Yup, however resentful wives may feel who are collectors - my wife is not a collector of posters and she does have disproportionate "veto power" over what images get displayed on the so-called "communal walls" of our home. She says creepy images of monsters can "give her dreams," whatever. So "Wasp Woman" and those "Saucer Men" and "Night of the Living Dead" and other zombie images are banned. She even frowns on "bad girl" posters so I just have to put those in my work room. Paradoxically, sexy Raquel Welch posters and Jane Fonda Barbarella images were "OK" in the communal areas before I sold them. Could never figure her "rules." Yet she wasn't the type that said posters had to "color match" with the furniture or wall paint. - d.
________________________________ From: MoPo List <mopo-l@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU> on behalf of Toochis r <zimorri...@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 10:53 AM To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU <MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU> Subject: Re: Auction Prices - the unloved Style D Yes, Tommy. I have to negotiate with my husband about purchasing a poster. Not something I love but it helps in not buying outside of my collection. Also I have many other expenses I have to be mindful. Where to hang it?!! He doesn’t care. THANKFULLY! I on the other hand don’t like cluttered walls so I do what you do. On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 3:09 AM Tommy Barr <tommymb...@gmail.com<mailto:tommymb...@gmail.com>> wrote: It's great to see the way discussions here can morph from poster prices to Star Wars to collectors' wives. In reply to Toochis I think the fact that she is also a collector means that she may not be typical. I know that I have had to negotiate with my wife for specific spaces for hanging posters, so have to rotate those on display and those stored occasionally. On Wed, 3 Mar 2021 at 08:09, David Kusumoto <davidmkusum...@hotmail.com<mailto:davidmkusum...@hotmail.com>> wrote: I remember the Style D when it came out. It appealed to us "old boomers" who understood the "retro spirit" of Lucas's vision of Star Wars being a vintage weekend matinee serial. My first was TACKED onto my bedroom wall and my pals would say, "That doesn't look like a Star Wars poster." - hanging as it did next to my equally TACKED Style A. (I never owned the Style C.) Later, I heard people call it the "circus poster," and I wondered, "who comes up with these names?" My guesses about why Style D never caught fire are - 1) It's an homage and thus doesn't look like what collectors expect from SW, notwithstanding Lucas's preference for it, and, 2) Style D was issued in 1978, deep into its FIRST run but before the celebrated "first anniversary" poster that fetches $$ today. I also think there's a bias for 1977 issue paper vs. later re-issues - and the style D was also re-issued as a fan-club one-sheet in 1992. In my lifetime, I think I've owned about 7-8 style As, including a few first printings which - back then - I didn't know the difference and why they might be important to later generations. (My first posters were purchased at Comic-Con in San Diego.) In hindsight, I now find the style A to be color "drab" - which is a personal thing yet consistent with my early collecting years of treating posters like books, e.g., caring only about first-issue country-of-origin one-sheets of films that I had to love MORE than the poster. It's why I hung onto the pre-Awards "Graduate" one-sheets despite the BQ looking better. Of course, if I could be young again, I'd chase art regardless of what I thought of a film's merits, and I'd go heavy into BQs and Australian daybills. I never collected horror because as I say, back then I had to LOVE the movie too. And "Frankenstein" was the only classic that made the cut - even though I could never afford it, then and now. When I re-discovered Rita Hayworth via "Gilda," the Style B was the perfect match of poster art with a script loaded with sexual tension, power and ownership themes, delivered via double entendrés which I felt were ahead of its time. It's a kinky picture. If I could do a "rewind" - I'd chase "The Invasion of the Saucer Men" with those cabbage head aliens - but because my wife forbade horror images in the house - I would've kept that poster in my work room so she wouldn't be creeped out by it. It was Freeman Fisher who said it best. "The greatest obstacle to collecting posters you want isn't money - it's having wives." -d. ________________________________ From: MoPo List <mopo-l@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU<mailto:mopo-l@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU>> on behalf of Smith, Grey - 1367 <gre...@ha.com<mailto:gre...