There is certainly only one Kirby McDaniel. You add much to MoPo and the hobby.
On 4/13/12, Kirby McDaniel <[email protected]> wrote: > If there are four it is still rare. If there are 10, it is rare. In the > whole world? It is rare. > > Anyone who says that a poster is the "only one in existence" isn't thinking > very hard. > > "Only known copy" is fair. "Few known" is fair. Only copy in existence > implies omniscience. > > There are few known people in the movie poster hobby who are omniscient. > > Kirby > > > > > Kirby McDaniel > MovieArt Original Film Posters > P.O. Box 4419 > Austin TX 78765-4419 > 512 479 6680 www.movieart.net > mobile 512 589 5112 > > On Apr 13, 2012, at 9:24 AM, Geraldine Kudaka wrote: > >> I've always wondered about this "rarity" >> >> We have two Israeli Star Wars one sheets. I've seen claims saying the >> poster listed was the only one in existence. As we have two of these >> Israeli posters, and I think it was Carrie Fischer who put hers up on ebay >> a couple of years ago, that makes at least 3 others. >> >> From: David Kusumoto <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 10:29 PM >> Subject: Re: [MOPO] An auction house to avoid >> >> All four were sold at auction. the first in London via Christies, >> claiming it was the only one in existence, then one in NY via Sothebys and >> one on the west coast and the last through Christies again in NY. >> Wow. With the four Adrian mentions above - and the two that Heritage sold >> - that's at least SIX COPIES of "The Outlaw" in the six-sheet format - >> once billed as having just one copy in existence. I wouldn't be surprised >> if a seventh (7th) copy is waiting in the wings as potential "rainy day >> money" for the original consignors to collect in the future. Even if I >> presume a couple copies may have since re-sold once or twice by their >> original buyers - we're still talking about a number greater than "1." >> But really, the silliness over "the only copy in existence" is made worse >> by the assertion that an "extra copy was purposely destroyed." Hindsight >> being what it is - all of this could've been avoided if Christie's had >> simply said, "this is the first time this poster has ever been been >> brought to auction." Instead it opted to stick with its "one-of-a-kind" >> story - that only the hobby (vs. the general public) - now knows was an >> outright lie. -d. >> >> Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:47:53 -0400 >> From: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: An auction house to avoid >> To: [email protected] >> >> All four were sold at auction >> >> the first in London via Christies, claiming it was the only one in >> existence, then one in NY via Sothebys and one on the west coast and the >> last through Christies again in NY. A dirty trick was played there by the >> first consultant on these six sheets. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: JOHN REID Vintage Movie Memorabilia <[email protected]> >> To: MoPo-L <[email protected]> >> Sent: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 22:40 >> Subject: Re: [MOPO] An auction house to avoid >> >> Thats all very interesting David >> I had thought it would be highly unlikely that they would have been >> destroyed. I wonder when the next one might show up. >> Regards >> John >> >> Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 18:40:43 -0700 >> From: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: An auction house to avoid >> To: [email protected] >> >> Hi John - >> >> * The extra "Outlaw" six-sheets were NEVER destroyed. This has not been >> reported by the media - but it's ONLY because I was too lazy to pursue the >> issue further after relinquishing my role as a consumer activist/media >> relations liaison for the hobby. The six-sheets were specific to the San >> Francisco area and linked to a billboard company in the 1940s, whose heirs >> brought them to auction. Those heirs were Robert and Patricia League, the >> grandchildren who inherited the posters. Given the tag lines on the >> posters, e.g., "JANE RUSSELL IN PERSON" and "1943's MOST EXCITING NEW >> SCREEN STAR" - AND - their historical link to the Geary Theater in San >> Francisco - it is possible, though HIGHLY UNLIKELY - that the extra >> six-sheets originated elsewhere. I'm saying they didn't. >> >> * It has always been my contention that the extra copies were brought back >> to auction by intermediaries of - OR - by Robert and Patricia League >> themselves. Christie's sale in London in March 2003 was made notorious by >> the release of their statement declaring that an extra copy was >> "destroyed" - in response to the very questions I raised publicly on the >> MoPo boards - AND by phone calls they received from reporters I contacted >> in London and in San Francisco. Extra copies of this poster have surfaced >> at least twice at Heritage - (although others may have surfaced at other >> venues I'm unaware of). Heritage sold a second copy of this poster in >> November 2004 ($32,200 realized), and sold a third copy in November 2009 >> ($29,875 realized). This third copy was linen backed - and had tears, >> chips, paper loss and