He works in a bank?
Op 16 apr 2012, om 22:56 heeft Bruce Hershenson het volgende geschreven:
> 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
> 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
> 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.
