Sunday, October 4, 2015


I have been taken to task by the consignor of the Spock Parka for not revealing the original source of the piece and how it was originally identified as a "hero" piece, ie: a piece worn by Leonard Nimoy. While I don't think it will help his case (quite the opposite, in fact) in the interest of fairness I want to honor his request.

The piece was originally auctioned by Julien's auction house back in 2010. The Parka and a number of other 2009 Star Trek pieces were auctioned off with the proceeds being donated to two worthy charities. Here's the original auction information taken directly from the Julien's site:

The important thing that the seller wants people to take away from this is this wording:

"...and worn by Leonard Nimoy."

That is Julien's saying that this piece is an authentic costume worn by Leonard Nimoy himself.  This is not being disputed by me. What IS being disputed by me is the accuracy of that statement in that we now know that there is not s SHRED of evidence to support that statement and a TON supporting it's inaccuracy.

Apparently the seller does not want us to go beyond whatever Julien's said and look at the facts of the piece itself. It has a label which states "Stunt". Not "Nimoy", but stunt. What this means is simply this: Julien's was mistaken. It's really that simple. But the current seller wants you to forget about that aspect and he's using the original wording to justify his actions.

Let me put this into non-movie costume terms.

If you ordered a red shirt and got a blue shirt, would you assume that red was blue? Or would you assume the supplier had made a mistake? Furthermore, a few years later, would you try to resell that (wrong) blue shirt and call it red? That would be either stupid or dishonest, right? If you wanted to resell it you'd simply call it a blue shirt and everyone's happy.

Except in this case the blue shirt (the "stunt" version) is worth a few thousand dollars while the red shirt (the "Nimoy" version) is worth about ten thousand dollars more! But to those in the know, red is not blue.

And the seller is definitely in the know, in my opinion. How so? Keep in mind that he is well-versed in film memorabilia collecting. As soon as he received the parka I think he knew the exact implications of that simple word "stunt". At that point he had two choices:

1. Keep the piece with the understanding that Julien's made a mistake but that he had a nice stunt Spock piece and a charity made some money


2. Send it back to Julien's for a refund as the piece did not meet the description as stated. Remember that what's written in a piece trumps everything else without specific proof to the contrary. If Julien's could not prove the "worn by" statement, they should never have made the claim. And if they COULD prove it, it was incumbent upon the buyer to get that proof so that it could accompany the piece in perpetuity.

The consignor obviously did not return the piece. Neither did he get any proof. But he apparently wanted the next generation of buyer to not realize what "stunt" means (which we now know is: "not Nimoy"). I think he was hoping to sell it to an unsophisticated buyer who would simply accept the "Nimoy" claim without any actual proof to back it up. And that is apparently what has happened.

So there's the whole story. Mr. Consignor, if I have any of my facts wrong, please let me know and I'll adjust accordingly. As for my opinions, well – those are mine and you don't get to vote on those.




  1. Actually, I think I've seen this Parka in the 'Art of the Film' book that came out back in xmas 09. There's a photo in there of Nimoy wearing it. Apparently, he didn't like it so much as it obscured his face too much.

    1. They show him wearing ONE of these parkas. There's no way to know if it's this one since the details shown aren't clear enough for a match. Hence the problem. Thanks for reading. D