The Ghoul has another issue in that it isas was a foreign film(British). My belief is that the green duotone poster is first US release. Though some have argued it would have been color, there really is no proof this is the case.
On Apr 13, 2012, at 2:59 PM, "evan...@mac.com" <evan...@mac.com> wrote: > Think there's a similar issue with US paper for The Ghoul. > Though duotone most likely first release. > > > On 13 Apr 2012, at 20:20, Smith, Grey - 1367 wrote: > >> Phil >> When the photo of this poster was received by me I too thought >> reissue. >> The green duotone is dated 1939, as I recall and the "known" reissue >> is not a green duotone and does say 1947, if not mistaken. >> Yes, it is odd to be duotone in a period when generally the stock one >> sheets were color. >> Since no one has any other copy in color, can only go by what is >> known. >> Dated with original release. >> >> On Apr 13, 2012, at 1:55 PM, "Phillip W. Ayling" >> <mro...@earthlink.net> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Grey, >>> >>> The book is great and we should all thank you for putting it >>> together. I >>> hate to question an expert's analysis on this and while the duotone >>> Shadow >>> poster pictured on the cover is what I have always believed the >>> image is, I >>> wonder if the original was in color? Are you sure what is pictured >>> on the >>> cover is the 1940 release by way of having been able to examine a >>> Morgan >>> Litho number or copyright on that very poster, rather than the 1947? >>> I ask >>> because every original release Columbia serial posters that I have >>> seen are >>> always color. >>> I also presume that the 1947 re-release of the Shadow would have >>> been >>> duo-tone. >>> >>> For example in the same year ,1940, Columbia released 3 other >>> serials, Terry >>> and the Pirates, The Green Archer, and Deadwood Dick, one-sheets all >>> in >>> color, though they are extremely rare. The later re-releases of the >>> Green >>> Archer are in Duotone or Black &White. White Eagle (1941) is also >>> in Full >>> Color as are The Great Adventures of Wild Bill Hickock (1938) and >>> The Spider >>> Returns(1938). Those 3 serials were all re-released for the first >>> time >>> around 1947, just like the Shadow, and they were all done as duo- >>> tones. >>> >>> Also the "1947" re-releases that I have seen do not have the words >>> "Columbia >>> Serial Re-Print" or R-1947 as later Columbia re-releases do starting >>> around >>> 1953. >>> What all of these serials have in common is that Columbia serial >>> posters >>> until mid 1941 were all art. Often times there was only one style or >>> sometimes two. They didn't go to an inset style which was different >>> for >>> every title until The Spider Returns in 1941. That may account for >>> how rare >>> all the earlier titles are. It seem like there are copies of The >>> Batman or >>> The Phantom (both 1943) that are available, though expensive. >>> Perhaps >>> however, some Chapters no longer exist, but who would know? >>> Any more info that anyone has would be appreciated. Grey thanks >>> again for >>> your info. >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Smith, Grey - 1367" <gre...@ha.com> >>> To: "Phillip W. Ayling" <mro...@earthlink.net>; >>> <MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU> >>> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 9:36 AM >>> Subject: RE: [MOPO] An auction house to avoid >>> >>> >>> Phil, >>> As you know, I have collected serial paper for many years. I have >>> only seen >>> one copy of the one sheet to the 1940 release of the serial so would >>> be >>> "only copy known." It is pictured on page 183 of my book, "Capes, >>> Crooks and >>> Cliffhangers: Heroic Serial Posters of the Golden Age." It is a >>> duo0tone >>> sheet and can be seen to the right of the large Flash Gordon image >>> on the >>> cover. >>> http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?inventoryNo=960011754 >>> >>> It has always been a great mystery as to why so little paper has >>> ever turned >>> up on this title. >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: MoPo List [mailto:mopo-l@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU] On Behalf Of >>> Phillip >>> W. Ayling >>> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 11:17 AM >>> To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU >>> Subject: Re: [MOPO] An auction house to avoid >>> >>> It would be great if these same all-knowing censustakers could also >>> tell us >>> "three known fakes currently being offered". While it makes big news >>> whenever a Dracula one-sheet or a Chaplain 6sheet is found in a >>> barn, I >>> wouldn't be surprised if amongst MoPo members there are some items >>> that are >>> extremely rare or have never been inventoried by an auction