Marc Antony at your service
;-)
At 08:04 PM 6/11/2012, David Kusumoto wrote:
Changing the subject line to get off of the old thread...
Rich - you're making me laugh! You sound like the self-appointed
"Tony Soprano" of MoPo! Quit prefacing your treatises by saying
you're Bruce's friend or Sean's friend or Grey's friend or my friend
or anybody's friend - before taking a baseball bat to hammer your
ripostes! When you yourself hear words that sound like, "with all
due respect" - don't you know that it means the OPPOSITE? Friends
NEVER say "with all due respect" to each other - nor its equivalent,
"I'm your friend, but you're insane." It's a decorous line from
people before they plunge a knife into you. And what do you mean
when you say you want to "level the playing field?" That sounds
threatening! You sound like Jimmy Hoffa, but without the concrete
and cement aftermath, I guess, oops, well, I better shut up before I
step into it some more. Don't hurt me, I bruise easily. - koose.
----------
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 18:55:22 -0700
From: sa...@comic-art.com
Subject: Re: Kudaka and Lippincott
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Bruce
I think I've had enough of this silliness
in the last hour, you accused me of smearing you on APF.
You may be my friend, but at some point, I just can't take it anymore.
I want your assurance, before I post a "Bruce isn't perfect story" I
do know, that you will not get angry at my post.
I am not disturbed at you as my friend, but I'm getting disturbed at
you as La Bruce and I'm not wanting to antagonize you, But I think
it's time for some leveling of the playing field
Rich
At 06:13 PM 6/11/2012, Bruce Hershenson wrote:
Was this addressed? Is there no chance the person who opened the
package did not enter all the contents?
If it was, then that really completely closes the matter, down to an
unsolvable puzzle.
If it was addressed, I certainly apologize.
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 8:06 PM, Franc
<<mailto:fdav...@verizon.net>fdav...@verizon.net> wrote:
I can't believe Bruce that you're actually doing one more pass on
this. You have a great operation. I've bought many things from you
over the years and I was always very happy with your service. But so
does Grey. Constantly criticizing his operation, doesn't make yours
any better. It just makes you seem unprofessional. FRANC
-----Original Message-----
From: MoPo List [ mailto:mopo-l@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU] On Behalf Of
Bruce Hershenson
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 8:15 PM
To: <mailto:MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU>MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: Re: [MOPO] Kudaka and Lippincott
Grey
That was a great detailed reply. I just have one question (and
forgive me if this has been addressed in some way, because there has
been so much posted about this that I can't wrap my head around it all.
My question is, were you personally there when either or both
packages were opened? If not, how can you know that an employee did
not remove the more valuable posters that are now supposedly
missing? It seems that this is a loose end that I have not seen addressed.
In my operation, I have one person who opens absolutely EVERY
package (Clark) and he has been with me 10 years and I trust him
implicitly. I want him to open every single package so that the day
a dispute like this would arise (and it never has) then the ONLY two
possible answers would be that the person who sent the package
misremembered (or lied) or that Clark stole the items.
Do you either personally witness each package being opened, or do
you have a single employee who does this (as I do) or do you have
cameras recording the opening?
I do think your addressing this earlier would have been better,
because the combination of your remaining silent (and the offer to
settle) creates an appearance of negligence or guilt on your part.
Now you have certainly placed the ball back in Geraldine's court,
forcing her to refute your statements, or come up with additional evidence.
Bruce
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 6:54 PM, David Kusumoto
<<mailto:davidmkusum...@hotmail.com> davidmkusum...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Grey -
* As one of the few who defended Geraldine's right to post - and who
knew the tactical reasons why you/Heritage remained silent - and who
also wrote and spoke to you personally about this train wreck - I'm
glad you finally felt unleashed to strongly defend yourself
here. Your response is clear, easy to follow and portrays your role
as a non-aggressor - whose every effort to resolve this dispute was
rebuffed. I wonder if the only outcome that would have been
satisfactory to Geraldine was a full retail cash settlement and an
admission of guilt.
