[MOPO] SPEAKING OF FIELDS
We are prepared to sell a still from THE DENTIST. Yes, this is a seriously rare still. Rarely is anything from the Paramount short seen. Kirby On Apr 16, 2012, at 4:08 PM, David Kusumoto wrote: P.S. Full disclosure: Joe Burtis is a jabbernowl, a mooncalf, and a luddyduddy. W. C. Fields fans, huh? You're all scoundrels! :-) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 15:56:10 -0500 From: brucehershen...@gmail.com Subject: Re: SO RARE To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU I heard that was (at that time) the only known Annie Hall one-sheet, which was why it went so high. Bruce P.S. Full disclosure: Joe Burtis is a jabbernowl, a mooncalf, and a luddyduddy. On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Joe Burtis jbur...@mpagallery.com wrote: I, too, was at the dinner that Helmut mentioned, and clearly remember the consignors plainly stating they destroyed the additional copies. The Christie's expert believed them who, full disclosure, is a good friend of mine. I'm sure some people at Christie's believed them and others didn't. This conspiracy is a pretty dull one. As far as press statements, they blanketed London with press for every one of their auctions, which is why wealthy novices showed up and purchased Annie Hall one sheets for 4,000USD. Please visit our website: www.mpagallery.com 90 Oak St. E. Rutherford, NJ 07073 201-635-1444 - Original Message - From: David Kusumoto To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 2:51 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] SO RARE For Christie's to be unaware of other copies of The Outlaw is just one point of dispute. Let's say you accept Christie's statement which implies it DID NOT KNOW about other copies as truth. Then how you reconcile the portion of its statement - on its own stationary - that says the consignors (Robert and Patricia League) - destroyed a second copy? I've been in press relations a long time. Either you believe the entire statement, or none of it, or dismiss everything as hype. If you believe just part of it, it means you think some of it is truth and the rest is a lie. Either way, this compromises Christie's reputation. I agree with Adrian - I KNOW Christie's was aware of additional copies. That's why the story was printed in the media. The best way to understand this is for you, as a dealer, to put yourself in Christie's shoes, based on what you know. Would you add in your official statement - a reference that an extra copy has been destroyed? Putting out a press statement is very unusual in this case. But as I wrote before - and as Helmut correctly points out - all of this could have been avoided if Christie's simply said this poster was the first ever brought to auction - instead of this poster is the only copy in existence. - d. Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 06:54:52 -0400 From: jboh...@aol.com Subject: Re: SO RARE To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU PLEASE LET ME STATE THAT I HAVE NO AGENDA TOWARD ANYONE. My point is that Christies should have been fair with the Outlaw Six Sheet and that Christies have a few dark stories. We all know that. As for the Six Sheet and it's subsequent stories...many American auction houses and dealers knew of the owners having several copies...this comes down to pure research. And all concerned except Christies UK knew that there were four copies...how could this be? Christies are supposed to research these things. Any way Helmut and the rest you don't need this so let this be the end of this thread. -Original Message- From: Helmut Hamm texasmu...@web.de To: MoPo-L MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 11:23 Subject: Re: [MOPO] SO RARE Adrian, with all due respect, but your persistance on this matter is quite obviously a thinly disguised way to express your personal aversion against a certain former Christies consultant. I can't speak for anybody else, but personally, I don't need this. About the 'fraud': I was at the actual sale at Christie's South Kensington, and I met the consignors at the time of the sale. They might have been lying through their teeth, but at the time of the sale, they were VERY convincing in their statement that additional copies had indeed been destroyed, and that the one for sale was the only one in existence. What do you expect an auction house to do, put them to a lie detector test? Also, if I could speak to them and get my own impression, so could anybody else. It's not that either the consignor or the consultant had been hiding in the shadows. For all I know, any allegation that Christie's, their consultant, or anybody else aside from the consignors, had any actual KNOWLEDGE of additional copies is simply not true. They could have, and maybe should have, SUSPECTED additional copies, but there was no way they could have actually KNOWN about them. This poster got a lot of media attention at the time of
Re: [MOPO] SPEAKING OF FIELDS
