Is ""very fine minus" better or worse than "fine plus"?
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 6:51 PM, James Richard <[email protected]>wrote: > Rich, > > We seem to be remembering the circumstances differently. You seem to think > people on MOPO started "dumping" on it without checking with the seller > first. As I recall, the seller was contacted first but didn't provide > anything in the way of viable assurance about authenticity. I didn't > participate in that question-the-Creature discussion (at least I don't think > I did and I'm not inclined to search the archives to make sure), but as I > recall,after Diane came out and confirmed that she had backed it and felt it > was authentic, that was pretty much the end of the discussion. So, I don't > really see why you're steamed up about it now, at this late date. I don't > recall you objecting to the discussion at the time it was taking place. > > As for the asking price, again, we seem to be remembering things > differently. Heritage just sold the exact same poster last week "very fine > minus on linen" for $10,755 -- nowhere near the $15 K being asked for the > other one (and I thought the last asking price was $18 K, but whatever, I > really wasn't all that interested at the time). The point is, the price was > obviously too high, since Heritage sold the same poster for over $4 K less > within the same week or so. See: > > http://movieposters.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=7014&Lot_No=89274 > > Going back to March 18 2006, Heritage sold another for $10,925. And yet > another on March 5 for $10,637. Check their archives. Since we all agree > Heritage auctions tend to set the high retail prices, it seems like the > market has been saying for some time that this poster fine on linen is worth > around $11 K, maybe as much as $13 K in the right condition and bidding-war > circumstances. Yes, there are also a couple there which went for around $13 > K... and one stand-out aberration that went for $25 K (must be the same > phenom that caused someone to bid a PULP FICTION from Bruce up to $580 this > week... madness does sometimes set in on a particular auction). > > I think the fact that, along with the extremely high starting price, > Heritage advertising an identical auction at the same time had more to do > with the other Creature not selling than anything else. Calling it a > "victim" doesn't work for me -- unless you're saying the seller was the > victim of his own greed by setting the opening bid to high. We both know > that's not the way to attract bidder interest. I think last week's Heritage > Creature started out around $6 K or so. > > But, as you say, there is no way of knowing what a particular poster will > go for at auction, we can only go by past recent sales as a general > guideline, but what happens when the final bidding starts is totally > unpredictable. > > No, of course I'm not saying that if you somehow "find a Frankenstein > one-sheet and pay $25k for it that I'm only allowed to ask $50k two weeks > later" -- and you know I'm not. Ken's situation is totally different from > that. He did not "find" the Metropolis poster, did he? I wasn't paying > attention at the time, but didn't he win it in a well-publicized auction, > beating out all other bidders and thus establishing the record-high price > for that particular poster in 2005? Surely anyone else who wanted that > poster and had the means to buy it was there bidding against Ken in 2005. > So, unless some new millionaires have entered movie poster collecting in the > last 4 years, the others weren't interested in paying more than $700 K for > it 4 years ago and, given the kind of economy we've had since then, there is > no logical reason to suppose they or anyone else would be paying to pay a > whole more now, a mere 4 years later. Maybe a bit more, but certainly not > $1.3 million more. Sure, anything *can* happen, but the expectation is not > reasonable. It's wishful thinking. > > The thing is, you still haven't explained why you think I was "dumping" on > Ken or the poster. I was just offering my perfectly valid opinion that > asking $2 million for it was way too high. People are entitled to their own > opinions, Rich. And that's mine. Not sure why you're attacking me about it, > or for staying so in public since the auction was public, but since I've > explained my reasons for holding such an opinion twice now and I'm done with > this particular discussion. > > > -- JR > > > > > > Richard Halegua Comic Art wrote: > > JR > > Creature first: that poster was a victim. whether it affected the sale or > not is questionable. Yes at one point it was $21k. Later it was $15k.. right > in line with a natural price for the item. After that poster did not sell, 2 > other copies did sell above the $15k that he was asking. > > But the problem is this, not that the poster was spoken about - but that it > was totally shit on. > As I said, there are ways to comment intelligently, but the posts on that > item from a couple members in particular was disastrous. > > Yes, it is up to knowledgeable people to bring forth this issues, but it > can be done in an informed and classy manner. The comments on the item were > not done so. > It was shit on first, and then did the questions go to the seller. Why > couldn't the members who shit on it first have asked questions first?? > > There is something called "presumed innocent until proven guilty" but the > attacks on that poster were in the reverse of that. That is just wrong. > > You can disagree without being disagreeable is the point. > > Concerning your comments on Metropolis, Ken can defend himself just fine. > He's a smart guy. But my point was that you were shitting on his poster's > price, not that you commented about the poster > > for the record, Ken bought the poster in 2005, not a couple years ago. He > saved for months as he sold posters to complete the deal. > > Pricing such a poster is not a standard formula. It has nothing