More food for thought... A little research brought out this information:
"Bernard Lee, who would become James Bond's stern commander through to the 1979 production of "Moonraker", signed onto the production just a day before they were due to shoot the M and Moneypenny sequence." From the Location Guide on the Mi6 webpage
So we are asked to believe that Mr. Lee brought a gun with him on his first day of work on a new picture, and that it happened to be a Walther PPK - which he would have had to have purchased before knowing he was going to be hired for a part in the film?
The minute I saw the reports of this auction from Humbert & Ellis, warning bells went off. I’m a member of a watch forum, TZ-UK. Earlier this year, a Rolex expert saw an auction for a rare “Double Red” Rolex Sea Dweller that had a number of problems with teh stated authenticity. (Thread titled “Double Red 1665 for £2-3k?“) The auction house, Humbert & Ellis, was apparently deaf, nearly dumb, and blind in response to his inquiries. Further drama unfolded including some klutzy social media counter-attack against the expert after the sale, from individuals who were clearly connected with the auction house after 30 minutes’ research.
This is speculation on my part, but …
1. The call sheet specified “gun.” But two were used in the scene. How could they film it with only one prop gun? :-\ Maybe the call sheet referred to the day they filmed his apartment scene with Eunice Gayson.
2. “Not appropriate” could mean it was a real firearm, not converted for blanks. I’ve read in the past that gunsmiths for films have to modify their firearms to fire blanks. In DR. NO, I don’t think Connery ever shoots teh PP. He shoots the Browning at Professor Dent, and in the “Crab Key” scene firing at the dragon-buggy, his gun amazingly switches to a Colt 1911(A) when he fires, then back to a PP afterwards. (I’m sure our esteemed member discusses this in his book).
Apologies for misspellings, I’m doing this in the web browser of Facebook, leaves much to be desired….
The minute I saw the reports of this auction from Humbert & Ellis, warning bells went off. I’m a member of a watch forum, TZ-UK. Earlier this year, a Rolex expert saw an auction for a rare “Double Red” Rolex Sea Dweller that had a number of problems with teh stated authenticity. (Thread titled “Double Red 1665 for £2-3k?“) The auction house, Humbert & Ellis, was apparently deaf, nearly dumb, and blind in response to his inquiries. Further drama unfolded including some klutzy social media counter-attack against the expert after the sale, from individuals who were clearly connected with the auction house after 30 minutes’ research.
Apologies for misspellings, I’m doing this in the web browser of Facebook, leaves much to be desired….
Adding to this, Christie's has been caught photoshopping the images of at least one watch in their Auction catalog.
The Beeb now reports the auction lot has been withdrawn.
In a confusing note, H&E now claim that provenance was confirmed by EON productions:
Provenance notes provided by filmmakers Eon Productions said that Mr Lee's "live and unregistered" PPK was handed to Sean Connery in the first scenes only, but was "inappropriate for filming on location". A Walther PP was used for the rest of the film.
"This is therefore, the first Walther PPK to appear in a Bond film," the notes read.
I thought that EON only confirmed a call sheet listing “gun” (puzzling since two were used in filming, the PP and the Beretta). Now they claim that EON confirms this PPK?
H&E must have great backhoes, they excel at digging holes for themselves IMHO.
”I’ve encountered that fragrance before … and both times I smelled a rat.”
Is it so difficult for these people to turn on the film and look for themselves that it’s a PP in the office scene? We have had home video for more than a few years now.
This statement is confusing me:
"Provenance notes provided by filmmakers Eon Productions said that Mr Lee's "live and unregistered" PPK was handed to Sean Connery in the first scenes only"
Is the Eon Provenance the call sheet or did they reach out to Eon?
Has anyone tried to scale a screenshot to bed the issue?
This statement is confusing me:
"Provenance notes provided by filmmakers Eon Productions said that Mr Lee's "live and unregistered" PPK was handed to Sean Connery in the first scenes only"
Is the Eon Provenance the call sheet or did they reach out to Eon?