Not interested unless it has the infamous spread-legged scene censored from that short's original prints. Pretty nice legs on a woman who had an otherwise lumpy figure. Subject: SPEAKING OF FIELDS From: ki...@movieart.net Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:20:52 -0500 CC: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU To: davidmkusum...@hotmail.com We are prepared to sell a still from THE DENTIST. Yes, this is a seriously rare still. Rarelyis anything from the Paramount short seen. Kirby On Apr 16, 2012, at 4:08 PM, David Kusumoto wrote:P.S. Full disclosure: Joe Burtis is a jabbernowl, a mooncalf, and a luddyduddy. W. C. Fields fans, huh? You're all scoundrels! :-) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 15:56:10 -0500 From: brucehershen...@gmail.com Subject: Re: SO RARE To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU I heard that was (at that time) the only known Annie Hall one-sheet, which was why it went so high. Bruce P.S. Full disclosure: Joe Burtis is a jabbernowl, a mooncalf, and a luddyduddy. On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Joe Burtis jbur...@mpagallery.com wrote: I, too, was at the dinner that Helmut mentioned, and clearly remember the consignors plainly stating they destroyed the additional copies. The Christie's expert believed them who, full disclosure, is a good friend of mine. I'm sure some people at Christie's believed them and others didn't. This conspiracy is a pretty dull one. As far as press statements, they blanketed London with press for every one of their auctions, which is why wealthy novices showed up and purchased Annie Hall one sheets for 4,000USD. Please visit our website: www.mpagallery.com 90 Oak St. E. Rutherford, NJ 07073 201-635-1444- Original Message -From: David KusumotoTo: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDUSent: Monday, April 16, 2012 2:51 PMSubject: Re: [MOPO] SO RARE For Christie's to be unaware of other copies of The Outlaw is just one point of dispute. Let's say you accept Christie's statement which implies it DID NOT KNOW about other copies as truth. Then how you reconcile the portion of its statement - on its own stationary - that says the consignors (Robert and Patricia League) - destroyed a second copy? I've been in press relations a long time. Either you believe the entire statement, or none of it, or dismiss everything as hype. If you believe just part of it, it means you think some of it is truth and the rest is a lie. Either way, this compromises Christie's reputation. I agree with Adrian - I KNOW Christie's was aware of additional copies. That's why the story was printed in the media. The best way to understand this is for you, as a dealer, to put yourself in Christie's shoes, based on what you know. Would you add in your official statement - a reference that an extra copy has been destroyed? Putting out a press statement is very unusual in this case. But as I wrote before - and as Helmut correctly points out - all of this could have been avoided if Christie's simply said this poster was the first ever brought to auction - instead of this poster is the only copy in existence. - d. Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 06:54:52 -0400 From: jboh...@aol.com Subject: Re: SO RARE To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU PLEASE LET ME STATE THAT I HAVE NO AGENDA TOWARD ANYONE. My point is that Christies should have been fair with the Outlaw Six Sheet and that Christies have a few dark stories. We all know that. As for the Six Sheet and it's subsequent stories...many American auction houses and dealers knew of the owners having several copies...this comes down to pure research. And all concerned except Christies UK knew that there were four copies...how could this be? Christies are supposed to research these things. Any way Helmut and the rest you don't need this so let this be the end of this thread. -Original Message- From: Helmut Hamm texasmu...@web.de To: MoPo-L MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 11:23 Subject: Re: [MOPO] SO RARE Adrian, with all due respect, but your persistance on this matter is quite obviously a thinly disguised way to express your personal aversion against a certain former Christies consultant. I can't speak for anybody else, but personally, I don't need this. About the 'fraud': I was at the actual sale at Christie's South Kensington, and I met the consignors at the time of the sale. They might have been lying through their teeth, but at the time of the sale, they were VERY convincing in their statement that additional copies had indeed been destroyed, and that the one for sale was the only one in existence. What do you expect an auction house to do, put them to a lie detector test? Also, if I could speak to them and get my own impression, so could anybody else. It's not that either the consignor or the consultant had been hiding in the shadows. For all I know, any allegation that Christie's, their consultant, or anybody else aside from the consignors, had any actual KNOWLEDGE of additional copies is
