A Great write up, David... as always.
Kudos!
Jeff
On Jun 22, 2015, at 4:07 PM, David Kusumoto wrote:
* After reading mostly dealer posts for five straight days, here
are my observations for consumers. Unless indicated, the following
are OPINIONS, not facts. They shed no additional information other
than to provide my own history - then vs. now - about this title.
(Again, it's too bad Bruce Hershenson quit MOPO - as his views
would have been invaluable as NO ONE has handled more movie paper -
nor owns a titanic collection of press books from around the world
than he.)
1. My "opinion" is Bidll's "The Third Man" is an international one-
sheet of "some kind" - that was never intended for display in the
U.K. Anything else is possible, but that's where I fall if I were
interested in buying it. Parenthetically, among the many points
and markers debated as to first issue or re-issue and international
vs domestic, I find it intriguing that the seller - who strikes me
as being very conscientious - resides in New Zealand yet has little
provenance information about how and where this apparently rolled
poster was acquired as well as other details such as texture, etc.
This may not be "empirically" relevant to this poster compared to
printed markers, but in my view, its geographic location and "how
it feels" is circumstantially relevant to the debate of national
vs. international, original or re-issue.
2. As some know, I used to collect only COUNTRY-OF-ORIGIN DOMESTIC
ISSUE posters, a common practice among collectors of country-of-
origin first edition books. A country of origin "The Third Man"
poster was once at the top of my list of wants.
3. Today, if I stuck to my old narrow (minded) preferences, I'd
only buy a first issue BQ of "Third Man." While I love VINTAGE
international one-sheets or daybills - for "The Third Man," I
won't. To put it bluntly, I was burned by a major auction house
(Heritage) - by its mis-representation of this title way back in
2003. Heritage's actions were NOT intentional - and to be fair - I
was frankly ignorant about what Helmut rightly says about the
general "rule" - but NOT the "law" - that British one-sheets were
predominantly targeted for international markets. And for some
hare-brained reason (at the time) - I thought the U.K. one-sheet
format was "common" enough to be displayed sporadically
domestically, though not favored compared to the more popular quad.
* On 20 November 2003, I bought a British RE-ISSUE one-sheet from
Heritage to "The Third Man" for $1725 - that Heritage mis-
represented as a 1949 first U.K. issue. The original 2003
description has not changed hence you can still see its mistake at
the link below. Note how there is no information about it being a
"reissue" of any kind; Heritage simply declares it as "original"
and labels its date to 1949:
http://comics.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=808&lotNo=1119
Image 1 of 5 (Heritage, November 2003, $1725):
* I did NOT learn until one year later that Heritage misrepresented
the poster I bought for $1725 as a 1949 "original" when it was in
fact a 1950s re-issue. Sure, I could have raised hell but did not,
out of deference to my friendship with Grey - but just as important
- I did not because of the intimidating legal wording in Heritage's
terms and conditions about its responsibility for errors - which
implied no returns accepted - or - at the very least, an unwritten
"statute of limitations" to resolve disputes.
* One year later, in November 2004 - Heritage sold ANOTHER 1950s re-
issue - but this time, it correctly identified it as a re-issue,
and it fetched for $1150. This was the date of my discovery - that
what I bought the year before - had been misrepresented by
Heritage. Frankly, "Buyer Beware" didn't enter my mind in 2003
with Heritage, even though it was new to the movie poster auction
scene.
http://movieposters.ha.com/itm/film-noir/the-third-man-british-lion-
film-1949-/a/607-19401.s
Image 2 of 5 (Heritage, November 2004, $1150):
* I grumbled but didn't want to cause a scene because I like Grey.
I kept the re-issue poster I bought in November 2003 for four years.
* By March 2006, Heritage "apparently" got it right. I say
"apparently" because in recent days, there have been legitimate
questions in the debate about originals vs. re-issues in recent
days on MoPo. The example below was represented as a genuine U.K.
