There is also the orange and black Dracula poster which is unlike Universal one-sheets of that time. One wonders if there is a full-color version out there (and if there is what that says about the orange and black one), along with a full-color The Shadow. Only time will tell. I suspect much of this will be sorted out after many of us are gone.
I remember well in 1968 when comic book collectors talked the same way. There were 4 Action #1s known, 3 Marvel #1s, etc. How many have surfaced since? Bruce On 4/13/12, Smith, Grey - 1367 <[email protected]> wrote: > The Ghoul has another issue in that it isas was a foreign film(British). > My belief is that the green duotone poster is first US release. > Though some have argued it would have been color, there really is no > proof this is the case. > > On Apr 13, 2012, at 2:59 PM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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. > -- 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.
