Profiles in History - Auction #56

[Art Andrews]

Profiles in History - Original Prop and Costume Auction #56 | The RPF Pulse


Interestingly, not as many things in the auction that I would want as in past auctions, but still a very good showing.

Looks like ADI has unloaded their entire shop into this auction.

Laughed my butt off at the Prometheus canisters all upside down.

Also funny to see Brian Chanes in the Comedian suit from Watchmen!

Things that I'll be watching (but not bidding on:

• Achilles costume from Troy
• Trinity Matrix costume
• Frank mask from Donnie Darko

 

[Art Andrews]

Question: when did Profiles start using the terminology "created for" as opposed to "from" when referring to their items?

Their entries now read:

"PENGUIN WITH ROCKET CREATED FOR BATMAN RETURNS"

whereas entries used to read:

"PENGUIN WITH ROCKET FROM BATMAN RETURNS"

A subtle, but significant difference that muddies the waters a bit in my mind and makes me feel a bit less confident about bidding.

 

[Apollo]

Can it get any worse with them? :facepalm :lol

 

[trenchcoatpanda]

The freaking Life of Pi boat!

It looks like that sonic "Batarang" for Batman Forever was the same one on Pawn Stars! Also I just realized that Jeffrey Dean Morgan is who played the comedian, I never knew! That guy is doing pretty good.

 

[Deke29]

Boy, someone REALLY likes Marilyn Monroe.

 

[Rik1138]

Boy, someone REALLY likes Marilyn Monroe.

Hah, take a look at the auction the day before of Milton H Greene's estate...

"Over 3,700 unpublished Marilyn Monroe images highlight the auction. All images are to be sold with copyright and will go up for auction on July 27."

There always seems to be a large sampling of vintage photos of an actress or two in the prop auctions though...

 

[newworld]

While I won't be a buyer, I'll be interested to see what happens with the TOS Phaser. With an 80 GRAND starting price, it's pretty rarified territory. If you're wondering like I was whether or not it's real, I have some info that's too long for this thread, but if you're interested, check it out here:

ORIGINAL SERIES PHASER TO BE AUCTIONED OFF – REAL OR FAKE?

D

 

[RonsMovieProps]

Wish I could have money to bid, but alas, I don't. Can't wait to see what things sell for, and wish I had won the lottery in my lifetime.

 

[Alan Castillo]

Dying to see the following final prices :

Charlie Chaplin cane.

Sound of Music costume collection.

Rambo knife.

Picard's Ressikan Flute - I think they grossly underestimated this one .... again. One of these was estimated at $1200 at a Christies auction in 2006, and it fetched $48,000.

Tomb Raider Illuminating clock. It's beautiful ! ( Hope someone here wins it & throws rubber on it :lol )

Babylon 5 - Idol & Book of G'Kar.

 

[gbg1701]

While I won't be a buyer, I'll be interested to see what happens with the TOS Phaser. With an 80 GRAND starting price, it's pretty rarified territory. If you're wondering like I was whether or not it's real, I have some info that's too long for this thread, but if you're interested, check it out here:

ORIGINAL SERIES PHASER TO BE AUCTIONED OFF – REAL OR FAKE?

D

The Profiles description clearly states that the "major features ... in its design ... have been screen matched". This should be readily understood, I think, to relate to the verification of design characteristics, and not deliberately misinterpreted to mean that the unique phaser prop itself was found to be used on screen in all four of the TOS episodes that are referenced. I believe the write up is clear in asserting that "Assignment: Earth" is the only episode found to feature an on-screen appearance of this unique prop. But I do also think it is very likely that this prop, having been found to be screen used in "Assignment: Earth", was also used in several other TOS episodes.

FYI, here's the complete set of annotated images (as not all appeared in the Profiles catalog) showing numerous screen-matches of subtle design features. When a particular design element or specific contour/detail visible on a prop has been found to also exist on screen in images of the same kind of prop, I think that saying the design element has been screen-matched is perfectly appropriate.

Also when something is termed a "mold flaw" - as in the case of the "Spock's Brain" rear fin detail match - I believe that implies the flaw might be expected to be seen on all of the props that were fabricated from the same mold. And it should be understood not to be a claim of a uniquely identifying characteristic found on just a single prop.

Clicking on any thumbnail will enlarge the image. I'm not certain how to insert a default image that is larger.

 

[Risu]

I have my doubts about the Indy stuff. I'm a little behind in my research these days, but that Last Crusade hat looks wrong, and it was my understanding that there was never one whip that was used in all three movies. At the very least I think they worded them wrong.