1949 original and it sold for $5750:
http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=633&lotNo=28253
Image 3 of 5 (Heritage, March 2006, $5750):
* In 2007, after I decided to leave hard core poster collecting, I
consigned my bogus $1725 "original" The Third Man poster that I
bought from Heritage in November 2003 - seen in image 1 of 5 above
- with a batch of posters to eMoviePoster on 11 December 2007 -
properly identifying "The Third Man" poster I bought in 2003 as a
re-issue. (See eMoviePoster's image of my Heritage poster below -
the colors display more accurately - but this is the EXACT poster I
bought in image 1 of 5 above, as noted by a one-of-a-kind
collector's defect - a white spot on the top right margin above the
"L" in Selznick.) Properly identified, this EXACT poster - mis-
represented as "original" in 2003 - but properly identified by
eMoviePoster in 2007 - fetched $362.
http://www.emovieposter.com/gallery/inc/archive_image.php?id=10744885
Image 4 of 5 (eMoviePoster, December 2007, $362):
* Then, to make things humorous - just three months later - Bruce's
December 2007 buyer of my the re-issue poster I got from Heritage
in 2003 - flipped it BACK to Heritage! On 11 March 2008 - Heritage
took the same $1725 poster it mis-represented as "original" in 2003
- this time correctly identifying it as a re-issue - and it sold to
another buyer for $478. See Heritage's image below, noting the
same distinctive collector's defect on the top right margin above
the "L" in Selznick.
http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=693&lotNo=64326
Image 5 of 5 (Heritage, March 2008, $478):
* Now, some of you high-roller dealers might argue that the $1725 I
paid back in 2003 for this mis-represented poster - is not a big
deal in relation to by net take I accepted after I sold it with
proper identifiers via eMoviePoster for $362 in 2007 - or even had
I chosen Heritage to sell it for $478 three months later in 2008.
But this was not small change to me. Some might also say I should
have immediately brought this to Heritage's attention - even 12
months after November 2003. But the correct info about what I
bought from Heritage was hardly "immediate" and felt unfair to
grouse about. Heritage does not offer a lifetime guarantee -
though it does offer a reasonable window to correct its own mistakes.
* However, what follows may underscore the limits of Grey's power
back in 2003 when movie posters were a new division at Heritage -
and when one of the chiefs, Jim Halperin told me in New York that
he envisioned posters to be a fun "niche" and not a profit leader.
NO ONE from Dallas EVER "came back" to me - neither proactive nor
reactive to correct its mistake - nor did Heritage personally
acknowledge what happened to me, despite obviously learning its own
mistake a year later when it listed a second "The Third Man" poster
correctly. Again, look at Heritage's written description and image
of what I bought for $1725 in November 2003...
http://comics.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=808&lotNo=1119
...vs. Heritage's written description and image of what second
buyer bought - armed with a corrected information - for $1150 in
November 2004:
http://movieposters.ha.com/itm/film-noir/the-third-man-british-lion-
film-1949-/a/607-19401.s
* People make mistakes and admit them, no foul there. But what
happened places a high relief on when a firm PROACTIVELY corrects
mistakes, however rare - no matter how much time has passed since
they were made. Years later, when I told Bruce Hershenson about
this in the context of selling my "re-issue," he noted that he
himself had made the same mistake about 15 years ago, that it
wasn't discovered until years later - but that he contacted his
buyer and took about a $1,000+ loss, refunding the money on the
basis that while people make mistakes, the buyer did nothing wrong
and would have taken a loss for ignorance and might have lost
confidence in eMoviePoster as a future buyer basing his choices on
improperly represented goods.
* So I think Jeff P. brings up a salient point, that is, if average
consumers have a say about buying collectibles whose origin is
unclear. Such things should, in my view, be PROACTIVELY
disclosed. Whether you are a dealer in a buyer's role or an end
user - it IS significant when anyone offers you a "lifetime
guarantee." But it's only as good as the merchant who offers it,
your trust in that merchant - and your perception of how long that
merchant will be in business to honor it. Naturally, such
guarantees are too risky for most retailers, accounting for wear
and tear and the potential for abuse. And indeed, lifetime
guarantees feel non-existent in the collectibles "industry."
