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 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. > 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. > > -- 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.
