Han Solo Blaster: 2025 Studio auctions / Goldin auctions
- Thread starter Halliwax
- Start date
Bapty or Stembridge ect. Would be looking at rental potential, a stock Gun has more, simple...these days such as ISS keep space Guns or movie oddities because of the huge prop market. This scene didn't exist in 1970/80s , it's like the BR Blaster, at the time a cobbled together Blank Gun with no real thought as to supposed function, but now a whole legend has been formed around it ! Renter houses are business men not fans...
How about Schrödinger's Mauser? It IS Han's blaster. Until you take it out of the box and look at it. Then it's not. SOLVED!
Lot of money at stake ! It's whatever folks belive it is !! Lots of experts on this site with far more knowledge than me may solve it ...
Ya but honestly if they did keep these blaster as they do now a LOT of the fun of not only RPF and but this hobby as a hole wouldn’t exist as it does today. Big part of the fun is the mystery!
Yes, fun is number 1
I think this blaster was pulled from the auction!? Score one for the little guys!!! 
joberg
Legendary Member
The Oscar statuette doesn't belong to the actor receiving it. It belongs to the Academy, due to a court ruling in 2015 that mandate any resale of a statuette be offered, to the Academy, for $1 dollar. The Academy is very serious about any reproduction of the Oscar, as a few of our members will testify...don't do it!
I dunno…since the Oscars have lost all value, and no one even watches the award show broadcasts, these days, the Academy might want to start selling the statues for some attention and cash.
julz
New Member
And while they're talking to him, for crying out loud, ask him if the lower was actually painted and what exactly was the mystery disk that fell off...
julz
New Member
It looks like one of Blaster Factories anodised grills. I could be wrong though.The grill is also mounted too high, if it’s even mounted at all. Looks like it’s just put in place for the pictures.
Safety lever has the hole through it.
And what’s with the tiny spacers under the crossbar?
Been away from the RPF a long while, but as the PS/RIA blaster drew me to join in the first place, here I’m dutifully drawn yet again.
My compliments and thanks to all who contributed to the swift and decisive deflating of this even-more-brazen auction claim, and kudos especially to PVmodels and JMSupp for the nail-in-the-coffin 2011 iCollector revelation. Is “fake-matched” a term?
Not only does it appear to be preemptively-withdrawn based on the removal of announcements from social media, but it seems an imminent television appearance was also thwarted – see below the scheduled lineup for 26 March on ABC’s GMA3 (I watched the episode; no Brad).
Since I’ve already seen understandable confusion elsewhere online between the PS/RIA and this new example, I’ve updated my earlier diagram as a shareable rough visual guide. If I mixed anything up or any aspect could be made clearer, let me know and I’ll revise.
VERSION 1: Regular colors:
VERSION 2: Color-blind friendly option:
Lastly, while the advertised piece has received an admirably thorough scrutinizing, I thought I’d try a little digging into a curious side statement made in the 21 March SWNS / Dean Murray press release which has thus far flown under the radar of this discussion. The press release notes:
“Studio Auctions’ CEO, Brad Teplitsky said the blaster came from a consignor that contacted him after hearing him on a radio broadcast discussing a recently disqualified replica Han Solo blaster. He explains: ‘I met the consignor with a little trepidation. I mean, we’d just done months of backflips trying to authenticate a blaster that didn’t pass muster and was proven to be just a very good replica.’”
Hold up. If the blaster that passed muster was as mediocre a fake as has been demonstrated… how bad was the one they caught?
And what was the story there?
Well, I went looking for said interview, and while I can’t be sure of the precise one that prompted an opportunistic consignor, I found that Brad Teplitsky appeared on several podcasts in October/November 2024 promoting SA’s late November auction. In at least two – with Dr. Marissa Pei on 29 October, and Jim Masters TV on 09 November – he indeed mentions a Han Solo blaster undergoing authentication as a 1977 original, and conveniently references a specific photo displayed in the live stream videos. Bingo!
Now what’s weird… is that the specifically-referenced photo is the same one belonging to their preceding 21 September auction’s lot 165: the previously-mentioned cast resin Han blaster attributed to The Force Awakens.
Huh?
So they first authenticated it as a Force Awakens prop, sold it, and then I guess maybe the winner approached them trying to flip it as original to 1977? And then, judging by the press release, they not only disqualified the 1977 claim… they also proved it was a replica all along?
Can anyone make sense of this? Am I missing something? Because if that also happened in addition to the iCollector-sourced fake… wow.
My compliments and thanks to all who contributed to the swift and decisive deflating of this even-more-brazen auction claim, and kudos especially to PVmodels and JMSupp for the nail-in-the-coffin 2011 iCollector revelation. Is “fake-matched” a term?
Not only does it appear to be preemptively-withdrawn based on the removal of announcements from social media, but it seems an imminent television appearance was also thwarted – see below the scheduled lineup for 26 March on ABC’s GMA3 (I watched the episode; no Brad).
Since I’ve already seen understandable confusion elsewhere online between the PS/RIA and this new example, I’ve updated my earlier diagram as a shareable rough visual guide. If I mixed anything up or any aspect could be made clearer, let me know and I’ll revise.
