I just read the string of posts since I posted mine two days
ago. Thanks for the public comments from Jeff Potokar and
Phillipp Kainbacher - (and from Bruce H. via Jeff) - and from
others who privately wrote me about this.
And Phillipp, congratulations for getting a happy resolution from
Grey. He's a good man. -d.
P.S. - As for the rolled Third Man poster being offered at Bidll
- what stands out in Bruce H.'s comments - is his opinion that a
rolled (vs. folded) 1949 international one-sheet - seems
unusual. I will say the colors and detail in the Bidll poster
are more vivid than the re-issue 1950s poster I bought in 2003
that was mistakenly represented as original. I think if a buyer
likes the image and can live with everything else about it, it's
still a fine poster from a great movie. (See web-hosted images
again below to compare.)
The Third Man 1950s international re-issue one-sheet, Heritage,
November 2003:
The Third Man (?) international one-sheet, Bidll, June 2015:
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 10:39:11 PST
From: 00000015e579331a-dmarc-requ...@listserv.american.edu
Subject: Re: My history of bad luck chasing an original "Third
Man (1949)."
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Yes Jeff from today's conversation.
Sent from my iPhone
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 21:56:35 -0700
From: jpotok...@ca.rr.com
Subject: Re: My history of bad luck chasing an original "Third
Man (1949)."
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Was that offered refund a result of this 2015 conversation,
Phillipp?
Good for you, if so. That's what discussion and collecting is all
about.
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 20:41:38 -0700
From: 00000015e579331a-dmarc-requ...@listserv.american.edu
Subject: Re: My history of bad luck chasing an original "Third
Man (1949)."
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
I would like to inform that Grey has immediately offered to
refund the money for the Third Man poster. I have been dealing
with Grey since day one of his auctions buying and selling posters.
Philipp
Sent from my iPhone
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 12:45:54 -0700
From: jpotok...@ca.rr.com
Subject: Re: [FA] ULTRA Rare English One Sheet - The Third Man
(1949)
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
I wrote to Bruce to ask his thoughts on this poster and
discussion. He wrote me back and also said I could post his reply
to MOPO:
Jeff
"I personally think it is very likely that it is from 1955 or so.
Here is why:
IMDb only lists a handful of films from Lion International. But
because we have auctioned a zillion English one-sheets, WE know
that there are at least 92 from 1955 on. There is not ONE that is
from before 1955 other than the disputed Third Man poster. 36 of
the 92 are from exactly 1955 to 1959. When you combine this with
the stuff MoPo members found online, I think that is pretty
definitive.
In addition, there is the issue of the poster being unfolded.
Again, I have sold a zillion English one-sheets, and the ONLY
other one that was unfolded was the African Queen re-release,
which is surprisingly similar to the Third Man re-release,
because it has a very similar image to the English original,
except it is not as finely detailed, and it has been found
unfolded, but it has no printer information on it (unlike the
Third Man poster in question).
I think I would have an even more definite opinion if I saw this
poster in person. I know that studios used the same type paper
for a number of years, and when they changed, they changed for
all their printing. That is how you can pinpoint a poster to a
specific handful of years, or a decade. The English one-sheets I
have handled have remarkably similar paper. If this poster had
paper that was at all different, that would be even more reason
to be sure it was not from the same year.
Put it all together, and I think you certainly have far more than
a reasonable doubt, and I would certainly auction this poster as
"undated, likely a mid-1950s re-release, likely for the
international distribution". There is also re-release one-sheet
which is very similar to the African Queen one (no printing on
the bottom), and I would think both that and the African Queen
are from the late 1950s or early 1960s.
The reason the poster was entered incorrectly in our database was
that we never auctioned it. It is one of the tens of thousands of
posters that Richard Allen owned and photographed when amassing
his archive. When those were put online, some mistakes crept in,
and this is one of them. I have corrected it to match what I
wrote above.
Finally, as David Kusumoto noted, we DID incorrectly auction a
late 1950s re-release as original in one of our Christie's
auctions. It does NOT appear in our database at all. WHY? Because
the buyer contacted us ten years later and complained that we
made a mistake, and we fully refunded him, so it can't be in our
database, because it was not original, and we do not want to
mislead people into thinking a reissue sold for that price. We
took a huge loss on that, but that is just part of our "lifetime
guarantee".
Feel free to post this on MoPo.
Thanks,
Bruce"
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 11:48:53 -0700
From: jpotok...@ca.rr.com
Subject: Re: My history of bad luck chasing an original "Third
Man (1949)."
