profiles in history, another rip off?

It does not matter how you explain it the merchandise seems to be misrepresented over and over again with no consequences. Maybe thats why they keep pushing the envelope ? Profiles seems to have a lifetime pass to pillage the industry . If the items in question are proven to be bogus.

They seem to be good at selling "maybe" it was in yadda yadda movie.

We've attended just one auction at PIH's office here in SoCal, but we found some of the bidding...questionable. We bid on a prominent crew item and appeared to be the bidder...then suddenly a single phone bidder ran it up, and ran it up, and ran it up. It very well could have been legitimate, but all we can say is, it seemed odd to us. The behavior of the PIH staff while it was happening (lots of what appeared to us to be smirking), long delays for the phone bidder to make up their mind--far more than any other auction we've ever participated in that wasn't for charity. That kind of thing. Again, that may mean nothing, but based upon the comments we're reading, we're still not mollified. It was a very, very odd experience for us.

Rick,

The more I've been looking at the recent auctions, the more I have to agree with you.

When I charge 10% to 20% in brokering fees, it really doesn't cover the research, auction preparation (if I go that route), and documentation costs unless the item is quite expensive. Plus, I never get the types of prices Profiles does for similar material (I guess one could call me a smalltime wholesaler). Of course, they're a large outfit that do a lot of costly PR and generally bring in large final values.

Considering how much is made on both the backend and the frontend of each sale, plus the money being made from the TV show, one would think there's plenty being paid to justify some topnotch research.

Phil

philippes said:

---

Considering how much is made on both the backend and the frontend of each sale, plus the money being made from the TV show, one would think there's plenty being paid to justify some topnotch research.

Taking one obvious example, the Seven Year Itch dress, which sold for $4.6 million dollars, plus Buyer's Premium, plus Seller's Premium... that's well over $1M in fees.

Yet it was a third party (unpaid and not solicited) analysis that brought substantive additional information to the public about the provenance of the piece post auction, that either was completely unknown to Profiles or was not disclosed in the extensive catalog description (see The Marilyn Monroe Collection Blog Asks: “Was It THE Dress?” and New Evidence “The Seven Year Itch” Profiles in History Subway Dress Altered for “Bachelor Flat”?).

Jason

We are not talking 100 bucks its millions of dollars people are possibly being ripped off. I can't imagine why the FBI has never given them a look. You see people selling bogus cell phones go to jail and thats chump change compared to this . Guess you need a few buyers to complain first before anything changes and for some reason most of them are uneducated in the art of the auction scam if thats what's going on.

The apparent absence of legal challenges could perhaps have something to do with the auction terms you have to agree to before you're allowed to bid. I haven't read through them carefully myself, but I would imagine there's verbiage in there absolving Profiles of any and all responsibility for accuracy of listing claims, provenance of items, etc etc. It's a typical ploy of those who have reason to fear liability. You should see the rubbish I have to sign every time I go SCUBA diving; basically, my death or injury could be entirely the fault of the dive operator and it would still be an uphill battle for me or my family to win any kind of legal compensation.

rkpetersen said:

---

The apparent absence of legal challenges could perhaps have something to do with the auction terms you have to agree to before you're allowed to bid. I haven't read through them carefully myself, but I would imagine there's verbiage in there absolving Profiles of any and all responsibility for accuracy of listing claims, provenance of items, etc etc. It's a typical ploy of those who have reason to fear liability. You should see the rubbish I have to sign every time I go SCUBA diving; basically, my death or injury could be entirely the fault of the dive operator and it would still be an uphill battle for me or my family to win any kind of legal compensation.

But nothing they write in there would allow them to engage in 'illegal' activity. The difference in your example being that SCUBA diving is considered a 'dangerous' sport. You could lose your _life_, so they have to be covered. But, no matter what you have to sign, if the dive operator yanks your respirator out of your mouth and holds your head under the water until you drown, he won't get away with it, regardless of what the form you sign says. He can't _knowingly_ kill you.

