I had initiated a discussion topic on the Movie Prop Forum related to my previous article (see “Work in Progress: The Ultimate Original Prop COA, Part I“), which can be found here:
This resulted in some interesting dialogue, so I thought I’d update the OPB with some of my further thoughts based on comments and idea from other hobbyists.
COA Aesthetics: Immaterial
I’ve seen the topic of COA aesthetics come up several times on the discussion forums, more from customers than dealers, but I think it reflects on the mindset of the hobby…
Many of us are focused on the aesthetics of the document rather than the content.
Personally, I could care less what it looks like, what size it is, how pretty it is, etc. I want to know about the information contained therein. And what kind of information, of comprehensive value, can be found within the corners of one 5″ x 7″ or 8″ x 10″ or whatever size card, with the majority of the space being white or the dealer’s logo?
Hobbyists Disinterested in Provenance: “Knowing” It’s Authentic
To me, these collectors are irresponsible. Unless they’ve found the secret to immortality, their prop is likely going to outlast them. If they care about the props and wardrobe that they collect, beyond their own short term personal thrill of owning it, I would hope any collector would realize that we all are merely caretakers of these artifacts. When you keel over, your heirs sure aren’t going to know what the hell it is, where it came from, if it’s “real”, or what it’s worth, so 1) the heirs are going to receive far less compensation in selling it and 2) the new owner will have an incomplete picture of it’s provenance.
So unless people plan to be buried with their collection, I think it would be responsible to maintain documentation as to provenance and authenticity.
If they don’t care about what happens to the world or their property or anything about life after they die, well, I guess there isn’t much you can do about people so focused on themselves.
Meaningful COAs: Too Much Work?
Objecting to producing substantive COAs because it would require too much effort and additional resources is, in my opinion, and exaggeration.
For starters, it implies that there is no material research currently being done. These are, in my opinion, questions and information that should be pursued by a dealer regardless of whether its being passed on to the customer or not. How else could a dealer know a piece is authentic if these areas are not investigated?
I would think that all major dealers already consult attorneys – if one has concerns about the legal implication of such an exercise and the development of such documentation, I would imagine having an attorney review a template and sample, to use as a guide for all future COAs, would be sufficient.
Really, getting down to brass tacks, what exactly are hobbyists paying for in buying from a dealer? Professional authentication, and, in seemingly rare instances, a “guarantee” of some sort. Are props sold on professional dealer websites not generally marked up 100% at a minimum? Is it not quite common for a dealer to make thousands to tens of thousands of dollars on a single transaction? Is expecting some documentation confirming their conclusion of “authentic” truly asking too much?
As a consumer, I feel that, in many cases, I’m already paying for it – I’m just not getting it.
COAs currently in use are, as far as I am aware, one piece of paper per piece.
As a Realtor, at the end of a transaction, I have a compilation of documents – signed, countersigned, amended – from principals and third parties – the size a phone book.
Things like this should come down to what you like or don’t like, or find easy or difficult, but what is appropriate, useful, and productive.
In my opinion, what collectors accept as good enough simply isn’t. There’s just this prevailing mindset that it’s the norm, and it’s good enough for everyone else, so it’s good enough for me. But I guarantee you, if we started really analyzing what people have in their collections and what they have that constitutes provenance, it would be a big eye opener, and very disappointing for many collectors.
The Cost of Research
My opinion is, this research is or should be happening anyway. It’s just a matter of passing along that information to the buyer, in an organized fashion. It frankly should be built into the margins, and if it isn’t, and if someone did a really stellar job in this regard, I, personally, would pay more for such pieces.
Impact of Dishonesty
Of course people lie. But just because one person trusts someone doesn’t mean that I do by extension. If say “Collector X” was in the history of ownership on a piece, that would have different implications to one person than it would to another. But knowing who is in the chain of ownership – disclosing that when one is able to – that would be a factor on the overall provenance of the piece.
And, if someone was lying, by compiling together all material information into one set of documents, issues with the piece could possibly be traced back to that dishonest individual. If proven, that would have implications on other, related or unrelated documents in which such individual was a owner/participant.
COAs: Only As Good As The Person Who Issued It
I believe that sentiment is true of all COAs, based on the reputation and track record of the authenticator. And if a company emerged that truly researched their pieces, documented such research, and passed it on to the buyer, I think those pieces would command a huge premium over the same pieces lacking such documentation.
Look at the premium graded comic books and vintage toys command over the same thing that hasn’t gone through the process – it’s astounding. People who collect anything place a huge premium on confidence that what they have is affirmed to be what they believe it to be.
I see it as a fantastic opportunity for a company to break out from the pack of no documentation or lackluster COAs or “marketing” COAs to do something really important and substantial.
