Profiles in History - Auction #56

I know I'm getting old, but all I see are a bunch of "attaboys".

D

Perhaps your vision is being adversely affected with age, ... don't the comments "wow that is detective work" and "great screen matching" directly applaud the level of analysis? And the other remarks of general praise speak to your implication that there wasn't anyone who offered applause for the writeup. Also, it should be apparent the whole intent of the writeup and the presentation of the annotated images was to convey authenticating information.

I'm guilty of critical thinking, not maliciousness. If I were truly the scoundrel you claim I am, I would have done one of two things:

1. Dumped on the phaser and discredit it, or

2. Not written about the phaser at all.

I did neither. My goal is to be an honest and fair presenter of facts, period.

IMO, you are absolutely not a fair presenter of facts. You have entire posts on your site dedicated to attacking people. And you can't write a dispassionate assessment of something like a Shatner tunic or the TOS phaser without hurling abuse and implying dishonest and malicious intent on the part of the auction house and/or consignors. Your earlier remarks in this post certainly validate that without a doubt. And the use of profanity in your posts is never appropriate, IMO.

I happen to be fortunate to know several very prominent Star Trek collectors, in North America and Europe, folks that own very high end Trek & TOS screen used items which have sold successfully for 10's of thousand of dollars and higher at auction - and I can assure you that these folks attach no credibility to your analyses or your blogger site. You are truthfully regarded as just "Don Hillenbrand the hater", IMO - someone who continues to denigrate reputations regardless of the facts at hand in order to seek revenge for some imagined offense committed against you - and I won't repeat the more colorful expletives several folks have used to relate to me their true impressions of your lack of character. As I've said before, IMO, your intellectually dishonest posts fool no one.

I for one could hardly believe my eyes when I read your attempts on this forum to discredit the restoration of the Galileo shuttlecraft; something everyone else here universally applauded. Yet you try to persuade readers the finished effort was some type of false creation - not worthy of being called a "restoration" - which is absolutely wrong, IMO. And the other forum member's comments in that thread reflect my assessment.

When you have headlines on the net attempting to drive traffic to your site proclaiming "Authenticity of TOS Phaser Questioned" and when you assert the writeup falsely claims things which it certainly does not ... that absolutely attempts to discredit the Phaser, IMO.

When you say:
To expect us to swallow everything that you and PIH have spoon-fed us is absurd
as you did earlier in this post, that is malicious, IMO. It implies an attempt by the auction house and consignor to spread deceitful or misleading information to convince the public of something that is untrue.

When you keep harping on the fact that Profiles had a bad item on their cover, time and again in different posts on your site, that is malicious, IMO. They are arguably the most prestigious auction house for entertainment memorabilia, having sold unquestionably authentic multi-million dollar items and have an outstanding reputation for TOS in particular - with the Jefferies auction and Justman auction and many amazing props & costumes since then. A fair and honest person would not endlessly attack them for a rare mistake - forgetting about all the other times they were not mistaken. Think of the thousands or so items that appear in each catalog - it is understandable to most that it might be difficult to dedicate the appropriate level of resources and research required to every piece all of the time - and a reasonable person wouldn't constantly condemn them again and again or see it as anything other than an unintentional mistake. You seem to see a grand plan to willfully deceive and rob the public, IMO. It truthfully seems difficult for me to imagine anyone who thinks of Don Hillenbrand as anything but a hater when it comes to the affairs of our prop collecting community.

You challenged me to provide evidence that there were comments of applause for the Profiles writeup - which I did. Now it's your turn. Let's see some remarks from other collectors agreeing with you that you are a totally fair and unbiased analyst and you haven't engaged in hate-mongering or malicious behavior - specifically with regard to the examples I listed above. Thanks.

Also, you just quoted me in your last posting but never answered the question I posed:
There is even the direct statement in the Profiles description "... match those evident on a screen capture from "Assignment: Earth" (first airdate: Mar 29, 1968), which directly establishes the on-screen use of this prop in that highly memorable The Original Series time-travel episode." Why would that line of description even be necessary if there was a declaration of screen use of the unique prop in 4 episodes made earlier in the write-up, as you suggest?"
 
