|
Grey,
Thanks for the explanation. As you say, it all seems very
mysterious as to what happened and who did it -- and you do acknowledge
that it did happen to more than one auction around that time, which is one
of the things I was wondering about. Of course everyone makes mistakes, but I
must say that I find comparing the use of doctored images in auction
descriptions to be the equivalent of a simple typo is a bit of a stretch --
one is much harder to create than the other and far easier to catch, after
all. Not to mention the fact that bidders don't make their buying decisions
based on typos, but are encouraged by the sellers to do so on the basis of the
pictures.
I certainly understand the desire to resolve something quietly between
seller and buyer, but I think you would agree that in retrospect it would have
been much better to post this explanation in public on MPT
back in November when this first came up. After all, the issue
was out in public at that point anyway and all kinds of people were commenting
on it. I read the entire thread at MPT the other day, hoping to find some
statement from Heritage explaining what happened, but there was nothing.
If this explanation had been publicly posted back then, there clearly would
have been no reason for myself and others to have brought it up here and
now.
Anyway, it's in the past now and we've heard the whole story. We can all
rest assured that it won't happen again.
-- JR
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 2:17
Subject: [MOPO] FW: [MOPO] Heritage --
what you see is what you get (?)
Dear MOPO:
I have been in LA most of this week and have just gotten
a look at my emails. I was a bit surprised to see all of the discussion, but
most importantly the issues about photo “enhancing”
This is in reference to the accusation that Heritage
tampers or enhances their photos. I was made aware of the MPT posts sometime
ago and answered that post with the person who wrote the post. The reason I
didn’t make this a public response is that it was a business dealing between
her and Heritage. I hope and believe that she understands our desire to make
this right as mistakes do happen.
In sale 603, we began using all in-house photo personnel.
Prior to this sale I had used a professional photographer for the work. The
“Pro” had shot the photos, then done the Photoshop work which entailed only
the straightening and cropping of photos. He would then dump them on a hard
drive and we would download them and all was well. When we began “in-house”
photography I had a photo person taking the “raw” images and doing the
straightening and cropping, and they were given, as was the “Pro,” the
directive not to retouch the
poster photos in any way. When the photos in question were brought to my
attention, I began to investigate and found that the person in charge was not
the only person doing the photo work. To this day the photos in question
remain a mystery in the Heritage building, as to how and who altered them. I
must say, that with that sale there may be more than one or two photos
slightly altered but assuredly not many. In some cases, new employees feel
they are doing something valuable for you when indeed it is exactly the
opposite of what you want. How many of you have children that try to please
you, sometimes to disastrous results?
If one will look at the photos or for that matter the
catalog from that sale (Lugosi painting on the cover July 17th
2004), one can see very clearly many images with imperfections on the posters
very evident.
Take a look at lot 16007 “Blood and Sand” window card, or
lot 16009 “How Molly Made Good.” You can see all of the stains and missing
pieces clearly. Please go look at lot 16311 “The Lone Ranger” or 16322
“Tarzan’s Secret Treasure” and see the many problems these items have,
displayed very visibly! For some of the higher priced items please look at lot
16482 “Citizen Kane” insert or how about lot 16522 “She” half sheet or lot
16526 “King Kong” French. All of these and many, many more show all of their
very apparent defects.
Why would we possibly risk a very, very good reputation
in all hobbies to do minor retouch work on minor posters? Why, when we offer a
100% money back offer to our buyers, would we ask to have items returned for
their not arriving in the condition they were described or shown. We receive
far less than 1% returns in all of our sales. Would not people be returning
many, many items had we decided to “enhance” the images?
Mistakes are made from time to time and it is with great
regret that I say we too make them on occasion. Our intentions would never be
to deceive or misrepresent items when our reputation is our most valuable
asset and trust is such an important issue.
I have always asked buyers to email or call if they would
like more in-depth descriptions. We have tried to improve our descriptions by
making them more detailed and offering more information on condition. We are
very proud to run a large quantity of great material in our sales and we too
will make a mistake on occasion. We cannot catch all of the typos in a catalog
or every problem with a poster that might be apparent to one buyer and not so
apparent to another person describing it, but we will continue to do the very
best that we can to describe, photograph and represent as accurately as we
possibly can all items in our sales. We enjoy this hobby and the people
involved and want to see the hobby grow by supporting it in any way we
can.
Thanks,
Grey Smith
Heritage Galleries and Auctioneers Phone: 214-252-4367 Office 214-668-6928 Cellular Direct Fax 214-443-8479
Tom,
I'm all for waiting for the facts... but these ARE the facts, as far as I
can determine.
Sure, let's hear from Heritage -- that's why I addressed Mr. Smith
personally in my post.
But let's also get serious about the issues:
If Heritage offered a refund -- after being challenged by a buyer for
using a retouched photo in an auction -- does that make everything cool? Of
course not. That's like a burglar being caught going out the window offering
to put your stuff back.
They are photos of the same poster -- that's what I tried to make clear
in my report of my investigation of this matter as someone with 20 years
of digital imaging experience. If you look closely at the picture on
Heritage's auction site you can actually SEE where the touch-ups have been
done. They weren't done that skillfully. If you know where to look, you can
see the touch-up work. The pictures are of the same poster.
