Steve,
While I think Profiles did a poor job of presenting the poster with
their low-quality pictures and initial sketchy description, they
actually *did* take responsibility and do the right thing prior to
putting it in their catalog -- they went to one of the most respected
experts in the field and paid him good money to carefully inspect and
authenticate the DRACULA poster and issue a certificate to that effect.
The fact that the expert blew it isn't really their fault and they
continued to behave responsibly once others started pointing out
problems. Well, OK, the community actually had to beat them over the
head about it, but hey, they had paid for a certificate of authenticity
from a recognized expert, so why shouldn't they have stood by it as long
as they did?
I don't believe that prior to these revelations that anyone in movie
poster collecting would have had anything but high praise for John Davis
and his capabilities. So, PIH went to the best available, not some
fly-by-night so-called "expert."
This whole incident just spotlights the fact that it is getting damn
near impossible for someone to authenticate a linen-backed poster (or a
card stock-based poster that has had its original card stock backing
replaced).
This is why I've been saying that the restoration and backing operations
have to police themselves, form an organization to determine standards
and practices (including identifying seals and serial numbers in ink on
the back of the linen which would be linked to public disclosure of what
work is done). This organization would then issue an "underwriters
laboratory" seal which a cooperating restoration operations would
display, thus assuring their customers that they were complying with
those standards and practices.
But what about the forger who puts on a fake seal and serial number from
some reputable restoration service?
Thats why public disclosure is absolutely necessary -- because if anyone
can look at that number on the back of the linen-backed poster, call up
that operation to confirm the number and that it is the same poster they
are looking at (and what work was done to it), then putting such
fraudulent identifying marks on a fake would be useless -- and in fact
would set off an immediate alarm that someone was trying to pull a fast one.
The place to stop this fraud is on the restoration and backing tables.
-- JR
Steven F. Poole wrote:
Bang up job on the letter, Rich.
However, one area of all of this that I believe needs to be
addressed is the responsibility of Profiles itself. The auction house
is not a "victim," really, in this fiasco. As others have pointed
out previously on this forum, the auction house which charges about
1/5 of the hammer price on an item MUST stand in the docket when the
issue of fraud is raised.
They (auction houses) wax enthusiastically about their offerings
when it comes to advertising the wares that have been entrusted with
on consignment. They (auction houses) take their pound of flesh on
both ends in the form of consignment fees and buyer's premiums. They
(auction houses) must be held accountable when they promote a poster
that has a retail value of some $300 on the cover of their prestigious
catalogue and estimate that same poster to have a possible auction
value in the hundereds of thousands of dollars.
Sad, Sad, Sad. state of affairs. Proclaimed "ignorance" of
printing techniques is no excuse whatsoever as to their culpability in
this thwarted attempted massive fraud upon the hobby.
Steve Poole (
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: lists...@listserv.american.edu
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
