Profiles in History had a tremendously heavy auction schedule at the end of July, holding no less than four auctions across five consecutive days (Property from the Estate of Milton H. Greene on 7/27, Hollywood Auction 56 on 7/28-7/29, The Dreier Collection Part 2 on 7/30, and their Animation Auction 58 on 7/31), though they also held their Rare Books and Manuscripts Auction 55 earlier in July, and had their huge San Diego Comic Con display in-between sale events. These were their first big sales of 2013 (apart from the awkwardly titled, adjective-heavy The Property of a Distinguished American Private Collector, Part 2). The last of their traditional Hollywood Auction events was in December of last year and, as written at the time, it seemed to indicate a collision of escalating reserves/estimates and some push back from the marketplace on the same. Taking a top down view of these latest sales, the same mixed bag would seem to now be a trend, rather than a one off occurrence.
The auction results for all of these most recent sales (which forms the basis for analysis in this article) can be found on the official Profiles in History website at www.profilesinhistory.com and their online bidding partner’s site at www.artfact.com.
____________________________________________________________________
NOTE & UPDATE: The result for “Lot 563: Steve McQueen’s signature screen-used “Frank Bullitt” hero tweed sports jacket worn in Bullitt” has been updated in this article on 8/11/2013, from Sold at $600,000 hammer to Passed/Unsold. See detailed explanation here:
____________________________________________________________________
I was traveling and did not watch the live feed, though I had received reports of disappointment/surprise at the auctioneer, who a few fellow collectors say got names wrong for significant characters (i.e. “C-P3O” instead of “C-3PO”) and mixed up the names of film franchises (i.e. “Star Wars” for “Star Trek”) and gave an impression of unfamiliarity with the pop culture material being offered. Again, I watched none of this first hand, but received similar reports from multiple parties.
Of course, it wouldn’t be a Profiles in History auction without some very huge results on a number of items. This time around, vintage Hollywood appeared to fare the best; a majority of items with impressive results from Hollywood Auction 56 were vintage Hollywood (as opposed to material from more current film and television productions), some of which are noted below:
- Lot 490: Costumes worn by Julie Andrews “Maria” and the “Von Trapp children” from The Sound of Music
- Estimate $800,000-$1,200,000 – Result $1,300,000
- Lot 563: Steve McQueen’s signature screen-used “Frank Bullitt” hero tweed sports jacket worn in Bullitt
- Estimate $600,000-$800,000 – Result $600,000 [8/11/2013 CORRECTION – LOT PASSED/UNSOLD – See Explanation HERE]
- Lot 391: Original Charlie Chaplin “Tramp” cane from Modern Times [on display at San Diego Comic Con]
- Estimate $120,000-$150,000 – Result $350,000
- Lot 414: Judy Garland early “Dorothy” dress from The Wizard of Oz [on display at San Diego Comic Con]
- Estimate $80,000-$120,000 – Result $300,000
- Lot 604: “James Bond’s” Walther gun, as used by Sean Connery in publicity shots for four “James Bond” films [on display at San Diego Comic Con]
- Estimate $200,000-$300,000 – Result $250,000
- Special Note: This same piece sold in November 2010 at a Christie’s auction for about $438,000 with buyer’s premium, was then resold by Sotheby’s in December 2012 for about $197,000 with buyer’s premium, and now sold here again by Profiles
- Estimate $200,000-$300,000 – Result $250,000
- Lot 410: Fitch Fulton screen-used matte painting of “Tara” from Gone With the Wind
- Estimate $60,000-$80,000 – Result $225,000
- Lot 801: Life size “Sentinel” from The Matrix Reloaded
- Estimate $30,000-$50,000 – Result $110,000
- Lot 918: Town Hall set from “Jack Skellington’s” Christmas Town presentation, The Nightmare Before Christmas
- Estimate $30,000-$50,000 – Result $100,000
- Lot 661: “Indiana Jones” whip used in 1981, 1984 and 1989 Indiana Jones movies [on display at San Diego Comic Con]
- Estimate $40,000-$60,000 – Result $95,000
- Lot 781: Bernard Hill “Captain Smith” uniform from Titanic
- Estimate $40,000-$60,000 – Result $90,000
- Lot 606: Sylvester Stallone “John Rambo” hero screen-used survival knife with sheath from First Blood [on display at San Diego Comic Con]
- Estimate $20,000-$30,000 – Result $75,000
- Lot 538: Hero “Nautilus” crewman dive helmet from 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea [on display at San Diego Comic Con]
- Estimate $20,000-$30,000 – Result $75,000
- Lot 928: Iconic screen-used “Spiral Hill” set piece from The Nightmare Before Christmas
- Estimate $12,000-$15,000 – Result $70,000
- Lot 409: Gone with the Wind final shooting script presented by David O. Selznick to Eric G. Stacey
- Estimate $20,000-$30,000 – Result $70,000
- Lot 968: Carrie-Anne Moss “Trinity” costume created for The Matrix Revolutions [on display at San Diego Comic Con]
- Estimate $12,000-$15,000 – Result $65,000
- Lot 411: Cast and crew signed Wizard of Oz
- Estimate $60,000-$80,000 – Result $62,500
- Lot 408: Assistant director Eric G. Stacey’s cast-signed Gone with the Wind novel
- Estimate $60,000-$80,000 – Result $60,000
- Lot 942: Christopher Reeve “Superman” costume created for Superman 3
- Estimate $15,000-$30,000 – Result $60,000
Conversely, below are some of the desirable items that did not perform to expectations, particularly some of the direct from the Archives costumes from Warner Bros, with a Clooney Batman only realizing $27,500 and Batgirl ending at $15,000, Halle Berry’s Catwoman getting $13,000, a Routh Superman Returns selling for $20,000, a Pitt Troy costume fetching $22,500, and a number of Watchmen costumes getting between $12,000-14,000, with the Rorschach one hitting $27,500, though the Matrix costumes did well.
