Re: [MOPO] An odd incident on this past Sunday Heritage Auction
nice for them, isn't it? But most of us -- even those who do use sniper programs like myself -- don't have that luxury and we should be able to see what the last bid is and decide (quickly) if we want to try to outbid or not. Fair is fair. -- JR Todd Spoor wrote: To All, I really don't see the point of extended bidding, if you put in the MAXIMUM you want to spend in the first place, if you get outbid in the last second, so what, you weren't going to spend more than that anyways!!! Sniping is a great way to enter a Maximum bid and NOT have to watch the auction especially if it closes at an odd time or if you are at work. I win 99% of every auction I bid because of sniping plus the AUCTION HOUSE can not see my maximum bid!!! Todd Spoor -Original Message- From: James Richard Sent: Sep 28, 2009 4:05 PM To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Subject: Re: [MOPO] An odd incident on this past Sunday Heritage Auction Grey, How is extended bidding a waste of time? If no last second bid comes in, then the auction closes as scheduled. If a last second bid does come in, automatically extending the auction's end time by maybe 2 minutes gives other bidders who want the item a chance to trump the last-second bid. Hardly a waste of their time if it means they win and auction they otherwise would have lost -- and both Heritage and the consigner make more money. Where's the downside? I do think the implementation of extended bidding at emovieposter.com is too broad. I think in that case that if a bid comes in during the last 5 minutes the end time is extended by 5 minutes -- since lots of people prefer to place a bid in the last couple of minutes, parameters like that *do* tend to waste people's time. To work more efficiently, parameters should probably be 1 or 2 minutes. An extra 2 minutes isn't going to bother someone -- not if they really want the poster -- and it puts everyone on a level playing field whether they are using gavelsnipe.com or not. -- JR Smith, Grey - 1367 wrote: Hi, John. Well, the email was supposed to go private but my mistake. Yes, many snipe bid on the site now. In fact, as you are aware, we end all items at 10PM CT every Sunday evening, so many prefer not to have to sit by the computer. My belief is that the extended bidding platform is a waste of our bidder's time, though one of our other divisions does use it. Grey 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. 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. 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. 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. Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
Re: [MOPO] Attack of the 50ft Woman - DID POSTERFIX RESTORE AN S2 PRINT?
Rich and others, Well, not to act like another panicky villager with a pitchfork, but I had also been wondering for several years about the large increase in the number of high-end pieces coming to market -- when many of these items had previously been seen for sale much less frequently. And most seemed to be in surprisingly better condition then they had been previously. I put it down to improved restoration techniques and the marked higher prices which started being realized in the last 10 years motivating owners to put up for sale items they had been holding onto. But now we have good cause to wonder if some of these increased market appearances were not S2 art or something similar which had been slightly distressed, then restored and backed. As you say, Rich, the artist who did the AFI repro art deliberately introduced some tiny changes to prevent fraud, but in the restoration process those deliberate changes could have been corrected. A simple way to do it would have been to identify the tiny inconsistencies with a genuine original, then tear out/wear away that bit of the poster, making it look like normal paper or color loss. Then hand it over to a restorer to fix those unsightly blemishes, effectively undoing the fraud prevention. Then there is the fact that these deliberately-introduced changes to prevent fraud were not widely known or publicized (still aren't for that matter, as far as I know), which kind of defeats the whole purpose. Like Doctor Strangelove said, A Doomsday Machine is worthless if you don't let people know about it! It would have been very helpful if there had been a publication or website precisely cataloging these fraud-prevention changes available to the public from day one. Since some of these recently uncovered high-end fakes reportedly go back two years or more, we now have to now ask if maybe this sort of thing hasn't been going on for longer than first supposed? Perhaps it's been quite some time since some person(s) realized they could get away with this technique of deliberately distressing a high-quality exact-size repro, remove any offending inconsistencies by making such removal look like normal paper loss or color loss, then have the item restored to original specs and finally linen backed to help disguise paper differences. Or, as Jack Nicholson said in Mars Attacks!: Yikes. -- JR Richard Halegua Comic Art Movie Posters wrote: Yes I already know this D. Copson, the artist who did the image cleanup preparation made numerous changes throughout the catalog for various reasons including to prevent fraud (doesn't work if people are paying attention of course) that's why I'll have to spend some time at S2 if I can and get more info also, so that everyone is clear on this: S2 Art did not create the images. The images were supplied by the AFI (American Film Institute) as part of their commercial products division Copson worked for the AFI and not for S2 Rich At 03:19 PM 10/4/2009, Bruce Hershenson wrote: Rich and Richard: Remember that all S2s are recreations of originals. Their person used a high quality scan as a guide only, and then did their own version. So there are sure to be many subtle differences. These were intended to be homages, not slavish exact recreations. So yes there can be added border art, and anything else added on. Bruce 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.
Re: [MOPO] Dracula-John Davis-Final thoughts
Diane, This is a classy statement to make. Well said. It's obvious that most everyone had become too casual about too many aspects throughout our hobby-industry and pride doth go before a fall. -- JR Diane Jeffrey wrote: I have known John Davis, probably longer than anyone. I first knew him when he was, basically a kid, working at Picture Perfect. During those days, during many employer/employee relation problems, I usually found myself in the middle, in most cases, trying to defend the rights of the employees. John was so appreciative once, that he gave me a nice note and tickets to the movies. When he went out on his own, I was happy for him, he worked hard and became successful. During the years, I always felt we had a mutual respect for each other. I feel that John's biggest mistake with the Dracula, was his arrogance with me when I first contacted him about it. I am not sure where that came from and why it occurred. I truly believe that if he had just wanted to listen to what I had to say, this whole thing would not have gotten so out of hand. My intention was, and I believe that if we had worked together, with the help of others, we would have all come to the same conclusion, out of public scrutiny. This way would have been much better for Profiles too. John could have gone back to Profiles, said there was new information brought to his attention, change his decision and then Joe could of acted accordingly. I was extremely disappointed in John, when, in his revised status, he basically threw me under the bus as Rich put it. He did this by using the information I gave him, to try to help him. Again, I do not know why he chose this road. The real issue here, is now having to deal with the aftermath of criminals producing and selling fake posters for greedy profit. I feel that John was doing a great service for all of us, and he should still continue. But there is no room for egos here when dealing with such an important issue. For me, due to the way John handled this and the path he chose in dealing with me, my respect for him has dropped a few notches, and that is certainly troubling to me. But I still do admire his work and efforts in helping the hobby. Diane Studio C 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.
Re: [MOPO] ebay item.....................................
I have regularly heard the word 'patina' also used by experts in describing the finish of antique wood furniture, porcelain and all kinds of other physical objects of art. Applying it to a poster is questionable, but I suppose one could use it to describe the look of the surface... i.e., that the paper appears old, has some staining and surface wear, etc. But it's a bit of a stretch. I find it hard to believe that someone with 131 feedback who lives in New York would be so naive as to list a genuine 1946 half-sheet for NOTORIOUS with a Buy It Now of only $35, but I suppose it could happen. I see someone has already been snapped it up at the Buy It Now price. Heck, even if it is a decent quality repro, it's probably worth that much. -- JR Franc wrote: I've only heard the word patina used to describe the aging of metal i.e. the patina of a bronze sculpture. Maybe this dealer means browning or darkening. FRANC -Original Message- *From:* MoPo List [mailto:mop...@listserv.american.edu] *On Behalf Of *Michael B *Sent:* Thursday, October 01, 2009 9:02 PM *To:* MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU *Subject:* [MOPO] ebay item. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=320430767855 http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=320430767855 IS THIS AN ORIGINAL ? WHAT DOES THE DESCRIPTION MEANpatina? 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. 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. 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.
Re: [MOPO] An email from John Davis/Poster Mountain
Steve, You are right on all points. In the past, after the outrage subsided, things went on just as before. This time may be different for a couple of reasons: 1) A *lot* more money was lost on these high-end fakes. Millions of dollars by some accounts. 2) The reports coming out clearly show that the restoration and backing industry needs to formalize practices and standards and unique identifying serial numbers on backed items -- and to have some kind of Underwriter's Seal of Approval that operations who observe those practices and standards can display to show they are supporting industry reform. If they don't join together and do this they *will* lose money going forward (not to mention possibly ending up with some liability in lawsuits). So it has now become in their best interests to spend the relatively small amount of money necessary to form an industry guild and police themselves. The cost would not be that large when it was spread among the 20 or so operations and it would be well spent. 3) Some of the Really Big Players got hurt this time. Heritage and other auction houses/retailers had to refund a lot of money to customers who bought fakes from them. Maybe they had insurance to help with the refunds, maybe they didn't, but it still hurt them financially and also hurt their reputations and customer confidence. They should now be willing to back the formation of a guild to define restoration standards and practices and *identification marks* of who did the work so it could be quickly checked on. They should also be willing to encourage genuine experts to examine their very expensive items and provide Opinions of Authenticity to help restore buyer confidence. Note that I call them Opinions of Authenticity because it is getting harder for even long-time participants in this field to identify the best of the fakes. After the John Davis fiasco, I doubt anyone would be willing to sign their name on 100% Guarantee anymore, but a solid opinion with specifics delineated would still be better than nothing, which is what we have on most very expensive items right now. Grey is entitled to his opinion that there is no real problem in catching fakes, but history has not borne that out in recent years and besides, the public perception being what it is now, if Heritage expects to keep setting those record prices they are simply going to have to offer the buyers something more substantial in the way of authentication on high-end items than they have in the past. Or maybe not. Maybe it will all go back to business-as-usual once again. In which case we can all look forward to even bigger scandals in the future -- and declining realized prices for genuine high-end and middle-tier authentic movie posters. It is now in *everyone's* best interest to DO SOMETHING real and practical to help insure nothing of this magnitude happens again. Just making reassuring statements that the sky is not falling won't cut it. A 19% buyers premium on a $30,000 poster sale is $5,700 bucks -- they should be willing to spend a few hundred to properly authenticate it before offering it to the customers they are asking to trust them. A money-back guarantee is a great thing. But what good does it do you if you end up buying a fake and never find out about it? Or don't find out about it for 10 or 20 years... or until your children go to sell it after you've passed it on to them in your estate? -- JR dsonesheets wrote: Just a humble Japanese collector/dealer here, but that sounds like quite a lot of money you're expecting someone to fork over, let alone a publicity campaign for a standards group. Sounds like a shitload of money. I have let my voice be known for my absolute revulsion for the guys like Thomas Loce, who to this day CONTINUE to have their wares up on eBay, only to cry wolf when they get caught trying to pawn those Pulp Fiction Lucky Strikes posters with the official stamp on the back. And I only use that example because it's one most people know of. They then start agreeing with the crowd that the stamp is fake, after trying s hard to disprove actions like Dan Rickard. Let's take a step back... Seems like old times, when just three years ago that I suggested the same thing to the poster community, albeit from the other side of the restoration business. The email below was sent out to all the MOPO crowd, and I received _*ONE*_ letter of encouragement, a single letter, from the person who wrote the letter I am responding to, JR. BTW I have bolded #2 in my list, as it bears relevant interest here. The bottom line, going forward, is that talk is cheap and actually devoting time and money to a campaign is something that no one wants to do. PEOPLE ONLY CARE WHEN IT AFFECTS THEIR INCOME. Let me say that again. People only care when it affects their income. I expect a lot more fluff over the Dracula issue, and people like Loce and
[MOPO] John says Dracula Fake was all Diane's Fault?
Diane, You should consider legal action against John Davis -- or at least demand a public apology. Instead of standing up like a man and admitting that Hey folks, I simply didn't realize S2art.com was using 100-year old French presses to exactly duplicate stone litho printing that looks just like the real deal under my microscope he just ignores that negligent gaffe and tries to blame an unknown restorer for great attention paid restoratively to make this poster appear authentic. Wait... isn't that exactly what his COA was supposed to do: Peer beyond any air-brushing that might make the poster appear authentic? And he, and everyone else, knows who the restorer was because you came forward and identified yourself early on. I was willing to cut him some slack until he pulled this cowardly stunt of trying to shift the blame onto everyone but himself for completely missing the true nature of this poster. Hey, the fact that both bottom corners of it were the only paper which had replaced should have been his first Big Clue that something was not kosher. What? It didn't ring any bells that a previously unknown example of an ultra-valuable 60-year old only-2-others-known-in-existence authentic Dracula poster suddenly turns up with no paper loss *other* than the two bottom corners which just happen to contain all the original authenticating hand-written info? Sure... happens all the time, nothing to be concerned about... some expert he turns out to be. Besides, you publicly wrote to MOPO immediately when people started questioning the authenticity and revealed exactly what you knew, what the client had asked for, what you had done and why -- going public to help with the investigation. And I believe you also called and spoke with Davis personally at that same time and gave him the same details. For him to now act like he didn't just drop the ball completely on this one is criminal cowardice. But for him to claim that you knowingly and deliberately created a fake poster from an S2 reproduction, that's libel. That aside, there's no denying the truth that, going forward from this sad example, you and every other restorer in the business now simply must take a second, third and fourth look at what a client is asking you to do. And if the paper does not seem right, you probably need to take a pass on the job. I know that hurts because you and the others are in the business of giving the clients what they want -- but if the paper just does not seem right (too thick, too slick, too new, seems artifically aged) then that's got to be a deal breaker for the restorer to proceed with the job. Bottom line: you restorers are going to be the last people to see the paper alive before it is glued onto linen and becomes very hard to check, you are now the first line of defense when it comes to preventing people from backing a modern fake to disguise what kind of paper it is on. It is the look and feel of genuine 40 or 70-year old Virginians cheap-ass print-it, display-it and throw-it-away movie poster paper that is going to be the only thing which cannot be easily faked these days. Air-bushing new paper to look tan or brown should not fool any competent restorer. I wish the best to everyone in the business who will now be facing this new challenge. It's sad, but the inevitable result of all the very high prices that started being paid for this material in the last 10 to 15 years. It has attracted the sharks to our waters. -- JR Diane Jeffrey wrote: OK people, I am really confused here, to see John's updated status on the poster today. I called Brian at Profiles today, and he did not take my call, or did he return the call. So mid day, I called John. John told me that he had the poster and was going to un-mount it, in the presence of Ron Borts,(good friend), Ken Schacter, and Joe Madalena, in order to get to the bottom of the poster. He still, at this point, did not say it believed it was fake. He said it would take a week for this to happen, and he would let me know. I offered the info that I did not remember us being completely successful in removing the layer on the back, that we may have sanded it some, trying to give him as much info as possible , to help him get to the truth about the poster, since he was about to un-mount it.. I called him back, because I realized I forgot to ask him an important question, concerning the Morgan Litho Co writing at the bottom. I told him that we did not add that text, did he know where that came from?? He offered no info on that. I also indicated to him during one of my phone calls, that I had before and after pics of the poster. I am shocked to see his update, in view of my two phone conversations today, makes no sense. I was even more shocked when I read the following: This once legitimate S2 reproduction one sheet was sanded thin by the restorer then lined with canvas and paper (linen backed)
[MOPO] Let the clueless fox check the fence on the chicken coup?
Diane, It is obvious that the cardboard was applied by the fraudsters, then removed to leave a residue of glue and paper, in order to disguise the fact that it was too thick and too new when it was handed over for backing and restoration. They figured this would not only disguise the fact that it was a new S2art.com reproduction, but were smart enough to understand the restoration techniques used and knew that there would have to be chemical treatment and sanding done to the back to remove the cardboard and residue and create a smooth surface for the masa paper, thus further disguising the true nature of the paper. And most definitely yes, it is clearly a conflict of interest for John Davis to do this new examination. Naturally he should be there, but he should definitely not be in charge or the person to make the final determination. -- JR Diane Jeffrey wrote: Zeev When we received the poster, the majority of the thick cardboard had already been stripped away, leaving a thin layer on the back. Before cleaning and linenbacking to occur, it is crucial that any tape, paper, glue, duck tape, cardboard, etc be removed. The type of adhesive used will determine the method of removal. In this particular poster, I do remember using a combination of methods, to try to remove that back layer of something. In my effort to help John yesterday, I told him that when he does go to un-mount the poster, he may find evidence that the back had been sanded. Now, unless he was able to gather his group of witnesses un-mount the poster, which done properly takes some time, let it dry, and proceed to do his lengthy analysis, in a few short hours, I believe, his statement of the poster being sanded came directly from me, and not his expert analysis. You are right, John Davis is not the owner of the poster. I would not know who the owner is right now, as my client Tom Rega consigned it to Profiles, and I am not up on what the legal relationship between auction house and consigner is, at this point. In their effort to get to the truth about the poster, I feel that Profiles made a mistake, in giving the poster back to John, which to me indicates a huge conflict of interest If the intend was to un-mount the poster, a third party should be used. I am surprised that such a large company would do that, and hope that it does not jeopardize any legal investigation going forward. Diane - Original Message - *From:* lobby card invasion mailto:lobb...@rogers.com *To:* MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU mailto:MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU *Sent:* Wednesday, September 30, 2009 10:58 PM *Subject:* Re: [MOPO] Dracula - Update Hello Diane Could you please clarify for me a couple of points: 1. It is my understanding that the poster in question was sanded down to thin paper, as the S2 Art prints are done on thick carboard. It is also my understanding that you did the linenbacking of this print. My question is: When you got the print for linenbacking, was it already AFTER someone else has sanded it down previously, unbeknownst to you? 2. It is also my understanding that John Davis is not the owner of this piece. Is it not strange that he would take it upon himself to de-linenback a poster that does not belong to him? Zeev - Original Message - *From:* Diane Jeffrey mailto:dianejeff...@roadrunner.com *To:* MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU mailto:MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU *Sent:* Wednesday, September 30, 2009 11:42 PM *Subject:* [MOPO] Dracula - Update Rick I did linenback the poster and repair the paper. We did add some text, but we did NOT add Morgan Litho Co that was added by someone ELSE, and have pictures to prove it. I don't blame you for being confused, with this latest development, I am confused and shell shocked. Diane 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: 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. 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. Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___
Re: [MOPO] An email from John Davis/Poster Mountain
OK, finally. Quite a few days late and a couple hundred thousand dollars short, but at least he's stopped blowing smoke and trying to shift responsibility to someone else. There's hardly any sacrifice in giving up his authentication service at this point, as I kinda doubt he was going to be making much more from that operation in the future. Still, he has apologized in no uncertain terms now and let's face it -- he is a long-time, very talented and highly-regarded restorer. He has performed -- and should continue to be allowed to continue to perform -- a valuable service for poster collectors. Tell you what, John, take the lemons and make lemonade. Because of all this furor, you are in a position to say to the others Look what happened to me. We have establish formal standards and an organization to back them up. Make it your personal mission to spearhead the campaign for formal standards for the restorations industry, including the placement of Identification seals done in ink on the back of the linen stating which restoration/backing service did the work -- and containing an in-house restoration serial number as part of that seal which anyone could reference in a phone call or e-mail to whomever did the work (or simply post the information on websites). As part of the guidelines/rules, the restoration operation which did the work and placed the seal on the back would be required to keep a permanent record of this unique restoration serial number along with a detailed description (preferably including photos) of exactly what was done to the poster while it was in their possession. No more of this client confidentiality when it comes to backing and restoration. Those days are over. If a client doesn't want it known that work was done -- and how much -- to his poster, then that has to now be considered a red flag. No more of this we don't have to make this public, since it's only for my own viewing pleasure and I'm going to keep it in my own collection forever. And it will probably be necessary to go the extra step of creating a formal guild or underwriter's laboratory which would only issue its Seal of Approval to those restoration and backing operations which agreed to abide by these guidelines. And to launch a publicity campaign to make the entire community aware of the fact that they should only do business with those operations who are authorized to display the Seal of Approval. I believe that Ed and Sue of LAMP would be glad to help with such a project -- and I would think that at this sad point all of the reputable backing and restoration operations would be glad to join you and cooperate with such a formal organization to protect their own interests. -- JR Stephen Fishler wrote: Received this this morning: It is absolutely true that I made an unfortunate mistake in my determination of authenticity of the Dracula poster. This was an honest mistake born of my ignorance of S2 reproductions and my lack of experience with the original Dracula poster. Joe Maddalena was in no way guilty of any wrong doing. His auction catalog was predicated on my expertise and I alone was fooled. I gladly accept 100% of all blame for my mistake, and will gladly reject any more requests for authentications. I sincerely apologize for any and all harm that I have caused. And promise that it will not happen again because I will no longer offer authentication service, please give me a few days to change my web site and to return all the new fakes that came in this week. Sincerely, John A. Davis Poster Mountain Inc. 8749 Shirley Ave Unit B Northridge CA 91324 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.
[MOPO] DRACULA-gate and Profile's Part in it
Steve, While I think Profiles did a poor job of presenting the poster with their low-quality pictures and initial sketchy description, they actually *did* take responsibility and do the right thing prior to putting it in their catalog -- they went to one of the most respected experts in the field and paid him good money to carefully inspect and authenticate the DRACULA poster and issue a certificate to that effect. The fact that the expert blew it isn't really their fault and they continued to behave responsibly once others started pointing out problems. Well, OK, the community actually had to beat them over the head about it, but hey, they had paid for a certificate of authenticity from a recognized expert, so why shouldn't they have stood by it as long as they did? I don't believe that prior to these revelations that anyone in movie poster collecting would have had anything but high praise for John Davis and his capabilities. So, PIH went to the best available, not some fly-by-night so-called expert. This whole incident just spotlights the fact that it is getting damn near impossible for someone to authenticate a linen-backed poster (or a card stock-based poster that has had its original card stock backing replaced). This is why I've been saying that the restoration and backing operations have to police themselves, form an organization to determine standards and practices (including identifying seals and serial numbers in ink on the back of the linen which would be linked to public disclosure of what work is done). This organization would then issue an underwriters laboratory seal which a cooperating restoration operations would display, thus assuring their customers that they were complying with those standards and practices. But what about the forger who puts on a fake seal and serial number from some reputable restoration service? Thats why public disclosure is absolutely necessary -- because if anyone can look at that number on the back of the linen-backed poster, call up that operation to confirm the number and that it is the same poster they are looking at (and what work was done to it), then putting such fraudulent identifying marks on a fake would be useless -- and in fact would set off an immediate alarm that someone was trying to pull a fast one. The place to stop this fraud is on the restoration and backing tables. -- JR Steven F. Poole wrote: Bang up job on the letter, Rich. However, one area of all of this that I believe needs to be addressed is the responsibility of Profiles itself. The auction house is not a victim, really, in this fiasco. As others have pointed out previously on this forum, the auction house which charges about 1/5 of the hammer price on an item MUST stand in the docket when the issue of fraud is raised. They (auction houses) wax enthusiastically about their offerings when it comes to advertising the wares that have been entrusted with on consignment. They (auction houses) take their pound of flesh on both ends in the form of consignment fees and buyer's premiums. They (auction houses) must be held accountable when they promote a poster that has a retail value of some $300 on the cover of their prestigious catalogue and estimate that same poster to have a possible auction value in the hundereds of thousands of dollars. Sad, Sad, Sad. state of affairs. Proclaimed ignorance of printing techniques is no excuse whatsoever as to their culpability in this thwarted attempted massive fraud upon the hobby. Steve Poole ( 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.
[MOPO] About Jamie Mendez Statements
Sean, Bruce (and others), I've discussed this with Sean and with several other people who are in the know privately, off-list. And all I can say is this: If you (or anyone) has got private inside information that actually *proves* something about Jamie Mendez then you (or anyone) can only do one of two things publicly: 1) Tell the rest of us precisely what you know -- BUT... 2) -- that's probably not possible right now because of the legal/lawsuit situation. So you have to restrain yourself about what you say publicly about Jamie until the legal situation changes to where you *can* tell us what you know. Bottom Line: It is unfair, unethical and plain wrong to continue to condemn Jamie publicly and urge that people stop doing business with him based on hidden facts that are known only to you and a couple of other people. We just don't do things that way in this country. Kerry is different because there are several people who are eyewitness to him selling and trading verified fakes who have already stepped forward and made sworn, public statements to that effect, But as far as I know there are no eyewitnesses who have come forward to testify to what they personally *know* Jamie did or didn't do. What you know may very well be completely true, but if you cannot tell us what you know publicly, then you are under obligation not to make *public* condemnations and recommendations based on private information which you can't reveal at this time. Given that, it's best to just let this matter play out in the legal system, which is what Heritage has obviously decided and why they continue to do business with Jamie until he is *proven* guilty -- or at least until someone is willing to step up and make a sworn public statement against him citing provable facts (as has already been done with Kerry). That's how it is supposed to work. -- JR Sean Linkenback wrote: Unfortunately the restorer who helped bring about all this mess is having business as usual thanks to Heritage and is not being held accountable at all. - Original Message - *From:* Tom A. Pennock mailto:tapenn...@aol.com *To:* MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU mailto:MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU *Sent:* Thursday, October 01, 2009 3:16 PM *Subject:* [MOPO] FAKES-Thing's Will Improve In The Hobby Like Grey mentioned the sky is not falling. It will get better. Even though ALL of this is indeed overwhelming it's best to try NOT to panic. I really believe things will stabilize eventually in our hobby. Things will be better. We will learn from ALL of this. Future accountability will help make this hobby better. --Tom Pennock 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.
Re: [MOPO] WANTED: 1931 duotone Dracula S2 recreation
Just like an out of court settlement where everyone signs binding non-disclosure statements, here the general public is left hanging with no real answers. So, did someone/something finally convince PIH that this poster was not the real deal? Did John Davis end up recanting his COA? Will this poster now turn up in another auction some day, some where, maybe overseas... or perhaps just be quietly offered for private sale to some collector who doesn't happen to read the movie poster forums? And, of course, we will lack the definitive answer to the burning question, Wow, dude, is *that* all it took? Just pay $325 for an exact-size S2art.com reproduction... distress it a bit... give it to a restorer and tell them to back it and repair/replace the bottom margin where S2 deliberately left out the fine print... and you too can get a recognized expert to give it a COA and auction it off for hundreds of thousands of dollars? I guess at the very least we all need to keep track of which specific posters S2art.com is reproducing: http://www.s2art.com/page.php?page=catalogtype=collectioncollectionID=8productTypeID=1 -- JR Bruce Hershenson wrote: I was told there was a well linenbacked S2 recreation of the 1931 duotone Dracula one-sheet in the upcoming PIH auction, but I went online and can't find it. Anyone know where it went? Bruce 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.
Re: [MOPO] Question re: a Package Returned from Italy
Tom, Thanks for the insider revelations. It all makes sense now. :) -- JR Tom Martin wrote: HHMMM Joke this JR !!!Channing Dont listen to anyone that has to quote Babelfish as reference.. I did some digging and called the ' Italian Embassyy to enquire about your dilemma... It appears that when Guseppi spotted your package he said ,,, Looky Alfonzo da packe.. shes from San fransisco It could a be from Anthony Benaditto... thats a Nice! OK !! So they passed the pacake around and thumped it , bumped it wondering what it could be they Tossed it like a Pizza PIE,,, then even sent it to Mimi the local wine stomper and he jumped up and down on it... Then it went on a Journet,,, to Roma, Naples, Venice, and became a spectacle could it be the Boxa of Anthonty Benaditto from San Frabcisco?// FinallyGeppetto, head of foriegn packages took the damn package and opened it. and inspected.. to which he said Mama MIA' '' its a fricken book and he threw the Box in the corner,,, The entire Country of Italy cried and declared a public holiday, schoolchildren were sent home. and there was a sadness in the air felt in all Europe.OK???so they all decided senda Back the BOX to the yankee dog that denied them all Of Anthony Benidiito... Cd... ( Tony Bennett) Its not what you wanted to hear... But alot more fact then JRs -babelfish theory ( thats like a crackerbox prize) And as to why they sent JR'S check back, DUH ,, they were being polite, when they saw who wanted to come stay at their hotel.. and saw ' JR Richarson they put it in the Non Entressso File as In we donta a wnat dis guy in our Place ever But You didnt understand Kind Italianos People... and when the check arrived ( It was there whole time),, they hoped you would take a hint and use it to LEAVE and get a one way ticket back to whereever boonies you live...!! But did you get it?? NOO Hop this clarifies once and all .. The italian Postal system is Justa Fine. they just are getting tired of americans and want some Anthony Benaditto cds. James Richard wrote: Channing, Jeez, but this list is full of jokers, ain't it? On the chance that you actually did want to know what Non Ammesso means, the online translator at Yahoo says it means: Not Admitted -- http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_txt Not very helpful, I'm sure. You already knew they didn't admit it, it would have been nice if they said *why*. But I as the jokers pointed out, this is an Italian bureaucracy we're talking about -- I once sent a check to a hotel in Venice to hold my reservation 6 weeks in advance of my arrival. When I got there the hotel (where I had stayed several times before) had not received it and been unable to hold my reservation at that crowded time of the year -- but since they knew me they found me a tiny attic room on the cuff. Three days later, the clerk stopped me in the lobby and said, Hey, look what just arrived in this morning's post... Sure enough, it was my 6-week old letter with the check in it. My guess is that there was something about the customs form they didn't like... or maybe the address didn't match up with their system. -- JR channinglylethomson wrote: Perhaps someone on MOPO could explain what the phrase NON AMMESSO means. I sent a book to Italy by Priority mail a few months back. The client said they'd never received it and filed a claim with Paypal saying non-receipt. I just got the package back today with a pink sticker on it that said RETOUR (RINVIO). Checked below that box it was marked NON AMMESSO. Does anyone know what happened to this package from what I'm describing? Or what that phrase would mean in this situation? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Channing Thomson 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. 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. 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
[MOPO] Oh sure, like I'll fall for that...
