Not interested unless it has the infamous spread-legged scene censored from 
that short's original prints.  Pretty nice legs on a woman who had an otherwise 
lumpy figure.

Subject: SPEAKING OF FIELDS
From: ki...@movieart.net
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:20:52 -0500
CC: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
To: davidmkusum...@hotmail.com



We are prepared to sell a still from THE DENTIST.  Yes, this is a seriously 
rare still.  Rarelyis anything from the Paramount short seen.
Kirby

On Apr 16, 2012, at 4:08 PM, David Kusumoto wrote: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 KusumotoTo: 
MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDUSent: Monday, April 16, 2012 2:51 PMSubject: 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 ListSend a message addressed to: 
listserv@listserv.american.eduIn the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF 
MOPO-LThe 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 ListSend a message addressed to: 
listserv@listserv.american.eduIn the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF 
MOPO-LThe 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 ListSend a message addressed to: 
listserv@listserv.american.eduIn the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF 
MOPO-LThe 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 ListSend a message addressed to: 
listserv@listserv.american.eduIn the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF 
MOPO-LThe 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 ListSend a message addressed to: 
listserv@listserv.american.eduIn the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF 
MOPO-LThe 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 ListSend a message addressed to: 
listserv@listserv.american.eduIn the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF 
MOPO-LThe 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.

Reply via email to