclusive in terms of it’s being “Original” (see What is “Original”?). Authenticity must then be proven. This is a different perspective from those that believe what they are told about a piece, without question.
I’ve always felt that some collectors operate within a “hopeful marketplace”, and being a hobby (which for most equates to fun), being skeptical of potential acquisitions and asking tough questions takes the fun out of it. This goes hand in hand with what I’ve called “I Want to Believe” (see article, Trend: “I Want to Believe”).
Two “tools” I’ve put together, in the form of opinion pieces, to help collectors proceed in a more discerning manner, are these articles:
- Instruments of Authenticity & Chain of Ownership
- The Original Prop Purchase Checklist & Questionnaire
Directly related to the dichotomy of “assumed authentic” vs. “assumed inconclusive”, when first considering a prop or costume, I’ve also seen two different approaches to questionable pieces. With one or a few questions raised, I’ve seen hobbyists jump to conclusions that a piece is inauthentic, or going further (making a strong statement as to the intent of the seller or prior owner), that a piece is fraudulent. As with the assumptions of legitimacy and authenticity, I think it is just as important to reserve negative judgments on pieces, and again assume inconclusive until truly proven to be inauthentic.
In short… I think conclusions of either “authentic” (or good) and “inauthentic” (or bad) must be proven.
I think it is best to assume any piece to be inconclusive at the start, and to build a case, with material facts, toward a conclusion of either “authentic” or “inauthentic”. Some pieces, under this philosophy, may never advance beyond a characterization of “inconclusive” – without good information, it’s highly likely a piece can never be fully vetted.
Within each of these three broad categories: “Authentic”, “Inconclusive”, and “Inauthentic”, there are a variety of subsets.
“Authentic” props must merely pass the tests of What is “Original”?. Under the umbrella of Authenticity, a particular piece can be merely “from the production”, it can be a prototype, an unused back-up piece, a stunt piece, a hero piece, screen-matched, etc. All of those conditions reflect an “authentic” piece.
By the same token, an “inauthentic” piece could involve fraud, or be a few times removed, or be a resold piece from an undiscerning collector, or be a replica mistaken as an original piece, or any variety of possibilities in which a piece simply is not “Original”.
Under the “inconclusive” category, a piece is truly either authentic or inauthentic, it simply cannot be definitively proven to be one or the other with the available information.
As noted, beyond characterizing a piece as “inauthentic”, making serious charges of fraud should, in my opinion, be absolutely backed up with material facts that cannot be disputed.
I think, as collectors, its important to be both discerning as well as fair and responsible in how we talk about props and other participants in the hobby.
Jason De Bord