Bruce, Hah! Fat chance... you think I'm going to hustle over to your scam website where I wouldn't even have sniper capabilities? Why, everyone knows that snipers are the Buyer's Savior from the greed and chicanery of feelthy auctioneers... they are the great leveler of the playing field so that those who can afford to load their sniper guns with high-impact maximum bids can guarantee they will ambush and will blow away all other bidders behind the scenes in the last micro-second without those po' fools even knowing they've been shot! But you, Mr. High and Mighty Hershenson, you would deny me my inalienable right to snipe? How dare you sir? And what's with this extended bidding crap? You think you know better than a giant auction operation like Ebay or that utopia of consumer-friendly shopping, Heritage Auctions? They don't play around with time the way you do, oh no. Listen, you heretic, if someone places a bid with a robot during the last micro-second that person is morally entitled by God to win that auction and no other bidder should be allowed to interfere with that. But clearly you think you know more than God! You have the effrontery to mess with mega-buck carefully-crafted strategies and actually *extend* the bidding time if a last-second bid is placed so that everyone else interested in that item actually has the opportunity to place another bid if they want -- just like they do in real live auctions? The nerve... this is the internet, mister, and don't you forget it. Go peddle your honesty, fair-minded technology and full disclosure somewhere else. -- JR Bruce Hershenson wrote: Don't forget to check out our *899 one-sheets* on our website sometime *BEFORE* they end Tuesday, September 29th, (but you only have 13 hours left to do so, because they start ending at 7 PM CST *TONIGHT, so hustle over there right now!*) by going to *http://www.emovieposter.com/agallery/13.html* And also be sure to check out our 222 *THURSDAY ITEMS (**999 lobby sets of 2-7, or 9 or more)* on our website sometime *BEFORE* they end Thursday, September 24th, beginning around 7 PM CST by going to *http://www.emovieposter.com/agallery/14.html* And now you can browse the items in *ALL* of galleries at one time in our *All Auctions http://www.emovieposter.com/agallery/all.html* gallery at *http://www.emovieposter.com/agallery/all.html*! And you can always access our galleries by using the link from our homepage, * http://www.emovieposter.com http://www.emovieposter.com/*. 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.
Re: [MOPO] Bambi (OT)
TIME readers are easily frightened... -- JR Roger Kim wrote: I went to look up whether Frankenstein (1931) is truly the greatest horror film of all time. I'm not sure of the answer, but I did discover that Bambi is one of the top 25 horror films. It says so in Time magazine. http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1676793_1676808_1676840,00.html -rk V 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.
Re: [MOPO] Vintage Poster Authentication
Randall, This info on how to use a microscope is very valuable and, heck, it's just interesting stuff to know even if one is not trying to authenticate a poster. But... ...that is exactly what John Davis of Poster Mountain did do with the Dracula poster -- examine it under the microscope. And he what he saw lead him to believe it was genuine because it looked like old printing consistent with the 1930s. I think you and he are both missing that the forgers have figured out that someone might look at their fakes under the microscope and so they are getting very high resolution photos/scans which contain exactly that kind of dot and litho-line detail, and somehow able to duplicate those effects when creating the fake image -- or, in the case of the Dracula, possibly taking an S2art.com print, distressing it and linen-backing it. Since S2 has all these old presses they use to make their pricey reproductions, their repros apparently will look exactly right under a microscope. Which is very cool in one way and a big problem in another when it comes to linen-backed posters. I'm certainly no expert on this sort of thing, but from what I've heard -- and what happened with the Dracula poster -- I think the microscope can help, but that it can't be relied upon anymore as the last word. My guess is that long-term experience applied to evaluating the look and feel and smell of the old paper is the best approach -- of course, that only works with non-linen-backed posters. And doesn't work with window cards at all, since apparently it has been common practice for a long time now for restorers to replace the card stock backing on genuine window cards as part of the restoration. Hey, they can train dogs to detect the slightest whiffs of drugs and other chemicals even if it they sealed in tight packages and in a suitcase. Perhaps dogs, with their incredibly sensitive sense of smell, could be trained to identify if paper were old or new, even if it has been deacidified and linen-backed? -- JR 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.
Re: [MOPO] Profiles in History...question
Exactly. That's the crucial aspect: While some of this extensive restoration, overpainting, etc. may have been done by people who planned to keep the poster in their collection permanently and were so fond of the image that they just had to have the poster made to look as nice as possible for their own personal viewing pleasure, I simply don't believe that was the primary motivation for most of the work that was done, particularly in recent years -- I believe most of that work was done by people who were looking to sell the poster and felt they could get the most money for it by making it look as close to perfect as possible. -- JR Info Movie Poster Art Gallery wrote: Absolutely agree. Excessive airbrushing and other techniques to make posters appear 'brand new'/near mint, to disguise serious and (much more unfortunately, as Richard gives an example of) not really serious damage at all, has always been a time-bomb in terms of the long term desirability and value of the items it's been practiced on. It's also inevitably contributed to the environment in which these fakes could be conceived of. Tim Maddison On 27/9/09 03:08, Richard Evans evan...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: Yep, I'm not saying linen backing per se. Fine when necessary, though there's too much that's been unnecessary. Just the polishing up to the look of the brand new. I think people are going to start getting more enthusiastic about the look of good, honest age. On 27 Sep 2009, at 02:57, dialmbb...@aol.com wrote: I can see the demand for restoration dropping. GREAT TO HEAR THAT! Been wanting this thought conveyed for a long time. However..i am not totally opposed to placing a poster (even inserts half sheets) on linen or paper WITHOUT THE CRAZY restoration and airbrushing (which equals paint). leave the blemishes and tears alonejust smooth them out BUT KEEP THE CHARACTER!!! Nonethelessat the next Signature auction, most of the highest priced items will be linen/restored. And Emovieposter often puts backed posters in one night---900+ posters..and they are usually the better titles. SO. WHAT'S DONE IS DONE. Many still prefer linen. michael -Original Message- From: Richard Evans evan...@blueyonder.co.uk To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Sat, Sep 26, 2009 9:47 pm Subject: Re: [MOPO] Profiles in History...question I can see the demand for restoration dropping. (The more cosmetic work anyway.) And the demand for authentication growing. Someone will need to provide it, and I don't think anyone's cornered the market in this yet. On 27 Sep 2009, at 00:19, Dario Casadei wrote: *We don't remove anything except old backings! Ones I owned a Dracula's Daughter WC done this way, I sold it after a month, couldn't stand looking at it. End of the day each restoration studio implements their owJust the tarting up to brand new.techniques and this is by no means a peak at Diane. We all do what we feel is right. Best, dario. * JOHN REID Vintage Movie Memorabilia wrote: /When working with window cards, we remove the back layer card stock, this way the poster can be cleaned, washed and deacidified / Hi Diane Surely removing the back layer card stock is tantamount to changing the entire character and authenticity of a window card. A window card is *supposed* to be on thick card stock. Thats the way it is. It doesnt seem right to me to be removing a layer of the poster. Perhaps you could elaborate on the process you use. Regards John Sign up for my regular newsletter on movie memorabilia: http://www.moviemem.com/pages/page.php?mod=accountgo=register http://www.moviemem.com/pages/page.php?mod=accountamp;go=register Visit my Website: www.moviemem.com
Re: [MOPO] An odd incident on this past Sunday Heritage Auction
Grey, Well, since your message ended up going public, I have two comments: 1) Thanks for the tip about Gavelsnip.com, I didn't know about that one. 2) Since it is possible to snipe Heritage auctions in the last micro-second, wouldn't it be a good idea for Heritage to implement on its internet-only auctions the same kind of extended bidding time that emovieposter.com uses -- where if a bid comes in during the last couple of minutes the end time of the auction is automatically extended by 5 minutes so that other bidders have a chance to respond? -- JR Smith, Grey - 1367 wrote: Jeff, I am writing you privately concerning this as this does concern me and I believe it is because you seem to be unaware that there is a very good snipe program that works on our site. Many, many use the program. It is called Gavelsnip.com and is free to use. Also works on eBay! I know the buyer of the lot you are concerned about and emailed him asking him to perhaps privately email you and tell you how his bid was placed. It may happen and he may not. He is a gentleman that lives in California and buys frequently with us. All the best, Grey Smith *From:* MoPo List [mailto:mop...@listserv.american.edu] *On Behalf Of *Jeff Herdan *Sent:* Monday, September 28, 2009 12:34 PM *To:* MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU *Subject:* [MOPO] An odd incident on this past Sunday Heritage Auction I had a very interesting experience in yesterday's Heritage Sunday auction. I bid on lot #54132 (Buck Jones 'Desert Vengeance' Lobby Title Card). I placed a bid of $260 + 19 ½ % buyer's premium (total of $310.70). .I made the bid with less than 1 minute to go. The previous high bid was $80 (+premium) and when my bid was listed as the high bid, my bid was shown as $150 (plus premium)...again with less than 1 minute to go. I watched the seconds tick down and when there was literally 1 second to go, I was still the high bidder at $150. However, when the auction ended, it suddenly showed a high bid of $280 (plus premium). Somehow I was outbid. I wonder how this happenedwas it a fluke that someone with hands as quick as Eli Manning just made the higher bid with 1 second on the clock or maybe it was an 'internal bidder' who recognized that I was about to make a good purchase. Frankly with all the press that is going on regarding shill bidding in Auction houses (with Heritage being named as one who uses internal bidders and fictitious bidders, I seriously wonder if this was just such a caseI cannot be sure, but it certainly leaves one to pause to think. I know that I will not participate in future Heritage auctions. Any thoughts? 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.
Re: [MOPO] An odd incident on this past Sunday Heritage Auction
Grey, How is extended bidding a waste of time? If no last second bid comes in, then the auction closes as scheduled. If a last second bid does come in, automatically extending the auction's end time by maybe 2 minutes gives other bidders who want the item a chance to trump the last-second bid. Hardly a waste of their time if it means they win and auction they otherwise would have lost -- and both Heritage and the consigner make more money. Where's the downside? I do think the implementation of extended bidding at emovieposter.com is too broad. I think in that case that if a bid comes in during the last 5 minutes the end time is extended by 5 minutes -- since lots of people prefer to place a bid in the last couple of minutes, parameters like that *do* tend to waste people's time. To work more efficiently, parameters should probably be 1 or 2 minutes. An extra 2 minutes isn't going to bother someone -- not if they really want the poster -- and it puts everyone on a level playing field whether they are using gavelsnipe.com or not. -- JR Smith, Grey - 1367 wrote: Hi, John. Well, the email was supposed to go private but my mistake. Yes, many snipe bid on the site now. In fact, as you are aware, we end all items at 10PM CT every Sunday evening, so many prefer not to have to sit by the computer. My belief is that the extended bidding platform is a waste of our bidder's time, though one of our other divisions does use it. Grey *From:* JOHN REID Vintage Movie Memorabilia [mailto:johnr...@moviemem.com] *Sent:* Monday, September 28, 2009 1:35 PM *To:* Smith, Grey - 1367; MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU *Subject:* Re: [MOPO] An odd incident on this past Sunday Heritage Auction Hi Grey I had no idea that you could snipe on Heritage. That makes bidding a lot easier and I will use it in future. Regards John Website: www.moviemem.com http://www.moviemem.com JOHN REID VINTAGE MOVIE MEMORABILIA PO Box 92 Palm Beach Qld 4221 Australia - Original Message - *From:* Smith, Grey - 1367 mailto:gre...@ha.com *To:* MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU mailto:MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU *Sent:* Tuesday, September 29, 2009 4:27 AM *Subject:* Re: [MOPO] An odd incident on this past Sunday Heritage Auction Jeff, I am writing you privately concerning this as this does concern me and I believe it is because you seem to be unaware that there is a very good snipe program that works on our site. Many, many use the program. It is called Gavelsnip.com and is free to use. Also works on eBay! I know the buyer of the lot you are concerned about and emailed him asking him to perhaps privately email you and tell you how his bid was placed. It may happen and he may not. He is a gentleman that lives in California and buys frequently with us. All the best, Grey Smith *From:* MoPo List [mailto:mop...@listserv.american.edu] *On Behalf Of *Jeff Herdan *Sent:* Monday, September 28, 2009 12:34 PM *To:* MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU *Subject:* [MOPO] An odd incident on this past Sunday Heritage Auction I had a very interesting experience in yesterday's Heritage Sunday auction. I bid on lot #54132 (Buck Jones 'Desert Vengeance' Lobby Title Card). I placed a bid of $260 + 19 ½ % buyer's premium (total of $310.70). .I made the bid with less than 1 minute to go. The previous high bid was $80 (+premium) and when my bid was listed as the high bid, my bid was shown as $150 (plus premium)...again with less than 1 minute to go. I watched the seconds tick down and when there was literally 1 second to go, I was still the high bidder at $150. However, when the auction ended, it suddenly showed a high bid of $280 (plus premium). Somehow I was outbid. I wonder how this happenedwas it a fluke that someone with hands as quick as Eli Manning just made the higher bid with 1 second on the clock or maybe it was an 'internal bidder' who recognized that I was about to make a good purchase. Frankly with all the press that is going on regarding shill bidding in Auction houses (with Heritage being named as one who uses internal bidders and fictitious bidders, I seriously wonder if this was just such a caseI cannot be sure, but it certainly leaves one to pause to think. I know that I will not participate in future Heritage auctions. Any thoughts? 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. Visit the MoPo
Re: [MOPO] An odd incident on this past Sunday Heritage Auction
Todd (and others opposed to 1 or 2 minute extended bidding times), This is an example where modern technology has corrupted our cultural philosophy. Letting the sniper programs battle it out in the last micro-seconds behind the scenes where no one can see what is going on is just fine if you don't care about the concept of public auctions being a level playing field where everyone bidding has the opportunity to keep bidding after a higher bid has trumped their own. But that is exactly how things are done at live auctions. Why shouldn't it work that way for internet auctions? Just because Ebay never did it that way? I *like* sniper programs and use them. I do agree that it is a good thing if the auction house cannot see your maximum bid -- no temptation, no potential conflict of interest and no foul. That's one of the big positive aspects of sniping programs. And, as you say, it's great that you don't have to sit at the computer with your fingers glued to the mouse counting down those last seconds. But we all know that one's theoretical maximum bid is not always writ in stone. Have you never adjusted your maximum snipe bid as the auction was nearing its close and you saw how the bidding was going and decided that maybe your original maximum might not be quite enough? I certainly have. If someone has enough money to place extremely high maximum sniper bids on anything they want and so virtually guarantee they will win 99% of what they bid on... well that's very nice for them, isn't it? But most of us -- even those who do use sniper programs like myself -- don't have that luxury and we should be able to see what the last bid is and decide (quickly) if we want to try to outbid or not. Fair is fair. -- JR Todd Spoor wrote: To All, I really don't see the point of extended bidding, if you put in the MAXIMUM you want to spend in the first place, if you get outbid in the last second, so what, you weren't going to spend more than that anyways!!! Sniping is a great way to enter a Maximum bid and NOT have to watch the auction especially if it closes at an odd time or if you are at work. I win 99% of every auction I bid because of sniping plus the AUCTION HOUSE can not see my maximum bid!!! Todd Spoor -Original Message- From: James Richard Sent: Sep 28, 2009 4:05 PM To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Subject: Re: [MOPO] An odd incident on this past Sunday Heritage Auction Grey, How is extended bidding a waste of time? If no last second bid comes in, then the auction closes as scheduled. If a last second bid does come in, automatically extending the auction's end time by maybe 2 minutes gives other bidders who want the item a chance to trump the last-second bid. Hardly a waste of their time if it means they win and auction they otherwise would have lost -- and both Heritage and the consigner make more money. Where's the downside? I do think the implementation of extended bidding at emovieposter.com is too broad. I think in that case that if a bid comes in during the last 5 minutes the end time is extended by 5 minutes -- since lots of people prefer to place a bid in the last couple of minutes, parameters like that *do* tend to waste people's time. To work more efficiently, parameters should probably be 1 or 2 minutes. An extra 2 minutes isn't going to bother someone -- not if they really want the poster -- and it puts everyone on a level playing field whether they are using gavelsnipe.com or not. -- JR Smith, Grey - 1367 wrote: Hi, John. Well, the email was supposed to go private but my mistake. Yes, many snipe bid on the site now. In fact, as you are aware, we end all items at 10PM CT every Sunday evening, so many prefer not to have to sit by the computer. My belief is that the extended bidding platform is a waste of our bidder's time, though one of our other divisions does use it. Grey 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.
Re: [MOPO] Question re: a Package Returned from Italy
Channing, Jeez, but this list is full of jokers, ain't it? On the chance that you actually did want to know what Non Ammesso means, the online translator at Yahoo says it means: Not Admitted -- http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_txt Not very helpful, I'm sure. You already knew they didn't admit it, it would have been nice if they said *why*. But I as the jokers pointed out, this is an Italian bureaucracy we're talking about -- I once sent a check to a hotel in Venice to hold my reservation 6 weeks in advance of my arrival. When I got there the hotel (where I had stayed several times before) had not received it and been unable to hold my reservation at that crowded time of the year -- but since they knew me they found me a tiny attic room on the cuff. Three days later, the clerk stopped me in the lobby and said, Hey, look what just arrived in this morning's post... Sure enough, it was my 6-week old letter with the check in it. My guess is that there was something about the customs form they didn't like... or maybe the address didn't match up with their system. -- JR channinglylethomson wrote: Perhaps someone on MOPO could explain what the phrase NON AMMESSO means. I sent a book to Italy by Priority mail a few months back. The client said they'd never received it and filed a claim with Paypal saying non-receipt. I just got the package back today with a pink sticker on it that said RETOUR (RINVIO). Checked below that box it was marked NON AMMESSO. Does anyone know what happened to this package from what I'm describing? Or what that phrase would mean in this situation? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Channing Thomson 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.
Re: [MOPO] Profiles in History...question
Alright, Jimbo, so I misread that Diane was talking about window cards instead of lobby cards, but the operative word in either case is card and aside from the fact that a window card is a bit longer, structurally they are the same, so why wouldn't the same restoration techniques be applied to both? The concerns I raised about this technique of replacing the old card stock on the back with new card stock would apply to both window cards and lobby cards. I think it's more important to think about this question: How much difference is there... really... between a window card or lobby card where: 1) the old original image is peeled off its original backing and glued onto new card stock and 2)a meticulously re-created exact replica of the orginal image which is glued onto old card stock? Neither one qualifies as an original poster as issued at the time of the film's theatrical release in my book. -- JR James Ryan wrote: Jimmy, Do you know the difference between a WINDOW card and a LOBBY card? Maybe you've been collecting 40 days and not 40 years? Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 18:37:57 -0400 From: jrl...@mediabearonline.com Subject: Re: [MOPO] Profiles in History...question To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Diane, Now see, I never knew that --I always assumed that when lobby cards were restored they were deacidified the same way a one sheet is -- soaked in a chemical bath to neutralize the acid naturally present in the original paper. I had no idea y'all were stripping off the back layer of card stock and replacing it with new card stock. If that has been the common and acceptable practice for a long time, it's a wonder we haven't had a lot more fake lobby cards -- since the even authentic original cards which have been restored have had their original back paper replaced, you've removed the easiest, surest way of telling if the card is authentic -- i.e., its original card stock paper. So, now... well, looking at it honestly and impartially... I have to wonder how many fake expensive lobby cards have been slipped into people's collections over the years? I mean, if you can't use the back of the card check its authenticity, well, heck, the front layer is easy to reproduce extremely well with modern technology. And given the relative small size of lobby cards compared to other poster sizes, it a lot cheaper to do -- so this sort of high-end lobby card fakery could have been going on for quite some time now. Seems the more we learn the worse things sound. Diane Jeffrey wrote: Sue When working with window cards, we remove the back layer card stock, this way the poster can be cleaned, washed and deacidified, which also results in removing any creasing/folds. We back it then with a layer of acid free masa paper, same stuff used in linenbacking. A lot of window cards have been trimmed at the top, this then allows us to add the missing paper, making it to size. Card stock is then adhered to the masa, repairs are made, touched up, etc. If you look at my first post about the Dracula, I mentioned the fact that there was a layer of something on the back. To me, it looked like the poster had been backed to card stock, cardboard or something and when it was pulled off, a layer remained, giving it a fuzzy (term I used on NSGE) feel. So we removed what we could on that, washed and linenbacked it. So to answer your question, you are absolutely right, it is possible, and just might be what happened with the Dracula poster. Diane Studio C 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: lists...@listserv.american.edu mailto: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. 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. Bing^(TM) brings you maps, menus, and reviews organized in one place. Try it now. http://www.bing.com/search?q=restaurantsform=MLOGENpubl=WLHMTAGcrea=TEXT_MLOGEN_Core_tagline_local_1x1 Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Re: [MOPO] Profiles in History...question
John, Precisely my feelings. Considering the hobby-industry is now looking at some $2 million or more in fake paper having been floated before anyone noticed, I'd say it is long past time for the backers and restorers to form a guild and establish some rules of the road. Doubt it will happen, tho, for all kinds of reasons, some of them perfectly reasonable. For instance, you don't go into a business like that if you aren't pretty independent-minded and so unlikely to be inclined to go along with any attempt to standardize your small owner-operated business. -- JR JOHN REID Vintage Movie Memorabilia wrote: Hi Diane Thanks for elaborating on this but I think it highlights the need for some standards amoung linen backers/restorers ie what is and what is not acceptable. I would not want to have a layer taken off the back of a window card - period, but that is obviously just my opinion. If someone buys a backed and restored window card I wonder how they would feel if they knew that the back layer had been taken off. There have been some high end window cards at major auctions that have had extensive restoration. I guess that the same process of removing the back layer may have been used with some of these items. I fully understand that clients often want their posters to be restored to near perfect condition but I think it might be time to start setting some industry standards. Regards John Sign up for my regular newsletter on movie memorabilia: http://www.moviemem.com/pages/page.php?mod=accountgo=register http://www.moviemem.com/pages/page.php?mod=accountgo=register Visit my Website: www.moviemem.com http://www.moviemem.com All About Australian posters: http://search.reviews.ebay.com/members/johnwr_W0QQuqtZg My eBay Store and Lisitngs: http://myworld.ebay.com/johnwr/ Exhibitions: http://www.moviemem.com/pages/page.php?page=15 JOHN REID VINTAGE MOVIE MEMORABILIA PO Box 92 Palm Beach Qld 4221 Australia - Original Message - *From:* Diane Jeffrey mailto:dianejeff...@roadrunner.com *To:* MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU mailto:MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU *Sent:* Sunday, September 27, 2009 10:13 AM *Subject:* [MOPO] Profiles in History...question John - I really understand your question here and concern. Let me try to elaborate a bit more. Window cards are made of a layer of very thin paper that the poster is printed on. This paper is adhered to the card stock, giving it that thickness. The really old window cards are usually pretty beaten up. As I said they have been trimmed, but also very dirty, moldy, and with the paper being acidic, turning brown, faded, bug infestation, etc, etc. The only way to properly treat all of the above problems, is to remove the backing, and treat the poster paper by washing, deacidifying, treating mold etc., just like a one sheet is treated and then backed. You have to treat all of the issues to properly preserve the paper, so that it will survive the years to come. To my knowledge, this is the best way to do this. I know of no way to accomplish this by treating the thick card, there is no assurance that water, chemicals, etc will penetrate the thick card, you would have to leave it in solutions way too long, and the paper would start to disintegrate. Adhering a layer of acid free paper and card stock, to me, does not seem to compromise the integrity of the card, but I suppose that can be debated. If Dario, or anyone else has anything to add, that would be great. We are always looking for the best way to treat and preserve these treasures. Diane Studio C 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. 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. 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.
Re: [MOPO] OT $840 for a movie soundtrack lp?
That some impressive inflation, particularly considering that prices on most collectibles are down in this current economy -- but old record collectors are even crazier than movie poster collectors. But at least their hobby is probably reasonably safe from anyone creating convincing fakes... -- JR Roland Lataille wrote: This is slightly off topic but, I haven't sold much on Ebay for a while and I saw that an LP titled The Musical Wonders of Cinerama sold for $550 see link below. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=180397403208ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=180397403208ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT I had one that I won on Ebay for about $20 back in September 2005. So, I thought why not put it on Ebay and see what I would get for it. Usually the second time the same item is sold on Ebay you get less money but not this time. I was very surprised that is sold for $840 - see link below. http://cgi.ebay.com/THE-MUSICAL-WONDERS-OF-CINERAMA-A-Musical-Souvenir_W0QQitemZ150374178876QQcmdZViewItemQQptZMusic_on_Vinyl?hash=item2302ffe03c_trksid=p3286.c0.m14 http://cgi.ebay.com/THE-MUSICAL-WONDERS-OF-CINERAMA-A-Musical-Souvenir_W0QQitemZ150374178876QQcmdZViewItemQQptZMusic_on_Vinyl?hash=item2302ffe03c_trksid=p3286.c0.m14 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.
Re: [MOPO] Subject: Re:THE SLOW DESTRUCTION OF OUR HOBBY and OUR PART IN IT
Rick, Otherwise, we ourselves will be an INTREGAL PART of turning Movie Poster Collecting EVEN ON IT'S HIGHEST LEVEL into a BUYER's MARKET. If the day comes when you can buy an authentic, original CASABLANCA US 1-Sheet for $7500 or an original FRANKENSTEIN US 1-Sheet for $75,000, our hobby will truly be in desperate straits. Spoken like a true seller. I think there are a whole lot of collectors out there who would totally disagree that a buyer's market in movie posters would be a bad thing. For starters, any such fear deflation would not spread to the whole business, not without very good reason (like a bunch of convincing fakes turning up in the $4,000 to $8,000 range). It would start at the very top, where prices are already absurd even compared to 10 years ago and now limited to purchase by the very wealthy. I don't consider that situation good for the hobby at all. Quite the opposite: Look at what happened to comic book collecting when that happened. But anyway, it would be the very high end that was most affected by Fear and Loathing in Posterville and I'm not going to weep for speculators if the posters they paid too much for is suddenly worth a bit less than they were 4 years ago. They have to take their lumps in the speculative marketplace just like they do in the stock market or the real estate market. As for genuine collectors who have owned their rare Universal Horror Stuff for a decade or more... well, they paid a lot less for those posters than current prices so if the market price drops some they are still ahead of the game. Now if convincing fakes are discovered in the under-$10,000 range then, yes, there would be some deflation there as well, but there should be if such convincing fakes are discovered. Why should buyers continue to spend large sums of money without some believable assurance that they aren't being had -- either knowingly or unknowingly by the seller? The selling and restoration communities (who are the industry part of this hobby-industry) are now going to circle the wagons and try to convince all of us circling buyer-Indians that there is no real cause for alarm and that we should all continue to go on paying ever-increasing prices for the desirable pieces year after year. Phooey. As sellers were so fond of saying during the Big Price Run Up, it's the market that sets the price. OK, so let's go with that -- or is does that maxim only apply when the market is constantly rising? If Greed is Good, then logically Deflation is Good as well -- because it allows people to indulge their greed by getting more for their money. I think it is very inaccurate to describe concerned collectors who are trying to get to the bottom of this problem -- and then actually *do something* about it (which never was done in the past when fakes were discovered) -- as people pouring gasoline on the flames. Knowledge is not gasoline and Truth is not flames. -- JR rixpost...@aol.com wrote: I think that any collector or dealing who's looking to buy or bid on a high-end poster or lobby card should be CAUTIOUSLY CONCERNED before proceeding with his possible acquisition, but I can see the lever of PARANOIA and FEAR reaching some kind of a fever pitch soon...and I this 99% of it is UNWARRANTED. This Universal Horror forgery situation was like the PERFECT STORM...you bring together one collector fairly new to the hobby (since 2001, I think the article said). who allegedly joins forces with one of the most brilliant restorers in the hobby---the specter of GREED enters into the equation and...PRESTO...a few months or a couple years later you have a two million dollar forgery plan that ultimately FAILED. But in order for it to ever happen, the linchpin in this whole scenario (or any scenario like it) is THE RESTORER. The fact of the matter is that there are VERY FEW restorers out there who can do the INCREDIBLE things that our Alleged Universal Horror Forgery Restorer can do. Hey, these guys have been virtually PAINTING IN GREAT BIG MISSING PIECES of movie posters for 15 years or more...this practice is NOTHING NEW. On the other hand, creating an ENTIRE poster IS something new. But I don't think there are THAT MANY RESORERS out there who are CAPABLE of pulling something like this off. Sure, I think we should have some entity in the hobby who examines high end pieces and certifies that they're authentic. But with all this FEAR and PARANOIA out there, if I had the funds available, I'd have my sights on that CREATURE 1-Sheet that's presently only at $3300. Hell, the way I see it this is the PERFECT TIME for some 50's Sci-Fi collector out there to get an original Creature From The Black Lagoon US 1-Sheet for, who knows...maybe UNDER $10,000!! I think we as seasoned collectors and dealers have a RESPONSIBILITY not to EMPTY A CAN OF GASOLINE on the gathering flames of FEAR and PARANOIA. Otherwise, we ourselves will be
Re: [MOPO] Profiles in History...question
Rich, Your example has undoubtedly been repeated thousands of times over the past 20 years. It results from too much Big Money moving into the hobby, as others have already discussed. What happens then is that people look at their items, things they previously would have been perfectly content to leave in unrestored condition and found themselves thinking, But it would be worth so much more if I had it restored... This inevitably lead to a whole lot of posters being fiddled with that otherwise would have been left alone. So when I hear people talking about how ever-increasing prices in the higher tiers are good for the hobby I just have to shake my head. There is a trickle down effect. -- JR Richard Evans wrote: Some personal experience of this. I bought a Maltese Falcon Window Card at Sotheby's London in 97, which I enjoyed for ten years before selling through Heritage. Subsequent to the Sotheby's auction where it was described as condition A, I realized the front had been stripped off and the the back layer of card replaced. I also spotted that illustrated on the back cover of Film Posters of the 40s, was my same card, but prior to the work. Same The Rowena Fenton at the top, though it was now barely discernible. Same heavy crease running down the left hand edge now appearing like a crack. Some discolouration, but to me, not distracting, just genuine character, which the card now lacked. I don't think the condition justified the work, it was cosmetic. To me it looked far better in it's original state. 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.
