"THE DOUBLE-GUSSET POSTULATE" or "GILDING THE LILY WITH BULL"

In Summer of 2012, Profiles in History offered what they described as "William Shatner 'Capt. Kirk' Tunic from Star Trek: The Original Series". Among their claims was "match on overall tunic size to Shatner including double gussets on tunic sides (unique feature to Shatner tunics)".

The three seams can be clearly seen here on Kirk

Interestingly enough, a self-described Star Trek "authority" and the self-appointed king of Trek Collecting each stated on their blogs that "This tunic features a double gusset design; or the presence of three seam lines running from the armpit area down the torso on each side of the costume - a design characteristic that is considered by knowledgeable Star Trek experts to be only present on those TOS command tunics specifically tailored for wear by William Shatner. The double gussets on this tunic, as well as two photos in which this unique construction detail is visible on William Shatner in costume..." Sounds a lot like the auction info, right?

At the time I questioned this element's characterization as being exclusive to Shatner pieces. How, exactly was this established as a fact? How did these "knowledgeable Star Trek experts" know this to be true? And what proof was offered as to the veracity of this so-called "fact"? None, other than showing a couple of screen caps with Shatner wearing a shirt that displayed this gusset detail. I showed a screen cap of an identical shirt being worn by stuntman Paul Baxley. I was then called all sorts of nasty things by the aforementioned bloggers for having the gall to question their research. Almost like they had some sort of personal interest in the piece. Hmmm.

Since last summer, I have regularly been looking at various episodes of TOS for a variety of research reasons – phaser details, comms, sets, props, etc. And while doing this research, I started to notice something that I wasn't even looking for. I discovered that the "double gusset" detail that was so highly touted was not only NOT exclusive but was wide-spread. I saw it everywhere once I sarted looking for it! It is seen in the earliest episodes all the way through to the end of the series.

As is common in TV production, Shatner's shirts were probably recycled for use by other actors – stuntmen, background extras, guest actors, etc. But, in my opinion, that doesn't address the number of times the detail is clearly seen on so many gold uniform shirts, including regulars Takei and Koenig who would have undoubtedly had their own shirts created exclusively for them. Shirts that clearly show the telltale three seams.

Beyond the gold shirts, the three seams can clearly be seen on Nimoy's blue shirt, Scotty's red shirt and on tons of extra's pieces of all colors. The three seams is in no way shape or form a little-used, "Shatner-exclusive" detail. In short, it's EVERYWHERE! I have cited the episodes from which the images were pulled so anyone can duplicate my findings. And I show only a small fraction of appearances.

If people want to make up stuff for whatever reason, I couldn't care less, providing they don't put it out into the world to mislead. But when these so-called "knowledgeable Star Trek experts" declare something to be fact without doing even the most basic of research to either prove or disprove the theory, they show their true colors – it's all about self-interest and they'll ignore things that don't support their POV. This is a continuing theme with some people.

Why is it so hard for so many people to be circumspect in these types of cases? If you think something is so, state your case as to why you feel that way, offer proof (in this case show the detail is EXCLUSIVE only to Shatner uniforms), and let people make up their own minds. Conveniently, the proponents of the "gusset postulate" showed only shots of Shatner wearing the detail while totally ignoring the fact that the detail IS IN NO WAY EXCLUSIVE TO SHATNER PIECES. This was either shoddy research or an attempt to deliberately mislead, I have no idea which. I still feel the shirt was a real Kirk shirt, but this detail should have never been used to support that idea. It's flat-out wrong.

So the next time some self-appointed expert wants to blow smoke, remember caveat emptor and trust no one. Not even me. Do your own thinking, do your own research, and reach your own conclusions.

LLAP

Don

SHOOTING THE MESSENGER or HOW TO READ THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE

I’ve recently been taken to task by the consignor of the Star Trek TOS Phaser that was recently offered up for auction by Profiles In History auction house (read my story HERE). 

And by “taken to task”, I mean he called me “malicious, intellectually dishonest, misleading, unfair, mean-spirited, lacking character, without honor” and “a bully” on the RPF forum. And that was in a single thread.

It’s my own fault. I have a diabolical talent – I can read and write the English language. That’s right – I’ve been called a “hater” because apparently I’m not illiterate. 

