This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"That's the kind of wooly headed liberal thinking that leads to being eaten."
11982 members | you are not logged in | 20 November 2017




Tweet













October 20 2014

One of River's Serenity dresses is up for auction. It's the magenta dress River wore during the bank robbery (interrupted by the reavers) and at the end of the film. Plus some underthings that go with the dress. Starting bid is $1,750 and the auction will be held November 8. The listing appears to include some other Whedonverse things too, but I'm not well-versed enough to catch them all.

They have some pretty cool Buffy items and some Angel items too.
Angel's pink motorcycle helmet, some AI cards, Spike's vamp face prosthetic, Dollhouse clothes worn by Eliza and Dichen...

Cool stuff indeed. ::glares at empty wallet::
Is auctioning a costume including the underwear normal? Because that seems odd to me.
I have no idea. Going through the other outfit listings, it does not seem to be the norm. My friends and I were joking, "That's why the price is like that."

There are also some Cabin in the Woods and Dollhouse stuff on the third page.
There is something wrong with selling a star's undies. Anyone who wanted to purchase them would be just the kind of person one would not want to have them.
On eBay, selling used underwear (whether as part of a costume or not) is definitely not allowed. This was originally more to put the kabosh on porn stars using it as a fundraising tool than for movie wardrobes, but the policy is site-wide.

Most of the reputable wardrobe auction sites (like PropStore.com) have similar policies/practices. Selling the undergarments is just tacky and gross. The exceptions are usually when its a bathing suit or the like, but even then that's pretty rare.

I know when we did the charity auction from Eliza's closet we intentionally didn't include anything too intimate. The closest was a nightgown, and even that she went back and forth on whether or not to include.

Shoes are a weird middle ground. To most people, they're perfectly harmless, and the buyers buy them to wear or just to have as a celebrity memento. But there are a few fetishists who buy them for more questionable purposes.
Yeah, I simply reported what the listing says, and it did strike me as odd. (If it weren't for my compulsion to be as complete as possible, I would have left it out the description, but fact of the matter is, it's in the listing.) Now I'm wondering about this...
It could be that this was actually a complete backup ensemble (hence the giant "River #2" marked on the dress itself) that never actually saw any use. Hence, when it came time to pack it up for good, there was no thought put into the need to remove the matched undergarments since they were never used.
It's probably more likely that whomever was creating the listings just inventoried whatever was there and moved on to the next item, without giving it much thought. Never attribute to malice what can more easily be explained by laziness, right? :)
It might be the undergarments are included because 1) they're the proper size to go with the dress and B) the dress is rather sheer so "nude" undergarments were part of the entire outfit.
I have no issue with it being in the post, TenTonParasol. It's just the truth of what's for sale and you worded it tastefully. I'm questioning the seller's judgment, not yours.
Oh, no. I didn't read it like that. I was just saying that I felt weird simply reporting it.
I watched Serenity something like ten times in the movie theaters (personal record for me) and never noticed until I looked at those photographs that River has scars on her forehead and right arm. I would make a terrible witness.

This thread has been closed for new comments.


You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.



joss speaks back home back home back home back home back home