You know that this was sold? This would also have made news, as it possibly would have fetched the highest price for a film poster.
Where did you hear or read this, toochis? -Kerry On 4/20/12, Toochis Morin <[email protected]> wrote: > I know someone bought it. Lucky! > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Apr 20, 2012, at 7:16 PM, lovenoir2 <[email protected]> wrote: > >> In his latest response, Dave brought up one question that I am sure >> have had many who have looked at the MPE site wondering: >> >> What happened to to the Metropolis 3 sheet poster listing and why was >> it removed? (Is it no longer available?) >> >> It isn't in the 'Sold Archives' section, so presumably, it hasnt sold >> (or has it?) >> >> And best of luck, too, once the auction portion goes live. >> >> -Kerry >> >> >> >> >> On 4/20/12, David Kusumoto <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >> >>> * Sean - That was a very thorough and well-written e-mail. Thanks. I >>> hope >>> this is the last e-mail I have to write about this subject. >>> >>> * Cut to the chase: GavelSnipe's terms and conditions were modified >>> yesterday as a result of recommendations by ME (via another MoPo pal) to >>> Jim >>> Halperin, who is Heritage's co-chairman (whom I've met and know >>> personally). >>> Visit http://www.gavelsnipe.com/policy_terms.php - and please note the >>> new >>> paragraph that was added during the last 24 hours. >>> >>> * As to my involvement, people keep focusing on the errant impression >>> that >>> GavelSnipe is being used nefariously. That wasn't my original "angle." >>> It >>> evolved and "turned" that way after I was hit with a lot of private >>> e-mails >>> after my first post, including one from within Heritage itself. As Kirby >>> noted, any automated proxy system is subject to abuse under certain >>> circumstances. I think Heritage is an honest company and I myself have >>> no >>> concerns about being "run up" on a sale. >>> >>> * I just think that it looks better if an auction house partners with a >>> third party sniping company than owning one outright. You yourself, >>> although you glaringly did not mention it - know that "one of many >>> reasons" >>> you and Peter chose NOT to own a sniping company - and went with >>> GavelSnipe >>> for your MoviePosterExchange.com site - is because you guys wanted to >>> ensure >>> your customers would know "that there would be no funny business." In my >>> view, you made the right choice going "third-party." For me, it's all >>> about >>> transparency and removing the "appearance" of potential impropriety. I >>> may >>> have arrived six years "too late" to this, but news is still "new news" - >>> if >>> information previously undisclosed by GavelSnipe - is revealed for the >>> first >>> time to most consumers. >>> >>> * If I was a true detractor of Heritage, I could've easily pored through >>> its >>> 10K and 10Q filings online with the SEC to find more dirt. I've already >>> gotten e-mails (remember, every reporter's best sources are "disgruntled >>> employees and disgruntled ex-spouses") - which suggest how Heritage might >>> use the info it gathers from GavelSnipe, which is run "in-house" - and >>> that >>> its chief runner is a guy named Ryan Sokol, who's on the Heritage payroll >>> - >>> with a dedicated Heritage e-mail address and phone. Information IS/WAS >>> being shared. I just have to be careful and "vet things out" because I >>> require more proof, e.g., specific incidents with dates, lots and - the >>> names of department personnel who've allegedly visited GavelSnipe and >>> come >>> out with sheets filled with "intel," e.g., "reports" which reveal which >>> items will go "big" and which bidders spend more. The competition >>> between >>> departments is a little intense and the culture is loose, perhaps too >>> loose >>> for a publicly traded company. >>> >>> * I'm 100% sure that if I carried a grudge, I could still make the >>> relationship between the two entities - front-page news based on the >>> information that has poured into my damn e-mail box since my first post >>> the >>> other day. But I'm not the same rabble-rouser who routinely took down >>> the >>> NY and London auction houses a few times, armed with my list of national >>> and >>> international editors. I'm pretty persuasive because I think like a news >>> guy and they all know it. I know how to package stories. This is what I >>> do >>> for a living. I'm generally a civil guy who's in an ugly business. I >>> could >>> have a lot of fun, for example, with how your $850,000 "Metropolis" was >>> used >>> by you guys as a publicity stunt - and explore why it's no longer >>> plastered >>> on your website for sale. Without the lure of "Metropolis," there would >>> be >>> no stories in the Hollywood Reporter or elsewhere. You'd be buying ads >>> instead. As far as Heritage, a big reason why I haven't moved forward >>> (and >>> won't unless the chatter continues or someone gets in my face), is >>> because I >>> personally LIKE Grey and Jim Halperin. That makes a huge difference - >>> and >>> reveals why I went after FedEx, Sotheby's and Christie's "back in the >>> day." >>> In those cases, I didn't like their people and their attitudes toward >>> "non-VIPs." So I went after them. >>> >>> * Finally, you rhetorically ask why a nearly billion dollar company would >>> risk so much by doing something small - that's exponentially more >>> harmful? >>> In my view, that's a little naive. History is strewn with the carcasses >>> of >>> people whose reputations have been ruined - because of "minor >>> infractions" >>> in gigantic companies. Specific to auction houses, all I have to do is >>> to >>> cite the price-fixing and collusion convictions that sucked Sotheby's and >>> Christie's into a whirlpool of unwanted media attention - leading to >>> firings >>> - and jail sentences - for Sotheby's majority owner Alfred Taubman and >>> CEO >>> Diana Brooks, the latter who avoided prison by testifying against >>> Taubman. >>> >>> * I didn't want to be involved in this. I've got better things to do. >>> But >>> because of my relationship with Grey and Jim - I'd rather things be >>> "cleaned >>> up" - so that shit NEVER hits the fan. This is why yesterday, my >>> recommendations - which are designed to help put Heritage in a "less" >>> vulnerable position - were provided to Jim Halperin - and the first steps >>> aimed at shoring up the walls between GavelSnipe and Heritage - are being >>> made as we speak. -d. >>> >>> Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 20:23:08 +0000 >>> From: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: Potential Conflict of Interest? Is Gavel-Snipe owned by >>> Heritage? >>> To: [email protected] >>> >>> When >>> Peter and I (who by the way are the sole owners of >>> MoviePosterExchange.com) were first talking about adding a sniping >>> capability to our website we investigated and contacted several >>> companies to see if we could find a good fit. One of the first things we >>> found out was that most companies had no interest in adding any >>> affiliates (certainly not JustSnipe that David mentioned), and those >>> that would still charged members for their services (either by way of >>> monthly/yearly fees or by purchasing snipe bids in bundles). We were >>> determined to keep costs as low as possible for our customers and were >>> not satisfied with these answers. >>> Then we talked with GavelSnipe. >>> The >>> GavelSnipe story as we understand it is that they were a company >>> offering eBay snipes and struggling to stay afloat finding affiliates to >>> work with when Heritage stepped in with some needed capital and >>> partnered with them to offer exclusive sniping capabilities for >>> Heritage’s auctions (and this happened 6 years ago, certainly a very old >>> story for newshound David Kusomoto to finally dig up). >>> To me this makes Heritage more transparent rather than less. >>> Would >>> you rather Heritage offer sniping capability in-house? Would it make >>> you feel better entering your snipes directly on Heritage’s website? Or >>> perhaps they should have partnered with one of the dozens of companies >>> that has gone out of business in the past few years? How would it look >>> to their 700,000+ members to tell them they are changing sniping company >>> affiliates again? Of course it is better for them to partner with a >>> company and have stability in this area. >>> The >>> issue of Heritage peering into your high-bids and shilling you up to me >>> is a non-issue. Nearly all of Heritage’s most expensive items are >>> offered in their signature auctions – which you CAN’T snipe. So it’s not >>> even applicable to a majority of their revenue. >>> Yes, >>> Heritage auctions thousands of items a week through their different >>> divisions. But is the risk/reward worth it to break the law this way? >>> Let’s say you have placed a $250 snipe on an item that would have >>> naturally ended at $200 without shilling. Heritage’s buyer’s premium on >>> this extra $50 bid is less than $10. The risk? Potential treble damages >>> on a multi-million dollar class-action suit and the loss of license. Is >>> that worth it for a company that does almost a billion dollars a year? >>> My guess is no. But you would have to draw your own conclusions. >>> Remember >>> Heritage is a licensed auctioneer. They are subject to review and >>> regulations. The main reason we have not started auctions on our site >>> yet is that we had to finish the certification required for our state. I >>> believe we are the only company that deals exclusively in Movie Posters >>> that will be a licensed auction firm. To us this is an important >>> distinction. We will be subject to the laws and penalties of the state >>> of North Carolina (which have some of the strictest regulatory laws in >>> the country when it comes to auction houses) and wish to be as >>> transparent as possible in our dealings. I don’t believe any other >>> weekly poster seller (besides Heritage) can say the same. >>> So >>> for us, partnering with GavelSnipe made good sense. We are branding >>> ourselves with the company that provides sniping service to the two >>> largest movie poster portals in the world (eBay and Heritage) We have >>> paid GavelSnipe to integrate our software with their site and pay them a >>> monthly fee so that we can keep the service free for our customers. >>> Bruce >>> you are correct when you suggest that we would like to shield our >>> customer accounts from Heritage, or any other dealers for that matter. >>> You know this from when you offered to list items on MoviePosterExchange >>> but requested you be allowed to ship directly to the customers. We >>> certainly appreciated the offer of support, but ultimately we chose our >>> customers privacy and security over being able to have your items listed >>> with us, and if we suspect that Gavelsnipe has violated the trust we >>> have placed in them (which we have no reason to believe will happen) we >>> will pursue the matter to the fullest extent of the law. >>> As >>> for the answer to Dave’s final question: “Who signs Gavelsnipe’s >>> paychecks?” I know that the answer to that lately has been that I have. >>> Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:51:28 -0700 >>> From: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: Potential Conflict of Interest? Is Gavel-Snipe owned by >>> Heritage? >>> To: [email protected] >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Ha-ha, Rich. In sum - I could be wrong on some of these, but as far as I >>> know: eBay doesn't own a sniping company. Sotheby's doesn't own a >>> sniping >>> company. MoviePosterExchange.com