house, >>> so "they >>> don't exist". >>> >>> While I have some posters from all eras, I collect lot's of >>> westerns, serial >>> and early horror and fantasy. I have nothing that would compare to >>> some of >>> the 6 figure Universal horror paper that some of you have, but at >>> the same >>> time there are some titles where I have never seen anything offered. >>> >>> For example, The Shadow 1940 serial is sort of a holy grail for >>> serial >>> collectors. I have only seen a few Australian daybills offered on >>> this, not >>> one thing that is country of origin. I have 5 US lobby cards ( a >>> combination >>> of original 1940 and 1947 RR) that I acquired from an Exchange in >>> the mid >>> 1960's and recently sent the one dup to Bruce to sell. However >>> since I >>> acquired those Lobbies many years ago, I have never seen anything up >>> for >>> sale and never even seen a photo of the original one sheet. Not >>> saying I >>> catch everything, but if material was being sold with some >>> regularity I >>> would have noticed. At the same time (1940) Columbia released lots >>> of low >>> budget and presumably low marketing budget B Westerns, serials and 3 >>> Stooges >>> shorts, all of which seem to have publicity material that has >>> survived to >>> some degree even though their collectible values probably vary >>> widely. Any >>> thoughts? >>> >>> While rarity is a combination of many things, including era and size >>> of >>> initial theatrical distribution and poster print run , does anyone >>> have an >>> idea why, for example, it seems like House of Frankenstein material >>> seems to >>> be slightly more abundant than House of Dracula or why Clyde >>> Beatty's early >>> serial the Lost Jungle (1934) has a significant amount of material >>> out >>> there, but Frank Buck's 1937 serial Jungle Menace has very little >>> paper in >>> existence? >>> >>> Thanks for any insight anyone might have. >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Bruce Hershenson" <brucehershen...@gmail.com> >>> To: <MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU> >>> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 8:15 AM >>> Subject: Re: [MOPO] An auction house to avoid >>> >>> >>>> This happens all the time with certain auction houses. There are >>>> "three known" of this and "five known" of that. But no one else >>>> seems >>>> to have access to this "census" >>>> >>>> Bruce >>>> >>>> On 4/13/12, Geraldine Kudaka <gkud...@rocketmail.com> wrote: >>>>> I've always wondered about this "rarity" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We have two Israeli Star Wars one sheets. I've seen claims saying >>>>> the >>>>> poster >>>>> listed was the only one in existence. As we have two of these >>>>> Israeli >>>>> posters, and I think it was Carrie Fischer who put hers up on >>>>> ebay a >>>>> couple >>>>> of years ago, that makes at least 3 others. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________ >>>>> From: David Kusumoto <davidmkusum...@hotmail.com> >>>>> To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 10:29 PM >>>>> Subject: Re: [MOPO] An auction house to avoid >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 reacted with outrage and disbelief to a statement >>>>> from >>>>> the vendors of an apparently unique film poster that a second copy >>>>> had >>>>> been >>>>> deliberately destroyed to protect the sale's exclusivity. >>>>> A bizarre sequence of events >>>>> surrounds the cover lot of Christie's South Kensington's Vintage >>>>> Film >>>>> Posters >>>>> sale scheduled for March 4, a six-sheet première poster featurin >>>>> g Jane >>>>> Russell >>>>> in a famously sultry pose for Howard Hughes's film The Outlaw. >>>>> The poster, which is 6ft 9in >>>>> (2.05m) square, was catalogued as "the only known copy to exist", >>>>> but it >>>>> later >>>>> became clear that the owners, Robert and Patricia League, had >>>>> another >>>>> copy >>>>> in >>>>> their possession. >>>>> In a signed statement to >>>>> Christie's, the Leagues admitted discovering the second poster >>>>> after >>>>> consigning >>>>> the original for sale. >>>>> "Having considered the various >>>>> options open to us, we have made the determination that we would >>>>> destroy >>>>> the >>>>> second copy, and can confirm that this has been done," the >>>>> statement >>>>> adds. >>>>> An American vintage film poster >>>>> collector, David Kusumoto, told the Antiques Trade Gazette that he >>>>> and >>>>> fellow >>>>> collectors on the Internet news group MoPo (The Movie Poster >>>>> Discussion >>>>> Group) were outraged at the statement, saying that in the popular >>>>> arts >>>>> world, it was >>>>> akin to destroying one of Van Gogh's many sunflower paintings to >>>>> enhance >>>>> rarity. >>>>> "Whether available in one or >>>>> two