P.S. Full disclosure: Joe Burtis is a jabbernowl, a mooncalf, and a luddyduddy.
W. C. Fields fans, huh? You're all scoundrels! :-)
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 15:56:10 -0500
From: brucehershen...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: SO RARE
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
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.
