My last shred of faith that there is anything real remaining on the internet has now gone. Wedding dress guy has turned out to be a hoax. Like seemingly everyone else on the internet, I recently checked out his eBay auction of his ex-wife's wedding dress. I read through his rant about his ex-wife and enjoyed his remarks, such as his statement that he was selling the dress "to get enough money for maybe a couple of Mariners tickets and some beer." I also laughed at the pictures of him posing in the white dress. I didn't suspect that the story was a fake (I should have known better!), which of course it is, as Nicole Brodeur uncovered in this Seattle Times article. Wedding Dress Guy is named Larry Star. He mentioned a sister in the story, but she doesn't exist. He mentioned that he had no kids with his ex-wife, but he does. I guess this is another case of how you can sell anything on eBay, as long as you weave a good story around it. And the dress did sell: for $3,850. For that price, the buyer gets a used wedding dress and a phony story. It's amazing what some people will spend their money on.
Comments
Honestly, you didn't smell a rat when you read that listing on eBay? I didn't buy it for a second.
I don't mean to imply that that somehow makes me better or smarter than you, but I'm surprised that a guy who spends a lot of his time dealing with and reporting on hoaxes was taken in by what seemed to me to be an obvious bullshit story.
I'm not sure I'd call it a hoax, though. Embroidering the truth, yes. But he had the dress, he was divorced, he is bitter, he was really selling it. The rest could be attributed to now-standard marketing lies, such as "near mint condition" "minor wear and tear" and "rare!!!!L@@K!!!!"
It must have been a really quiet day in Seattle when the Times editor decided that this was a story worth pursuing. What an expose!
Okay I admit I bought into it...until he said the Today Show wanted him. That's when I got suspscious.
Pal
http://www.rummaging.org for the site.
I didn't originally see anything on this site about the story. I believe I first heard about it on Fark. Why so snotty? I didn't say anything rude; I only said that I was surprised that someone who deals with hoaxes every day didn't smell a rat in this story.
I think I was suspicious of it in part because there have been several similar stories on eBay in recent months. Remember "Satanic Toaster?" How about the guy who was selling his hard drive supposedly because his ex-wife had loaded it with porn?
Let the buyer beware
No, this was not a hoax. I have an actual dress, and wanted actual money for it. The story was satire, tongue-in-cheek, based on my marriages as well as friends' unfortunate relationships. I wrote something funny, and people laughed. The media took everything way too seriously. I received no remuneration for the dress whatsoever. No one questions any comic's act about their family, yet my veracity is in question. Hell, Brett Butler made a career out of ranking on her "old man". The beating I take in various columns and chat sites are well worth it because of the handful of people that I've touched that told me I've made a positive difference in their relationships. If I have made you laugh, then my job is done. If you are still cynical about being 'deceived' then you should really lighten up and take a good look at the world around you because there is alot more shit out there than this fat guy making a joke in a wedding dress. Thanks. From the heart of my bottom.
The comparison to a comedian's act is not particularly apt. Most observers will realize that a comedian is exaggerated for comedic effect, therefore there is no hoax.
The fact that you had satiric intent does not change the matter. Most hoaxes have satiric intent. Trust me, this is something that I know a little bit about.
Saying "there is alot more shit out there than this fat guy making a joke in a wedding dress" also changes nothing. It reduces to "two wrongs make a right." They don't (not that I'm accusing you of doing anything criminal. For the record, I'm not.) What other people do does not change the nature of what YOU do.
Bottom line: Yes, it was a hoax. It wasn't Orson Welles' War of the Worlds, but it WAS a hoax, in that it was intended to deceive people.
Being a hoaxer doesn't make you a bad person; if it does, I'm bound for Hell. It was a funny story, but it WAS a hoax. No one's calling you a criminal here. I think YOU need to chill out.
Hoax is a little bit strong and more than a little judgemental. It was a guy with a sense of humour, telling a funny story through the medium of online auctions.
If anything, I would call hoax on the Seattle Times for *exposing* it as a hoax. It's not news to *reveal* that a guy a telling a joke might be embellishing his story.
Also, Larry, if you read this, protect the brand my friend. Where's the mystique if you rise to the bait on every nobody's blog? If I can't persuade you to do that, then at least come and have a go at me on my site 😊
Anyhow, Larry, I cried tears reading the auction, it was a job mega well done. People need to stop (anal)yzing everything. Most miss the point anyhow 😊 and that shows the true intelligence. So, consider the source, lol. Best wishes for your future!!