copies, this item remains rare and would still command a high >>>>> figure >>>>> at >>>>> auction," Mr Kusumoto told the Gazette. "Hence, in my view, the >>>>> practice of destroying art to achieve rarity is abhorrent at worst >>>>> and >>>>> questionable at best." >>>>> Though feelings were running high >>>>> among the movie memorabilia enthusiasts last week, casual browsers >>>>> remained >>>>> oblivious to this behind-the-scenes drama. >>>>> Serious enquirers were being sent a >>>>> copy of the Leagues' statement revealing that they had taken >>>>> drastic >>>>> steps >>>>> to >>>>> preserve the status of their 'unique' poster. >>>>> Whether their actions will pay off >>>>> in purely commercial terms remains to be seen, but off-screen >>>>> scandal >>>>> rarely >>>>> does anything to harm the takings at the box office. >>>>> The Outlaw remains a film that >>>>> everyone has heard of but few have seen. It has thrived on >>>>> controversy >>>>> from >>>>> its >>>>> première in San Francisco in 1943 when it ran for only a week be >>>>> fore the >>>>> censors caught up with its sexually explicit content and stepped >>>>> in to >>>>> ban >>>>> it. >>>>> =========================== >>>>> >>>>> SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE >>>>> Tuesday, March 4, 2003 >>>>> DEMOLITION DERBY >>>>> By Leah Garchik >>>>> The grandchildren of the owner of >>>>> Outdoor Advertiser, a San Francisco bill-posting company in >>>>> business >>>>> between >>>>> 1912 >>>>> and 1970, are selling a huge (81 inches by 81 inches) and rare >>>>> poster of >>>>> Jane >>>>> Russell from the movie "The Outlaw" at Christie's in London today. >>>>> The poster was made for a one-week >>>>> showing of the movie -- it's the film for which Howard Hughes >>>>> designed >>>>> Russell's bra -- at the Geary Theater in 1943. Because of its >>>>> sexual >>>>> content, >>>>> it took seven years more for "The Outlaw" to be released to the >>>>> general public. >>>>> The poster is expected to fetch >>>>> between $17,000 and $24,000. >>>>> When poster buffs started >>>>> whispering that the sellers owned more than one of the rare >>>>> "six-sheet" (the size designation in poster lingo) posters, a >>>>> vendor's statement was appended to the Christie's listing, saying >>>>> that >>>>> the >>>>> item >>>>> "is the only surviving copy . . . in our possession. After >>>>> initially >>>>> discovering 'The Outlaw' poster that was sent to Christie's, a >>>>> second >>>>> complete >>>>> poster was found. Having considered the various options open to >>>>> us, we >>>>> have >>>>> made the determination that we would destroy the second copy, and >>>>> can >>>>> confirm >>>>> that this has been done." >>>>> The statement concludes by noting >>>>> that Christie's was not aware of the existence of the second -- >>>>> now >>>>> destroyed >>>>> -- poster when its catalog for the sale was printed. >>>>> Rick Pike at Christie's in London told TIC Monday that the >>>>> destruction >>>>> of the second poster was done >>>>> "entirely independently" of the auction house, and "under no >>>>> circumstances would we endorse such an action." >>>>> TIC asked other experts: >>>>> "Generally speaking," said Levi Morgan of Bonham's & >>>>> Butterfield's auction house in San Francisco, "this would be an >>>>> unusual >>>>> situation." >>>>> A TIC source who's in the heart of >>>>> the business and doesn't want to take sides publicly called the >>>>> destruction >>>>> "truly insane." >>>>> =========================== >>>>> >>>>> DAILY TELEGRAPH, LONDON >>>>> "UNIQUE" FILM POSTER MAKES £53,000 >>>>> By Will Bennett, Art Sales Correspondent >>>>> (Filed: 5 March 2003) >>>>> >>>>> The owners of a film poster, who >>>>> destroyed the only other known copy in an apparent move to >>>>> increase its >>>>> market >>>>> value, reaped the benefits yesterday when it sold for £52,875. >>>>> The poster advertising the 1943 >>>>> Western The Outlaw, which depicts the actress Jane Russell, had >>>>> been >>>>> expected >>>>> to fetch up to £15,000 at Christie's South Kensington. Christie' >>>>> s had >>>>> advertised it as unique and it was bought by a British private >>>>> collector. >>>>> Shortly before the sale, Christie's >>>>> admitted that the American owners, Robert and Patricia League, had >>>>> destroyed >>>>> a >>>>> second copy. >>>>> "The consignors' decision was >>>>> taken entirely independently as under no circumstances would we >>>>> endorse >>>>> such >>>>> an >>>>> action," said Christie's. >>>>> The Leagues issued a statement >>>>> which said: "After initially discovering The Outlaw poster that >>>>> was sent >>>>> to Christie's, a second complete poster was found. >>>>> "Having considered the various >>>>> options open to us we have made the determination that we would >>>>> destroy >>>>> the >>>>> second copy and can confirm that this has been done. >>>>> "At the time of going to print >>>>> with the catalogue, we had not made Christie's aware of the >>>>> existence of >>>>> a >>>>> second copy." >>>>> A dealer said: "One can only >>>>> assume that the owners did this to increase the market value. It >>>>> is >>>>> cultural >>>>> vandalism." >>>>> The Outlaw, produced by Howard >>>>> Hughes, was always controversial. Censors initially forced it to >>>>> be >>>>> withdrawn >>>>> because of its sexual explicitness and focus on Russell's bosom. >>>>> =========================== >>>>> LONDON EVENING STANDARD >>>>> Rare film poster destroyed >>>>> By John Vincent, Evening Standard >>>>> 5 March 2003 >>>>> >>>>> A film poster has fetched £52,875 >>>>> at auction - after the owners destroyed a second copy to protect >>>>> the >>>>> sale's >>>>> exclusivity. >>>>> Robert and Patricia League have >>>>> admitted they tore up the only other copy of the poster, for the >>>>> 1943 >>>>> film >>>>> The >>>>> Outlaw. An anonymous British collector paid around four times more >>>>> than >>>>> expected for the surviving poster during a Christie's auction. >>>>> The move to tear up the second >>>>> poster has angered collectors, who likened it to destroying one of >>>>> Van >>>>> Gogh's >>>>> many sunflower paintings to enhance rarity. >>>>> American collector David Kusumoto said: "The practice of >>>>> destroying art >>>>> to achieve rarity is abhorrent at >>>>> worst and questionable at best." >>>>> Christie's, while going ahead with >>>>> the sale, also expressed disapproval at the destruction of the >>>>> second >>>>> copy. >>>>> A >>>>> spokesman said: "The consignor's decision was taken entirely >>>>> independently >>>>> - as under no circumstances would we endorse such an action." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________ >>>>> Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 00:13:35 -0700 >>>>> From: gkud...@rocketmail.com >>>>> Subject: Re: An auction house to avoid >>>>> To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Interesting, David, a very interesting view. I googled your >>>>> David & >>>>> Goliath >>>>> tale, but to no avail. Search led me to >>>>> your blog, and although I didn't find the Sotheby story, I liked >>>>> what I >>>>> read enough to plan on going back to read your blog more >>>>> thoroughly. >>>>> >>>>> So thank you for taking the time to write an account of these >>>>> events. I >>>>> tend >>>>> to be a lurker -- mainly because I have so little time to >>>>> construct email >>>>> responses -- so this makes me fully appreciate the time it takes >>>>> to write >>>>> a >>>>> detailed account, as you did. Again, thank you. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________ >>>>> From: David Kusumoto <davidmkusum...@hotmail.com> >>>>> To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU >>>>> Sent: Saturday, April 7, 2012 5:11 PM >>>>> Subject: Re: [MOPO] An auction house to avoid >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Geraldine - >>>>> >>>>> * My fight against FedEx and Sotheby's did not result in published >>>>> news >>>>> stories and is not searchable on the Internet. I used very >>>>> detailed, >>>>> semi-proprietary lists of contacts I have with national and >>>>> international >>>>> editors, with their phone numbers and e-mails whited out - to >>>>> demonstrate >>>>> my >>>>> knowledge of media relations and how I would go about >>>>> positioning my >>>>> cases >>>>> as semi-"class action" grievances - to make them relevant to >>>>> consumers. >>>>> This method prevented my complaints from being positioned by FedEx >>>>> and >>>>> Sotheby's as an "isolated case involving a disgruntled customer" - >>>>> preserving my efforts to make my spin broader and more >>>>> newsworthy to >>>>> greedy >>>>> editors. My controlled and measured responses resulted in their >>>>> finally >>>>> being shot up to the executive ladder where settlements were >>>>> reached. In >>>>> the case of FedEx, it refused to pay a claim for "hidden damage" >>>>> of a >>>>> water >>>>> color painting I bought when I >>>>> was in Brugge, Belgium - that I had shipped to the U.S. In the >>>>> case of >>>>> Sotheby's, I would not accept a "refund" as its proposed "remedy" >>>>> for my >>>>> purchase of a "Hard Day's Night" BQ poster I bought in L.A. that I >>>>> later >>>>> discovered was a repro. I have no second thoughts about my actions >>>>> in >>>>> those >>>>> cases because I was incensed by the involvement of lawyers - >>>>> because I >>>>> have >>>>> routinely tangled with a corporation's hardball threats through >>>>> lawyers >>>>> when >>>>> I was a writer/reporter/consumer activist in the news biz. (I've >>>>> never >>>>> had >>>>> a case against me brought to court, ever - despite countless >>>>> threats over >>>>> 30 >>>>> years, because I know the differences between libel/defamation/ >>>>> slander >>>>> laws >>>>> in the U.S. vs. in other countries.) >>>>> >>>>> * However, there have been other instances where my actions >>>>> resulted in >>>>> published stories, the most notable being my complaints against >>>>> Christie's >>>>> London in 2003 and the "claimed" destruction - by a consignor - of >>>>> a rare >>>>> six-sheet from "The Outlaw" - an action designed to preserve >>>>> Christie's >>>>> marketing claim of auctioning the only copy of this title in this >>>>> format >>>>> in >>>>> the world. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> * My angle was to assail the purposeful destruction of art (as >>>>> noted in a >>>>> statement issued by Christie's) - to boost perceived rarity - >>>>> while >>>>> expressing scepticism of the claim that the consignor's "extra >>>>> copy" was >>>>> destroyed. My actions resulted in stories published in many >>>>> publications, >>>>> including the London Evening Standard, the London Daily Telegraph, >>>>> the >>>>> Antiques Trade Gazette and the San Francisco Chronicle, the latter >>>>> being >>>>> the >>>>> news organization closest to the consignor's residence. In >>>>> subsequent >>>>> years, the hobby learned the claimed "destruction" of extra copies >>>>> of >>>>> "The >>>>> Outlaw" six-sheets was an outright lie - as the same consignor - >>>>> through >>>>> intermediaries - brought more copies he had in storage to the >>>>> auction >>>>> block. All of this happened during my years as a writer and >>>>> consumer >>>>> activist specific to the poster hobby and the practices of auction >>>>> houses >>>>> worldwide. I ended such campaigns when I decided to get out of the >>>>> hobby >>>>> and re-think my >>>>> priorities after the wildfires swept through our area in 2003 and >>>>> 2007. >>>>> >>>>> * In relation to your complaints, in my view, the media would >>>>> NOT be >>>>> interested in your tale unless you were able to prove a large loss >>>>> and/or >>>>> a >>>>> pattern of errors from Heritage similar to yours. If I were in >>>>> your >>>>> shoes, >>>>> I would take another stab at trying to work things out with >>>>> Heritage's >>>>> customer relations and P.R. departments - so you can put this >>>>> incident >>>>> behind you in a less combative way, regardless of your consignment >>>>> intentions in the future. In my experience, dealing direct with >>>>> P.R. and >>>>> customer relations personnel is almost always more effective than >>>>> dealing >>>>> with lawyers. Within corporations, there is constant friction >>>>> between >>>>> legal >>>>> and P.R. departments - and I strongly feel consumers can get more >>>>> things >>>>> done when dealing with such people because they are paid to be >>>>> responsive >>>>> to >>>>> complaints to protect a company's image. Dealing with in-house >>>>> lawyers >>>>> who >>>>> love to battle consumers with threats of court action get you >>>>> nowhere and >>>>> only >>>>> makes consumers angrier. Again, bad P.R. is generally way more >>>>> damaging >>>>> to >>>>> a company than a lawsuit - unless that lawsuit is brought by a >>>>> consumer >>>>> as a >>>>> class-action complaint. >>>>> >>>>> David >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________ >>>>> Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2012 07:29:40 -0700 >>>>> From: gkud...@rocketmail.com >>>>> Subject: Fw: [MOPO] An auction house to avoid >>>>> To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----- Forwarded Message ----- >>>>> From: Geraldine Kudaka <gkud...@rocketmail.com> >>>>> To: David Kusumoto <davidmkusum...@hotmail.com> >>>>> Sent: Saturday, April 7, 2012 9:23 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [MOPO] An auction house to avoid >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Very interesting. I'll have to google your name to see what this >>>>> David >>>>> vs. >>>>> Goliath case against Sotheby's was. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I had intended to post to the whole group initially and did not >>>>> realize I >>>>> had merely replied to Bruce. But the time gap was accidentally >>>>> fortuitous. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Between my initial response to Bruce privately and my group >>>>> posting, I >>>>> retained legal counsel. >>>>> >>>>> The cost of consigning my posters with Heritage has gone up. >>>>> >>>>> ----- Forwarded Message ----- >>>>> >>>>> From: Geraldine Kudaka <gkud...@rocketmail.com> >>>>> To: David Kusumoto <davidmkusum...