• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Buyer says "Star Trek" souvenirs fake

Aragorn

Fleet Admiral
Admiral
I just came across this AP story. I suppose General Trek is as good as any place to put it. It's probably only a story because it deals with Christie's auction house, but still:


Buyer says "Star Trek" souvenirs fake
By DAVID B. CARUSO

The Associated Press

NEW YORK — A Trekkie who paid $6,000 for a poker visor supposedly worn by the android Data on the television show "Star Trek: The Next Generation" claims in a lawsuit against Christie's auction house that the prop is a fake.

Ted Moustakis, of Towaco, N.J., said he began to doubt the authenticity of the visor and other items he purchased at an auction of CBS Paramount props in 2006 after he brought it to a convention in August to have the actor who played Data, Brent Spiner, autograph it.

According to the lawsuit, Spiner recognized the visor as the one that had been sold by Christie's and told Moustakis it wasn't the real deal. The real visor had been sold by the actor himself some time ago.

Moustakis, who became a "Star Trek" fan at age 7, said he was humiliated.

"I thought this was a great piece of memorabilia to have, and I was so proud to get it," he said.

Christie's spokesman Rik Pike stood behind the authenticity of the auction and said the disgruntled buyer's case had no merit.

The lawsuit, filed in state court in Manhattan, demands millions of dollars in punitive damages and a refund for the visor and two other items Moustakis bought at the 2006 auction: a table that was part of a set on "The Next Generation" and a uniform that was in Data's wardrobe. Moustakis said he paid $6,600 for the table and $11,400 for the uniform.

He said that, upon close inspection, the table doesn't look like the ones that appeared on the show, and the uniform appeared to be one of several made for the program, not a one-of-a-kind, as Moustakis believed it to be.

"They defrauded collectors, fans, honest people," said Moustakis' lawyer, Richard Borzouye.

Calls and e-mails to CBS Paramount weren't returned.
 
Lets get it over with shall we? ;)
ItsaFaaaake.gif
 
Well, seems I may have dodged a bullet by having no where near the money to have obtained anything. :P
 
..and at MOST he will get a refund on the items, nothing more. That's how auction conditions of sale work. Moron.
 
I was in Vegas when Spiner broke the news. He was making light of the subject, yet warning everybody to be careful of buying fakes. Frankly, I wasn't even sure if the story was real and at the time I didn't think I'd ever hear about it again.

Alot of people in the crowd seemed uncomfortable, though.
 
I heard about this a few days back and I will certainly be curious to see how thing end?
So I wonder if this was sold as the real thing on purpose, or if someone simply couldn't tell the difference between the real one and the duplicate?
 
Who do we believe? Spiner? Or Christie's? Both have a financial interest in proving that the prop that they sold is "authentic." Methinks that the buyer is a victim of Spiner stirring the pot.
 
Here's my question: How does it go from around $20,000 worth of purchases to a lawsuit in the millions?! Punative damages? The guy spent all these tens of thousands of dollars on Star Trek memorabilia. I'd say he's already done enough to tarnish his own reputation by doing that.
 
sbk1234 said:
Here's my question: How does it go from around $20,000 worth of purchases to a lawsuit in the millions?! Punative damages? The guy spent all these tens of thousands of dollars on Star Trek memorabilia. I'd say he's already done enough to tarnish his own reputation by doing that.

Punitive damages are to deter the company from engaging in fraud again in the future. The damages need to be significant, to make sure that the company realizes it is not profitable to continue engaging in fraud.

Consider the alternative: Without significant punitive damages, it becomes easy to profit off of fraudulent auctions. Auction 100 fake props from a famous TV show for $1000 each, claiming they are legitimate.

If 20 people realize it's a fraud, and you aren't liable for punitive damages, then you just have to return the money, right?

So you still end up selling 80 props for $1000 each, totally $80,000 in profit (I'm assuming that a fake prop is fairly cheap and is approximately $0 to produce or acquire).

Significant punitive damages mean you risk losing a lot more than having to offer a refund. So much, in fact, that fraud is significantly discouraged (which is the whole point).

Yes, $7 million is a lot. But Christies sells millions upon millions of dollars worth of items each year. Unless the lawsuit is for millions, it wouldn't really matter to Christies.
 
I can understand the idea behind punitive damages. But does the plaintiff get it? In my mind, punitive damages should be given to someone else, the city, or some other third party. Just my thought.
 
Why would Christie's be at fault? Would Paramount be the one? Isn't Paramount the one who was auctioning the stuff off?
 
^ When I opened this thread, my *only* surprise was that someone waited all the way to the third post in the thread to use that. :lol:
 
Aragorn said:
I just came across this AP story. I suppose General Trek is as good as any place to put it. It's probably only a story because it deals with Christie's auction house, but still:


Buyer says "Star Trek" souvenirs fake
By DAVID B. CARUSO

The Associated Press

NEW YORK — A Trekkie who paid $6,000 for a poker visor supposedly worn by the android Data on the television show "Star Trek: The Next Generation" claims in a lawsuit against Christie's auction house that the prop is a fake.

Ted Moustakis, of Towaco, N.J., said he began to doubt the authenticity of the visor and other items he purchased at an auction of CBS Paramount props in 2006 after he brought it to a convention in August to have the actor who played Data, Brent Spiner, autograph it.

According to the lawsuit, Spiner recognized the visor as the one that had been sold by Christie's and told Moustakis it wasn't the real deal. The real visor had been sold by the actor himself some time ago.

Moustakis, who became a "Star Trek" fan at age 7, said he was humiliated.

"I thought this was a great piece of memorabilia to have, and I was so proud to get it," he said.

Christie's spokesman Rik Pike stood behind the authenticity of the auction and said the disgruntled buyer's case had no merit.

The lawsuit, filed in state court in Manhattan, demands millions of dollars in punitive damages and a refund for the visor and two other items Moustakis bought at the 2006 auction: a table that was part of a set on "The Next Generation" and a uniform that was in Data's wardrobe. Moustakis said he paid $6,600 for the table and $11,400 for the uniform.

He said that, upon close inspection, the table doesn't look like the ones that appeared on the show, and the uniform appeared to be one of several made for the program, not a one-of-a-kind, as Moustakis believed it to be.

"They defrauded collectors, fans, honest people," said Moustakis' lawyer, Richard Borzouye.

Calls and e-mails to CBS Paramount weren't returned.

All I can say is, "HA! HA!", lol... the idiot deserves it... shelling out $6000.00 for a freaking sun visor.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top