 

[Apollo]

I bet Uncle Joe will kick himself if and when he sees the final price! :lol

Book of G'Kar.

 

[Alan Castillo]

I bet Uncle Joe will kick himself if and when he sees the final price! :lol

Don't tell me he gave it away ??

 

[Apollo]

No sold it on E-Bay! :lol

I forgot how much it went for.

Even funnier, at the time some of the people did'nt know who was selling it.

One member here Pm me , "Is it real?"


Oh yeah it's real!! :lol :lol :lol

Don't tell me he gave it away ??

 

[Alan Castillo]

No sold it on E-Bay! :lol

I forgot how much it went for.

Even funnier, at the time some of the people did'nt know who was selling it.

One member here Pm me , "Is it real?"


Oh yeah it's real!! :lol :lol :lol

:facepalm

 

[Psicorp7]

Must...not...empty...bank account to
buy all the cool B5 items!!!

 

[newworld]

"major features ... in its design ... have been screen matched" does not mean "major features appear to be of the same design as seen on screen". IMO, in this hobby "screen-matched" means they are the same piece, period. This is yet another example of Profiles using unclear language to boost a piece's value.

 

[gbg1701]

"major features ... in its design ... have been screen matched" does not mean "major features appear to be of the same design as seen on screen". IMO, in this hobby "screen-matched" means they are the same piece, period. This is yet another example of Profiles using unclear language to boost a piece's value.

Actually, just saying that a major feature "appears to be of the same design as seen on screen" implies a less precise match than what was found in some instances, IMO. Your words could be inferred to imply just a somewhat similar appearance and less of a precise match. Take the "mold flaw" found to exist on the "Spock's Brain" screenshot, for example. By comparing the two props seen in the annotated image, it is apparent that they are not the same unique phaser pistol since, along with other details, the silver nozzle was attached to the front of the pistol body differently on the two pieces, and thus the position of the grooved regions on the nozzle ring relative to the rest of the body details do not match. Yet the two fiberglass pistol bodies clearly came from the same mold and feature the same ridge line deviation/flaw in the rear fin area that was introduced into the appearance of both props from the very same mold. They don't just have similar looking crooked ridge lines ... it is the same geometry by virtue of the mold. Similarly, other details like matching contour lines or curvatures mentioned elsewhere in the set of annotated images are imparted to the individual prop from the mold that was used to fabricate it. I'm certain that you must know all of this, Don. And I truly believe that the term "screen-match" is very appropriate to convey the precise level of detail with which these types of features have been found to exist on a unique physical prop and validated by its sister pieces (pieces from the same mold) seen on-screen. Where is it defined that the term "screen-matched" - which is used as a verb - must always refer to the entire prop? Shouldn't it be considered to refer to the noun, such as "this particular design element" that is used in the same sentence preceding it? You are certainly entitled to your own opinions, and you've done some excellent analysis on some items in your own collection, but I think this latest analysis of yours doesn't really portray you in the best light and contains some clear misinterpretations of the Profiles description, IMO. I think the use of the term "feature" itself implies just a distinct/prominent part of a greater whole; and not the entire object itself. So a feature being screen-matched shouldn't mean the whole object was matched by any reasonable interpretation, IMO.

 

[gbg1701]

Given that you seem to concur that the prop was screen used in "Assignment: Earth", Don, don't you think it is very likely to have been used in additional episodes? Certainly, the presence of multiple traces of red, gold and blue velour tunic fabric trapped in the velcro should suggest usage in multiple scenes/episodes.

It is a shame, IMO, that your persistence in writing clearly faulty articles - filled with deliberate misinterpretations and mean-spirited innuendoes - will only really undermine the credibility of Don Hillenbrand and no one else - and you seem totally unable to recognize this. This is not only my opinion; it is shared by many others. And many on this forum recall your unwarranted attacks on a prominent prop collector/auction house CEO, for which they openly chastised you in numerous posts.

 

[newworld]

It is a shame, IMO, that your persistence in writing clearly faulty articles - filled with deliberate misinterpretations and mean-spirited innuendoes - will only really undermine the credibility of Don Hillenbrand and no one else - and you seem totally unable to recognize this. This is not only my opinion; it is shared by many others.

I've never heard of a piece being authenticated by it's owner before. That confirms all my worst fears about PIH's process, or lack thereof. To expect us to swallow everything that you and PIH have spoon-fed us is absurd, IMO. With a starting price of 80 GRAND, it better be able to hold up to scrutiny. I question everything. The fact that you don't like my method means I must be doing something right.

Bottom line is that I concur with you about the likely authenticity of this piece, if not all the details. It's a cool item and I state as much. Take it as a win.