JR, I have been attending auctions for 45+ years. Auctions are fast paced and auctioneers are obliged to state pertinent information before an item is to be auctioned, however, auctioneers are not obligated to engage in what may seem as 'hand-holding' to novice bidders. I have yet to attend an auction whereby the auction displayed similar items to be used as reference material, (possibly to avoid confusion as to which item is currently being auctioned, though I have noted price guides/reference books that were provided as a courtesy). As the apparent value of items in any respective auction are increased, all prospective/interested bidders should have done some type of 'homework' before committing to any purchase that is beyond the realm of an 'impulse buy'. It is plain common sense as well as good business acumen. After reading and re-reading your message, methinks there are some responses with possible 'out of context' referencing / slight inaccuracies in your reply ... I'll try to address some (not all) of those by highlighting/italicizing in your reply copied below ... In any case, if offense was taken in my original reply, I apologize, as I meant no personal affront. Regards, ad
--- On Tue, 9/1/09, James Richard <[email protected]> wrote: From: James Richard <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [MOPO] FRANKENSTEIN 1/2 sheet vs TC from Heritage To: [email protected] Date: Tuesday, September 1, 2009, 3:17 AM Allen, Oh really... how silly... your ridiculously exaggerated examples (your original message contained a statement copied below ...But by the same measure of value you cite, doesn't the fact that there were no other known examples mean that extraordinary measures were called for prior to and during the auction of this particular item?In hindsight, I should have noted that future posters with greater estimated values may need greater measures, hence the lead phrase ..."By extension") are nothing like the sensible suggestion I made so, what is the point of bringing them up as a reason for not doing what I suggested? Nor did I suggest "unending disclosure". Nor did I suggest such reasonable, prudent and appropriate measures would necessarily be called for in all cases (nor did I), or even most cases (they clearly are not) but only in the cases of very pricey and rare, not-often-seen items where such sensible measures become more critical and important. So please take down your straw man, he's obscuring the view. What you really seem to think is that the auction house/dealer should take no responsibility to verify a pricey item themselves (not stated or intimated), independent of the current owner's statement (previous owner expired, no statement entered), or provide additional vital information (such as a comparison photo of a known genuine item) to aid and educate those people bidding $10,000... $20,000... $30,000 or more on the items they are offering? You feel it is sufficient for them to simply pass on "what the previous owner said" about what some unnamed restoration expert said? In this case the description didn't even mention the name of this expert (Carol Tincup was noted) (who was obviously not quite so expert in retrospect). You think that's good enough where such dollar amounts are concerned? (I will copy my original message, as I cannot grasp your reply ... There was no hype, the description stated a previous owner and a restoration expert, as well as the previous availability in the market.I am unsure how to respond to the rhetorical questions in your paragraph above, as they are beyond the scope of my message.) But what the hey, it's only money... people can do with it what they will and as I said, there ain't no law saying Heritage or any other auction house or retail dealer owes any bidder anything beyond putting up a picture and description of the item, bringing down the hammer, collecting the loot and shipping the stuff out the door. But if that's the way it's going to continue to be done then nobody should be shocked... shocked, I tell you... to discover that some fraud is perpetrated from time to time if the auction houses/dealers are just going to be shills for the consigners/suppliers and accept no responsibilities to the buyers for verification and comparison information. As for your concerns that what I suggest "could create disinterest, devalue the poster, harm the consignor, and negate future business..." Hmmm... just how is honesty and verification and full disclosure going to cause that? And what does it say about this business if it does? Perhaps the real concern should be how many more $25,000 and up posters are going to be sold if this sort of scandal keeps cropping on up, as it has more and more often in recent years? Kirby estimated there have already been as much as $2 million in fraudulent sales already. I hardly think doing nothing, changing nothing, and simply continuing to carry on as usual is the best approach to this situation. But, of course, others may think differently. -- JR allen day wrote: By extension, Heritage Auctions could have provided scans of each square inch at 30x, and someone would/could note that 60x scans at each centimeter square should have been provided. If an additional poster (with some