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
So when there has been this kind of listing error, and something
has sold because it was said to be an original release and later
turns out to be a RR, has HA never done anything/reached out to
winning
bidders who were misinformed? (More so on "big ticket" items,
especially, but also important when anything is not what it was
presented to be).
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 11:37:59 AM PST
From: 00000015e579331a-dmarc-requ...@listserv.american.edu
Subject: Re: My history of bad luck chasing an original "Third
Man (1949)."
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
by the way I was one highest bidder below of the Third Man
original release poster from Heritage in 2006....
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 11:33:44 AM PST
From: 00000015e579331a-dmarc-requ...@listserv.american.edu
Subject: Re: My history of bad luck chasing an original "Third
Man (1949)."
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
David....I was the person winning the Third Man from Heritage in
November 2004...my good the times does go fast....I paid the
price thinking that I get a low price based on the "original"
Third Man poster David was winning a year earlier....Nobody told
me that Davids copy was a re-release poster....certainly a bad
day with Heritage....really bad considering everything...I would
have never bid so high knowing that the poster is a re-release
poster....I believe that David and myself are on the same
boat....we both love the film but got really mis-informed of the
poster....this was a domino effect....really bad...bad
bad....Philipp
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 09:49:49 -0700
From: jpotok...@ca.rr.com
Subject: Re: My history of bad luck chasing an original "Third
Man (1949)."
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
A Great write up, David... as always.
Kudos!
Jeff
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 16:07:13 -0700
From: davidmkusum...@hotmail.com
Subject: My history of bad luck chasing an original "Third Man
(1949)."
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
* After reading mostly dealer posts for five straight days, here
are my observations for consumers. Unless indicated, the
following are OPINIONS, not facts. They shed no additional
information other than to provide my own history - then vs. now -
about this title. (Again, it's too bad Bruce Hershenson quit
MOPO - as his views would have been invaluable as NO ONE has
handled more movie paper - nor owns a titanic collection of press
books from around the world than he.)
1. My "opinion" is Bidll's "The Third Man" is an international
one-sheet of "some kind" - that was never intended for display in
the U.K. Anything else is possible, but that's where I fall if I
were interested in buying it. Parenthetically, among the many
points and markers debated as to first issue or re-issue and
international vs. domestic, I find it intriguing that the seller
- who strikes me as being very conscientious - resides in New
Zealand yet has little provenance information about how and where
this apparently rolled poster was acquired as well as other
details such as paper texture, etc. This may not be
"empirically" relevant to this poster compared to printed
markers, but in my view, its geographic location and "how it
feels" is circumstantially relevant to the debate of national vs.
international, original or re-issue.
2. As some know, I used to collect only COUNTRY-OF-ORIGIN
DOMESTIC ISSUE posters, a common practice among collectors of
country-of-origin first edition books. A country of origin "The
Third Man" poster was once at the top of my list of wants.
3. Today, if I stuck to my old narrow (minded) preferences, I'd
only buy a first issue BQ of "Third Man." While I love VINTAGE
international one-sheets or daybills - for "The Third Man," I
won't them. To put it bluntly, I was burned by a major auction
house (Heritage) - by its mis-representation of this title way
back in 2003. Heritage's actions were NOT intentional - and to
be fair - I was frankly ignorant about what Helmut rightly says
about the general "rule" - but NOT the "law" - that British one-
sheets were predominantly targeted for international markets.
And for some hare-brained reason (at the time) - I thought the
U.K. one-sheet format was "common" enough to be displayed
sporadically domestically, though not favored compared to the
more popular quad.
* On 20 November 2003, I bought a British RE-ISSUE one-sheet from
Heritage to "The Third Man" for $1725 - that Heritage mis-
represented as a 1949 first U.K. issue. The original 2003
description has not changed hence you can still see its mistake
at the link below. Note how there is no information about it
being a "reissue" of any kind; Heritage simply declares it as
"original" and labels its date to 1949:
http://comics.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=808&lotNo=1119
Image 1 of 5 (Heritage, November 2003, $1725):
* I did NOT learn until one year later - November 2004 - that
Heritage misrepresented the poster I bought for $1725 as a 1949
"original" when it was in fact a 1950s re-issue. Sure, I could
have raised hell but did not, out of deference to my friendship
with Grey - but just as important - I did not because of the
intimidating legal wording in Heritage's terms and conditions
about its responsibility for errors - which implied no returns
accepted - or - at the very least, an unwritten "statute of
limitations" to resolve disputes.
* So in November 2004 - when Heritage sold ANOTHER 1950s re-issue
- but this time, correctly identified it as a re-issue, it
fetched $1150. This was the date of my discovery - that what I
bought the year before - had been misrepresented by Heritage.
