Ed Lee
March 11 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.misc
The Secret Service DOES handle counterfeit money, not the FBI. :^)
Ed
Salfamily
March 11 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.misc
>You know, she COULD settle this ones and for all by giving us the name
>and phone number of this Original Engineer she seems to have in her back
>pocket. But what are the chances of THAT happening?
Yeah, but you see, the whole point is, that information just wouldn't make a
difference in this whole debate. I don't want to get into the whole thing
again, but whoever her "original engineer" is, his information is incomplete,
or his memory is bad, or both. We have all the evidence and she hasn't said any
word to shed even the shadow of doubt on it. Even if she has a sheet showing
which Micro items were produced, who cares? It obviously doesn't include what
we're talking about--concepted and unreleased figures.
I thought about tracking down her "original engineer," primarily to see what
his opinions on Ms. Brooks are and how she presented her case to him, but it
would really just be a waste of my time. There were tons of people working on
various aspects of the Micro Collection, some of which I've spoken to, and more
of which Gus and chris have spoken to, not to mention Sansweet. It was
immediately obvious from stuff she said during the whole Lou and Tim thing,
that her information was *terribly* wrong--there were no Micro 4ups (she's
changed her mind), finished Micro sculpts were done in clay, there was one
sculptor working on the Micro line, Tom Neiheisel was a sculptor, Tom Neiheisel
was a design engineer, Tom Neiheisel was a Kenner "smoking man" who organized a
counterfeiting conspiracy--I could go on and on and on. Why should I assume her
Kenner information is correct in the case of this "original engineer?"
You're right in the sense that her unwillingness to actually disclose any of
the information she babbles about is a clear cut sign that she's
misrepresenting some of it. Personally, I think she's talking about Golden,
who's retired in Florida, and who she has repeatedly cited as the guy who
authenticated her stuff. There has to be some reason she's keeping his name so
quiet, given that she's been more than willing to throw around names in the
past.
ron
Lech Burakowski
March 11 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.misc
> The funniest part of that whole offer by Gus (to eat a proof card), is
> that she probably has no idea how significant a statement that is. Heck,
> now she'll probably be saying Gus is manufacturing 'fake' proof cards to
> support some new SW diet craze.
> Cathy
I can see it now
Average Joe:"Lobot will make me lose weight and gain muscle you say, well
here's some cash for that sucker"
Gus:"Heh heh heh"
:)
Adam
Keith A. Schneider
March 12 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.misc
Black Lodge writes:
>Is it just me or does the whole tone and situation of VJB reek of the
>all too familiar sociopathic troll? She is the one refuting Gus, Ron
>etc. so the burden is on her to PROVE her claims. I relish the day when
>all the mystery people and paper work come to light for what they really
>are. If one word could describe her in the nicest light it's
>disillusioned.
I've been reading this whole discussion, but I'm not really sure what
it's all about. On one hand, it certainly is possible that producing
reproductions of certain items may affect the market for the originals.
Who would buy an unauthenticated loose plastic-caped jawa these days
when you can buy a very good repro cape for about $10? Of course, if
you have the papers to support your item (I'm not sure what sort of
papers these would be, though, unless you can trace the figure directly
from its package), the value should not go down, and may even go up.
There may be a valid point that selling reproductions is illegal. I
don't know... it is probably technically illegal for us to sell figures
without charging sales tax (I know that a number of you collectors go
through enough volume that you are probably supposed to have a license).
But the hobby is largely unregulated, and no one seems to mind. I
suppose if Kenner, or whoever owns the trademarks or copyrights for the
items, wanted to become involved, they could make life miserable for
collectors. I don't see that they have any motivation to do so.
This seems like a plain and simple ego war, the kind that we commonly
have here in these newsgroups. Everyone wants to be sure to post the
e-mail they have received (I hope this is okay with the sender) and
their responses for us all to see. The letters to the editors often
didn't make much sense, but I see the point that it is extrememly likely
that the particular items in question are probably not as valuable as
someone might think, just by looking at the value of the most expensive
items of this type. (I also don't understand all the talk about legal
statements from Kenner, and so on.)