@ha.com>> Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 8:54 AM To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU<mailto:MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU> <MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU<mailto:MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU>> Subject: Re: Auction Prices Hi Tommy and MOPO, I’m not sure I have any terrific insight other than business seems to have grown well during the last year and likely due to a number of reasons. I suggest the already discussed stay at home element makes people more interested in online activity and the need of a pleasant distraction. I also agree that spending on other entertainment has been curtailed so seems more activity in buying items of personal interest. I’m not so sure how much is being spent by those wishing to more diversely invest in their portfolio in collectibles, but there surely must be that element too. I’m thankful for the gain in the hobby and hope perhaps those who’ve not spent on posters before will, as we always seem to have a steady growth in the hobby with new buyers. ----- From: MoPo List <mopo-l@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU<mailto:mopo-l@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU>> On Behalf Of Tommy Barr Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 8:07 AM To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU<mailto:MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU> Subject: Re: [MOPO] Auction Prices External Email My favourite Star Wars poster is the style D one sheet, which apparently was the one George Lucas had displayed in his office, yet it doesn't seem to be very popular among collectors. As regards the poster auction prices, I wonder if Grey or Bruce can offer any insights? Tommy ----- On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 at 12:40, David Kusumoto <davidmkusum...@hotmail.com<mailto:davidmkusum...@hotmail.com>> wrote: Helmut and Tommy - you guys are onto something. Because yesterday I was tracking a Blazing Saddles insert at Heritage and I saw it jump to near $200 with its 20% buyer's premium, a poster that can be had for a little more or a little less, depending upon condition and this one was pretty nice. A Star Wars public health vaccination poster sold for a hefty amount too. Yes, there is something going on with the market. Meanwhile, at Nathalie, LOL. Yes I agree with you - a Johansson image on a poster is definitely one of personal taste. Maybe I, too, wouldn't pay "two cents" for an image of her on a poster from any of her recent films - (although I did like her in "Hitchcock" and "Marriage Story") - and even though she's almost jail bait in Sofia Coppola's Oscar-winning "Lost in Translation," a contemplative drama more than a comedy - I WOULD pay two cents for this.... https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img923/8798/8brXpr.jpg<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__imagizer.imageshack.com_img923_8798_8brXpr.jpg%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3D03pYNlCxo1ES3gYVXxnxa61Lf80sedKVS5k9kL9xToA%26r%3D5Zsg7Uh_TXidOEjAziT8qDdZz28JZS1XAJHmIoJP84s%26m%3DML73X9QdCA9v7eJ4bn-el3F5ihm2nqLboCN5oPLyC4w%26s%3DXSKWYjR2IJQqaFV52Bxr7EWNxTUdOxmkKc_FaBOqhZA%26e%3D&data=04%7C01%7C%7C9de7b34f338344d30b7c08d8de75a936%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637503944219274183%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=oZ1Gnm7M%2F54UkfSxAM%2FbAovgbjCb6qwpncx0n51Ga8k%3D&reserved=0> [https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img923/8798/8brXpr.jpg] ... but I wouldn't pay a nickel for the satirical poster below from 1997, LOL - (even though a ton of Seinfeld fans would)... https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/8946/IBnMBj.jpg<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fimagizer.imageshack.com%2Fimg924%2F8946%2FIBnMBj.jpg&data=04%7C01%7C%7C9de7b34f338344d30b7c08d8de75a936%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637503944219284177%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=syIIFH2vrlyECIjPrIoei1i%2BS0SID3IemTfZ4rkXrx4%3D&reserved=0> [https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/8946/IBnMBj.jpg] But here's a question I'll throw out there for MoPo'ers and buyers and dealers to think about. It's about "Star Wars" posters from 1977. Now that at least three generations have embraced the first 1977 film - I'm puzzled why this 43-year-old half-sheet... https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/5577/fZ6t6z.jpg<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__imagizer.imageshack.com_img924_5577_fZ6t6z.jpg%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3D03pYNlCxo1ES3gYVXxnxa61Lf80sedKVS5k9kL9xToA%26r%3D5Zsg7Uh_TXidOEjAziT8qDdZz28JZS1XAJHmIoJP84s%26m%3DML73X9QdCA9v7eJ4bn-el3F5ihm2nqLboCN5oPLyC4w%26s%3D05ruqZ_HnLNaoYaEFOqiMVL4vroY2AopvawxK3hvAGY%26e%3D&data=04%7C01%7C%7C9de7b34f338344d30b7c08d8de75a936%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637503944219284177%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=3XJaFd57nNpwO7J8vUnjlM%2FJ3LS2Jlg%2BuLr8zTHdkzs%3D&reserved=0> [https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/5577/fZ6t6z.jpg] ...which