* Years ago, when I asked Bruce Hershenson about this - he said
among the obvious reasons for offering lifetime guarantees -
besides boosting buyer confidence ENORMOUSLY - is this: Despite
his prominence in collectibles, if his company makes a mistake, he
doesn't have the resources of a Sotheby's or Christie's or Bonham's
or Heritage - to be battered with monthly lawsuits from disgruntled
customers. A check of Google of claims against the major houses
bears this out. Thus for him and perhaps for him only - this is a
good business policy to embrace - and feels compatible with a high-
volume, Amazon-like, "customer first" ideology - that goes further
in that it is marketed as having no statute of limitations nor
expiration date. Anything discovered to be misrepresented, no
matter how long after a sale, is proactively corrected. If you're
a consumer or a dealer buying from him - whether you disagree with
methods or personality or other intangibles, this is supremely
comforting.
* In sum, specific to Bidll's "The Third Man," I'm glad we're all
talking about what it may or may not be - because no lifetime
guarantee is being offered for a high-ticket item. I'm sorry I
can't add anything more to reveal its origin, hence I wish Bruce
would proffer an opinion even though my story illustrates my
troubled history with this title and why I won't buy it unless it's
a BQ. And while the wisdom of offering lifetime returns for
posters is a discussion for another day, I think the seller has
been wise making adjustments accordingly. Bruce himself uses BLUNT
English that works when doubt exists, e.g., he'll write, "please
don't bid unless you're satisfied with our uncertainty about this
poster's origins" - and/or - "please don't bid unless you can live
with our condition grade and all defects as described." That's
more than fair, amid a guarantee he offers that few can afford
offering without tacking on an expiration date. And to be fair, I
know if I was a dealer, I could never offer a lifetime guarantee.
Retailers frown but all customers applaud. More power to him and
to people like him. -d.
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 06:39:18 +1000
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [FA] ULTRA Rare English One Sheet - The Third Man (1949)
To: [email protected]
Really? Is this about what EMP does when they discover they've made
another mistake with the dating a poster they've sold or is it
about dating a poster being offered for sale?
What does HA do? What if the buyer on EMP has moved? What if the
buyer on eBay is not a collector, they're just a buyer of something
they like and never again hangs round the darkened hallways of
movie poster collector clubs? What if this poster never made the
public forum and therefore the miss-dated posters sold by EMP & HA
and others are never discovered? Does that make those purchases
less fortunate?
It really doesn't matter, the point is, despite your remarks the
seller is a genuine collector who did make every reasonable attempt
to correctly identify the poster and based on that he has listed
the poster on BIDLL here. I have been keeping him abreast of the
some expert thoughts from here about the poster. However based on
all the comments thus far, it does appear to be an original print
that was bound for the overseas markets; I have also had this
comment from a old time, some would say, expert UK collector (who
cannot post to MoPo) but has been following the conversations and
has this to say [some edit].
Helmut had it about right, but the problem is not all copies were
printed at the same printers, quite often posters were subbed out.
So it's likely the overseas ones were printed at a different
depot... I think Stafford's had 3. and If they were very busy, a
complete other outfit would do the work.
The poster on {BIDLL} is a first release 1sht for overseas. These
were sometimes printed in the UK, and sometimes abroad. 1shts were
used in the UK, but 95% of the time were for the colonies. there
was also different artworks for the same artwork, so you can see
sometimes slight differences. This was due to the unions to keep
British artists working. They even copied US artwork for use in the
UK. it gets a bit complicated, but this is why there is sometimes
slight differences.
David
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2015 09:49:24 -0700
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [FA] ULTRA Rare English One Sheet - The Third Man (1949)
To: [email protected]
The other idea, too, is this.
What if this poster is sold as a first release and is later found
to be a later RR? This seller is asking for a good amount of
coinage for it, as a BIN. Would this seller refund the winning
bidder or buyer, if it was worth much less than he sold it for,
because it was found (some time down the road) to be a later RR?
EMP would offer that option, by contacting the new owner and
offering his/her $$ back; ebay has buyer protection, where a buyer/
winning bidder could get a full refund if an item isn't as described.
At the end of the day, it's more about protecting both seller and
buyer,
To unsubscribe from the MoPo-L list, click the following link:
https://listserv.american.edu/scripts/wa-american.exe?SUBED1=MoPo-
L&A=1
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.