I suppose I should get a jab in so you don't think I've gone soft. Who
was the idiot who suggested that only the "experts" should write
letters to the editor. Yeah whatever... letters from the serfs are no
good, huh. I hope you all feel important by sending in your letters.
I doubt you'll see any responses in the papers. The original article
was not very interesting to begin with (what paper would print
something like that, anyway?), and the "rebuttals" are even less so.
Anyway, in direct response to the message I'm following here, I don't
see any burden placed on either side. Both have apparently produced
"facts" that dispute the others' points. Who is right? Who knows.
However, a Kenner employee is not going to be able to tell you how much
something is worth, or how much it should be worth. Only the market
can determine that. Even if you have something that you think is
special, if no one wants it, it is not worth much.
keith
bswain1
March 12 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.misc
>Keith A. Schneider wrote:
> I've been reading this whole discussion, but I'm not really sure what
> it's all about.
I'm surprised it took this long for you to jump on board, you usually seem to
enjoy the more controversial topics we encounter in the newsgroups.
>On one hand, it certainly is possible that producing
> reproductions of certain items may affect the market for the originals.
I don't think this is the case, especially with vintage items. I think anyone
would much rather have an authentic original of something, even if it cost
more.
> This seems like a plain and simple ego war, the kind that we commonly
> have here in these newsgroups. Everyone wants to be sure to post the
> e-mail they have received (I hope this is okay with the sender) and
> their responses for us all to see. The letters to the editors often
> didn't make much sense, but I see the point that it is extrememly likely
> that the particular items in question are probably not as valuable as
> someone might think, just by looking at the value of the most expensive
> items of this type. (I also don't understand all the talk about legal
> statements from Kenner, and so on.)
I don't think this is an ego war. It involves people trying to protect there
name after it has been defamed by articles circulated in the newspaper and on the
internet. I'm sure you would do the same if someone had falsely accused you
of something you didn't do in front of a group of people whose respect you had
earned...and the rest of us are showing that we stand behind our friends and
colleagues
> I suppose I should get a jab in so you don't think I've gone soft.
Why is this necessary??? So far your post was somewhat thought out and to the
point, but then you have to go and do this for no apparent reason. You are
just trolling for flames again (I suppose I just gave in).
> Who was the idiot who suggested that only the "experts" should write
> letters to the editor. Yeah whatever... letters from the serfs are no
> good, huh.
Here we go....
> I hope you all feel important by sending in your letters. I doubt you'll see
> any responses in the papers. The original article was not very interesting to
> begin with (what paper would print something like that, anyway?), and the "rebuttals"
> are even less so.
I would be very surprised if none if the articles are printed. These are
exactly the things newspapers are looking for. They want to show others that
their articles are being read, and spark some healthy (or in this case
unhealthy) debate. Readers opinions are important.
> However, a Kenner employee is not going to be able to tell you how much
> something is worth, or how much it should be worth. Only the market
> can determine that. Even if you have something that you think is
> special, if no one wants it, it is not worth much.
Good point.
Brennan
Salfamily
March 12 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.misc
>I suppose if Kenner, or whoever owns the trademarks or copyrights
>for the items, wanted to become involved, they could make life miserable
>for collectors.
Kenner doesn't currently have the license to sell micro SW figures. I don't
know if Galoob would have any grounds for a beef with this. I think the issue
is falsely (according to Ms. Brooks) calling things "Kenner" prototypes.
>This seems like a plain and simple ego war, the kind that we commonly
>have here in these newsgroups.
seems more like a defense of being slandered.
>Everyone wants to be sure to post the
>e-mail they have received
we've posted about 1/25 of the emails we have gotten because they illustrated
what was going on. Alot of people are interested and alot of the emails were
challenges that were later made public.
> (I hope this is okay with the sender)
Ms. Brooks specifically asked that we post a good deal of those emails.