Here’s the sentence from the Profiles catalog phaser copy that is the source of the trouble: 

“This fiberglass mid-grade pistol phaser is perhaps the most extensively researched TOS prop that we have ever auctioned, with all of its major features and numerous subtle contours in its design painstakingly screen-matched to several late 2nd and 3rd season The Original Series episodes including “Assignment: Earth”, “Spock’s Brain”, “Plato’s Stepchildren” and “The Cloud Minders”

As the title says – don’t shoot the messenger because, yes, that’s actually one sentence. And therein lies the nature of the problem – because it is so poorly written, you have to tear it apart to figure out its meaning. I came to the conclusion that the copy was claiming multiple screen-matches for the phaser. Especially since this text was accompanied by photos showing the features and episodes in question. But just to be sure, I asked the opinion of several others.

I write for a living, and when I have a language problem, I go to my wife, an English teacher with more than 30 years of experience under her lovely belt. I asked her to read the copy in question and tell me what it meant. She’s not well versed in my hobby so she was a blank slate. Perfect.

She peered at the paragraph-sized sentence and then looked at me in horror. “Don’t shoot the messenger,” I said. She reluctantly read through it, and then read through it again. And again. And again.  “This is awful. It's the very definition of a “comma splice”, she said.  A comma-splice is a sentence that would best be understood if it were two separate sentences. “I’d give it an F”, she added.

She then started to break it down on a piece of paper by using a tool of her trade – the sentence diagram (I kid you not!). Her scratches soon became gobbledlygook to me but after a few minutes she had her answer. Since the consignor likes to use diagrams and such – however confusing – to tell his story, I thought I’d take a page from his book. Here’s a cleaned up version of what she ended up with:

This shows how much my wife really loves me.

I know, right? THIS is a sentence? A poor one, but yes, it’s a sentence.

She explained thusly: “This sentence means ‘This phaser has been extensively researched. It has features and contours that have been screen-matched to four episodes’ ”. 

To further simplify: “It has features screen-matched to four episodes”. 

This is not open to interpretation. If you asked 12 English scholars what the sentence meant, you’d get a unanimous interpretation because a subject is a subject and an object is an object. 

So now we have to decide on what these specific words mean. They are self-evident to me, but apparently not to the consignor so here we go:

“Features and contours” can mean any form, shape, part or detail that makes up the phaser. 

“Screen-matched” means, in prop collector parlance, a specific piece can be matched EXACTLY to a scene through small defects or features that could only be unique to that piece. This is not my own personal definition but is one recognized universally throughout the hobby. Google it for yourself. Screen-matching a prop is extremely difficult, but not impossible. It is a super-charged term and one of the highest proofs of authenticity possible. 

So according to the above breakdown, the text means that this phaser was physically and specifically used in 4 different Star Trek episodes, by virtue of it having been screen-matched by Profiles in all four. 

But that claim is wrong. It can be screen-matched to ONE episode, which is still very cool! It’s enough to confirm screen-use, which is an incredible thing, and good enough, in my opinion, to say the phaser was likely real.

But the consignor feels Profiles does NOT make the “four episode” claim. He says the text "relates to the verification of design characteristics”. And that since later copy contradicts this earlier copy, it can't mean what *I* think it means. Huh?

What I THINK he says it means is that “features on this phaser look like features seen on phasers in various episodes.” See how easy that was? No convoluted wording, no murkiness, and NO CLAIMS OF SCREEN-MATCHING. The term "screen-matching" is nowhere to be found. And if that is indeed what Profiles MEANT, great – then they should have said that. The fact that they didn’t is not my fault. I have no psychic powers that permit me to read intent – I have to stick to the literal meaning of words.

And because of this convoluted B.S., I am scum for soiling the good name of Profiles, and, by extension, him. 

So here’s the question: how do YOU read it? Is my viewpoint so egregiously wrong and (apparently) dangerous as to trigger the extravagant rantings of the consignor? Does my analysis make me malicious, intellectually dishonest, misleading, unfair, mean-spirited, lacking in character, without honor” and a “bully”? (BTW – the name-calling was all one-sided, which makes calling me a bully especially poignant.)

To my mind, the consignor’s reaction is like that of a petty, whining schoolboy who didn’t get his way on the monkey bars. To extend the metaphor, I hope he takes his ball and goes home. But I’m not betting on it.

It’s important to keep in mind that, in the final analysis, I concluded that there was a screen-match to one episode and that the phaser was probably real. Furthermore, I stated that while it COULD be a fake, I didn’t think it was. But that wasn’t good enough for the consignor. By not agreeing with EVERY claim Profiles (and he) made, I was trying to undermine the authenticity of the piece, according to him. And so the rants began. NINE of them in one forum thread!

