I think the biggest problem is that these kinds of posters (This Gun, Blue Dahlia, Breakfast at T's, Forb. Planet, Day the Earth SS, 50 ft. Woman, etc, etc) are offered over and over and over, and are in virtually *EVERY *signature auction. Now I imagine giant hobbies like comics or cards can handle this kind of "over-exposure" (although I have heard rumors that the bubbles are getting ready to pop there), but our basically tiny hobby (perhaps 5,000 serious collectors, with another 10,000 or so casual collectors, and another 100,000 or so who buy one item to frame and never buy another) simply can't handle this!
I imagine you can't stop people from consigning these posters over and over, but hopefully the ever-lower prices they get will have that effect. These are all great posters, but there are only so many people looking to buy each one, and once they all have one, the price has to drop to what a casual non-diehard collector will pay for it, which is great for that person, but bad for dealers and collectors who need to sell. New blood would be great, but my personal opinion is that new blood that has no love of the items tend to buy and sell in a relatively short time, so they can be great for dealers, but do nothing towards building a better hobby. Anyone else care to share some thoughts? Bruce On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Ron Moore <cinemaicon...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Well, I can't speak for your screen and how your colors are adjusted, but > hopefully your computer is pretty accurate. However, I did look at the > poster itself quite closely. The colors on this poster were simply blazing! > The reds were not painted over as I could easily still see the "dot" pattern > of the offset lithography. In fact, I have to say it was one of the best > examples of this poster I've ever seen. > > For the record, I've seen Grey go way out of his way to make sure the > colors in the catalogs are as close to the actual colors on the poster as > possible. He has a very high level of integrity and, like yourself, wants to > make sure that the potential bidders get an accurate image and > representation of the poster so they can bid with confidence. > > I really wish you would attend the auctions yourself and then you could > easily respond to some of the comments posted on MoPo that allude to images > being doctored. If you could do that, I think you would see that this simply > isn't the case. > > I think the bigger question here, is why the poster passed at the sale? Is > it indicative of the economy? Is it simply the case of supply and demand > that there are more of these one sheets available out there than previously > thought? Could it be that although demand (and desire) is high for this > poster, that the higher prices have already been achieved and as each buyer > acquires the item, that there is a smaller pool of bidders still out there? > Is it a generational thing- and now perhaps the younger generation entering > this hobby don't have the appreciation or desire for posters of films in the > 1940's- or follow film noir? And honestly, what else can we do to try to > bring "new blood" into the hobby? Do we need "new blood" in the hobby? Do > you think the hobby is growing or not? > > I really don't know the answer to those questions but I think they're the > ones we should really be asking. As one of the hobby's most public faces, > I'd love to hear your take on some of these issues. > > --- On *Sun, 7/18/10, Bruce Hershenson <brucehershen...@gmail.com>* wrote: > > > From: Bruce Hershenson <brucehershen...@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [MOPO] The Scandal-plus cut, pressed washed, starched & > dried.... > To: "Ron Moore" <cinemaicon...@yahoo.com> > Cc: MoPo-L@listserv.american.edu > Date: Sunday, July 18, 2010, 9:47 AM > > I trust you and believe you Ron. But why are the reds on the poster unlike > the reds on any other example of this poster I have seen? Is it possibly > from a variant printing? Or maybe I need to adjust the colors on my screen? > > Bruce > > On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 9:07 AM, Ron Moore > <cinemaicon...@yahoo.com<http://mc/compose?to=cinemaicon...@yahoo.com> > > wrote: > >> Hey Bruce! >> >> I was at the Heritage auction on Friday and Saturday. Dallas is so close >> to Austin so it's easy for me to travel there and actually attend. If you >> had come to the show, you could have actually compared the This Gun For Hire >> one sheet to the photo in the catalog- which I did. The colors were'nt >> "punched up". Since the poster passed at the sale, there's still time for >> you to go to Dallas and check it out for yourself! I daresay you'd lose your >> $100 bet. >> >> Ron >> >> >> --- On *Sun, 7/18/10, Bruce Hershenson >> <brucehershen...@gmail.com<http://mc/compose?to=brucehershen...@gmail.com> >> >* wrote: >> >> >> From: Bruce Hershenson >> <brucehershen...@gmail.com<http://mc/compose?to=brucehershen...@gmail.com> >> > >> Subject: Re: [MOPO] The Scandal-plus cut, pressed washed, starched & >> dried.... >> To: >> MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU<http://mc/compose?to=mop...