crossfold separations before restoration, which >> suggests the Leagues sold their "best condition copies" first. >> >> * I'm sure Grey knows the real story - but for confidentiality reasons - >> is prevented from ever disclosing the identity of the consignors of the >> two "Outlaws" Heritage sold in 2004 and 2009. Yet what I've described is >> the story I'm sticking with. What happened placed an exclamation point on >> an auction house manipulating the collectibles market - of rare items to >> boost value - as practiced by Christie's South Kensington in London - when >> it handled the first "Outlaw" six-sheet back in March 2003. Thinking >> back, the public statement that the consignors destroyed an extra copy to >> enhance rarity - still has an air of incredulity to it that defies reason, >> hence I've never believed it. You've got something worth more than $20K. >> You don't destroy your "extras" - which would remove your ability to go >> back to the well to get more money. Even if you have 3, 4 or even more >> copies of something historically important - they're still worth a lot of >> money. That's what made Christie's "we didn't coerce the consignor to >> destroy their second copy" press statement - truly insane. -d. >> >> Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 09:49:42 +1000 >> From: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: An auction house to avoid >> To: [email protected] >> >> Hi David >> Re the Outlaw six sheet controversy, was it ever established if the claim >> that the additional copies were actually destroyed or whether it was just >> a ploy to push the price up? I seem to recall that there has been at least >> one other six sheet appear since the Christies auction. >> Regards >> John >> >> Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 15:44:31 -0700 >> From: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: An auction house to avoid >> To: [email protected] >> >> Geraldine - >> >> * Again, you won't find any "David vs. Goliath" stories on the Internet >> about my fight against Sotheby's - because my "pre-publicity" actions >> resulted in a settlement before "going to press" - with a top Sotheby's >> executive in New York, William Ruprecht - over a poster I won that turned >> out to be a reproduction. I made special arrangements to attend that sale >> in person - hence no way was I going to accept a simple refund for my >> troubles. >> >> * However, some of my disputes with auction houses HAVE made it to the >> press (see copy-and-paste-clips below), e.g., the aforementioned insanity >> involving the alleged "destruction" of an 81 x 81 poster from 1943's, "The >> Outlaw." The consignors - Robert and Patricia League - claimed they >> "destroyed" an extra copy of this poster - an action designed to preserve >> Christie's marketing claim that it was the only copy in existence - >> boosting its hammer price (it sold for around $71,000 in 2003 dollars). >> After the tempest "blew over," the Leagues were later exposed as liars >> within the hobby - when an intermediary acting on their behalf approached >> other auction houses with their "extra copy or copies." Ironically, >> Heritage was the auction house that sold one of these "extras," although >> Heritage itself did nothing wrong - and in fact cross-referenced >> Christie's 2003 sale in its lot description, noting that at the time it >> had been marketed as the only copy in existence. >> >> * What's worth noting - is during my early years as a MoPo member - many >> dealers and auction houses reflexively lined up against me in public - >> because they were mutual friends with an economic interest in the outcome >> of many poster lots. (One member wrote that I should accept Christie's >> statement of a destroyed "extra poster" as fact, absolving it of possible >> collusion, which I felt was ridiculous.) Some of my other battles >> w/dealers and auction houses were worse than those involving "The Outlaw." >> There was a blind spot about some glaring conflict of interest issues and >> their impact on uninformed consumers. I was viewed as a disruptive >> troublemaker who had to be silenced. Many years later, I've since made >> peace with many detractors. And while my actions are still regarded by >> some as being "over the top," the passage of time has allowed common sense >> to prevail, re: the incidents which I actively publicized. But I shudder >> to think what I'd find if I was still a consumer activist today, looking >> for dirt to peddle to the media. -d. >> >> P.S. - I still consider Grey Smith a friend and I trust him. But as you >> may have noticed, only a handful of names beyond my own have jumped in >> with an opinion about this to protect friendships and what not. My >> feeling is I can jump in without overtly taking sides, but I must say that >> I believe neither you nor Grey would have any reason to misrepresent the >> facts as you guys see them. That's why I think neither you nor Heritage >> should give up trying to resolve this. Fairness is what matters in a case >> involving unsolicited consignments absent an inventory receipt provided to >> the recipient. To put it bluntly, things do get lost - but