Besides, if the photos that "redlivingdead" put up in public on MPT were
not actual photos of the actual poster that Heritage delivered... if
"redlivingdead" were somehow trying to "frame" Heritage with this claim --
don't you think Heritage would have been loud and clear in defending
themselves against such a frame job?
Why didn't Heritage respond to this thread back when it first came
up in November on MPT? It's been almost 4 months.
We both know that there have been complaints about one thing or another
with Heritage in the past. But this is the first time I've seen such clear
evidence of wrong-doing. But again, what does it matter if nobody put up clear
evidence like this before? They have now.
What we need next is a response from Heritage, in public, on this
list.
-- JR
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005
23:14
Subject: Re: [MOPO] Heritage -- what
you see is what you get (?)
well Jr.. that post onMovie talk is interesting..
heres questions andponderings i have,
1.) I would like to hear Heritages side on this.
2.) we need to verify that this was in fact the poster heritage sold and
the Buyer and not a attempt
to post a Image that could have also been altered to look in disrepair.
3.) verify that this poster was in fact bought from heritage.
4.) Is this the sum and only complaint about Heritage? who
else on Mopo has had unsatisfactory dealings? Willing to provide
evidence and not hearsay.
5.) As you said why hasnt it ever been brought up before?
6.) It appears that heritage offered a refund.
7.) as for description and Photos.. who did the photos were they enhanced
and do they still do the same method.
I aggree that if the items have been misrepresented as to condition and
defects and that digital retouching was done and not explained that this
would be a severe blow to credibility.
The only good I can say is If Heritage addresses these issues perhaps
this is a blessing as Buyers will know once and forall what the situation
is.
Just in pondering this, it would seem to me thats something is still
awry.. as why are not more buyers speaking up?
I believe details need to be considered and facts verified before
we accuse .
Bruce himself has had suspicions cat on him on these same lists.
Like asking if he uses shills and
his reason for privacy. It seems to me is that many people operate buy
scare tactics to potential customers, That shows me that they are setting
themselves up.
I would think that Ron and gret can answer if the current catalog has
doctored PIX.
meanwhile I will wait for facts before I say anything else.
My gut says.. there is somthing not right..
best, Tom
OK, I happen to be a digital photo expert -- I don't just play one on the
internet -- I've been working with digital images and making my livelihood
with them since 1985, when full-color photo-realistic images were only
available on extremely expensive high-end computers. I just checked out
the link John posted below http://www.icollectmovieposters.com/start-movieposters/start-forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5528
and then went to the Heritage site and downloaded their high-resolution
image from the sale in question -- which is still to be found (and better
not disappear from): http://www.heritagecomics.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=603&Lot_No=16052&zoom=1
) When I compare the poster that "redlivingdead" actually received
from Heritage to the picture that Heritage put up during the auction, it
is easy to see that the image posted on the Heritage site during the
auction was re-touched -- and significantly retouched! After seeing
the shot of the actual poster and so knowing where to look, you can
clearly see the "evidence" of the retouches in the original Heritage
photo. That both pictures are of the same poster is without doubt -- and
it is clear that the picture posted during the auction was extensively
retouched to hide defects in the poster. Defects I would consider
significant if I had bought it. This is a real smoking gun, folks.
This is evidence that would stand up in a court of law. What I can't
figure out is why they would do something like this -- and risk this kind
of damage to their reputation -- when the poster was an under-$200 item to
begin with? Their own description says ". Fine+ with pinholes in the
corners and a clean 4-5 inch tear below the center point that has been
archivally taped. Fine+. Est. 200-400" -- so they knew it wasn't going to
go for a super-high price. Why put up a retouched picture with the auction
when they knew that when the buyer would clearly see the differences
between the poster in their hands when it arrived and the picture on the
Heritage site? And -- if they would go to this length for a $200 poster --
what kind of shenanigans are they willing to pull for posters worth a lot
more? I may not be the biggest Heritage fan around, but I have always
credited them with more veracity than this -- I would never have believed
this if I had not seen it with my own eyes. I find this evidence to be
extremely disturbing and prejudicial. Mr. Smith, you've got some
explaining to do. QUESTION: This "expose" was posted on MPB back in
November -- why the heck didn't someone who posts to both lists let us at
MOPO know about this scandal sooner? This is the kind of information
people need to know about, particularly with such a large auction coming
up. -- JR
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005
21:13
Subject: Re: [MOPO] MoPo: No need
to say more Well lets pile on!!!
Bruce may not want to stoop to this level, but I will. Take a
look at this
thread from MPT on 11/30 2004. A little ecucation for
those that really wish
to know.
http://www.icollectmovieposters.com/start-movieposters/start-forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5528
John
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: [MOPO] MoPo:
No need to say more
> This comment:
> "whether you prefer unenhanced or
enhanced images..."
>
> is an example of what folks are
referring to. it's called reading between
> the
>
lines. so, unless you have evidence of such behavior, please stop
this
> type of
> posting, it serves no useful
purpose. although, personally, i do not
> think you
> could stop, even if you wanted to - it's a part of your
personality that
> we all
> have a love/hate relationship
with. best regards to Bruce AND Heritage.
>
>
Gary
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message
addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your
message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely
responsible for its content.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its
content.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its
content.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
|