Last edited:
Even if people dissagree I don't see how pointing out facts or giving opinions is malicious. Also just because someone buy/sells/collects items does mean they have knowledge....just money. I welcome all scrutiny of items.........then make up my mind based on what I learn.
 
Even if people dissagree I don't see how pointing out facts or giving opinions is malicious. Also just because someone buy/sells/collects items does mean they have knowledge....just money. I welcome all scrutiny of items.........then make up my mind based on what I learn.

So James, are you saying that when Don makes the remark "To expect us to swallow everything that you and PIH have spoon-fed us is absurd" - you don't infer from his words any suggestion at all that Profiles might be trying to mislead or deceive the public? And you don't think that such a suggestion of deception would be a malicious remark? Do you believe it is a fact that PIH is a dishonest broker who uses deception as a tool of business? Do you believe Don is always an honest and fair presenter of facts, never acting without malice? If just dispassionate facts were presented, I would have no objection either.
 
Last edited:
While the delivery may not be the smoothest......I agree with the meaning. To take the word of the two parties that will make money w/o question is indeed foolish.....esp if they have been duped before. Not everyone will take kindly to the way Don puts out his thoughts, but they do have value.......personal opinions aside. When I thought I was onto something with my TOS sphere he knocked me down a few pegs.....and I didn't complain. It is what it is.......they all are what they are.....be it a sphere or a shuttlecraft or a phaser.
 
While the delivery may not be the smoothest......I agree with the meaning. To take the word of the two parties that will make money w/o question is indeed foolish.....esp if they have been duped before. Not everyone will take kindly to the way Don puts out his thoughts, but they do have value.......personal opinions aside. When I thought I was onto something with my TOS sphere he knocked me down a few pegs.....and I didn't complain. It is what it is.......they all are what they are.....be it a sphere or a shuttlecraft or a phaser.

I've stated in this thread myself that I absolutely agree with the premise that one should scrutinize memorabilia offered at auction; especially high end items. What I am challenging here are Don's remarks that he is not malicious in expressing his views. You seem, IMO, to be delicately sidestepping that issue. Valid analysis and the presentation of facts is appropriate. Hurling malicious insinuations and making statements trying to damage reputations is not, IMO. I would love for you to honestly address the "delivery" which is actually the point I am debating here. Do you believe it is a fact that PIH is a dishonest broker who uses deception as a tool of business?
 
I think basing any argument on PIH veracity is fool hardy; like most auction houses they make lots of mistakes and in these last few years, when informed, refuse to alter the listings. There are threads a mile long on the MPF that detail these pieces. I don't think anyone is mad they make mistakes, just how arrogant they have become in not caring once shown. I agree that the sheer number of pieces they deal with is daunting, and they are the most successful venue on the planet, but attributing them with some sort of nobility and implying they are almost beyond reproach is not going to persuade me. I think every buyer has to suffer through the 'no info' descriptions imbued with no facts anyone could use to determine if the piece is right or not. I am on the East Coast and had to ask near strangers to go and get me basic information and images of lots to even start doing any real research. Others, had to beg for images of labels and details only to receive them for a few lots while others were ignored. There is no excuse for that. If, there is no room in the printed catalog, put them online as they used to. There were also mistakes in what the actual labels were once we saw them to what was printed in the catalog. I used to write my own descriptions there for them to accept or challenge. Maybe others like you do the same. But, I do not respect the caliber of work now being employed. If, it is doing too many sales in so short of a time then spread them out for the sake of the buyers and especially the sellers. I did not hear the world was coming to an end this month so it astounds me these sales had to be jam packed in a set. I think they could have kept my interest a week or so longer.
 
I'm not sidestepping.....I have no problem with him nor his aggressive style myself. The fact that he may not like someone for whatever reason does tend to color his remarks - that is not uncommon in the world, but it also does not detract from his knowledge.

I've delt with you and have no problem with you either.....a smoother or more reserved type.

