In today's Guardian, not an article and no new angle, just nice, big, juicy pic of the prospective auction lot and caption.
Sent from my iPhone On 25 Jun 2012, at 20:44, David Kusumoto <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks, Adrian. That's good to know. In fact, I privately replied or talked > to several people during the past few days about this - and the consensus is > in line with what you wrote, especially when one considers a long history of > un-related "escapades" involving Ken dating back many years. On one hand > there's temptation among his pals to feel sympathy for his plight, but on the > other - Ken's history of strange dealings, culminating with this latest > incident, trumps feeling too sorry for him. One person observed that in his > opinion, this scandal was equal or greater in notoriety in terms of $$$ - > than the Haggard case, even though the latter involved more victims. > Regardless, I know many people will never forget this - and will be reminded > of it again when his collection is liquidated with much > fanfare/marketing/publicity possibly later this year. And then after that's > over, he'll forever remain on the dubious list of titanic embarrassments to > this hobby. - d. > > Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 06:37:07 -0400 > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: "Metropolis" Poster's Troubles Featured in the Hollywood Reporter > To: [email protected] > > Dave > > you make a comment about staying silent. > > Well I will say something. At Cinenvent this year the subject of Metropolis > and Ken Schacter came up many times...we who discussed it came up with > canclusions and opinions, none are favourable. The fact is that lust for a > piece of paper has put Ken's family life in a very poor situation and a > lesson to be learned from Mario Puzo's Godfather - don't piss off someone who > is more powerful than yourself...Ken has pissed off a big wig and Ken really > doesn't have a leg to stand on. And the stories that have gone before about > Ken and his less than salubrious dealings have now made him persona non > grata. > > There surely is a film to be had out of this...LUST FOR A POSTER. > > Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 14:08:37 -0700 > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: "Metropolis" Poster's Troubles Featured in the Hollywood Reporter > To: [email protected] > > Thanks, Jeff. As I've told others who wrote me privately today, in the > future, I'll only let the group know if any news stories surface which reveal > new/previously unpublished info. I think the NY Times, WSJ, LA Times, the > Daily Mail, the Guardian, etc., will NOT publish anything unless they can > find a "new angle" beyond what was published by the Hollywood Reporter. BTW, > "Metropolis poster auctioned" or "Metropolis poster seized" are better phases > to enter into search engines - to get a lot of results and commentary from > bloggers about this story... -d. > > Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 11:07:54 -0700 > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: "Metropolis" Poster's Troubles Featured in the Hollywood Reporter > To: [email protected] > > Great set of posts on this subject, Dave. > > Thanks for your insight and offerings. > > Jeff > > Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:29:29 -0700 > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: "Metropolis" Poster's Troubles Featured in the Hollywood Reporter > To: [email protected] > > * According to my sources, several business news editors in L.A., London and > New York - are in the midst of deciding whether they too, will go forward > with their own versions of this story. If you do a Google search with the > words, "Metropolis poster" - you'll already get back several pages of > results, most of them copy-and-paste jobs of what Andy Lewis wrote yesterday > for the Hollywood Reporter. I expect the search results will get larger > after this weekend - and then become humongous IF other mainstream news > organizations get involved, including TV. But the Hollywood Reporter was the > first to publish what the hobby has been talking about for months. News > interviews were conducted last week with the key players, which included > investor Robert Mannheim himself, who is central in that he appeared to have > no recourse when he couldn't get his money back. This publicity actually > helps him. > > * In my view, there's tremendous irony that while Sean alerted the press > several months ago to drive traffic to his website - that this action led to > the poster being seized - and helped Mannheim and the bankruptcy trustee - > bolster their case against Schacter, a former MoviePosterExchange founder who > kept Peter and Sean in the dark about Mannheim's claims. This very publicity > was oddly responsible for doing some "good" for an investor who was fleeced. > (There is no legal dispute that money was loaned to Schacter.) > > * I know some of you are personal friends of Schacter and most, except the > always vocal/fearless Rich Halegua, will stay silent. While it was already > unfortunate what happened to Schacter's life before "Metropolis" became an > issue, e.g., the personal tragedy he experienced, becoming