Hello Tom You've said plenty. I won't go into analysis of every statement of yours, because then my post will be even longer than yours and I suspect most people here would not be intersted in that at all. And I don't blame them!! But in essence, if we want to clean up the hobby of the very few wrong doers, we got to start somewhere!! Lets not jump on the first guy who had some balls!! Yeah, I know, hearsay, it won't stand in the court of law. But we are not trying to convict anyone, just to warn this small fraternity of ours of the very few stinkers operating within it. And I AM NOT SPEAKING OF ANYONE IN PARTICULAR, lets make that clear. The way Lieberman told his story, Egbert told him that he is selling repros and passing them off as originals. You call this hearsay? Then maybe WWII is also hearsay?
Lieberman is saying that's what Egbert told him, "end of story". This IS the end of the story, unless you KNOW this story to be different, or Egbert says that it ain't so. What is your objection? And Dave, forgive me if I am speaking on your behalf, but I have the feeling you had enough. Zeev ---- Original Message ----- From: Tom Martin To: lobby card invasion Cc: [email protected] Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 8:01 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] Strange Manhattan Style B Bridge "rolled" 1-sheet HI Zeev - I like you too and thanks for the business and these comments.. let me attempt to claify... I responded to Kusomotos email thanking David for devulging the source of Manhatten as being Eggbert The way I understood it was that when David made the statement he said that Eggbert had told him some things about the posters.. then he said he (eggbert) knows they are not real- end of story.. as though it was a finite fact or conclusion based on David Leibermans testimony of a phone call.. Perhaps the councelors on the list will aggree this is hearsay.. All my statements are baased on my personal opinion and to the best of recollection and could contain inacurate dates and time and places as this has been 30 year spread of time.. In law we would have time for discovery, and to get documents supporting allegations, also we could get bonifide statements from witnesses under oath... as i see it and what irks me is that anyone on a list that makes a accustion can start rumors or unverified speculative assumpstions. .. without PHYSICAL samples or specimins. So as far as why I say trace down the Printers and sources.. I meant if a family tree were done as far as when the purported posters surfaced and by whom... I would guess in my experiance many of the minty whites came from the Find that was in clevlend in 80s of closed down nation screen... then they were sold- traded to numerous dealers accrooss the world.. and then... My personal spectulation not based on anything factual but pondering is that someone actually took some better titles and did a run of reprints.. that would explain the confusion.. because I know that many poster printers do repros off other printers in old days it got so bad that the dots would get the moirie effect and skew...Now with digital and as someone showed i think Andrea the time is here when they can do printing that rivals any from the past.... so it will look sharper that the original.. To answer why i would then contradict and say you can never find the sources is simple.... we have no idea if we are even speaking about the same posters or run as even the reprints can be reprinted... get my point?? and yet... IF we had a place like Sue and Eds that chronicled all the data it could give a indicator as to some considerations of origination.. But still It would take serious resources and Time and its just not worth it..in the Big picture . I addressed that also... the time spent with studio attorneys and investigators would turn them up however most the sources are in Europe and the Laws are differant.. and also most reprints are never legally lisensded anyways,, and for the quantity sodl would not PAY to stop the forgers,...and they Move like Gypsies... so..... whats the point??? because some collectors want the original release... If you legally LOOK they were never to be sold or even given away as the lisenseing was for exhibit use ONLY and if they sold them then the artist and actors and all would get a piece of the cake... so You collect stolen materials... If we are to all be real... yes the studios and NSS say return....some studios have sued to gt back wardrobe like From John Lebold.. who bought it from them... they changed thier minds when they saw the BUX So everyone return your stolen Movie posters back to Hollywood..:) Interesting note.. ebay wont let 35mm feature films be sold yet 16mm can be.,. so that theatres dont play GWTW or other classic and make Money.. In closeing My point was to start getting facts not hearsay or naming dealers that may have sold a poster that is still not verified by any legal document but only speculation on a news group...Opinions area great and perhaps if we just limited to our opinion.. My opinions are meant to help the hobby not confuse and If I defend anyone its hopefully for positive reasons. My point was to be carefull who we accuse as the posters can in some cases fool the best and I agree that if a person knows and passes off bootlegs its bad business. I personally like reprints and see a need for them for customers and movie lovers that appeciate the film art medium.. However even national screen used some repros on some films and also the re-releases, Hopefully I answered your questions Zeev if not please tell me what needs clarification. best, T lobby card invasion wrote: I must jump into this conversation. I