Re: [MOPO] Subject: Re:THE SLOW DESTRUCTION OF OUR HOBBY and OUR PART IN IT
Rich, It's funny how nobody remembers how absolutely great everyone thought Ebay was at first. Suddenly there was this huge market you could sell into and you actually got *much higher* prices for things than you otherwise would have. I sold my collection of early WEIRD TALES pulps in 1998 for mega-bucks. But today I could buy those same issues back for about 1/3 of what I sold them for 11 years ago. Bruce built a very successful business by selling early on Ebay. It's just that as the auction site became more and more popular, more and more sellers set up shop there while at the same time the pent-up demand for collectibles of all kinds was already being filled. Eventually most collectors got most of the items they wanted and saw no need to buy a duplicate. But the supply kept expanding as sellers kept listing more and more. Yes, we have always had a buyer's market for a large chunk of the posters in existence -- but how much were most of those posters selling for prior to Ebay? I agree that Jerry Lewis, Sinatra-as-an-actor, Robert Mitchum and even Steve McQueen, Elvis and many others have continued to fade in buyer interest as those names fade from our popular culture -- but that would have happened even if online internet auctions had never come to pass. -- JR Richard Halegua Comic Art wrote: JR, the one subject you do not touch on is that in a deflationary market, many people see the value of their holdings decrease as well these losses of value have a chilling effect to the overall health of the hobby/business not a very good thing also, seeing as the internet actually already created a buyer's market and a large % of the hobby by volume is already depressed (can we say Jerry Lewis or Frank Sinatra). so you have a buyer's market and it get's further depressed by another scandal.. not a good thing Rich 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.
Re: [MOPO] Bruce's New Club Message
Sean, It's kind of weird. I think you and I agree on far more than we disagree, and yet we always seem to be correcting each other. Anyway, it is important to note that Jamie Mendez has officially denied in a court statement all charges that he had anything to do with the fakes. Now, in this country we are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Since Jamie is well known for doing excellent restoration work, there is no reason he should be punished and his business income cut-off simply because someone has accused him of involvement. That charge has not yet be proved. So it is perfectly acceptable for Heritage to continue their working relationship with him. We need to find out the facts, and truly guilty parties need to be held accountable, but we do not need a witch hunt. Kerry is known to have actually transfered fakes to people and solicited them to purchase or trade for them. But Jamie is not *known* to have done anything wrong at this point. I haven't read Bruce's club message yet (they are always so densely packed that they make my head hurt), but I hope he would have more sense than to condemn Jamie being allowed to continue to work at this point. That would be way premature and simply not right. --JR Sean Linkenback wrote: For those who haven't read it - Bruce's new weekly club message has an excellent summary about the fake Dracula poster currently being auctioned by Profiles, as well as confirming the disturbing news that Heritage continues to give work to Jaime Mendez even after knowing of his involvement in the current Universal Horror fakes scandal. This week a big shame on you goes out to both Profiles and Heritage. 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. 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.
Re: [MOPO] THE SLOW DESTRUCTION OF OUR HOBBY and OUR PART IN IT
David, I live on the plant where Steve McQueen and Elvis (among others) are fading in buyer interest and popular culture -- are they more popular than ever on your planet? -- JR David Lieberman wrote: Steve Mcqueen and Elvis are not fading in buyer interest or from popular culture. What planet do you live on? 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.
Re: [MOPO] YouTube link
Eureka! Nathalie has clearly found a woman who is more than eminently qualified to serve as the official expert to issue Opinion of Authenticity certificates on all future high-end poster auctions! Problem solved. -- JR After watching the Joe Maddalena interview, I found this and wondered if the dealer's remarks reflect what people outside of the hobby actually think. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erPWTY_YDC4 Nathalie 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.
Re: [MOPO] not not not not the SLOW DESTRUCTION OF OUR HOBBY'
Michael, Well, you probably didn't have to worry earlier, but these days I would have real concern if the poster is linen-backed. With modern photo/scanning/printing techniques it is just do damn easy to create a full-sized reproduction on paper that is close enough so when it is artificially aged a bit and put on linen that you really have to check it in person very carefully to determine its authenticity (and probably have a known original with you when you do it). And while this type of labor-intensive faking has so far been limited to items that would sell for $10,000 or more,there is no reason why someone could not do the same thing for posters in the $3,000 to $7,000 range and still make good money at it -- particularly since no one will be looking very close at those kind of posters. It's time for this hobby-industry to wake up to the capabilities of modern technology and start figuring out a way to quickly verify authenticity. No, I don't know what it is, but maybe some non-destructive chemical spot-test could be devised which would indicate type of paper or something. Either that or completely give up on this linen-backing idea for anything but the oldest, most fragile items. Which is what linen-backing was primarily used for 25 years ago. -- JR Michael B wrote: The title of the original thread/link,DESTRUCTION OF OUR HOBBY, is such an overreaction. Most of us don't collect the Universal stuff valued at 50,000plus. Of course, we don't like to see fraud, but it does not affect the majority of collectors. Or should i say...DAMN...I AINT BUYING THAT HERITAGE/SOTHERBY/CHRISTIES POSTER WITH AN ESTIMATE OF 60,000-75,000 because i am scared? We know if i said that, it would be greatly disingenuous. Do you think i lost a moment of sleep wondering if my LAURA or SPELLBOUND or VERTIGO or NOTORIOUS or THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE or my newest poster, TOMORROW THE WORLD (with a whopping value of under 60.00 with postage) are fakes? Look at the totality of the circumstances. Don't worry..keep buying. Just be careful, but didnt we always say that when buying? michael 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. 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.
Re: [MOPO] DRACULA - Didn't someone stake their life on this??
For those who may have missed this transparent overlay comparison of the Profiles DRACULA image with images of two other known originals, here's the link: http://stylec.yuku.com/topic/6364 Now if the Borst and Feiertag images didn't match up so well *with each other* one might put this down to a difference in the angle the camera was held at, not high enough resolution when the Profiles image was taken, some optical keystoning, etc... but since the B F images *do* match up well and the Profiles image doesn't even come close, there's definitely something to worry about with the Profiles item. Not to mention the poor quality and definition of the web lines also shown in the Profiles image, the different letter spacing in the DRACULA title lettering and the generally (apparently) fuzzy aspect of the printing and several other details. Linen-backing can cause some distortion, folks, but not this much -- and not in so many different ways and different places on the poster. Unless, of course, there was a lot more paper replacement than originally indicated. Now *that* could cause some of these effects. Sure, some of this could be the photography -- Profiles really didn't do a very good job on this picture, which is rather absurd when auctioning such an expensive piece -- but even iffy not-so-high resolution photography can't account for all these discrepancies went compared to the Borst and Feiertag images. None of this is definitive considering the vagaries that can happen with photos, but when you add all this to the information that Diane of Studio C recently provided to this list... nah, there's too much valid reason for concern over this poster. I mean, after all, we ain't talkin' about only spending a couple of grand here... And hey, if it turns out to be genuine and this is all just villagers with pitchforks paranoia because of the recent high-end fakes scandal, well, that's just the point isn't it? This industry is just *not* going to be able to go back to doing business the way it used to... ...not when this kind of money is at stake. (sorry... couldn't resist...) -- JR 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.
Re: [MOPO] A short YES film
Off Topic. Bad audio quality. Fuzzy video. Over long. LOL? How about BS (barely snickered)? Did I mention this post is so far off topic that you could use it as a dictionary definition for the term? -- JR Brek Anderson wrote: Caution: This film contains some colorful language. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjm0Hbb1NSYfeature=email http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjm0Hbb1NSYfeature=email I think the actor did a great job playing one of the worst jobs. Brek 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.
Re: [MOPO] Dracula 1-sheet info
I fail to understand how a professional restorer could fail to check for accuracy of something they were adding to a poster. How could a pro not realize that he couldn't just copy the number off of a Style F version of the poster onto this one? This is the kind of thing you pay a pro to handle properly. And how can anyone possibly describe a poster as 100% original and still admit that something was added at the bottom (meaning at least that part of the original poster was gone and so there is no way it can possibly be 100% original)? An accurate description would be A genuine x-number-of-years old original theatrical release poster with minor restoration to the fine print in the bottom margin. I mean, if the seller didn't know about the restoration, I can see how it would be left out -- but the seller has the COA which mentions the restoration. Of course, this is why sellers don't want to adopt this idea of having a third-party authentication certificate accompanying an expensive poster at auction. The authenticator will have to detail the aspects of restoration he can identify and the seller will have to put those details in the description so and the buyer would actually know what he was getting and so adjust his bidding accordingly... horrors! -- JR Stephen Fishler wrote: This info from Poster Mountain's restoration report and would explain things. John Davis states at the top of his COA that the writing in the margin was added in pencil by hand and not checked for accuracy. I would assume when this poster was linen backed the 'fine print' was added to the bottom from a different Dracula poster. we are adding the COA on line with the poster description today to our site www.profilesinhistory.com and www.icollector.com. This poster is 100% original and anyone with questions should feel free to call me or John Davis directly Joe Maddalena 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. 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.
Re: [MOPO] Dracula 1-sheet info
Sean, C'mon, I write clearly and you are intelligent and perfectly capable of understanding what I wrote. My last paragraph was clearly a sidebar pointing out why we don't see more auctions with such a certificate -- backed up by the fact was that even this auction house which had a certificate did not start putting in the description what was on the certificate (or make the certificate available for viewing) until after people started looking into this auction and asking pointed questions about it on MOPO. What the seller has now done in the description is what should have been done voluntarily from the beginning. And now that we can view the actual certificate at http://www.icollector.com/Dracula-one-sheet-poster_i8632506 we can see that it does contain talk about and show microscope pictures of fiber and printing techniques being consistent with an original-release poster of the time, which is good to know. Note that the presence of the certificate *was* instrumental in getting the auction house to clarify its description, up to a point, about the amount and nature of restoration on the poster, so I think that vindicates the idea of having such a thing when auctioning a very expensive poster. While this certificate is a detailed and impressive document from John Davis, it stops short of what I would like to see (but which I admit would be hard to do with a linen-backed poster): A true third-party opinion of authenticity certificate would state that in the issuing expert's best opinion that the poster appears to be __x__% original-issue paper. I don't think we've seen anything like that so far (and maybe never will) but it is clearly what is needed for these very expensive posters. Buyers need to know not only what was air-brushed and touched up, but how much new paper was added. I firmly believe that it should no longer be acceptable for any poster less than 40% original paper to be called original. Instead, it should be called a re-creation containing _x_% original paper. Would such a sea change in doing business this way end up lowering the prices on some heavily restored posters? You betcha. And it should. That is what already happens in any other field of collecting. Can you imagine some respectable and venerated antique auction house offering an expensive Louis XIV writing desk as being original in fine condition when in fact the desk was composed of 40% new wood made to look like old wood? The bottom line is that for far too long poster buyers and sellers have been willing to accept re-creations containing far too little original paper as being authentic originals. We have now seen where that attitude ultimately leads us. It's time to change our attitudes about restoration to be more realistic and disclosure-oriented. -- JR Sean Linkenback wrote: Isn't this certificate the third party authentication that you are complaining sellers don't want? And yet here is a seller providing it and you still aren't happy. -- Sent from my Palm Pre- James Richard wrote: I fail to understand how a professional restorer could fail to check for accuracy of something they were adding to a poster. How could a pro not realize that he couldn't just copy the number off of a Style F version of the poster onto this one? This is the kind of thing you pay a pro to handle properly. And how can anyone possibly describe a poster as 100% original and still admit that something was added at the bottom (meaning at least that part of the original poster was gone and so there is no way it can possibly be 100% original)? An accurate description would be A genuine x-number-of-years old original theatrical release poster with minor restoration to the fine print in the bottom margin. I mean, if the seller didn't know about the restoration, I can see how it would be left out -- but the seller has the COA which mentions the restoration. Of course, this is why sellers don't want to adopt this idea of having a third-party authentication certificate accompanying an expensive poster at auction. The authenticator will have to detail the aspects of restoration he can identify and the seller will have to put those details in the description so and the buyer would actually know what he was getting and so adjust his bidding accordingly... horrors! -- JR Stephen Fishler wrote: This info from Poster Mountain's restoration report and would explain things. John Davis states at the top of his COA that the writing in the margin was added in pencil by hand and not checked for accuracy. I would assume when this poster was linen backed the 'fine print' was added to the bottom from a different Dracula poster. we are adding the COA on line with the poster description today to our site www.profilesinhistory.com and www.icollector.com. This poster is 100% original and anyone with questions
Re: [MOPO] update on the MARA CORDAY / TARANTULA / GIANT CLAW episode
OK, great... but could you tell us exactly what you did to convince Ebay to let you relist the items she had tagged and which they had previously told you they would ding you for if you relisted them again? -- JR David Lieberman wrote: Well.we were finally able to re list the four listings of ours Mara Corday had removed from ebay. One for TARANTULA and three for THE GIANT CLAW. It turns out that she would've had to have sued us to prevent us from re listing them. guess what? .she didn't sue us. I can only wonder if she will try and remove some of our other listings again at a later date. *David Lieberman** *CineMasterpieces.com http://www.cinemasterpieces.com/ | 15721 N. Greenway Hayden Loop, Suite 105 -- Scottsdale, Az 85260 _Vintage Original Movie Posters__ | 602 309 0500 | Office/Gallery Open By Appt. Only._ 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. 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.
Re: [MOPO] Enlightening
From the kind of things they've been quoted as saying in the press recently, it sounds like several of the top boys at Heritage see themselves as Gordon Gekko from the 1987 film WALL STREET -- where the scoundrel was originally played by Michael Douglas, but is now apparently being recast in a civil law court near you. The whole Greed is Good mentality, etc. And, of course, there was all that shady behind-the-scenes manipulation of poster prices... I mean stock prices... I mean... well, this is all getting very weird... what with biblical references being tossed about and associative sniper fire starting to come out of the woods (heck, even some dissociative cross-fire...) -- JR Bruce Hershenson wrote: I thought it odd that someone would describe themselves as a scoundrel, a somewhat archaic word. I looked it up on google and found this: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=scoundrel *villain: a wicked or evil person; someone who does evil deliberately * On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 6:26 PM, James Ryan dracula...@hotmail.com mailto:dracula...@hotmail.com wrote: As my friend Bruce would say - let's not be obsessed with the events of five to ten years ago. On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Jeff Potokar jpotok...@ca.rr.com mailto:jpotok...@ca.rr.com wrote: Quite a revealing article i came across, published in Forbes, in December of 2004. It seemed relevant, considering the current auction houses discussion going on here: _http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2004/1227/156.html_ 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.
Re: [MOPO] Heritage-Billings Gazette article
I think this is exactly what California needs to solve its fiscal crisis: Adopt Ebay polices for the whole state. Charge everyone a 30-cent residence fee every time they wake up each morning. Unless they want to express reservations about getting out of bed, in which case they have to pay extra for that. And the fees are non-refundable whether you have a good day or not. Problem solved. -- JR Franc wrote: This is catching: I'm beginning to refer to it as fleabag. Did you see that the ex-CEO of Fleabag is running for Governor of California! FRANC -Original Message- *From:* MoPo List [mailto:mop...@listserv.american.edu] *On Behalf Of *Richard Halegua Comic Art *Sent:* Friday, September 18, 2009 3:56 PM *To:* MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU *Subject:* Re: [MOPO] Heritage-Billings Gazette article fleabay : - ) At 12:48 PM 9/18/2009, Bruce Hershenson wrote: You really are a complete donkey! Did it take you an entire day to put this response together? It's funny that you call eBay fleabay and there are only two people on this forum who do that, and one is a friend of mine, and the other is insanely jealous of me. I wonder which one of them helped you write your reply? Maybe you could focus more on your buddies who are currently in the news, and have openly admitted to bidding on lots of their own items (and it has not been made clear whether they bid on items they themselves own, but I imagine that will come out in the discovery process. Yet you are not interested in those events at all, and you are obsessed with events of five to ten years ago. Please crawl back under your rock. I would continue the discussion with you, but it feels like I am having a battle of wits with an unarmed man. Bruce On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 2:29 PM, James Ryan dracula...@hotmail.com mailto:dracula...@hotmail.com wrote: Let me see if I understand what you are saying: Ten years ago you asked fleabay for permission to do an action which you are totally against (or do you still allow employee bidding in your auctions?) and were granted this permission. This employee (really a friend) wins LESS than ONE ITEM A WEEK (one tenth of one percent as per your statement) and this sets off red flags for fleabay who then suspends your account? That is really pretty incredible. How was fleabay able to differentiate between this person who won less than one item a week and some of your other friends who bid on and win 5, 10, 15 or more items a week (for example dealers like Posteritati)? While all accusations of shill bidding should be checked into (this included with Heritage), it seems highly unlikely that fleabay decided to suspend your account based on a single bidder who won less than an item a week as compared to your legions of followers (several of whom you say only bid on your auctions) that win many, many times that amount weekly. Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 19:28:36 -0500 From: brucehershen...@gmail.com mailto:brucehershen...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [MOPO] Heritage-Billings Gazette article To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU mailto:MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU More lies. I was suspended from eBay five years ago because an employee of theirs told me ten years ago that one of my employees could bid on the auctions, as long as he had a friend do the bidding for him on his account, and as long as he was really purchasing what he bid on. Four years later a new eBay employee discovered that account and suspended us. I explained all that happened to eBay (including the fact that the employee was an actual collector who bought one tenth of one per cent of what we sold), and they reinstated us. Over THREE YEARS later we left eBay and it had everything to do with the 40% rise in fees and giving buyers the ability to blackmail the sellers, and NOTHING to do with the incorrect suspension. Now how do you equate that to a gigantic auction house being exposed for placing massive number of bids (and for winning around one in 100 of the items bid on) that resulted in tens of thousands of bidders paying far more than they would have had the auction never bid? Crawl back under your rock with your other
Re: [MOPO] Mary Travers, Singer of Protest Anthems, Dies at 72 - Obituary (Obit) - NYTimes.com
Right... and John Lennon officially said Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds was not written about LSD either, but about a picture Paul's kid drew. These were the kinds of official denial statements that were issued after there was a social backlash against pop music and movie stars popularizing drug use in their songs and films -- the record companies and studios got proactive about protecting themselves for legal actions or calls for censorship by making their stars deny that any of this stuff ever had anything to do with drugs. No sir, Mr. Media Interviewer, we din' mean nuthin' like that by it at all, honest injun... However, anyone who grew up during the time listening to either song could easily get what both were written about. -- JR Bruce Hershenson wrote: P.S. At the shows Peter said Puff the Magic Dragon was in no way written with drugs in mind! On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 12:11 PM, Bruce Hershenson brucehershen...@gmail.com mailto:brucehershen...@gmail.com wrote: What was funny was that she was apparently VERY sensitive about not being able to sing any more, and the first show I saw she kept screaming at the sound guys saying they needed to adjust the equipment because they were making her sound awful! I thought it funny that they weren't making Peter or Paul sound bad in the slightest. When I saw them again two years later, she had the same exact rant, practically word for word (I imagine she did it every show). But everything Sue says was exactly true, especially for those of us of a certain age, and with leftie parents. Bruce On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Susan Heim filmfantast...@msn.com mailto:filmfantast...@msn.com wrote: I heard the news come across last evening and it brought a lump to my throat. For many of us that are in the 50-60 range, Peter, Paul and Mary were our childhood. They were on the radio, we sang their songs in school and our parents liked their music. I saw them at the Hollywood Bowl a couple of times and it was like stepping back to the 60's. You're right Bruce. Last time I saw them her voice was gone, but I just loved being in the place with all the people around me singing along with them. I still put one of their records on now and again just to step back. It's like comfort food. Sue 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.
[MOPO] Lennon is laughing in his tomb
This is off topic, but it floors me to see people still believing and repeating this hoax over 40 years later, so... let's see, Julian Lennon was born April 8, 1963... Studio files say the song Lucy in The Sky with Diamonds was recorded at Abbey Road on March 1, 1967... With it's complex arrangement (for the time), it's reasonable to presume John wrote the song at least a couple of months before it was finally recorded, so let's say he wrote the song on January 1, 1967. When Julian was only 3 years and 10 months old. Now, how many of us remember and can attest to what we did or said when we were 3 years and 10 months old? But everyone buys the idea Julian somehow remembers this incident so well that he backs up John's flummery about the song being inspired by a picture drawn at Julian's nursery school? I don't suppose it is more likely that Julian grew up being told the story so often that the story became his memory? Look, the BBC immediately banned the Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds from the British airwaves as soon as it was released because of its obvious promotion of LSD use. The Sgt. Pepper album was the most publicized and anticipated album in music history at that point (and the most expensive to produce). Literally hundreds of millions of dollars were at stake. And the now the BBC is banning a song from the album the day after it is released? There is a global controversy threatening to explode about the song and in fact about the entire album, which no one every disputed was clearly psychedelic in nature? And this coming less than a year after the furor in America when Beatle songs had been banned from some radio stations, some Beatle concerts canceled and Beatle records were burned in protest over the wisecrack John had made about the Beatles were more popular than Jesus now? Oh, no... that simply wouldn't do at all...so the record company and Brian Epstein and everyone else, including Paul probably, went to John and told him, Look, we're going to issue a cover story about this song and you're gonna sell it. Still, I'm surprised John could keep a straight face when he told that whopper about 3-year old Julian and his nursery school picture to the press. Yet 40 years later people still accept this idea that what is arguably the most blatantly psychedelic song ever written, which was included on what is universally recognized as one of the most psychedelic albums ever created -- which was produced and released at the height of LSD usage around the world -- is not, in fact, about LSD at all. Sounds plausible to me. Sure. Why not? -- JR Carteron, Bruce - 1551 wrote: Kirby: It was actually Julian's friend (named Lucy) at school who did the drawing. Julian showed the picture to his father and told him it depicted Lucy in the sky with diamonds (this is according to John). Julian, who backs up this version, recently discovered she had fallen on hard times and sent her some financial support. *From:* MoPo List [mailto:mop...@listserv.american.edu] *On Behalf Of *Kirby McDaniel *Sent:* Thursday, September 17, 2009 5:21 PM *To:* MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU *Subject:* Re: [MOPO] Mary Travers, Singer of Protest Anthems, Dies at 72 - Obituary (Obit) - NYTimes.com That's not correct, actually. The picture was drawn by Julian Lennon, as I remember it. Paul had no kids at the time that song was written. Kirby McDaniel www.movieart.net http://www.movieart.net On Sep 17, 2009, at 2:30 PM, James Richard wrote: Right... and John Lennon officially said Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds was not written about LSD either, but about a picture Paul's kid drew. These were the kinds of official denial statements that were issued after there was a social backlash against pop music and movie stars popularizing drug use in their songs and films -- the record companies and studios got proactive about protecting themselves for legal actions or calls for censorship by making their stars deny that any of this stuff ever had anything to do with drugs. No sir, Mr. Media Interviewer, we din' mean nuthin' like that by it at all, honest injun... However, anyone who grew up during the time listening to either song could easily get what both were written about. -- JR Bruce Hershenson wrote: P.S. At the shows Peter said Puff the Magic Dragon was in no way written with drugs in mind! 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.