Frankly, "Buyer Beware" didn't enter my mind in 2003 with
Heritage, even though it was new to the movie poster auction scene.
http://movieposters.ha.com/itm/film-noir/the-third-man-british-
lion-film-1949-/a/607-19401.s
Image 2 of 5 (Heritage, November 2004, $1150):
* I grumbled but didn't want to cause a scene because I like
Grey. I kept the re-issue poster I bought in November 2003 for
four years.
* By March 2006, Heritage "apparently" got it right. I say
"apparently" because there have been legitimate questions in the
debate about originals vs. re-issues in recent days on MoPo. The
example below was represented as a genuine U.K. 1949 original and
it sold for $5750:
http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=633&lotNo=28253
Image 3 of 5 (Heritage, March 2006, $5750):
* In 2007, after I decided to leave hard core poster collecting,
I consigned my bogus $1725 "original issue Third Man" poster that
I bought from Heritage in November 2003 - seen in image 1 of 5
above - with a batch of posters to eMoviePoster on 11 December
2007 - properly identifying "The Third Man" poster I bought in
2003 as a re-issue. (See eMoviePoster's image of my Heritage
poster below - the colors display more accurately - but this is
the EXACT poster I bought in image 1 of 5 above, as noted by a
one-of-a-kind collector's defect - a white spot on the top right
margin above the "L" in Selznick.) Properly identified, this
EXACT poster - mis-represented as "original" in 2003 - but
properly identified by eMoviePoster in 2007 - fetched $362.
http://www.emovieposter.com/gallery/inc/archive_image.php?
id=10744885
Image 4 of 5 (eMoviePoster, December 2007, $362):
* Then, to make things humorous - just three months later -
Bruce's December 2007 buyer of the re-issue poster I bought from
Heritage in 2003 - flipped it BACK to Heritage! On 11 March 2008
- Heritage took the same $1725 poster it mis-represented as
"original" in 2003 - this time correctly identifying it as a re-
issue - and it sold to another buyer for $478. See Heritage's
image below, noting the same distinctive collector's defect on
the top right margin above the "L" in Selznick.
http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=693&lotNo=64326
Image 5 of 5 (Heritage, March 2008, $478):
* Now, some of you high-roller dealers might argue that the $1725
I paid back in 2003 for this mis-represented poster - is not a
big deal in relation to my net take after I sold it with proper
identifiers via eMoviePoster for $362 in December 2007 - or even
had I chosen Heritage to sell it for $478 three months later in
March 2008. But this was not small change to me. Some might
also say I should have immediately brought this to Heritage's
attention - even 12 months after November 2003. But the correct
info about what I bought from Heritage was hardly "immediate" and
felt unfair to grouse about. Heritage does not offer a lifetime
guarantee - though it does offer a reasonable window to correct
its own mistakes.
* However, what follows may underscore the limits of Grey's power
back in 2003 when movie posters were a new division at Heritage -
and when one of the chiefs, Jim Halperin told me in New York that
he envisioned posters to be a fun "niche" and not a profit
leader. NO ONE from Dallas EVER "came back" to me - neither
proactive nor reactive to correct its mistake - nor did Heritage
personally acknowledge what happened to me, despite obviously
learning its own mistake a year later when it listed a second
"The Third Man" poster correctly. Again, look at Heritage's
written description and image of what I bought for $1725 in
November 2003...
http://comics.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=808&lotNo=1119
...vs. Heritage's written description and image of what a second
buyer bought - armed with a corrected information - for $1150 in
November 2004:
http://movieposters.ha.com/itm/film-noir/the-third-man-british-
lion-film-1949-/a/607-19401.s
* People make mistakes and admit them, no foul there. But what
happened places a high relief on when a firm PROACTIVELY corrects
mistakes, however rare - no matter how much time has passed since
they were made. Years later, when I told Bruce Hershenson about
this in the context of selling my "re-issue," he noted that he
himself had made the same mistake about 15 years ago, that it
wasn't discovered until years later - but that he contacted his
buyer and took about a $1,000+ loss, refunding the money on the
basis that while people make mistakes, the buyer did nothing
wrong and would have taken a loss for ignorance - and might lose
confidence in eMoviePoster as a future buyer basing choices on
improperly represented goods.
* So I think Jeff P. brings up a salient point, that is, if
average consumers have a say about buying collectibles whose
origin is unclear. Such things should, in my view, be
PROACTIVELY disclosed. Whether you are a dealer in a buyer's
role or an end user - it IS significant when anyone offers you a
"lifetime guarantee." But it's only as good as the merchant who
offers it, your trust in that merchant - and your perception of
how long that merchant will be in business to honor it.