have a problem with some of the things that were said on this topic. First off Tom's post. I don't think that David Lieberman either said, or implied that Greg Egbert was the "single source" of the posters in question. You, on the other hand, are saying, if I understand you correctly, that there are many fakes, many fakers, that some dealers handle both fakes and authentics, some tell you which are fake, some don't, and its all so complicated ......that there's really no point even persuing it. Just recently, when we were discussing the Minty White inserts you said: "what about simply traceing what dealers made the purported IInsert reprints and during what years??" Even though we are now discussing another poster, one aspect still remains the same. An item that is possibly fraudulent, is being passed off as an original. Dave Lieberman was courageous enough to report merely one "alleged offender". I think that is a first step in achieving exactly what you suggested, but now you're saying : " I think that trying to find sources can be misleading.." Are you not contradicting yourself? Secondly, Rick Ryan's says in his post: "To tell you the truth, I'm not a big fan of people who fink on, rat out.....other people" My question to Rick is this: if you know someone is cheating collectors by selling repros and passing them off as originals, and you go and make their name public, does that make you a "fink" or a "rat"? Don't you think that if one cares about the hobby, such action on his part would actually be helpful and commedable? I can understand that some people may be privy to information that may incriminate others, but are reluctant to come forward for a veriety of reasons. They know that innocent people are getting burned by the unscroupulous ones all the time, but choose to be silent for the sake of "self preservation". I can understand that. But when someone finally comes forward and blows the whistle, do we call him a "rat" and a "fink"? Finally, I just want to go on record saying that I DO NOT KNOW MR. EGBERT, never dealt with him, and never heard anything about him, good or bad. Therefore I do neither support or reject Lieberman's assertion. I simply listen, and with time, will arrive at my own conclusions. I met and dealt with Tom Martin, bought posters and lobby cards from Lieberman and Rick Ryan, and have nothing but good things to say about all three, as people and as dealers. (So don't you go busting my ass now :-) ) Zeev ---- Original Message ----- From: Tom Martin To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 1:39 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] Strange Manhattan Style B Bridge "rolled" 1-sheet Maybe he does .. im not defending that the posters are real..... or how he conducts himself. I m just trying to claiify that the reprints went to many sources not Just one person ur Greg,, Kusmotos statement was as if you had found the single sourge the posters originated from If you can do that you probably could find Osam Bin Laden... so get real.. However remember some of the dealers that have originals also did re-stickes ( reproductionc) and also carry posters from others that were repros.. some were good - like the ones from Texas. and also Micael Savageau Of Po-flake ( illinois) who did great titles.. ( lost his investment on it) yep Adam Fishman of NYC did MPR posters and last i heard Marty bought them.. i could have bought many of these lots and did.. I bought two pallets of artiricordi of Italy.... Ira Roberts of Beverly hills.. and many many more... however I didnt print them.... I jsu bought remainders many of the legit poster dealers sold one sheets as they got the rights,,, even Musicland with there connections Got One stop posters of Montery Calif to shrink wrap supposed 1 sheets that even had a sticker ( suncoast was my customer who is owned by same goody- aka Musicland- and owne -oncue// ) so i know alittel about the mass market Greg sells to Hollywood shops and dealers and does internet.. he was a advertiser in Movie collectors world and has sold los of posters.. yes many dealers will not tell the customers the deal... as far as finding the source I dis agree the source for a pile but the fact is those postesr have been sold by 100s if not 1000s of people that have assumed they had the original. as you stated on Mopeo you couldndt tell the differance,, so you are saying Greg is the source?? maybe of some and if he admists it to you whats that mean??? If he wants to run his business that way thats his choice.. But to state hes the single source for those manhattens is in my opinion incorrect as I bought some from England , Italy and Germany... sorry not end of story// you found one dealer.. that has some reprints . and im not defending Greg as I havent spoke to him in afew years. But fact is he was one of the largest buyers of posters of volume.. and bul lots before you make concrete statements such as " end of story " and saying one dealer is the source of all reprints of a title wouldnt it be prudent to know the facts? no cigar David go back to start.. I have some of my Hollywood Dream factory® 1988 fully illistrated catalogs that depict many of the posters in question Ill send anyone for 10.00 postpaid while they last...a collectable itself postpaid. then you can see what i mean and it was 1988 when many of the repros were fresh paypal accepted. 419-662-5584 or mail pobox 5861 Toledo, Ohio 43613 David Lieberman wrote: egbert knows they are not real. he told me. end of story. David A. Lieberman CineMasterpieces.com 602 309 0500 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ See what's free at AOL.com. 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.
