Rick Spector of Stairway to the Stars published a “Reader Comment” to this week’s editorial about eBay “drop-off” sellers (see A Case Against eBay “Drop-Off” Vendors Selling Original Props). Given that Rick takes issue with me on a number of fronts, I took the time to respond to each of his points, and thought it would be appropriate to highlight his concerns.
Below are Rick’s full comments from the article:
stairstars on September 12th, 2008 9:07 am
“Mr. Wallace’s account quoted above does not agree with what I have heard from other parties.”
Then are we to make conclusions based on unnamed “heard from other parties”?
I think your excellent blog would benefit from the old journalistic adage of “Who, What, When, Where and How” or as Joe Friday loved to say “Just the Facts, M’am.”
The retelling of the Proton pack, which occurred at a large West Coast auction house, has nothing to do with online third party vendors this article exposes, but only serves to shade the account that Wallace is the seller who bid on his own item and is the bulk consignor for Auctiondoctors prop sales.
While I tend to agree with that possibility, it is not proven fact and should not be written as a forgone conclusion or a syllogism.
PIH pulled the replica prop before the sale and collected full commission fees based on the contract. Further, both parties were banned from consigning to their future auctions for quite some time. Since then, we have a case of “He said…She said” as to fault. If, there are conclusive facts that have come to light since then, I look forward to your reporting them here.
I do not condone shill bidding in any form. It is an age old problem all auction venues suffer from. I think some of it stems from the Auction Houses own practice of “chandelier bidding” (the house seemingly accepting real opening bids, on an item, when they are only bidding the piece one increment below it’s private reserve, from the air) which, only this year, the State of NY is considering legally banning.
Also, I am not in favor of private posts being copied and pasted without permission of the writer. The best evidence would have been to query Wallace himself and print his answer to your specific questions and then respond here. You, have done this with every other person whose business practices you have questioned, and with good reason.
If, your wonderful work here is to continue to be a tool to help collectors avoid missteps and a market froth with scammers, then it must also be a place where readers know implicitly that journalistic integrity can be taken for granted as well -without question and without personal feeling.
rick spector
Rick,
Thank you for the thoughtful comments. Below are my responses to your concerns:
“Mr. Wallace’s account quoted above does not agree with what I have heard from other parties.”
Then are we to make conclusions based on unnamed “heard from other parties”?
I think your excellent blog would benefit from the old journalistic adage of “Who, What, When, Where and How” or as Joe Friday loved to say “Just the Facts, M’am.”
I’m a bit confused by your request for “just the facts”, and challenge of a statement that is indeed factual – Mr. Wallace’s account does not agree with what I was told by the consignor. That statement, as I wrote it, is factual.
Does that make Mr. Wallace’s account false, and the account of the party who has not come forward true?
No.
Did I suggest that a conclusion should be made by the reader?
No.
I did feel it was important to make note of the fact that both Mr. Wallace and the consignor agree on one point – that Mr. Wallace paired the authentic studio COA with the replica prop. This is an important point as an update to the original Proton Pack article as well as relevant to the article about “drop-off” sellers and their lack of expertise in the field, accepting consignments at face value.
My hope is that the Proton Pack consignor will make his own account of this issue public. That will bring about more information, and hopefully by comparing and contrasting those two accounts (Mr. Wallace and the consignor), applying thoughtful analysis, and perhaps soliciting further participation from other parties involved will reveal more facts and information.
Is that as simple and straight forward as an episode of a 50s television program?
No.
As a point of reference, I have published dozens of articles about Superman costumes, and each article introduces more information, which prompts more discussion, analysis, and input from other hobbyists, which brings us all closer to the truth and clarity. I have made no promises to solve all issues or address all questions on any given subject in one article. And I fully expect many issues and many questions on a variety of topics to forever remain unresolved and unanswered.
The retelling of the Proton pack, which occurred at a large West Coast auction house, has nothing to do with online third party vendors this article exposes, but only serves to shade the account that Wallace is the seller who bid on his own item and is the bulk consignor for Auctiondoctors prop sales.
I disagree.
This article was not drafted to expose third party vendors. It is an editorial feature putting forth my opinion that the eBay “drop-off” seller business model is not compatible with the interests of the hobby, and introduces additional risks and considerations on the part of collectors. In most cases it is fundamentally a violation of eBay’s “Authenticity Disclaimers” policy. I think I make this argument clear in the first three paragraphs and the closing paragraph of the article.
The examples presented are merely reference points for consideration, rather than simply talking in the abstract.
The relevance to the topic – issues with “drop-off” vendors selling original props on eBay – is that sources and chain of ownership are important factors in evaluating authenticity.
Mr. Wallace is a fixture in the hobby with his own history. I directly questioned this eBay “drop-off” seller if he is the source and did not receive a response. I think this illustrates that, as a buyer, in many cases you have no idea of the source of the items offered for sale. This can be true of auction houses and dealers as well, but with a third party “drop-off” business serving as middle man you are dealing with a company with no expertise in the field of authenticating props. I am not aware of a “drop-off” seller specializing in original props – if anyone knows of one, please let me know.
While I tend to agree with that possibility, it is not proven fact and should not be written as a forgone conclusion or a syllogism.