Re: [MOPO] Heritage Response
Rich, Here's where you and I disagree: You say that is how it is supposed to work. I say that is how it has often been worked in the past, but not how it is supposed to work. Even though you personally don't like hidden reserves, you seem resigned to there always being hidden reserves and the attendant questionable behind-the-scenes practices they can cause. I'm not. Hidden reserves have all but vanished from Ebay, where they used to be common. They have been replaced by the or click Buy It Now to purchase this items for $___x___. You don't use hidden reserves on MPB. Bruce doesn't use hidden reserves on his auctions. In fact, hardly anyone uses hidden reserves anymore except Heritage and the other big two. It's time they gave up the practice as well. It was never a good one and we are now in the 21st century. Time for the relic of the hidden reserve to go the way of the buggy whip. I know it is common wisdom that if you try to open an auction for a $25,000 poster with minimum starting bid of $25,000 that no one will bid on it. I don't think that's as true as common wisdom would have us believe. If someone wants the poster and thinks it is worth $25,000 and willing to pay that much why wouldn't they bid that amount? And if there is someone out there who also wants it, why wouldn't they outbid the first person? After all, that is what finally happens anyway after the reserve is reached (according to Heritage, since they say their House Buyers never ever bid more than the reserve). So why keep playing this game of we're letting you think you can get it for less than $25,000, but actually there's no way? But even if you do have hidden reserves, I fail to see how it is the auction house's fiduciary duty to the seller to bid up to something just under the reserve. Where is that written into the law and ethical standards we are all supposed to operate under? No, it is the auction house's fiduciary duty to publicize and present and conduct the auction in the best possible manner to attempt to get the best price on the consignment *without* verging into shilling of any kind, or other dishonesty such as over-grading and misleading descriptions. It is supposed to be the duty of the genuine bidders to determine if the reserve is reasonable or not. If the reserve is reasonable, it will be reached without the help of the house shill. If not, you can try again another day when there might be different bidders around. But the house should not be pushing the price up behind the scenes just to get it near the reserve so they can flush out the people who are willing to go that higher and keep a consigner happy and log a nice commission on the sale. When an auction house does that, they are basically engaging in a variation on the bait and switch pricing technique which has been outlawed in this country. In bait and switch, a store advertises a product for $2.00 but when the consumer gets up to the checkout counter they are told, No, that was a mistake. The real price is $10.00 or We're out of those $2.00 items, but we have one just like it for $10.00. For an auction house to publicly advertise the starting bid is $2.00 when there is no chance of anyone ever buying the item for $2.00 because it actually has a hidden reserve of $10.00 is no different, not really. I can't see it being an auction house's fiduciary responsibility to engage in a variation of bait and switch just because that's the way it's been done for thousands of years. Just because something has always been done in the past does not mean a bad practice should continue. It used to be legal to keep human beings as slaves until less than 150 years ago as well. Please Note: I have no problem with stated reserves. They serve a valid purpose. There's no reason someone should not be able to say I won't sell this poster at all if I can't get at least $5,000 for it. That's fine. But state it publicly in the auction description. Better yet, just make the reserve the minimum starting bid. -- JR Richard Halegua Comic Art wrote: At 02:57 AM 9/16/2009, Neil Jaworski wrote: I agree with all James Richard's comments on this issue. Those who feel that Heritage have an obligation to get the fair market price for their consignors (and, by a happy coincidence, for themselves) should reflect upon how these practices might have pumped up these fair market prices in the first place. Indeed, if this N.P Gresham device has been used as widely as some people are suggesting, what extra padding is in the hobby as a whole? Those MOPOers who claim that this is all just a playful bit of showmanship (wedded to a fiduciary duty to poor sellers who are too nervous to set a realistic and honest reserve) should enrol in their nearest high school ethics class. Neil I said this: *This is how it's supposed to work: the reserve is $400, but the item starts at $200. It is Heritage's fiduciary duty to the seller
Re: [MOPO] Heritage Response
John, Apparently I was under a misapprehension as well because I thought Heritage still used hidden reserves. If not and, as you say, no one at Heritage ever pushes the price above the reserve, then what was N.P. Gresham doing? I realize you probably can't comment on that because of the lawsuit, but now I'm just confused. Both the President and the CEO have admitted to using a fictitious bidder who was not a real person to bid on and even win auctions. -- JR Petty, John - PG wrote: Hi Jeff: I think you're laboring under some misapprehensions concerning the way the Heritage bidding system works. As the auctioneer of record for most of Grey's auctions, let me address a couple of your concerns. You've mentioned reserves in this post and several others, and seem to be suggesting that auction houses should disclose reserves to their bidders prior to bidding. You're absolutely right on this, which is why Heritage fully discloses all reserves at least one week prior to the actual auction date for Signature Auctions (items in the Weekly auctions are typically offered without reserve). Remember, reserves are set by the consignor, so if there's a reserve price you feel is too high, that's a consignor issue. IMO, it's not in anyone's best interest to set a reserve that's unreasonably high. That's why Grey takes so much time and care in working with consignors to set reserves that both protect their interests while at the same time offering a reasonable chance to sell. To address another of your points, when an item fails to meet the reserve prior to bidding, Heritage will increase the bid to one bidding increment below the reserve, and start the live bidding there. For example, if the reserve on an item is $1,000, Heritage will typically open the bidding at about $950 if the reserve has not been met during online and remote bidding. The next actual bid will take the item. Heritage's reason for doing this is simple: they feel that their bidder's time is valuable, and don't want people wasting their time bidding against a reserve. In the case above, if the reserve is $1,000, and the highest maximum bid prior to live bidding is $200, whose interest is served by forcing the auctioneer -- and the audience -- to go through bids of $220, $240, $260, $280, etc? Even if live bidding tops out at, say, $750, the piece won't sell and everyone's time has been wasted. Surely you're not suggesting that that would be a better system? With Heritage's method, everyone knows the reserve, and they know that, if they bid, they're in the running to win the piece. If, as you suggest, the market doesn't want to pay the price set by the consignor, than the item doesn't sell It's as simple as that (items not sold are clearly marked in the Heritage Permanent Auction Archives). As for other dealers using Heritage prices as benchmarks for their own material, that is certainly their prerogative, as it is yours to refuse to buy a poster at a price you feel is unfair. I hope this addresses your concerns regarding these issues. It's really very simple once you see it in action, and in that spirit I'd invite you to personally attend one of Heritage's auctions and see the process in action for yourself. Once you actually see an auction in person, I'm confident that you'll have a much greater understanding of the way Heritage does business. Best, John Petty *From:* MoPo List [mailto:mop...@listserv.american.edu] *On Behalf Of *Jeff Potokar *Sent:* Wednesday, September 16, 2009 1:06 PM *To:* MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU *Subject:* Re: [MOPO] Heritage Response This sort of pricing happens all the time. All one needs to do, as an example, is go to ebay, and find an expensive poster up for sale or auction. Somewhere in the description, one will often find a Heritage data base reference, for what this same poster sold for 6, 8, 12 months prior, for hundreds or THOUSANDS more-- and what a great deal the copy being looked at on ebay is. Is this really true? So many questions about this practice. And one other thing that was mentioned. If a certain item has a reserve, of say, 500.00, why does the bidding start at 200? That makes no sense. Wouldn't it be better for consignor as well as the auction house to simply make the reserve price of 500.00 the opening bid? Even on ebay, this appears so silly.. an item has an opening bid of 2.00, yet the reserve may be 200.00. And if these shill bidders are there to get jump the bids, so that the reserve is at least met, this, at least appears, to be tampering with what buyers and the market want. If a poster with a 500.00 reserve comes up on the block, and no one bids anything close to the reserve for an opening bid, doesnt that say something about the reserve placed and what the market may feel it is worth? For a shill bidder to present a bid, of say, 400 to get the item going, is a false way of
Re: [MOPO] Heritage Response
? -- JR Sean Linkenback wrote: JR, Do you have any interest in posters at all or just in the workings of Heritage? If you've ever seen their auctions you will know that when they go live they will either say no reserve or reserve not yet posted/met, so you know immediately if there is a reserve or not. Then as Grey and John explained, with a week to go if the reserve is not met, the price is raised to the bid immediately below the reserve so that if anyone bids they can win the item. This is the same price John will open the item up for at the live auction (instead of wasting time asking for bids that could not possibly win the item). Heritage does not place any bids during the live auction. If in fact they bid on item (either by an employee collector, or by a buyer acting to purchase for their inventory), it is done prior to the auction going live. Many times during the break at the auction John has told me that his bids on two or three items had been outbid and he wished he had either focused on a single item or had placed a higher bid. Example: John wished to buy item #4 and item #5, he has a total of $500 he can spend in the auction, so he bids $250 on each one before the live session starts. During the session, Item #4 sells for $100 and item #5 sells for $275. Now John is sad that he could not bid again on Item #5 as he still had room below his budget, but Heritage does not allow this. This policy is fair to all, is it allows people like John to still be collectors and yet places bidders like us (or I should say like me as it it obvious you have never bid at Heritage) at an advantage over Heritage during the auction process. Heritage does not push the price above the reserve when there is no action on an item to make a single interested buyer pay more for the item than the opening or reserve, but that does not mean they (again either collector employees or purchasing employees) do not place proxy bids. It would be silly if collector A has a poster/coin/comic/whatever worth $5K and Heritage would be a willing buyer for that item at say $3K, but it sells for $185 at the auction because they would not be allowed to bid (or there is a reserve of $2500 on the item, but it again is unsold because Heritage can't buy it for themselves). While possibly an extreme example, you can't remove one of the largest buyers from the playing field. Consignments would dry up and it would not be a good situation for anyone. - Original Message - From: James Richard jrl...@mediabearonline.com To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 5:12:55 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [MOPO] Heritage Response John, Apparently I was under a misapprehension as well because I thought Heritage still used hidden reserves. If not and, as you say, no one at Heritage ever pushes the price above the reserve, then what was N.P. Gresham doing? I realize you probably can't comment on that because of the lawsuit, but now I'm just confused. Both the President and the CEO have admitted to using a fictitious bidder who was not a real person to bid on and even win auctions. -- JR Petty, John - PG wrote: Hi Jeff: I think you're laboring under some misapprehensions concerning the way the Heritage bidding system works. As the auctioneer of record for most of Grey's auctions, let me address a couple of your concerns. You've mentioned reserves in this post and several others, and seem to be suggesting that auction houses should disclose reserves to their bidders prior to bidding. You're absolutely right on this, which is why Heritage fully discloses all reserves at least one week prior to the actual auction date for Signature Auctions (items in the Weekly auctions are typically offered without reserve). Remember, reserves are set by the consignor, so if there's a reserve price you feel is too high, that's a consignor issue. IMO, it's not in anyone's best interest to set a reserve that's unreasonably high. That's why Grey takes so much time and care in working with consignors to set reserves that both protect their interests while at the same time offering a reasonable chance to sell. To address another of your points, when an item fails to meet the reserve prior to bidding, Heritage will increase the bid to one bidding increment below the reserve, and start the live bidding there. For example, if the reserve on an item is $1,000, Heritage will typically open the bidding at about $950 if the reserve has not been met during online and remote bidding. The next actual bid will take the item. Heritage's reason for doing this is simple: they feel that their bidder's time is valuable, and don't want people wasting their time bidding against a reserve. In the case above, if the reserve is $1,000, and the highest maximum
Re: [MOPO] another day, another lawsuit, but this one's a little different
Phil, There's a very real difference today compared to the shill-bidding of the past. Prior to internet bidding, there was no way for the house shill to *know* what the other bidders were willing to pay as their maximum bid. So it was much harder for a shill to keep pushing up the price unless the house wanted to get stuck with a lot of wins. A shill who won too many auctions was soon looking for employment elsewhere. But with computerized auctions and people being encouraged to enter their maximum bid prior to the last second, it is too easy for the house to KNOW what the other bidders are willing to pay and so only shill them up to that point (or perhaps just a tiny bit below it for appearance's sake). I think it is astounding for the President of Heritage to admit the shill won only 1% to 2% of the items it bid on. First of all, with computers, the President of Heritage knows precisely to several decimal points the exact percentage of auctions the shill won so what's with the rough estimate? But mostly, he has virtually admitted that the shill knew the maximum bids of those he was bidding against. Now, in the case of live floor auctions there is always the possibility of a genuine bidder deciding to bid more than their previous maximum at the last second. But that's immaterial. Knowing the pre-last-second maximums allows a shill to drive the prices up to that point with virtual impunity of getting stuck with an item most of the time. At least on Ebay, there is no way for a seller to know the maximum bids, which is one of the few positive things you can say about Ebay auctions. But if the house can see all the maximum bids, that renders The Gentle Art of Shilling far more onerous than it has been in past. -- JR p...@cinemarts.com wrote: Many auction houses (and I remind everyone that auction laws differ country to country) and private auctioneers reserve the right to have the house bid on the item, or allow the seller to bid on the item. That is, disclosed shill bidding. If the potential buyer is aware that these are the rules of the auction house/auctioneer they are using because it is clearly disclosed in the terms of sale (even if buried in the fine print) then what is the issue? If you know it going in and you know what the top weight is you want to pay for something, then it is just another part of the overall /caveat emptor /factor. That doesn't mean I think it's right, because outside of playing bidders up and up, it can mean that there is an undisclosed reserve which makes a nonsense of loew starting bids. Shill bidding sucks. The bad news is it has been part of the auction business since The Dawn of Time, which we all know was a Very Long Time Ago. Phil 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.
Re: [MOPO] ARE YOU REALLY SWAYED ???
Very negatively. I would have to want the poster extremely badly and feel I had no chance of ever getting it any place else except at Heritage -- and there are no titles I can afford that fall into that category. So I guess that means I won't be bidding much, if at all, with Heritage in the future unless there is a very public change of policy. -- JR Michael B wrote: There have been proven cases and/or rumors of shill bidding from london to new york to california. Yet these auction venues are still thriving, albeit, some situations involved government sanctions as settlements. But Heritage has surpassed their competition in the movie poster field. Is there a correlation? Now Heritage is in the spotlight. KEEPING YOUR ANSWER BRIEF..how does the news of heritage affect your bidding ? (Sunday versus Signature) 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.
Re: [MOPO] ARE YOU REALLY SWAYED ???
Good answer! Hilarious! N.P. Gresham wrote: KEEPING YOUR ANSWER BRIEF..how does the news of heritage affect your bidding ? (Sunday versus Signature) I may ease up a bit, but maybe not. N.P. 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.
Re: [MOPO] Heritage Response
Grey, It's standard legal strategy for any company to automatically issue a statement that any lawsuit filed against it is merely the petty, vindictive action of a disgruntled former employee or associate or customer, so I won't address that. And I do want to say at first that, since this has apparently been going on for decades, I realize you may not personally be privy to everything being done by others at Heritage, particularly those senior to you. It does appear that this N.P. Gresham identity was set up long ago and used by the President of Heritage himself, or at his direction, so I realize you may not know everything about that aspect or could speak to it right now even if you did because of the lawsuit. That being stipulated, what you do say bothers me: _Just to make things crystal clear, I can personally attest that Heritage NEVER shill bids. _ When we bid, whether in our own auctions or other firms' auctions, we do so only when we are ready and willing to purchase and pay for the item. Moreover, our policy is that Heritage buyers must place their proxy bids on-line PRIOR to the auction and they may not raise their bids once the auction has started. Seems to me the second paragraph directly contradicts the first. So what if Heritage Buyers are ready and willing to purchase and pay for the item? It's still a conflict of interest -- against the *bidder's* interests -- and the Heritage Buyers have insider trading information at their disposal. The Heritage Buyers know the reserve and they know the maximum bids that non-Heritage bidders have placed up to that point. They can guarantee that once live bidding starts that the item will go for at least as much as any maximum bid which was placed prior to the start. And if Heritage wins the item, Heritage will be paying the 19% buyer's premium to itself and so is getting the item at an *undisclosed* 19% discount to what any other bidder who won the auction would have to pay. The fact that Heritage buyers can't increase their bid after the live floor auction starts doesn't mean Heritage is not shilling -- it just means Heritage has a policy that they are supposed to stop shilling at an arbitrary point. That point may mean a Heritage Buyer placing a bid just slightly below the pre-start maximum of a non-Heritage bidder or it *could* mean that the Heritage Buyer places a bid prior to the start much higher than anyone else... as high as Heritage analysts think the other buyers *might* be willing to go once the live auction starts. And even if they estimate wrong and Heritage ends up winning the item, that win is still cushioned by the hidden 19% in-house discount. None of that is right or proper, even if it is technically legal under Texas law and is disclosed (in legalese) in the fine print that most people never got around to reading. Obviously most people never did read it, or all the people now dismayed at finding out about what been going would not suddenly be surprised or dismayed, would they? And this rationale that it all was somehow perfectly OK because all Heritage was trying to do was get the best possible prices for its consigners doesn't really even merit a response. I trust everyone on this list is smart enough to see the self-serving flaw in that logic (unless they are a Heritage consigner, of course). Finally, your company President is quoted as saying the N.P. Gresham identity actually won 1% or 2% of the items it bid on. That seems like a very low success rate for a buyer who was truly ready and willing to purchase. It's no secret that everyone has always been amazed and perplexed as to why so many of Heritage auctions consistently realize higher sale prices than anyone else's auctions, even on identical items. It looks like we now have at greater understanding of that phenomenon. -- JR Dear Forum Members, These accusations come from the attorney for an individual engaged in a lawsuit with us in the form of a homemade, paid-for press release. More to the point, the claims are absurd. Heritage's bidding policies are fully disclosed and comply with all laws. Hendershott, a dealer and former Heritage contractor in our Civil War memorabilia category, who owes us over $1 million, has manufactured nonexistent wrongs to try to gain leverage and renegotiate his debt, along with his friend Kortlander, who also owes us money, and whom we had never even heard of until Hendershott brought us his consignment in 2007. Unfortunately, these days anyone can make up accusations that under other circumstances would clearly be libelous, put them in a lawsuit, and disseminate them to the press as newsworthy. We understand why you would be concerned over an accusation like this, no matter how preposterous. And naturally, we will be taking steps against these people, albeit in a more civilized and distinguished manner. We've been in business over 30 years, trusted
Re: [MOPO] Heritage Response
Rich, I gotta disagree on the idea that it is OK to only shill up to the reserve and thus insure the item sells. For one thing, it encourages the placing of unrealistically high reserves. But I never approved of hidden reserves in any case. It seems to me the proper way for an auction house to handle reserves is to publish them clearly as part of the auction description and then see if anyone bids that amount or higher. Or, better still, simply take whatever the consigner wants the reserve to be and set that amount as the minimum starting bid for the auction and quit pretending that an items starts with a minimum bid of $59 bucks when there is no possibililty that the item will sell to anyone unless the subsequent bids reach the $400 reserve. I understand low starting bids coupled with hidden reserves has been a common publicity and interest-piquing technique, leading people to believe they can get a great bargain when in fact they can't, but it's a technique I've never liked and I never participate in auctions like that. But even if it has been common practice and somehow socially acceptable for auction houses to use house shills to bid up to the reserve, it is still shilling. Sure, you can say but no one gets hurt if the shill stops at the reserve because no one was going to win the item anyway if the reserve was not reached -- but that doesn't change the fact that the bid is being artifically pushed up by someone who knows what the reserve is (and possibly what the maximum bids of the other bidders are). Besides which, there is no way to be certain the house shill stops at that point. As you have said about the fake posters, it's the Bernie Madoff syndrome: Maybe it starts out with the shills quitting at the reserve, but at some point the temptation to keep on shilling past that point is going to be very strong -- and, hey, who's to know? I'm kinda surprised to see you taking the position that there's nothing wrong with shilling up to the reserve, since you don't do anything like that on MoviePosterBid. You simply set the starting price without any hidden reserves, let the auction commence and what the final bid ends up being, that's what the item sells for. Simple and straight forward. Bruce's auctions run the same way. What you two do is the way it should be done. -- JR Richard Halegua Comic Art wrote: Folks I think the news article is a little bit of a red herring, in part for the reasons he mentions (disgruntled employee) and in part because we all know that the house does bid against reserve prices, and this info is posted to their catalogs. House bidding is nothing new. It's purpose is to bid against the reserve so that an item sells, creating a happy buyer, seller and auction house. This is how it's supposed to work: the reserve is $400, but the item starts at $200. It is Heritage's fiduciary duty to the seller to bid up to something just under the reserve. So Heritage might bid $390 to get the $400 bid from a buyer. When the $390 bid is the top bid, Heritage does state still available at HA.com indicating that the $390 bid did not win the item, that it fell below reserve. as long as that's what's going on, it doesn't seem that anything nefarious is happening. Here is where it would step in negative territory: If Heritage were to continue bidding in order to drive up a price past the reserve, without the intention of buying it themselves, that would be a bad thing. I haven't seen or read anything that indicates this is so. Though to be fair, I have had friends tell me anecdotally that they feel this is the case, but they have not given me any examples to prove that claim. Also, Heritage does indeed sell material they own in all fields from posters to coins to comics and this may be a sticking point to some, however as long as they treat Heritage-owned merchandise just as any other consignor, they do not drive up prices beyond a reserve and they do not raise the reserve after introduction of the auction, well, they would not be doing anything wrong. I can say that I do alot of digging in Heritage archives and I do see items that repeat for instance, they sold an Australian Lady in the Lake poster in 2007 in a signature auction and it ended just under $300, with myself being the underbidder. The item resold last year and I won it for under $200. If they owned the item, it did not meet a reserve and they resold it or if it was re-consigned, or even an unpaid item - I do not know. But in the comics area I see considerably more repeat than I do in posters. There are some CGC encapsulated comics where Heritage has sold the same copy 3 times, with a year or less in between. here is a copy of Superworld Comics that has sold 3 times http://comics.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=7007Lot_No=93195src=pr http://comics.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=830Lot_No=93164src=pr
Re: [MOPO] Lobby Card Reproductions
Jeff, The new paper would be the first tell-tale that the lobby cards were repros. The heavier card stock paper which lobby cards have always been printed on tends to age to yellowish/brownish cream color rather quickly -- and the paper generally had a slightly rougher surface that most of the card stock manufactured today. So genuine original-issue lobby cards tend to look and feel very different from new ones. This aging effect can be faked in various ways, of course, but you're not asking about deliberate fakes as much as people accidentally believing a quality repro is an original card at some point. The freshness of the ink and even the sharpness of the printing would also be tells (as I'm sure you've noticed, genuine old lobby cards were often less-than-super-sharp in their printing). So, when a high-quality repro printed on heavy card stock is new, it's pretty easy for any modestly experienced collector to recognize it as not old enough. The problem will come down the road in 20 or 30 years when these cards have aged and mellowed and begun to resemble the originals more closely in look and feel. Plus, by then, some of them will have passed through many hands, acquiring the patina of winkles, nicks and a little blemishing along the way. But it really depends on the kind of paper the repros are printed on. Most modern card stocks will not age the same way the old card stock of 40 and 50 years ago did. But if the new cards do age in the right way (or are somehow made to do so) in decades to come it may very well be hard for someone who is not an expert or long-time collector to recognize them as not-original-release cards. As to why no one prevents printing repros that are exactly the correct size without any identifying this is a repro marking, that's simple: The studios (or mega corporations) who now own the rights to those cards don't care about them anymore. They have no interest in protecting the original print run from exact duplication and they are the only ones with the legal right to prosecute someone who does reproduce them. Duplicating lobby cards (or any other poster) may be technically illegal, but if no one enforces the law, then people will continue to print them because they can make money doing so. And that's the reason they print them at exactly the same size as the original. No one would buy them if they weren't the exact size (or if they carried markings clearly indicating they are repros). The people who print and sell exact-size reproductions are in it for the money, they are not true collectors. No true collector would every want to produce something which would undercut the value of the real thing (or possibly be mistaken for it at some point). Having said that, they do perform a service. For example, there are a few poster images which I love tremendously, but which are so expensive that I know I will *never*... no, not ever... own a genuine original theatrical release. So in those few cases I have faced that fact and gone ahead and purchased some fairly pricey exact-size reproductions, just so I can display the images I love so much in my own home. There is nothing wrong with this -- people have been buying exact-size reproductions of million-dollar paintings to hang on their walls for over 100 years. The thing is, no one is ever going to mistake a high-quality art print on paper for a genuine painting which was originally done on canvas or artboard. -- JR Jeff Herdan wrote: MoPo List [mop...@listserv.american.edu]; on behalf of; Jeff [bley...@optonline.net] I am a comparatively new mwmber of MOPO and have been following the fake issue quite carefully. Fortunately (or unforyunately), I do not collect the Horror gendre of posters or lobbies, I confine my collecting to western Lobbies and, at times, O/S. Something bothers me, there are certain venders of these repro Western lobby cards that advertise them on ebay. However they are of the same dimensions (11x14) as Original lobby cards. What prevents a buyer of these repro from them reselling them as original TCs? Specifically, and I hope I am allowed to name the vender, but I do not see anything wrong in doing so: *arizona-ames* http://myworld.ebay.com/arizona-ames/ He honestly advertises them as repros but they can then find there way into the general population of real cards. When ebay named buyers of cards, I would see he buys them and invariably sells the original under another ebay seller's name: *6-gun-rhythm*. Why shouldn't sellers of repros be prevented from printing them on 11x14 cards to prevent a new fraud from arising. Why not print them on a different size paper (i.e. 10x13) to ensure the lobby cards do not mistakingly subsequently fall into the general population of true original cards. This is not a personal reprimand of this seller, but I find this practice dangerous to the hobby, especially with what
Re: [MOPO] another day, another lawsuit, but this one's a little different
Oh, wow... and we thought the double-talk about a clearly faded poster being described as may be faded was disingenuous. This article is bizarre, in it the President of Heritage admits that they have been using a shill (s?) to bid on their auctions, but is actually quoted as claiming that it is not only legal, but that there is nothing unethical about it Huh? So, lemme get this straight... War is Peace? Lies are Truth? Have we really got to that point in the corporate culture when the President of a company will actually spew bare-faced garbage like that in public? I hope the court crucifies them -- not for shilling, but for brazenly claiming there ain't nuthin' wrong wid it. Of course, they've only be using the one shill. Right? Right? -- JR in ultimate disgust Bruce Hershenson wrote: http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2009/09/lawsuit_claims_heritage_auctio.php 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.
Re: [MOPO] another day, another lawsuit, but this one's a little different
Sorry to double post, but I had to read the article over a couple of more times just to cut through all the double-talk (and all the useless testimonials posted as comments at the end of the article). When I had done that I just had to post my own comment on the article: So, just because everyone at Heritage knew they were shilling on auctions, that makes it OK? That makes it legal? Because a legalistic statement about the practice was buried in the fine print somewhere on a page nobody every read? I'm willing to bet that 99.9% of the people who were also bidding on those auctions did NOT know that Heritage itself was bidding against them and running the price up. And that's the whole point -- not that some Heritage employees knew what was going on. The fact that Heritage was buying these items (or trying to) for our own collection is one huge self-justification smoke screen. If their shill loses the auction, they still got a much bigger commission from running the price up (and they keep their consigners happy and bringing back more items for them to shill up. And if their shill actually wins the auction, they have acquired the item for their collection and they can eventually re-auction it and get their money back. Meanwhile, if they won the auction, they pay the 19% buyer's premium to *themselves*, so they are actually getting a hidden 19% DISCOUNT on the auction that their shill won -- which means their shill can bid the item up 19% more than anyone else who was interested in paying only the current market value. But hey, nothing wrong with that, huh? It's called CONFLICT OF INTEREST folks. -- JR Bruce Hershenson wrote: http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2009/09/lawsuit_claims_heritage_auctio.php 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. 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.
Re: [MOPO] Alternatives to Ebay?
The short answer is no -- not if you are talking about most things. There have been numerous attempts to compete with Ebay in general merchandise auctions, but Ebay is just too big and none have been very successful. In the case of certain special fields, like movie posters, there have been several outstanding alternative on-line auction sites develop and flourish outside of ebay: movieposterbid.com, emovieposter.com, heritage.com are the big ones. There is at least one alternative for comics, pulp magazines, and similar stuff that I know of: http://www.comicbidz.com/ If you want to check out all the auction sites that are out there trying to be alternatives to Ebay, start here: http://www.google.com/search?hl=enas_q=as_epq=auction -- JR candleshoe+echofizz.com wrote: Exactly...my original post mentioned that most of my interest is Broadway related memorabilia; film memorabilia is a smaller percentage of my activities... Though I have found a broadway poster at a garage sale.. On 9/12/09 8:57 PM, Kenwick Cook kenwick...@aol.com wrote: But what if we want to sell a toaster? 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. 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. 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.
Re: [MOPO] To anyone who was taken with fake posters and they were sent through the mail!
Ralph, It's not quite that straight forward. I've been informed that in order for the Post Office to act on a mail fraud complaint that something has to be actually sent through the mails to be in their jurisdiction. In the case of poster that were never sent, there is no mail fraud. In the cases where the seller used UPS or Fedex, there is no mail fraud since the Post Office was not involved. If the posters were paid for with a check or money order that was sent to the seller through the mail you *might* have a case. But if it was paid for with a credit card or online payment service and the package was not sent using the Post Office Delivery Service, then the Post Office has no authority in the case. Even if the case did involved the Post Office, you would have to have the original package with the mailing label and canceled U.S. postage on it -- something to prove it came to you through the Post Office. Even in a case where fake posters were sent to the buyer via the U.S. Mail, the burden would be on the buyer to prove to the post office that they are fake posters when the buyer was promised original *theatrical release* posters when they paid for them. A person can sell a reproduction and call it an original movie poster even it is just a reproduction of the original poster, so long as they don't claim it was actually published in 1939 or whatever. This is a distinction we in the collector world understand, but the Post Office (and Ebay) don't recognize -- just look at all the Original Movie Posters being advertised on Ebay and when you read the description you discover they are 11 x 17 prints of original movie posters. Finally, I have seen numerous reports where Postal Officials told people trying to file a mail fraud complaint that if the amount lost was not at least $10,000 that there would be no real action taken on the complaint. You can still file it, but the Post Office simply doesn't have the money or manpower to investigate mail fraud cases where the loss is less. Now, stealing the mail is another matter. I once had a package inadvertently delivered to the wrong address and the person kept the package. It was insured and I so I filed a claim with the Post Office. They actively investigated and pursued that case vigorously and eventually got my item back for me (badly damaged), even though it was only insured for $200. But the post office really isn't in the business of determining if people got sold fake posters or in getting restitution for them. But I don't suppose it would do any harm to file the complaints since the filing is free. I just doubt that anything would come of it. -- JR Ralph // RalphDeLuca.com wrote: I have been getting many calls and emails from fellow collectors who were taken with fake posters and lobby cards looking for advice. Most people do not know how to go about filing a complaint or who to do it with. Most people who contacted me do not have a high enough dollar value that it is worth the expense of hiring a lawyer and filing a suit. I encourage EVERYONE who was taken in this scam to file a mail fraud report, it is free If enough people do this the forgers will be brought to justice! Any questions please feel free to call or write me. Ralph DeLuca Link: https://postalinspectors.uspis.gov/forms/MailFraudComplaint.aspx -- Ralph DeLuca http://ralphdeluca.com 800-392-4050 973-377-1007 outside the USA ra...@ralphdeluca.com mailto:ra...@ralphdeluca.com Email 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. 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.
Re: [MOPO] File under Now I've Seen Everything
But was it acid-free pink styrofoam insulation? Dave Rosen wrote: Just got a 1-sheet that was shipped taped to a pink styrofoam insulation panel. Not only was it uncreased but it arrived warm and toasty! Dave 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.
