Oh, come on, Toochis. We won't tell ANYBODY. K. On Apr 21, 2012, at 12:19 AM, Toochis Morin wrote:
> I'm not sure I'm supposed to say who, but I can say that this person loves > the film and collects posters. I think because it isn't news and I was told > in confidence that I shouldn't say anything more. > > > From: lovenoir2 <[email protected]> > To: Toochis Morin <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Sent: Fri, April 20, 2012 7:55:19 PM > Subject: Re: [MOPO] Metropolis 3 sheet listing on MPE > > 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. 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.