Re: [MOPO] SPEAKING OF FIELDS
Appreciating how Bruce brought it up and then you out Bruced him there. Sent from my iPad On 16 Apr 2012, at 22:20, Kirby McDaniel ki...@movieart.net wrote: We are prepared to sell a still from THE DENTIST. Yes, this is a seriously rare still. Rarely is anything from the Paramount short seen. Kirby On Apr 16, 2012, at 4:08 PM, David Kusumoto wrote: P.S. Full disclosure: Joe Burtis is a jabbernowl, a mooncalf, and a luddyduddy. W. C. Fields fans, huh? You're all scoundrels! :-) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 15:56:10 -0500 From: brucehershen...@gmail.com Subject: Re: SO RARE To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU I heard that was (at that time) the only known Annie Hall one-sheet, which was why it went so high. Bruce P.S. Full disclosure: Joe Burtis is a jabbernowl, a mooncalf, and a luddyduddy. On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Joe Burtis jbur...@mpagallery.com wrote: I, too, was at the dinner that Helmut mentioned, and clearly remember the consignors plainly stating they destroyed the additional copies. The Christie's expert believed them who, full disclosure, is a good friend of mine. I'm sure some people at Christie's believed them and others didn't. This conspiracy is a pretty dull one. As far as press statements, they blanketed London with press for every one of their auctions, which is why wealthy novices showed up and purchased Annie Hall one sheets for 4,000USD. Please visit our website: www.mpagallery.com 90 Oak St. E. Rutherford, NJ 07073 201-635-1444 - Original Message - From: David Kusumoto To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 2:51 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] SO RARE For Christie's to be unaware of other copies of The Outlaw is just one point of dispute. Let's say you accept Christie's statement which implies it DID NOT KNOW about other copies as truth. Then how you reconcile the portion of its statement - on its own stationary - that says the consignors (Robert and Patricia League) - destroyed a second copy? I've been in press relations a long time. Either you believe the entire statement, or none of it, or dismiss everything as hype. If you believe just part of it, it means you think some of it is truth and the rest is a lie. Either way, this compromises Christie's reputation. I agree with Adrian - I KNOW Christie's was aware of additional copies. That's why the story was printed in the media. The best way to understand this is for you, as a dealer, to put yourself in Christie's shoes, based on what you know. Would you add in your official statement - a reference that an extra copy has been destroyed? Putting out a press statement is very unusual in this case. But as I wrote before - and as Helmut correctly points out - all of this could have been avoided if Christie's simply said this poster was the first ever brought to auction - instead of this poster is the only copy in existence. - d. Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 06:54:52 -0400 From: jboh...@aol.com Subject: Re: SO RARE To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU PLEASE LET ME STATE THAT I HAVE NO AGENDA TOWARD ANYONE. My point is that Christies should have been fair with the Outlaw Six Sheet and that Christies have a few dark stories. We all know that. As for the Six Sheet and it's subsequent stories...many American auction houses and dealers knew of the owners having several copies...this comes down to pure research. And all concerned except Christies UK knew that there were four copies...how could this be? Christies are supposed to research these things. Any way Helmut and the rest you don't need this so let this be the end of this thread. -Original Message- From: Helmut Hamm texasmu...@web.de To: MoPo-L MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 11:23 Subject: Re: [MOPO] SO RARE Adrian, with all due respect, but your persistance on this matter is quite obviously a thinly disguised way to express your personal aversion against a certain former Christies consultant. I can't speak for anybody else, but personally, I don't need this. About the 'fraud': I was at the actual sale at Christie's South Kensington, and I met the consignors at the time of the sale. They might have been lying through their teeth, but at the time of the sale, they were VERY convincing in their statement that additional copies had indeed been destroyed, and that the one for sale was the only one in existence. What do you expect an auction house to do, put them to a lie detector test? Also, if I could speak to them and get my own impression, so could anybody else. It's not that either the consignor or the consultant had been hiding in the shadows. For all I know, any allegation that Christie's, their consultant, or anybody else aside from the consignors, had any actual KNOWLEDGE of additional copies is simply not true. They could have, and maybe
Re: [MOPO] SPEAKING OF FIELDS