I'm not >> inclined to believe Heritage lost or stole your posters unless proven >> otherwise. >> =========================== >> >> ANTIQUES TRADE GAZETTE (LONDON) >> EDITOR IVAN MACQUISTEN >> 3 March 2003 - STOP PRESS >> It Can Only Happen In The Movies >> Film poster vendor adds to exclusivity of sale by destroying second copy. >> >> Collectors have reacted with outrage and disbelief to a statement >> from the vendors of an apparently unique film poster that a second copy >> had been deliberately destroyed to protect the sale’s exclusivity. >> A bizarre sequence of events surrounds the cover lot of Christie’s >> South Kensington’s Vintage Film Posters sale scheduled for March 4, a >> six-sheet première poster featuring Jane Russell in a famously sultry pose >> for Howard Hughes’s film The Outlaw. >> The poster, which is 6ft 9in (2.05m) square, was catalogued as “the >> only known copy to exist”, but it later became clear that the owners, >> Robert and Patricia League, had another copy in their possession. >> In a signed statement to Christie’s, the Leagues admitted discovering >> the second poster after consigning the original for sale. >> "Having considered the various options open to us, we have made the >> determination that we would destroy the second copy, and can confirm that >> this has been done," the statement adds. >> An American vintage film poster collector, David Kusumoto, told the >> Antiques Trade Gazette that he and fellow collectors on the Internet news >> group MoPo (The Movie Poster Discussion Group) were outraged at the >> statement, saying that in the popular arts world, it was akin to >> destroying one of Van Gogh’s many sunflower paintings to enhance rarity. >> "Whether available in one or two copies, this item remains rare and >> would still command a high figure at auction," Mr Kusumoto told the >> Gazette. "Hence, in my view, the practice of destroying art to achieve >> rarity is abhorrent at worst and questionable at best." >> Though feelings were running high among the movie memorabilia >> enthusiasts last week, casual browsers remained oblivious to this >> behind-the-scenes drama. >> Serious enquirers were being sent a copy of the Leagues’ statement >> revealing that they had taken drastic steps to preserve the status of >> their 'unique' poster. >> Whether their actions will pay off in purely commercial terms remains >> to be seen, but off-screen scandal rarely does anything to harm the >> takings at the box office. >> The Outlaw remains a film that everyone has heard of but few have >> seen. It has thrived on controversy from its première in San Francisco in >> 1943 when it ran for only a week before the censors caught up with its >> sexually explicit content and stepped in to ban it. >> =========================== >> >> SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE >> Tuesday, March 4, 2003 >> DEMOLITION DERBY >> By Leah Garchik >> The grandchildren of the owner of Outdoor Advertiser, a San Francisco >> bill-posting company in business between 1912 and 1970, are selling a huge >> (81 inches by 81 inches) and rare poster of Jane Russell from the movie >> "The Outlaw" at Christie's in London today. >> The poster was made for a one-week showing of the movie -- it's the >> film for which Howard Hughes designed Russell's bra -- at the Geary >> Theater in 1943. Because of its sexual content, it took seven years more >> for "The Outlaw" to be released to the general public. >> The poster is expected to fetch between $17,000 and $24,000. >> When poster buffs started whispering that the sellers owned more than >> one of the rare "six-sheet" (the size designation in poster lingo) >> posters, a vendor's statement was appended to the Christie's listing, >> saying that the item "is the only surviving copy . . . in our possession. >> After initially discovering 'The Outlaw' poster that was sent to >> Christie's, a second complete poster was found. Having considered the >> various options open to us, we have made the determination that we would >> destroy the second copy, and can confirm that this has been done." >> The statement concludes by noting that Christie's was not aware of >> the existence of the second -- now destroyed -- poster when its catalog >> for the sale was printed. >> Rick Pike at Christie's in London told TIC Monday that the >> destruction of the second poster was done "entirely independently" of the >> auction house, and "under no circumstances would we endorse such an >> action." >> TIC asked other experts: "Generally speaking," said Levi Morgan of >> Bonham's & Butterfield's auction house in San Francisco, "this would be an >> unusual situation." >> A TIC source who's in the heart of the business and doesn't want to >> take sides publicly called the destruction "truly insane." >> =========================== >> >> DAILY TELEGRAPH, LONDON >> "UNIQUE" FILM POSTER MAKES £53,000 >> By Will Bennett, Art Sales Correspondent >> (Filed: 5 March 2003) >> >> The owners of a film poster, who destroyed the only other known copy >> in an apparent move to increase its market value, reaped the benefits >> yesterday when it sold for £52,875. >> The poster advertising the 