The story may be "tiresome," but it is not, in my view, "dull." The press
statement I'm talking about was different from general press statements touting
lots in many other departments. It was a "one off" statement specific to "The
Outlaw" - in RESPONSE to queries from reporters I contacted in London and San
Francisco. There was no motivation by Christie's to do this PROACTIVELY. My
actions were not entirely designed to throw Tony under the bus. (BTW, I've
long since buried my differences w/Tony on this and on other matters at CSK.
We're not pals, but we're professional and avoid controversial matters.) It
was more about Christie's - as an esteemed organization - signing off - while
simultaneously absolving itself, e.g., "Christie's did not coerce or endorse" -
the consignor's alleged action of destroying a "second copy." Anyone who tries
to couch this as a run-of-the-mill-business-as-usual press statement or action
- isn't stepping outside of their friendships and/or looking at this
objectively, with impartiality. The notion of a "conspiracy" is NOT the issue.
It is the actions of a consignor - and Christie's "reluctantly worded"
response that had the effect of preserving the marketing claim of a poster's
"one-of-a-kind" status. This whole thing was insane. There's no other word to
describe it. Please don't characterize this as "no big deal." -d.
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 15:52:13 -0400
From: jbur...@mpagallery.com
Subject: Re: SO RARE
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
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 4,000 USD.
Please visit our website:
www.mpagallery.com
90 Oak St.
E.
Rutherford, NJ 07073
201-635-1444
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 11:51:04 -0700
From: davidmkusum...@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: SO RARE
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
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 the sale,
and if Christie's had labeled this as 'first time at auction' instead of
'only known copy' I seriously doubt that it would have hurt the
price. Only copy or not, when you see this in person, it is an amazing
piece and this was the FIRST TIME this poster showed up for sale. With
items like this, it's usually the first one that brings in the big
money, and Christie's UK was the perfect venue for the sale.
I've no clue who bought the first copy at Christie's, but they
always managed to draw a very unique crowd, including many
non-collectors, so chances are that the current owner is stil happy with
his purchase and probably couldn't care less about this discussion.
Helmut
The
point is that an auction house as you implied...should be fair. The
consultant knew that there were four copis and yet he went ahead and
described the first Outlaw six sheet as the only one...then three others
arrive selling for (the last one) a third of the first ones price.
What the first one selling amounted to was fraud...
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.