As for PIH.......I can't know their intentions. They are there to make money and I do think they need to be more vigilant in research. With the abundance of knowledge they only have themselves to blame for being had. Mistakes make one or a company look bad.......and when they are in it for profit they have to have a high standard and also own up to mistake. That's my 2cents.
 
.....I have no problem with him nor his aggressive style myself. The fact that he may not like someone for whatever reason does tend to color his remarks - that is not uncommon in the world,

Thanks for your thoughts, James, as always. When you refer to Don's style as "aggressive" and express that you think his "dislike of someone tends to color his remarks"; I think you've touched on the key issue I was addressing ... but your words have been much too gracious for the benefit of Don Hillenbrand. IMO, it is his dislike that is "driving his remarks", and not just "coloring" them. I honestly doubt he would have written such a critical and intellectually dishonest review of the phaser if I had not been the consignor. Mr. Hillenbrand has been known to relentlessly attack and insult a prominent Trek collector/forum administrator again and again month after month on multiple forums. He apparently had some form of personal disagreement or difference with the Galileo restoration project, from what I heard, and so he has attempted to denigrate that effort as well.

- - - Updated - - -

.....I have no problem with him nor his aggressive style myself. The fact that he may not like someone for whatever reason does tend to color his remarks - that is not uncommon in the world,

Thanks for your thoughts, James, as always. When you refer to Don's style as "aggressive" and express that you think his "dislike of someone tends to color his remarks"; I think you've touched on the key issue I was addressing ... but your words have been much too gracious for the benefit of Don Hillenbrand. IMO, it is his dislike that is "driving his remarks", and not just "coloring" them. I honestly doubt he would have written such a critical and intellectually dishonest review of the phaser if I had not been the consignor. Mr. Hillenbrand has been known to relentlessly attack and insult a prominent Trek collector/forum administrator again and again month after month on multiple forums. He apparently had some form of personal disagreement or difference with the Galileo restoration project, from what I heard, and so he has attempted to denigrate that effort as well.

To see him now attempting to portray himself, as he just did, as always fair and reasonable and someone who never acts on malice is laughable, IMO.
 
Last edited:
I take it all with a grain of salt and make up my own mind. I view collecting like religion - listen to all "sides" and then you will be best able to judge for yourself.
 
I take it all with a grain of salt and make up my own mind. I view collecting like religion - listen to all "sides" and then you will be best able to judge for yourself.

A noble sentiment and I wouldn't for a moment, as I mentioned earlier, expect Don Hillenbrand's faux analysis to fool any intelligent readers. But you shouldn't just have "no problem at all" with his careless use of language and profanity, IMO, and obvious attempts to tarnish reputations and demonize individuals. I know for a fact that you've taken exception in the past to statements made about you / your insights on memorabilia. Of course, this time, it's not your reputation that someone is attempting to tarnish.

By writing a derogatory review of a prop - implying it's authenticity is suspect despite overwhelming evidence suggesting otherwise (i.e. screen matching to an actual TOS episode) and further suggesting dishonesty on the part of the auction house and consignor -- all because of your dislike for the consignor, you are just a "hater" who is doing a disservice to the collecting community as a whole, IMO.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sidestepping.... The fact that he may not like someone for whatever reason does tend to color his remarks - that is not uncommon in the world, but it also does not detract from his knowledge.

Let me also ask, why do you ascribe to Don Hillenbrand the attribute of "knowledge", particularly when it comes to TOS memorabilia?

To quote from his writeup on the phaser, "Let me interject something here. I do not profess to be an expert about TOS props."

and also "I've never had the opportunity to actually handle a real TOS phaser, tricorder, or communicator prop, unlike some more informed people."

That sounds to me like an admission of very little knowledge in these matters on his part.

I must admit that I believe he has named his blog site appropriately, though ... "The Wrath of Dhan"

The online Merriam Webster dictionary defines WRATH as follows:
1 : strong vengeful anger or indignation
2 : retributory punishment for an offense or a crime : divine chastisement

and in my opinion, he seems to have created his blog primarily as a vehicle to spew wrath as opposed to fair and reasonable analysis. This is absolutely substantiated by the existence of multiple attack articles on his site that defame individuals, wrongly suggest authentic memorabilia may not be, and hurl profanity, IMO.