1943 Western The Outlaw, which depicts the >> actress Jane Russell, had been expected to fetch up to £15,000 at >> Christie's South Kensington. Christie's had advertised it as unique and it >> was bought by a British private collector. >> Shortly before the sale, Christie's admitted that the American >> owners, Robert and Patricia League, had destroyed a second copy. >> "The consignors' decision was taken entirely independently as under >> no circumstances would we endorse such an action," said Christie's. >> The Leagues issued a statement which said: "After initially >> discovering The Outlaw poster that was sent to Christie's, a second >> complete poster was found. >> "Having considered the various options open to us we have made the >> determination that we would destroy the second copy and can confirm that >> this has been done. >> "At the time of going to print with the catalogue, we had not made >> Christie's aware of the existence of a second copy." >> A dealer said: "One can only assume that the owners did this to >> increase the market value. It is cultural vandalism." >> The Outlaw, produced by Howard Hughes, was always controversial. >> Censors initially forced it to be withdrawn because of its sexual >> explicitness and focus on Russell's bosom. >> =========================== >> LONDON EVENING STANDARD >> Rare film poster destroyed >> By John Vincent, Evening Standard >> 5 March 2003 >> >> A film poster has fetched £52,875 at auction - after the owners >> destroyed a second copy to protect the sale's exclusivity. >> Robert and Patricia League have admitted they tore up the only other >> copy of the poster, for the 1943 film The Outlaw. An anonymous British >> collector paid around four times more than expected for the surviving >> poster during a Christie's auction. >> The move to tear up the second poster has angered collectors, who >> likened it to destroying one of Van Gogh's many sunflower paintings to >> enhance rarity. >> American collector David Kusumoto said: "The practice of destroying >> art to achieve rarity is abhorrent at worst and questionable at best." >> Christie's, while going ahead with the sale, also expressed >> disapproval at the destruction of the second copy. A spokesman said: "The >> consignor's decision was taken entirely independently - as under no >> circumstances would we endorse such an action." >> >> Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 00:13:35 -0700 >> From: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: An auction house to avoid >> To: [email protected] >> >> Interesting, David, a very interesting view. I googled your David & >> Goliath tale, but to no avail. Search led me to your blog, and although I >> didn't find the Sotheby story, I liked what I read enough to plan on going >> back to read your blog more thoroughly. >> >> So thank you for taking the time to write an account of these events. I >> tend to be a lurker -- mainly because I have so little time to construct >> email responses -- so this makes me fully appreciate the time it takes to >> write a detailed account, as you did. Again, thank you. >> >> From: David Kusumoto <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: Saturday, April 7, 2012 5:11 PM >> Subject: Re: [MOPO] An auction house to avoid >> >> Geraldine - >> >> * My fight against FedEx and Sotheby's did not result in published news >> stories and is not searchable on the Internet. I used very detailed, >> semi-proprietary lists of contacts I have with national and international >> editors, with their phone numbers and e-mails whited out - to demonstrate >> my knowledge of media relations and how I would go about positioning my >> cases as semi-"class action" grievances - to make them relevant to >> consumers. This method prevented my complaints from being positioned by >> FedEx and Sotheby's as an "isolated case involving a disgruntled customer" >> - preserving my efforts to make my spin broader and more newsworthy to >> greedy editors. My controlled and measured responses resulted in their >> finally being shot up to the executive ladder where settlements were >> reached. In the case of FedEx, it refused to pay a claim for "hidden >> damage" of a water color painting I bought when I was in Brugge, Belgium - >> that I had shipped to the U.S. In the case of Sotheby's, I would not >> accept a "refund" as its proposed "remedy" for my purchase of a "Hard >> Day's Night" BQ poster I bought in L.A. that I later discovered was a >> repro. I have no second thoughts about my actions in those cases because >> I was incensed by the involvement of lawyers - because I have routinely >> tangled with a corporation's hardball threats through lawyers when I was a >> writer/reporter/consumer activist in the news biz. (I've never had a case >> against me brought to court, ever - despite countless threats over 30 >> years, because I know the differences between libel/defamation/slander >> laws in the U.S. vs. in other countries.) >> >> * However, there have been other instances where my actions resulted in >> published stories, the most notable being my complaints against Christie's >> London in 2003 and the "claimed" destruction - by a consignor - of a rare >> six-sheet from "The Outlaw" - an action designed to preserve Christie's >> marketing claim of auctioning the only copy of this title in this format >> in the world. >> >> >> >> * My angle was to assail the purposeful destruction of art (as noted in a >> statement issued by Christie's) - to boost perceived rarity - while >> expressing scepticism of the claim that the consignor's "extra copy" was >> destroyed. My actions resulted in stories published in many publications, >> including the London Evening Standard, the London Daily Telegraph, the >> Antiques Trade Gazette and the San Francisco Chronicle, the latter being >> the news organization closest to the consignor's residence. In subsequent >> years, the hobby learned the claimed "destruction" of extra copies of "The >> Outlaw" six-sheets was an outright lie - as the same consignor - through >> intermediaries - brought more copies he had in storage to the auction >> block. All of this happened during my years as a writer and consumer >> activist specific to the poster hobby and the practices of auction houses >> worldwide. I ended such campaigns when I decided to get out of the hobby >> and re-think my priorities after the wildfires swept through our area in >> 2003 and 2007. >> >> * In relation to your complaints, in my view, the media would NOT be >> interested in your tale unless you were able to prove a large loss and/or >> a pattern of errors from Heritage similar to yours. If I were in your >> shoes, I would take another stab at trying to work things out with >> Heritage's customer relations and P.R. departments - so you can put this >> incident behind you in a less combative way, regardless of your >> consignment intentions in the future. In my experience, dealing direct >> with P.R. and customer relations personnel is almost always more effective >> than dealing with lawyers. Within corporations, there is constant >> friction between legal and P.R. departments - and I strongly feel >> consumers can get more things done when dealing with such people because >> they are paid to be responsive to complaints to protect a company's image. >> Dealing with in-house lawyers who love to battle consumers with threats >> of court action get you nowhere and only makes consumers angrier. Again, >> bad P.R. is generally way more damaging to a company than a lawsuit - >> unless that lawsuit is brought by a consumer as a class-action complaint. >> >> David >> >> Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2012 07:29:40 -0700 >> From: [email protected] >> Subject: Fw: [MOPO] An auction house to avoid >> To: [email protected] >> >> ----- Forwarded Message ----- >> From: Geraldine Kudaka <[email protected]> >> To: David Kusumoto <[email protected]> >> Sent: Saturday, April 7, 2012 9:23 AM >> Subject: Re: [MOPO] An auction house to avoid >> >> Very interesting. I'll have to google your name to see what this David vs. >> Goliath case against Sotheby's was. >> >> I had intended to post to the whole group initially and did not realize I >> had merely replied to Bruce. But the time gap was accidentally fortuitous. >> >> >> Between my initial response to Bruce privately and my group posting, I >> retained legal counsel. >> >> The cost of consigning my posters with Heritage has gone up. >> >> ----- Forwarded Message ----- >> From: Geraldine Kudaka <[email protected]> >> To: David Kusumoto <[email protected]> >> Sent: Saturday, April 7, 2012 9:04 AM >> Subject: Re: [MOPO] An auction house to avoid >> >> Thank you David. I had not intended this issue to become a newsworthy >> story on par with the tylenol poisonings or The Komen/Planned Parenthood >> issue. I would find it amusing if it did... it would indicate not much is >> going on in the world... really, little conflicts within niche groups do >> not make it to to the big screen. >> >> Rather than an attack on Heritage, my intention is to warn newbie sellers >> not to be tempted by the big $$$ signs some auction houses offer. If the >> cost to collect your money ends up being a lot of hassle, or having to >> prove you did send in X,Y & Z, is it really worth it? >> >> If you sell, as the sellers at the West Berkshire auction did, can you >> collect your money? >> >> Fom: David Kusumoto <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: Friday, April 6, 2012 7:10 PM >> Subject: Re: [MOPO] An auction house to avoid >> >> * That's true. If Geraldine posts again, we'll know more. But even if we >> presume her e-mail program has a predictive text function - there's a big >> jump between the "B" in Bruce and the "M" in MoPo List. Her note to the >> group seems - on the surface at least - intentional to me. One other >> thing I forgot to mention. Having once worked at a Fortune 500 company, I >> know the following as FACTS. Big corporations are rarely fearful of >> litigation. That's what their lawyers are for. One strategy is to drain >> a plaintiff's or a defendant's pool of funds covering legal fees. And >> once the lawyers are involved, they almost ALWAYS counsel NO response to >> further public attacks, e.g., putting up a stone wall of silence to >> preserve their positions in potential