David

I think you have mis-characterized what is going on this thread somewhat

No one has accused Geraldine of anything, or at least I certainly haven't. Why has anyone other than Grey commented? well that's simple.. Geraldine has posted to a public forum with many members. I have seen both collectors and dealers comment and Grey himself commented to one of her earlier posts. Most posts have been pretty fair to both sides. I.E. none of us can know if Geraldine did or did not send the posters she declares are missing, or if she mistakenly stating that she has, not knowing these posters will be found at a later date in their home.

In any case, her claim has a hard way to go. She stated pretty simply she got $11,000 for some poster that she did not know that Charlie sent or she sent or who knows who sent (as some much of her posts are somewhat confusing), so that says to me that she really isn't sure on any level what was sent as she thinks she sent some valuable poster, but had no idea she had actually sent a different and more valuable poster.

She is also here, on MoPo, specifically for the purpose it seems of disparaging Rudy & Heritage. Her posts are not benign by any stretch of the imagination and and it has been getting repeated continually for several weeks. I think it's only natural that quite a few people will chime in on such posts as they are designed to elicit a response from people.

My suggestion to Geraldine would be that if she feels she has enough proof to show she did indeed send these posters, that she go to the forum that would produce a judgement in her favor: the courts system, or via direct negotiation with Heritage and that posting her problem here to MoPo would therefore not be the correct forum for her dispute. However I do not agree with some other people that she should not post on MoPo her dispute. She certainly can, but she will get a response from someone of course.

Of course, we actually already know that she has negotiated with Heritage on the issue, Heritage disputes her claim, but offered to give to the charity of her choice the proposed value of these posters. We know all this not because Grey posted it, but because Geraldine posted it. None the less, it is apparent that Geraldine feels that she and not some charity should get the money for these posters that she says she sent, are not present on any inventory, and that Heritage says they did not receive them and it feels unseemly to them to pay her thousands of dollars for posters they don't believe she sent them.

How do you think any third party might adjudicate this situation David??
do you think Heritage's offer to make a charitable donation to the charity of Geraldine's choice actually might be fair in light of all these circumstances and do you feel it is right for Geraldine to repeatedly and purposefully libel Heritage on this forum without repercussions?




At 03:42 PM 6/5/2012, you wrote:

This seems like "Mr. Smith Goes to


Washington", with the entire "machine" lined up against her. Too bad


this isn't a movie. It sounds like she will have to give up and take


her losses (if indeed she had any). You can't fight the "machine".
My goodness, no kidding. I wish people would stop "extrapolating the motives of" and/or "speaking on behalf of" Heritage. If it wants, it can chime in. All of these "testimonials" are sickening. I think Grey is a fine guy, but it's wild to read the genuflecting posts which give Heritage all the benefit of the doubt while casting Geraldine as a senile loon. On one hand people stop short of calling her a liar, but regardless of any errors she may have made (and it appears she has made a few) - it's also clear that a WAY-too-disproportionate number of "rebuking' responses have come dealers - with only a few posts from collectors like Carlos, who has no dog in this race, yet who applauds the discussion of things that sometimes go awry in the hobby. If you are tired of this thread and/or want it to die on its own, stop responding. But some of you guys are unreal. (And geez, it's always the alpha-males who feel compelled to defend, rationalize or process the thoughts and actions of a guy most of us like - while simultaneously doing the same in an almost entirely adverse way against an "outsider." The ratio of dealers posting their thoughts about consumer-related problems - feels like a rigged card deck that's stacked 10-to-1 against collectors. Lurkers can't feel good about the way this has played out on MoPo. And I'd bet more than a few who've quietly read some of the posts thus far - are taking mental notes of who they will buy, sell or consign their very valuable collections in the future. -d.

-----Original Message-----
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 15:10:29 -0500
From: brucehershen...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Rudy Franchi, Heritage, no Inventory
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU


I guess I just come at this from a different perspective, having never
been in court or been sued or been arrested. I would not pay someone
for something I did not do, but I guess that is just me.

On the other hand, if Geraldine is simply lying, WHY is she doing so?
What is she gaining by this? This seems like "Mr. Smith Goes to
Washigton", with the entire "machine" lined up against her. Too bad
this isn't a movie. It sounds like she will have to give up and take
her losses (if indeed she had any). You can't fight the "machine".

Bruce
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: lists...@listserv.american.edu
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: lists...@listserv.american.edu
           In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.

Reply via email to