doesn't own a sniping company. >>> Bonham's >>> doesn't own a sniping company. Christie's doesn't own a sniping company. >>> Profiles in History doesn't own a sniping company. eMoviePoster doesn't >>> own >>> a sniping company. The reasons are economic - and also because of how it >>> would look to consumers, regulators and politicians. If ONLY DEALERS >>> have a >>> blind spot about this, I'm not surprised. Or, shoot, this could all just >>> be >>> a "specific-to-Texas" anomaly. >>> >>> Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:30:15 -0700 >>> From: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: Potential Conflict of Interest? Is Gavel-Snipe owned by >>> Heritage? >>> To: [email protected] >>> >>> >>> >>> There's no story here, move >>> along. >>> >>> Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 23:27:52 -0700 >>> From: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: Potential Conflict of Interest? Is Gavel-Snipe owned by >>> Heritage? >>> To: [email protected] >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> * My goodness, Dale, there are so many huge holes in your rebuttal that I >>> could fit a freight train through each one without touching any of its >>> sides. But why bother? In my view, you need to reboot your writing >>> skills >>> and come up with a debating strategy more substantial than, "what you're >>> writing about is fire and brimstone over nothing and I personally think >>> you >>> just hate Heritage." >>> >>> * What has Heritage done to me personally that would warrant an >>> accusation >>> like that from you, Dale Dilts, a person I know nothing about, who >>> doesn't >>> register anything on my radar at MoPo - nor do I care based solely on >>> your >>> inability to string words together in a way resembling intelligent >>> thought? >>> Your note does suggest, however, that you're ignorant of what's been >>> published in the business sections of news sites since 2008. I've >>> already >>> disclosed that I've personally gained as a consignor and buyer of >>> Heritage. >>> I think its movie poster department is run by an a blue-chip, top-flight >>> guy >>> named Grey Smith, who built his operation out of nothing 10 years ago. >>> Unlike Geraldine, I'm not a disgruntled Heritage client in any way. Or >>> maybe you, Dale Dilts, think it's classier to observe a "gentleman's >>> agreement" about things that seem odd, you know, keep everything under >>> the >>> table where it belongs, and not stir up "trouble" - that we should all >>> just >>> leave things with a "wink," and as you say, "move on." I hope you're not >>> working in P.R. or in the customer relations operations of any company. >>> Because never in a million years would I hire you. You're poison. >>> >>> * BTW, did you know that your last line, "There's no story here, move >>> on," >>> is the CLASSIC cliché rebuttal that editors mock every day in newsrooms >>> around the world? When ANY person utters it, it means there IS a story. >>> Didn't you get the memo that I've been on both sides of this ugly >>> business - >>> and have professionally handled "conflict of interest-type stories" as a >>> news guy - and as a P.R. guy? You really think a story about this - >>> would >>> NOT resonate with a news editor? Really? You're the one who's not >>> thinking >>> this through. And I'm sorry, but your line, "There's no story here, move >>> on" - sounds like famous last words etched on a tombstone. You sound >>> like >>> Richard Nixon. -d. >>> >>> Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 21:47:32 -0500 >>> From: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: Potential Conflict of Interest? Is Gavel-Snipe owned by >>> Heritage? >>> To: [email protected] >>> >>> OK, I tried to put these mails on auto flush, but come on stick a pin in >>> it, >>> who cares. >>> >>> Heritage is in the auction business last time I checked. Ebay allows >>> people >>> to use their API to build sniping programs because it makes bidders feel >>> all >>> warm and fuzzy making bids, so why shouldn’t Heritage pilot their own >>> with a >>> smaller user base. >>> >>> These mails have really come across to me as you have a chip on your >>> shoulder for heritage plain and simple. >>> >>> Your second point makes no sense to me at all. Banks cannot own >>> investment >>> companies, soft drink companies cannot own a snack company. Oh my god, >>> Disney owns ABC and ESPN and don’t forget…. Marvel Comics… the sky is >>> falling. >>> >>> There is no story here, move on. >>> Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 15:26:23 -0700 >>> From: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: Potential Conflict of Interest? Is Gavel-Snipe owned by >>> Heritage? >>> To: [email protected] >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks, Kerry, for that bit of info below. >>> >>> * Meanwhile, I'm sorry, but the word, "conspiracy" implies seamy dealings >>> involving more than one person or companies gaming a system or flouting a >>> law. I haven't suggested that about Heritage. And as an ex-news guy, my >>> litmus test is to demand things in writing - or to get personal >>> testimonies >>> backed with dates, numbers and other facts - not conjecture. Every >>> company >>> or person, including Heritage, deserves that. Kerry's sleuthing shows >>> that >>> Heritage registered the GavelSnipe domain name - but this doesn't >>> necessarily mean it still owns it. >>> >>> * However, whether Heritage is a "financial backer or an owner" - always >>> matters in the world of business - in the same way that it matters to us >>> that Bank of America owns Merrill Lynch, that PepsiCo owns Frito-Lay, >>> that >>> Disney owns ABC and ESPN, that ComCast owns NBC and that Rupert Murdoch >>> owns >>> the NY Post, Fox > 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.
