I’ve found that there are many concepts in the original prop hobby for which words do not exist. Having words to use with specific and unique meaning are powerful tools, and when there are none available that fit the need, putting together a new word with hopes it may be adopted can be productive. In this case, a term is needed to describe an instance in which the source or an entity in the chain of ownership of a prop, costume, or other artifact has a distinctive and negative impact on the authentication of such a piece. The word I plan to use to describe such a circumstance is “anti-provenance”.
Definition of “Provenance” from Dictionary.com:
prov·e·nance (prŏv’ə-nəns, -näns’) n.
1. Place of origin; derivation.
2a. The history of the ownership of an object, especially when documented or authenticated. Used of artworks, antiques, and books.
2b. The records or documents authenticating such an object or the history of its ownership.
[French, from provenant, present participle of provenir, to originate, from Old French, from Latin prōvenīre]
In the hobby, the word “provenance” is defined as followed in the Original Prop Lexicon:
Provenance: Tangible and material documented evidence and records establishing the history/chain of ownership/custody of the accompanying piece, back to the original source. Preferably this includes information speaking to the circumstances under which the artifact was converted from studio (or studio agent/vendor) property to personal property and/or the circumstances under which it was released into the marketplace. Provenance is used to establish and support the claim of authenticity of an “Original” film or television artifact (prop, wardrobe, etc.). See Chain of Ownership, History of Ownership, Authenticity, Original; See articles Original Prop Provenance & Authenticity, Part I and What is “Original”? and Building on the Original Prop Lexicon: “Anti-Provenance”
The need for a term relating to and modifying “provenance” arises from the unfortunate circumstances in which a collector or dealer in the hobby – either as seller or via previous ownership – raises additional questions and concerns about the authenticity of an item. In essence, any provenance is thus damaged, polluted, and/or wholly called into question, depending on the specific circumstances of the “pollutant”, the history and reputation of the “pollutant”, the artifact itself, and the provenance that supports claims of authenticity.
By adding a prefix to the word provenance that means “bad”, such a term could then be defined for the hobby to have the desired meaning. In that the prefix “anti” means “against” or “opposite, I’ve decided to employ the word “anti-provenance” to describe this circumstance.
Thus, the following term and definition have been added to the Original Prop Lexicon:
Anti-Provenance: A circumstance in which the seller or prior owner of an original prop, costume, or artifact adversely affects the provenance of the item. Provenance is the documented evidence and records which support claims of authenticity. Anti-provenance is a direct connection to a specific individual, individuals, or company that raises questions about the legitimacy of the piece and any accompanying provenance and/or certification that speaks to authenticity as “Original”. Any item for which anti-provenance is a factor requires extraordinary tangible, material, and verifiable records and other proof in order to counterbalance the anti-provenance to reach a satisfactory conclusion of authentic and “Original”. Anti-provenance is a consequence of the seller and/or prior owners of the piece having been involved in questionable, fraudulent, and/or other activities in the marketplace which are detrimental to the hobby. See Provenance, Chain of Ownership, History of Ownership, Authenticity, Original; See articles Original Prop Provenance & Authenticity, Part I and What is “Original”? and Building on the Original Prop Lexicon: “Anti-Provenance”
It is my personal opinion that if “anti-provenance” accompanies and is part of the history of a piece, an extraordinary and compelling case for authenticity must be made beyond the standard, to varying degrees, based on each unique circumstance.
“Anti-provenance” is attached to pieces in which the sellers and/or prior sellers/owners have previously: 1) sold inauthentic or fraudulent pieces as authentic, 2) created replica pieces by copying/casting originals, 3) sold a number of questionable pieces, 4) purchased and resold (or “flipped”) a number of poorly researched items, 5) knowingly resold “bad” pieces, 6) created false/forged documentation, and/or 7) been involved in other activity which would cause a discerning hobbyist great concern.
In my own collecting, with regards to a piece in my collection that was previously owned by an individual who has been involved in many questionable activities, I had consequently determined that the piece would need to essentially be “reauthenticated” do to the negative impact and risk of fraud based the prior ownership. Fortunately, I was able to successfully authenticate the piece by going back through the chain of ownership, prior to the “owner of concern” (or “pollutant”), to ensure that unique marks on the piece matched up with photos of the same piece taken before the “pollutant” took custody, which removed the possibility that he may have copied the original and sold a copy or casting of it along with the original studio paperwork.
It is my firm belief that such actions are necessary under these circumstances, to counterbalance the potential risks of fraud, error, and/or misauthentication that arise from certain individuals/companies having been a part of the previous chain of ownership. In short, the burden of proof is extraordinarily higher for pieces that are offered for sale by or previously owned/sold by “problematic” individuals and companies in the hobby.
In some cases, a COA from an individual or seller may in fact negate any and all provenance for any piece to which it is attached, based on past activities of that individual or company in the marketplace with regards to other and even unrelated items (i.e. proven fraud or multiple cases of gross negligence in authentication). In other cases, as with matter and antimatter, it could lead to the annihilation of both, leaving the piece as “inconclusive” (proven neither authentic nor inauthentic). Of course, these conclusions are case-by-case and in many instances based on subjective analysis and opinion.
Jason DeBord