And, if the dive operator was paid a million dollars for every person that accidentally dies while out on his dive, and people frequently die on his tours, he's going to get investigated pretty damn fast...

When PIH lists something that many people tell them is likely to be fake, and provide all sorts of facts that bring it into question, and they STILL sell it for millions, that (to me) should be grounds for a detailed investigation.

Like the cameras in Debbie's auction, as mentioned above, that were manufactured _after_ the release of the movies they claim they were used for. This was pointed out _before_ the auction, and can actually be easily proved. It doesn't matter who said they were definitely used on such-and-so production, if they were physically made AFTER that, the person is wrong.

And the fact that they no longer provide pictures of the parts of a costume that could quickly put the item into doubt (costume tags) really says a lot, I think.

FYI, there IS an FBI division that works with prop fraud and theft. There are a handful of large shops on the list as well as the higher dollar scam artists a few of which are industry professionals. Its part of the art theft/fraud department:
FBI — Art Theft
I know a few people I used to work with that are on the watch list but it takes people that have been ripped off to file complaints. Most collectors want to believe what they have is real even when shown rock solid evidence the items in question are not. There is ALWAYS a paper trail when dealing with money and COA's, always. A crime is a crime whether it be distant past or present, white collar or strait up premeditated fraud. COA's usually carry a lifetime guarantee on an item but if im wrong about that by all means speak up.

Yeah, I suspect that's the biggest problem- Whoever is buying this stuff certainly doesn't browse the internet much (at least in the prop-collecting websites), and probably has no idea that people are even questioning the stuff PIH sells... They believe they bought the real thing, so why would they complain?

Rik1138 said:

---

Yeah, I suspect that's the biggest problem- Whoever is buying this stuff certainly doesn't browse the internet much (at least in the prop-collecting websites), and probably has no idea that people are even questioning the stuff PIH sells... They believe they bought the real thing, so why would they complain?

You make excellent points, and after further consideration the problem of questionable authenticity and/or provenance then becomes even more severe, because after an item that might be considered 'dirty' goes through a high-profile auction it might actually gain credibility just by the sale. It's like money laundering... run a dubious prop through a respected auction house and it gains credibility for the next unsuspecting person with more money than skills in due diligence. That's a danger to us all that must be vigorously called to the carpet as far as I'm concerned.

It even goes a step further than that, as items that get into such auctions and fail are often offered for sale later with the PIH tag still on it and a copy of the auction catalog pictured like it's birth certificate and usually with the phraseology that it was completed vetted by the best in the business.

With a scarcity of prices realized published after the sale, how is anyone to know the lot might have not sold due to great concerns about it's authenticity.

In LA, the place to call is the Art Theft Detail of the LAPD. I once had the "pleasure" of speaking to one of their detectives when I was falsely accused of having some Predator 2 props that had disappeared from Stan Winston's shop:

Art Theft Detail - official website of THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT

They also investigate fakes, frauds, and forgeries involving art.

Phil

TerryMcIntosh said:

---

You make excellent points, and after further consideration the problem of questionable authenticity and/or provenance then becomes even more severe, because after an item that might be considered 'dirty' goes through a high-profile auction it might actually gain credibility just by the sale. It's like money laundering... run a dubious prop through a respected auction house and it gains credibility for the next unsuspecting person with more money than skills in due diligence. That's a danger to us all that must be vigorously called to the carpet as far as I'm concerned.

Excellent points back at you! The deeper you go down the rabbit hole layer after layer year after year sale after sale millions on top of millions
It only takes one big piece one headline and it will be like a house of cards coming down .

Give me a replica any day

planet said:

---

Give me a replica any day

That's why I'm here anyway

There was a thread here a while ago, someone showing their new screen-used hero costume. There were posts of congratulations and envy until a couple of people pointed out that if you looked at it the costume was nothing like the original movie costume!