@listserv.american.edu> >> Date: Sunday, July 18, 2010, 8:57 AM >> >> >> I had a chance to look at the This Gun for Hire image, and I will bet $100 >> that either the image or the poster itself (or both!) have had mucho >> "punching up"! >> >> When you say, "I know you err well on the side of unflattering in your >> listings, and I think it's a smart policy. And though you wouldn't "punch >> up" pics, I assume you still have to adjust for accuracy?" know that our >> goal is ALWAYS to present an image that accurately represents the item you >> will receive. I have SO often received purchases where the buyer >> photographed it in such a way that defects were hidden or obscured (my >> favorite was one where the seller placed a drumstick on the top border, >> ostensibly to "hold it down", but it also served to hide the rat chews in >> that area!). >> >> Of course, there is also the issue of auction images where no matter how >> much you "zoom" or "pan and scan" you still can't see the pinholes or >> foldlines that somehow magically disappear (until of course you get the >> actual item). >> >> I think this proves to be "penny wise and pound foolish". If you are >> solely looking to sell one item, it may benefit you on that one item, but if >> you are in this for the long term, then you have to wonder if such deceptive >> advertising doesn't lose you the trust of many bidders, causing them to bid >> less on your items (or not bid at all) due to the "fear factor". >> >> Bruce >> >> >> On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Richard Evans >> <evan...@blueyonder.co.uk<http://mc/compose?to=evan...@blueyonder.co.uk> >> > wrote: >> >>> I'm not automatically assuming that example was punched up, it may well >>> just be the case that the reds were originally extremely strong and have >>> remained so, and that the online reproduction is accurate, (within it's >>> limits). >>> Washing, bleaching etc may have had the effect of intensifying the >>> colours, dunno. >>> >>> (Though if that is how This Gun for Hire appeared when it was fresh off >>> the press, in this instance I certainly prefer a little faded grandeur.) >>> >>> Generally, and especially with something in this price range I still >>> think using some kind of a colour correction system like Pantone would be >>> more professional, (with the colour bar appearing beside poster) rather than >>> relying on adjusting by eye. >>> >>> I know you err well on the side of unflattering in your listings, and I >>> think it's a smart policy. >>> And though you wouldn't "punch up" pics, I assume you still have to >>> adjust for accuracy? >>> Even if you don't go near photoshop, presumably in some way, like >>> adjusting lighting so repro appears true to the eye, as in the case of the >>> Vertigo? >>> >>> >>> On 17 Jul 2010, at 17:11, Bruce Hershenson wrote: >>> >>> I actually had one of my employees suggest to me that we should "punch >>> up" the images of items we sell, and I told him that we NEVER do that (he is >>> new, or he would have already known that). Of course, there is no way to >>> know if others feel the same way (at least until you get your package and >>> compare the item you get to the image you saw). >>> >>> Bruce >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Richard Evans < >>> evan...@blueyonder.co.uk <http://mc/compose?to=evan...@blueyonder.co.uk> >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> I thought the This Gun for Hire went beyond strong colours and looked >>>> unflatteringly garish. >>>> Presumably not a result of restoration judging by the listing, but was >>>> it really actually that vibrant, or did the colour reproduction exacerbate >>>> it online? >>>> >>>> On 17 Jul 2010, at 16:44, Bruce Hershenson wrote: >>>> >>>> I personally agree with this. I didn't like the "make it look perfect" >>>> school of restoration even *BEFORE* the Haggard scandal broke. >>>> >>>> First, because the restorers were in effect hiding their restoration, >>>> making it impossible to see exactly what was done (and a long time pro like >>>> myself could spot some restoration that most amateurs would never see, >>>> creating a "fear of restoration" among many collectors). >>>> >>>> Second, because many of these items were *SO *restored that they looked >>>> almost like "recreations". I *LIKE *the items in my collection to show >>>> at least *SOME *signs of age, unless they are in truly mint unrestored >>>> condition, because that is part of the joy of owning an original, knowing >>>> that it survived all these years. If you want a perfect looking item, why >>>> not just get a reproduction? But don't take your "very good" condition and >>>> have someone make them look like new. If you *MUST *restore, why not >>>> simply do minimal restoration to the areas that most need it? >>>> >>>> Bruce >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:58 AM, glenndamato >>>> <glenndam...@earthlink.net<http://mc/compose?to=glenndam...@earthlink.net> >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> Regarding the Heritage auction: I do believe the fakes scandal hurt the >>>>> hobby, plus many of the restored posters look like they were cut, >>>>> bleached, >>>>> washed, starched & dried. I'll take old Igor back anyday....... >>>>> >>>>> 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<http://mc/compose?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 ListSend a message addressed to: >>>> lists...@listserv.american.edu<http://mc/compose?to=lists...@listserv.american.edu> >>>> In >>>> the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-LThe 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<http://mc/compose?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<http://mc/compose?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.