Naturally, such guarantees are too risky for most retailers,
accounting for wear and tear and the potential for abuse. And
indeed, lifetime guarantees feel non-existent in the collectibles
"industry."
* Years ago, when I asked Bruce Hershenson about this - he said
among the obvious reasons for offering lifetime guarantees -
besides boosting buyer confidence ENORMOUSLY - is this: Despite
his prominence in collectibles, if his company makes a mistake,
he doesn't have the resources of a Sotheby's or Christie's or
Bonham's or Heritage - to be battered with monthly lawsuits from
disgruntled customers. A check of Google of claims against the
major houses bears this out. Thus for him and perhaps for him
only - this is a good business policy to embrace - and feels
compatible with a high-volume, Amazon-like, "customer first"
ideology - that goes further in that it is marketed as having no
statute of limitations nor expiration date. Anything discovered
to be misrepresented, no matter how long after a sale, is
proactively corrected. If you're a consumer or a dealer buying
from him - whether you disagree with methods or personality or
other intangibles, this is supremely comforting.
* In sum, specific to Bidll's "The Third Man," I'm glad we're all
talking about what it may or may not be - because no lifetime
guarantee is being offered for a high-ticket item. I'm sorry I
can't add anything more to reveal its origin, hence I wish Bruce
would proffer an opinion even though my story illustrates my
troubled history with this title and why I won't buy it unless
it's a BQ. And while the wisdom of offering lifetime returns for
posters is a discussion for another day, I think the seller has
been wise making adjustments accordingly. Bruce himself uses
BLUNT English that works when doubt exists, e.g., he'll write,
"please don't bid unless you're satisfied with our uncertainty
about this poster's origins" - and/or - "please don't bid unless
you can live with our condition grade and all defects as
described." That's more than fair, amid a guarantee he offers
that few can afford offering without tacking on an expiration
date. And to be fair, I know if I was a dealer, I could never
offer a lifetime guarantee. Retailers frown but all customers
applaud. More power to him and to people like him. -d.
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 06:39:18 +1000
From: shadow....@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [FA] ULTRA Rare English One Sheet - The Third Man
(1949)
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Really? Is this about what EMP does when they discover they've
made another mistake with the dating a poster they've sold or is
it about dating a poster being offered for sale?
What does HA do? What if the buyer on EMP has moved? What if the
buyer on eBay is not a collector, they're just a buyer of
something they like and never again hangs round the darkened
hallways of movie poster collector clubs? What if this poster
never made the public forum and therefore the miss-dated posters
sold by EMP & HA and others are never discovered? Does that make
those purchases less fortunate?
It really doesn't matter, the point is, despite your remarks the
seller is a genuine collector who did make every reasonable
attempt to correctly identify the poster and based on that he
has listed the poster on BIDLL here. I have been keeping him
abreast of the some expert thoughts from here about the poster.
However based on all the comments thus far, it does appear to be
an original print that was bound for the overseas markets; I have
also had this comment from a old time, some would say, expert UK
collector (who cannot post to MoPo) but has been following the
conversations and has this to say [some edit].
Helmut had it about right, but the problem is not all copies were
printed at the same printers, quite often posters were subbed
out. So it's likely the overseas ones were printed at a different
depot... I think Stafford's had 3. and If they were very busy, a
complete other outfit would do the work.
The poster on {BIDLL} is a first release 1sht for overseas. These
were sometimes printed in the UK, and sometimes abroad. 1shts
were used in the UK, but 95% of the time were for the colonies.
there was also different artworks for the same artwork, so you
can see sometimes slight differences. This was due to the unions
to keep British artists working. They even copied US artwork for
use in the UK. it gets a bit complicated, but this is why there
is sometimes slight differences.
David
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2015 09:49:24 -0700
From: jpotok...@ca.rr.com
Subject: Re: [FA] ULTRA Rare English One Sheet - The Third Man
(1949)
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
The other idea, too, is this.
What if this poster is sold as a first release and is later found
to be a later RR? This seller is asking for a good amount of
coinage for it, as a BIN. Would this seller refund the winning
bidder or buyer, if it was worth much less than he sold it for,
because it was found (some time down the road) to be a later RR?
EMP would offer that option, by contacting the new owner and
offering his/her $$ back; ebay has buyer protection, where a
buyer/winning bidder could get a full refund if an item isn't as
described.
At the end of the day, it's more about protecting both seller and
buyer,
To unsubscribe from the MoPo-L list, click the following link:
https://listserv.american.edu/scripts/wa-american.exe?SUBED1=MoPo-
L&A=1