This was not presented as a conclusion. I thought it was clear by the section heading in this example:
“Shielded Sources, Shill Bidding?”
The entire example was framed as a question, not a statement of fact. Having said that, a significant amount of information does indicate it is a strong possibility. I prefer to share information and let readers draw their own conclusions, if any.
PIH pulled the replica prop before the sale and collected full commission fees based on the contract. Further, both parties were banned from consigning to their future auctions for quite some time. Since then, we have a case of “He said…She said” as to fault. If, there are conclusive facts that have come to light since then, I look forward to your reporting them here.
As noted above, my hope is that the consignor does make his account of these business dealings public. This has been under discussion.
I think one step toward accomplishing this is by raising the issue, as has been done here.
Mr. Wallace is welcome to publish a Reader Comment as well if he wishes to add to or amend his statement on these matters in any way.
The consignor shared his account with me in great detail. But that is his account, it was conveyed to me via many telephone calls, and I do not have any interest in relaying his account on his behalf as fact.
The one fact upon which both Mr. Wallace and the auction house consignor agree is that Mr. Wallace paired the authentic studio COA with the replica Proton Pack, which was the reason that I published Mr. Wallace’s account. I have no interest at this time in picking apart his version of the events, but I think it serves as a point of reference should conflicting information be made public in the future. Just as you have added the information that Mr. Wallace was “banned from consigning to their future auctions for quite some time”, which is something that Mr. Wallace does not mention in his own account, though he makes similar claims about the consequences to the consignor (“the consignor was read the riot act and severly limited in the business the Auction would do with him”).
It often takes a great deal of time and effort and networking and questioning and open discourse to get to the “facts” that you seek. But you yourself have just demonstrated that merely raising these issues publicly brings forth more facts and information, as you have now gone on the record to note that Mr. Wallace was banned from consigning with the auction house following the replica Proton Pack (that he admits to having paired with the authentic studio COA) being pulled from auction.
I do not condone shill bidding in any form. It is an age old problem all auction venues suffer from. I think some of it stems from the Auction Houses own practice of “chandelier bidding” (the house seemingly accepting real opening bids, on an item, when they are only bidding the piece one increment below it’s private reserve, from the air) which, only this year, the State of NY is considering legally banning.
In any event, regardless of anyone’s personal view of shill bidding, it is a clear violation of eBay policy. My point was that it is even more difficult to detect and determine if a third party is listing pieces on eBay on behalf of a consignor.
Also, I am not in favor of private posts being copied and pasted without permission of the writer. The best evidence would have been to query Wallace himself and print his answer to your specific questions and then respond here. You, have done this with every other person whose business practices you have questioned, and with good reason.
If, your wonderful work here is to continue to be a tool to help collectors avoid missteps and a market froth with scammers, then it must also be a place where readers know implicitly that journalistic integrity can be taken for granted as well -without question and without personal feeling.
rick spector
Regarding questioning Mr. Wallace directly about the Proton Pack, I have done this and received no direct response.
Regarding “private posts”, there were a number of missives published by Mr. Wallace in early 2007, many directed at and/or related to myself and/or the blog, on the “Motion Picture Prop Company” forum and the “Movie Prop Collectors” forum. When Mr. Wallace was making these comments, he was publishing to both forums (he was banned from the larger “Movie Prop Forum”), and both were going through changes in which they alternated from publicly viewable to registration-only; when public, some topics were started in those areas then moved to private areas. These forums themselves seem to have gone from public to private and back again with little consistency. I believe the account about the Proton Pack was public on one or the other forum at one time, but can’t say for certain, as both seem to have gone through many changes. The “Motion Picture Prop Company” forum currently appears to be public, as I am not registered and I can view the content.
In any event, it is his account, and at this point stands as a one-sided one, so I don’t see how that is to Mr. Wallace’s detriment if it is truthful.
Additionally, I have historically received a number of private e-mails from Mr. Wallace, the balance of which openly request that I publish (on the “Movie Prop Forum”) his messages on his behalf.
Below are examples of how he closed these private messages:
Example #1:
“Anyway, Feel free to post this………if you feel comfortable enough. Take care, j”
Example #2:
“Feel free to post this. J”
Example #3:
“Please post. J”
In fact, he objected when I stopped publishing his e-mails:
Example #4:
“Jason, I see you didn’t want to post this email. Maybe it was too concise and to the point. I’ll just email it to my friends on forum……I’m sure it will get around. You sure are better at asking questions then answering them. You ARE a mystery man. J”
I sent him an e-mail during this period asking just one question – as you suggest I should above – and never received a response:
Jerry:
So what was your involvement, if any, with the replica Ghostbusters Proton Pack passed off as real (and verified as fake) that was pulled from the last Profiles in History auction?
I’m happy to extend an opportunity to you to provide your side of the story, if there is one, and I’ll post it on the forum for you on your behalf (with your permission).
Thanks,
Jason
That was September 1, 2006 – more than two years ago.
Who, what, when, where, why, how is wonderful, but presenting information, asking questions, analyzing data, and allowing people to draw their own conclusions also has merit.
It also can take years to expose the truth.
Thanks again for taking the time to share your perspectives.
Jason De Bord