The owner had explanations why it was so different but they were increasingly silly and he was clutching at straws. The evidence offered that it MUST be real was a COA from Hollywood History. So never mind actually looking at the item with your own eyes because a COA from an unknown bloke selling props from a website with Hollywood in the name overrules that!?!?

A couple of days later the thread had been deleted. I didn't see how it developed so I guess it went out of pure embarrassment. I hope the guy did take it up with Hollywood History and get a refund.

Which is sort of the point I wanted to get to, these COAs from prop sites that are so prized frankly seem to mean next to nothing. Take a theoretical seller who wants to sell an item. It looks like a movie prop but there's no proof. The seller prints out a COA which says "this prop is real". Buyers think wow, it's real, and it sells.

So what happens next?

1) buyer none the wiser and happy ever after. Seller very happy too, he just made thousands of dollars on an A4 print out!

or 2) buyer has doubts over item but buries head in sand because they WANT it to be real. Seller still very happy.

or 3) buyer gets wise, kicks up a fuss and eventually gets refund on strength of COA. Seller gives apology and refund and is no worse off than when he started. The item can be resold to another sucker too.

There doesn't appear to be a downside to making up COAs. At the rare times an item is queried the seller can just say "oops honest mistake here's your money back" [Weird thing here is the reputation of their COAs could actually be increased when a "mistake" is seen to be put right.]


From what I have seen and read "screen-used" doesn't mean a thing unless it is screen-matched. That's the only way to know you have the real thing. I've got a feeling that a large amount of people's collections are based more on wishful thinking than real proof.

Columbo said:

---

....... "screen-used" doesn't mean a thing unless it is screen-matched. That's the only way to know you have the real thing.

I couldn't agree with you more

Alan Castillo said:

---

Unless they can prove (and only screen-caps are going to cut it) that it was used on Monty Python, then IMO, PIH has alot of explaining to do.

I agree I was one of those guys Why I am here now and MUCH happier to give VERY talented independent artist the work for the art they produce. I had COAs but unless its from the person who made the prop or the studio itself its all in the eye of the beholder . We have also seen these companies say its screen matched when its not even close . Again they see and believe what they want and it goes on .

A COA at least provides a paper trail. I think that makes them useful.

No paper. No clue.

Phil

philippes said:

---

A COA at least provides a paper trail. I think that makes them useful.

No paper. No clue.

Phil

Agreed, with some clarifications on a few points...

I have noticed a trend wherein the following can serve as a theoretical example...

Let's say a collector buys a prop from an online dealer, and that online dealer provides a COA branded by their business.

Collector then does more research, and collects up additional documentation, and perhaps a letter from a former owner explaining that he bought it from an auction house ten years ago.

Collector compiles all of this information, and consigns it for sale with another online dealer, or maybe a different auction house.

The new dealer or auction house sells it, and includes only their own COA - none of the other COAs/letters, or other collateral.

This is not uncommon, because for the latest seller of the piece, they are selling not just the piece, but their brand, and they don't want to acknowledge other companies are in the same business.

So in some cases, the COA is more about marketing and branding, than it is about telling you anything about the provenance and history of the prop (i.e. why it is authentic).

Additionally, many COAs don't have anything to do with guarantees, or giving a refund. It's just more or less a piece of paper memorializing who you bought it from. But, of course, if you are buying something from an eBay dealer, a lot of those COAs are just beyond ridiculous and worthless anyway, not even getting into the ones that are complete fiction with made up people and companies.

In the rare chance that you buy from a company with an explicit refund/return policy, you still have to *prove* that the piece is not what it was claimed to be... and proving a negative can be more impossible than proving something is authentic. I think in many cases, dealer's standards and thresholds for a piece being "authentic" is much, much lower than the proof that they will require to prove the opposite.

But everyone's standards are different. Many auction house and dealer standards for declaring something authentic or genuine would be equivalent to my standard for what I call "inconclusive" (neither proven to be authentic or fake - not enough information/evidence to determine either).

