profiles in history, another rip off?
- Thread starter andy19422
- Start date
Columbo
Active Member
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.
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.
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 .
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 .
jdebord
Sr Member
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
Rik1138
Sr Member
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... :cool
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. :rolleyes
The Batfan
New Member
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.
Not sure how you can compare Hollywood History to the biggest dealer in the industry? A Prop store COA holds a lot more worth then a HH which many people never heard of. Its a part time side business they will both tell you that themselves . But yes he is known for being a collector more then he is a seller . Most of that is do to Tom Spina showcasing the work he did on his cave which is amazing .
Last edited:
Columbo
Active Member
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. :lol
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?!
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. :lol
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?!
The Batfan
New Member
Thanks for the info Columbo, I am curious what the item in the thread was.. was this situation ever figured out what happen to the thread?
Movie props are not my area but I have been collecting for 20+ years my #1 point when dealing with any item is DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH don't rely 100% on what the seller says be it a person or any auction house. I have seen so much incorrect information provided by auction houses over the years it's not even funny so I personally don't trust any of them I do my own research before I bid on an item and if you don't Caveat emptor pure and simple...
Movie props are not my area but I have been collecting for 20+ years my #1 point when dealing with any item is DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH don't rely 100% on what the seller says be it a person or any auction house. I have seen so much incorrect information provided by auction houses over the years it's not even funny so I personally don't trust any of them I do my own research before I bid on an item and if you don't Caveat emptor pure and simple...
That would be an interesting read. Maybe a professional courtesy was extended from the administrator of this forum to the administrator of the other forum?
James
It is extremely rare for us to delete a thread... usually it is a result of some legal entanglement. We know Wesley and I don't ever recall us having any issues with him or with HH or them asking to have a thread removed. You guys are beating around the bush a bit. What thread was it, who was the OP and what were they showing off? We rarely truly delete anything and will be glad to look into it and give you a reason for the removal if we did indeed remove it.
Amish Trooper
Sr Member
If I recall I remember a guy popping on here boasting about a screen used superman costume and it not going over so well.
Columbo
Active Member
My internet history says the thread was called leeloos-suspenders-fifth-element. There is a number 152106 also. Don't recall who started it. I didn't go into specifics before because I thought maybe the original poster had deleted it himself and would not want it dragged out again and I was being a little discrete to spare his feelings. Get the impression now that posters can't delete their threads? If so it is pretty strange that it vanished completely. :confused
As Art mentioned, we usually do not remove threads, but there are, of course, exceptions. We deal with removal requests on a case by case basis, and we make our decision based on the specific issue involved. The Leeloo thread was removed because it was simply a showoff thread that turned into a debate over authenticity and things, IIRC, got a bit out of hand.
Columbo
Active Member
Aren't threads that turn into a tiresome argument normally locked though? To delete the whole thing looks pretty odd TBH. Do I follow correctly; someone requested it be removed, and this was done for them?
It is too bad that the thread was completely removed. I have seen other topics where specific posts (i.e. posts that were deemed controversial) were removed leaving the original thread mostly intact.
In the spirit of transparency, maybe the Leeloo suspender topic should have remained. It could have been helpful to others researching the same item.
James
The Batfan
New Member
Columbo thanks for the Info.. that would have been interesting thread as I am a fan of the Fifth element.. I agree that a whole thread being deleted is strange. I was a mod on a forum for years and usually if a thread goes off track etc we just locked the thread not completely deleting it from the forum as the thread might have contained information valuable to other collectors. Just my opinion...
Linnear
Well-Known Member
I know you always hear "Do your own research", but seriously, auction houses should set some standards on how that authenticate an item, rather than just believing items are what they are. There are plenty of buyers who don't have any experience and they want and expect to have a level of trust implicit in the sale.
Alec
Alec
Similar threads
