I agree Kirby is truly one of the most valuable players in the poster
world...possibly a genius similar to Einstein of Posters...
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard C Evans <[email protected]>
To: MoPo-L <[email protected]>
Sent: Fri, Apr 13, 2012 8:49 am
Subject: Re: [MOPO] SO RARE
Hey, I have something that's the "only one in existence", and I got it
from you!
On 13 Apr 2012, at 16:09, Kirby McDaniel wrote:
If there are four it is still rare. If there are 10, it is rare. In
the whole world? It is rare.
Anyone who says that a poster is the "only one in existence" isn't
thinking very hard.
"Only known copy" is fair. "Few known" is fair. Only copy in
existence implies omniscience.
There are few known people in the movie poster hobby who are omniscient.
Kirby
Kirby McDaniel
MovieArt Original Film Posters
P.O. Box 4419
Austin TX 78765-4419
512 479 6680 www.movieart.net
mobile 512 589 5112
On Apr 13, 2012, at 9:24 AM, Geraldine Kudaka wrote:
I've always wondered about this "rarity"
We have two Israeli Star Wars one sheets. I've seen claims saying the
poster listed was the only one in existence. As we have two of these
Israeli posters, and I think it was Carrie Fischer who put hers up on
ebay a couple of years ago, that makes at least 3 others.
From: David Kusumoto <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 10:29 PM
Subject: Re: [MOPO] An auction house to avoid
All four were sold at auction. the first in London via Christies,
claiming it was the only one in existence, then one in NY via Sothebys
and one on the west coast and the last through Christies again in NY.
Wow. With the four Adrian mentions above - and the two that Heritage
sold - that's at least SIX COPIES of "The Outlaw" in the six-sheet
format - once billed as having just one copy in existence. I wouldn't
be surprised if a seventh (7th) copy is waiting in the wings as
potential "rainy day money" for the original consignors to collect in
the future. Even if I presume a couple copies may have since re-sold
once or twice by their original buyers - we're still talking about a
number greater than "1." But really, the silliness over "the only copy
in existence" is made worse by the assertion that an "extra copy was
purposely destroyed." Hindsight being what it is - all of this
could've been avoided if Christie's had simply said, "this is the first
time this poster has ever been been brought to auction." Instead it
opted to stick with its "one-of-a-kind" story - that only the hobby
(vs. the general public) - now knows was an outright lie. -d.
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:47:53 -0400
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: An auction house to avoid
To: [email protected]
All four were sold at auction
the first in London via Christies, claiming it was the only one in
existence, then one in NY via Sothebys and one on the west coast and
the last through Christies again in NY. A dirty trick was played there
by the first consultant on these six sheets.
-----Original Message-----
From: JOHN REID Vintage Movie Memorabilia <[email protected]>
To: MoPo-L <[email protected]>
Sent: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 22:40
Subject: Re: [MOPO] An auction house to avoid
Thats all very interesting David
I had thought it would be highly unlikely that they would have been
destroyed. I wonder when the next one might show up.
Regards
John
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 18:40:43 -0700
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: An auction house to avoid
To: [email protected]
Hi John -
* The extra "Outlaw" six-sheets were NEVER destroyed. This has not
been reported by the media - but it's ONLY because I was too lazy to
pursue the issue further after relinquishing my role as a consumer
activist/media relations liaison for the hobby. The six-sheets were
specific to the San Francisco area and linked to a billboard company in
the 1940s, whose heirs brought them to auction. Those heirs were
Robert and Patricia League, the grandchildren who inherited the
posters. Given the tag lines on the posters, e.g., "JANE RUSSELL IN
PERSON" and "1943's MOST EXCITING NEW SCREEN STAR" - AND - their
historical link to the Geary Theater in San Francisco - it is possible,
though HIGHLY UNLIKELY - that the extra six-sheets originated
elsewhere. I'm saying they didn't.
* It has always been my contention that the extra copies were brought
back to auction by intermediaries of - OR - by Robert and Patricia
League themselves. Christie's sale in London in March 2003 was made
notorious by the release of their statement declaring that an extra
copy was "destroyed" - in response to the very questions I raised
publicly on the MoPo boards - AND by phone calls they received from
reporters I contacted in London and in San Francisco. Extra copies of
this poster have surfaced at least twice at Heritage - (although others
may have surfaced at other venues I'm unaware of). Heritage sold a
second copy of this poster in November 2004 ($32,200 realized), and
sold a third copy in November 2009 ($29,875 realized). This third copy
was linen backed - and had tears, chips, paper loss and crossfold
separations before restoration, which suggests the Leagues sold their
"best condition copies" first.