Re: [MOPO] Unbelievably Customer-Friendly Poster Business
Great move by Bruce, to be sure, but I'm perplexed that it took so long for this Cine Poster issue to come to everyone's attention. I mean, I know we concentrate on US-release posters, but still you would have thought that over the years someone would have said... hey, Cine Poster is the French equivalent of Portal Reproductions. -- JR John Waldman wrote: Now that's customer service! Great information as well. John W *From:* Richard Halegua Comic Art sa...@comic-art.com *To:* MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU *Sent:* Wednesday, September 9, 2009 3:13:23 PM *Subject:* [MOPO] Unbelievably Customer-Friendly Poster Business *today I got an email that I couldn't believe from Bruce it seems they sold some Blue Brothers French posters that weren't up to snuff and researched every buyer - including myself - for years back. I bought one in 2005 and they want to refund my moolah. kudos Bruce. That is incredible customer service Rich.. Bruce's letter below: *This is Bruce. We recently sold a French one-panel poster that had the distributor logo Cine Poster at the bottom, and after we sold the poster, we were notified by a leading French expert that this was a commercial poster, and not a theater poster. Apparently, this company has been making commercial versions of regular French theater posters for approximately 30 years. Unlike U.S. commercial posters, which are usually a different size and have some other differences from theatrical posters, these French commercial posters appear to be exactly the same as the French theatrical posters, with the sole exception of the Cine Poster logo. So we cancelled that sale. But then it occurred to us that we may well have unknowingly sold other Cine Poster commercial posters in the past, so we spent a GREAT deal of time researching EVERY French poster we EVER sold, and we had to look at every single image, to see if the logo was on it, and we were able to determine that over the past 9 years we sold 42 of these (40 of them were one-panels, and two of them were the medium size French posters). You purchased 1 of those 42 posters from us. The poster you won is (we give the date, the auction number, the title, and the closing price): 6/28/2005 7525607578 BLUES BROTHERS $16.50 Since it did not sell for very much money, we want to offer you one of two options: 1) You can return it to us for a full refund, including shipping. 2) You can keep the poster, and we will give you a partial refund (just think what you would have paid for the poster had you known that it was a commercial poster, and if we agree you are being fair, we will refund you the difference). Remember that the poster looks identical to the theatrical poster (except for the distributor logo Cine Poster at the bottom), and that it was made when the movie was first released (unless we identified as a re-release, and then it was made when the movie was re-released at that time). Of course, we are very sorry this occurred. It was something we did not know, and we are rather surprised that no one e-mailed over the past nine years to give us this information (we will now do all we can to spread this information throughout the hobby). As always, we do now have any time limit on correcting mistakes we made (in this case, we are correcting mistakes that go back as far as 9 years!), and our goal is to always make sure our customers are happy, and to correct every mistake we make in such a way that we turn an unhappy experience into a happy one! Please let us know which of the above two options you would prefer. Thanks very much, and please accept my sincere apology for making this unknowing error. 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: 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. 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. 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.
Re: [MOPO] Vertigo: Q For Dario!
Yes. To conserve archive space, I simply second (or third) this statement. Well phrased double-talk is still double-talk. -- JR Franc wrote: Nicely put. FRANC -Original Message- *From:* MoPo List [mailto:mop...@listserv.american.edu] *On Behalf Of *Andrea Kanter *Sent:* Wednesday, September 09, 2009 10:48 AM *To:* MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU *Subject:* Re: [MOPO] Vertigo: Q For Dario! You know, I think the general problem is that 'getting away with it' does NOT make it alright. Personally, I'm really tired of peoples behavior. There is a lack of honesty, common sense, character, and people who behave properly are considered weak. That's pathetic. Does it make you a 'good business person' to behave dishonestly or a jerk? On my death bed, I will rest easy knowing I didn't patronize others to make myself feel better, didn't sue everyone I /could have sued /just because I could have, didn't rip off innocent, trusting people and smirk to myself about my 'cleverness', AND taught my children and grandchildren how to decipher a mensch from a weakling. Andrea 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.
Re: [MOPO] Bruce's latest information on the fakes
Rich, Your understanding/interpretations/opinions of the legal precedents in a case like this and my own clearly differ. But since neither of us are lawyers -- and even lawyers can't usually agree what the law actually says or means in much of the time (which is why we have juries) -- we best leave off speculating on the legal aspects of cases that have yet to even come to court. I suppose we'll all see what comes of it eventually. My primary intent was not to play a lawyer on the internet, but to point out that there are a lot of different circumstances which could apply to the various people who may or may not be involved in this, and that we have precious little details at this point as to who did/said/repaid or did not repay what to whom and why. -- JR Richard Halegua Comic Art wrote: Like I said, if someone made a $4,000 commission on a sale of a $20,000 fake, then at the most that person is ethically obligated to reimburse only the $4,000 he made on the deal, not the entire $20,000 that was paid. And if we table the ethical obligations for a moment, legally, a court would be unlikely to order the repayment of even the $4,000 commission if the person could demonstrate that they knew nothing about the poster being fake and sold it as is with no warranty. James both of these statements are incorrect if a dealer middled a piece and was the recipient of the cash from the buyer, then he has a lawful duty to return the full $20,000 unless if he was acting only as an agent and he was indemnified (aka insured, or had a waiver) then he may at that point only be responsible for the fee he collected and as an agent. However, the general situation would be different: you're looking for a Bride of Haggard card and I know someone who has one. Your price is $20,000 though he may be acting as a middleman, the buyer has no direct access to the original seller and the buyer's recourse is only with the person who sold him the item. Further, a lack of knowledge that the item is a forgery does not shield anyone from the civil aspects of a sale, thought it may shield the seller from criminal aspects it's like when you got stopped on a road going 10 miles over the speed limit: you were speeding and to say to a judge I was ignorant of the speed limit on that street will not shield you from the fine imposed. Ignorance of the law is not a defense in the eyes of the law. federal and state laws do not allow a seller to claim ignorance. If a card was sold as an original and later found to be fake, all laws remain in effect. The seller is directly responsible to the buyer regardless of his position as an honest person If I buy a forgery and sell it, the buyer has legal recourse against me. I in turn have legal recourse against the person who sold me the item. That seller has legal recourse against their source etc all the way down the line until you have the person who bought directly from Haggard or Mendez and whom has a legal and criminal case against such persons for fraud, conspiracy etc. Ron Magid did one deal with Kerry Haggard and so he has a case against Haggard. He did not sue Jaime because they would have to prove Jaime had some knowledge that Magid was being defrauded. However, in Gresham's case, because the fraud was over an extended period of time, it can be presumed that Jaime may have known that Jim was being defrauded and did not speak up, thereby ending the fraud upon discovery and that's why Gresham is able to name Mendez in his lawsuit. I expect that if anything I said was incorrect or misleading that Sean will correct my text Rich 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. 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.
Re: [MOPO] DAMN---a successful ebay scam CASABLANCE
This is the big area where Ebay is become really bad. They have made it impossible to know who the bidders on an auction are, and made it impossible for anyone but the seller to contact the bidders. I used to regularly warn bidders when they were bidding on a clear fake or repro being represented as an original movie poster, but there's no way to do that anymore. Heck, even after the auction is over you still can't see who was bidding against you or read their feedback. This makes shilling easy to do on Ebay. Sure, it's against the rules, but with the current system in place, a seller can shill their auctions using multiple Ebay accounts and no one could tell (except Ebay, of course, but I doubt they are policing that sort of thing. After all, the more an auction goes for, the more money Ebay makes in fees). So, no, there is no way to warn/help this bidder. Of course, it's possible this bidder is a shill. -- JR Michael B wrote: yesterday, we discussed this CASABLANCE ebay listing: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=160360019344ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=160360019344ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT well---there is a bidder, with a feedback of 11. could this bidder think he/she found a 5,000/7,000 poster (albeit damaged)? in the old days of ebay, bidders' identities allowed emails by good MOPOers warning of the possible fraud---even after the auction. Transparency is frowned upon by ebay. The lack of transparency is BAD. any way to help this bidder? 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.
[MOPO] A question on a fake question?
So, I guess if we were to look up tenacious in the dictionary we would see a picture of Sean? Just my personal observation here, but since Sean does so much of that I'm sure he won't object to me making one or two of my own: Sean always seems to be questioning Bruce's intent, integrity, or motivation. But what about his own? I for one find it strange that he never seems to turn his deft pen to chastise Grey about all the multiple plugs Heritage runs through this list every week... or those of Rixposterz... or Mom Pop Culture... or Rich at MoviePosterBid.com... or any other of the other half dozen sellers who regularly post multiple messages each week advertising their listings. No, it only seems to be Bruce who is lucky enough to be beneficiary of Sean's rapier-like wit. So how come Bruce rates all the attention? If I were one of the other sellers I'd be miffed at never getting a mention -- they say even bad publicity is still publicity. Perhaps it's because Sean feels Bruce posts more often than anyone else? That may be true... I haven't done a statistical analysis. But then, Bruce does hold 3 *different* auctions each week -- far more than anyone else, so it would hardly be surprising (or somehow 'wrong') if he does post a few more FA announcements then the average bear. LEGAL DISCLAIMER: This opinion is purely personal in nature and offered as is with no warranty expressed or implied. No compensation has been rendered to the author by emovieposter.com or any other retailer. Reading of this opinion in no way obligates the author to make restitution for any loss of damages that may result from someone reading this opinion. Oops... I guess I should have put that part at the beginning of this message... so sue me. -- JR Sean Linkenback wrote: I wasn't sure if Bruce was away this holiday weekend, and perhaps missed this inquiry, but seeing him plug his auctions again this morning, I thought I would ask this again: Bruce wrote in his latest email club message: It seems that some of those who unknowingly sold some of these as middlemen are taking the odd position that they have no liability in this, and that they want the people they unknowingly cheated to join them in lawsuits against those they obtained the fakes from, and that they won't be refunding those they unknowingly cheated. Do you have any actual firsthand knowledge of this happening? Or is this just something you made up for the club? I know that I would like to keep from spending money with anyone who was taking this stance and certainly would like to be made aware of them, but perhaps it is all speculation on your part and thereis nothing to worry about? 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.
[MOPO] This bright color is giving me VERTIGO
Rich, I'm just guessing here, based on long-term observation: I think there was only 1 color that VERTIGO was printed in for the original theatrical release. The NSS printing and distribution service was in its prime back then and their print shops were *very* consistent in producing the same color from one location to the next. There would have been no reason for the studio to experiment with different shades of red-orange. The variations we've seen over the years are too subtle to be experiments to see which color the public responded to best. As for accidental printer variations in the color, that's highly unlikely because in those days printers used a standard industry-wide ink-mixing formula called, of all things PMS (for Pantone Matching System). This was a system designed a long time ago to insure accurate mixing and printing of ink colors to a color-card reference. That thin bar of color squares you sometimes see running along the border of an untrimmed poster is actually a specific series of Pantone-numbered colors. So, a printer was told, use PMS #XXX for the background and PMS #YYY for the title lettering, etc. While you might get a tiny ink-mixing error from one print shop or print run to another, you wouldn't see the kind of variations we have seen in the VERTIGO poster over the years coming straight out of the print shops. Here's what I think happened: That particular shade of red-orange was *very* susceptible to changing hue/fading/turning yellowish from its original color over time and light exposure -- more so than any other color. We all know that the vibrant reds and oranges are the first to go in any light-fading situation on any poster. Even a brief period in bright sunlight... a few days... can change the hue of red/orange ink dramatically. I think the specific original color the VERTIGO was printed in is an extreme example of an unstable color when exposed to light. Note that particular color has rarely been used on other posters, particularly to cover large areas of the paper. I think its inherent hue instability is the reason for that. This would account for all the many different, sometimes subtle and sometimes great variations in color which we see on this poster. Each one could easily be a slightly different hue from another depending on how much light it has been exposed to over the decades. Here's one way to figure what the original color was: Lobby cards are were not displayed outdoors during the release and less likely to be exposed to light in someone's collection -- often lobby cards are kept in a file, rather than hung on a wall. Chances are the background color has not changed much with the lobby cards. Looking through the image databases at Heritage and emovieposter that seems to be the case: There is almost no variation in the red-orange color on the lobby cards from one sale to the next, going back many years. I propose that the color of the lobby cards is probably what the color of the original 1-sheet was and that all the variations we are seeing are simply different levels of hue-change/fading from light exposure. The other possibility is that this poster would be incredibly easy for someone to reproduce and pass off as original, since the whole poster is a simple, two-color print job (red-orange and black on white paper) and the image is a stylized and simple graphic design with no photorealistic or painterly elements to it. If I were going to pick a valuable vintage poster which would be fairly easy to fake, the VERTIGO would be near the top of my list (the GODFATHER would be even easier, but doesn't sell for anywhere near as much). So, my guess is either variations in the effect of light on the background color of VERTIGO 1-sheets over the years... with fakes/repros running a distant second. -- JR Richard Evans wrote: I've been wittering on for ages about there being colour variations with Vertigo. Other than the standard strong red/orange, orange/red, however you see it. And other than obvious fading, or possible lighter, weaker printings towards the end of the run. I have believed there are some printed more scarlet in colour, (ink variation, different printers?) because, well, that's what I was told. But now, given how things are lately, I wouldn't be surprised if there's some unusually scarlet ones out there, which are faded ones that have been boosted by translucent inks. Anyone know? Rich On 8 Sep 2009, at 22:42, Michael B wrote: Hey, Dave, I have no qualms with you selling your posters at any price you wantno qualms whatsoever. But in terms of the VERTIGO one sheet, you are knowingly misleading the prospective buyer ( who has put his trust in your hands) by stating in your description it MAY be faded. Give me a break! You know as well as I know that US Vertigo one sheets are BRIGHT ORANGE. You're obviously playing dumb so you can make your $2995. You owe it
Re: [MOPO] This bright color is giving me VERTIGO
Addendum... OK, before anyone jumps all over me and says Hey, JR, you big dummy... the PMS system didn't come into existence until 1962 and VERTIGO was released in 1958 let me correct myself: The color matching system PMS grew out of and earlier system and was formally re-introduced as the PMS system in 1962 by Pantone -- but there was an earlier color-matching system in place before that. It just wasn't called PMS, but it was an industry standard ink color matching system used by printers to insure accurate and consistent reproduction of color among different print batches and print jobs at multiple locations -- like the kind of operation the NSS ran. -- JR James Richard wrote: Rich, I'm just guessing here, based on long-term observation: I think there was only 1 color that VERTIGO was printed in for the original theatrical release. The NSS printing and distribution service was in its prime back then and their print shops were *very* consistent in producing the same color from one location to the next. There would have been no reason for the studio to experiment with different shades of red-orange. The variations we've seen over the years are too subtle to be experiments to see which color the public responded to best. As for accidental printer variations in the color, that's highly unlikely because in those days printers used a standard industry-wide ink-mixing formula called, of all things PMS (for Pantone Matching System). This was a system designed a long time ago to insure accurate mixing and printing of ink colors to a color-card reference. That thin bar of color squares you sometimes see running along the border of an untrimmed poster is actually a specific series of Pantone-numbered colors. So, a printer was told, use PMS #XXX for the background and PMS #YYY for the title lettering, etc. While you might get a tiny ink-mixing error from one print shop or print run to another, you wouldn't see the kind of variations we have seen in the VERTIGO poster over the years coming straight out of the print shops. Here's what I think happened: That particular shade of red-orange was *very* susceptible to changing hue/fading/turning yellowish from its original color over time and light exposure -- more so than any other color. We all know that the vibrant reds and oranges are the first to go in any light-fading situation on any poster. Even a brief period in bright sunlight... a few days... can change the hue of red/orange ink dramatically. I think the specific original color the VERTIGO was printed in is an extreme example of an unstable color when exposed to light. Note that particular color has rarely been used on other posters, particularly to cover large areas of the paper. I think its inherent hue instability is the reason for that. This would account for all the many different, sometimes subtle and sometimes great variations in color which we see on this poster. Each one could easily be a slightly different hue from another depending on how much light it has been exposed to over the decades. Here's one way to figure what the original color was: Lobby cards are were not displayed outdoors during the release and less likely to be exposed to light in someone's collection -- often lobby cards are kept in a file, rather than hung on a wall. Chances are the background color has not changed much with the lobby cards. Looking through the image databases at Heritage and emovieposter that seems to be the case: There is almost no variation in the red-orange color on the lobby cards from one sale to the next, going back many years. I propose that the color of the lobby cards is probably what the color of the original 1-sheet was and that all the variations we are seeing are simply different levels of hue-change/fading from light exposure. The other possibility is that this poster would be incredibly easy for someone to reproduce and pass off as original, since the whole poster is a simple, two-color print job (red-orange and black on white paper) and the image is a stylized and simple graphic design with no photorealistic or painterly elements to it. If I were going to pick a valuable vintage poster which would be fairly easy to fake, the VERTIGO would be near the top of my list (the GODFATHER would be even easier, but doesn't sell for anywhere near as much). So, my guess is either variations in the effect of light on the background color of VERTIGO 1-sheets over the years... with fakes/repros running a distant second. -- JR Richard Evans wrote: I've been wittering on for ages about there being colour variations with Vertigo. Other than the standard strong red/orange, orange/red, however you see it. And other than obvious fading, or possible lighter, weaker printings towards the end of the run. I have believed there are some printed more scarlet in colour, (ink variation, different printers?) because, well, that's what I was told
Re: [MOPO] assessing fading
Todd, Hmmm... well...OK, then... in that specific case, use of a *small* amount of translucent paint to bring up a small faded area to match the rest of the poster might be considered acceptable restoration... but it would have to be a very small area, about 10% or less of the image area for me to feel comfortable about it. It's just that usually when a poster is faded it is faded all over -- from sun exposure or having been displayed under bright incandescent light for too long. Bringing up the color level across an entire poster... or even 50% or more of the image area... is just going too far for a restoration. At that point you're doing a recreation and actually slipping into forgery. i.e., you're engaging in deception, using technology not available at the date of the poster's issue to artificially make the poster appear to be in better condition than it actually is. You are taking it too far from original state. You are, in fact, *over-painting* the original poster with new artwork. And even if this over-painting is revealed at the time of the original sale, it is certain that it will not be divulged (or even known) in future sales of the same poster. I know it's a fine line between restoration and recreation/forgery -- but the line is there and this hobby-industry better get busy defining some agreed-upon standards which define both sides of that line. Otherwise it will continue to be anything goes, which means more fakes, semi-fakes, and half-fakes entering the market for $10,000... $20,000... $30,000 and more. If the restoration industry does not police itself and lead the way in establishing these hobby-wide standards, they will be the ones who suffer when Bruce's prediction materializes about a widespread backlash where buyers will only be interested in unrestored, untouched material. It has happened in other fields of collecting and it can happen here. The restorers and backers need get together, form a club or guild or whatever and set some standards and start publicizing them.. -- JR Todd Feiertag wrote: JR, You misunderstood my post about the FREAKS poster. I never said the FREAKS Insert was completely painted over. I did say that the translucent paints were used on the poster. Since I had some personal interest in the poster at the time of the auction, from what I understood there wasn't much paint used on the poster to begin with. Actually, the poster was originally in great shape and unfolded, but it did have a slight amount of fading which was expertly corrected, but not by covering the entire poster in paint. Not all colors on a poster will fade and/or will fade evenly and at the same time, so even when translucent paints are used, it would be a rare case where an entire poster would have to be completely painted over. It's a rare case for any poster to have to be completely painted over, not just by translucent paints, but any paints. It is good news say for instance, if only the lettering is faded, such as on Michael's poster (not sure if this is the case) and all it would take is a small amount of paint to make the lettering look much better. I don't see anything wrong with this. It's a lot more pleasing to the eye, and you're not looking at a newly created painting. Todd Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 16:35:37 -0400 From: jrl...@mediabearonline.com To: toddfeier...@msn.com CC: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Subject: Re: [MOPO] assessing fading Todd, Now, see, I consider that to be creating a fake poster. Reapplying color to an entire poster -- rather than one small damaged piece of it -- is completely *changing* the original poster and even if it is translucent color I'm sure such a process is irreversible and it is over-painting, pure and simple. The fact that it can be done skillfully instead of in a clumsy way by some amateur with colored markers makes no difference as far as authenticity goes. I hardly consider the advent of this translucent over-painting restoration technique to be good news. This is part of the new technology problem our hobby-industry is faced with. How can a FREAKS insert that was badly faded be completely *repainted* -- every inch of it -- and then still be worth $100,000? If that's the case, then everything is fair game and we should all stop worrying about the amount of restoration which has been done -- hey, if it's undetectable what does it matter, right? Of course, this means that any fake, unless badly done, is no longer a fake and getting a genuine 'original' is now impossible to count on anymore. My advice to those of you who have posters you bought 15 years ago or earlier -- don't sell 'em. Hold on to them. At least you know they are real. -- JR Todd Feiertag wrote: Ok, the good news...there are translucent paints which are now used by some restorers, including
Re: [MOPO] fadingtranslucents
OK, look, it's like Bruce said: These translucents are NOT new. There is no mystery to them. They are simply high-grade acrylic artist's paints. Basically, they are liquid plastic color. You can buy them in any art supply store (and in the crafts section at Wal-Mart). They have been around for a long time, but in recent decades they have improved tremendously in quality. I'm a painter (meaning artist, not house painter). I've been using acrylics since the 1960's, with both traditional brushes and air-brushing. Acrylic artist's paint comes out of the tube opaque, but the more water you add, the more translucent the color becomes. You can also mix a small amount of the color with a clear plastic gel to get even more transparency with less water -- which is what they do when using them on poster paper so there is no risk of the paper wrinkling up from excess water. With an airbrush and acrylics you can do some incredibly subtle things -- you can simulate the look of stone lithography and offset printing very accurately. Acrylics are famous in the art world for painters using them to build up layers of color and transparency to achieve rich textures and lighting effects. Commercial artists swear by them. They are, as with any other technique, only as good at the talent of the artist using them. In clumsy hands you will get bad/obvious results. In a true artist's hands you can get something most experts would be hard pressed to recognize as non-original ink and even if it were suspected, it would be hard to prove without doing a chemical analysis of the paper to reveal the plastic content of the color. But here's the thing: Acrylics are PERMANENT. Once they dry, they are part of the paper forever. This goes against the basic principles of restoration -- that anything done to the poster should be reversible. What we are talking about doing here is OVER-PAINTING the existing printer's ink of a poster with a layer of plastic color which is then absorbed into the paper. But it is still over-painting and if done over more than a very tiny area of the poster it is just not cool. By the way, you could do the exact same thing with diluted water colors -- ever see a water color painting that had a light wash of color over the sky or water? Same thing. The difference is that with water color you run the risk of the paper wrinkling up from the excess water a very diluted water color paint requires. And, of course, water colors *are* reversible. In fact, any expert could tell if the colors of a poster had been punched up with watercolors by taking a cotton-tipped swab or paint brush, dipping it in water and rubbing lightly on the suspected area of the poster. If it were watercolor, it would streak and run. But if the touch-up was done with acrylic paint it would not -- just as it would not if it were original printer's ink with no over-painting on it at all. -- JR Michael B wrote: i just received the following email from a MOPO member that rarely posts, anything, but i have erased the identity and address of the sender: *Send it to me, I can pump the colors using the translucents that Todd mentioned* 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. 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.
Re: [MOPO] Bruce's latest information on the fakes
Sean, In theory, both you and Bruce are right. From a purely moral and ethical standpoint the unknowing middlemen should have to reimburse their customers. But what about practical matters? How many of those middlemen have $20,000 or $30,000 or more free cash laying around that they can hand over in reparations? Not many, would be my guess, particularly in the current economic situation. These people may want to refund the money, but they simply may not be able to. Also consider what their situation is if they were truly innocent middlemen... like someone selling on consignment. They may have been given $20,000 for the fake, but they only made a 10% or 20% commission on the deal... maybe $2,000 to $4,000 bucks. They passed the bulk of the $20,000 on to whomever they got the poster from in the first place. Since they didn't get to keep the whole $20,000 in the first place, why should they have to cough up the whole $20,000 to pay back the last buyer in the chain? And then there's the daisy chain effect. How many times did a particular fake change hands among innocent buyers and sellers before the highly-skilled fraud was detected? Maybe for some of these fakes there is a long change of multiple sales and trades involving many people who got, exchanged and spent money generated from the sale of the fake and none of them knew it was fake (and most of whom do not have the money to repay... and who do they repay it to, anyway? That's where the courts come in -- they have to figure out who owes what to whom and how much guilt or innocence each link in the chain contained). In other words, it's a royal mess. And chances are very little will ever be recovered or repaid on most of these fakes. Those who bought them from a well-heeled auction house like Heritage who could afford to refund the money (and who probably had an insurance company helping them out on that) are the lucky ones. Many of the others will ever get much if any of their money back, regardless of the outcome of court cases. The scary thing is that, in many of the court cases, there may be legal decisions which don't favor the buyers at all. After all, except for a couple of upscale dealers/auctioneers, these posters were sold as is. They did not come with a guarantee of anything and legally most of the sellers are probably not libel according to the letter of the law. This is why the whole fake thing has to be stopped now, or at least serious efforts made to reign it in. The fakes have already done tremendous damage and we probably haven't seen the end of most of the chains of destruction yet. Sellers of high-end posters are simply going to have to bite the bullet, get with a couple of the recognized experts in the field (we all know who they are) and arrange a viable opinion of authenticity process which they can use in the future to reasonably safely sell the very expensive type of posters in future. Anyone who thinks this hobby-industry can go back to doing business with the very expensive items the way it was done in the past with the same kind of of course it's authentic attitude is kidding themselves. Clearly the mere reputation of the seller isn't going to be enough anymore. -- JR Sean Linkenback wrote: Hi Bruce, someone just pointed out your latest club email to me and I read one passage with a lot of interest: It seems that some of those who unknowingly sold some of these as middlemen are taking the odd position that they have no liability in this, and that they want the people they unknowingly cheated to join them in lawsuits against those they obtained the fakes from, and that they won't be refunding those they unknowingly cheated. Do you have any actual firsthand knowledge of this happening? If so, isn't this one of the things that should be outed so that people can know do stay away from any middlemen who deny responsibility/liability. You talked before about how disappointed you were that people might be withholding this sort of information, are you now doing the same? And if anyone who is interested in this subject hasn't read Bruce's new club message, I encourage you to do so, as it contains a nice summary of many of the events. 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. 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
Re: [MOPO] fraudulent seller alert regarding realart
Statements of mutual support and solidarity among dealers is very nice sentiment and all... and no one is claiming that the vast majority of well-known dealers are anything other than honest and professional -- but you can't ignore the fact that it was other dealers equally well-known and honest and professional who were *fooled* by some of these fakes and sold them to their customers unknowingly. And that this went on for several years before finally being uncovered for the large-scale dissemination of fakes that it was. We still don't know the full extent. Just because some dealers have not yet had the problem (that they know of) does not mean they haven't or won't in the future. Guys, face it: Where the very expensive posters are concerned, you're going to have to get together and come up with a third-party recognized expert opinion of authenticity system that people can have confidence in. Otherwise all the buyer has is your word and opinion. As good as it may be, it is still the word and opinion of the person trying to make the sale. Without an independent second opinion, that approach may still be good enough for most posters, but probably not good enough for those posters in the upper price ranges. You have to face the fact that the game has changed dramatically. -- JR bqjansen wrote: I agree with you wholeheartedly Phil. Please let us not go overboard again! Surely it would not be healthy if we could get our posters only from Bruce or indeed Heritage. Ebay, just as fleamarkets, has provided me access to an enormous amount of experience enjoyment and indeed some hard lessons with movieposters. Let's hope this could continue. Furthermore I'd like to suggest that not everything that is Bruce/HA is golden. Wim Op 7 sep 2009, om 07:30 heeft Phil Edwards het volgende geschreven: Raymond, there are many reliable poster dealers who still sell on eBay using the auction format. Regards, Phil E. - 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.
