In thsi spirit of "clearing the air", I thought this would be a great time for Bob Brooks to confirm or deny something he has posted repeatedly, namely that I (Bruce Hershenson) at one time defended the "minty white" inserts as genuine, and that it was only after Bob and Dan exposed them as fakes that I changed my tune and denounced them.
I am not calling Mr. Brooks a liar, but I have no memory of the above events happening, and I am wondering if it is possible that Mr. Brooks is either mis-remembering the series of events, or perhaps confusing me with some other person. I ask him to produce the evidence of his repeated statements to the above sequence of events (posts from forums, my e-mail club, private e-mails, etc). If he can, I will publically apologize to him for ever having doubted him, and for ever saying these fake inserts were real. If he can't, I don't care if he apologizes, but ask that never again post something along these lines, since he would have no factual proof of what he said. I know that I was first warned about these inserts long before Bob or Dan ever posted about them, for I was privately contacted by two major dealers who were offered them soon after they first appeared (were printed), and who turned them down and who called me to warn me about these fakes. According to Bob's memory of events, I would have had to then go on and begin defending these after that time, which seems to me to indicate a clear memory lapse on his part. I am very much hoping to settle this, because I think there are clear "bad guys" in this hobby (who repeatedly sell fakes as real) and I think it hampers efforts to stop them or at least slow their criminal behavior when some of the "good guys" fight amongst themselves. Bruce On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Bob Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thank Mark Lawd, actually. > > Definitely! That was the best information I've ever heard about that > poster, bar none (although, I never saw what Dan's conclusions were, I'm > guessing pretty much the same thing). Makes much more sense than there > being 3, 4, 5 different original print-runs... Too bad we don't have anyone > who worked on it at the time to confirm or deny... > > Cheers, > > Bob > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Phil Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > *To:* [email protected] > *Sent:* Friday, November 07, 2008 12:21 PM > *Subject:* Re: [MOPO] E.T. BIKE POSTER - WORTH READING > > Thank Mark Lawd, actually. He asked me to post it on his behalf and after > reading it, I thought it brought a common sensical approach to the subject. > Phil > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* McDaniel Kirby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > *To:* [email protected] > *Sent:* Saturday, November 08, 2008 12:55 AM > *Subject:* Re: [MOPO] E.T. BIKE POSTER - WORTH READING > > Good post, Phil. Thank you for that. > So.... was all that backbiting necessary? > > Kirby > > On Nov 6, 2008, at 7:40 PM, Phil Edwards wrote: > > Hi all - Mark Lawd has asked me to post this to MOPO. > I can take no responsiblity for its content, it's simply offered from > someone who > has supplied information/knowledge that might be useful in the discussions > on this poster. > Phil > > ******* > > *I am unable to post directly on MOPO currently but need to address some > of the matters raised on this thread.* > > * > * > > *I bought Bob B's ET "bike" poster years ago but had to have it re-backed > in a more archival manner. Therefore the dimensions are likely to have been > distorted. That goes for any backed poster. I still have this poster – a > typed note originally attached to it says "This ET poster was specially > created for Steven Spielberg and we are proud to present this limited > edition poster to the children of our MCA/PAC members".* > > * > * > > *There are 27 x 41 "bike" posters. Dan R has one. I have one.* > > * > * > > *Dan bought his one around three years ago from an ebay seller with > obvious but unmentioned studio connections, who had an incredible number of > authentic rolled posters (usually found folded) in great condition from the > late 1970's/early 1980's that she was selling individually. One of these was > a rolled/unbacked 27 x 41 "bike" poster with a dedication/signature (NOT by > Spielberg). I believe, but may be wrong, that this prompted Dan's further > and thorough research on the matter. Months later, his findings went up on > his website and his view, which I share, was that there was a very limited > first original printing (27 x 41) – maybe around 100 posters - and a limited > second original printing (26 ¾ x 40 ½) – maybe around 1000 posters. I > realised Bob's poster was a second printing – although I couldn't rely on > the dimensions being accurate anymore my poster had the slight printing > defect in the right hand margin that Dan associated with this printing.* > > * > * > > *A few months later I saw a 27 x 41 "bike" poster with Spielberg's > dedication/signature - "To George, Always Fly High with E.T., best Steven > Spielberg" on ebay. Of course, 99% of ebay signatures are fake but I had > more than a hunch that this would be a genuine signature on a first > printing, given the quality of the seller, Ken S and the circumstances in > which he acquired it. I won the auction - the rolled/unbacked poster was > exactly as described and the differences between this and Bob's poster were > obvious to see – the 27 x 41 has very noticeably deeper, darker colours and > a right margin without the printing error.* > > * > * > > *In September 2008 Bruce H. was selling a 26 ¾ x 40 ½ "bike" poster and he > stated that "there are no 27 x 41 posters in existence". He amended his > description, which he is always professional enough to do, when I presented > him with my knowledge on the poster although he erroneously added in his > revised description that his poster was from the first theatrical release – > the poster was of course never released in this way despite Christie's > continually referring to it as having been "withdrawn" in their auctions. I > recall checking Dave L.'s site at the time to see how much he was selling > these posters for and encountered a similar statement to the effect the > poster was not printed 27 x 41. A thread then started on this subject on > Movie Poster Forum and I believe Dave subsequently amended his website > description as a direct result of that.* > > * > * > > *In conclusion, my personal view is that there was indeed a very low > initial print run of the 27 x 41 posters and that the majority of these were > personally signed by Spielberg and his close associates and selectively > given to a very privileged small circle of people. I imagine such a > personalised gift would be cherished by the recipients - that is why they > are so rarely seen on the market - my poster came from the deceased > recipient's estate. I believe the second printing was authorised later for > distribution amongst cast/crew and studio employees – this is consistent > with the note on Bob's poster and someone's recollection that these were > freely available for staff to take home from the studio reception. Because > of the iconic nature of this image and its importance to Spielberg I believe > a premium should be attached to a first printing over a second printing > although both should be considered original.* > > * > * > > *marklawd* > > > 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. > > ------------------------------ > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.0/1773 - Release Date: 11/7/2008 > 9:08 AM > > 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.
