As covered in several previous articles (see “Star Trek Collector Sues Christie’s, CBS & Paramount Studios for $7 Million Dollars“, “Star Trek Christie’s Lawsuit Story, Fundamentals of Authenticity, & The Mainstream Media“, “Star Trek Christie’s Lawsuit – The Official Data’s Poker Visor Description Amendment“), a collector is suing CBS and Paramount Studios and Christies for $7 million dollars, claiming that the pieces won at the 40 Years of Star Trek: The Collection auction event were “fake” or inauthentic.
Also, as explained, I recall and have notes from the time of my recollection of the Christie’s auctioneer announcing an amendment to the Data poker visor before opening the lot for bids – that it was not worn on screen (at odds with the basis of the lawsuit) – as that was one of the few items I asked a friend of mine to place a bid for on my behalf.
In my last article on this subject, I posted a scan of the official Christie’s lot/description amendment sheet pertaining to the visor made available to live bidders at the event, which described the visor in questions as follows:
Link to Full Amendment courtesy Jason White: LINK
The update reads:
Please note this should read ‘made for’ and not worn by.
In any event, now that several weeks have passed since the original AP report (see “Trekkie Claims Auctioned Prop Was A Fake“), it is interesting to look back to see what has happened, in terms of news reporting, since.
In retrospect, at this point in time, it appears to be a four day news story.
A Google News search brings results dated between December 28, 2007 to December 31, 2007. I have been unable to find any major news reporting since the end of 2007.
Per the AP story, the official Christie’s statement on the matter was characterized in this manner:
Christie’s spokesman Rik Pike stood behind the authenticity of the auction and said the disgruntled buyer’s case had no merit.
More, the quotes attributed to the plaintiff and attorney do not account for the Christie’s lot/description amendment above, nor any relevant comments made by the auctioneer.
Richard Borzouyne, Esq., representing plaintiff Ted Moustakis, is described on his firm’s website (Storobin & Associates, PLLC) as specializing in “Criminal Defense and Matrimonial (Divorce) Law”. The Attorney Profile describes the Christie’s lawsuit as follows:
He currently represents the plaintiff in a nationally-reported lawsuit against the famous auction house Christie’s and CBS Paramount Television for Fraud, Negligent Misrepresentation, Breach of Contract, Breach of Express Warranty and numerous other causes of action for their part in a Star Trek auction that revealed several items deemed fraudulent.
I find specific usage of the term “deemed” an interesting choice, as it implies opinion, not fact. Other than comments from the actor, Brent Spiner, who played the character who wore the visor, I have found no other testimony (second hand or otherwise) or other evidence in any of the news reporting which supports the claim that any of the pieces are inauthentic. As noted in my own previous reporting, an “original” prop or wardrobe piece can be authentic without appearing in the finished work (see “What is “Original”?“).
In searching for new material related to this story, I came across this posting on Craigslist:
I am curious to see if this story resurfaces in the future (and under what context) or if it will merely fade away.
If anyone has any new information or links to mainstream media reports that are of further interest, please contact me or post a Reader Comment below.
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