a single father, > etc. - his decision to declare bankruptcy to avoid paying Robert - backfired > the MOMENT "Metropolis" was used to help launch the MoviePosterExchange.com > site. Why it didn't happen sooner is obvious to me. The bankruptcy > proceedings continued uneventfully - UNTIL "Metropolis" surfaced "for sale" > on Sean and Peter's site. Schacter had a blind spot about the risk to his > prized collection, even as he began Chapter 11 proceedings in December 2012. > The news publicity in early March 2012 was short-term glorious for the site - > but within 10 days after those stories appeared - "Metropolis" and Schacter's > fortunes were doomed. > > * Now with the press in "full alert" mode, the story is uncontrollable. It > will stay that way until AFTER the poster - and the rest of what remains of > Schacter's collection - is sold for no reserve. There have been several > high-profile stories I've watched unfold in the mainstream press about our > hobby during the past 15 years. This joins the list as being the biggest and > will be among the most unforgettable. But given the names involved - it's > also the darkest and saddest. Whenever you hear the cliché, "there are no > winners in this fight," it's mostly true when the fight involves molesters, > murderers and Madoffs. In all other disputes, there's always winner and a > loser in the eyes of the public. Victims of all stripes - deserve to "win" > something - even if it's a so-called "Pyrrhic victory." -d. > > Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:20:45 -0700 > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: "Metropolis" Poster's Troubles Featured in the Hollywood Reporter > To: [email protected] > > my answer to this is, and with a nod to David Koos..... > > Kenny, you may be my friend and I don't want you to be insulted...... but > man-o-man was this stupid > > At 06:13 PM 6/23/2012, Franc wrote: > Someone explain to me what I'm missing in this story so far. Why would Ken > file for bankcruptcy, if he owned a repayment of a $500K loan, when it is > well-known that his collection is worth probably close to $5 million dollars? > Why would he risk his collection so that he could attempt to default on this > loan? Did he not presu,e hat his assets would be seized? FRANC > > Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 15:56:40 -0700 > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: "Metropolis" Poster's Troubles Featured in the Hollywood Reporter > To: [email protected] > > I think "Metropolis" will be sold by Heritage with NO RESERVE and will > generate a lot of advance publicity in the months ahead. Why? Because the > bankruptcy trustee will demand whatever the market will bear. If Heritage, > for argument's sake, wanted to post a reserve or offer a "guarantee" - or > even buy the poster outright for, let's say, $500,000 for a future sale - I > think the trustee would say no. The trustee is the "consignor" in this case, > bound by law. Why would the trustee accept $500,000 - or ANY price - when > there's a potential upside to get more than that? One never knows. > Remember, I could be wrong, but I seem to recall this poster was once listed > on Kenny's and Peter's old defunct Majestic Posters site for around $2 > million, a "fishing price" just thrown out there for the right millionaire > with money to spend. > > It's not a happy situation for Kenny, but when was the last time a high > ticket, nearly one-of-a-kind poster like this - was offered on the open > market with NO RESERVE? Under normal circumstances, Heritage would insist on > a reserve or want to buy it outright as an investment for whatever price the > market would bear, whatever Texas laws would allow. But that would be a > little odd because there's no doubt Heritage would want to capture the most > dollars NOW - in relation to its planned big-budget marketing of this poster. > This is big-time news for the hobby. -d. > > Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 08:14:31 +1000 > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: "Metropolis" Poster's Troubles Featured in the Hollywood Reporter > To: [email protected] > > ........he estimates its value at just $250,000, a number most observers view > as comically low. High-end estimates put the value of the poster at more > than $1 million, which would make it the first poster to cross that barrier > in a public sale. Conversely, a sale at Schacter's low estimate of $250,000 > or even any number below $690,000 would represent a softening of the poster > market at a time when other collectibles such as movie props and rare comics > are selling for record amounts. > > If this poster is to be sold as part of a "liquidation sale" presumably with > no reserve, the "comically low" estimate of $250,000.00 might be not far off > the mark. > > Regards > John > > Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 14:58:06 -0700 > From: [email protected] > Subject: "Metropolis" Poster's Troubles Featured in the Hollywood Reporter > To: [email protected] > > I'm not surprised that the "splash" publicity surrounding the infamous > "Metropolis" 3-sheet - and its brief offering for sale for $850,000 before it > was suddenly pulled from Sean and Peter's MoviePosterExchange