The Ten Commandments tablets (Lot 470) sold for $25,000, though it appears to be different from the set that hammered at $60,000 plus buyer’s premium in their “Hollywood Auction 53” sale that was the subject of a lawsuit brought by the auction house against the purported non-paying winning bidder for the December 2012 sale.
Worse still are items that should have sold, but were passed, which can usually be attributed to having too high of a reserve set – below are some of the higher profile examples of passed lots:
- Lot 563: Steve McQueen’s signature screen-used “Frank Bullitt” hero tweed sports jacket worn in Bullitt
- Estimate $600,000-$800,000 – Result NO SALE [8/11/2013 CORRECTION – LOT PASSED/UNSOLD – See Explanation HERE]
- Lot 605: Original N70CF Acrostar BD-5J micro jet used in all of the flying sequences from Octopussy
- Estimate $200,000-$300,000 – Result NO SALE
- Lot 650: Ellorrs Madak screen-used cantina creature mask and hands from Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope
- Estimate $80,000-$120,000 – Result NO SALE
- Lot 651: Trash compactor screen-used creature puppet from Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope
- Estimate $80,000-$120,000 – Result NO SALE
- Lot 668: Mid-grade Type 2 Phaser pistol from Star Trek: The Original Series [on display at San Diego Comic Con]
- Estimate $80,000-$120,000 – Result NO SALE
- Lot 660: Harrison Ford’s signature “Indiana Jones” fedora hat from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade [on display at San Diego Comic Con]
- Estimate $40,000-$60,000 – Result NO SALE
- Lot 702: Grenade Launcher from Scarface. Also used in Predator [on display at San Diego Comic Con]
- Estimate $30,000-$50,000 – Result NO SALE
- Lot 344: Signature Bob Keeshan “Captain Kangaroo” red jacket, costume pieces and wig from Captain Kangaroo
- Estimate $30,000-$50,000 – Result NO SALE
- Lot 725: Michael J. Fox “Marty McFly” 2015 Nike “Mag” self-lacing shoes from Back to the Future II
- Estimate $30,000-$50,000 – Result NO SALE
- Lot 593: Jessica Lange King Kong dress and display with complete set of lobby cards [on display at San Diego Comic Con]
- Estimate $20,000-$30,000 – Result NO SALE
- Lot 752: Julia Roberts “Vivian Ward” screen-worn hero earrings from Pretty Woman
- Estimate $20,000-$30,000 – Result NO SALE
- Lot 615: Nostromo survey buggy from Alien
- Estimate $15,000-$20,000 – Result NO SALE
- Lot 560: Charlton Heston “Taylor” screen-worn astronaut pants from Planet of the Apes
- Estimate $12,000-$15,000 – Result NO SALE
- Lot 730: Dan Aykroyd Ghostbusters II jumpsuit
- Estimate $12,000-$15,000 – Result NO SALE
- Lot 809: Hero James Duval “Frank The Rabbit” mask from Donnie Darko [on display at San Diego Comic Con]
- Estimate $12,000-$15,000 – Result NO SALE
- Lot 613: Screen-used Nostromo Gun from Alien
- Estimate $8,000-$12,000 – Result NO SALE
- Lot 653: “Emperor Palpatine” head appliance from Star Wars: Episode V – The Empire Strikes Back
- Estimate $8,000-$12,000 – Result NO SALE
- Lot 657: Anthony Daniels “C-3PO” foot from Star Wars: Episode VI – Return of the Jedi [on display at San Diego Comic Con]
- Estimate $8,000-$12,000 – Result NO SALE
- Lot 726: Anthony Edwards “Goose” damaged helmet fragments from Top Gun
- Estimate $8,000-$10,000 – Result NO SALE
- Lot 711: Arnold Schwarzenegger “Kalidor” sword with retractable stabbing blade from Red Sonja
- Estimate $6,000-$8,000 – Result NO SALE
- Lot 792: Jeff Bridges screen-worn “Dude” costume from The Big Lebowski
- Estimate $6,000-$8,000 – Result NO SALE
- Lot 706: Arnold Schwarzenegger “Conan” Atlantean F/X sword and rig from Conan the Destroyer [on display at San Diego Comic Con]
- Estimate $6,000-$8,000 – Result NO SALE
- Lot 854: Original “Ghost Rider” transformation costume and display from Ghost Rider [on display at San Diego Comic Con]
- Estimate $6,000-$8,000 – Result – NO SALE
I made notations of which lots were on display at Comic Con International: San Diego a few weeks ago as I was curious to see how the special marketing might impact results (and since there were pieces that did very well, good, and bad all at the show, it would seem to have little impact in the form of direct results on each specific piece).
