David....thanks my friend...Grey is a great man I agree. We had some funny interesting times looking back! Philipp
Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 24, 2015, at 11:13 PM, David Kusumoto <davidmkusum...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > I just read the string of posts since I posted mine two days ago. Thanks for > the public comments from Jeff Potokar and Phillipp Kainbacher - (and from > Bruce H. via Jeff) - and from others who privately wrote me about this. > > And Phillipp, congratulations for getting a happy resolution from Grey. He's > a good man. -d. > > P.S. - As for the rolled Third Man poster being offered at Bidll - what > stands out in Bruce H.'s comments - is his opinion that a rolled (vs. folded) > 1949 international one-sheet - seems unusual. I will say the colors and > detail in the Bidll poster are more vivid than the re-issue 1950s poster I > bought in 2003 that was mistakenly represented as original. I think if a > buyer likes the image and can live with everything else about it, it's still > a fine poster from a great movie. (See web-hosted images again below to > compare.) > > The Third Man 1950s international re-issue one-sheet, Heritage, November 2003: > > > > The Third Man (?) international one-sheet, Bidll, June 2015: > > > Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 10:39:11 PST > From: 00000015e579331a-dmarc-requ...@listserv.american.edu > Subject: Re: My history of bad luck chasing an original "Third Man (1949)." > To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU > > Yes Jeff from today's conversation. > > Sent from my iPhone > > Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 21:56:35 -0700 > From: jpotok...@ca.rr.com > Subject: Re: My history of bad luck chasing an original "Third Man (1949)." > To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU > > Was that offered refund a result of this 2015 conversation, Phillipp? > > Good for you, if so. That's what discussion and collecting is all about. > > Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 20:41:38 -0700 > From: 00000015e579331a-dmarc-requ...@listserv.american.edu > Subject: Re: My history of bad luck chasing an original "Third Man (1949)." > To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU > > I would like to inform that Grey has immediately offered to refund the money > for the Third Man poster. I have been dealing with Grey since day one of his > auctions buying and selling posters. > Philipp > > Sent from my iPhone > > Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 12:45:54 -0700 > From: jpotok...@ca.rr.com > Subject: Re: [FA] ULTRA Rare English One Sheet - The Third Man (1949) > To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU > > I wrote to Bruce to ask his thoughts on this poster and discussion. He wrote > me back and also said I could post his reply to MOPO: > > Jeff > > > "I personally think it is very likely that it is from 1955 or so. > > Here is why: > > IMDb only lists a handful of films from Lion International. But because we > have auctioned a zillion English one-sheets, WE know that there are at least > 92 from 1955 on. There is not ONE that is from before 1955 other than the > disputed Third Man poster. 36 of the 92 are from exactly 1955 to 1959. When > you combine this with the stuff MoPo members found online, I think that is > pretty definitive. > > In addition, there is the issue of the poster being unfolded. Again, I have > sold a zillion English one-sheets, and the ONLY other one that was unfolded > was the African Queen re-release, which is surprisingly similar to the Third > Man re-release, because it has a very similar image to the English original, > except it is not as finely detailed, and it has been found unfolded, but it > has no printer information on it (unlike the Third Man poster in question). > > I think I would have an even more definite opinion if I saw this poster in > person. I know that studios used the same type paper for a number of years, > and when they changed, they changed for all their printing. That is how you > can pinpoint a poster to a specific handful of years, or a decade. The > English one-sheets I have handled have remarkably similar paper. If this > poster had paper that was at all different, that would be even more reason to > be sure it was not from the same year. > > Put it all together, and I think you certainly have far more than a > reasonable doubt, and I would certainly auction this poster as "undated, > likely a mid-1950s re-release, likely for the international distribution". > There is also re-release one-sheet which is very similar to the African Queen > one (no printing on the bottom), and I would think both that and the African > Queen are from the late 1950s or early 1960s. > > The reason the poster was entered incorrectly in our database was that we > never auctioned it. It is one of the tens of thousands of posters that > Richard Allen owned and photographed when amassing his archive. When those > were put online, some mistakes crept in, and this is one of them. I have > corrected it to match what I wrote above. > > Finally, as David Kusumoto noted, we DID incorrectly auction a late 1950s > re-release as original in one of our Christie's auctions. It does NOT appear > in our database at all. WHY? Because the buyer contacted us ten years later > and complained that we made a mistake, and we fully refunded him, so it can't > be in our database, because it was not original, and we do not want to > mislead people into thinking a reissue sold for that price. We took a huge > loss on that, but that is just part of our "lifetime guarantee". > > Feel free to post this on MoPo. > > Thanks, > Bruce" > > Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 11:48:53 -0700 > From: jpotok...@ca.rr.com > Subject: Re: My history of bad luck chasing an original "Third Man (1949)." > To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU > > So when there has been this kind of listing error, and something has sold > because it was said to be an original release and later turns out to be a RR, > has HA never done anything/reached out to winning > bidders who were misinformed? (More so on "big ticket" items, especially, but > also important when anything is not what it was presented to be). > > Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 11:37:59 AM PST > From: 00000015e579331a-dmarc-requ...@listserv.american.edu > Subject: Re: My history of bad luck chasing an original "Third Man (1949)." > To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU > > by the way I was one highest bidder below of the Third Man original release > poster from Heritage in 2006.... > > Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 11:33:44 AM PST > From: 00000015e579331a-dmarc-requ...@listserv.american.edu > Subject: Re: My history of bad luck chasing an original "Third Man (1949)." > To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU > > David....I was the person winning the Third Man from Heritage in November > 2004...my good the times does go fast....I paid the price thinking that I get > a low price based on the "original" Third Man poster David was winning a year > earlier....Nobody told me that Davids copy was a re-release > poster....certainly a bad day with Heritage....really bad considering > everything...I would have never bid so high knowing that the poster is a > re-release poster....I believe that David and myself are on the same > boat....we both love the film but got really mis-informed of the > poster....this was a domino effect....really bad...bad bad....Philipp > > Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 09:49:49 -0700 > From: jpotok...@ca.rr.com > Subject: Re: My history of bad luck chasing an original "Third Man (1949)." > To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU > > A Great write up, David... as always. > > Kudos! > > Jeff > > Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 16:07:13 -0700 > From: davidmkusum...@hotmail.com > Subject: My history of bad luck chasing an original "Third Man (1949)." > To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU > > * 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 paper 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 them. 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 - November 2004 - 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. > > * So in November 2004 - when Heritage sold ANOTHER 1950s re-issue - but this > time, correctly identified it as a re-issue, it fetched $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 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 issue 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 the re-issue poster I bought 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 my > net take after I sold it with proper identifiers via eMoviePoster for $362 in > December 2007 - or even had I chosen Heritage to sell it for $478 three > months later in March 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 a 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 lose confidence in eMoviePoster as a future > buyer basing 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: shadow....@gmail.com > Subject: Re: [FA] ULTRA Rare English One Sheet - The Third Man (1949) > To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU > > 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: jpotok...@ca.rr.com > Subject: Re: [FA] ULTRA Rare English One Sheet - The Third Man (1949) > To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU > > 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: 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.