Apparently YOU are STILL missing the point. He did not advertise a dress that was worn by princess Diana, but a wedding dress. And no one accused you of saying it was a crime. I think you need to relax a bit 😊. Bottom line still is......what ever you advertise on eBay has to be exactly that. He described the dress, with humor may I add. And the buyer would have received exactly that. He did NOT say that is was the queen of France or anything like that, which would have been a lie and a hoax. Nor did I ever say that if other people list items falsely it makes it ok for others. I buy and sell on eBay myself, so I have a clean perspective. Again, what is overlooked is the fact that Larry never got paid to begin with. The buyer is the hoaxter. Would he have paid, he would have received the dress in the pictures (I would hope,lol). If not, than that would be another issue in its self.
Why would his story make u bid higher?? Because it was from his Ex wife, or because he drives a crappy truck?? Please enlighten me? Because your statement makes no sense!!!!!! Maybe you are jealous because you are not as original?? Since you are so on the uppy the up with the regulations, maybe you should educate yourself somemore to get the facts straight, you being an expert and all.
Have a great weekend
Katie hit the nail..... ALL THE WAY.....
Calling this "show" a hoax just misses the whole point.
Why? Let's count on the facts..... Ebay: It expects the seller to describe the item on auction accurately. The "mint condition" argument does not work. You got to be accurate. I personally followed the auction for some days, and I had a LAUGH! = PRICELESS!!!!!
If you fall for it.. Who to blame? Ever thought of blaming yourself?
Misleading (extended) information..... Now who did NEVER call in at work because mom, dad, the kids, the sister, the brother, or grandma was sick, or some other close person passed away and there was that funeral?
Who NEVER tried to be a "HOAXTER" then ?????
Leave the church in town.
It's toughy to deny your own child. But this is up to Larry. This is what he has to deal with it by himself.
Bottomline is. His story was GREAT. He gave everyone a laugh, and it was THAT good, he even catched the public media's attention. I also wish him the best, and thank him for the few moments of laughter, he gave me.
Looking further deep into it..... He's a smart ass, who deserves what he gets out of it. Unusual ways, for unusual people.
But he ain't no hoax. He did not betray, nor steal, nor nothing. NOBODY got hurt, except those who don't have enough fun within themselves to laugh about it, with the initial assumption of someone has a bright side of humour.
With that said..... Bravo Katie for hitting the point just more precisely than anyone else could have said, Larry for the outstanding idea and the laughter, and also Bob, for the opportunity to look into things from another angle. No matter what, I personally think you sound more bitter, in a serious way, than Larry ever did with his auction background.
I will team up here again with Katie. She set very valid points. I cannot see any personal attack within her posts. She is questioning. Perhaps, if one takes it personal then she may just have touched some weak spot? Since you've suggested, here is the link, and the definitions: Hoax: 1. An act intended to deceive or trick.
2. Something that has been established or accepted by fraudulent means.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hoax&r=67 You see? It's a matter of how you look at things. None of the above 2 definitions applies to this case. Not in my opinion. And if you admit you have been doing hoaxes yourself, what's the point of being that biased and judgemental?? This just does not make any sense to me. All what Larry did was excellent marketing. Copywriting in a top class, and outstanding humerous way. What made his auction famous was not the fact WHAT he wrote down. It was the way HOW he wrote. This made the auction become the most viewed auction ever on ebay, and made the people bid like crazy. Back to Katie, her comparison was all correct. You've compared the dress with "Nixon's broken pens", or other celeb items. And this would make the difference all the way. That was her point, and it's valid. Since you've compared apples and oranges.
http://www.mediaman.com.au/interviews/pagani.html
Maybe you want to call what Larry Star did clever marketing, instead of a 'hoax.' That's fine. It's just a question of semantics. Clever marketers are born hoaxers. They know you're never just selling a product... you're really selling an image. You take a boring product and wrap it in an exciting story, and sell it that way.
Part of the clever marketing behind the image of modern marketing itself is to disassociate it from hoaxing, because hoaxes conjure up negative connotations. Like P.T. Barnum always claimed, he wasn't hoaxing people, he was just entertaining them.
He has a slick story, he didn't sell the steak he sold sold the sizzle. First rule of salesmanship. Tell a golf loving customer you like golf. Give the customer a tube of golfballs. Then, sell the product. He did not hoax anyone, but had a great pitch.
I didnt see anyone post where he got stiffed. I thought it was an interesting sidenote.
That he embellished his personal information in the auction doesn't make the whole sale a hoax. He presented the item as it stood, even going so far as to mention how he thought it looked like a shower-curtain. He certainly didn't exaggerate the quality of the dress, which was the focal point of the auction. If he'd presented it as something other then it was, then you'd have a case.
If sales were influenced by his personal story, well then that's incidental and rather arbitrary. It's not as if he's selling his life, such as it were. And that's really all there is to this discussion, at least the way I see it. Though I'll be the first to admit that I've never been the brightest of fellows.
