The definitive source for information on collecting screen-used Star Trek props and costumes

Star Trek Props.com The Internet's premier source for information on collecting Star Trek props and costumes, as well as coverage of all major Star Trek auctions from the famous 2006 Christie's Star Trek auction, through the It's A Wrap Star Trek auctions on eBay and the Propworx Star Trek auctions. Star Trek Props is the best source for information of collecting original, screen-used props & costumes.

Monday, January 14, 2013

Back in the Game - Captain Archer's Spaceship Model


Well, it has been two months since I posted, and it is time to get back into it!  So before I complete my "Integrity and Authenticity" article, I thought I would get up some info provided by Star Trek Prop, Costume & Auction Forum readers on an eBay item.

Captain Archer's Model Spaceship from "Broken Bow"

This seller is trying to sell a model that is NOT what he claims.  

The Captain Archer model on eBay

And here are the two sold by IAW in the archive:

The Captain Archer model's from IAW on the Star Trek Auction Archive

Now the model on eBay is NOT this one from IAW that sold for $10,837.  Yet the seller is trying to pass it off as that one (for obvious monetary reasons).  We know that because that one is in possession of a respected forum member.  But the seller uses those photos and is clearly trying to fraudulently represent the piece as that one. And the pics don't match! He even uses the old IAW eBay auction ad!

The IAW COA the seller shows:
 


Note he HIDES the photo so you dont see the single broken off Nacelle.  Why would you put the COA under the model unless you are trying to hide something? 

Here is the photo from the Auction Archive used on the COA:



Note that this is the photo on the COA in his photo.  You can tell by the way the model is photographed and by how part of the photo is under the model.  The seller is CLEARLY trying to hide the image.  But IAW always used a photo from the ones they had in their auction ads.

The one the seller is CLAIMING he is selling:






And the ACTUAL one he is selling:



These models do not match.  It is also unclear if the model he has is restored, or if it is a different model.  Either way, it is NOT the one that sold for $ 10,837.

BACK COMPARISON

Note the absolute differences in the back of the one he CLAIMS he is selling (IAW photo):


  And the one he actually is selling (his photo):


Note the lack of black paint in the center, the lack of stripe on the side of the fuselage at the wing root.   Two totally different models.


BOTTOM COMPARISON

The bottom of the one he CLAIMS he is selling (IAW photo):


And the one he IS selling:


Note the center section between the engines is different.

But this is the other model sold by IAW (sold for $ 1,404). 


So it APPEARS that he took this model and restored it.   Maybe when reassembling it, he took the rear black piece and put it back upside down.  That is why it is grey on the bottom, while the grey should be on the top.

The other possibility is that this is ANOTHER model.  But if so, why is he using the COA from the one that sold for $ 1,404?  Is he trying to switch the COA onto another model?  That is fraud in and of itself.

What we know for sure it is NOT the one that sold for $ 10,837.  And we know for sure this seller is attempting fraud.

And for Reference, this one sold through Christie's, lot # 167.



 More to come I am sure.

Alec 


UPDATE:
 

David Solomon, the owner who paid $ 10,837 for his model emailed the seller and got the following back:

Dear shermanoaks45,

The listing shows your purchase as a reference for valuation .It was bought by you at that price ,at that e-bay auction.Your purchase was not fraudulent.I am not selling yours nor do I reference yours as the one for sale. I bought mine, the one that is for sale, from the same people you bought yours from . Hope its cleared up.
Thanx
- blueeagle1550


The fact is the seller IS trying to defraud people by using photos that are NOT of his model.  Seems by my email, people agree.

Alec


No comments: