Think there's a similar issue with US paper for The Ghoul. Though duotone most likely first release.
On 13 Apr 2012, at 20:20, Smith, Grey - 1367 wrote: > Phil > When the photo of this poster was received by me I too thought reissue. > The green duotone is dated 1939, as I recall and the "known" reissue > is not a green duotone and does say 1947, if not mistaken. > Yes, it is odd to be duotone in a period when generally the stock one > sheets were color. > Since no one has any other copy in color, can only go by what is known. > Dated with original release. > > On Apr 13, 2012, at 1:55 PM, "Phillip W. Ayling" > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> Grey, >> >> The book is great and we should all thank you for putting it >> together. I >> hate to question an expert's analysis on this and while the duotone >> Shadow >> poster pictured on the cover is what I have always believed the >> image is, I >> wonder if the original was in color? Are you sure what is pictured >> on the >> cover is the 1940 release by way of having been able to examine a >> Morgan >> Litho number or copyright on that very poster, rather than the 1947? >> I ask >> because every original release Columbia serial posters that I have >> seen are >> always color. >> I also presume that the 1947 re-release of the Shadow would have been >> duo-tone. >> >> For example in the same year ,1940, Columbia released 3 other >> serials, Terry >> and the Pirates, The Green Archer, and Deadwood Dick, one-sheets all >> in >> color, though they are extremely rare. The later re-releases of the >> Green >> Archer are in Duotone or Black &White. White Eagle (1941) is also >> in Full >> Color as are The Great Adventures of Wild Bill Hickock (1938) and >> The Spider >> Returns(1938). Those 3 serials were all re-released for the first time >> around 1947, just like the Shadow, and they were all done as duo- >> tones. >> >> Also the "1947" re-releases that I have seen do not have the words >> "Columbia >> Serial Re-Print" or R-1947 as later Columbia re-releases do starting >> around >> 1953. >> What all of these serials have in common is that Columbia serial >> posters >> until mid 1941 were all art. Often times there was only one style or >> sometimes two. They didn't go to an inset style which was different >> for >> every title until The Spider Returns in 1941. That may account for >> how rare >> all the earlier titles are. It seem like there are copies of The >> Batman or >> The Phantom (both 1943) that are available, though expensive. Perhaps >> however, some Chapters no longer exist, but who would know? >> Any more info that anyone has would be appreciated. Grey thanks >> again for >> your info. >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Smith, Grey - 1367" <[email protected]> >> To: "Phillip W. Ayling" <[email protected]>; >> <[email protected]> >> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 9:36 AM >> Subject: RE: [MOPO] An auction house to avoid >> >> >> Phil, >> As you know, I have collected serial paper for many years. I have >> only seen >> one copy of the one sheet to the 1940 release of the serial so would >> be >> "only copy known." It is pictured on page 183 of my book, "Capes, >> Crooks and >> Cliffhangers: Heroic Serial Posters of the Golden Age." It is a >> duo0tone >> sheet and can be seen to the right of the large Flash Gordon image >> on the >> cover. >> http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?inventoryNo=960011754 >> >> It has always been a great mystery as to why so little paper has >> ever turned >> up on this title. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: MoPo List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> Phillip >> W. Ayling >> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 11:17 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [MOPO] An auction house to avoid >> >> It would be great if these same all-knowing censustakers could also >> tell us >> "three known fakes currently being offered". While it makes big news >> whenever a Dracula one-sheet or a Chaplain 6sheet is found in a >> barn, I >> wouldn't be surprised if amongst MoPo members there are some items >> that are >> extremely rare or have never been inventoried by an auction house, >> so "they >> don't exist". >> >> While I have some posters from all eras, I collect lot's of >> westerns, serial >> and early horror and fantasy. I have nothing that would compare to >> some of >> the 6 figure Universal horror paper that some of you have, but at >> the same >> time there are some titles where I have never seen anything offered. >> >> For example, The Shadow 1940 serial is sort of a holy grail for serial >> collectors. I have only seen a few Australian daybills offered on >> this, not >> one thing that is country of origin. I have 5 US lobby cards ( a >> combination >> of original 1940 and 1947 RR) that I acquired from an Exchange in >> the mid >> 1960's and recently sent the one dup to Bruce to sell. However since I >> acquired those Lobbies many years ago, I have never seen anything up >> for >> sale and never even seen a photo of the original one sheet. Not >> saying I >> catch everything, but if material was being sold with some >> regularity I >> would have noticed. At the same time (1940) Columbia released lots >> of low >> budget and presumably low marketing budget B Westerns, serials and 3 >> Stooges >> shorts, all of which seem to have publicity material that has >> survived to >> some degree even though their collectible values probably vary >> widely. Any >> thoughts? >> >> While rarity is a combination of many things, including era and size >> of >> initial theatrical distribution and poster print run , does anyone >> have an >> idea why, for example, it seems like House of Frankenstein material >> seems to >> be slightly more abundant than House of Dracula or why Clyde >> Beatty's early >> serial the Lost Jungle (1934) has a significant amount of material out >> there, but Frank Buck's 1937 serial Jungle Menace has very little >> paper in >> existence? >> >> Thanks for any insight anyone might have. >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Bruce Hershenson" <[email protected]> >> To: <[email protected]> >> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 8:15 AM >> Subject: Re: [MOPO] An auction house to avoid >> >> >>> This happens all the time with certain auction houses. There are >>> "three known" of this and "five known" of that. But no one else seems >>> to have access to this "census" >>> >>> Bruce >>> >>> On 4/13/12, Geraldine Kudaka <[email protected]> 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 featurin >>>> g 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 be >>>> fore 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. >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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. >>> >> >> 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.