Re: [MOPO] Bruce's latest information on the fakes
Sean, Obviously I meant that you and Bruce were right about the moral obligations of people involved in this chain of events to make appropriate restitution. It seems to me that at this point the only person who has a right to out the name of a seller/auctioneer/trader who has refused to refund someone's money prior to the resolution of the court cases is the person who bought the fake from that particular seller. If anyone else were to give out names publicly in print, they would be opening themselves up to a defamation lawsuit, so I didn't figure Bruce was going to answer your question by coughing up names as you insisted he should be doing. But your question clearly indicated that the reason you wanted to know the names of people who have not refunded money at this point would be to vilify and condemn them -- and without knowing all the details of each individual transaction, that would be unfair and wrong. That's why I started talking about extenuating circumstances. Like I said, if someone made a $4,000 commission on a sale of a $20,000 fake, then at the most that person is ethically obligated to reimburse only the $4,000 he made on the deal, not the entire $20,000 that was paid. And if we table the ethical obligations for a moment, legally, a court would be unlikely to order the repayment of even the $4,000 commission if the person could demonstrate that they knew nothing about the poster being fake and sold it as is with no warranty. The law recognizes and upholds the concept of buyer beware in this country. It's different in Europe and most other places. But in America we operate on a form of pirate capitalism that says unless you can actually prove to a jury that somebody knowingly and deliberated lied to you with malice aforethought about a product, they are not responsible for your losses or damages. Going back to moral obligations, what about the probability that the person who got the bulk of the $20,000 may well have paid someone else $20,000 for it when he bought it? So if he didn't know it was a fake when he paid good money for it and then resold it in good faith (and has since spent that money believing it was legally his and he was entitled to spend it), why should he now be on the hook to take *two* separate $20,000 hits -- the first when he bought the fake and the second when he has to repay money from the subsequent sale which he has already spent? Perhaps morally he should be willing to repay the $20,000 he got from the sale and then take his chances on maybe getting something back from the court someday, but why should he be the only one to have to bear the whole burden? Why shouldn't the last buyer also have to wait on the court reparations? So, it is perfectly correct for people in this situation to invite others involved to join them in the lawsuits and let the courts decide who gets what of anything that may or may not be recovered. -- JR Sean Linkenback wrote: JR, I don't understand - both Bruce and I are right about what? I never asked if the unknowing middlemen had enough funds available to refund or any other question that you answered. My question was a direct one if Bruce had actual firsthand knowledge of theseunknowing middlemen not refunding money of customers as he claimed in his message or if he is just further making waves while seemingly trying to promote himself as the only safe place to shop. It's not a right or wrong question, it's a yes or no question which so far he hasn't answered. - Original Message - *From:* James Richard mailto:jrl...@mediabearonline.com *To:* Sean Linkenback mailto:slinkenb...@comcast.net *Cc:* MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU mailto:MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU *Sent:* Monday, September 07, 2009 4:44 AM *Subject:* Re: [MOPO] Bruce's latest information on the fakes Sean, In theory, both you and Bruce are right. From a purely moral and ethical standpoint the unknowing middlemen should have to reimburse their customers. But what about practical matters? How many of those middlemen have $20,000 or $30,000 or more free cash laying around that they can hand over in reparations? Not many, would be my guess, particularly in the current economic situation. These people may want to refund the money, but they simply may not be able to. Also consider what their situation is if they were truly innocent middlemen... like someone selling on consignment. They may have been given $20,000 for the fake, but they only made a 10% or 20% commission on the deal... maybe $2,000 to $4,000 bucks. They passed the bulk of the $20,000 on to whomever they got the poster from in the first place. Since they didn't get to keep the whole $20,000 in the first place, why should they have to cough up the whole $20,000 to pay back the last buyer in the chain? And then there's the daisy chain effect. How
Re: [MOPO] SOME THOUGHTS ON FEAR AND THE HOBBY THAT NO ONE WILL RESPOND TO
Oh, Rick, c'mon... the current situation is nothing like all the previous examples you cite. As you pointed out, with all the others there were ways for an educated buyer to recognize that he wasn't being offered an authentic original theatrical release poster. Different dimensions. Different paper. Fuzzy printing. Wrong colors. The fact that Portals had contradictory information printed in their bottom borders (like putting zip code on a 1939 poster). The current scandal involves fakes so well done that for at least two years they passed through the hands of many long-time and knowledgeable dealers and collectors who DID NOT RECOGNIZE they were fakes. That's a completely different thing. In the past an educated buyer could protect himself if he bothered to make the effort, as you say. But that's not the case here. So it is perfectly rational and justified for people to feel far more worry and fear about the current scandal. What isn't justified is pretending that it's no big deal and that nothing has to change in the selling community to meet this new challenge -- at least where very expensive posters are concerned. It's unlikely that a talented forger is going to go to all that time and effort to create a superb fake for a poster that is not worth at least a couple thousand dollars. You are quite right that where 90% of posters are concerned, there is no need for for alarm and things should continue as they have been. But for the highest 10% of poster sales, the situation has changed dramatically and it would be foolish to pretend otherwise. -- JR rixpost...@aol.com wrote: From the frightened, desperate tones of some of the posts, it sounds almost like an old Twilight Zone episode, where all the townspeople (movie poster collectors) are convinced that the poster world out there is a scary, scary place and only their Fearless Leader can be trusted. Everyone...everyone else will lead them into the dark pit filled with lies, repros and despair. Sure, there are a lot of snakes out there...even some of the bigger names in the hobby. But when I first started collecting movie posters in the late 70's + early 80's, EVEN THEN we had to deal with Portal Reproductions. Hey, back then Realart posters were thought to be just above garbage ( I remember selling a Realart Frankenstein title card for $50 or $75). Anyway, it took a few years to LEARN THE HOBBY. I remember driving 100 miles to an old woman's house who said she had a Original Dracula poster--swore it had been in her family for 50 years! When I got to her house, I knew IMMEDIATELY it was a Realart reproduction. but I LEARNED from that mistake. I realized that before driving those 100 miles, I should have requested the poster's measurements. If I had, I would have been ONE STEP CLOSER to realizing that what she had wasn't authentic---at that time, I was aware of the standardized sizing of US posters. I probably would have asked the old lady a few more questions---she would have revealed that the poster said Portal Publications---Sausalito, CA in the bottom border---and I wouldn't have had to drive 100 miles. But way back then, I NEVER got angry about these types of useless sojourns to hell and back---because, in fact, they WEREN'T useless! Through all the effort I put out, I was LEARNING THE HOBBY. It's obvious that things are way more scary now out there now than back then---repros everywhere. One thing to remember in Movie Poster collecting, as in Life99.9% of the time, if it looks too good to be true, guess what---IT IS! A MoPo member poster a link to an Original 1942 Casablanca US 1/2 Sheet for A HUNDRED BUCKS! Hey, ain't no way if that was REAL, it would be up on eBay 10 MINUTES, let alone 3 days! The bottom line is---if you're really serious about collecting movie posters, you've got to invest some time in LEARNING THE HOBBY. But I also found out along the way that as soon as you get cocky and think you KNOW EVERYTHING, the hobby seems to throw you a curve ball and you get burned. Such is life. You pick yourself up, brush yourself off...and move on. But WHEN FEAR TAKES OVERand all the townspeople run to their Fearless Leader (or Leaders) for safety and assurance that all is wellI think they're MISSING OUT on finding the hidden gem that's out there that no one else has found---the DIAMOND IN THE JUNKPILE! Great movie posters are still out there if you look had enough---if you really care about the hobby enough to LEARN IT. Sure, it's an investment of TIME AND ENERGYbut doesn't anything in this Life that's WORTH ANYTHING take some effort? Sure, townspeople, you may find SAFETY in you run to your Fearless Leader(s) to SAFELY bid on all of your movie postersbut it's my belief that in the process you lose the JOY OF THE SEARCH! That's always been the FUN PART of movie poster collecting for me! Instead of living in FEAR, make
Re: [MOPO] assessing fading
Sean, My, you've been kind of snippy with everyone of late... you getting enough sleep? I didn't get that Franc was advocating going back to the way things were done 20 years ago. I think it was pretty obvious that he was responding to Michael's question in the spirit in which it was asked: i.e., this poster is far from perfect, would you display it? It's kind of a weird question for Michael to ask, because why would he have bought it if he wasn't going to display it? If it's more faded than he expected -- to the point of not wanting to display it or keep it -- he obviously should return it if the seller didn't adequately describe/show the fading. Actually, since Michael didn't provide a place for us to to and actually see what his poster looks like, I really don't understand the purpose of him asking the question at all. So instead of answering in the specific, which was impossible, Franc chose to answer in the spirit of a collector whose approach is I didn't buy this to sell it someday, I bought it to have and display in my collection and opinioned that obsessing over condition is way overdone these days, and of course it is -- particularly among speculators who are buying to hold and sell later and certain types of people who think a 60-year old *used* movie poster should look better today than it did the day it arrived at the theater back in 1949. After all, the idea of authenticity behind a vintage poster is that it was actually *used* to advertise the film. If it now looks better than it did the day it arrived at the theater, hasn't the critical aspect that it was actually *used* been lost? Anyway, I didn't get that Franc was advocating going back to the way posters were sold in the dark ages. Clearly everyone appreciates seeing a good picture of a poster before they bid on it or buy it, as they do a description that covers significant flaws. Counting the pin holes and detailing every wrinkle is overdoing it, but I know some people also will return a poster because it had some pin holes or a few more winkles that were not described to them, so I can understand the need in today's market for sellers to go into such detail in the description. But I do agree with Franc that too many people are condition-obsessed these days. These are old, used movie posters, folks. Not fine art prints. A couple of decades ago, furniture collectors used to have 200 year old antiques restored to like new condition because they thought the better an antique looked, the more it was worth. Now that is considered one of the worst things you can possibly do and it lowers the market value of a piece by half. In antique furniture, the patina of age... a less-than-perfect original finish... along with a few scratches and nicks... are considered part of the *reason* for paying big bucks for an old chair or cabinet. Movie poster collectors would do well to take note of the shift in buyer mentality which antique furniture collecting went through about 20 years ago -- we could be next. -- JR Sean Linkenback wrote: Those darn newbies -- always making the old lazy dealers work harder. There was a time back in the day when people didn't even have to put a photo of the poster, you just made a listing and people ordered. Maybe the poster image sucked, maybe it didn't. Those were the good ole days right Franc? Didn't have to worry about people comparison shopping or competition. If someone ordered something and didn't like it, you just told them to be happy they even got it and be quiet. After all, it wasn't like they could complain on some internet forums or email groups. Well, maybe this computer thing is just a fad too and you can go back to not describing defects or showing photos one day. *From:* MoPo List [mailto:mop...@listserv.american.edu] *On Behalf Of *Franc *Sent:* Saturday, September 05, 2009 1:36 PM *To:* MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU *Subject:* Re: [MOPO] assessing fading If it's been on your want lists for 5+ years, of course you should display it. Who cares if it looks old and used: it's supposed to! I remember a well-known dealer who isn't around anymore used to put out a catalogue of his inventory every so often in the pre-computer days. For condition description he would just say generally used. Making note of every pinholes, edge tear, wrinkle and defect is something that newbies started with the advent of Ebay. I think it's nonsense. FRANC 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
Re: [MOPO] mint restoration---good restoration
Michael, Actually, yes, they could have. In fact they did -- the fake lobby cards are not backed. They simply sanded off the image from the front of a genuine old but cheap lobby card, then carefully glued the fake image onto the old card stock. You could also do this with an insert -- and it may have already been done, anyone checked theirs? Naturally with the thick paper stock of a lobby card or insert this is much easier to do than it would be with the thinner paper of a one sheet -- but I bet with modern technology and chemicals it could be done. Some kind of super bleaching/ink removal process that would clean off the old image and leave you with old paper you could recreate something else on. It's also possible that some blank paper stock of old paper turned up in a warehouse and could be used today. For instance, people still talk about the time back in the 1980's when the NSS closed up shop and a few people were able to buy palettes of posters cheap from the warehouses. I'll be there was some unused blank poster paper in those warehouses as well which would have aged very nicely by now. Besides, fine art forgers long ago developed techniques for artificially aging paper. So, yes, linen-backing makes creating and passing off fakes much easier, but people would still be doing it if linen-backing had never been invented. -- JR Michael B wrote: i have NEVER been ashamed to stae my preference for unbacked material. would the bad people involved with selling fake universal horros have been able to pull off their scam with UNBACKED MATERIAL? michael 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.
Re: [MOPO] assessing fading
Todd, Now, see, I consider that to be creating a fake poster. Reapplying color to an entire poster -- rather than one small damaged piece of it -- is completely *changing* the original poster and even if it is translucent color I'm sure such a process is irreversible and it is over-painting, pure and simple. The fact that it can be done skillfully instead of in a clumsy way by some amateur with colored markers makes no difference as far as authenticity goes. I hardly consider the advent of this translucent over-painting restoration technique to be good news. This is part of the new technology problem our hobby-industry is faced with. How can a FREAKS insert that was badly faded be completely *repainted* -- every inch of it -- and then still be worth $100,000? If that's the case, then everything is fair game and we should all stop worrying about the amount of restoration which has been done -- hey, if it's undetectable what does it matter, right? Of course, this means that any fake, unless badly done, is no longer a fake and getting a genuine 'original' is now impossible to count on anymore. My advice to those of you who have posters you bought 15 years ago or earlier -- don't sell 'em. Hold on to them. At least you know they are real. -- JR Todd Feiertag wrote: Ok, the good news...there are translucent paints which are now used by some restorers, including Jaime...yes, I know, Jaime. By using these translucent colors, you're not completely painting over an image but enhancing it, so to speak as you can see through this type of paint. I know that Jaime used these paints on the $100,000.00 FREAKS 14x36, so if it was good enough for a $100,000.00 FREAKS Insert, it should be good enough for your THIRD MAN Insert and will really make it a lot more presentable and also worth more if you decide to sell it sometime down the road. 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.
Re: [MOPO] Copy or forgery?
It is doubtful the Academy asked this artist to: 1) Paint his exact repro on old poster paper or 2) Artificially age the paper to look like old paper and then 3) Linen-back it exactly as a real poster would have been, or to glue it onto a genuine old poster which had had the image sanded off the front of the paper. ...thus creating something that could conceivably sold as an original. I'm sure that if one were to take the Academy's recreation out of the frame it would obviously be a modern painting done in acrylics paint, probably on artboard. The difference between what this artist did and what the artist(s) who created the recently revealed fake Universal Horror posters did is that he only recreated the image at original size... he did not attempt to physically re-create a poster that could pass for the real deal in every way. The artist(s) who created the fakes knew exactly what was being done and why. -- JR Franc wrote: The commission should not have been declined because the restorer was not being asked to do anything illegal. He was making a copy as best he could given his craft and his talent. There were also some really beautiful stone lithos that were produced for commercial sale a few years back of some classic movie one sheets. These artists did a beautiful job and at time time did they attempt to perpetrate a fraud. IF someone tries to pass off these terrific lithos as an original, it's that person that has committed the fraud, not the artist who created them with no intention to deceive. FRANC -Original Message- *From:* MoPo List [mailto:mop...@listserv.american.edu] *On Behalf Of *Doug Taylor *Sent:* Wednesday, September 02, 2009 4:17 PM *To:* MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU *Subject:* [MOPO] Copy or forgery? The current issue of posters being copied/replicated and sold as original got me thinking about copies/forgeries and legal/illegal. Specifically, I thought about the Academy who (as I understand it) commissioned an exact copy of the Cavalcade OS to hang in their collection to represent the original OS that they do not currently own. Of course, they would never represent this as anything other than a copy, but it made me wonder about the artist. Whomever made the copy certainly knew that they were recreating a poster as perfectly to the original as possible and must have considered it a good and honest commission coming from a reputable, paying client. Would/should the artist have declined the commission because his work might have been categorized as forgery? Is it only forgery if the purchaser represents the piece as authentic? Is it only forgery if the purchaser attempts to sell the piece as authentic? Regardless, if the artist accepts the commission to make a legitimate copy and the purchaser then attempts to sell the work as authentic, was the artist at fault? I'm not trying to slant the conversation in any one direction. This topic just caused me think more about the issues and made it far less black and white situation for me. Regards DBT Profile http://www.linkedin.com/in/douglasbtaylor 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.
Re: [MOPO] the role of restoration in forgeries
Anne, Thanks for bringing this up. It's an important issue but one which has a lot of tricky aspects... For one thing, if collectors start doing less restoration and backing that means hard times for the wizards and hard working honest people at the restoration and backing studios who provide a valuable service. But since there has always been a buyer preference for unrestored and unbacked material whenever you can get it, the supply of good quality unrestored vintage posters -- particularly the highly desirable titles -- simply could not meet the demand as more and more buyers entered the field. There's the rub... far too many truly vintage posters... truly beautiful posters... are in bad shape. The ones in really good shape are already in collections and rarely make it back out onto the market. A lot of wonderful posters (not necessarily super-expensive ones either) exist today because of the restorer's art, and that's a good thing. But for the super-expensive, highly desirable posters, just about the only option left became to find one in very bad condition and restore into a presentable state. And that's where things really got wonky. Everyone has a different idea of what's presentable and how far a restoration should go. In the huge price run-up of the last 15 years, the big money buyers only wanted to pay their big money for practically perfect posters in every way. Restorers obliged them. Nothing wrong with that (well, theoretically, anyway...) but it started a trend towards a whole lot of other people wanting their posters to look mint like the day they came off the press. Some people started backing posters that were already in mint or near-mint shape to preserve them. Madness. You can de-acidify a poster, stick it in an archival frame and preserve it every bit as well. Better, from a purist standpoint. But that wasn't the real danger in all this restoration fervor. It was, as you point out, that restoration techniques got so good and at the same time it became more acceptable for a valuable poster to only be, say, 50% original paper... or 42% original paper... or 30% original paper... even 25% or less original paper and STILL be considered a genuine restored original movie poster worth tens of thousands of dollars -- instead of what it actually is, which is a skilled reproduction (or, as we say in polite poster society, a recreation -- and what they call in the rest of the world a painting). The next phase was inevitable. Someone saying Well, hey, if people are willing to pay $23,000 and more for something that is less than 25% original paper, why bother with the original paper at all? What's the difference, so long as it looks right? And so extreme restoration leads to outright fakery because it is not only possible from a technical standpoint, but becomes more likely from a psychological and sociological standpoint. Which is where we are today. I would love to see a formal hobby-wide standard where if a poster is less than 40% genuine original paper it cannot be called a restoration but must be called a recreation. Yeah, like that will happen. We can't even agree on a standard grading language... -- JR Anne Coco wrote: I have been reading the discussion surrounding the recent revelations about forgeries have been discussed and there is one point I would like to make before this topic is sidelined as old news. The over-restoration of movie posters has contributed greatly to forgers' ability to fake old paper. Too much paint makes it difficult to determine not only how much (if any) original paper actually exists but it also plays into the hands of those with nefarious plans. As I understand it, the forgers not only distressed the paper that they used but they also applied over-painting because this is a common practice within the field of collectible movie paper. I would advocate for movie paper collectibles to instead be evaluated based on their original condition not some ideal that can be created via the application of over-painting. If anything good comes out of this, it would be (in my opinion) that collectors would look at posters with fold creases and paper losses and learn to love them just the way they are without paint to brighten the colors and obscure the signs of use. If the practice of over-painting could magically disappear, it would be much easier to determine what is and is not real. Visible fold creases should be viewed as a clue that the paper is truly what it claims to be while a lack of fold creases should be a cause of concern for collectors. If the fold creases, background and borders have been over-painted, how can you be certain that what you are buying is more paper than paint? And I haven't even touched on the problems of what happens to paint and paper when they age. It's not pretty, especially if the piece was exhibited under less than ideal light conditions in a
Re: [MOPO] Inquired into a filmfootage item for sale
So, lemme get this straight... David has had 4 of his perfectly legitimate poster listings immediately *yanked* by Ebay because some crazy old actress thinks she owns the rights to her name on a poster, even though she knows she signed those rights away over 50 years ago to the movie studio... ...but this filmfootage seller, who is known to have sold confirmed fakes for thousands of dollars a pop is still allowed to continue to list more fakes for sale on Ebay? Sheesh! There outta be a law. Oh, wait... there are actually several laws... but no one seems interested in enforcing those real laws, only in performing useless VERO dances for show. Hey... here's an idea... what if someone (certainly not me... I mean, y'know... someone with time on their hands...) were to file VERO violations on this fraudster's Universal Horror listings, perhaps as a representative of the estate of Lugosi, Chaney or Karloff or on some other pretension? Wouldn't Ebay immediately pull those listings? There's more than one way to skin a BLACK CAT... -- JR Todd Feiertag wrote: Jeff, Just looking at his small photo, the poster doesn't look right. The detail and colors look washed out, but then again, the photo is small and not very clear. Notice his Return Policy? */Satisfaction Guaranteed or Full Refund...Item must be returned within 3 days of receipt./* *//* As anybody knows, that is not nearly enough time to have the poster checked out by an expert to see if it's real or not and of course, the seller knows this and purposely has that short return window of time. I should also note as it's already been mentioned on MoPo, that this seller has already allegedly sold many FAKES to unwary collectors and dealers. Best, Todd Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 14:27:23 -0700 From: jpotok...@ca.rr.com Subject: [MOPO] Inquired into a filmfootage item for sale To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU i wrote this seller, last night, about this item he is currently selling on ebay, asking who had done the restore and/or backing work. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=140323550803ssPageName=ADME:X:RTQ:US:1123 http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=140323550803ssPageName=ADME:X:RTQ:US:1123 here is the reply i just received from him: *Hi, the collector I got it from told me that it was backed by studio C, this was around 5 years ago. Thanks...* * * Just more info to ponder, and made aware of, with regard to Universal items. Jeff 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. Windows Live: Keep your friends up to date with what you do online. Find out more. http://windowslive.com/Campaign/SocialNetworking?ocid=PID23285::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:SI_SB_online:082009 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. 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.
Re: [MOPO] restoration, recreation, mutilation etc
Neil, Unfortunately, you are quite correct and it is no joke. If you happened to be the owner of a very desirable Universal Horror piece in, say, only good condition but mostly intact, today you actually could: Tear the poster into four irregular pieces and send each one to a different reputable highly-skilled restoration operation and ask them to restore your poster. It would be perfectly legal and not one of those studios would question your motives or integrity. They would simply perform the valuable service of taking the tragedy of a badly damaged vintage poster and working their magic on it to restore it to its original glory. It would cost you several thousand dollars at least, but in the end you would have four identical posters, all in perfect restored condition. All of then considered legitimate 'originals' by the current standards of this hobby. All four would look better than your single original did. Ad you could keep one and sell/auction the other three for mega bucks. so long as you took about years to introduce them to the market one at a time. Even if the auction house or dealer did do the right thing and git a signed and dated opinion of authenticity from a recognized expert in the field before selling the posters, your 3 posters would each one be authenticated as genuine, with approximately 25% of original paper intact and the rest professionally restored to original condition or some such double talk. After all, several experts on this have testified that such a description is perfect correct and acceptable -- and such a restored item might well be worth $23,000 or more. It would all be legit... you'd make a ton of money... and you would *still* have the poster in your own collection! This is the sad state of affairs our beloved hobby-industry has brought itself to. It's why I propose the community adopt an official standard that no poster with less than 40% original paper can be called original or restored -- it can only be called a recreation with % of original paper intact. At least if we had such a standard, you would be limited to only creating only two expensive original restored posters from your single original. But, then again, since each of those two would have 50% original paper, the one that you sold would probably go for twice as much as those created from only 25% original paper, so you would still make out big time. So, to be a truly effective 'standard' we would have to insist on at least 60% original paper for a restored poster to still be considered an authentic, original poster with restoration. Anybody see anything horribly wrong with this current situation? -- JR Neil Jaworski wrote: it would seem to me, following many of these depressing threads, that someone in possession of a valuable Universal 1sheet would be wise to cut it in half, 'restore' each half and sell both copies of the poster. are we at that point where the hobby is now comparable with those ebay listings where you can buy a fragment of a fedora once worn by Frank Sinatra for $50? grim. neil 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. 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.
Re: [MOPO] COA's and recycled fakes
Todd, Only if the community doesn't insist otherwise -- which I agree it probably will not. But if pressure could be brought to bear to reveal the names of those who currently own the fakes (some people know these names), then that might prevent these items from being sold or traded to anyone else as anything other than fakes. This would be a big loss for the current owners, yes, and hopefully they have or will recover their original investment from those who sold them the fakes. In the cases of trades, there's not much to be done about recovering the cost unless some people are found sufficiently guilty by a court of law so as to be ordered to pay restitution. But, look, just because X got stuck with a fake... or perhaps Y dealer who had to take the fake back and return the money... or perhaps X auction house who had to make good on their warranty... just because someone is now left holding a fake of a valuable poster does not mean that person/organization is entitled to carry on the fraud and pass of the fake as a restoration/recreation/whatever to someone else... perhaps a couple of years from now when the current furor has died down. If we know who has the fakes now (or who ends up with them after all the legal fuss is over) that would go a long way towards preventing these items from re-entering the market at a later date. Still wouldn't solve the whole problem, of course. You're right that they should all be burned. That's what the government does with counterfeit money. If there are insurance companies involved in restitution and recovery, then the insurance company would end up with the poster and should destroy it. But who knows if they would. But if both of our suspicions are correct, none of the above will happen and these fakes will quietly re-enter the market at some point, and not labeled as fakes, either. This is why I've been pushing so strongly for the auctioneers/dealers to *change* the way they do business when offering a very pricey poster. Get a signed, independent opinion of authenticity from a recognized expert in the field like yourself, or Bruce, or Ralph (who already does verification as part of his business) or some other qualified expert and include it in the auction/sale. If this opinion of authenticity were signed and dated and identified the specific poster with details noted, this entire growing problem could be stopped dead in its tracks. This is really the only way to go if the vintage poster business is to protect itself and its customers in the future. Doing nothing differently and continuing business as usual is simply a prescription guaranteed to produce more of the same problem we've already seen. After all, one of the things the recent scandal has done is reveal some of the secret techniques of exactly how to create such convincing fakes. Without solid independent verification at sale time, this problem is only going to get worse. -- JR Todd Feiertag wrote: Jeff, Personally, I think the fakes should be burned and destroyed, but that's not going to happen. The next best thing would be to take a giant rubber stamp, about 12 inches wide and about 4 inches high with the word FAKE stamped numerous times all over the front of the poster or lobby card with permanent ink, but that's not going to happen either. Even better, a giant hole punch, with the word FAKE, pressed through the poster in a bunch of places, but that's not going to happen either, especially after someone paid big bucks for this nice reproduction. Unfortunately, these fakes might be here to stay. 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.
Re: [MOPO] Poster Villains and Red Herrings
Ari, Time to think outside the box. First of all, let's not use the term COA since it has been discredited by the collectible manufacturing industry which printed them up by the millions. I'm talking about a signed and dated opinion of authenticity from a real recognized expert with the specific poster identified in detail. But, yes, after the sale, that opinion certificate could be used to defraud in several ways, from faking another copy of the certificate to handing it over with a duplicate fake poster instead of the real thing it was issued on. That's where thinking outside the box comes in -- because what you say about the problem with the way COAs have been used in the past is correct -- so that's why my proposal is very specific: I'm saying that a NEW, currently-dated and signed, independent 3rd party opinion of authenticity would have to be issued *every* time the poster was sold. You don't just get the first certificate and then continue to use it to certify the poster every time it changes hands. No. Instead, every time the poster changes hands again a buyer would insist upon and have every right to expect that it re-certified with a currently dated and signed opinion certificate, preferably from a different recognized expert than the one who did the previous certification. The person whose signature is on the currently-dated opinion of authenticity could be called up and asked hey, did you issue an opinion of authenticity on this poster on this date? Or, the verification expert could maintain a website where all recently issued certificates were listed and avoid the phone calls. If a certificate were more than a few months old, it would not be considered current and any one thinking of buying the item would be well-advised to insist that a new one be issued before handing over $20 grand. Now, wait... before anyone howls about the added expense, it would only cost maybe $100 to $200 bucks to get a poster certified and what is that compared to spending $8,000...$15,000... $20,000 or much more for an item? Remember, I am only proposing this be done on the very pricey stuff, which is where the big problem lies. What I'm suggesting is that this hobby-industry get serious and creative and come up with a solution to the problem instead of just moaning and groaning about it and claiming there's nothing to be done about it. -- JR Ari Richards wrote: No, issue a COA, great, then buyer buys a fake after and sells it with the COA, not so great, the proof is the poster, COAs cant work, because they arent part of the item, I deal with this daily. I sell you a coin worth $50,000, I CAN give a COA, but what if you buy a $20 coin same date etc and sell it with my COA? THE PROOF IS THE ITEM, COAs arent (even) worth the paper they are printed on. Ari --- On Wed, 2/9/09, Jeff Potokar jpotok...@ca.rr.com wrote: 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.
Re: [MOPO] Should restorers sign their work?