Who Has Actually Issued a COA?
What I’ve outlined in my draft I personally do, in a less organized fashion, for all of the pieces in my collection. Every prop has a story, and sure there are gaps, but that’s usually because a collector is at the mercy of who he or she bought it from to get the information beyond the present. But owning a prop, in my experience, entails constant research. Even if I am 100% confident it is “original”, I’m always attempting to bolster the information I have with anything I can find that supports provenance.
I can guarantee you the work I put into the pieces I own, and acquiring and managing information that speaks to provenance, takes much more work and diligence and creativity than printing out a description, with a photo and logo, on one sheet of paper.
Original Props, Art Collecting, and Issues of Fraud & Provenance
I think it’s mostly an apples and oranges comparison.
Antiques are older, by definition, and art is very different and much more difficult to fake. Look at how young our hobby is, and the fact that any piece can be replicated so easily. I think prop collecting is a much, much more risky proposition, and our current industry standards are low to nil (see Trend: “I Want to Believe”)
Art Forgery: Wikipedia
The Wikipedia article is interesting and informative. I still think that, while there are some similarities in terms of the issues, how they manifest in each respective area is pretty different. And, looking at the article, it appears that the art world has many more tools at their disposal, as well as a wealth of information, since art and art history is one of the pillars of our culture and society, spanning generation after generation after generation.
With props, it is, by comparison, “new”. There aren’t entire sections of bookstores and libraries dedicated to the study and history of original props, nor museums, etc.
But to be sure, there are lessons to be learned by comparing and contrasting the issues they face and our own.
Practicality, Feasibility, “Trusting” Sources
I just believe that these questions soliciting answers that affirm or deny authenticity all collectively trump concerns about feasibility. Without answering or addressing a number of these questions, I don’t see how some props can progress beyond “inconclusive” and to “authentic” (see Authenticity & Burden of Proof Part I & Part II). Of course, it is all case by case, and subjective to each individual and their own personal level of comfort.
Bottom line, for me, authentication is not about “trust” but about “facts”. Trust may be a factor to consider, but facts need to back it up.
COAs: “The Lazy Man’s Pacifier”
I absolutely agree, in our hobby now, that the COA is, for the most part, the lazy man’s pacifier. I just don’t think it has to be. I think it would be good for the dealer and the customer to make it something significant.
I think, whatever kind of COA a dealer employs – that speaks to and reflects his or her reputation in authenticating original props. Would not a more meaningful COA bolster a dealer’s reputation?
I also agree on collectors doing their own research. I think a big issue though is that new and in many cases seasoned collectors alike – they assume these reputable dealers are doing this research in the background. Because it is rarely if ever shared in full, and typically not mentioned at all or maybe in vague terms, a buyer is left disarmed and at a disadvantage in doing his own research.
My personal view is, if dealers adhere to their current COA standards, it will be detrimental to their business long term.
Every day, collectors become more savvy in tracking down props on their own – finding sources, leveraging the Internet (and forums such as this) to network and cut out the middle man to do deals directly with one another. And the rise of Profiles in History as a venue where collectors can get top dollar for their props, I would have to imagine, cuts into the professional dealers structure for consigning top and high end pieces. Concurrently, companies such as Hollywood Vault, Premiere Props, Back Lot Props, It’s a Wrap, and others contract with studios directly to bring more “new to market” pieces into the hobby.
So both resale and new products are going into alternate channels and away from professional dealers.
My view is, professional dealers are the entities in a position to cater to the serious, long-term, educated collector. They really need to step up and give such collectors what they want and are willing to pay a premium for: professional research, top notch provenance, solid authenticity – with the paperwork and details and information and facts to back it up.
I personally feel that is the future and the niche for a large part of the professional dealer’s business.
In my opinion, companies like Hollywood Vault (as illustrated by their dumbed down COA) and Premiere Props (who can’t manage basic customer service) have no expertise in props at all – they are merely widgets to them (see Trend: The “Widgetization” of the Hobby). They can’t compete in the area of hobby expertise.
I got the sense, in talking with Joe Maddalena, that he wants to take PiH in the direct of being the entity through which TV and movie memorabilia are traded. They do have industry expertise at their disposal, but I don’t imagine they’d ever go in the direction I am discussing – as an auction house, they seem very anti-liability driven, so I don’t foresee them including any substantive documentation with any prop or costume, unless it’s provided by the consignor and a compelling selling feature (producer letter, etc.) and will result in a higher price.
Anyway, I’m sure some will read this as negative in tone, but my true intent is to paint what I feel is a hopeful opportunity for change that would be beneficial to collector and dealer alike, as well as show a way in which the hobby can grow and improve.
Jason De Bord