I was aware of this initially, though not of your involvement David, which
deserves credit.
Also only aware of the initial Christies sale and the two at Heritage.
Think Christies did do a lot for the hobby some years back.
Tony Nourmand putting on really good, well publicised sales (and his and other
galleries springing up), was first time I became aware you could buy this stuff.
But after The Outlaw I didn't bother with Christies.
Confirmed to me that they saw their customers as mugs, and the ridiculous tale
about the posters being destroyed compounded it by making it clear they didn't
care their customers knew they thought they were mugs.
Under that carefully cultivated, thin veneer of "class", a grubby, rotten
outfit.
And, almost ten years on it's still being talked about.
Sent from my iPhone
On 11 Apr 2012, at 03:29, David Kusumoto <davidmkusum...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> All four were sold at auction. the first in London via Christies, claiming
> it was the only one in existence, then one in NY via Sothebys and one on the
> west coast and the last through Christies again in NY.
> Wow. With the four Adrian mentions above - and the two that Heritage sold -
> that's at least SIX COPIES of "The Outlaw" in the six-sheet format - once
> billed as having just one copy in existence. I wouldn't be surprised if a
> seventh (7th) copy is waiting in the wings as potential "rainy day money" for
> the original consignors to collect in the future. Even if I presume a couple
> copies may have since re-sold once or twice by their original buyers - we're
> still talking about a number greater than "1." But really, the silliness
> over "the only copy in existence" is made worse by the assertion that an
> "extra copy was purposely destroyed." Hindsight being what it is - all of
> this could've been avoided if Christie's had simply said, "this is the first
> time this poster has ever been been brought to auction." Instead it opted to
> stick with its "one-of-a-kind" story - that only the hobby (vs. the general
> public) - now knows was an outright lie. -d.
>
> Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:47:53 -0400
> From: jboh...@aol.com
> Subject: Re: An auction house to avoid
> To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
>
> All four were sold at auction
>
> the first in London via Christies, claiming it was the only one in existence,
> then one in NY via Sothebys and one on the west coast and the last through
> Christies again in NY. A dirty trick was played there by the first consultant
> on these six sheets.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: JOHN REID Vintage Movie Memorabilia <johnr...@moviemem.com>
> To: MoPo-L <MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU>
> Sent: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 22:40
> Subject: Re: [MOPO] An auction house to avoid
>
> Thats all very interesting David
> I had thought it would be highly unlikely that they would have been
> destroyed. I wonder when the next one might show up.
> Regards
> John
>
> Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 18:40:43 -0700
> From: davidmkusum...@hotmail.com
> Subject: Re: An auction house to avoid
> To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
>
> Hi John -
>
> * The extra "Outlaw" six-sheets were NEVER destroyed. This has not been
> reported by the media - but it's ONLY because I was too lazy to pursue the
> issue further after relinquishing my role as a consumer activist/media
> relations liaison for the hobby. The six-sheets were specific to the San
> Francisco area and linked to a billboard company in the 1940s, whose heirs
> brought them to auction. Those heirs were Robert and Patricia League, the
> grandchildren who inherited the posters. Given the tag lines on the posters,
> e.g., "JANE RUSSELL IN PERSON" and "1943's MOST EXCITING NEW SCREEN STAR" -
> AND - their historical link to the Geary Theater in San Francisco - it is
> possible, though HIGHLY UNLIKELY - that the extra six-sheets originated
> elsewhere. I'm saying they didn't.
>
> * It has always been my contention that the extra copies were brought back to
> auction by intermediaries of - OR - by Robert and Patricia League themselves.
> Christie's sale in London in March 2003 was made notorious by the release of
> their statement declaring that an extra copy was "destroyed" - in response to
> the very questions I raised publicly on the MoPo boards - AND by phone calls
> they received from reporters I contacted in London and in San Francisco.
> Extra copies of this poster have surfaced at least twice at Heritage -
> (although others may have surfaced at other venues I'm unaware of). Heritage
> sold a second copy of this poster in November 2004 ($32,200 realized), and
> sold a third copy in November 2009 ($29,875 realized). This third copy was
> linen backed - and had tears, chips, paper loss and crossfold separations
> before restoration, which suggests the Leagues sold their "best condition
> copies" first.