Several years ago... maybe 3 or 4... I proposed a uniform identification/signature standard for linen-backers and restorers. The idea was mostly shrugged off with the same silly talk about how would you sew it on? and what if the signature bleed through to the front of the poster? and such. But a few people, like Dario, did start branding their work in one way or another. I think restorers and backers identifying their work is definitely a good idea -- it's always good to know who did the work on an item. I certainly would like to have known who backed my CONE WITH THE WIND 1-sheet when the split-and-repaired center seam started lifting up off the backing... hmmm... perhaps this is why most don't want to sign their work and we still have no hobby-industry standard? But as far as provenance and authentication/verification goes -- or even proof that a given restorer actually did the work indicated by the signature -- such things could be as easily forged as the typical useless COA that people keep harping about. If someone is good enough to fake the poster art, you think they couldn't fake the signature/mark/certificate of a restorer or backer? I still believe craftspeople branding their work is a good idea, but you couldn't use it as proof of anything. If I were a forger making a fake linen-backed BLACK CAT 1-sheet and this signature idea had become commonplace, I would make certain to put the fake mark of one of the very best restorers in the business on it. Now that could be restrained quite a bit by the restorers and backers maintaining good records so one could call them up and say Hey, 12 years ago did you restore, linen-back and sign your name on the back of an original BLADE RUNNER advance 1-sheet -- the rare version with the hair across Harrison Ford's nose, just above his lip? Because I've got someone here who wants to sell it to me and I was just wondering... But keeping all those records and fielding all those calls would be a lot of trouble, I suppose... --Jr Glenn Taranto wrote: So why isn't there a hobby standard at this point? GT - Original Message - *From:* bqjansen mailto:w...@bqjansen.demon.nl *To:* MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU mailto:MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU *Sent:* Wednesday, September 02, 2009 11:03 AM *Subject:* Re: [MOPO] Should restorers sign their work? Dario already does something like this, since I asked him for it. Next to a stamp of vintagemovieart and the date on the back, he will provide a record of the works that have been restored and the date. Op 2 sep 2009, om 19:53 heeft Susan Heim het volgende geschreven: I've been saying this for a long time. So has Ed and Sue Poole at Learnaboutmovieposters.com. You know when you receive a linenbacked poster from a Heritage auction and there is a clear label on the back of it? Well, assuming you can get a acid free clear label, I think that would be great and it could remain on the poster forever for provenance. Sue Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 10:48:27 -0700 From: jpotok...@ca.rr.com mailto:jpotok...@ca.rr.com Subject: Re: [MOPO] Should restorers sign their work? To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU mailto:MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU glenn, i was right with you on this... whether it was signed, or a certificate was issued and signed by the restorer, stating what work and repairs were done, restore, paper repalcement or fills, etc. . this document, like an appraisal, would go with the piece, were it ever sold, like one includes when selling a work of fine art. i do recall you had a number of silly replies in the negative. one dealer even talked of the difficulty of SEWING on a tag to the linen.. who ever talked about that kind of method? i still think this is a sound and logical idea. makes total sense. jeff On Sep 2, 2009, at 10:40 AM, Glenn Taranto wrote: I would like to offer my post of June 15, 2009... If anyone would care to re-read it It seemed to me most people were against the idea... Not that I'm a genius or anything but it's interesting to see what a difference 2 months can make... Glenn T. -Original Message- *From:* MoPo List [mailto:mop...@listserv.american.edu] *On Behalf Of *Glenn Taranto *Sent:* Monday, June 15, 2009 12:09 AM *To:* MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU mailto:MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU *Subject:* [MOPO] Should restorers sign their work? What are the pros and cons of restorers signing their work? Would it add or subtract from
Re: [MOPO] update: Mara Corday from TARANTULA gets a little carried away....
Oh, wow... that really is too much. Obviously she's not all there anymore and not be behind this at all... some shyster lawyer or relative may has got his claws into her and is pushing this. Hey... just for the fun of it... what if you gathered all the links to all of the other posters with her name on them currently for sale on eBay (including all the $4.99 11x17 repros... in fact, especially the $4.99 11x17 repros...) and sent them to her contact? What would Ebay do if she (or whoever is doing this in her name) filed a VERO violation on every single item? Maybe that would get the attention of some mid-level exec at Ebay and they would revise their stupid policy of squealing like little girls every time someone files a legally groundless VERO with them. Maybe you could get a lawyer friend to write a letter threatening to file a harassment lawsuit against her? Since her VERO claim clearly has no legal standing, it actually *is* harassment, since she is singling out your auctions and no one else's. -- JR David Lieberman wrote: well...we filed the counter notice with ebay yesterday (and thank you again Bruce for the info!) Anyone who gets a VERO takedown from an actress can immediately file a counternotice form. Filling this form removes the TKO immediately pending an outcome and gives the VERO complainer 10 business day to file with eBay proof that they have sued you in federal court. If they don't file suit against you, the TKO is lifted, you may re-list the item, and the VERO person who files against you may not file a VERO complaint against you again. so guess what mara corday does for retaliation? she had 3 more of our listings removed for THE GIANT CLAW..and this is a poster where her image does not even appearjust her name at the bottom. this is beyond comical. *David Lieberman** *CineMasterpieces.com http://www.cinemasterpieces.com/ | 15721 N. Greenway Hayden Loop, Suite 105 -- Scottsdale, Az 85260 _Vintage Original Movie Posters__ | 602 309 0500 | Office/Gallery Open By Appt. Only._ 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. 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.
Re: [MOPO] FRANKENSTEIN 1/2 sheet vs TC from Heritage, long reply
, ad --- On *Tue, 9/1/09, James Richard /jrl...@mediabearonline.com/* wrote: From: James Richard jrl...@mediabearonline.com Subject: Re: [MOPO] FRANKENSTEIN 1/2 sheet vs TC from Heritage To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Date: Tuesday, September 1, 2009, 3:17 AM Allen, Oh really... how silly... your ridiculously exaggerated examples /(your original message contained a statement copied below .../ But by the same measure of value you cite, doesn't the fact that there were no other known examples mean that extraordinary measures were called for prior to and during the auction of this particular item? /In hindsight, I should have noted that future posters with greater estimated values may need greater measures, hence the lead phrase ...By extension) /are nothing like the sensible suggestion I made so, what is the point of bringing them up as a reason for not doing what I suggested? Nor did I suggest unending disclosure. Nor did I suggest such reasonable, prudent and appropriate measures would necessarily be called for in all cases /(nor did I)/, or even most cases (they clearly are not) but only in the cases of very pricey and rare, not-often-seen items where such sensible measures become more critical and important. So please take down your straw man, he's obscuring the view. What you really seem to think is that the auction house/dealer should take no responsibility to verify a pricey item themselves /(not stated or intimated)/, independent of the current owner's statement /(previous owner expired, no statement entered)/, or provide additional vital information (such as a comparison photo of a known genuine item) to aid and educate those people bidding $10,000... $20,000... $30,000 or more on the items they are offering? You feel it is sufficient for them to simply pass on what the previous owner said about what some unnamed restoration expert said? In this case the description didn't even mention the name of this expert /(Carol Tincup was noted)/ (who was obviously not quite so expert in retrospect). You think that's good enough where such dollar amounts are concerned? /(I will copy my original message, as I cannot grasp your reply ... / There was no hype, the description stated a previous owner and a restoration expert, as well as the previous availability in the market. /I am unsure how to respond to the rhetorical questions in your paragraph above, as they are beyond the scope of my message.)/ But what the hey, it's only money... people can do with it what they will and as I said, there ain't no law saying Heritage or any other auction house or retail dealer owes any bidder anything beyond putting up a picture and description of the item, bringing down the hammer, collecting the loot and shipping the stuff out the door. But if that's the way it's going to continue to be done then nobody should be shocked... shocked, I tell you... to discover that some fraud is perpetrated from time to time if the auction houses/dealers are just going to be shills for the consigners/suppliers and accept no responsibilities to the buyers for verification and comparison information. As for your concerns that what I suggest could create disinterest, devalue the poster, harm the consignor, and negate future business... Hmmm... just how is honesty and verification and full disclosure going to cause that? And what does it say about this business if it does? Perhaps the real concern should be how many more $25,000 and up posters are going to be sold if this sort of scandal keeps cropping on up, as it has more and more often in recent years? Kirby estimated there have already been as much as $2 million in fraudulent sales already. I hardly think doing nothing, changing nothing, and simply continuing to carry on as usual is the best approach to this situation. But, of course, others may think differently. -- JR allen day wrote: By extension, Heritage Auctions could have provided scans of each square inch at 30x, and someone would/could note that 60x scans at each centimeter square should have been provided. If an additional poster (with some restoration) may be provided for comparison, why not 2 additional depending on amount of restoration? There was no hype, the description stated a previous owner and a restoration expert, as well as the previous availability in the market. It is the job of the buyer to distill any / all information when making an informed decision. Grey Smith / Heritage Auctions certainly need no assistance from me to defend their business model, but to imply/suggest that the auctioneer should be tasked with (apparent unending) disclosure could create disinterest
Re: [MOPO] Poster Villains
Sorry, Rich, I gotta disagree with you and Steve there. We're not talking about $200 posters... we're talking about $20,000 and up being paid for fakes that are now being done so skillfully that they will fool educated, informed buyers and maybe even a lot of old hands. From this day forward, any auction house/dealer who does not take responsibility and engage in due diligence by getting a true independent 3rd party real expert verification prior to offering such a pricey item as a genuine original is indeed a villain. I'm not talking about the past -- although this sort of thing obviously should have been done all along on such items and we wouldn't have the situation we now have -- but I *am* talking about how auctioneers/dealers should proceed in the future with very pricey items, now that we know these kind of high-end fakes exist (and can continue to be created). Now that the Black Cat is out of the Son of Frankenstein's bag, who would be willing to spend $20,000 or more on a poster *without* a verification from an independent, third party recognized expert in the field? Anybody still willing to roll those dice -- now that we know what we know? -- JR Richard Halegua Comic Art wrote: Kudos to Steve At 01:01 PM 9/1/2009, Stephen Fishler wrote: Clearly, there are villains here who decided to CREATE some very valuable posters in order to line their pockets. Having said that, let's not work overtime in order point the finger of blame where it clearly does not belong. There auction houses that may have sold fakes have acted responsibility here. They are not the enemy. 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: 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. 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. 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.
Re: [MOPO] Poster Villains
Warranties are all good and well, but I'm maintaining that it in the future it would be far better for the hobby, the business, the auction houses and dealers and ultimately the buyers if independent, recognized (and named) expert verification were done for a very pricey item prior to it being sold. Such a verification would actually *enhance* the value of the auction, so how would the auction houses and dealers (or the consigners) lose with such a policy? And I'm sure it would make the auction house's insurance companies feel better. It would also give confidence to the buyers/bidders and they might be willing to pay more. Going with strictly the warranty, it becomes the responsibility of the buyer to determine if he has been sold a fake or not. That's not right. Maybe he does get someone to verify, or maybe he mistakenly takes the auction house/dealer on their reputation and doesn't bother. Or maybe the buyer doesn't find out about the fake until after the warranty has expired. That's exactly the opposite of the way things should work. Keep the warranties, sure, but on very pricey items be able to auction/offer a MUMMY's HAND half-sheet with a description that says This poster has been examined by recognized poster expert __ who has determined to the best of his ability that it is a genuine original movie poster containing ___% original paper. Mr _ states that this is his best opinion but is not legally responsible for any loss or damage resulting from this opinion or any subsequent purchase of this item. The lawyers can work out the exact wording. I fail to understand why there is resistance to such a simple and effective idea. -- JR Franc wrote: I just decided to take a look at the limited Warranty provided by one the big auction houses. It clearly reads that the auction house warrants for a period of 6 years that any article described in UPPER CASE TYPE which is unqualifiedly stated to be the work of a named author or authorship, is authentic and not counterfeit. In other words the auction house is responsible for this warranty. Villian or not, the auction is clearly responsible for returning the full cost of the salet to the buyer by virtue of this warranty. FRANC -Original Message- *From:* MoPo List [mailto:mop...@listserv.american.edu] *On Behalf Of *Richard Halegua Comic Art *Sent:* Tuesday, September 01, 2009 4:07 PM *To:* MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU *Subject:* Re: [MOPO] Poster Villains Kudos to Steve At 01:01 PM 9/1/2009, Stephen Fishler wrote: Clearly, there are villains here who decided to CREATE some very valuable posters in order to line their pockets. Having said that, let's not work overtime in order point the finger of blame where it clearly does not belong. There auction houses that may have sold fakes have acted responsibility here. They are not the enemy. 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: 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. 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. 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. 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.
Re: [MOPO] Poster Villains and Red Herrings
Red Herring Alert! Red Herring Alert! As far as I know, NOBODY proposed issuing COAs for posters, and yet suddenly we have a full blown discussion dissing COAs and talking about how useless they are as if someone *had* made such a proposal. Hmmm... what's up with that? A signed statement from a recognized poster expert stating that he/she had examined a specific poster carefully and concluded that in their best opinion that poster is authentic and original with ___ amount of restoration is NOTHING LIKE a typical useless COA. Obviously, to someone who actually is an recognized expert in this field, like Todd or Sean or Bruce or whomever, such a verification statement is not necessary, but the verification statement would not be for their benefit. Were they the ones who were sold the $2 million worth of fakes over the last several years? No. In fact, I should think it would be obvious that people like Todd or Sean or Bruce and others are in fact the recognized experts who would be the ones making the verifications. Who said anything about ignorant self-styled experts being employed? What good would that do? Boy, y'all are going to a lot of trouble to twist a simple proposal for full disclosure and independent verification of certain specific very pricey posters into something else so you can discredit it. I'd think I was in a session of Congress rather than MOPO. One more time: We're talking about what responsibilities the auction houses/dealers have (or should have) to reliably and publicly verify that a very pricey product is in fact genuine *before* they sell it to non-experts. We're talking about taking the burden of proof off of the buyer and putting it on the seller, where it belongs. Funny how everyone keeps wanting to talk around that point and change the subject. -- JR 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.
Re: [MOPO] FRANKENSTEIN 1/2 sheet vs TC from Heritage
Grey (and others commenting on this aspect), I sympathize with you in this situation. I really do. I've auctioned items worth many thousands before myself and agonized over writing the descriptions. I did point out in my post that virtually ALL auctioneers and sellers engage in this kind of thing to one degree or another -- it's part of doing business. And I think it's important to remember and acknowledge that you seem to have been instrumental in uncovering the extent of this current scandal. Note I said that the half sheet description made it sound like a silk purse, not that it claimed it was a silk purse. Technically, there was nothing wrong with the description, it's just that the overall effect did a lot to make it sound like it was worth the estimated $25,000 to $35,000. OK, sure, that *is* what a good auctioneer is supposed to do: hype the consignment. But at some point that part of the job description can come into a conflict of interest with other responsibilities of the job description. My real point was that if a good picture of the title card (which had the same art) had been shown with the auction, then the bidders could have made a direct comparison themselves at the time and so made a more educated evaluation. But, then, there ain't no law saying auctioneers or dealers need to accommodate their bidders to that extent. But by the same measure of value you cite, doesn't the fact that there were no other known examples mean that extraordinary measures were called for prior to and during the auction of this particular item? I do personally feel that the higher the hammer price is likely to be, that a greater responsibility must logically fall upon on the auctioneer/dealer to do more to insure accuracy and authenticity. I also think there has to be some consideration given to the fact that we are now in the 21st century, with all this new technology, and so let the buyer beware can't continue to be the Golden Rule (and ultimate rationale) it once was. As for the other questions you asked about how far one should go and where it all ends -- I think those answers are something only your own organization (and all the others) will have to decide upon for themselves. It's a challenge, no doubt. I wish you and everyone else all the best in grappling with this issue. -- JR Smith, Grey - 1367 wrote: JR You mention silk purse from a..., perhaps, but when it is the only sow's ear on earth, it is assuredly, in many people's eyes, a silk purse! Concerning including an image of the title card next to the half sheet, not a bad idea but where does that end? Should we end up trying to offer comparisons on all we sell. This is exactly why we continue to offer the service of high res images forever on our site and are the only poster seller that does so. As Heritage has always suggested, educate yourself on anything you purchase. Thus the reason for the link to comparables on every page of our auctions. This is also something that only Heritage offers to their bidders. *From:* MoPo List [mailto:mop...@listserv.american.edu] *On Behalf Of *James Richard *Sent:* Sunday, August 30, 2009 2:40 PM *To:* MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU *Subject:* Re: [MOPO] FRANKENSTEIN 1/2 sheet vs TC from Heritage I might be so audacious and impertinent as to suggest that a responsible and highly-regarded auction house catering to the very well-to-do and regularly selling tens of millions of dollars of high-priced collectibles every year would have taken it upon themselves to include a high resolution picture of the title card along with the half sheet auction so that the bidders could have made the comparison themselves at the time of the sale. But I guess I'm just being naive... despite the cries of shock and horror over the last few days, let the buyer beware is still the Golden Rule in our society. -- JR Douglas Ball wrote: Side by side, yes, but when the auction took place it looked damn good! Doug - Original Message - *From:* JOHN REID Vintage Movie Memorabilia mailto:johnr...@moviemem.com *To:* MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU mailto:MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU *Sent:* Saturday, August 29, 2009 7:04 PM *Subject:* Re: [MOPO] FRANKENSTEIN 1/2 sheet vs TC from Heritage There is indeed a very big difference between the two. 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. 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
Re: [MOPO] a mistake in a movie ???
Michael, There are lots of mistakes made in movies, but the one you mention isn't one of them. You have forgotten how the movie industry operated in the 1940's and early 1950's. In those days, movies were the only source of media entertainment besides radio (television was just getting started, most people did not have one and the limited amount of broadcasting done was only in a few big cities). Naturally, no VHS tapes or DVDs. The way a typical film was distributed and exploited in those days was: 1) A world premier in one or two cities. This could last for a month or two, even for an average film, while the studio gauged public response and the Big Papers and Radio Shows got out their reviews so the publicity band wagon could being to work. The reason they waited at least 3 or 4 weeks was to decided how many expensive prints of the film they should make for distribution. 2) The initial first-run release came next, where the film would be shown in the larger metropolitan areas, starting with the big theaters in the downtown area. Sometimes they would release the film on one coast and it would work it's way across the country in first-run release -- this was to take advantage of later reviews coming out and allow the film to build up word of mouth support. Even a typical film might spend 3 to 6 months in first-run in the major cities, starting at the downtown houses and then working its way to the smaller houses in the outlying districts. For a popular film, the first run could be 6 months to a year or longer. COURAGE OF LASSIE was a popular film. 3) After the initial Big City first run, the film started making its way out to the large towns and then the small towns. This was still the first run and it was not limited to not just the theaters, remember there were a *lot* of drive-ins as well back then and for some reason the drive-ins often did not get a lot of the films until *after* it had finished showing at the local movie houses. This second stage of the first run would go on for a year or more with a typical film. So, the initial run of a typical film could easily last 1 to 2 years. But, most films didn't stop there. After the initial run, anything that had done remotely well was re-packaged as part of a double bill. If a film was very popular, within a year or two of finishing its initial first run, it might be re-released and start the process over again, although completing the cycle more quickly this time around. On this basis alone, it would have bothered no one at the time to be watching a movie set in 1951 and see on the screen a clip or poster for a film released two years earlier in 1949 being portrayed as current -- particularly something very popular. COURAGE OF LASSIE would have still been running in many places in 1951. But even that is not the full explanation. There's also how films were made and released: It often took a year or two from completion until a film was finally released to the screen. The studio execus played around a lot which planning release schedules well in advance, making sure on film did not interfere with another, etc. Some films sat on the shelves for quite a few years, but a year or two was common. So, a film released in 1951 would have been shot in 1949 or maybe 1950, with everyone knowing it probably wouldn't hit the theaters until 1951. So your writers, if they are going to include a current date reference in the script, would have anticipated that and had the character say 1951. Obviously they couldn't go too far beyond the anticipated release date or the character might have been saying after all, it's 1953 when the audience was watching in 1951 or 1952 and that would have definitely sounded wrong. But, since they were filming in 1949 or 1950, they would only have had access to a film which was current then -- as COURAGE OF LASSIE was. We are used to films finishing shooting and editing and immediately going into release, with a theatrical run of a modern typical film being only 4 to 6 weeks these days, after which it immediately goes to premium TV channel release for a few weeks and finally is on the store shelves as a DVD in 2 or 3 months. Even super-popular blockbusters are getting to DVD in 90 days now. A very few might take 4 to 6 months before becoming DVDs, but that's increasingly rare. But back in the old days it was a much slower, drawn-out process that took years. -- JR Michael B wrote: in the 1951 movie, *THE UNKNOWN MAN*, there is a line in the movie that it was actually taking place in 1951. Yet, when walter pidgeon was talking to a movie theatre employee, the movie poster shown in the scene was *THE COURAGE OF LASSIE*1949 !!!CLEARLY, THAT COULDN'T BE. *_isnt it great to see the old posters in real time ?_* wasn't it great to see the clip of the film posters of that great 1942 film in THE SUMMER OF 42 ??? michael Visit the MoPo
[MOPO] A solution to the sad day?
Well, maybe a partial solution anyway. I've been reading but not commenting on this situation because everyone else was saying it all. Sue and others have very correctly pointed out that even with filing of a legal action field and the certainty that high-quality fakes were created and sold, NOTHING has been proven in court about who was *knowingly* involved and exactly what they did. Just because Jamie Mendez (or anyone else) is mentioned in the suit does not mean they are guilty. Let's remember that. Let's also remember that those named in the suit have probably been advised not to comment publicly no matter how innocent they may be. So we have not heard from Jamie or Kerry and probably won't until the suit is resolved. There was the call to name names early on when the scandal broke to protect the community. Some were in favor of that while others pointed out that innocents could be named and their businesses instantly ruined by a wrong accusation. That is The Problem, of course, not the fakes themselves. Everyone knows that fakes are bad for the hobby-business. The question is what do you do when you find a fake? The person who offered/consigned/sold it to you may not know it is a fake. Naming their name could be a terrible injustice. But, at the same time, buyers, auctioneers and dealers want to be (and should be) protected by being alerted when something like this comes to light. Here's what I suggest as a reasonable policy for the future: The moment a fake is discovered, the person who discovers it should notify the movie poster buying/selling/collecting community -- by naming the SPECIFIC POSTER only. Not where it was purchased or the names of those who may have been involved. Just say, on such-and-such date, I discovered a fake FRANKENSTEIN half-sheet and have confirmed that it is a fake by consulting with this expert (nothing wrong with naming the people who discover/verify that the poster is a fake. In fact, this should be required so there are no false reports and we have the opinion of at least one expert in the field confirming that the poster is a fake). That way, an all-points bulletin goes out over the wire, altering the entire community to be on the lookout that a fake of a specific poster has been discovered. This would not endanger anyone's reputation, but it would prevent any more of the fakes of that particular poster from being sold to the community. i.e., once people were alerted that there was one fake FRANKENSTEIN half-sheet, any additional FRANKENSTEIN half-sheets that appeared would be subject to the most careful scrutiny, second and third-party verification for authenticity, etc. This would cut into the fraudsters profits considerably if they could only sell one, maybe two, of a specific fake before the word got out and it became too risky to try to dump any more of that particular poster on the market. It would also help identify the perpetrators if they are in the process of trying to place more FRANKENSTEIN half-sheets when the alert goes out. Kind of an Amber Alert for posters. If everyone would now implement this idea as policy and immediately announce the specifics of a verified fake immediately -- as soon as it becomes known -- it would go a long way to putting a damper on the whole fake business without running the risk of smearing an innocent or of generating a personal defamation lawsuit. It's not a perfect solution, but I think it would help a lot, and it may be all that we as a community can do. Besides being more vigilant, of course. We have to stop accepting that a pricey poster is genuine just because it is a pricey poster. The worlds of antique furniture and fine art collecting discovered this a long time ago. This applies even more to linen-backed posters. I know the restorers and linen-backers won't like this much, but for their own protections we have to subject linen-backed posters to an even closer examination and second/third-party verification than non-backed posters simply because it is harder to tell if a linen-backed poster is real. Now, if the printing/reproduction technology, and the techniques for faking the look and feel and smell of old paper get to the point where even the experts can be fooled by a fake (and we may be getting close to that day) well, then... there won't be anything to be done about that. It will then be up to the fraudsters to be smart enough not to flood the market with too many undetectable fake FRANKENSTEIN half-sheets in order to keep the value up. -- JR Susan Poole wrote: This truly is a sad day but I would like to remind everyone that nothing has been proven other than the fact that these posters are fake. If you read the allegations, particularly those in Paragraphs 14 and 15 of the complaint that relate to Mendez, there is, in my opinion, a rather large jump to conclusion. Until the case is fully adjudicated, I think everyone should
Re: [MOPO] Frankenstein HS
A classic example of what virtually all auctioneers/sellers engage in -- and not just with movie posters -- the fine art of making a sow's ear sound like a silk purse. Phil Edwards wrote: From Heritage's description of this poster: *This poster has had extensive restoration. The original portion of the poster includes the image of the monster, the FR in Frankenstein and the portrait of Dwight Frye. The rest of the poster has been painted in. This does constitute a large section of the poster, however, it is interesting to observe that the majority of the poster is a white background. The restoration was expertly done by Carol Tincup. Now, that being pointed out, one has to keep in mind that this is the only half sheet that has ever turned up on this title so if you're in the market for that format, this is the only one that is known to exist. As is we grade the poster in fair condition but has an apparent grade of Fine on paper. /This was one of the cornerstone pieces in the Collection of Johnny Ramone./ Johnny had always wanted an original poster from the 1931 release of Frankenstein and, with the addition of this half sheet to his collection, he achieved that goal. Fair on Paper. Estimate: $25,000 - $35,000.* 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.
Re: [MOPO] FRANKENSTEIN 1/2 sheet vs TC from Heritage
I might be so audacious and impertinent as to suggest that a responsible and highly-regarded auction house catering to the very well-to-do and regularly selling tens of millions of dollars of high-priced collectibles every year would have taken it upon themselves to include a high resolution picture of the title card along with the half sheet auction so that the bidders could have made the comparison themselves at the time of the sale. But I guess I'm just being naive... despite the cries of shock and horror over the last few days, let the buyer beware is still the Golden Rule in our society. -- JR Douglas Ball wrote: Side by side, yes, but when the auction took place it looked damn good! Doug - Original Message - *From:* JOHN REID Vintage Movie Memorabilia mailto:johnr...@moviemem.com *To:* MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU mailto:MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU *Sent:* Saturday, August 29, 2009 7:04 PM *Subject:* Re: [MOPO] FRANKENSTEIN 1/2 sheet vs TC from Heritage There is indeed a very big difference between the two. 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.
Re: [MOPO] FRANKENSTEIN 1/2 sheet vs TC from Heritage
Actually, it's only very good as artwork, not as reproduction. In fact, I tip my hat to the artist who did the in-painting for being an honest and honorable person. Here's why: It is obvious he was talented enough to accurately reproduce the actor's expressions from the title card if he had wanted to. And he clearly had the original title car to work from. He deliberately chose to put different, vapid expressions on the faces of the actors so that anyone who knew their stuff would immediately recognize that the in-painting was in fact a not-totally-accurate reproduction. As his final statement to that effect, look at the line that says Based on the story by: In the genuine title card that line is written in both upper and lowercase letters. In the recreated in-painting on the half sheet that line is in ALL UPPERCASE letters! The artist very clearly did things that screamed to any knowledgeable person this is not exactly like the original, this is a recreation. -- JR Richard Evans wrote: I'm pretty fussy, but I think it's a very good job considering it's painted. It just pales in comparison to the best way to restore lost sections, using good quality scans from complete examples. But perhaps now, that isn't the best course of action. On 30 Aug 2009, at 00:19, Douglas Ball wrote: Side by side, yes, but when the auction took place it looked damn good! Doug - Original Message - *From:* JOHN REID Vintage Movie Memorabilia mailto:johnr...@moviemem.com *To:* MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU mailto:MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU *Sent:* Saturday, August 29, 2009 7:04 PM *Subject:* Re: [MOPO] FRANKENSTEIN 1/2 sheet vs TC from Heritage There is indeed a very big difference between the two. Sign up for my regular newsletter on movie memorabilia: http://www.moviemem.com/pages/page.php?mod=accountgo=register http://www.moviemem.com/pages/page.php?mod=accountgo=register Visit my Website: www.moviemem.com http://www.moviemem.com All About Australian posters: http://search.reviews.ebay.com/members/johnwr_W0QQuqtZg My eBay Store and Lisitngs: http://myworld.ebay.com/johnwr/ Exhibitions: http://www.moviemem.com/pages/page.php?page=15 JOHN REID VINTAGE MOVIE MEMORABILIA PO Box 92 Palm Beach Qld 4221 Australia - Original Message - *From:* jeff po mailto:spitfire3...@yahoo.com *To:* MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU mailto:MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU *Sent:* Sunday, August 30, 2009 8:40 AM *Subject:* [MOPO] FRANKENSTEIN 1/2 sheet vs TC from Heritage Since phil had given the description of the half sheet that heritage auctioned for 23,500.00, i though it interesting to show the paint re-creation up close, on that poster. i also am showing the way the art/photo appears from the TC, as the artwork was the same. the painted re-creation is not very good. all 4 actors' depictions are off and rather simplistic in appearance. This can be seen more readily when comparing side by side (or up and down). jeff TC: TC frank by you. Half Sheet: halfsheet-FR by you. 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.