In a world where everything from Louis Vuitton handbags to Dutch Master oil paintings– AND STAR TREK PROPS – are forged, it would be irresponsible and stupid of me to take a look at some photos and declare it 100% authentic. To fault me for taking that stand is truly absurd, fundamentally shortsighted and just plain dumb. But this illuminates the differences between me and a lot of self-appointed “authorities” out there: I don’t claim to be omniscient, and I despise those that do. And here’s a news flash: saying it MIGHT be a fake is not saying it IS a fake. Asking people to judge for themselves should not be a crime.

This is not the first time this type of thing has happened. I’ve been accused of undermining past auctions because I didn’t swallow the company line whole. But I will always steadfastly assert that with big claims should come big proof. In this case, I actually agreed with the consignor. But I didn’t agree ENOUGH.

With this consignor (as well as some of his cohorts), it is apparently not possible to have a simple disagreement on things. If you disagree – however well grounded your reasons – you’re not only wrong, you’re evil. The mind-set is apparently one of infallibility on their part – any disagreement is heresy and will be dealt with as such. And so I'm malicious, etc.

They also have the ego to think that the only reason I write about what I do is so that I can attack them (because, again, any time I don't agree, it's an attack). How self-absorbed do you have to be to constantly put yourself in the center of the universe? When a Star Trek piece has an asking price of a hundred grand, I don't care who owns it, I'm going to write about it. Read the masthead – it's what I do!

The bottom line is that I don't hate these people. Far from it, as hatred requires caring about them one way or the other. I do pity them, though. Going through life expecting everyone to agree with you on everything and to kiss your ass at all times must be exhausting. I got over that when I was four. Apparently this type never will.

By the way, the consignor also accused me of accusing Profiles (and him) of being dishonest. He says the meaning of the copy is as clear as a bell and no reasonable person could interpret the copy as I have unless they had diabolical intentions. I'll leave it up to you to decide for yourself whose analysis is "intellectually dishonest". IMO, the text is written so poorly that Profiles was either incompetent or deliberately misleading. I can't say which. But I can say that words have meaning. If you want to change the meaning, choose better words.

One last thing – two pieces of advice.

To Profiles: hire a copywriter who writes English as a first language.

To the consignor: don't shoot the messenger. And learn how to read.

LLAP

Don

BORG.COM GIVES READERS A DAILY FIX OF COOL

Chris Bunce had a bit of a dream. He wanted to write a Blog that centered on the science fiction and fantasy genres of which he'd been a life-long fan. And he wanted a new article every day – no small feat for someone blogging on the side. And so in June of 2011, "borg.com" was born. Billed as "Your Daily Science Fiction, Fantasy and Entertainment Fix", its title doesn't exaggerate. For more than two years now, borg.com has delivered new stories every day. And while Chris occasionally has other writers contribute, the lion's share are written by him. Pretty good for a guy with a full-time job in the real world.

Chris Bunce in full geek mode with the real "Bionic Woman",
Lindsay Wagner. He's the action figure and she's, well, the real deal!

borg.com's stories cover a wide array of subjects ranging from the world of comics (he's a huge Green Arrow fan), to television (Arrow again!), film, books – in short, wherever fun stuff is found. Today's entry is especially interesting to me as Chris has written a review of the new Star Trek book "These Are The Voyages", a publication I mentioned a few weeks ago here at WOD. Like me, Chris is a huge fan of Star Trek (as well as being a fellow collector of screen-used Trek props and costumes) and took to the new book with relish. Check out his full review HERE.

And lest I forget, writing runs in Chris' family. His wife, the immensely talented Elizabeth Bunce, is an author of historical fantasy. Check out here writings HERE.

So be sure to check out borg.com and get your own personal fix of cool!

LLAP

Don

BS ALERT: THE TROUBLE WITH THIS TRIBBLE

Profiles In History, the auction house that sells a ton of entertainment memorabilia and is the subject of the SyFy Channel's "Hollywood Treasures", seems to have a recurring approach to many of their auctions best described by the old saying "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit". And in their current catalog "Hollywood Auction 56", the BS is definitely flying.

As usual, when the catalog first came out on-line, I immediately did a search for Star Trek. Of most interest to me was the original series Phaser prop that I wrote about HERE. Of secondary interest was an original series "Walking Tribble" from the classic Trek episode "The Trouble With Troubles", one of the most-loved episodes in all of Star Trek. And while I think the Phaser is likely a real original Star Trek prop, I have no reason to think that the Tribble is genuine.

