Appreciating how Bruce brought it up and then you out Bruced him there.
Sent from my iPad
On 16 Apr 2012, at 22:20, Kirby McDaniel <ki...@movieart.net> wrote:
> We are prepared to sell a still from THE DENTIST. Yes, this is a seriously
> rare still. Rarely
> is 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 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.
>
> 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.