This one - http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreenNR=1v=Bhb0Xy26eys ? From: David Kusumoto davidmkusum...@hotmail.com To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 5:26 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] SPEAKING OF FIELDS Not interested unless it has the infamous spread-legged scene censored from that short's original prints. Pretty nice legs on a woman who had an otherwise lumpy figure. Subject: SPEAKING OF FIELDS From: ki...@movieart.net Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:20:52 -0500 CC: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU To: davidmkusum...@hotmail.com We are prepared to sell a still from THE DENTIST. Yes, this is a seriously rare still. Rarely is anything from the Paramount short seen. Kirby On Apr 16, 2012, at 4:08 PM, David Kusumoto wrote: P.S. Full disclosure: Joe Burtis is a jabbernowl, a mooncalf, and a luddyduddy. W. C. Fields fans, huh? You're all scoundrels! :-) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 15:56:10 -0500 From: brucehershen...@gmail.com Subject: Re: SO RARE To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU I heard that was (at that time) the only known Annie Hall one-sheet, which was why it went so high. Bruce P.S. Full disclosure: Joe Burtis is a jabbernowl, a mooncalf, and a luddyduddy. On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Joe Burtis jbur...@mpagallery.com wrote: I, too, was at the dinner that Helmut mentioned, and clearly remember the consignors plainly stating they destroyed the additional copies. The Christie's expert believed them who, full disclosure, is a good friend of mine. I'm sure some people at Christie's believed them and others didn't. This conspiracy is a pretty dull one. As far as press statements, they blanketed London with press for every one of their auctions, which is why wealthy novices showed up and purchased Annie Hall one sheets for 4,000USD. Please visit our website: www.mpagallery.com 90 Oak St. E. Rutherford, NJ 07073 201-635-1444 - Original Message - From: David Kusumoto To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 2:51 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] SO RARE For Christie's to be unaware of other copies of The Outlaw is just one point of dispute. Let's say you accept Christie's statement which implies it DID NOT KNOW about other copies as truth. Then how you reconcile the portion of its statement - on its own stationary - that says the consignors (Robert and Patricia League) - destroyed a second copy? I've been in press relations a long time. Either you believe the entire statement, or none of it, or dismiss everything as hype. If you believe just part of it, it means you think some of it is truth and the rest is a lie. Either way, this compromises Christie's reputation. I agree with Adrian - I KNOW Christie's was aware of additional copies. That's why the story was printed in the media. The best way to understand this is for you, as a dealer, to put yourself in Christie's shoes, based on what you know. Would you add in your official statement - a reference that an extra copy has been destroyed? Putting out a press statement is very unusual in this case. But as I wrote before - and as Helmut correctly points out - all of this could have been avoided if Christie's simply said this poster was the first ever brought to auction - instead of this poster is the only copy in existence. - d. Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 06:54:52 -0400 From: jboh...@aol.com Subject: Re: SO RARE To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU PLEASE LET ME STATE THAT I HAVE NO AGENDA TOWARD ANYONE. My point is that Christies should have been fair with the Outlaw Six Sheet and that Christies have a few dark stories. We all know that. As for the Six Sheet and it's subsequent stories...many American auction houses and dealers knew of the owners having several copies...this comes down to pure research. And all concerned except Christies UK knew that there were four copies...how could this be? Christies are supposed to research these things. Any way Helmut and the rest you don't need this so let this be the end of this thread. -Original Message- From: Helmut Hamm texasmu...@web.de To: MoPo-L MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 11:23 Subject: Re: [MOPO] SO RARE Adrian, with all due respect, but your persistance on this matter is quite obviously a thinly disguised way to express your personal aversion against a certain former Christies consultant. I can't speak for anybody else, but personally, I don't need this. About the 'fraud': I was at the actual sale at Christie's South Kensington, and I met the consignors at the time of the sale. They might have been lying through their teeth, but at the time of the sale, they were VERY convincing in their statement that additional copies had indeed been destroyed, and that the one for sale was the only one in existence. What
Re: [MOPO] SPEAKING OF FIELDS