@hotmail.com> >>>>> Sent: Saturday, April 7, 2012 9:04 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [MOPO] An auction house to avoid >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thank you David. I had not intended this issue to become a >>>>> newsworthy >>>>> story >>>>> on par with the tylenol poisonings or The Komen/Planned Parenthood >>>>> issue. I would find it amusing if it did... it would indicate not >>>>> much >>>>> is going on in the world... really, little conflicts within niche >>>>> groups >>>>> do >>>>> not make it to to the big screen. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Rather than an attack on Heritage, my intention is to warn newbie >>>>> sellers >>>>> not >>>>> to be tempted by the big $$$ signs some auction houses offer. If >>>>> the >>>>> cost to collect your money ends up being a lot of hassle, or >>>>> having to >>>>> prove you did send in X,Y & Z, is it really worth it? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If you sell, as the sellers at the West Berkshire auction did, can >>>>> you >>>>> collect your money? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________ >>>>> Fom: David Kusumoto <davidmkusum...@hotmail.com> >>>>> To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU >>>>> Sent: Friday, April 6, 2012 7:10 PM >>>>> Subject: Re: [MOPO] An auction house to avoid >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> * That's true. If Geraldine posts again, we'll know more. But even >>>>> if we >>>>> presume her e-mail program has a predictive text function - >>>>> there's a big >>>>> jump between the "B" in Bruce and the "M" in MoPo List. Her note >>>>> to the >>>>> group seems - on the surface at least - intentional to me. One >>>>> other >>>>> thing >>>>> I forgot to mention. Having once worked at a Fortune 500 company, >>>>> I know >>>>> the following as FACTS. Big corporations are rarely fearful of >>>>> litigation. >>>>> That's what their lawyers are for. One strategy is to drain a >>>>> plaintiff's >>>>> or a defendant's pool of funds covering legal fees. And once the >>>>> lawyers >>>>> are involved, they almost ALWAYS counsel NO response to further >>>>> public >>>>> attacks, e.g., putting up a stone wall of silence to preserve >>>>> their >>>>> positions in potential litigation. >>>>> >>>>> * However, these same corporations are almost ALWAYS WAY MORE >>>>> FEARFUL of >>>>> bad >>>>> press. They can't control the press - and the bad stories >>>>> ultimately >>>>> reaches stakeholders/customers whose reactions - can have an >>>>> adverse >>>>> effect >>>>> on a corporation's revenues and industry reputation. Public >>>>> opinion, not >>>>> fear of lawsuits, are responsible for the "180s" we see in the >>>>> most >>>>> prominent case histories, e.g., Bank of America and the Komen >>>>> Foundation. >>>>> BTW, this is the way environmental groups, for example, operate. >>>>> Lacking >>>>> budgetary resources to fight lawsuits, they are very creative in >>>>> their >>>>> efforts to garner media attention, feeding into the conflict- >>>>> driven >>>>> agendas >>>>> of newsrooms. When I was a reporter, I was always told to "test >>>>> the >>>>> demonstrators" by seeing if they marched and shouted ONLY when the >>>>> media >>>>> was >>>>> present. If they stopped when the cameras left, it was a stunt. I >>>>> was >>>>> told >>>>> to report the "demonstration" - but to report it accurately as >>>>> being >>>>> staged >>>>> for media consumption. PETA operates on a similar principle, but >>>>> its >>>>> over-the-top actions, while GUARANTEEING coverage, results in an >>>>> extremely >>>>> divided view of that group's reputation. Heritage is a large >>>>> company that >>>>> has been down the road of adverse (and positive) press before. The >>>>> risk >>>>> is >>>>> losing control of a dispute whereby third parties (the media) - >>>>> can sway >>>>> public opinion in an adverse way that disrupts operations. >>>>> >>>>> * When I took on FedEx and Sotheby's during the 1990s, it was the >>>>> controlled, managed use of potentially adverse press relations >>>>> that >>>>> resulted >>>>> in resolving my disputes with them. The lawyers came out with >>>>> their >>>>> knives >>>>> intending to bleed my bank accounts dry. But knowing how to spin >>>>> "David >>>>> vs. >>>>> Goliath" stories in a way that reflects a trend of errors >>>>> affecting >>>>> others >>>>> like me - "spreads the number of potential victims" out so that my >>>>> woes >>>>> served as a "poster child" or a "proxy" - or a "tip of the iceberg >>>>> illustration" - of greater problems impacting consumers. This >>>>> forces the >>>>> responsibility out of the hands of lawyers and goes all the way up >>>>> the >>>>> executive ladder. For most big companies facing potentially bad >>>>> press, it >>>>> isn't worth battling in public if small change is involved. If >>>>> they're >>>>> smart, they settle quietly and the problem goes away quickly. But >>>>> once it >>>>> hits the press, it's impossible