“The Dreier Collection, Part 2” appeared to fare better across the board, in terms of the number of passed lots, though the estimates and reserves were much, much more conservative compared with the “Hollywood Auction 56” sale.
The top item in the Dreier Collection sale was clearly Lot 21: Lucile Ball’s signature “Lucy Ricardo” polka dot dress, which sold for $140,000 (more than double the high estimate, which was $40,000-$60,000).
Some of the items acquired by the collection over the years actually improved on those original sales this time around, such as the Rogue costume (Lot 249), which was sold by Profiles in 2009 for $5,000 and resold last week for $20,000 and a Wolverine civilian costume (Lot 248) was sold in the same 2009 Profiles auction in 2009 for $15,000 fetching $22,500 this time around. Other lots did better, worse, or the same, but this “Part 2” sale featured less costume and props, and less high profile items compared with the “Part 1” sale last year, which was the subject of detailed analysis in past articles.
So overall, how does this set of Profiles in History sales compare with those at the end of 2012? I shared thoughts at that time – see “Profiles in History ‘Hollywood Auction 53′ Results in Passed Lots, A Few Surprises; “Jackpot” Reserves/Estimates Finally Out of Control?” – and I don’t see that much has changed.
Below is my summary from last December:
With such a high number of passed lots, it really does beg the question as to the state of the hobby and consignors looking to hit the relative jackpot with their memorabilia, by demanding reserves and estimates that exceed the market value of the items. It will be interesting to see, with the next big Profiles in History sale catalog, if some downward adjustments are made on reserves and estimates, since the problem, I would imagine, is not the desirability of the items, but the minimum amount that sellers are willing to accept.
In addition and with exceptions, of that which actually sold, much of the material in this auction seemed to go for lower prices than one might have expected, based on the same or comparable sales in the past year or two.
Really, that is how I see this set of sales as well, and it would seem that there generally was not an adjustment downward on estimates, generally speaking, except for with the Dreier Collection 2.
There are a variety of philosophies with setting reserves and estimates with this art market…
Some hope to essentially set the live auction equivalent of an eBay “Buy It Now”… set the price and hope one bidder pulls the trigger. Of course, with high reward comes high risk – the possibility that no one will bid, leaving the item unsold (and also setting a value publicly that the item is now NOT worth).
Others feel setting a moderate reserve is the way to go… putting an estimate that is to some degree less than the perceived (or maybe hopeful) auction result. This has more risk for not “hitting the jackpot” in terms of value, but mitigates the risk of an item being passed altogether.
The third group, in large strokes, set a low reserve… This has almost no risk of the lot being passed altogether, but the highest risk in an item selling for lower than what might be hoped – sometimes much lower. However, it banks on the collector psychology… it gives hope for a chance to “win” to a larger pool of potential bidders, and in the heat of an auction, crazy things can still happen. The best example of an auction that chose this path successfully is the Christie’s Star Trek auction, and I believe the results prove out the power of this approach when you match up top notch pieces with (mostly) impeccable provenance on a popular property; conservative reserves and estimates will be far exceeded by the final results because of interest in and demand for the material.
Since Profiles in History is best known as the “go to” auction house on the consignor side of the equation, where does that leave the market today?
Have they lost some of their luster in the past year with their most recent two “Hollywood” sales having some mixed results?
Are people blinded by the mixed results, just focusing on the big hit items that exceed expectations?
It has become a more competitive market in the past few years especially, with competitors putting more effort into their own entertainment memorabilia sales. While Profiles is known as the auction house to set benchmarks, its competitors have as well.