* I'm sure Grey knows the real story - but for confidentiality reasons
- is prevented from ever disclosing the identity of the consignors of
the two "Outlaws" Heritage sold in 2004 and 2009. Yet what I've
described is the story I'm sticking with. What happened placed an
exclamation point on an auction house manipulating the collectibles
market - of rare items to boost value - as practiced by Christie's
South Kensington in London - when it handled the first "Outlaw"
six-sheet back in March 2003. Thinking back, the public statement that
the consignors destroyed an extra copy to enhance rarity - still has an
air of incredulity to it that defies reason, hence I've never believed
it. You've got something worth more than $20K. You don't destroy your
"extras" - which would remove your ability to go back to the well to
get more money. Even if you have 3, 4 or even more copies of something
historically important - they're still worth a lot of money. That's
what made Christie's "we didn't coerce the consignor to destroy their
second copy" press statement - truly insane. -d.
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 09:49:42 +1000
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: An auction house to avoid
To: [email protected]
Hi David
Re the Outlaw six sheet controversy, was it ever established if the
claim that the additional copies were actually destroyed or whether it
was just a ploy to push the price up? I seem to recall that there has
been at least one other six sheet appear since the Christies auction.
Regards
John
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 15:44:31 -0700
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: An auction house to avoid
To: [email protected]
Geraldine -
* Again, you won't find any "David vs. Goliath" stories on the Internet
about my fight against Sotheby's - because my "pre-publicity" actions
resulted in a settlement before "going to press" - with a top Sotheby's
executive in New York, William Ruprecht - over a poster I won that
turned out to be a reproduction. I made special arrangements to attend
that sale in person - hence no way was I going to accept a simple
refund for my troubles.
* However, some of my disputes with auction houses HAVE made it to the
press (see copy-and-paste-clips below), e.g., the aforementioned
insanity involving the alleged "destruction" of an 81 x 81 poster from
1943's, "The Outlaw." The consignors - Robert and Patricia League -
claimed they "destroyed" an extra copy of this poster - an action
designed to preserve Christie's marketing claim that it was the only
copy in existence - boosting its hammer price (it sold for around
$71,000 in 2003 dollars). After the tempest "blew over," the Leagues
were later exposed as liars within the hobby - when an intermediary
acting on their behalf approached other auction houses with their
"extra copy or copies." Ironically, Heritage was the auction house
that sold one of these "extras," although Heritage itself did nothing
wrong - and in fact cross-referenced Christie's 2003 sale in its lot
description, noting that at the time it had been marketed as the only
copy in existence.
* What's worth noting - is during my early years as a MoPo member -
many dealers and auction houses reflexively lined up against me in
public - because they were mutual friends with an economic interest in
the outcome of many poster lots. (One member wrote that I should
accept Christie's statement of a destroyed "extra poster" as fact,
absolving it of possible collusion, which I felt was ridiculous.) Some
of my other battles w/dealers and auction houses were worse than those
involving "The Outlaw." There was a blind spot about some glaring
conflict of interest issues and their impact on uninformed consumers.
I was viewed as a disruptive troublemaker who had to be silenced. Many
years later, I've since made peace with many detractors. And while my
actions are still regarded by some as being "over the top," the passage
of time has allowed common sense to prevail, re: the incidents which I
actively publicized. But I shudder to think what I'd find if I was
still a consumer activist today, looking for dirt to peddle to the
media. -d.
P.S. - I still consider Grey Smith a friend and I trust him. But as
you may have noticed, only a handful of names beyond my own have jumped
in with an opinion about this to protect friendships and what not. My
feeling is I can jump in without overtly taking sides, but I must say
that I believe neither you nor Grey would have any reason to
misrepresent the facts as you guys see them. That's why I think
neither you nor Heritage should give up trying to resolve this.
Fairness is what matters in a case involving unsolicited consignments
absent an inventory receipt provided to the recipient. To put it
bluntly, things do get lost - but I'm not inclined to believe Heritage
lost or stole your posters unless proven otherwise.
===========================
ANTIQUES TRADE GAZETTE (LONDON)
EDITOR IVAN MACQUISTEN
3 March 2003 - STOP PRESS
It Can Only Happen In The Movies
Film poster vendor adds toexclusivity of sale by destroying second copy.
Collectors have reacted with outrage and disbelief to a statement
fromthe vendors of an apparently unique film poster that a second copy
had beendeliberately destroyed to protect the sale’s exclusivity.
A bizarre sequence of eventssurrounds the cover lot of Christie’s
South Kensington’s Vintage Film Posterssale scheduled for March 4, a
six-sheet première poster featuring Jane Russellin 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 laterbecame clear that the owners,
Robert and Patricia League, had another copy intheir possession.