to reel everything back in and it >>>>> becomes >>>>> a >>>>> nightmare. I've made my living working both sides of the fence and >>>>> it's >>>>> an >>>>> ugly business. I am so glad that my experience in the news media >>>>> has >>>>> equipped me well enough to battle - or to "re-direct" reporters >>>>> when my >>>>> clients are attacked, whether they are corporations or a little >>>>> guy >>>>> trying >>>>> to influence public opinion. In sum, I'm not Heritage, but if I >>>>> was >>>>> handling its P.R., I would do everything in my power to make this >>>>> problem >>>>> go >>>>> away - or to keep it confined within the borders of a small group. >>>>> It's >>>>> not >>>>> worth fighting a volatile situation that can be solved - that >>>>> risks >>>>> turning >>>>> into an issue that becomes "everybody's problem," including >>>>> present and >>>>> prospective consumers who would not otherwise care absent third >>>>> party >>>>> involvement. -d. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________ >>>>> Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 17:25:18 -0500 >>>>> From: brucehershen...@gmail.com >>>>> Subject: Re: An auction house to avoid >>>>> To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU >>>>> >>>>> David is certainly correct, but there is still the possibility >>>>> that she >>>>> did >>>>> not mean to post it to the list. Perhaps she thought of something >>>>> she had >>>>> forgotten two >>>>> days earlier and planned to send me >>>>> that info, but instead accidentally forwarded it to the list. >>>>> >>>>> We will only know if and when she chooses to post again. >>>>> >>>>> As for getting a response, I suspect this is what we will find: >>>>> >>>>> Bruce >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 5:19 PM, David Kusumoto >>>>> <davidmkusum...@hotmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> My goodness, of course it was meant for the entire list. Just look >>>>> at the >>>>> time stamps. There's a two-day spread between the original note >>>>> "Geraldine >>>>> Kudaka" sent to Bruce - and when the note was FORWARDED to the >>>>> entire >>>>> MoPo >>>>> group from Geraldine herself. She is obviously a MoPo member. >>>>> There is no >>>>> other way an e-mail like that could be posted to the group without >>>>> first >>>>> enrolling as a member. Unfairly or not, I interpreted the note >>>>> as an >>>>> attack >>>>> on Heritage, an attempt to force a public or private response from >>>>> group >>>>> members - or from Grey himself. In PR and news, there's a rule we >>>>> follow: >>>>> In the business world, there is no such thing as a true >>>>> "surprise." Most >>>>> disputes broil beneath the surface for weeks or months - before >>>>> they >>>>> finally >>>>> explode into the public eye. They are usually the penultimate step >>>>> before >>>>> the "course of last resort," e.g., taking grievances to the media >>>>> for >>>>> widespread dissemination to audiences outside the core group >>>>> most interested in the outcome. It is at that point that a client >>>>> is at >>>>> risk losing control of a story and is forever put on defense >>>>> until a >>>>> counterattack or well-understood response is mapped out and >>>>> executed. >>>>> Successful response case histories: Tylenol poisonings, beef >>>>> percentages >>>>> questioned in Taco Bell products, antenna issues with the iPhone. >>>>> Unsuccessful or "too late" response case histories: Pink slime, >>>>> Bank of >>>>> America's $5 debit fee proposal, and the Komen Foundation's "180" >>>>> with >>>>> Planned Parenthood. -d. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________ >>>>> Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 17:44:25 -0400 >>>>> From: pcontar...@triad.rr.com >>>>> Subject: Re: Fw: [MOPO] An auction house to avoid >>>>> To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Was wondering that myself. >>>>> >>>>> Peter >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From:MoPo List [mailto:mopo-l@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU] On Behalf Of >>>>> lovenoir2 >>>>> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 2:00 PM >>>>> To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU >>>>> Subject: Re: [MOPO] Fw: [MOPO] An auction house to avoid >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> An interesting read. >>>>> >>>>> Was this meant to go to the entire MOPO list? >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Geraldine Kudaka <gkud...@rocketmail.com >>>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----- Forwarded Message ----- >>>>> From: Geraldine Kudaka <gkud...@rocketmail.com> >>>>> To: Bruce Hershenson <brucehershen...