Just because he clicked the "create blog" button on Google and now writes, IMO, very defamatory articles should be no reason to ascribe to him any level of competence or integrity.
 
Last edited:
I didn't say he is an expert, but said he has knowledge. He has been around a long time in the hobby and knows a few things. There are many collectors who have a "bad rep," but I listen to them too and go from there.

I am a certified aircraft tech and am confident I could fly a small craft, but do not call myself a pilot. Does that mean I can't speak on the topic with some bit of knowledge?

Just because he said some stuff that makes sense to me...he did agree it is a real TOS prop.....and also pissed you off in the process does not mean I have chosen "sides."
 
I didn't say he is an expert, but said he has knowledge. He has been around a long time in the hobby and knows a few things. There are many collectors who have a "bad rep," but I listen to them too and go from there.

I am a certified aircraft tech and am confident I could fly a small craft, but do not call myself a pilot. Does that mean I can't speak on the topic with some bit of knowledge?

Just because he said some stuff that makes sense to me...he did agree it is a real TOS prop.....and also pissed you off in the process does not mean I have chosen "sides."

I understand, and I certainly do not oppose good faith analysis or careful, intelligent scrutiny of especially high end entertainment memorabilia, as I've indicated previously. It's the attempt to demonize individuals, tarnish reputations, conduct dishonest analysis, IMO, based on a predisposition of malicious intent that I object to.

And I believe that especially in the situation of this Profiles phaser auction description; folks should agree that it is anything but the more usual scenario of a screen used item being offered without any or very little supporting evidence of authenticity. This description discusses at length the authenticity analysis and even presents annotated images of the prop alongside TOS screenshots. When has something like that ever been published before in a major auction house catalog? So I would have to think this situation is certainly not a "please just trust the auction house" situation at all. Compelling photographic evidence is presented to the audience. It's true that Mr. Hillenbrand agreed the prop was authentic at the end of his analysis - after plenty of deliberately misleading commentary and implications of deceit/dishonesty on the part of the auction house both here and on his site ... it's like he's saying "let me kick & punch you for a while and call you a deceitful criminal and then, oh yeah, I think you were right this time.", IMO. Why do I use the phrase "deliberately misleading commentary" you may ask? Because even I do not believe that Mr. Hillenbrand is so ignorant as to read a sentence in the Profiles description which says "the design of the hand grip section" was matched on screen in "Plato's StepChildren" and come away honestly believing that he just read "this unique phaser prop" was screen used in "Plato's StepChildren".

I've enjoyed meeting with you in person, James in the past at Trek conventions - and hanging out at Grace Lee's booth! - and look forward to doing so in the future.
 
Last edited:
All I can suggest is to be a little less responsive and a little more "sticks N stones".........they only get to you if you let them.

I'll be with Grace again this weekend - hope you drop by and if I ever have something good for your site I'll let you know.
 
Great stuff!

And I realize that your last bit of advice is very sound. Others have suggested similarly - saying that the assertions being made, especially considering the source, are not even worthy of a response on my part. It's just I do believe that one of the most precious things we have is our good name - our reputation for acting with honesty and integrity. And when someone tries to unjustly take that away, I find it difficult at times not to be responsive. As you implied earlier, it's not uncommon in the world these days for some to behave much differently, IMO, without honor in trying to win their arguments or just bully other people.
 
Last edited:
I could address every issue, but why bother? I'll simply say this:

Do you believe it is a fact that PIH is a dishonest broker who uses deception as a tool of business?
They keep making the same mistakes over and over instead of fixing them. They are either crazy, stupid or dishonest. I can't say which, but there are no other options, IMO.

I don't think anyone is mad they make mistakes, just how arrogant they have become in not caring once shown. I agree that the sheer number of pieces they deal with is daunting, and they are the most successful venue on the planet, but attributing them with some sort of nobility and implying they are almost beyond reproach is not going to persuade me.
Exactly so.