>
> * I'm sure Grey knows the real story - but for confidentiality reasons - is
> prevented from ever disclosing the identity of the consignors of the two
> "Outlaws" Heritage sold in 2004 and 2009. Yet what I've described is the
> story I'm sticking with. What happened placed an exclamation point on an
> auction house manipulating the collectibles market - of rare items to boost
> value - as practiced by Christie's South Kensington in London - when it
> handled the first "Outlaw" six-sheet back in March 2003. Thinking back, the
> public statement that the consignors destroyed an extra copy to enhance
> rarity - still has an air of incredulity to it that defies reason, hence I've
> never believed it. You've got something worth more than $20K. You don't
> destroy your "extras" - which would remove your ability to go back to the
> well to get more money. Even if you have 3, 4 or even more copies of
> something historically important - they're still worth a lot of money.
> That's what made Christie's "we didn't coerce the consignor to destroy their
> second copy" press statement - truly insane. -d.
>
> Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 09:49:42 +1000
> From: johnr...@moviemem.com
> Subject: Re: An auction house to avoid
> To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
>
> Hi David
> Re the Outlaw six sheet controversy, was it ever established if the claim
> that the additional copies were actually destroyed or whether it was just a
> ploy to push the price up? I seem to recall that there has been at least one
> other six sheet appear since the Christies auction.
> Regards
> John
>
> Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 15:44:31 -0700
> From: davidmkusum...@hotmail.com
> Subject: Re: An auction house to avoid
> To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
>
> Geraldine -
>
> * Again, you won't find any "David vs. Goliath" stories on the Internet about
> my fight against Sotheby's - because my "pre-publicity" actions resulted in a
> settlement before "going to press" - with a top Sotheby's executive in New
> York, William Ruprecht - over a poster I won that turned out to be a
> reproduction. I made special arrangements to attend that sale in person -
> hence no way was I going to accept a simple refund for my troubles.
>
> * However, some of my disputes with auction houses HAVE made it to the press
> (see copy-and-paste-clips below), e.g., the aforementioned insanity involving
> the alleged "destruction" of an 81 x 81 poster from 1943's, "The Outlaw."
> The consignors - Robert and Patricia League - claimed they "destroyed" an
> extra copy of this poster - an action designed to preserve Christie's
> marketing claim that it was the only copy in existence - boosting its hammer
> price (it sold for around $71,000 in 2003 dollars). After the tempest "blew
> over," the Leagues were later exposed as liars within the hobby - when an
> intermediary acting on their behalf approached other auction houses with
> their "extra copy or copies." Ironically, Heritage was the auction house
> that sold one of these "extras," although Heritage itself did nothing wrong -
> and in fact cross-referenced Christie's 2003 sale in its lot description,
> noting that at the time it had been marketed as the only copy in existence.
>
> * What's worth noting - is during my early years as a MoPo member - many
> dealers and auction houses reflexively lined up against me in public -
> because they were mutual friends with an economic interest in the outcome of
> many poster lots. (One member wrote that I should accept Christie's
> statement of a destroyed "extra poster" as fact, absolving it of possible
> collusion, which I felt was ridiculous.) Some of my other battles w/dealers
> and auction houses were worse than those involving "The Outlaw." There was a
> blind spot about some glaring conflict of interest issues and their impact on
> uninformed consumers. I was viewed as a disruptive troublemaker who had to
> be silenced. Many years later, I've since made peace with many detractors.
> And while my actions are still regarded by some as being "over the top," the
> passage of time has allowed common sense to prevail, re: the incidents which
> I actively publicized. But I shudder to think what I'd find if I was still a
> consumer activist today, looking for dirt to peddle to the media. -d.
>
> P.S. - I still consider Grey Smith a friend and I trust him. But as you may
> have noticed, only a handful of names beyond my own have jumped in with an
> opinion about this to protect friendships and what not. My feeling is I can
> jump in without overtly taking sides, but I must say that I believe neither
> you nor Grey would have any reason to misrepresent the facts as you guys see
> them. That's why I think neither you nor Heritage should give up trying to
> resolve this. Fairness is what matters in a case involving unsolicited
> consignments absent an inventory receipt provided to the recipient. To put
> it bluntly, things do get lost - but I'm not inclined to believe Heritage
> lost or stole your posters unless proven otherwise.
> ===========================
>
> ANTIQUES TRADE GAZETTE (LONDON)
> EDITOR IVAN MACQUISTEN
> 3 March 2003 - STOP PRESS
> It Can Only Happen In The Movies
> Film poster vendor adds to exclusivity of sale by destroying second copy.
>
> Collectors have
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.
