There are several very interesting and very active topics running on the Movie Prop Forum, which have engaged hobbyists on a variety of important issues related to the hobby of collecting original props.
“Transparency”
One issue discussed at length is that of transparency, including the use of real names vs anonymity, as well as transparency as it relates to provenance and authenticity.
It likely comes as no surprise to readers of the OPB that I am in favor of transparency in regards to both personal identity and the disclosure of the detailed history and provenance of props. In fact, early on with this blog endeavor, I referenced an article published in WIRED Magazine about “Radical Transparency” titled, The See-Through CEO. I think it is an informative read, and points toward the future of business and more, as the Internet has a continuing, profound impact on people and how we go about business and our lives.
True Identity vs. Anonymity
On the Movie Prop Forum and other discussion forums on the Internet, I have always used my real name quite openly. As explained on the MPF, I have nothing to hide, I have opinions to share, and I conduct myself online no differently than offline. If I want to be taken seriously, and my opinions to have weight and consideration, I feel it is imperative to build a reputation and “capital” with fellow hobbyists. Regardless, I think it is only appropriate and respectful to those I interact with to let them know who I am, who they are communicating with, where I am coming from, and so forth.
Over the years, on the MPF, we have discussed ways to verify and require the use of one’s identity, to different degrees, but it just never seemed completely feasible to move beyond a voluntary system. This is one of the reasons I created my own private forum for discussions with those that I know and trust, which is entirely different from communicating on an open forum with little to no registration requirements and many anonymous users.
Getting back to transparency, and identity, and why it is an issue discussed more of late, is the fact that some want to have it both ways: to be involved with important and in-depth discussions and events – to have their opinions and information positioned as facts have weight – while maintaining anonymity. I, personally, just don’t feel it works.
If one wants to be anonymous, that is one thing. But to put forth facts and opinions and demands and expect to be viewed on equal footing with known hobbyists, among known hobbyists – it is inherently problematic.
The “Cost” of Transparency
Regarding the premise of one of these topics, the “cost” of transparency, I have my own take on it.
Anyone selling props on a regular basis – in essence, “dealers”, part or full time – in my opinion, there needs to be transparency.
Name, identity, contact information, background experience in the hobby.
More, there should be sufficient transparency in regards to the items for sale – the satisfaction of questions related to and establishing provenance.
In short, as a buyer, the two primary questions I ask:
- Who am I dealing with?
- How and why is this piece authentic?
Obviously, more often than not in this hobby, true identity of seller and provenance of prop is unknown or incomplete. From anonymous sellers on eBay to unknown consignors selling through auction houses to unknown sources used by dealers.
Where exactly are these props coming from?
This is a problem.
Everything is obscured, and the mystery is often even used as “mystique” – a selling point – rather than a severe deficit or red flag.
If there is a “cost” to this, it is like anything else and referenced earlier in different context – capital is earned as well as spent.
A dealer is as good as his reputation. Actually – unfortunately – today, dealers probably do better than their reputation would warrant.
Many dealers, clearly, have a “bad” reputation. Some have a “good” one. The rest fall somewhere in-between.
It is not fixed – it’s dynamic. And regardless of reputation, most all pieces usually find a buyer regardless (see Trend: “I Want to Believe”).
Every deal, every transaction, every comment (or lack thereof) publicly or privately – by dealer or customer or third party – all of this informs and alters and realigns each of our perceptions about each dealer. Collectively, this is reflected in reputation.
Some of us are more discerning than others, and, well, even the best of us fall off the wagon now and again (me too). But we strive to look out for our interests, and bad experiences are excellent motivators to stay “sober”. Hard lessons stay with us longer than positive transactions.
But there is a cost – the cost of doing business.
So, as far as criticism goes, which there has been a lot of it on the MPF of late – if it is in the form of questions/challenges about a prop – not the dealer as a person – I think this is to the benefit of all, in that if a piece is “good”, the authenticity and provenance should be able to withstand and address such questioning, and perhaps bring additional clarity and thereby enhance the provenance.
To touch on comments that other dealers will not want to risk vetting pieces because of recent fallout, well, if something is not correct, it may be vetted otherwise. In my opinion, any publicly offered piece is open to such scrutiny, invitation or not.
More, silence can be as strong as any statement.
The “Real” World
Some of the consequences of investigating and vetting the provenance of props on the MPF has resulted in concerns voiced by some members about “real world” consequences.
While I understand what these people mean, when they say this, I don’t not personally adopt this perspective.
For me, it is all “real world”. I don’t draw imaginary lines between what happens online vs. what happens offline, or what happens in a “hobby” and what happens in the entertainment industry. From my perspective, it is all “real”.
Some nurture and promote a point of view that sees original props, money spent on them, collectors, and the hobby at large as something that operates alone and apart from (and, implicitly, beneath) the sources of our collecting – the entertainment industry.
In other words, the entertainment industry and the people in it, all of this is held above and beyond what transpires in the hobby.
If there is an issue with a prop – it is misrepresented, it is stolen, provenance requires clarification – many feel it is both taboo and morally wrong to interface with whatever individual or source is responsible for such information, those that might provide facts/clarity, or for those responsible for the release of the piece into the marketplace. At best, mere hobbyists are expected to go no further than the prop dealer, who fills a role of messenger to the studios and those in their employ.
Of course, as discussed in many previous opinion pieces (see The Dirty Little Secret of the Hobby), there are inherent problems and conflicts of interest at play in the dynamics of how many props make their way from the studio and sources, through the dealers, and into the marketplace.
My view is, if those working in the industry sell props into the marketplace, it needs to be in a manner that is appropriate and lawful.
If a piece is manufactured post production and sold as original, or if a piece is stolen, or any number of actions that not consistent with law and ethics, my view is whatever consequences that may follow are a result of their actions. I don’t subscribe to the notion that he or she deserves a free pass for this transgression simply because they work in the industry.
Hobbyists are spending “real” money on these pieces, and if they are sold fraudulently or are stolen property or what have you, my hope is that the hobbyist can find relief.
My view is, the law is the law, ethics are ethics. None of this is situational, and consequences are consequences, online or offline. The pursuit of facts and truth, done appropriately and respectfully, is not something that should be dissuaded.I have thoughts and reactions to other issues and developments in the hobby of late, but have taken the approach of splitting these into a handful of related though stand alone topics…
Jason De Bord