VERSION 1: Regular colors:
VERSION 2: Color-blind friendly option:
Lastly, while the advertised piece has received an admirably thorough scrutinizing, I thought I’d try a little digging into a curious side statement made in the 21 March SWNS / Dean Murray press release which has thus far flown under the radar of this discussion. The press release notes:
“Studio Auctions’ CEO, Brad Teplitsky said the blaster came from a consignor that contacted him after hearing him on a radio broadcast discussing a recently disqualified replica Han Solo blaster. He explains: ‘I met the consignor with a little trepidation. I mean, we’d just done months of backflips trying to authenticate a blaster that didn’t pass muster and was proven to be just a very good replica.’”
Hold up. If the blaster that passed muster was as mediocre a fake as has been demonstrated… how bad was the one they caught?
And what was the story there?
Well, I went looking for said interview, and while I can’t be sure of the precise one that prompted an opportunistic consignor, I found that Brad Teplitsky appeared on several podcasts in October/November 2024 promoting SA’s late November auction. In at least two – with Dr. Marissa Pei on 29 October, and Jim Masters TV on 09 November – he indeed mentions a Han Solo blaster undergoing authentication as a 1977 original, and conveniently references a specific photo displayed in the live stream videos. Bingo!
Now what’s weird… is that the specifically-referenced photo is the same one belonging to their preceding 21 September auction’s lot 165: the previously-mentioned cast resin Han blaster attributed to The Force Awakens.
Huh?
So they first authenticated it as a Force Awakens prop, sold it, and then I guess maybe the winner approached them trying to flip it as original to 1977? And then, judging by the press release, they not only disqualified the 1977 claim… they also proved it was a replica all along?
Can anyone make sense of this? Am I missing something? Because if that also happened in addition to the iCollector-sourced fake… wow.
Last edited:
FINAL EDIT: Issue Resolved
For some reason, large portions of text in my preceding post have disappeared, and are only viewable if I click edit.
I also seemingly can't edit that post other than to delete attachments - I just get a server error notice. Though I can edit this one just fine.
Please bear with the fragmented post as I see if I can determine what the issue is... and apologies if I'm making a silly error.
Edit: Just to clarify, my message did contain external links to evidence I was citing (hope that's ok); just all of the context around them vanished.
I've messaged Art, but in the meantime, feel free to message me if my conundrum happens to ring any bell.
For some reason, large portions of text in my preceding post have disappeared, and are only viewable if I click edit.
I also seemingly can't edit that post other than to delete attachments - I just get a server error notice. Though I can edit this one just fine.
Please bear with the fragmented post as I see if I can determine what the issue is... and apologies if I'm making a silly error.
Edit: Just to clarify, my message did contain external links to evidence I was citing (hope that's ok); just all of the context around them vanished.
I've messaged Art, but in the meantime, feel free to message me if my conundrum happens to ring any bell.
Last edited:
Alright, seem's we're back in business; my text and images are restored. Post #132 above, or link below:
www.therpf.com
Thanks to Montagar for his debugging efforts.
Han Solo Blaster: 2025 Studio auctions / Goldin auctions
Also not in their catalog. They're really trying to disappear it. A withdrawn Oscar: Lot 176:
www.therpf.com
Thanks to Montagar for his debugging efforts.
It all makes perfect sense for anyone who’s been paying attention for the past few years.
Also, that is an awesome diagram. Really clear and to the point for anyone wondering about these forgeries. We need more stuff like this, going forward.
That was an initial thought of mine as well.
However, it's evident in the Dr. Marissa interview, especially around 21:35, that these are private image files shared with the interviewer via Jaime Cassavechia of Studio Auctions' PR firm EJ Media Group. So the images are selectively supplied by Studio Auctions. These were also live streams, and on multiple occasions in both interviews, Brad identifies images' subjects before the interviewer.
Therefore, point 1 is Brad ought to be familiar with the shared material. And point 2 is since Brad's watching live, he ought to recognize his own listing photo of a prop that he heavily promoted, even featuring on his catalog's cover, barely a month prior.
But worth considering.
bitbuster
New Member
It’s worth noting that another item in the upcoming auction was, fortunately, pulled at the last minute: a so-called Iron Man 3 helmet allegedly worn by Robert Downey Jr.
Studio Auctions – Iron Man 3 Helmet
There are plenty of replicas of this helmet out there, many designed to look like originals made by Legacy Effects - and this particular one was clearly one of those fakes.
Just last year, a replica Mattel Hoverboard was actually sold through Studio Auctions for $180,000. And yet, despite ongoing publicly voiced concerns about authenticity, we haven’t seen a single public statement from Mr. Teplitsky addressing any of it. Not even a comment on facebook.
Wouldn’t a reputable auction house feel compelled to respond to such serious allegations?
Can you imagine Propstore or Heritage Auctions behaving this way? They’d be out of business in no time.
Studio Auctions – Iron Man 3 Helmet
There are plenty of replicas of this helmet out there, many designed to look like originals made by Legacy Effects - and this particular one was clearly one of those fakes.
Just last year, a replica Mattel Hoverboard was actually sold through Studio Auctions for $180,000. And yet, despite ongoing publicly voiced concerns about authenticity, we haven’t seen a single public statement from Mr. Teplitsky addressing any of it. Not even a comment on facebook.
Wouldn’t a reputable auction house feel compelled to respond to such serious allegations?
Can you imagine Propstore or Heritage Auctions behaving this way? They’d be out of business in no time.
Similar threads