Has anyone tried to scale a screenshot to bed the issue?
Ray, there is a simple process to decide what appears on screen from the moment the armourer begins to load a taller magazine which is clearly not a six shot capacity to the first glimpse of the grips which are single side mounted and not wrap round. When Sean weighs the pistol for balance between his hands you can see the long slim top slide but the clincher is the freeze frame profile against his white shirt just before he holsters the weapon. The disappointing thing is this is exactly what I said to O.M. the BBC's editor of the piece, EON (yes I went there too) and the auction house who withdrew the piece after speaking to me.
Is it so difficult for these people to turn on the film and look for themselves that it’s a PP in the office scene? We have had home video for more than a few years now.
The problem is you're dealing with people with zero point of reference for this.
"But you can see it, right there, in the picture!"
Right, but that's us looking at it, and we get the subtleties of PP vs. PPK. Other people just see ... a gun. I think you could show the average person a Walther and a Beretta, ask the difference, and they would have a very difficult time responding.
I'm in the UK right now and one of the things I'm doing as the opportunity arrises is stopping by various electronics/DIY shops trying to find a particular part. This is a metal piece dating to the late '70s, early '80s, probably common in it's day, since replaced by simpler designs, usually in plastic.
I'm going into older shops where the staff might be more familiar, less stock turnover, etc.
I explain what I'm after and show them printed photos.
"So what are you asking?"
"If you have these or recognise them or ...?"
"So what are they?"
And I explain again as best I can in 'Murican English.
"So what are you asking?"
"If ... you ... have ... these ... or ... recognise ... them."
"Sorry, mate, I'm just not following."
"I want to buy this part. It was made in England in the late '70s, early '80s."
"So what is it again?"
And I explain again.
"Oh, ya, I see it now. [Despite facial expression clearly saying "no."] No, haven't got those. Don't know where you'd look."
Again, this is standing there, in person, with clear pictures, giving repeated, detailed descriptions, in a shop which would have at one time sold said part.
The gun is no different.
Should someone be selling something they have no familiarity with? Well, that is, to some extent, the nature of the auction business.
An actual house specialising in weaponry would be another story but for something like this, a seller is going to go with a higher profile auctioneer even if, lesson learned for them, it means one less knowledgable about the subject.
I had actually interpreted that as no different than their original claims, not that EON had provided new input but that's possibly me just not following along at that closely.
Curious, though, has any of the supposed documentation been shown to you or anyone else? A lot of credence is being given to Lee's letter which looking at, say, the signature alone, would be pretty easy to confirm or refute.
Again -- and this is obviously having not seen it -- I think the letter (but not the content) is genuine and genuinely part of the problem.
Is it so difficult for these people to turn on the film and look for themselves that it’s a PP in the office scene? We have had home video for more than a few years now.
The problem is you're dealing with people with zero point of reference for this.
"But you can see it, right there, in the picture!"
Right, but that's us looking at it, and we get the subtleties of PP vs. PPK. Other people just see ... a gun. I think you could show the average person a Walther and a Beretta, ask the difference, and they would have a very difficult time responding.
I’m not a gun person, but I can see the difference. Auction houses have art experts who should be able to see small differences.
But I have come across people who believe what they are told by people who are credible sources who still get things wrong. If someone at work asks me about a project I worked on two weeks ago, I am likely to get some details wrong if I don’t check my notes. Of if I check my notes, some things might have changed since I made those notes.
1. Humbert & Ellis, last time I checked, deal in a LOT OF wartime collectibles. You'd think they know the difference between a PP and a PPK. I don't personally think they're nearly as knowledgeable as they purport to be.
2. As a broker for their client, of COURSE they're not going to admit that "numerous experts have called this into question, proving that a Walther PP was used in the first film, not a PPK." They have to protect their reputation as well as that of their client. BUT I expect better of the Beeb to simply swallow their version hook, line, and sinker.
