What the hells a luddyduddy?
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Hershenson <brucehershen...@gmail.com>
To: MoPo-L <MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU>
Sent: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 22:00
Subject: Re: [MOPO] SO RARE
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.