has arguably better art by Tom Jung than other domestic '77 issue posters - (save for probably the Chantrell Style C) - rarely sells for more than $1,000. It seems stuck in that range like a money market fund with no interest. The half-sheet has never been implicated among the bootlegs like the minty inserts, the Style A or Style C knock-offs. Yet when offered - it's not just underrated - but unloved - even though to me, it's a great collage of what's in the film. Do collectors think the half-sheet format hurts it? As a horizontal poster, maybe not as good as the Chantrell British Quad which resembles the Style C - but I think it's still good - with an image only seen on the half-sheet. I thought maybe the reason is some think it's "too busy." Can't put my finger on why it's regarded as an "also-ran," not as good as the other domestic 1977 posters. *perplexed* -d. ________________________________ From: MoPo List <mopo-l@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU<mailto:mopo-l@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU>> on behalf of Helmut Hamm <texasmu...@web.de<mailto:texasmu...@web.de>> Sent: Monday, March 1, 2021 6:03 AM To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU<mailto:MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU> <MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU<mailto:MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU>> Subject: Re: Auction prices Tommy, I think there is one simple reason: With shops, bars, and restaurants closed in wide parts of the world and no holiday trips in sight either, many people have a lot of extra cash to spend. Many of them are working from their home office right now, and no commuting means more extra time to spend. And with the kids going on your nerve all day long, online shopping might deliver a much needed self-gratification. Well, that was three simple reasons... Plus, many new collectors may have the false impression that buying at auction sort of guarantees a 'fair market price'. In cases like a rare and desirable Tarantino poster, this might even be true. If you are bidding against another newbie, it's not. Last not least, people are lazy. Ooops, that five simple reasons now. Helmut Am 01.03.2021 um 12:50 schrieb Tommy Barr <tommymb...@gmail.com<mailto:tommymb...@gmail.com>>: After our musings on the prices fetched at the Ewbank's auction I notice that HA has also seen some strange price hikes at the weekend. For example, Battle of Britain o/s folded 7.5 @$300; The Lion King o/s rolled 8.5 @$324: Titanic 2xo/s rolled 8.5 @$324. Given that those can be bought online for a lot less, as has been the case with quite a number sold at auction recently, it leaves me perplexed as to what is going here. I don't think there is any one simple reason but at the moment movie poster values are proving weirdly unpredictable. Tommy ________________________________ From: S Yafet <sya...@gmail.com<mailto:sya...@gmail.com>> Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2021 2:59 PM To: David Kusumoto <davidmkusum...@hotmail.com<mailto:davidmkusum...@hotmail.com>> Cc: MoPo-L@listserv.american.edu<mailto:MoPo-L@listserv.american.edu> <MoPo-L@listserv.american.edu<mailto:MoPo-L@listserv.american.edu>> Subject: Re: [MOPO] Ewbanks Auction today - and thoughts about Once Upon A Time in Hollywood posters Very interesting reading. Guess it's all personal. I wouldn't pay 2 cents for a Johansson image. Nathalie On Sun, Feb 28, 2021, 1:36 AM David Kusumoto <davidmkusum...@hotmail.com<mailto:davidmkusum...@hotmail.com>> wrote: I've noticed similar trends of recent titles fetching higher prices. Newbies tend to temporarily push up prices for posters still in release. (I remember one-sheets from "Titanic" selling for crazy prices more than 20 years ago before falling to earth - and recently, I saw the same for one-sheets from "The Shape of Water" and "Parasite" after winning the Oscar for Best Picture.) But there is another "outlier" of recent note, certainly not vintage - and it's the posters from Quentin Tarantino's "Once Upon A Time in Hollywood" from 2019. The "wilding" Italian-style posters by old-school artists Martin Duhovic and Renato Casaro fetch prices north of $1K - but even standard one-sheets with collage art by another classic artist - (Steven Chorney) - sell at or near the $100 mark in better condition. Almost exactly two years ago - "Once Upon A Time..." was "teased" as a summer 2019 release - and two one-sheets were shipped to theaters - an international "COMING SOON" - and a domestic "JULY" - the latter was tagged with a "This film has not yet been rated" in