Take a news story which is flawed, take the same sensationalist BS storyline taken by the BBC, lift a passage straight out of 007 Magazine's The Most Famous Gun In The World without permission ....take that passage completely out of context and stir with some lifted quotes from AJB007!!!
This is my favourite piece of complete wrongness from the report:
The Walther PP is a German pistol issued to Bond in the Ian Fleming novel, Dr. No. With the transition to film, the PP became Bond’s primary weapon and was featured until 1997 and Tomorrow Never Dies
Take a news story which is flawed, take the same sensationalist BS storyline taken by the BBC, lift a passage straight out of 007 Magazine's The Most Famous Gun In The World without permission ....take that passage completely out of context and stir with some lifted quotes from AJB007!!!
This is my favourite piece of complete wrongness from the report:
The Walther PP is a German pistol issued to Bond in the Ian Fleming novel, Dr. No. With the transition to film, the PP became Bond’s primary weapon and was featured until 1997 and Tomorrow Never Dies
Take a news story which is flawed, take the same sensationalist BS storyline taken by the BBC, lift a passage straight out of 007 Magazine's The Most Famous Gun In The World without permission ....take that passage completely out of context and stir with some lifted quotes from AJB007!!!
This is my favourite piece of complete wrongness from the report:
The Walther PP is a German pistol issued to Bond in the Ian Fleming novel, Dr. No. With the transition to film, the PP became Bond’s primary weapon and was featured until 1997 and Tomorrow Never Dies
Ok... who said the “balderdash” word 8-)
Meanwhile no one has put the Beeb right....
Me. I didn’t think AJBs filter would let me say bollocks.
When this story broke on BBC online they were informed as was the auction house that a number of details were incorrect and were furnished with the correct details which illustrated beyond a shadow of doubt that the pistol utilised at Pinewood Film Studios in 1962 was in fact a Walther PP and NOT a Walther PPK which the BBC chose to ignore but the auction house took on board and removed the pistol from sale. There was no "Ferocious Dispute" as you tagged it.
The comments you lifted straight off the AJB007 website and 007 Magazine's The Most Famous Gun In The World were correct regarding dating pistols by their specific engravings but completely out of context and invalid in the case of this particular pistol because it was engraved correctly for a 1961 proofed pistol.
The following statement is however completely inaccurate:
The Walther PP is a German pistol issued to Bond in the Ian Fleming novel, Dr. No. With the transition to film, the PP became Bond’s primary weapon and was featured until 1997 and Tomorrow Never Dies
It is true that a Walther PP pistol was used in the 1962 production of Dr.No however a Walther PPK pistol was then used from 1963's production of From Russia With Love through to 2015's production of SPECTRE. A Walther P5 was utilised in 1983's production of Octopussy and the unofficial production of Never Say Never Again. The Walther P99 was then used in 1997's Tomorrow Never Dies, 1999's production of The World Is Not Enough, 2002's production of Die Another Day and 2006's production of Casino Royale.
Please use this information if you wish your news report to be accurate.
Comments
"Bernard Lee, who would become James Bond's stern commander through to the 1979 production of "Moonraker", signed onto the production just a day before they were due to shoot the M and Moneypenny sequence." From the Location Guide on the Mi6 webpage
So we are asked to believe that Mr. Lee brought a gun with him on his first day of work on a new picture, and that it happened to be a Walther PPK - which he would have had to have purchased before knowing he was going to be hired for a part in the film?
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
Dear Mr Hazard,
Thank you for your email.
Just to let you know that in discussion with the vendor- we will be withdrawing this item from sale this morning.
Your technical detail of yesterday is appreciated and thank you again for contacting us.
Kind regards,
Jonathan Humbert
the spyboys Facebook page
If anyone is interested in a Connery 'YOLT' wig with dubious provenance, any offers over £5.00 will be considered -{
It was a hard choice for her, either model this wig or rejoin The Spice Girls
-{
Now we have some questions about that Bernard Lee's letter. Perhaps he misremembered and was thinking about FRWL?