litigation. >> >> * However, these same corporations are almost ALWAYS WAY MORE FEARFUL of >> bad press. They can't control the press - and the bad stories ultimately >> reaches stakeholders/customers whose reactions - can have an adverse >> effect on a corporation's revenues and industry reputation. Public >> opinion, not fear of lawsuits, are responsible for the "180s" we see in >> the most prominent case histories, e.g., Bank of America and the Komen >> Foundation. BTW, this is the way environmental groups, for example, >> operate. Lacking budgetary resources to fight lawsuits, they are very >> creative in their efforts to garner media attention, feeding into the >> conflict-driven agendas of newsrooms. When I was a reporter, I was always >> told to "test the demonstrators" by seeing if they marched and shouted >> ONLY when the media was present. If they stopped when the cameras left, >> it was a stunt. I was told to report the "demonstration" - but to report >> it accurately as being staged for media consumption. PETA operates on a >> similar principle, but its over-the-top actions, while GUARANTEEING >> coverage, results in an extremely divided view of that group's reputation. >> Heritage is a large company that has been down the road of adverse (and >> positive) press before. The risk is losing control of a dispute whereby >> third parties (the media) - can sway public opinion in an adverse way that >> disrupts operations. >> >> * When I took on FedEx and Sotheby's during the 1990s, it was the >> controlled, managed use of potentially adverse press relations that >> resulted in resolving my disputes with them. The lawyers came out with >> their knives intending to bleed my bank accounts dry. But knowing how to >> spin "David vs. Goliath" stories in a way that reflects a trend of errors >> affecting others like me - "spreads the number of potential victims" out >> so that my woes served as a "poster child" or a "proxy" - or a "tip of the >> iceberg illustration" - of greater problems impacting consumers. This >> forces the responsibility out of the hands of lawyers and goes all the way >> up the executive ladder. For most big companies facing potentially bad >> press, it isn't worth battling in public if small change is involved. If >> they're smart, they settle quietly and the problem goes away quickly. But >> once it hits the press, it's impossible to reel everything back in and it >> becomes a nightmare. I've made my living working both sides of the fence >> and it's an ugly business. I am so glad that my experience in the news >> media has equipped me well enough to battle - or to "re-direct" reporters >> when my clients are attacked, whether they are corporations or a little >> guy trying to influence public opinion. In sum, I'm not Heritage, but if >> I was handling its P.R., I would do everything in my power to make this >> problem go away - or to keep it confined within the borders of a small >> group. It's not worth fighting a volatile situation that can be solved - >> that risks turning into an issue that becomes "everybody's problem," >> including present and prospective consumers who would not otherwise care >> absent third party involvement. -d. >> >> Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 17:25:18 -0500 >> From: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: An auction house to avoid >> To: [email protected] >> >> David is certainly correct, but there is still the possibility that she >> did not mean to post it to the list. Perhaps she thought of something she >> had forgotten two days earlier and planned to send me that info, but >> instead accidentally forwarded it to the list. >> >> We will only know if and when she chooses to post again. >> >> As for getting a response, I suspect this is what we will find: >> >> Bruce >> >> On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 5:19 PM, David Kusumoto >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> My goodness, of course it was meant for the entire list. Just look at the >> time stamps. There's a two-day spread between the original note >> "Geraldine Kudaka" sent to Bruce - and when the note was FORWARDED to the >> entire MoPo group from Geraldine herself. She is obviously a MoPo member. >> There is no other way an e-mail like that could be posted to the group >> without first enrolling as a member. Unfairly or not, I interpreted the >> note as an attack on Heritage, an attempt to force a public or private >> response from group members - or from Grey himself. In PR and news, >> there's a rule we follow: In the business world, there is no such thing >> as a true "surprise." Most disputes broil beneath the surface for weeks >> or months - before they finally explode into the public eye. They are >> usually the penultimate step before the "course of last resort," e.g., >> taking grievances to the media for widespread dissemination to audiences >> outside the core group most interested in the outcome. It is at that >> point that a client is at risk losing control of a story and is forever >> put on defense until a counterattack or well-understood response is mapped >> out and executed. Successful response