in common > with Goldfinger 1 sheets for instance in that regard. We all know what > Goldfinger posters sell for on average, so it's easy to comment that someone > is asking too much when he prices it at $5000. It's easy to price This Gun > For Hire, or Wizard of Oz.. these posters - while not exactly common - do > come to market often enough to price correctly. Metropolis, Dracula, Bride > of Frankenstein etc cannot be priced in such a manner. These are posters > that reside in a no-mans land. The Metropolis 3sh is (I believe) only one of > two (or is it 3?) copies known or rumored to be in private hands. All other > copies are in institutional hands. Institutional collections do not sell (in > general), so it's possible that never again will a copy of this poster be > available for sale. So in pricing... the sky's the limit. > > Another thing: you seem to indicate that whatever Ken's asking price is > should bear some relation to his cost or time held.. Why?? > Does that mean if I find a Frankenstein one-sheet and pay $25k for it that > I'm only allowed to ask $50k two weeks later?? That's ridiculous. Posters of > this nature do not have any basis for pricing beyond "what the owner wants, > if you want to buy it". > > If the person(s) who has a billion $$ is the presumed market, does it > matter if it's $700k, $1mil or $5mil?? > Similarly, if the person(s) who don't think the poster is worth $2mil could > afford it if it was $50k, does that matter?? > > What I think the poster is worth is irrelevant because I am not a potential > buyer. > > Todd's Black Cat poster (not Dracula JR) sold for less in the auction that > the winning bidder's top bid proxy. So Todd got short-changed in a way as he > knows the buyer, though he may not have known what his ceiling price may > have been if they did a deal together outside of Heritage. Posters of this > nature have no "standard rule". *It's what the market will bear > > *furthermore, the only real consideration Ken would need to give it is "do > I need the cash today right now immediately and so what price can I achieve > right this moment?" or "I could care less if I sell the poster unless I can > really kick ass and make a real change in my life". I suggest Ken is in the > latter of the two groups > > To the people who make the comments on values, forgeries etc.. there are > ways to comment without "tainting" someone's property, certainly JR's > comments could not taint a Metropolis 3sh, but I have no doubt that the > CFTBL comments did taint that poster in some way because they created an > atmosphere of worry around the item.. There is no justification for that, > especially if the people who created that atmosphere could have gotten the > information first on the poster's authenticity (which they did not) and been > able to post INFORMED DATA. > > one more point. People like to say :if you want to find the real price, > auction it" > this is not really correct.. Auction prices on most items (above 90%+) are > below market prices in general. That's why so many dealers buy merchandise > at auction. Dave's price on the YOLT subway poster may be on the high side, > but the $700+ it sold for on ebay is very low. There is a difference between > "auction price" and "retail price" and also as we know, you can buy > chocolate at Wal Mart or on Rodeo Drive. On Rodeo Drive the price can be > multiples of what you pay at Wal Mart, but who's to say that Rodeo Drive has > the wrong price?? the easy answer...... the person who buys it. > > Rich > > At 11:32 AM 11/22/2009, James Richard wrote: > > Aw, Rich, c'mon... that Creature poster didn't sell because the asking > price was too high is all... as you said about the Metropolis offering, > anyone on this list interested in buying that poster would have seen Diane's > statement about it here and felt confident in purchasing it -- had the price > been reasonable. Just my partial answer to your question, since I don't > believe I ever posted a comment on that particular Creature thread and so > don't have a dog in that hunt. > > I would point out that at the time the Creature thread started, we were in > the midst of the breaking stories on the Universal Horror fakes and a fake > linen backed Creature had just been recently identified. It was perfectly > reasonable at the time for people to wonder about the authenticity of this > or any other higher-priced linen backed poster. Knowing what we now know > (and most us still don't know the whole story or the massive extent of this > situation) I think *everyone* should question the authenticity of *any* > higher-priced linen backed poster at this point -- and hold off purchasing > until some kind of provenance or third-party information can be presented > with it (as with Diane's statement on this one). Now, look, I realize > dealers don't like this idea one little but that's how I feel about pricey > linen backed posters at this point and I'm sure I'm not alone. The sooner > the selling community gets together (hey, have a conference in Dallas) and > establishes some kind of provenance's and independent verification system, > these kinds of questions are going to be asked by potential buyers. And well > they should be. > > So, to finish answering this questions, asking about a poster on this list > is precisely what this list it for. It allows for the soliciting of not just > opinions about a poster, but in this case caused Diane to step forward and > confirm the poster's authenticity. How else would that provenance have come > to light if not for a question about it on this list. MOPO isn't just a > place for sellers to post the FA messages. It it were, very shortly there > would be no one but sellers as members of MOPO. > > I'm not sure what you objected to in my comment about the Metropolis > poster, unless it was just that you are friends with Ken. After all, the > first thing I said was that it was a beautiful poster (who could argue with > that). Then I said was that the asking price of $2 million bucks was absurd, > since this poster sold a couple of years ago for $700,000. Sure, a seller > can ask whatever they want, but $2 million is clearly nowhere near a > reasonable price to expect to get for this poster at this time (maybe 20 > years from now it might be). That is three times what the owner paid for it > a couple of years ago and that $700 K was obviously the high-water price at > that point -- the most anyone interested in that poster was willing to pay a > couple of years ago. Which is why my mentioning the recession was also > perfectly appropriate. While collectible prices may hold up better in a > recession than most other things, in an economic collapse as serious as this > one, you just don't get the kind of continual, ever-increasing price run-ups > that would allow such a huge jump in what people are willing to pay for this > poster in just a couple of years. Even if a museum wanted it, their > acquisition budgets have been cut back as well. > > You ask "How do you reliably price such gems that are in such short supply > that only a small few people around the world can own them". Well, you > know perfectly well how. If you want to sell it you put it out there for > auction and see what the market is willing to pay, as Todd just did with his > Dracula. You also know that the proper strategy for this is to start the > bidding at a realistic level, as Heritage did with Todd's poster, and see > where it goes from there. And besides, if Ken really wants to sell this > poster, we all know that eBay is not the place to do it. Christies is. > > $2 million is not even remotely a realistic expectation and everyone knows > it. I was just stating the obvious... perhaps that was what you really > objected to? I dunno... > > -- JR > > Richard Halegua Comic Art wrote: > > I have a question for our members: > > why is it so common that people on this board & others feel the need to > "thread crap" on people's items that are listed for sale??? > > It happens all to often and is almost always unjustified > > For instance, the recent dumping on the CFTBL 1sheet that was listed on > fleaBay of which there was so much chat on these boards questioning it's > authenticity, even after Diane Jeffrey pointed out that she had linenbacked > the poster in question. The poster went unsold and you have to wonder if the > thread-crapping by certain members affected the fellow's ability to sell his > poster, and what for?? > > I have no argument with anyone who makes justified comments on thieves, but > ruining someone's reputation or ability to sell something they own is really > something that goes over the line. > > Now I'm not saying that JR is ruining anything on Schacter's Metropolis > poster in particular. Largely because anyone interested in that poster could > care less what anyone on this board except a small few advanced collectors > might think, but I have no doubt that bashing on some items (like the CFTBL > 1sh) affects the sellers, and you have to ask - "for what purpose?" > > JR is a friend of mine, and I do believe it's his right to comment on > postings to this board like it is anyone else's right.. but there are ways > to disagree without being disagreeable and that's the difference between > *"thoughtful > commentary"* and *"thread crapping"* and honestly, I think JR is off base > on this one and a tad over the line > > Questioning the authenticity of the CFTBL poster should have begun by > questioning the seller directly, and getting the required information to > make justifiable comments. It should not begin by indicating something is > hinky. That's just poor journalism due to a lack of understanding what the > facts are. It's alot like Sarah Palin calling a proposal to fund "end of > life discussion with your doctor" a Government "Death Panel".. It's a total > crock of shit, and those posts will follow that CFTBL poster around for some > time. How can anyone think that's right?? It's like the guy who gets called > a pedophile and is on the front page of every newspaper in America and then > when the facts reveal that the claim was a lie, the retraction is on page 23 > in small print. His life is ruined because of all the sewing circle nannys > who needed gossip. > > To the Metropolis poster.. who can say what the poster is worth?? Or who > can say what Ken is justified in when profiting on his possession?? > > No question, the poster is very rare, although my understanding is that > there are more copies extant than the four he mentions in his listing that > are held in institutional collections. regardless, the poster is what is > referred to in art circles as *"priceless"* just as Todd's (and Borst's) > copies of posters like Dracula. How do you reliably price such gems that are > in such short supply that only a small few people around the world can own > them?? > > Do I feel the poster is worth $2,000,000?? > > To be honest, I don't have an opinion on that factor. It belongs to Ken, > you can't find another if you try. He can ask whatever he feels like asking. > If someone wants to fork over $2m, that's between him and Ken, just like if > someone wants to give Todd $995,000 for his Dracula poster - that's between > Todd and the buyer. > > We're not talking about a Forbidden Planet poster that is easily found, or > a Day the Earth Stood Still or a Dr No Quad, all posters that can be had for > a certain price and if someone were to ask $50,000 for any of them that we > can all point to market sales indicating true values.. The Metropolis poster > is the equivalent of *"one of a kind rarity"* and is not subject to the > same equivocations as posters that you can find if you're looking. > > For the record, I'm not shocked at the $2,000,000 asking price Ken has on > the poster - I'm shocked that he is interested in selling the poster at all > seeing as he worked so hard to put the money together to buy it and saved so > many months.. > > Rich > > 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.