@gmail.com> >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 3, 2012 11:45 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [MOPO] An auction house to avoid >>>>> >>>>> Your favorite auction house, Bruce -- Heritage. >>>>> >>>>> My husband, Charley, was a Hollywood executive. When we first >>>>> did a >>>>> Heritage >>>>> consignment through Rudy Franchi, everything went fine. So fine, >>>>> we sent >>>>> a >>>>> 2nd batch using my UPS account & return label which had my name on >>>>> it. I >>>>> use >>>>> my maiden name, so I guess Heritage thought it was a cold >>>>> submission from >>>>> nobody. >>>>> >>>>> Thought we'd hear from them -- nada. We are pretty busy here and >>>>> knew >>>>> from >>>>> our first consignment that Heritage plans their auction schedule >>>>> months >>>>> in >>>>> advance. When I finally called Heritage to see when the posters >>>>> were >>>>> going >>>>> to be auctioned. Carter told they had received the posters, and >>>>> wanted to >>>>> know if we wanted to put them in the weekly auction as there was >>>>> nothing >>>>> of >>>>> value in the lot. I said, "What? What about the Get Carter and >>>>> Lennon >>>>> posters? Or the Fillmore posters?" Heritage claimed they had not >>>>> received >>>>> these posters in the lot we sent. >>>>> >>>>> I had mentioned this event on this newsgroup before. You responded >>>>> with a >>>>> derogatory comment about Rudy, then Grey threatened us with >>>>> lawyers and I >>>>> posted a comment here batting for Rudy. >>>>> >>>>> At that time this was going on, I did not want to deal with >>>>> Heritage >>>>> because >>>>> we were building a house and had a high weekly payroll to meet. >>>>> The >>>>> headache >>>>> of dealing with this Heritage problem was small potatoes >>>>> compared to >>>>> being >>>>> the General Contractor on a house. >>>>> >>>>> After Grey threatened me with lawyers and I batted for Rudy, Rudy >>>>> contacted >>>>> me. He had spoken with Grey and the upshot was we were offered a >>>>> deal for >>>>> future submissions.. >>>>> >>>>> That was months ago. >>>>> >>>>> I've come to the conclusion I don't want to do future business >>>>> with >>>>> Heritage. It's one thing to have a consignment set up by Rudy >>>>> for my >>>>> husband, Charley Lippincott, who had hired John Van Hammersveld to >>>>> do the >>>>> Get Carter poster and has the largest, most complete collection of >>>>> John's >>>>> work -- even more than John -- and another thing when little wifey >>>>> using >>>>> her UPS business account sends the 2nd consignment batch. As >>>>> nobody me, >>>>> if >>>>> posters disappeared from my lot, who is to say that this doesn't >>>>> happen >>>>> to >>>>> other people? On principle, I don't want to do business with >>>>> Heritage. >>>>> >>>>> Life is too short, Charley's collection too huge, and it's just >>>>> not worth >>>>> my >>>>> time. >>>>> >>>>> If Grey wants to have his lawyers come after me, fine. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________ >>>>> >>>>> From:Bruce Hershenson <brucehershen...@gmail.com> >>>>> To: Geraldine Kudaka <gkud...@rocketmail.com> >>>>> Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 6:21 PM >>>>> Subject: Re: [MOPO] An auction house to avoid >>>>> >>>>> Which auction was it? >>>>> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Geraldine Kudaka >>>>> <gkud...@rocketmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> I sent things to a US auction house who, 6 months later, claimed >>>>> they >>>>> never >>>>> got the high value posters.... and threatened me with a lawyer. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________ >>>>> >>>>> From:Bruce Hershenson <brucehershen...@gmail.com> >>>>> To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU >>>>> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 10:45 PM >>>>> Subject: [MOPO] An auction house to avoid >>>>> >>>>> http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2012/west-berkshire-auction-house-cameo-refutes-customers-payment-claims >>>>> Customers claim West Berkshire auction house owes them cash >>>>> >>>>> Bruce Hershenson and the other 24 members of the eMoviePoster.com >>>>> team >>>>> P.O. Box 874 >>>>> West Plains, MO 65775 >>>>> Phone: 417-256-9616 (hours: Mon-Fri 9 to 5 except from 12 to 1 >>>>> when we >>>>> take >>>>> lunch) >>>>> our site >>>>> our auctions >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Bruce Hershenson and the other 24 members of the eMoviePoster.com >>>> team >>>> P.O. Box 874 >>>> West Plains, MO 65775 >>>> Phone: 417-256-9616 (hours: Mon-Fri 9 to 5 except from 12 to 1 when >>>> we >>>> take >>>> lunch) >>>> our site <http://www.emovieposter.com/> >>>> our auctions <http://www.emovieposter.com/agallery/all.html> >>>> <http://www.emovieposter.com/unused/signature/20111028Frankensteinemployeegroupphotosignature.jpg >>>>> >>>> >>>> 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.