the lower left. Both were popular - but the international versions were more - and still remain - plentiful. https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/6972/krbNwK.jpg<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fimagizer.imageshack.com-252Fimg924-252F6972-252FkrbNwK.jpg-26data-3D04-257C01-257C-257C88d475658d7642bffde208d8dc3c8859-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C637501499824573696-257CUnknown-257CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0-253D-257C1000-26sdata-3DA2IiRR7U0mIDrgWMJVWclAKJHnCINoGpr7-252BCI9BKykA-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3D03pYNlCxo1ES3gYVXxnxa61Lf80sedKVS5k9kL9xToA%26r%3D5Zsg7Uh_TXidOEjAziT8qDdZz28JZS1XAJHmIoJP84s%26m%3DML73X9QdCA9v7eJ4bn-el3F5ihm2nqLboCN5oPLyC4w%26s%3DMFZ03i-DiZ5YfdhVQ_isEXlsH79y18rZcDSrIQmwHUA%26e%3D&data=04%7C01%7C%7C9de7b34f338344d30b7c08d8de75a936%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637503944219294171%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=Uz2vK3dQ0t5%2Fpxi4SJdX8H%2FPPXJacwgPvGeFCJGLl60%3D&reserved=0> [https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/6972/krbNwK.jpg] https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/7235/yfEDhd.jpg<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fimagizer.imageshack.com-252Fimg922-252F7235-252FyfEDhd.jpg-26data-3D04-257C01-257C-257C88d475658d7642bffde208d8dc3c8859-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C637501499824583697-257CUnknown-257CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0-253D-257C1000-26sdata-3D-252Bs-252B72IexJhlFvBgQZk3Oa-252FEKR2pOPNuPBNw2CaBjTow-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3D03pYNlCxo1ES3gYVXxnxa61Lf80sedKVS5k9kL9xToA%26r%3D5Zsg7Uh_TXidOEjAziT8qDdZz28JZS1XAJHmIoJP84s%26m%3DML73X9QdCA9v7eJ4bn-el3F5ihm2nqLboCN5oPLyC4w%26s%3DzOnfIvyzhfc7LMP75eCBeIaGs_IPPILosUyiHqifZPQ%26e%3D&data=04%7C01%7C%7C9de7b34f338344d30b7c08d8de75a936%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637503944219304165%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=7uncOZ3dnrEs%2FrCPuwkTpnvEI4rlUodza%2Fu3%2FX%2B2QuE%3D&reserved=0> [https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/7235/yfEDhd.jpg] By the spring of 2019, though, the MPAA issued its "R" rating for Tarantino's film. Theaters were already displaying the other one-sheets. Nevertheless, Sony-Columbia went ahead and printed a third one-sheet - a small batch with the "R" rating in the lower left corner. This became the true domestic "final" - even though few theaters displayed it. It took me FOREVER for me to find this version and the difficulty made it obvious there weren't many - and those that I did see - were unused but roughly handled by re-sellers. I mention this because it was right here on MoPo - that I first talked about the differences in the three one-sheets and why I was looking for the "R" rated final. I solicited dealers everywhere, including here on MoPo. Not even the reliable Dale Dilts - who specializes in newer release posters, could help. Many months later - I finally found one in nice condition - from an amateur re-seller in Pennsylvania. https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img923/8048/Hs9kJW.jpg<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fimagizer.imageshack.com-252Fimg923-252F8048-252FHs9kJW.jpg-26data-3D04-257C01-257C-257C88d475658d7642bffde208d8dc3c8859-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C637501499824593683-257CUnknown-257CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0-253D-257C1000-26sdata-3DZ0Gh8iKD-252BW0Tl-252FUnRW4-252F-252FOccQlMbSYiZ8ZbwjM00KVI-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3D03pYNlCxo1ES3gYVXxnxa61Lf80sedKVS5k9kL9xToA%26r%3D5Zsg7Uh_TXidOEjAziT8qDdZz28JZS1XAJHmIoJP84s%26m%3DML73X9QdCA9v7eJ4bn-el3F5ihm2nqLboCN5oPLyC4w%26s%3DHS0SBV_Wh28nb17pGBiJ00-Os1gEflG566RrouM6frM%26e%3D&data=04%7C01%7C%7C9de7b34f338344d30b7c08d8de75a936%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637503944219304165%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=xpZkhi8R2frH%2FXaK7VCn%2BIyJ74gbGAMJfvEtv8IGOZE%3D&reserved=0> [https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img923/8048/Hs9kJW.jpg] Well, earlier this month, for the first time ever - eMoviePoster put up all three known 1-sheets featuring the Steven Chorney art - up against each other. Apparently, a few others had the same info that I did. 1. International double-sided advance (which is the most plentiful) - sold for $108. 2. Domestic USA single-sided advance with no rating - sold for $142. 