That is a good scene, but this is the best: *http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OvPZPw0GTMfeature=related* Bruce P.S. Only Kirby outbruces the bruce! On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Roland Lataille roland.latai...@sbcglobal.net wrote: This one - http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreenNR=1v=Bhb0Xy26eys ? *From:* David Kusumoto davidmkusum...@hotmail.com *To:* MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU *Sent:* Monday, April 16, 2012 5:26 PM *Subject:* Re: [MOPO] SPEAKING OF FIELDS *Not interested unless it has the infamous spread-legged scene censored from that short's original prints. Pretty nice legs on a woman who had an otherwise lumpy figure.* Subject: SPEAKING OF FIELDS From: ki...@movieart.net Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:20:52 -0500 CC: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU To: davidmkusum...@hotmail.com We are prepared to sell a still from THE DENTIST. Yes, this is a seriously rare still. Rarely is anything from the Paramount short seen. Kirby On Apr 16, 2012, at 4:08 PM, David Kusumoto wrote: *P.S. Full disclosure: Joe Burtis is a jabbernowl, a mooncalf, and a luddyduddy.* * W. C. Fields fans, huh?** You're all scoundrels! :-)* Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 15:56:10 -0500 From: brucehershen...@gmail.com Subject: Re: SO RARE To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU I heard that was (at that time) the only known Annie Hall one-sheet, which was why it went so high. Bruce P.S. Full disclosure: Joe Burtis is a jabbernowl, a mooncalf, and a luddyduddy. On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Joe Burtis jbur...@mpagallery.com wrote: ** I, too, was at the dinner that Helmut mentioned, and clearly remember the consignors plainly stating they destroyed the additional copies. The Christie's expert believed them who, full disclosure, is a good friend of mine. I'm sure some people at Christie's believed them and others didn't. This conspiracy is a pretty dull one. As far as press statements, they blanketed London with press for every one of their auctions, which is why wealthy novices showed up and purchased Annie Hall one sheets for 4,000USD. Please visit our website: www.mpagallery.com 90 Oak St. E. Rutherford, NJ 07073 201-635-1444 - Original Message - *From:* David Kusumoto davidmkusum...@hotmail.com *To:* MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU *Sent:* Monday, April 16, 2012 2:51 PM *Subject:* Re: [MOPO] SO RARE *For Christie's to be unaware of other copies of The Outlaw is just one point of dispute. Let's say you accept Christie's statement which implies it DID NOT KNOW about other copies as truth. Then how you reconcile the portion of its statement - on its own stationary - that says the consignors (Robert and Patricia League) - destroyed a second copy? I've been in press relations a long time. Either you believe the entire statement, or none of it, or dismiss everything as hype. If you believe just part of it, it means you think some of it is truth and the rest is a lie. Either way, this compromises Christie's reputation. **I agree with Adrian - I KNOW Christie's was aware of additional copies. That's why the story was printed in the media. **The best way to understand this is for you, as a dealer, to put yourself in Christie's shoes, based on what you know. Would you add in your official statement - a reference that an extra copy has been destroyed? Putting out a press statement is very unusual in this case. But as I wrote before - and as Helmut correctly points out - all of this could have been avoided if Christie's simply said this poster was the first ever brought to auction - instead of this poster is the only copy in existence. - d. * Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 06:54:52 -0400 From: jboh...@aol.com Subject: Re: SO RARE To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU PLEASE LET ME STATE THAT I HAVE NO AGENDA TOWARD ANYONE. My point is that Christies should have been fair with the Outlaw Six Sheet and that Christies have a few dark stories. We all know that. As for the Six Sheet and it's subsequent stories...many American auction houses and dealers knew of the owners having several copies...this comes down to pure research. And all concerned except Christies UK knew that there were four copies...how could this be? Christies are supposed to research these things. Any way Helmut and the rest you don't need this so let this be the end of this thread. -Original Message- From: Helmut Hamm texasmu...@web.de To: MoPo-L MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 11:23 Subject: Re: [MOPO] SO RARE Adrian, with all due respect, but your persistance on this matter is quite obviously a thinly disguised way to express your personal aversion against a certain former Christies consultant. I can't speak for anybody else, but personally, I don't need this. About the 'fraud': I was at the actual sale at Christie's South Kensington, and I met the consignors at the time of the sale. They might have been lying