case histories: Tylenol >> poisonings, beef percentages questioned in Taco Bell products, antenna >> issues with the iPhone. Unsuccessful or "too late" response case >> histories: Pink slime, Bank of America's $5 debit fee proposal, and the >> Komen Foundation's "180" with Planned Parenthood. -d. >> >> Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 17:44:25 -0400 >> From: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Fw: [MOPO] An auction house to avoid >> To: [email protected] >> >> Was wondering that myself. >> >> Peter >> >> From: MoPo List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> lovenoir2 >> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 2:00 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [MOPO] Fw: [MOPO] An auction house to avoid >> >> An interesting read. >> >> Was this meant to go to the entire MOPO list? >> >> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Geraldine Kudaka <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> ----- Forwarded Message ----- >> From: Geraldine Kudaka <[email protected]> >> To: Bruce Hershenson <[email protected]> >> Sent: Tuesday, April 3, 2012 11:45 AM >> Subject: Re: [MOPO] An auction house to avoid >> >> Your favorite auction house, Bruce -- Heritage. >> >> My husband, Charley, was a Hollywood executive. When we first did a >> Heritage consignment through Rudy Franchi, everything went fine. So fine, >> we sent a 2nd batch using my UPS account & return label which had my name >> on it. I use my maiden name, so I guess Heritage thought it was a cold >> submission from nobody. >> >> Thought we'd hear from them -- nada. We are pretty busy here and knew from >> our first consignment that Heritage plans their auction schedule months in >> advance. When I finally called Heritage to see when the posters were going >> to be auctioned. Carter told they had received the posters, and wanted to >> know if we wanted to put them in the weekly auction as there was nothing >> of value in the lot. I said, "What? What about the Get Carter and Lennon >> posters? Or the Fillmore posters?" Heritage claimed they had not received >> these posters in the lot we sent. >> >> I had mentioned this event on this newsgroup before. You responded with a >> derogatory comment about Rudy, then Grey threatened us with lawyers and I >> posted a comment here batting for Rudy. >> >> At that time this was going on, I did not want to deal with Heritage >> because we were building a house and had a high weekly payroll to meet. >> The headache of dealing with this Heritage problem was small potatoes >> compared to being the General Contractor on a house. >> >> After Grey threatened me with lawyers and I batted for Rudy, Rudy >> contacted me. He had spoken with Grey and the upshot was we were offered a >> deal for future submissions.. >> >> That was months ago. >> >> I've come to the conclusion I don't want to do future business with >> Heritage. It's one thing to have a consignment set up by Rudy for my >> husband, Charley Lippincott, who had hired John Van Hammersveld to do the >> Get Carter poster and has the largest, most complete collection of John's >> work -- even more than John -- and another thing when little wifey using >> her UPS business account sends the 2nd consignment batch. As nobody me, if >> posters disappeared from my lot, who is to say that this doesn't happen to >> other people? On principle, I don't want to do business with Heritage. >> >> Life is too short, Charley's collection too huge, and it's just not worth >> my time. >> >> If Grey wants to have his lawyers come after me, fine. >> >> From: Bruce Hershenson <[email protected]> >> To: Geraldine Kudaka <[email protected]> >> Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 6:21 PM >> Subject: Re: [MOPO] An auction house to avoid >> >> Which auction was it? >> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Geraldine Kudaka <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> I sent things to a US auction house who, 6 months later, claimed they >> never got the high value posters.... and threatened me with a lawyer. >> >> From: Bruce Hershenson <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 10:45 PM >> Subject: [MOPO] An auction house to avoid >> >> http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2012/west-berkshire-auction-house-cameo-refutes-customers-payment-claims >> Customers claim West Berkshire auction house owes them cash >> >> Bruce Hershenson and the other 24 members of the eMoviePoster.com team >> P.O. Box 874 >> West Plains, MO 65775 >> Phone: 417-256-9616 (hours: Mon-Fri 9 to 5 except from 12 to 1 when we >> take lunch) >> our site >> our auctions >> 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. > > -- Bruce Hershenson and the other 24 members of the eMoviePoster.com team P.O. Box 874 West Plains, MO 65775 Phone: 417-256-9616 (hours: Mon-Fri 9 to 5 except from 12 to 1 when we take lunch) our site <http://www.emovieposter.com/> our auctions <http://www.emovieposter.com/agallery/all.html> <http://www.emovieposter.com/unused/signature/20111028Frankensteinemployeegroupphotosignature.jpg> 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.