3. Domestic USA double-sided advance FINAL with the R rating - sold for $285. eMoviePoster had sold the "R" version just once before - a typical "fair" condition example that still fetched $90. I'm not sure if Heritage has ever sold the "R" version - but it and eMoviePoster have both sold the international and the unrated domestic enough times - to rack up a track record of prices realized. What I'm leading to is I have a funny feeling that no matter how one feels the Tarantino film - this "standard theatrical" one-sheet - has a shot at joining this century's "Lost in Translation" - (Johansson image, 2003) - for being consistently sought after by collectors. I remember consigning a giant vinyl banner with the Johansson image (I had nowhere to hang it) - I was shocked when it sold for more than $1,000. Even high grade DS one-sheets with her image fetch hundreds of $$$. I could be wrong, but prices for the Tarantino poster haven't dropped yet. Forgive the long ramble, just musings sparked by Helmut's and Tommy's observations. - d. ________________________________ From: MoPo List <mopo-l@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU<mailto:mopo-l@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU>> on behalf of Tommy Barr <tommymb...@gmail.com<mailto:tommymb...@gmail.com>> Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2021 6:06 AM To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU<mailto:MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU> <MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU<mailto:MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU>> Subject: Re: Ewbanks Auction today I watched the auction sporadically and agree that there were some strange results. I think, however, that prices have been volatile on all the auction sites recently, even HA and emovie showing some anomalous results.Some posters which normally fetch mid double figures have been going for three figures, and the bids on many mid-level items seem to have grown exponentially. No idea why, but I can't accept the premise that there are lots of new collectors suddenly coming in to the market. I would have thought that anyone starting to collect now would initially be looking for posters from the comic-inspired superhero movies, Bond or Star Wars, but there weren't many of those in the Ewbank's auction. Tommy On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 at 21:34, Helmut Hamm <texasmu...@web.de<mailto:texasmu...@web.de>> wrote: Over the day, I watched the Ewbanks auction on and off and the results were quite astounding: The best thing they had was a GET CARTER quad, which hammered at 3,800 Pounds. A few other lots sold in the 1000-2000 Pound range. Much more interesting was the vast amount of low-end material that sold for astounding prices: A french petite for THE GOONIES hammered for 100 Pounds. That‘s about 125 with premium, plus VAT, plus shipping. It shouldn‘t be too hard to find one of these on ebay France for 10 to 15 Euros. There were tons of stuff like that, including bulk lots, Argentine posters, Spanish US posters, a lot of bottom end ebay material. The auction lasted overall several hours and I had other things to do in between, but I did not see a single pass. Most of the lots sold today are totally boring for the seasoned collector, but exactly the sort of material that might appeal to beginners. It seems to me there was A LOT of new blood present in this auction. Obviously, it makes online buying a lot harder for me, but in the end I guess it can only be good for the hobby. HH ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MoPo-L list, click the following link: https://listserv.american.edu/scripts/wa-american.exe?SUBED1=MoPo-L&A=1<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flistserv.american.edu%2Fscripts%2Fwa-american.exe%3FSUBED1%3DMoPo-L%26A%3D1&data=04%7C01%7C%7C9de7b34f338344d30b7c08d8de75a936%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637503944219314159%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=G9GpqIsWLwJQegAALL0ouZiA3OFzcCsjImdAapkNfys%3D&reserved=0> ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MoPo-L list, click the following link: https://listserv.american.edu/scripts/wa-american.exe?SUBED1=MoPo-L&A=1<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flistserv.american.edu%2Fscripts%2Fwa-american.exe%3FSUBED1%3DMoPo-L%26A%3D1&data=04%7C01%7C%7C9de7b34f338344d30b7c08d8de75a936%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637503944219324156%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=tGixkeDaCKVPx9NtrjuW8yc6DwXoyxHuY0tkqXrGyJc%3D&reserved=0> ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MoPo-L list, click the following link: https://listserv.american.edu/scripts/wa-american.exe?SUBED1=MoPo-L&A=1<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flistserv.american.edu%2Fscripts%2Fwa-american.exe%3FSUBED1%3DMoPo-L%26A%3D1&data=04%7C01%7C%7C9de7b34f338344d30b7c08d8de75a936%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637503944219324156%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=tGixkeDaCKVPx9NtrjuW8yc6DwXoyxHuY0tkqXrGyJc%3D&reserved=0> 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.
