One thing I’ve consistently been a proponent of is this: hobbyists and dealers alike should actively, consciously, and consistently make a point to avoid dealing with bad sources, or platforms for bad sources.
It is a small hobby, and as such, every individual collector, and, more so, dealer, has the power (and in my view, responsibility) to affect change in who has a role in the marketplace and to what extent.
Everyone should, in good conscience, exercise this power to the benefit of all by refusing to deal with “Bad Sources” in the hobby.
What is a “Bad Source”?
A “Bad Source” is an individual or company that has consistently or knowingly sold bad, questionable, problematic, and or fraudulent props.
As a for instance, someone who pairs an original studio COA with a replica. Or someone who, as a routine, performs no research into provenance and relies instead on some of those tactics outlined in the article, The Red Flags of Authenticity. Or someone who characterizes post production replicas as original and authentic.
“Bad Sources” generally garner a reputation as such, either quite openly on the discussion forums, or in whispers from collector to collector. Fortunately, some are quite obvious in just reviewing their offerings. Many range from hostile to aggressive in how they react to and address questions and criticism.
How are “Bad Sources” Enabled?
My theory about “Bad Sources” is this: if people stop buying from them, they will eventually go away.
This serves everyone.
Fewer bad props will be introduced to the marketplace.
Authentic props will command higher values.
Conflicts and issues inherent in the trading of bad props are taken off the table.
This is one case of an issue in the hobby that is quite clear and easily remedied: “Bad Sources” are enabled by dealing with them. “Bad Sources” are disabled via the collective participants in the hobby identifying them and refusing to deal with them or those who act as proxies or on their behalf.
As an example, if there is an individual collector “Bad Source” in the hobby who has a propensity to turn over pieces, some of which have been identified as bad or fraudulent. I feel it is short-sighted, reckless, unscrupulous, and mercenary for a professional dealer to enable such a “Bad Source” if the dealer allows him to consign with them or buys from him with the intent to resell. This gives the “Bad Source” a consistent platform with which to move product. Worse, the dealer, in essence, legitimizes the “Bad Source” by hiding his identity and offering the prop with his own company’s reputation in the place of the “Bad Source” reputation. This keeps the “Bad Source” operating and active within the hobby. Worse, collectors may deal with and enable these sources unwittingly, not being privy to the relationship/partnership between the professional dealer and the “Bad Source”.
Another example is the flipside of the prior example – private collectors who buy from questionable individual collectors or even questionable dealers and resell those pieces, again without openly disclosing the source from the outset or by “trumping up” the status of this “Bad Source” in the face of significant concerns about the “Bad Source” reputation, dealings, and performance (in terms of research and authenticity).
Taking Action Against “Bad Sources” – How and Why?
As noted, the way to counteract these “Bad Sources” in the hobby is to 1) question those sources and props from those sources, 2) question those dealers and individuals who deal with and enable those sources, and 3) elect not to purchase any pieces originating from bad sources. Taking this one step further, to really send a message, you can elect not to buy any product from any dealer that enables a “Bad Source”.
Collectively, as consumers, we have the power to make changes in the hobby. Most of all, by how we spend our money and who we spend it with.
In talking with collectors and dealers about this issue, the counter argument I’ve heard is that “Bad Sources” have both good and bad pieces – it’s better to identify the good pieces and get them away from them.
My view is, it’s better to collectively shut them out of the hobby, once and for all.
If no one deals with them, and no one buys from them, they are lost. Conversely, for a dealer to bolster the “Bad Source” reputation by hiding it and supplanting it with their own, they are getting the “Bad Source” more money than he would likely get otherwise, and thus helping the “Bad Source” to succeed in the hobby, in spite of his actions and reputation.
I know of one “Bad Source” who has been somewhat limited – by specific collectors and one auction house refusing to deal with him. However, he still has a presence, in that one or two of the professional dealers still consign from him and/or buy from him. He still has a method by which to move pieces in “stealth mode”, via the reputation and public face of others.
My perspective is, he should be shut out from all third party venues, and left to sell for himself, as himself, out in the open on eBay or via his own site.
So long as one professional dealer vouches for his pieces, obscures their business relationship, and gives those pieces legitimacy, the “Bad Source” is not only enabled, but empowered.
It requires each and every one of us, as a group, to collectively put the interests of the hobby in front of any short term monetary gain or personal acquisition to truly and definitively address the issue.
As many bad and questionable pieces as there are, there are still many, many stellar pieces available for purchase in the marketplace.
In my opinion, there is truly no excuse to enable “Bad Sources”.
Jason De Bord