[MOPO] The Amazing Transparent Auctioneer Strikes Back
OK... now let me get this straight: 1) Everyone hates E/flea/bay for about a hundred very good reasons, so obviously not one of us would ever want to list or buy there again. 2) Bruce does too good a job pushing his auctions on us and gets too much money for posters except when he doesn't get enough money for them. And he's printed way too many poster books in his life and has to do *something* with them, but does that mean all of us should have to suffer for his enthusiasm? And to top off this effrontery, Bruce just now somehow managed to get someone to pay $780 for an international 1-sheet for VIEW TO A KILL (I know... I know... almost $800 American Dollars for an '80s Roger Moore Bond film poster...): http://auctions.emovieposter.com/Bidding.taf?_function=detailAuction_uid1=1514641 3) But, wait... even though Rich doesn't do any of the above stuff, he's still a feelthy dealer and likes to crack wise and so naturally he is attempting to exploit Bruce's success by currently offering a complete set of lobby cards from VIEW TO A KILL at auction. Let's see... you cut a one sheet into 8 pieces, divide by Bruce's auction result... Hey! That means that Rich's eight lobby cards are worth $97.50 each! The current bid for the whole darn set is only $6.55 right now! So what are you people waiting for? Clearly the depressed Buy of the Recession: http://www.movieposterbid.com/itemdetl.asp?id=50151 This is just basic MOPO math, folks. I don't see why everyone is getting all hot and bothered about it. -- JR 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.
Re: [MOPO] packaging----REPACKAGED MATERIALS
Everyone seems to be so reactionary these days... is it just the hot summer weather, the recession or what? Sure, every once in a while you run across someone who is making an unacceptable profit on the handling side of the shipping and handling charge, or packaging really badly, but it is hardly all that prevalent. In fact, one of the few things Ebay does that is a good policy is allow you to report any auction where the shipping charge is way too high -- you don't even have to have placed a bid on the item. Besides, who buys something without nailing down the shipping charge first? I don't. If the auction/retail offer doesn't specifically state the shipping cost, then I *ask* the seller *before* I buy. If the shipping cost is what I consider way too high I simply won't buy from that seller because I figure any seller trying to rip me on shipping costs is likely to rip me on the product itself, usually by describing it as far better than it is. But people who don't sell a lot of stuff online often don't realize that a reasonable handling charge is a very valid part of the total shipping cost. It takes time to package something -- and some money unless you're going all-recycled all the way, which isn't always practical -- and then more time to create the labels and get it to the Post Office/freight terminal. Time is money. Since minimum wage is $7.00 an hour in my state, if I only make $2.00 on a handling charge and it takes me 20 minutes per package from start to finish (including getting it to the Post Office), then I'm not even making minimum wage for my time. Now, if I were getting a premium price for the item, then I might be willing to absorb the $2 bucks as the cost of doing business but with today's scavenger hunt mentality among most buyers, I figure I should be paid at least minimum wage for my time. -- JR 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.
Re: [MOPO] Please correct me if I am missing something about eBay's latest changes!
Aw, c'mon guys... of course Ebay wants to control everything about its auction site. If any of us owned Ebay we would want to do the same -- business is business. The things people are complaining about are hardly latest changes -- this was all old news back in 1998 when I first started selling on Ebay. Even at that point they would not allow a new username to be registered with a .dot com in it and it was *always* against Ebay policy guidelines for Ebay bidders and buyers to contact each other to try and do a deal off outside of the Ebay system. Back then, their system was so transparent (accidentally, not by design or intent) that they didn't really have any way of preventing it, and so it happened a lot. And I mean a lot. I did it, so did most others who were around back then. Ebay finally started actively campaigning against off-site transactions in 2000 and by 2003 had made it much more difficult for bidders and buyers to get together outside of the Ebay system. But you can still do it today: All you have to do is send the seller a question using the Ebay mail system -- and don't check the hide my address from the seller box -- and indicate in the message that you want to talk about something and that the seller is welcome to reply to you personally. If seller is so inclined he will get what you mean and send you a reply to your private address with his private address and then you reply to him -- viola, you're both doing business off the Ebay site. -- JR Bruce Hershenson wrote: It's worse than you know! They not only are trying to move *ALL* communication (even after-sale communication) to being forced through their own system, but they want to make it a crime to contact biders or buyers any other way than through their system! I *USED* to think having a dotcom user ID (emovieposter.com http://emovieposter.com) meant something, but now it really doesn't. And it is just a matter of time before they take those away too. It is like living in a ghetto 100 years ago. First the authorities take one right away from the ghetto dwellers, and they say, well, we can deal with that and then they take away another, and another, and another, until finally no one has any rights left at all, Bruce On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Helmut Hamm texasmu...@web.de mailto:texasmu...@web.de wrote: I second Kirby on this one. I used to throw in bids for good measure, just to have my user-id show. Fortunately, I registered back in '99, when filmposter(dot!!!)net was still allowed... I stopped doing this since they are hiding the bidder names. Did you notice, that at some point eBay has made it completely impossible to contact a seller directly after you won an item? No more seller's email address, and even retracking contact data from eBay will give you the address and (sometimes) a phone number, but no email contact. Nowadays, Big Brother eBay wants to monitor ANYTHING. Maybe it's just me, but I find this extremely annoying. Helmut Am 23.08.2009 um 17:42 schrieb Kirby McDaniel: Not missing a thing. And bring back the transparency of the entire system - where you can see the buyers, contact them etc. See who is bidding against you etc. Sure, it might bring some communication between the members, result in more than a few off-site deals, but it would be better and probably more remunerative for ebay than the present morass. K. 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.
Re: [MOPO] I think many of us here have been collecting the wrong titles from the wrong years!
Bruce, I think your subject says it all: There are now several generations of younger movie poster collectors to whom vintage means the late 1980's. A 22-year old buying the 2008 poster for GRAN TORINO today would not have even been born yet in 1986. I think some of the prices you showed us are absolutely astounding for such recent issues. I mean, a 2008 GRAN TORINO going for $78.00? Huh? This poster was issued *last year* fer cryin' out loud and they must have printed up hundreds of thousands of them for the U.S. market alone. This is an extreme example, being only a year old, but there were others on your list, some of them less than 6 years old... many less than 12 which went for well over $100... some over $200. Honestly, I don't get it, since anyone could have/can buy as many of these as the want brand new mint when they first come out for $19 to $29 bucks (a lot less if they have a wholesaler connection in the film distribution business). Here's what I don't understand: There must be poster sellers out there who were able to purchase bulk lots of these posters when the film is first released. They must have store rooms with palettes of these 1 to 15 year old posters. So how can they be so valuable? I mean, yeah, people liked the film and want to have a poster of it on the wall, same as always... but you can still buy most of these posters at places like www.moviegoods.com -- that exact same Gran Tornio is available there right now for $29 bucks: http://www.moviegoods.com/movie_product_static.asp?master_movie_id=39936sku=435705 What, someone says yeah, but that's not an original theatrical release? How can you tell? How can anyone? They are printed from the same plates on the same stock by the same printing operation that printed the theatrical release. Maybe the person who buys it from moviegoods knows it is not a theatrical release right now, but in 10 years after the poster from moviegoods has changed hands a couple of times, who will be able to tell if it was purchased new the day the film was released or new from moviegoods.com one or two years later? Am I missing something here? Is there a way to tell the $29 poster from moviegoods from one which was printed up specifically to be used in a theater (but probably never saw the inside of theater's lightbox)? If not, why are people paying so much money for these recent posters? Or is $100 to $200 not much money for this younger generation of collectors? -- JR Bruce Hershenson wrote: I just had 600+ 27 x 40 newer one-sheets close (many from the past few years), and there doesn't seem to be any recession in those titles! Look at some of the prices realized: 6s585 VIEW TO A KILL int'l 1sh '85 different art of Roger Moore as Bond 007 Grace Jones! $780.00 6s018 OCEAN'S 11 DS int'l signed 1sh '01 by George Clooney, Matt Damon, Brad Pitt, Andy Garcia! $273.00 6s140 CLAN OF THE CAVE BEAR 1sh '86 fantastic image of Daryl Hannah in cool tribal make up! $238.00 6s466 RESERVOIR DOGS 1sh '92 Quentin Tarantino, Harvey Keitel, Steve Buscemi, Chris Penn! $209.00 6s352 LORD OF THE RINGS: THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING DS power teaser 1sh '01 J.R.R. Tolkien $203.00 6s448 PULP FICTION 1sh '94 Quentin Tarantino, close up of sexy Uma Thurman smoking in bed! $201.00 6s583 USUAL SUSPECTS 1sh '95 rare Kevin Spacey w/watch on, Bryan Singer directed thriller! $186.00 6s582 UNFORGIVEN teaser 1sh '92 classic image of gunslinger Clint Eastwood with his back turned! $171.00 6s045 AMADEUS 1sh '84 Milos Foreman, Mozart biography, cool artwork! $151.00 6s126 CASABLANCA 1sh R92 cool Gary Kelley art of Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman, Dooley Wilson! $135.00 6s429 PHANTOM MENACE DS style A teaser 1sh '99 George Lucas, Star Wars Episode I! $125.00 6s543 TERMINATOR 1sh '84 super close up of most classic cyborg Arnold Schwarzenegger with gun! $119.00 6s320 KISS OF THE SPIDER WOMAN int'l 1sh '85 really cool artwork of Sonia Braga in spiderweb dress! $105.00 6s284 INDIANA JONES THE TEMPLE OF DOOM white style 1sh '84 Drew art of Ford, Capshaw Kuy Quan! $96.00 6s512 SOPRANOS TV teaser 1sh '99 James Gandolfini, Lorraine Bracco, HBO! $88.00 6s239 GOONIES 1sh '85 Josh Brolin, teen adventure classic, Drew Struzan art! $85.00 6s491 SID NANCY foil 1sh '86 Gary Oldman Chloe Webb, punk rock classic directed by Alex Cox! $81.00 6s589 WALK THE LINE DS teaser style A 1sh '05 cool artwork of Joaquin Phoenix as Johnny Cash! $81.00 6s342 LITTLE MERMAID DS teaser 1sh '89 Ariel looks at the stars, Disney underwater cartoon! $79.00 6s403 NATIONAL LAMPOON'S CHRISTMAS VACATION DS 1sh '89 Consani art of Chevy Chase, yule crack up! $79.00 6s159 DAZED CONFUSED DS 1sh '93 Milla Jovovich, first Matthew McConaughey, great happy face image! $78.00 6s241 GRAN TORINO DS advance car style 1sh '08 bitter old man Clint Eastwood w/rifle! $78.00 6s410 NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN DS 1sh '07 Joel Ethan Coen, Josh Brolin, Javier Bardem! $77.00
Re: [MOPO] update: Mara Corday from TARANTULA gets a little carried away....
David, Just for the heck of it, what did you rep say when you pointed out that where were, like 40 other listings for this poster from other sellers currently running on eBay. And Peter and others are quite correct: Ms. Crazy/Senile Corday's intellectual property rights do NOT extend to a picture of a poster of a movie she was in. She signed away those rights when she contracted to do the movie. If anyone owns those rights and can claim infringement it is the studio that made the picture/printed and released the poster (or whatever corporation legally owns what's left of that studio). But that's immaterial because Ebay does not actually *care* if Corday is right, wrong or just plain crazy. They only want to be able to say: We received the complaint and we immediately pulled the listing which the complaint cited, so don't sue us. Sorry, David, but apparently it was just your turn in the barrel. Since you can't risk having your Ebay account suspended, you'll just have to go along and not list anything from TARANTULA for a while... probably wait at least six months or more before trying again (and only try again if you feel like rolling the dice). To be on the safe side, you probably should not list any poster that has Corday's name on it for a while either. It's a damn shame, but it's the sad state of the 21st century legal world. -- JR P Molitor wrote: Isn't there an exception on reproduction rights for advertising? I thought that's how all the cheapo documentaries got away with showing clips from movies they couldn't afford to license actual clips from by showing their trailers instead? It was my understanding because it was intended to advertise the film no royalties needed to be paid. *From:* David Lieberman http://us.mc315.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=dli...@aol.com *To:* MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU http://us.mc315.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mop...@listserv.american.edu *Sent:* Friday, August 21, 2009 9:33 AM *Subject:* [MOPO] update: Mara Corday from TARANTULA gets a little carried away Wellafter speaking with my ebay rep a few times..and after getting in touch with the spokesperson for Mara Cordayebays decision stands *for now* (my rep is still working on it...but I'm not holding my breath). The listing has been removed and if I attempt to re list it I will be a violation. yes..lunacy is alive and well at ebay. *ORIGINAL EMAIL I RECEIVED FROM EBAY* Dear cinemasterpieces (dli...@aol.com), You recently listed the following Fixed Price listing: 350233078162 - TARANTULA *1SH ORIG MOVIE POSTER SPIDER SCI FI MONSTER The listing was removed because it violated eBay policy. The rights owner or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the rights owner, Mrs. Richard Long aka Mara Corday, notified eBay that this listing violates intellectual property rights. When eBay receives a report of this type of violation, we remove the listing to comply with the law. Listings or items that contain a celebrity's name, likeness, or signature may infringe his/her right of publicity. This right is generally defined as an individual's right to control and profit from the commercial use of his/her identity, and is not limited to only celebrities. You may need the celebrity's authorization to use his/her name, likeness, or signature in a listing or to list an item using such elements. Items that contain a celebrity's name, likeness, or signature may infringe his/her right of publicity. Such items are not permitted on eBay, unless they were made or authorized by that person. For more information visit the following Help page: http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/celebrity-material.html To take the intellectual property tutorial, please visit: http://pages.ebay.com/help/tutorial/verotutorial/intro.html Please be aware that any additional violations of this policy may result in the suspension of your account. eBay understands that you may be concerned about this situation.We encourage you to contact Mrs. Richard Long aka Mara Corday directly if you have any questions. You can send an email to: /deleted/ For more information on how eBay protects Intellectual Property, or for additional information if you believe that your listing has been removed as a result of an error or misidentification, please visit the following Help page: http://pages.ebay.com/help/tp/programs-vero-ov.html For more information on why eBay may remove a listing, please visit:
Re: [MOPO] update: Mara Corday from TARANTULA gets a little carried away..
Cory, This is an interesting idea, and I think the major full-time poster sellers here on MOPO should start emailing each other privately to see if they can get some kind of self-defense coop going. I'm sure there must be some lawyers on MOPO who could possibly offering letter-writing services at a discount as a service to the hobby. However, someone (possibly David, since he's in a active dispute resolution mode with his Ebay rep) could find out what happens if the person who filed the complaint retracts it? Is the a provision for this? If so, does retraction mean the original seller is free to list the item again without some Ebay automatic robot monitor still flagging the re-list as a violation? My guess is that once Ebay has flagged the item that no matter how it is resolved that you would still run the chance of being, um, violated. Still, even forgetting about this one issue, it wouldn't be a bad idea for the sellers to have a group organization to deal with other issues. Perhaps the LAMP-certification structure/membership fostered by Ed at http://learnaboutmovieposters.com could serve as a starting point? -- JR Cory Glaberson wrote: Its exactly right to say the eBay doesn't want to get into the middle of any sort of dispute so it sets up a program that simply passes on the dispute. And of course they charge the VERO (Verified Rights) people to do this, so its good income stream for them to have this program. What I think would work is for one of us who has been so affected to send a letter to Mara Corday's handlers from one our Lawyers pointing out the relevant law and darkly threatening some sort of action if she doesn't stop abusing her rights. That is one way EBay shifts the costs of doing business back on us. What I object to is eBay threatening us with violations that drop our listing presence and potentially kick us off eBay. I bet that has not ever happened since that action would force a lawsuit from me. eBay is just trying to push us to sue the Corday estate. Without this penalty from EBay most of us would just shrug when they remove a listing. But hurting our standing with EBay is another story. Lawsuits are expensive. Minimum cost to initiate a minor case like this is $25,000. Even defending yourself from a lawsuit can cost that much. So the stakes have to be pretty high to really get into it legally. That's why you don't see a lot of stars doing this, they talk with their lawyers and they realize it can become an ungodly mess and there is no up side - you won't make any money and it costs too much to start suing a lot of people. All you do will hurt your reputation (which is all some of these people have). So the real question is: *Can the sellers on MOPO get together and form some sort of group that will help defend the selling industry against this sort of nonsense?* The cost of a series of letters by a lawyer is about $200 to $500 (I checked this out with my lawyer). I have had my own listings removed. I have standing in this dispute. I'd be happy to pay for half the cost of such a letter if the other sellers would be willing to contribute the other half. Remember a letter like this is just an opening gun. It doesn't mean a law suit. All it will do is hopefully force the other party to come to their senses and go to their lawyer and learn what their actual rights are. Maybe we can call the group the Mara Corday Appreciation Society (MCAS) just for grins. Cory Glaberson cglaber...@aol.com 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. 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.
Re: [MOPO] FA: How WHERE you auction can make a BIG difference!
Evan, Slow down. Your original point, which is that $486 was way too high for that poster when another just solid for $20 is valid as far as it goes... but you yourself were saying the $486 is obviously way too high, so why complain when someone (Bruce or anyone else) offers to pay $100 to $150 for one? If we take the average between the two recent sales, we get a price of $253. In fact, if you look at the bid history, only 2 people were willing to go as high as $475. The next bid below them was for $255. Below that came bids of $177...then $82... then $38. So, only 3 other people were willing to bid above the $100 mark for this poster. Knowing this, for Bruce to offer $150 for one is only about $100 above what the next LIBIANNA might go for (maybe)... or, the next one might go for $100 or less, depending on which bidders show up to play. If you're buying stuff to either to resell or to auction off, you can't pay close to what you think a poster might reasonably... I said reasonably... bring. You have to leave plenty of wiggle room in case it doesn't go for anything close to what you think it might. You can't count of a crazy bidding war between two well-heeled buyers erupting. That doesn't happen all that often, not even with Bruce's auctions. You seem to be basing your complaint about Bruce's offer on the idea that poster prices are somewhat fixed and predictable. They're not -- as you yourself have demonstrated by pointing out that almost simultaneously one LIBIANNA sold for $20 bucks while another sold for $486. The poster price market is the wild west. You never know what price something will go for. It's nothing like selling boxes of Cherrios where you know exactly how much each box is going to sell for and you have tremendous daily sales volume so you can get by with only a 5% to 20% profit margin. You say you realize Bruce is an auctioneer, but go on like he is a retail dealer who will set a price and stick to it. If Bruce were to purchase one LIBRIANNA for $150 or three for $300 he could reasonably expect to make some money auctioning them -- but how much money, no one knows. Based on the last auction, in the best case scenario, the bidder who went up to $475 last time would only have to go up to $260 next time to win. But if the $255 bidder didn't participate, then he might have to pay only $175... or $85... or $39. No one can say. So it wouldn't make sense for Bruce to offer to purchase 3 of them at anything even close to $250 each -- he would almost certainly lose quite a bit of money if he did. Me, personally, I wouldn't even want a LIBIANNA hanging on my wall at any price (the quality of the artwork is fairly crude and nowhere near as sexy as a lot of other posters in that particular genre) so you wouldn't even get a $20 bid from me. I do realize that underlying your creeb to Bruce you are really still bemoaning someone having paid $486 for this poster. But you simply can't say the $486 buyer got reamed because no one forced that buyer to bid so high. Hey, it says right here on page 93 of Auction Basis 101 that a person should never, ever put in a maximum bid which is higher than what they really, truly want to pay. But two people did put in those high bids, and that's their choice and the fact that a LIBIANNA sold elsewhere for $20 is immaterial to their crazy little bidding war. They either didn't know about the other $20 offer or didn't want to bid there (the first is much more likely). But the same thing applies to the other 4 people who also bid more than $20 -- they just didn't get quite so carried away. And, anyway, there's no getting around the fact that Bruce *started* the bidding on that poster at only 99 cents. Now, if Bruce were an actual retail dealer and was planning to set a fixed price of $450 each of the three LIBIANNAs he purchased for resale, then obviously he would be stealing them at $100 each. But only if he could actually sell all three of them in any reasonable time frame for $450 each. If he only sold one, he'd be ahead $150, not a bad profit, but he might have to hold on to the other two for many, many years before he sold another at that price again. He might have to hold on to them forever or finally give in and sell them for far less. Any dealer faces this problem every day when they are purchasing inventory for resale. Everyone wants to sell their stuff for top dollar, but a dealer has to buy inventory far below that level if he wants to stay in business for very long. I have noticed over the years that a lot of people who used to complain about how unfair the dealers were eventually started selling posters themselves. Shortly after that, they stopped complaining as they realized it was a lot harder to make money at it than they had thought. -- JR Evan Zweifel wrote: Missed several points? His point was -- I just auctioned this for $486, I'd like to buy 3 more of them for
Re: [MOPO] FA: How WHERE you auction can make a BIG difference!
Bruce (if that's who you really are), I'm going to suggest you avoid vacations in the future. You are a workaholic and so vacations are not healthy for you. They clearly impair your critical judgment. C'mon... you couldn't possibly have been serious when you said I think this is one of the coolest poster ever. I mean, we're still talking about the 1981 1 sheet for LIBRIANNA, BITCH OF THE BLACK SEA, right? one of the coolest posters ever? Yeah, right. So tell us: who are you really and what have you done with Bruce Hershenson? -- JR Bruce Hershenson wrote: Forget the idea that this was a $20 poster! I think this is one of the coolest posters ever. If someone out there has one in nice shape they will sell for $150, I will take it. And to prove how great I think it is, I will pay $300 for three of them, if they are out there! Bruce 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.
[MOPO] Rich and Bruce (and eBay) please note
OK, I just had to pass it on... this is clearly the wave of the future for online auctions which Bruce and Rich need to catch: Swoopo.com conducts auctions for a wide variety of consumer products where the winning bid typically tops out at a small fraction of the retail price... BUT... the auction site charges every bidder a fee every time they bid (60 cents a pop!) http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/technology/internet/17shop.html?themc=th This give a whole new dimension to the phrase pay to play. -- JR 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.
Re: [MOPO] Rich and Bruce (and eBay) please note
WARNING WILL ROBINSON!... I posted this as a joke and to inform people that there is an auction site out that which has decided to makes its money from the bidders, not the sellers -- but do NOT actually *sign up* for this swoopo.com site. It's an incredible scam and rip-off operation. Worse, I think they are harvesting emails to resell from people who do sign up, because they won't let you change your email address once you register. -- JR James Richard wrote: OK, I just had to pass it on... this is clearly the wave of the future for online auctions which Bruce and Rich need to catch: Swoopo.com conducts auctions for a wide variety of consumer products where the winning bid typically tops out at a small fraction of the retail price... BUT... the auction site charges every bidder a fee every time they bid (60 cents a pop!) http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/technology/internet/17shop.html?themc=th This give a whole new dimension to the phrase pay to play. -- JR 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.
Re: [MOPO] FA: How WHERE you auction can make a BIG difference!
When I first started buying and selling on Ebay in 1998, sellers were always willing to tell you their reserve price if you asked. They weren't interested in playing some kind of mystery game or qualifying the bids hustle, they only wanted to make sure their item went for at least X dollars. I never liked reserves or used them myself, but figured as long as the seller was willing to tell me what it was, I might bid on a reserve auction and see what happened if I thought the reserve was reasonable. But unless I was really desperate for an item, I would never bid on a reserve auction where I did not know the reserve figure because I would be essentially wasting my time with no way of knowing in the end if what I was willing to pay was anywhere close to what the seller wanted to get. As for the $486 poster going for $20... if that actually happened, in the long run that kind of extreme is not good for either buyers or sellers or collectors or investor/speculators -- just as a $486 poster going for $1,486 is not good either. Both extremes distort the market. That's why I so heartily approve of auction sites like those run by Bruce and Rich, and the few Ebay sellers who still hold true auctions. Everyone likes to get a bargain, but stealing stuff is not good for the long-term health of the poster community, nor is consistently paying way too much. -- JR 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.
[MOPO] #1 Poster... real or memorex?
Hmmm... one thing I've noticed about these #1 poster choices is that almost all of them are for *very old* posters. Is that because MOPO is filled with oldsters whose tastes were formed way back when or is it because the old posters were, as a rule, simply much better-looking and evocative art? My own choice falls into the oldster category. It would be the style b one sheet from the 1924 Douglas Fairbank's THIEF OF BAGHDAD. At least I *think* it's the style b... I've seen it attributed to also being style A, C and D. Hmph. I've only found two sales for it (Bruce back in 1992 for $30,000 and again in 1997 for $17,250). It's impossible to find a really good quality picture of this poster as far as I can tell. Everyone keeps reusing the same old couple of crappy photos of it. Even the one in Bruce's image archive is awful. I guess I could settle for a window card, which Heritage has sold a couple of for $5,000 or so, but it wouldn't be the same (and yes, even the Heritage photos are lousy). There are a couple of museum quality art prints of it kicking around for $300 or $400, but it does not look like they got the background color correct when they printed it (and it is the background color that makes the whole atmosphere of the image work). Best picture I've found of it so far (and it's only half good as far as the background goes): http://www.moviegoods.com/assets/product_images/1020/264735.1020.A.jpg -- JR 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.
Re: [MOPO] Is there a rash of over-grading among eBay sellers, or am I just running incredibly unlucky?
It's human nature, to try to squeeze out the best possible description on an item you are selling and unless the seller really holds himself to a consistently high standard, that tendency can easily get out of hand. Hey, just stop by a used car lot and talk with a salesman... But, Bruce, even though you are one of the best around, you still slip up occasionally. Like, with tonight's auction of the DESTINATION MOON poster. All the description says that it is in very good condition but the picture clearly shows it to be badly color-faded. And I mean, like, *way* faded. Now, sure, you urge people to use the picture as their primary condition description but in a case like this, if some newer buyer didn't have a good idea of what the poster is supposed to look like, he might think the auction picture looks pretty good (or that perhaps it was overexposed when it was taken). Your own site describes very good condition as: This item has survived in pretty nice condition, but has some relatively minor imperfections. If they are within the image, they are not very distracting at all, or they may be in the blank borders, where they will not show when the item is displayed. http://auctions.emovieposter.com/Bidding.taf?_function=detailAuction_uid1=1496917 To be accurate, the description really should read Color-faded, otherwise in very good condition. As a practical matter it's no biggie because to anyone with any experience, the picture tells the tale -- but since you brought up the subject of less-than-accurate descriptions, I'm jus sayin'... :) -- JR Bruce Hershenson wrote: From around 4 years ago to around 8 years ago I bought a HUGE amount of items on eBay. If I saw a pressbook I didn't have (not that often), or any funky poster where I thought I could re-auction it in my own auctions and make a few pennies, I bid on it, figuring that many of those I bought from might go on to bid in MY eBay auctions, so that it might be good for business in more than one way. But over time, I saw that there were LOTS of eBay sellers who over-graded their items, and lots more who packaged terribly. So around 4 years ago I quit buying on eBay. Around 6 months ago I decided to give eBay a try again, to see if things had improved during my multi-year absense as a buyer. Well I have bought 100 or more items the past 6 months, and while most sellers (but far from all) seemed to have figured out how to pack a poster so it doesn't get damaged, there seem to be a lot of sellers who think it is fine to over-grade items, and to miss important defects. I have received posters with many pinholes scattered throughout, or paper loss in the image, or with writing on the back that bleeds through to the front, and they have been described as very good to fine or overall quite nice or generally excellent. I wish I could say that this was only true of little sellers, but this has proven to be just as true of some of the foremost eBay sellers (I won't name any names, because I am not looking to embarrass them). I would say that I have been disappointed by around one-third of my purchases. Today I opened four purchases, and one (with four one-sheets) was ridiculously over-graded, and another (with a pressbook) had major condition issues. The other two were fine. Should I expect to have a 33% to 50% satisfaction rate? I am asking those of you who still buy on eBay if you have had similar experiences, or if you think I have just been very unlucky. Feel free to reply to me off list. 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.