I imagine if the letter is genuine. That he bent the truth to make a young lad happy.
This is speculation on my part, but …
1. The call sheet specified “gun.” But two were used in the scene. How could they film it with only one prop gun? :-\ Maybe the call sheet referred to the day they filmed his apartment scene with Eunice Gayson.
2. “Not appropriate” could mean it was a real firearm, not converted for blanks. I’ve read in the past that gunsmiths for films have to modify their firearms to fire blanks. In DR. NO, I don’t think Connery ever shoots teh PP. He shoots the Browning at Professor Dent, and in the “Crab Key” scene firing at the dragon-buggy, his gun amazingly switches to a Colt 1911(A) when he fires, then back to a PP afterwards. (I’m sure our esteemed member discusses this in his book).
Apologies for misspellings, I’m doing this in the web browser of Facebook, leaves much to be desired….
“It reads better than it lives.” T. Case
Adding to this, Christie's has been caught photoshopping the images of at least one watch in their Auction catalog.
http://chronocentric.com/forums/heuer/index.cgi?page=1;md=read;id=94962
https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=639002
I just read through the TZ UK thread about Humbert & Ellis. Disturbing yet fascinating read.
https://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.php?427134-Double-Red-1665-for-%A32-3k/
In a confusing note, H&E now claim that provenance was confirmed by EON productions:
I thought that EON only confirmed a call sheet listing “gun” (puzzling since two were used in filming, the PP and the Beretta). Now they claim that EON confirms this PPK?
H&E must have great backhoes, they excel at digging holes for themselves IMHO.
”I’ve encountered that fragrance before … and both times I smelled a rat.”
“It reads better than it lives.” T. Case
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-46384001
"Provenance notes provided by filmmakers Eon Productions said that Mr Lee's "live and unregistered" PPK was handed to Sean Connery in the first scenes only"
Is the Eon Provenance the call sheet or did they reach out to Eon?
Has anyone tried to scale a screenshot to bed the issue?
Ray, there is a simple process to decide what appears on screen from the moment the armourer begins to load a taller magazine which is clearly not a six shot capacity to the first glimpse of the grips which are single side mounted and not wrap round. When Sean weighs the pistol for balance between his hands you can see the long slim top slide but the clincher is the freeze frame profile against his white shirt just before he holsters the weapon. The disappointing thing is this is exactly what I said to O.M. the BBC's editor of the piece, EON (yes I went there too) and the auction house who withdrew the piece after speaking to me.
8-) They print anything these days...
The problem is you're dealing with people with zero point of reference for this.
"But you can see it, right there, in the picture!"
Right, but that's us looking at it, and we get the subtleties of PP vs. PPK. Other people just see ... a gun. I think you could show the average person a Walther and a Beretta, ask the difference, and they would have a very difficult time responding.
I'm in the UK right now and one of the things I'm doing as the opportunity arrises is stopping by various electronics/DIY shops trying to find a particular part. This is a metal piece dating to the late '70s, early '80s, probably common in it's day, since replaced by simpler designs, usually in plastic.
I'm going into older shops where the staff might be more familiar, less stock turnover, etc.
I explain what I'm after and show them printed photos.
"So what are you asking?"
"If you have these or recognise them or ...?"
"So what are they?"
And I explain again as best I can in 'Murican English.
"So what are you asking?"
"If ... you ... have ... these ... or ... recognise ... them."
"Sorry, mate, I'm just not following."
"I want to buy this part. It was made in England in the late '70s, early '80s."
"So what is it again?"
And I explain again.
"Oh, ya, I see it now. [Despite facial expression clearly saying "no."] No, haven't got those. Don't know where you'd look."
Again, this is standing there, in person, with clear pictures, giving repeated, detailed descriptions, in a shop which would have at one time sold said part.
The gun is no different.