Here's the listing as it appears in the Profiles catalog:

Profiles Tribble auction listing

According to the copy, the Tribble being shown is not just an original prop, but it is actually the most prominent one shown in the episode that is picked up by none other than Captain Kirk himself. What proof of this is offered? A postage-stamp-sized photo comparison of the prop in question and a fuzzy screen capture of a frame from the original episode. Here's the cleanest scan I can offer due to its small size:

"Comparison" image from catalog

So based SOLELY on this photo comparison, Profiles expects this piece to sell for at least $7200 (the small end of the given estimate Profiles has assigned to it). Can you determine an exact photo match from the images shown with 100% certainty? I sure can't. Not even close.

There is no history (provenance) given for this piece. How did it originally get off the Star Trek Desilu film lot way back when? How did it come into the possession of the current owner? What solid proof is  being offered beyond light and dark patterns of fake fur that only match up in a very general way? 

The real reason we have to question ANY AND ALL original series props that come onto the market is simple – there are far more fakes in the marketplace than originals. Phasers, Tricorders and Communicators are known to have been widely faked for sale to ravenous fans. Tribbles are no exception. How do I know? Take a look at this:

Tribble comparison

I, too, own a walking Tribble. For all intents and purposes, it's a twin to the one Profiles is selling. Oh, the hair isn't exactly the same – a different comb job. But it's incredibly similar, don't you think? Especially considering that the two were not photographed together under the same lighting with the same camera. For future reference, please keep in mind that the look – INCLUDING DARK AND LIGHT AREAS – can easily be affected by how you lay the fur – by the way you comb it, for lack of a better term. If Profiles had shown a shot of the bottom of their piece (which I have seen), I could show you mine as well – and again it is a virtual twin. Inside of my Tribble is an old toy walking dog, just like the Profiles version.

But here's the kicker. Mine is a fake. 

I bought it thinking it was real, but I discovered after the fact that it isn't. As it turns out, a collector friend of mine named John Mahon has an original walking Tribble that has been in his family's possession since the 70's, and it has a very convincing provenance, in my opinion. And John was nice enough to clue me in on those distinguishing characteristics – called "tells" – that a REAL walking Tribble possesses. These tells are neither mentioned in the Profiles auction nor, most importantly, are they shown. And as stated before, the darks and lights are easily changed by a comb-over. So what are we left with to prove that this piece is a true, original Star Trek prop?

Nothing. 

Please note that I am not accusing the seller of trying to pass off a fake. He may well believe it to be the real thing. Unfortunately, the seller, who I am familiar with, has other pieces in his collection which people who are widely acclaimed as true experts by most collectors (though not the seller of this item) feel are fakes as well, so this is not the first time this seller has faced this issue. He steadfastly stands behind his self-appointed title of "authority" no matter what others may say. And as long as he keeps those pieces in his collection, I don't really care if they are real or not. But when a piece is offered up with such slim evidence as the Tribble has, it's time to speak up.

Let me be clear – I cannot say beyond a shadow of a doubt that this piece is not real. What I can say is that, in my opinion, Profiles has offered no real proof that it IS real and the onus is on them to do just that. And for those who don't know anything about Profiles, they have actually featured fake pieces ON THE COVERS OF THEIR CATALOGS, only to have to remove them from their auctions when independent evidence showed them to be the fakes they were. In other words, Profiles stinks at authenticating the things they sell. 

Nobody likes to think that they were duped. I know I sure don't. I've been burned twice and I can tell you that it truly sucks. It's frustrating and it's embarrassing. But in my opinion, when you make a mistake, you need to own it. You have to take the evidence as it stands and admit to yourself that you made a mistake. You can't simply cherry-pick the facts in your favor while ignoring everything else that isn't. At least I can't. When I discovered my Tribble was fake, I could have tried to pass it on to another unsuspecting buyer. But I have to live with myself, so that would never happen.

Neither Profiles nor the seller will appreciate my take on this piece. But my approach to these things is always the same: when you offer something up that is a true rarity – and anything from the original Star Trek is rare – you'd better not only expect scrutiny but welcome it and be prepared for it. And if a piece can't tolerate tight scrutiny, it shouldn't be for sale.

So if you're considering buying this Tribble, I would encourage you to do your own research. I am neither an expert on these Tribbles (few are) nor do I set myself up as the final arbiter of what is real and what is not. But PLEASE don't simply take the word of the auction house which stands to make thousands on the sale of this item using blurry photos and no provenance. Look into what the likelihood is of this being either real or fake and then judge for yourself. 

My thanks to John Mahon for his invaluable assistance and in proving that I'm an idiot for buying my Tribble in the first place!

LLAP,

Don