Oh, and Cranky Media Guy, please don't be offended by what I said. I'm just calling it as I percieve it, and do not mean to anger you with my remarks. Thanks.
You just cannot take anyone else's opinion, and even the fact they are right, isn't it?
Have you ever thought of that fact, that it's YOU who misreads the dictionaries, and the definitions of the word HOAX? As of right now, you are the one bending the truth, and turn around other contributors statements and opinions. Even your very own one...
Maybe you reread your very own opener?? How does it start? Let me remind you...... "My last shred of faith that there is anything real remaining on the Internet has now gone. Wedding dress guy has turned out to be a hoax." With this opener, you were the one giving the meaning hoax a bad name. You did not bother to soften it up, after your lacking on substantial and valid points. Further down the road you said a hoax does not need to be negative. Well, I sure read the dictionary different. A hoax is something willingly and purposely falsified, with bad intention. This very case is at the very most only a prank. It fits perfectly in the same category as all those funny fake phone calls. No one would call them hoaxes. Well, probably you do?
I for myself found Katies, and Bobs posts very thoroughly, and well put.
You are stubborn to the point of annoyance. And while it's good to have strong convictions, there comes a point where you have to bite the bullet and admit you were wrong. And you are. There's absolutely no shame in admitting it. Noone's going to think badly of you if you do. 😉
Look man, the dress was represented as nothing more then what it was. His story about the circumstances behind how he came to sell the dress on E-Bay may have been embellished (ok, a few points were complete bullshit..), but that's arbitrary. He didn't misrepresent the dress itself, which to reiterate (as you either didn't understand the first time, or simply ignored it), was the focal point of the auction! People could clearly see what they were getting when they bid on the dress! Had he passed it off as the Shroud of Turrin or something as proposterous as that, then yeah, you'd have a case. But he didn't, and you don't. It's really that simple. There's no need to hash this out further. REALLY.
Now, I normally wouldn't continue to has out a matter such as this, but I've never met someone so completely arrogant in my life! That you are so completely wrong hasn't gotten through to you, simply because your ego won't let you entertain the notion.
You've been soundly put in your place over this matter time and again, and yet you still stubbornly defend your broken, misguided stance. I wish I had the bravado you do. Or maybe it's best I don't. 😛
Look man, the concepts put forth to you are easy to understand, if your ego will allow you to.
If we take your definitions of a hoax into account, it only applies to the dress itself, as it was the item up for bid on E-Bay.
The circumstances behind his aquisition of the dress as well as his life story, are incidental and irrelivent, as he presented the dress as it was. The consumer knew the condition and quality of the product that he or she would be getting when he or she bid on it. The item itself was not misrepresented, and as such, the auction was not a hoax.
As for this discussion, we've presented to you facts beyond refute, and you refer back to the dictionary, and offer thinly vieled insults to the legitimacy of our arguments, rather the formulating any of your own that actually go to further your point. You make wide misinterpretations, and at the same time make narrow minded interpretations. I have to say that, while stimulating, this has also been one of the most frustrating discussion I've ever taken place in. And for that, I thank you. That said, be more open-minded in the future. Nothing you've said here even hints that you've attempted to entertain any notion differing from yours in the slightests. I at least will admit to trying to see it from your standpoint....😛
Something that has been established or accepted by fraudulent means." "v : To deceive by a story or a trick, for sport or mischief; to impose upon sportively." "n : deliberate trickery intended to gain an advantage [syn: fraud, fraudulence, dupery, put-on] v : play a joke on or subject to a hoax." Please not that the oft-brought-up topic of humor is directly addressed in these definitions (as in the notion that the Wedding Dress auction can't possibly be a hoax as it was humorous). As for the issue of "deception," WDG has admitted that he made up the story. That is, by definition, deception. Katie, I find it funny that you say that I have NO idea what kind of person you are (even though what I said was complimentary), then in the next breath, you say that a "person like you" would never get close enough to you to know. Sounds like you're making some assumptions of your own there. Of course, I never said that I WANTED to "get close to" you. I'm sincerely confused as to why you would think I had any interest in that. My interest here is solely to debate the "hoaxiness" (to coin a word) of the Wedding Dress Guy auction. If you're truly choosing to discontinue debating with me, that is, of course, your perogative. I stopped posting to this thread a few weeks back. Then, suddenly, it was revived (much to my surprise) by someone else (I forget who) so I responded. From MY point of view, in the absence of any actual FACTS that refute what I have been saying all along, this hasn't really been a "debate" for at least a month now. As I've said before, when OPINION is in conflict with FACT, FACT wins every time.