But yes, any piece of paper is better than nothing. But in some cases, depending on where it came from, a COA can be evidence that drags toward the "inauthentic" end of the scale, rather than what it was designed to do.

There's a reason that my own collecting interests gravitated toward movie guns, and it's not because I'm a gun nut, but because their use in film and television can be absolutely verifiable, as they have unique serial numbers and rental agreements between the studios/production companies and the armorers. Additionally, since they are never owned by the studios/production companies, that eliminates another big issue in the hobby - they aren't stolen property.

For me, if you aren't somewhere close to 100% on a piece, it just isn't worth it. And outside of a minority of pieces in the marketplace, a lot of what goes through dealers and auction houses just isn't that compelling to me on the authenticity front. Some obvious exceptions being estate sales and studio sales, but even with the latter, it is not risk-free (I've heard stories about pieces at studios being swapped out with replicas post production, etc.). And even then, there is the distinction between "made for" and "used in". And as someone mentioned, unless you can match something on screen or there are very specific circumstances (i.e. only one was made/used, or all of something was used), you still can't "know" for sure if something was used and filmed (and if filmed, if the footage made it into the film).

Having said all that, many collectors just accept claims at face value, buy stuff, and none of these issues occur to them until they in turn go to sell it someday and someone asks them substantive questions about the provenance and authenticity.

Jason

Columbo said:

---

There was a thread here a while ago, someone showing their new screen-used hero costume. There were posts of congratulations and envy until a couple of people pointed out that if you looked at it the costume was nothing like the original movie costume!

The owner had explanations why it was so different but they were increasingly silly and he was clutching at straws. The evidence offered that it MUST be real was a COA from Hollywood History. So never mind actually looking at the item with your own eyes because a COA from an unknown bloke selling props from a website with Hollywood in the name overrules that!?!?

I was kind of surprised to see that thread disappear too.. Someone started posting screen shots from the movie, which clearly didn't match the item in question. It still could have been production made, but it really didn't seem to be screen-worn, at least by way of screen-matching proof. Doesn't mean it wasn't used in other shots though. Just because it doesn't match some shots doesn't dis-prove it's use in the movie totally....

But, in this one instance, I can explain his devotion to the COA:

Hollywood History isn't run by an 'unknown bloke' that just put Hollywood in the title. Wesley (the owner) is a well-known and well respected prop collector. His store might be newer than Propstore or Screen Used, but he runs it with the same ethics. A COA from his store is a guarantee of authenticity in the sense that if it's proven to be not authentic, you will get a refund for the item. And he doesn't just put stuff up forsale on a whim. To me, a COA should never really be used a proof that the item is real, but more of as a guarantee that if it's proved to NOT be what it says it is, you can get a refund.

That's why I hate all the 'I'll throw in a COA too' type things on eBay... Oh really? And that COA of yours means you will give me a full refund 2 years from now if I find out the item is fake? 'Oh, no. All sales are final, sorry.' Then I have a roll of toilet paper with more value to it than your COA...

What I want to see on a COA is contact information and a paragraph stating that a 100% refund is always GUARANTEED should the item be shown to be fake or mis-represented in any way. But, as Jason pointed out, that's pretty rare... For eBay auctions, 'COAs' offered by sellers aren't any more valuable than a screen shot of the auction listing... It a certificate of authenticity that you did indeed buy the item on eBay.

Columbo said:

---

There was a thread here a while ago, someone showing their new screen-used hero costume. There were posts of congratulations and envy until a couple of people pointed out that if you looked at it the costume was nothing like the original movie costume!

The owner had explanations why it was so different but they were increasingly silly and he was clutching at straws. The evidence offered that it MUST be real was a COA from Hollywood History. So never mind actually looking at the item with your own eyes because a COA from an unknown bloke selling props from a website with Hollywood in the name overrules that!?!?