Just taking a look at the James Bond promo airgun example already referenced above, Christie’s sold that years ago for over $400,000, and Profiles could only get $250,000 for the same item. How much can be attributed to the fact that Christie’s was the first (well, in recent years anyway) to make a big splash with it? How much weight can you give to the fact that Christie’s arguably does best among all auction house with Bond memorabilia? How much could have been just timing in general, or other intangibles?
This year, other auction houses have also had big sales that one would expect from Profiles… like Nate D. Sanders selling a “Dancing Bear Costume” from Captain Kangaroo for $200,000 in May; while in this Profiles sale a costume from the star of the show with a $30,000-$50,000 estimate was passed. Similarly, Julien’s Auctions sold a Star Trek phaser from the pilot for $231,000 in April, while in this Profiles sale a more recognizable and equally rare phaser from The Original Series was also passed with it’s $80,000-$120,000 estimate.
While one of the highlights of these latest Profiles sales was that of Lot 414 – the Judy Garland “Dorothy” dress from The Wizard of Oz, which realized a hammer price of $300,000, Profiles themselves sold one for over three times that amount – over $1 million dollars – as part of their Debbie Reynolds auction in June 2011. At the time, I wrote an article looking at the landmark sale and asked a number of open-ended questions, including:
Overall, material sold in this auction realized much higher prices than many expected, myself included. In my initial review of the auction catalog, I personally felt that many of the estimates were extremely high, and in looking at the results now, I can say that overall my assessment of those estimates was completely off the mark.
Truly, the values realized at auction this weekend by Profiles in History are absolutely remarkable, and consequently, raise a number of questions.
One, what contributed to such interest and high values?
- Is it that they are from the personal collection of a real Hollywood icon, Debbie Reynolds?
- Has there been a real desire for more “vintage” and “classic” material that has mostly been unmet over the past several years?
- Did a lot of interest and publicity in the international mainstream media bring out new collectors and investors to this marketplace?
- How much has the Hollywood Treasures television series contributed to expanding the awareness of this collectibles field?
Two, how many of the participants in this auction were new to this marketplace?
- And of those that were first time participants in such an auction, how many were involved in bidding on some of the more significant pieces?
- How many would be classified as “collectors”, how many “investors”, and how many were representing museums and other organizations that preserve and archive for the public benefit?
Three, how will this sale impact the hobby going forward?
- Is this the dawn of a new era of collecting, with new benchmarks?
- Or is this a one-time, unique event that will not be duplicated in its success for some time?
- Is there truly more value in actual historic/vintage/classic material, compared with material from more modern fare? Will this sale have any impact at all on the latter?
Four, will this sale “bring out” similar material, with owners of such pieces being motivated to capitalize on the increased (real or perceived) value of such memorabilia?
- Will we see, in future auction events, a shift towards including more vintage material, at the expense of the more contemporary equivalents?
Five, with new participants in the marketplace, will this sale prompt them to seek out more material, or was this a singular event to participate in?
- In the past, I’ve written about the “hype premium”, or an adjusted inflation on values due to hype surrounding the sale of certain material. How much did “hype” factor into the sale of this material?
- Or did the true iconic nature of some of the pieces really inspire many to participate in the sale and bidding?
For the majority of these open-ended questions, time will tell.
Obviously, comparing somewhat ‘apples to apples’, apart from the Debbie Reynolds pedigree and other factors as noted in my questions, the June 2011 sale of the Judy Garland “Dorothy” dress could not be matched in July 2013. And in actuality, Profiles sold another Judy Garland dress in December 2011 that fetched $230,000. Julien’s Auctions also sold a Judy Garland “Dorothy” dress, in November 2012, for $480,000… still half of the landmark Debbie Reynold sale, but significantly more than Profiles in History and the two examples that they have sold both before and after.
Looking at a few more “apples to apples” comparisons with this most recent Profiles in History sale, two costumes worn by The Dude in The Big Lebowski were offered in their latest sales – Lot 791 “The Dude” signature costume and sweater realized $45,000, though Profiles in History sold “a virtual twin of this very costume” for a hammer price of $95,000 in their July sale one year ago, and Lot 792 “The Dude” coveralls was passed with a $6,000-$8,000 estimate in this latest Profiles sale, though Profiles sold the same style costume in July 2012 for $6,000, and Julien’s Auctions sold the same style costume in their December 2011 sale for $11, 250.
In my own opinion, I believe that there has long been some Kool-Aid passed around in the hobby about which auction houses can achieve what kind of results, and some of that became a bit self-fulfilling and it has gotten to the point where many consignors feel that each item they have to sell is akin to a winning Keno ticket.
Also, especially with Profiles, the first example of an item typically results in the highest hammer price… then the same or similar material is sold subsequently for less and less.
It will be interesting to continue to follow each auction house, how they handle estimates/reserves, their results, and the new results measured against “like” items in each others’ auctions as well as past results.
Jason DeBord