* After reading mostly dealer posts for five straight days, here are my
observations for consumers. Unless indicated, the following are OPINIONS, not
facts. They shed no additional information other than to provide my own
history - then vs. now - about this title. (Again, it's too bad Bruce
Hershenson quit MOPO - as his views would have been invaluable as NO ONE has
handled more movie paper - nor owns a titanic collection of press books from
around the world than he.)
1. My "opinion" is Bidll's "The Third Man" is an international one-sheet of
"some kind" - that was never intended for display in the U.K. Anything else is
possible, but that's where I fall if I were interested in buying it.
Parenthetically, among the many points and markers debated as to first issue or
re-issue and international vs domestic, I find it intriguing that the seller -
who strikes me as being very conscientious - resides in New Zealand yet has
little provenance information about how and where this apparently rolled poster
was acquired as well as other details such as texture, etc. This may not be
"empirically" relevant to this poster compared to printed markers, but in my
view, its geographic location and "how it feels" is circumstantially relevant
to the debate of national vs. international, original or re-issue.
2. As some know, I used to collect only COUNTRY-OF-ORIGIN DOMESTIC ISSUE
posters, a common practice among collectors of country-of-origin first edition
books. A country of origin "The Third Man" poster was once at the top of my
list of wants.
3. Today, if I stuck to my old narrow (minded) preferences, I'd only buy a
first issue BQ of "Third Man." While I love VINTAGE international one-sheets or
daybills - for "The Third Man," I won't. To put it bluntly, I was burned by a
major auction house (Heritage) - by its mis-representation of this title way
back in 2003. Heritage's actions were NOT intentional - and to be fair - I was
frankly ignorant about what Helmut rightly says about the general "rule" - but
NOT the "law" - that British one-sheets were predominantly targeted for
international markets. And for some hare-brained reason (at the time) - I
thought the U.K. one-sheet format was "common" enough to be displayed
sporadically domestically, though not favored compared to the more popular quad.
* On 20 November
2003, I bought a British RE-ISSUE one-sheet from Heritage to "The Third Man"
for
$1725 - that Heritage mis-represented as a 1949 first U.K. issue. The original
2003 description has not changed hence you can still see its mistake at the
link below. Note how there is no information about it being a "reissue" of any
kind; Heritage simply declares it as "original" and labels its date to 1949:
http://comics.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=808&lotNo=1119
Image 1 of 5 (Heritage, November 2003, $1725):
* I did NOT learn until one year later that Heritage misrepresented the poster
I bought for $1725 as a 1949 "original" when it was in fact a 1950s re-issue.
Sure, I
could have raised hell but did not, out of deference to my friendship with Grey
- but just as important - I did not because of the intimidating legal wording
in Heritage's terms and conditions about its responsibility for errors - which
implied no returns accepted - or - at the very least, an unwritten
"statute of limitations" to resolve disputes.
* One year later, in November 2004 - Heritage sold ANOTHER 1950s re-issue - but
this time, it correctly identified it as a re-issue, and it fetched for $1150.
This was the date of my discovery - that what I bought the year before - had
been misrepresented by Heritage. Frankly, "Buyer Beware" didn't enter my mind
in 2003 with Heritage, even though it was new to the movie poster auction scene.
http://movieposters.ha.com/itm/film-noir/the-third-man-british-lion-film-1949-/a/607-19401.s
Image 2 of 5 (Heritage, November 2004, $1150):
* I grumbled but didn't want to cause a scene because I like Grey. I kept the
re-issue poster I bought in November 2003 for four years.
* By March 2006, Heritage "apparently" got it right. I say
"apparently" because in recent days, there have been legitimate questions in
the debate about originals vs. re-issues in
recent days on MoPo. The example below was represented as a genuine U.K. 1949
original and it sold for $5750:
http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=633&lotNo=28253
Image 3 of 5 (Heritage, March 2006, $5750):
* In 2007, after I decided to leave hard core poster collecting, I consigned my
bogus $1725 "original" The Third Man poster that I bought from Heritage in
November 2003 - seen in image 1 of 5 above - with a batch of posters to
eMoviePoster on 11 December 2007 - properly identifying "The Third Man" poster
I bought in 2003 as a re-issue. (See eMoviePoster's image of my Heritage
poster below - the colors display more accurately - but this is the EXACT
poster I bought in image 1 of 5 above, as noted by a one-of-a-kind collector's
defect - a white spot on the top right margin above the "L" in Selznick.)