Should someone be selling something they have no familiarity with? Well, that is, to some extent, the nature of the auction business.
An actual house specialising in weaponry would be another story but for something like this, a seller is going to go with a higher profile auctioneer even if, lesson learned for them, it means one less knowledgable about the subject.
I had actually interpreted that as no different than their original claims, not that EON had provided new input but that's possibly me just not following along at that closely.
Curious, though, has any of the supposed documentation been shown to you or anyone else? A lot of credence is being given to Lee's letter which looking at, say, the signature alone, would be pretty easy to confirm or refute.
Again -- and this is obviously having not seen it -- I think the letter (but not the content) is genuine and genuinely part of the problem.
I’m not a gun person, but I can see the difference. Auction houses have art experts who should be able to see small differences.
But I have come across people who believe what they are told by people who are credible sources who still get things wrong. If someone at work asks me about a project I worked on two weeks ago, I am likely to get some details wrong if I don’t check my notes. Of if I check my notes, some things might have changed since I made those notes.
https://www.etsy.com/listing/632853187/walther-ppks-handgun-vintage-1970s-70s?ga_order=most_relevant&ga_search_type=vintage&ga_view_type=gallery&ga_search_query=james+bond&ref=sc_gallery-1-5&plkey=46648908ce3e1a05f093fabe6916990b0981612e%3A632853187&pro=1&frs=1
1. Humbert & Ellis, last time I checked, deal in a LOT OF wartime collectibles. You'd think they know the difference between a PP and a PPK. I don't personally think they're nearly as knowledgeable as they purport to be.
2. As a broker for their client, of COURSE they're not going to admit that "numerous experts have called this into question, proving that a Walther PP was used in the first film, not a PPK." They have to protect their reputation as well as that of their client. BUT I expect better of the Beeb to simply swallow their version hook, line, and sinker.
“It reads better than it lives.” T. Case
This is the real issue, as they have no excuse.
No commission to protect
No reputation to protect.
Oh Beeb, where did it all go so wrong???
https://www.thevintagenews.com/2018/12/05/auction-canceled/
This is my favourite piece of complete wrongness from the report:
The Walther PP is a German pistol issued to Bond in the Ian Fleming novel, Dr. No. With the transition to film, the PP became Bond’s primary weapon and was featured until 1997 and Tomorrow Never Dies
Ok... who said the “balderdash” word 8-)
Meanwhile no one has put the Beeb right....
Me. I didn’t think AJBs filter would let me say bollocks.
Oh
Okay lets see what happens next:
Dear Sirs,
When this story broke on BBC online they were informed as was the auction house that a number of details were incorrect and were furnished with the correct details which illustrated beyond a shadow of doubt that the pistol utilised at Pinewood Film Studios in 1962 was in fact a Walther PP and NOT a Walther PPK which the BBC chose to ignore but the auction house took on board and removed the pistol from sale. There was no "Ferocious Dispute" as you tagged it.
The comments you lifted straight off the AJB007 website and 007 Magazine's The Most Famous Gun In The World were correct regarding dating pistols by their specific engravings but completely out of context and invalid in the case of this particular pistol because it was engraved correctly for a 1961 proofed pistol.
The following statement is however completely inaccurate:
The Walther PP is a German pistol issued to Bond in the Ian Fleming novel, Dr. No. With the transition to film, the PP became Bond’s primary weapon and was featured until 1997 and Tomorrow Never Dies
It is true that a Walther PP pistol was used in the 1962 production of Dr.No however a Walther PPK pistol was then used from 1963's production of From Russia With Love through to 2015's production of SPECTRE. A Walther P5 was utilised in 1983's production of Octopussy and the unofficial production of Never Say Never Again. The Walther P99 was then used in 1997's Tomorrow Never Dies, 1999's production of The World Is Not Enough, 2002's production of Die Another Day and 2006's production of Casino Royale.
Please use this information if you wish your news report to be accurate.
Kind regards
M.Hazard