I've told you about drinking this early in the day. K. On Apr 13, 2012, at 4:00 PM, Philipp K wrote:
> 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 > consu! mer 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 Sotheb! y'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 wildf! ires 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. A! gain, 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. PET! A 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 wo! rking 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 outcom! e. 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. 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.