I take it all with a grain of salt and make up my own mind. I view collecting like religion - listen to all "sides" and then you will be best able to judge for yourself.
Nicely put. This is an approach I totally agree with and try to constantly encourage.

As you implied earlier, it's not uncommon in the world these days for some to behave much differently, IMO, without honor in trying to win their arguments or just bully other people.
I’m genuinely confused here – my beef is with PIH, not you. My review was about PIH, not you.

Please note that of the two of us, Gerald, I haven’t called you malicious, or dishonest or misleading. I didn’t say you were unfair or mean-spirited or lacked character. You, on the other hand, have said all of those things about me so who’s the bully here? I’ll let your actions speak for themselves.

I simply think you’re mistaken, not evil. I don’t hate you, Gerald. I feel sorry for you. You think the worst of people simply because they don't agree with everything you say.

My issue on the phaser write-up was always about the way Profiles did it. It was poorly written, IMO. I freely admit that my feelings about PIH are colored by my past experiences. Isn’t everyone’s? How is that unfair in any way? I make no bones about the fact that I don’t think much of the way PIH does business. I think they are sloppy and unprofessional, period.

For the record, I have not received one single negative comment (other than the consignor's) regarding my review. For one thing, unlike others, I don’t ask people to accept my viewpoint at face value. If someone doesn’t agree with my analysis, good for them. I encourage people to ALWAYS do their own homework then make up their own minds.

D
 
Last edited:
I truly believe that I can correctly recognize whether or not my reputation for honesty has been personally attacked. Your words were "you and PIH have spoon-fed us" etc., which very much implies deceit on my part, IMO. And there are many other examples that I could cite, but I won't rehash them all again. It won't sway your opinion, I'm certain. And as I've said previously, I don't object at all to fair & reasonable analysis -just intellectually dishonest material with the clear intent to discredit something / someone undeservedly. Of course people are free to disagree with me - everyone is entitled to their own opinions - they just shouldn't try to demonize others in expressing their "opinions".

I truly do not desire to have poor relations with you or anyone. I generally try to get along / establish good relations with all. Feuding with someone is truly childish and counterproductive in so many ways. Whether you believe me or not, I would never try to sell something that I thought was a fake - and I have not done so now or ever in the past. And you might think me biased because of my vested interest in this Phaser Pistol; but I honestly can't see your efforts to discredit it given the overwhelmingly strong evidence supporting its authenticity as analysis that is being conducted in good faith. For the record, I know of no other collectors that have even attempted to suggest that the auction description is deliberately misleading and they believe that the phaser itself may not be authentic. As shown above when I previously responded to your "challenge" in this thread - I have just seen applause for the analysis and the screen matching effort from other collectors.
 
Last edited:
For the record, I know of no other collectors that have even attempted to suggest it may not be authentic.
Please cite one place where I have even suggested it wasn't real. ONE. Why am I not simply permitted the right to disagree with you and PIH about certain points without being a liar? For chissakes, I say this:

"I believe Mr. Gurian got it right."

What do I need to do? Kiss your butt and agree with EVERYTHING you say without actually thinking for myself? Is that what everyone – especially me – is supposed to do? There's only one "Authority" and his word must not be questioned?

I truly do not desire to have poor relations with you or anyone.
In this thread you have categorized me as a liar, mean-spirited, without character, etc. I'm pretty sure that's the definition of "wanting poor relations".

I would never offer memorabilia for sale that I do not honestly believe to be authentic.
Good for you. I'm permitted to have the opinion that, despite your beliefs, you are mistaken about some things. Woefully mistaken. I will continue to write about the things that interest me and I will continue to call a spade a spade. You and your kind are EXACTLY why I write – so that there is more than one voice out there – more than a single, self-serving point of view.

So feel free to call me even more names, I won't respond – I promise I'm done with this thread so I won't fight back. I'll simply wear your insults like a badge of honor.

I feel a Blog coming on.

D
 
This thread is more than 10 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top