A couple of days later the thread had been deleted. I didn't see how it developed so I guess it went out of pure embarrassment. I hope the guy did take it up with Hollywood History and get a refund.

Do you mean this Hollywood History?

Are you sure the thread was deleted on THE RPF without a reason? Do you remember the specifics of it? I'm curious what happened.

Don't know that I have much to add about the thread that disappeared. A hero screen-used costume was posted. People wooped and high-fived over it. Then a couple of us pointed out it wasn't much like the costume in the movie. The owner at first dismissed any chance this could be true. As details of differences were pointed out he scrabbled for reasons to explain them. Which would be understandable because he likely just paid out a lot of cash to own it. The reasons were all pretty lame. When I came back a couple of days later the thread was gone.[Yes it really is deleted when I look at my past posts none of those ones are there]

I feel for the guy because how sick would you feel if that happened? A poster above says Hollywood History is a reputable outfit so if the owner wanted to pursue the matter he was ok with any luck. [Yes Batfan it is the site you linked to. I see the costume in question is still right there in the site Archive.]


The whole mindset is what I'm really curious about rather than that one specific case. It just came up as an example of the lack of scrutiny all these "screen used" props get. Honestly it was so different from the movie costume it was unreal.

Just to explain, I'm kinda new to this field, I got drawn in by Doctor Who costumes. After finding a Doctor costume being sold as screen-used when it very clearly wasn't I looked deeper into Bonhams sales and that expanded to looking at the wider world of props and costumes. Never bought one or sold one myself and I have no grudge against or agenda with anyone involved in that world. This is academic interest you could say but after browsing many many of these prop selling sites it was an Emperors New Clothes moment. I just have to ask "what are you all seeing?" A laser cut logo and a worthless COA don't turn a turd into treasure.

There doesn't look to be much rigour in this hobby at all [wow rigour -my science teacher would be proud]. I don't want to look like I'm attacking small businesses so here is an example from what I'm sure is one of the big boys. Right now the very latest item on Prop Store is a Kick-Ass mask.

Cool item. Let's check the description. Lead paragraph:

This is a mask worn by Kick-Ass in the 2010 superhero film of the same name. The mask can be seen worn in the film as high school Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson) decides to become a super-hero and fight crime, without the benefit of super powers.

Well that really sounds like a screen used hero mask worn by the lead actor. Except later on in the third paragraph we are told there is "an interior label which reads stunt". So the first paragraph was just using the lead actor's name to describe the film in general was it, just accidentally in the same sentence that starts out talking about this mask and sort of merging the two in the readers mind? Never mind, a screen-used stunt mask is still cool. We know it must be screen used because the opening paragraph actually states that it is [twice in fact.]

A screen cap of the identification would be a simple detail to include or even just a description of which scene it has been matched to and how. There's nothing like that. There are lots of other photos to look at though. Nine photos in fact of the prop mask from all angles and a tenth one of Aaron Johnson as Kick-Ass. [We know it can't be that mask though because he wears a hero not a stunt.] So hang on there is no connection established between the mask offered and the masks in the movie at all. Is there?

Along with the almost throwaway comment about the stunt label the final paragraph also mentions the mask has a piece missing, a circular cutout below the chin. Ok that's important let's check the many photos to see how bad or how minor it is. Except somehow not one of the nine photos of the mask shows the damaged area. Quite a trick to photograph a mask from nine angles and all of them avoid seeing that!

Now its not a dishonest description. It's not a very clear one either. IMO its not good enough for an item costing $5000.

I know Prop Store are a reputable seller and all but that makes it worse. If a big player like Prop Store is this sloppy then there is no best practice being set up for all the collectors and little sellers to see as a necessary level of proof.

But hey forget all those boring things like evidence and facts, it's got a nice logo and LEDs on the base. Wow.


Look I do feel bad being such a downer but honestly how many of the screen-used props being bought and sold are genuinely proven to be screen-used props? If there was a sub forum for screen matched items at the RPF, would there be anything to put in it?!