> (I also don't understand all the talk about legal
>statements from Kenner, and so on.)
no, I don't think anyone does.
>Who was the idiot who suggested that only the "experts" should write
>letters to the editor. Yeah whatever... letters from the serfs are no
>good, huh.
I believe the emphasis was on allowing the people involved in the issue for the
last few months to respond to issues that concerned them only. There are
certaintly salient issues that anyone involved in the hobby can respond to
adaquately, but there were others that were based on correspondences from
October, and still others that some people don't know much about.
>I hope you all feel important by sending in your letters.
I feel I've had the chance to respond to a direct accusation.
>I doubt you'll see any responses in the papers.
Probably not.
>The original article was not very interesting to begin with
nope.
>Anyway, in direct response to the message I'm following here, I don't
>see any burden placed on either side. Both have apparently produced
>"facts" that dispute the others' points. Who is right? Who knows.
Ms. Brooks has produced facts? Where?
>However, a Kenner employee is not going to be able to tell you how much
>something is worth, or how much it should be worth. Only the market
>can determine that. Even if you have something that you think is
>special, if no one wants it, it is not worth much.
yep.
ron
Keith A. Schneider
March 15 1998
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.collecting.misc
>I'm surprised it took this long for you to jump on board, you usually seem to
>enjoy the more controversial topics we encounter in the newsgroups.
Well, this one isn't very interesting. Who is accusing whom of what?
What are the specific claims that are made that are in dispute?
It is certainly true that some people are producing unlicensed replicas
of certain items. While probably not technically legal, I think the
same can be said about the whole hobby (no one charges sales tax,
people don't list the income from sales on their income taxes, people
commonly mark items as "gifts" to avoid the tariffs when sending items
to other countries, and so on). Small time traders don't have much to
worry about, but sometimes we wonder about the big operations.
>> On one hand, it certainly is possible that producing
>> reproductions of certain items may affect the market for the originals.
>I don't think this is the case, especially with vintage items. I think anyone
>would much rather have an authentic original of something, even if it cost
>more.
What about the example of the loose plastic-caped jawa? No one will
buy ones of those anymore.
>I don't think this is an ego war. It involves people trying to protect
>there name after it has been defamed by articles circulated in the
>newspaper and on the internet. I'm sure you would do the same if
>someone had falsely accused you of something you didn't do in front of
>a group of people whose respect you had earned...and the rest of us are
>showing that we stand behind our friends and colleagues
The accusations of the original article are true, no? People do indeed
fabricate runlicensed reproductions of certain items. On the other
hand, there is no clear connection between this and the value of
authentic items, necessarily, especially if the replicas are obviously
replicas and marketed as such.
>> I suppose I should get a jab in so you don't think I've gone soft.
>Why is this necessary??? So far your post was somewhat thought out and to the
>point, but then you have to go and do this for no apparent reason. You are
>just trolling for flames again (I suppose I just gave in).
It is my duty to try to deflate people's egos. When people get too
proud of themselves, I try to show how silly they are being. This is
what I do, ever noticed?
>> I doubt you'll see any responses in the papers. The original article
>> was not very interesting to begin with (what paper would print
>> something like that, anyway?), and the "rebuttals" are even less so.
>I would be very surprised if none if the articles are printed. These are
>exactly the things newspapers are looking for. They want to show others that
>their articles are being read, and spark some healthy (or in this case
>unhealthy) debate. Readers opinions are important.
I don't know. There have been far more interesting arguments in other
small hobbies like this. What would the headline be? "Collectors argue
about..." what? The only things that should or need to be said about
the original press article is that 1) yes, unlincensed replicas are
being produced, but most dealers clearly market them as such 2) these
replicas probably don't affect the value of the original items, and the
vase majority of Star Wars collectibles of this type (not in the
original packaging) are not worth very much at all. Any attacks on the
character of the person complaining don't seem to be very productive,
but I guess that is how spin doctors work.
keith
Back
to VJB article