Odd as we have no direct links to the auctions from Emovieposter in which they 
were incorrectly sold!
Please advise?

From: MoPo List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bruce 
Hershenson
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 6:51 AM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: [MOPO] The curious case of the French Blow-Up posters

We recently auctioned a French one-panel poster from Blow-Up, and we said it 
was from the first 1967 release, and then Thierry Brahme, co-owner (with 
Holiday Russell) of All Poster Forum posted thqt it was a re-release. That set 
us on a journey researching that poster (and the ones from the other releases) 
and we came up with the following definitive answers (corroborated by all the 
leading French poster experts and by the fine research available on Ed Poole's 
LAMP site):

There are three releases, and they look very similar (almost everything is the 
same, except the R70s omits the 1967 from the top Cannes tagline)

THIS IS ORIGINAL:
"1967" in the top Cannes tagline
"ATELIERS LALANDE 91-WISSOUS - TEL 920.98.75.76"

THIS IS R69:
"1967" in the top Cannes tagline
"LALANDE COURBET 91-WISSOUS"

THIS IS R70s:
NO "1967" in the top Cannes tagline
"Ste EXPL Ets LALANDE COURBET 91-WISSOUS"

You can see a visual comparison here:
http://www.emovieposter.com/unused/blowup_research_reference_images.jpg

Now the above information showed we had just auctioned a R69 as an original, so 
of course we then contacted that buyer and told them what had happened and 
cancelled the sale.

We next went over our ENTIRE history of every auctioning versions of this 
French poster, and discovered that we have only once had an original, and that 
there were 4 times where we incorrectly identified a R69 as original and three 
times where we incorrectly identified a R70s as a R69 (because we were given 
erroneous information some years ago that led us astray).

Fortunately, we keep accurate records of every past sale, so we contacted those 
7 buyers and offered to take back the seven posters for a full refund 
(including shipping both ways so they lose nothing) or to make a partial refund 
if the price they paid was too high based on the false info, EVEN IF YEARS HAVE 
GONE BY, and we long ago paid the consignors.

Once we have heard from all the buyers we will likely lose many hundreds of 
dollars, but it is well worth it, because it lets our buyers know just how much 
we stand behind everything we sell!

We then took a quick look at the Internet to see if we could find other 
examples that were being sold incorrectly. We found that Dave Lieberman of 
Cinemasterpieces had one for sale that was a R69 but was incorrectly identified 
as original, and we contacted him, and he promptly corrected it.

We went to Heritage's archive on their site, and discovered that they obviously 
had incorrect information (like we did) but they had DIFFERENT incorrect 
information than we did, resulting in their selling three different posters, 
one from each release, and identifying them incorrectly every time.

This is the original that they sold as R70s:
http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=161216&lotNo=53072>http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=161216&lotNo=53072<http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=161216&lotNo=53072%3Ehttp://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=161216&lotNo=53072>

This is the R69 that they sold as 1966:
http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=693&lotNo=65245>http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=693&lotNo=65245<http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=693&lotNo=65245%3Ehttp://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=693&lotNo=65245>

This is the R70s that they sold as R69:
http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=58024&lotNo=54052>http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=58024&lotNo=54052<http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=58024&lotNo=54052%3Ehttp://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=58024&lotNo=54052>

Now hopefully they will go back and contact the two buyers to whom they sold 
they posters they incorrectly identified (there is no need to contact the third 
one, the one who got an original incorrectly marked as a re-release, because 
that person got an incredible buy and is surely happy!). But they may or may 
not have a policy of doing this. If they are followers of "buyer beware", which 
so many auctions are, then those buyers are simply out of luck.

I also don't know if they will go into their online archive and correct the 
above mistakes, as we do. We always correct any errors in our database, and 
remove all sales where the buyer never paid or they returned the items, to keep 
our database super accurate, but it takes a lot of time and money to do so.

IF ANYONE READING THIS OWNS AN EXAMPLE OF A FRENCH BLOW-UP POSTER, THEN YOU 
SHOULD TAKE IT OUT AND CHECK TO SEE WHICH RELEASE YOU HAVE. If you were 
incorrectly sold a re-release as either an original or as the wrong re-release, 
then contact the person or auction you bought if from and ask for a refund or a 
price adjustment.

Thanks much to Thierry Brahme, Ed Poole and others who helped in this research.
--
Bruce Hershenson and the other 26 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<http://www.emovieposter.com/>
our auctions<http://www.emovieposter.com/agallery/all.html>



Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com<http://www.filmfan.com>
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: 
[email protected]<mailto:[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.

Reply via email to