In a signed statement toChristie’s, the Leagues admitted
discovering the second poster after consigningthe original for sale.
"Having considered the variousoptions open to us, we have made the
determination that we would destroy thesecond copy, and can confirm
that this has been done," the statement adds.
An American vintage film postercollector, David Kusumoto, told the
Antiques Trade Gazette that he and fellowcollectors on the Internet
news group MoPo (The Movie Poster Discussion Group)were outraged at the
statement, saying that in the popular arts world, it wasakin to
destroying one of Van Gogh’s many sunflower paintings to enhancerarity.
"Whether available in one ortwo copies, this item remains rare and
would still command a high figure atauction," Mr Kusumoto told the
Gazette. "Hence, in my view, thepractice of destroying art to achieve
rarity is abhorrent at worst andquestionable at best."
Though feelings were running highamong the movie memorabilia
enthusiasts last week, casual browsers remainedoblivious to this
behind-the-scenes drama.
Serious enquirers were being sent acopy of the Leagues’ statement
revealing that they had taken drastic steps topreserve the status of
their 'unique' poster.
Whether their actions will pay offin purely commercial terms
remains to be seen, but off-screen scandal rarelydoes anything to harm
the takings at the box office.
The Outlaw remains a film thateveryone has heard of but few have
seen. It has thrived on controversy from itspremière in San Francisco
in 1943 when it ran for only a week before thecensors 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 ofOutdoor Advertiser, a San
Francisco bill-posting company in business between 1912and 1970, are
selling a huge (81 inches by 81 inches) and rare poster of JaneRussell
from the movie "The Outlaw" at Christie's in London today.
The poster was made for a one-weekshowing of the movie -- it's the
film for which Howard Hughes designedRussell'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 thegeneral public.
The poster is expected to fetchbetween $17,000 and $24,000.
When poster buffs startedwhispering that the sellers owned more
than one of the rare"six-sheet" (the size designation in poster lingo)
posters, avendor's statement was appended to the Christie's listing,
saying that the item"is the only surviving copy . . . in our
possession. After initiallydiscovering 'The Outlaw' poster that was
sent to Christie's, a second completeposter was found. Having
considered the various options open to us, we havemade the
determination that we would destroy the second copy, and can
confirmthat this has been done."
The statement concludes by notingthat 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 Londontold TIC Monday that the
destruction of the second poster was done"entirely independently" of
the auction house, and "under nocircumstances 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 unusualsituation."
A TIC source who's in the heart ofthe 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, whodestroyed the only other known
copy in an apparent move to increase its marketvalue, reaped the
benefits yesterday when it sold for £52,875.
The poster advertising the 1943Western The Outlaw, which depicts
the actress Jane Russell, had been expectedto fetch up to £15,000 at
Christie's South Kensington. Christie's hadadvertised it as unique and
it was bought by a British private collector.
Shortly before the sale, Christie'sadmitted that the American
owners, Robert and Patricia League, had destroyed asecond copy.
"The consignors' decision wastaken entirely independently as under
no circumstances would we endorse such anaction," said Christie's.
The Leagues issued a statementwhich said: "After initially
discovering The Outlaw poster that was sentto Christie's, a second
complete poster was found.
"Having considered the variousoptions open to us we have made the
determination that we would destroy thesecond copy and can confirm that
this has been done.
"At the time of going to printwith the catalogue, we had not made
Christie's aware of the existence of asecond copy."
A dealer said: "One can onlyassume that the owners did this to
increase the market value. It is culturalvandalism."
The Outlaw, produced by HowardHughes, was always controversial.
Censors initially forced it to be withdrawnbecause 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 £52,875at auction - after the owners
destroyed a second copy to protect the sale's exclusivity.
Robert and Patricia League haveadmitted they tore up the only
other copy of the poster, for the 1943 film TheOutlaw. An anonymous
British collector paid around four times more thanexpected for the
surviving poster during a Christie's auction.
The move to tear up the secondposter has angered collectors, who
likened it to destroying one of Van Gogh'smany sunflower paintings to
enhance rarity.
American collector David Kusumotosaid: "The practice of destroying
art to achieve rarity is abhorrent atworst and questionable at best."
Christie's, while going ahead withthe sale, also expressed
disapproval at the destruction of the second copy. Aspokesman 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 ListSend a message
addressed to: [email protected] the BODY of your message
type: SIGNOFF MOPO-LThe 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 ListSend a message
addressed to: [email protected] the BODY of your message
type: SIGNOFF MOPO-LThe 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 ListSend a message
addressed to: [email protected] the BODY of your message
type: SIGNOFF MOPO-LThe 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 ListSend a message
addressed to: [email protected] the BODY of your message
type: SIGNOFF MOPO-LThe 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.