site - could > lead to to more stories, albeit nearly four months later. There are many > interesting things in the article below that - while NOT NEW to hobbyists - > are still "new news" to the rest of the world. I find it intriguing that The > Hollywood Reporter boldly takes credit - asserting media publicity about the > poster - and the publication of its own story in March 2012 - led to its > seizure by federal authorities. The update below cuts through the tedium of > going through reams of court documents posted elsewhere. I now wonder if > editors at other news organizations - might "piggy-back" or "copy-cat" the > Hollywood Reporter - with updated stories of their own. -d. > > World's Most Expensive Movie Poster Seized in Bankruptcy Case > One of four surviving "Metropolis" posters along with valuable "King Kong" > and "Invisible Man" posters will be sold as part of a liquidation auction. > 12:01 PM PDT 6/22/2012 by Andy Lewis > > A rare and coveted Metropolis movie poster -- one of only four known > surviving copies from the 1927 silent classic -- has been seized as part of a > Chapter 7 liquidation bankruptcy case involving its owner Kenneth Schacter, a > well-known collector. The poster will be auctioned off soon. > The case is being overseen by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Los Angeles, > with John Menchaca serving as the bankruptcy trustee. > The historical importance of the Fritz Lang-helmed movie and the rarity > and beautiful art deco design of the Metropolis poster combine to make it > “the crown jewel of the poster world," according to Sean Linkenback, a > well-known poster dealer. (See the full poster below.) > The poster had been offered for sale in March for $850,000 by > Movieposterexchange.com. > Estimates vary as to what it would fetch on the open market. > Schacter paid a still-record $690,000 for it in 2005. > In the bankruptcy filing, he estimates its value at just $250,000, a > number most observers view as comically low. > High-end estimates put the value of the poster at more than $1 million, > which would make it the first poster to cross that barrier in a public sale. > Conversely, a sale at Schacter's low estimate of $250,000 or even any > number below $690,000 would represent a softening of the poster market at a > time when other collectibles such as movie props and rare comics are selling > for record amounts. > Other key items in Schacter's collection include a King Kong poster from > 1933, which is considered by experts to be nearly as valuable as the > Metropolis poster, and a 1933 one-sheet teaser from The Invisible Man. > The total collection could be worth as much as $5 million, according to > court filings, but the exact value is uncertain because Schacter has ignored > court orders to provide a full and complete inventory. > It was THR's reporting about the poster being offered for sale that > pushed Schacter from a Chapter 11 reorganization bankruptcy to a Chapter 7 > liquidation bankruptcy. > Schacter had filed for bankruptcy protection on Dec. 12 to avoid a > judgment over a roughly $500,000 loan from Robert Mannheim, an investor who > provided money for Schacter to invest in posters to sell for a profit. > When Mannheim learned about the possible Metropolis sale via Movie > Poster Exchange, it reinforced his belief that Schacter was trying to conceal > assets to avoid repayment. > (The owners of Movie Poster Exchange were unaware of the bankruptcy case > when Schacter consigned the poster to them for sale and immediately withdrew > it from the site when they learned of the dispute.) > Mannheim filed a motion to force a conversion to a Chapter 7, which the > court granted March 12, concluding that Schacter had indeed abused the > Chapter 11 process by failing to disclose his full inventory or complete > financial assets. > Schacter was required to immediately turn over his entire collection to > a court-appointed bankruptcy trustee, which he failed to do. > On May 16, the court found Schacter in contempt, ordering him to submit > a list of his holdings by May 31 or face a $2,000-a-week contempt fine. > Schacter submitted an inventory of his collection, but the bankruptcy > trustee still is trying to assess whether it represents his full and total > holdings at the time he filed for bankruptcy (to account for any sales he may > have surreptitiously made after filing). > The trustee is in possession of the Metropolis, King Kong and Invisible > Man posters but only has a list of many of the other items. > Once the inventory investigation is complete and creditors have > submitted timely claims, the bankruptcy trustee intends to hold a liquidation > auction. > If the court approves the request, the trustee is likely to use Heritage > Auctions, one of the largest auctioneers of movie posters, to conduct the > liquidation sale. > Given the size of the Schacter's collection, Heritage might auction it > in waves, but no final decision has been made. > The liquidation is expected to begin before the end of 2012, but the > exact date is dependent on the speed of the inventory assessment and the > court's ruling on the application to conduct the sale. > > > 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.
