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
___________________________________________________________________
