profiles in history, another rip off?

[Rik1138]

Thats a really good question . Anyone remember the Rocky gloves they tried to pawn off last year ? That went over about as well as a fart in Church.
Stallone himself jumped all over it and forced Profiles to take them out of the auction.

Yeah, but that wasn't because they were fake, Stallone didn't want them sold at auction... Authenticity wasn't in question on those... In the end he couldn't stop it tho, didn't they show up and sell in the next auction?

There's more to that story than has been made public knowledge... Might be the case for a lot of iffy things sold through them... Just because they pull an item doesn't mean it was proved to be fake. Some things just 'shouldn't be sold publicly', if you know what I mean...

 

[planet]

I had read it was a question of authenticity thats the reason he wanted it pulled. Not saying your wrong of course just what I came across .

 

[philippes]

When it comes to the Rocky gloves, I believe those originally came from me. They were authentic. I don't recall the whole story about what went on with them afterwards, but it was as pretty much as described above. Stallone didn't know any of the 22 or so pairs that were purchased for the production got out...but some did.

I've had at least two experiences where Profiles did much more research than I ever expected on pieces that came through me at some point:

1) A Tia Dalma locket I brokered was later presented to them for sale, but they refused to handle it until I got the guy who worked on Pirates to physically go to Profiles and speak with them. Someone else who worked on the films they use for provenance said it wasn't real. The piece eventually went to auction.

2) A Klingon rifle I sold to a collector was later sent to Profiles, where Mike Moore and Scott Brodeen identified it as fake before the auction. I had to go back to the guy for whom I'd brokered the piece and get a refund. He, in turn, had to go to the prop dealer who sold it to him (a very well-respected one), and fix that situation.

Bottom line: Profiles really tries quite hard to check the provenance of everything it sells. I think it's a matter of how squeaky the wheel is about a particular piece. The Grail helmet probably wasn't screamed about loud enough.

Phil

 

[Clutch]

Like any other auction, people with deep pockets lose their effin' minds.

 

[philippes]

Like any other auction, people with deep pockets lose their effin' minds.

I'm always surprised by the clapping that takes place when an obscene amount of money is spent. Shouldn't we be feeling sorry for that guy?

Frankly, if it were me, I'd give a standing ovation to the fellow who pays the least for an item that is clearly worth much more than was paid.

Phil

 

[Stairstars]

Bottom line: Profiles really tries quite hard to check the provenance of everything it sells. I think it's a matter of how squeaky the wheel is about a particular piece. The Grail helmet probably wasn't screamed about loud enough.

Phil, I must respectfully disagree with you, at least for the most recent sales.

The catalogs have been rife with errors that any iota of confirmation could have prevented.

Those movie cameras in Debbie's sale, being touted as silent studio classics, were made decades later and never saw the inside of a film studio in their lives. They were made for industrial uses as their date specific serial numbers attest. A quick call to the ASC Clubhouse in LA or to Sam Dodge was all that was needed. Instead, cameras worth a few thousand were sold for tens of thousands - a result still boasted on the Collectors Ransom blog.

One of several errors in the last sale attributed the Laurence Olivier suit to the 1940 Best Picture winner REBECCA, but had a clearly very modern Western Costume Company label that proved it was from the 1978 mini series THE BETSY. Here is an auction house that has handled probably more WCC pieces than any on Earth, and they cannot tell the difference in labels made four decades apart? Hence, a $400 suit sells for $4300.

If, they had published images of any labels for the costumes offered, I am sure I and others would have found many more errors, but for the first time, either in the printed catalog or online, are any shown. I know one advanced collector who asked more than once via email and online for image of just one label and they were never responded to. The Olivier client got an immdediate reply. This implies to me that there is a change in the wind and they are not willing for any peer review or anyone looking over their shoulder. The party ignored was asking about the John Wayne jacket, so they must have rightly been concerned they were going to ask me about it. The irony is, that client, a long time big dollar buyer, owns the pants and shirt that goes with the jacket offered and was sincere in their desire to authenticate it. It sold, again, on one bid at the low end.

You may attribute it to a weatlh of riches, too many sales in too short a period and much of the staff involved with the TV show - all sustainable arguments, to me. But, the fact is research has taken a back seat and many of the lots show it.

They used to do a much better job.

rick

 

[planet]

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.

 

[Amish Trooper]

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

 

[IHateSnakes]

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.

 

[philippes]

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

 

[jdebord]

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

 

[planet]

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.

 

[rkpetersen]

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.

 

[Rik1138]

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... :cool

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.

 

[robstyle]

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.

 

[Rik1138]

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?

 

[TerryMcIntosh]

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.

 

[Stairstars]

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.

 

[philippes]

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

 

[planet]

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 :cry
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