restoration) may be provided for comparison, why not 2 additional depending on amount of restoration? There was no hype, the description stated a previous owner and a restoration expert, as well as the previous availability in the market. It is the job of the buyer to distill any / all information when making an informed decision. Grey Smith / Heritage Auctions certainly need no assistance from me to defend their business model, but to imply/suggest that the auctioneer should be tasked with (apparent unending) disclosure could create disinterest, devalue the poster, harm the consignor, and negate future business (from consignors and buyers). ad --- On Mon, 8/31/09, James Richard <[email protected]> wrote: From: James Richard <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [MOPO] FRANKENSTEIN 1/2 sheet vs TC from Heritage To: [email protected] Date: Monday, August 31, 2009, 5:37 AM Grey (and others commenting on this aspect), I sympathize with you in this situation. I really do. I've auctioned items worth many thousands before myself and agonized over writing the descriptions. I did point out in my post that virtually ALL auctioneers and sellers engage in this kind of thing to one degree or another -- it's part of doing business. And I think it's important to remember and acknowledge that you seem to have been instrumental in uncovering the extent of this current scandal. Note I said that the half sheet description made it "sound" like a silk purse, not that it "claimed" it was a silk purse. Technically, there was nothing "wrong" with the description, it's just that the overall effect did a lot to make it sound like it was worth the estimated $25,000 to $35,000. OK, sure, that *is* what a good auctioneer is supposed to do: hype the consignment. But at some point that part of the job description can come into a conflict of interest with other responsibilities of the job description. My real point was that if a good picture of the title card (which had the same art) had been shown with the auction, then the bidders could have made a direct comparison themselves at the time and so made a "more educated" evaluation. But, then, there ain't no law saying auctioneers or dealers need to accommodate their bidders to that extent. But by the same measure of value you cite, doesn't the fact that there were no other known examples mean that extraordinary measures were called for prior to and during the auction of this particular item? I do personally feel that the higher the hammer price is likely to be, that a greater responsibility must logically fall upon on the auctioneer/dealer to do more to insure accuracy and authenticity. I also think there has to be some consideration given to the fact that we are now in the 21st century, with all this new technology, and so "let the buyer beware" can't continue to be the Golden Rule (and ultimate rationale) it once was. As for the other questions you asked about how far one should go and where it all ends -- I think those answers are something only your own organization (and all the others) will have to decide upon for themselves. It's a challenge, no doubt. I wish you and everyone else all the best in grappling with this issue. -- JR Smith, Grey - 1367 wrote: JR You mention "silk purse from a...", perhaps, but when it is the only sow's ear on earth, it is assuredly, in many people's eyes, a silk purse! Concerning including an image of the title card next to the half sheet, not a bad idea but where does that end? Should we end up trying to offer comparisons on all we sell. This is exactly why we continue to offer the service of high res images forever on our site and are the only poster seller that does so. As Heritage has always suggested, educate yourself on anything you purchase. Thus the reason for the link to comparables on every page of our auctions. This is also something that only Heritage offers to their bidders. From: MoPo List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of James Richard Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 2:40 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MOPO] FRANKENSTEIN 1/2 sheet vs TC from Heritage I might be so audacious and impertinent as to suggest that a responsible and highly-regarded auction house catering to the very well-to-do and regularly selling tens of millions of dollars of high-priced collectibles every year would have taken it upon themselves to include a high resolution picture of the title card along with the half sheet auction so that the bidders could have made the comparison themselves at the time of the sale. But I guess I'm just being naive... despite the cries of shock and horror over the last few days, "let the buyer beware" is still the Golden Rule in our society. -- JR Douglas Ball wrote: Side by side, yes, but when the auction took place it looked damn good! Doug ----- Original Message ----- From: JOHN REID Vintage Movie Memorabilia To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2009 7:04 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] FRANKENSTEIN 1/2 sheet vs TC from Heritage There is indeed a very big difference between the two. 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. 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.