* What bothered me was the small amounts in dispute in relation to
the big-dollar picture of Heritage's operations. When any person
takes his or her grievances public, it's almost always the court of
last resort, as most disagreements broil beneath the surface for
many weeks or months before exploding in public. The elapsed time
between the start of this dispute to today - was far too long, with
the "MoPo portion" of this dispute stretching more than two
months. I never like it when any entity starts to lose control of a
dispute - despite the besieged entity being in full possession of
the facts as it knows them. It's hard to ascribe intent to both
sides - when only one side is doing the talking. The analysis of
your motives by third parties was bothersome to me because they were
"testimonial" guesses - vs. what you and I have talked about
privately - and how it all matches up with your post below. The
relevance of third parties speaking on your behalf is that it
painted a bad picture to lurking collectors about which dealers were
taking sides against a disgruntled consumer/consignor - and what
adverse impact this might have on their reputations as
"customer-and-consignor-friendly" businesses.
* I apologize that many people interpreted my defense of Geraldine's
right to post - as equivalent to a condemnation of Heritage
generally and of you personally. From the beginning, having talked
and met with you and Heritage co-chief Jim Halperin in person, I've
always felt it impossible to believe that you're capable of
intentional (or even unintentional) maliciousness. However much I
defend a person's right to post, in the end, as John wrote, it's
always more clear how things really are - when we can hear both
sides. My apologies again and my best to you. -d.
----------
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 15:01:47 -0500
From: <mailto:gre...@ha.com>gre...@ha.com
Subject: Kudaka and Lippincott
To: <mailto:MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU>MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
I feel I must now respond to Ms. Kudaka's bizarre accusations of
"missing or stolen" posters, and the ongoing discussions about her
accusations on MOPO.
Many of your know me personally, and know how hard I work to
maintain my credibility and reputation. I have taken thousands of
consignments in my eleven years with Heritage Auctions, and have
sold well over $50 million in movie posters. In all that time, I
cannot recall anyone ever accusing me or Heritage of stealing their
movie posters before this! In fact most of our consignments come
from repeat sellers and their friends, and I believe our consignor
satisfaction ratings compare favorably with those of any of the
world's auction houses.
Here is a link to all of the documents we just sent to Ms. Kudaka's
attorney, including a letter from Heritage's attorney, in answer to
her inquiry as to how her husband and her posters were handled while
with Heritage:
<http://movieposters.ha.com/images/Lippincott-060512.pdf>http://movieposters.ha.com/images/Lippincott-060512.pdf
Ms. Kudaka's accusation that items were lost or stolen are
contradicted by the evidence. Other than Rudy Franchi's referral,
all of my initial dealings were directly with Mr. Lippincott via
telephone and emails. Prior to receiving her complaints I had no
contact whatsoever with Ms. Kudaka, who, it seems, remains very
confused concerning the business her husband did with Heritage.
For example, she states that from their first consignment we did not
inform them that a Clockwork Orange poster would be sold at a later
date than their other posters. In fact, a schedule was made at
almost the very same time as her other posters were inventoried and
both of those were mailed to them, as seen in the documents within
the link. In a phone discussion with Mr. Lippincott, soon after the
first consignment arrived, I informed him that Heritage had just
sold a slightly better condition R-Rated revamp campaign poster for
Clockwork in the previous November of 2009 auction
<http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=7014&lotNo=89585>http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=7014&lotNo=89585
and therefore I thought it best to wait until July of 2010 to sell
the one he had sent me. I explained that running one right after
the other may not be the best way to get a better price. He told me
he was happy to do that and indeed that is what we did: In July of
2010, a few months after we'd auctioned the rest of their material
(in March of 2010), we auctioned the Clockwork poster
<http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=7025&lotNo=83150>http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=7025&lotNo=83150
for a very solid price. Now if that is not looking out for a
consignor, tell me what is?
Ms. Kudaka now claims they did not sign an agreement to sell that
poster. Again, she is confused, as Mr. Lippincott signed a Master
agreement which covered the sale of any of their material for one
year (among the documents linked to, above).
She then claims that she and Mr. Lippincott mailed us material from
which several posters went missing. However, as you can also see in
the linked attachment documents, several days after mailing us an
unsolicited consignment, Mr. Lippincott emailed me a list of what
was mailed. The spreadsheet, again in the linked documents, shows
exactly what was mailed from Mr. Lippincott to us, and on that
spreadsheet there is no Get Carter one sheet nor a John and Yoko one
sheet that Ms. Kudaka now claims were sent. She is simply wrong, as
easily seen by the spreadsheet.
In fact, after realizing that the two posters she later claimed were
sent to us had not arrived, I asked in an email to her why she
thought those had been sent. In response, she emailed back, "Charley
jots the list down on a legal pad of what is going out."
Ms. Kudaka still apparently didn't (and perhaps still doesn't)
realize that Mr. Lippincott had already sent me the spreadsheet, and
they were not jotted down there.
Very soon after I received Mr. Lippincott's unsolicited, second
consignment, I phoned him and explained that the posters he mailed
were not of enough value for a Signature auction then asked whether
he would care to sell in a weekly auction or would he rather I just
mail them back. He replied something to the effect of, "I don't know
but will let you know soon." I guess my mistake, if there was one,
at that time was that I did not contact Mr. Lippincott again to
remind him that I still had his posters in a secure spot and to ask
him again what he wanted us to do with them. By the way, an
unsolicited consignment, for those of you not familiar with the
term, means a potential consignment that was never discussed with us
or approved by us prior to being shipped.
Ms. Kudaka claims we did not handle Mr. Lippincott's second batch of
material in an appropriate inventoried manner. The answer as seen in
our letter to her attorney is that the consignment was unsolicited
and was never accepted by us as a consignment. It remained in a box
marked with his name on it until it was finally returned. We
typically don't make an inventoried schedule unless we agree to take
the consignment. In fact the only reason we did not return the
packages unopened, as unsolicited consignments are normally handled,
is that I recognized they were from Mr. Lippincott.
Furthermore, we did not mail back the posters in her same packaging
material as she claims since usually when inspecting material
mailed, one must open it to look at it. In fact, I feel sure that
the packaging that we used to return all of her posters was more
secure than the packaging they were mailed to us in. All of the
posters on the spreadsheet that Mr. Lippincott sent to us were
returned, as can be seen by our mailing documents. We also mailed
back a French Grande for Star Wars that was not mentioned on their
list, which we knew belonged to them.
My offer to donate to charity the value of the posters they
erroneously thought they had sent to us was purely an attempt to get
through a hurdle which I felt sure was just a fact of their recent
move, and perhaps their confusion from that ordeal, as she had
mentioned to me in an email. At that time I had hopes of doing
further business and proving our ability to them. Sadly my offer was
taken by Ms. Kudaka as some sort of admission. Since then, she has
gone on and on, on this chat group and who knows where else,
maligning my and Heritage's reputation.
Apparently a few others on this forum have been trying to use her
confusion to their advantage, though I'm happy and grateful to see
us defended, too.
Meanwhile Ms. Kudaka continues to post her wild accusations using
hearsay, speculation, and imagined conversations, trying to imply
wrongdoing. I could offer further emails between the parties but I
truly hope it won't be necessary to waste my own and everyone else's
time any more.
Heritage is a fairly large enterprise and of course has dealt with a
relatively small number (given its size) of false accusations from
time to time. I view them as attempts to take aim at a larger
corporation, but I suppose they are defaming me as well. I have
never intentionally deceived or misled anyone in my dealings, nor
would I work for a company who does. In fact I would gladly offer
sworn testimony under oath as to the truthfulness of all of the
attached documents as well as to the issue of whether I received the
two posters in question.
Sorry again for the long email but any accusation that Heritage or I
would pilfer, mishandle or neglect someone's consignment is either
an ignorant mistruth or a malicious lie. Have we ever misplaced a
poster before? Yes, but very rarely, and on those very few
occasions, Heritage has always settled quickly, fairly and in an
amicable manner with the consignor.
Thanks for reading this. I hope I don't have to say much more about
it, other than to again express my very sincere gratitude to those
who have defended Heritage and me on this forum.
Grey
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at
<http://www.filmfan.com>www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to:
<mailto:lists...@listserv.american.edu>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 26 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)
<http://www.emovieposter.com/>our site
<http://www.emovieposter.com/agallery/all.html>our auctions
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at
<http://www.filmfan.com>www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to:
<mailto:lists...@listserv.american.edu>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 26 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)
<http://www.emovieposter.com/>our site
<http://www.emovieposter.com/agallery/all.html>our auctions
[]
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at
<http://www.filmfan.com>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.