Properly identified, this EXACT poster - mis-represented as "original" in 2003
- but properly identified by eMoviePoster in 2007 - fetched $362.
http://www.emovieposter.com/gallery/inc/archive_image.php?id=10744885
Image 4 of 5 (eMoviePoster, December 2007, $362):
* Then, to make things humorous - just three months later - Bruce's December
2007 buyer of my the re-issue poster I got from Heritage in 2003 - flipped it
BACK to Heritage! On 11 March 2008 - Heritage
took the same $1725 poster it mis-represented as "original" in 2003 - this time
correctly identifying it as a re-issue - and it sold to another buyer for $478.
See Heritage's image below, noting the same distinctive collector's defect on
the top right margin above the "L" in Selznick.
http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=693&lotNo=64326
Image 5 of 5 (Heritage, March 2008, $478):
* Now, some of you high-roller dealers might argue that the $1725 I paid back
in 2003 for this mis-represented poster - is not a big deal in relation to by
net take I accepted after I sold it with proper identifiers via eMoviePoster
for $362 in 2007 - or even had I chosen Heritage to sell it for $478 three
months later in 2008. But this was not small change to me. Some might also
say I should have immediately brought this to Heritage's attention - even 12
months after November 2003. But the correct info about what I bought from
Heritage was hardly "immediate" and felt unfair to grouse about. Heritage does
not offer a lifetime guarantee - though it does offer a reasonable window to
correct its own mistakes.
* However, what follows may underscore the limits of Grey's power back in 2003
when movie posters were a new division at Heritage - and when one of the
chiefs, Jim Halperin told me in New York that he envisioned posters to be a fun
"niche" and not a profit leader. NO ONE from Dallas EVER "came back" to me -
neither proactive nor reactive to correct its mistake - nor did Heritage
personally acknowledge what happened to me, despite obviously learning its own
mistake a year later when it listed a second "The Third Man" poster correctly.
Again, look at Heritage's written description and image of what I bought for
$1725 in November 2003...
http://comics.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=808&lotNo=1119
...vs. Heritage's written description and image of what second buyer bought -
armed with a corrected information - for $1150 in November 2004:
http://movieposters.ha.com/itm/film-noir/the-third-man-british-lion-film-1949-/a/607-19401.s
* People make mistakes and admit them, no foul there. But what happened places
a high relief
on when a firm PROACTIVELY corrects
mistakes, however rare - no matter how much time has passed
since they were made. Years later, when I told Bruce Hershenson about this in
the context of selling my "re-issue," he noted that he himself had made the
same mistake about 15 years ago, that it wasn't discovered until years later -
but that he contacted his buyer and took about a $1,000+ loss, refunding the
money on the basis that while people make mistakes, the buyer did nothing wrong
and would have taken a loss for ignorance and might have lost confidence in
eMoviePoster as a future buyer basing his choices on improperly represented
goods.
* So I think Jeff P. brings up a salient point, that is, if average consumers
have a say about buying collectibles whose origin is unclear. Such things
should, in my view, be PROACTIVELY disclosed. Whether you are a dealer in a
buyer's role or an end user - it IS significant when anyone offers you a
"lifetime guarantee." But it's only as good as
the merchant who offers it, your trust in that merchant - and your perception
of how long that merchant will be in business to honor it. Naturally, such
guarantees are too risky for most retailers, accounting for wear and tear and
the potential for abuse. And indeed, lifetime guarantees feel non-existent in
the collectibles "industry."
* Years ago, when I asked Bruce Hershenson about this - he said among the
obvious reasons for offering lifetime guarantees - besides boosting buyer
confidence ENORMOUSLY - is this: Despite his prominence in collectibles, if
his company makes a mistake, he doesn't have the resources of a Sotheby's or
Christie's or Bonham's or Heritage - to be battered with monthly lawsuits from
disgruntled
customers. A check of Google of claims against the major houses bears this
out. Thus for him and perhaps for him only - this is a good business policy to
embrace - and feels compatible with a high-volume, Amazon-like, "customer
first" ideology - that goes further in that it is marketed as having no statute
of limitations nor expiration date. Anything discovered to be misrepresented,
no matter how long after a sale, is proactively corrected. If you're a
consumer or a dealer buying from him - whether you disagree with methods or
personality or other intangibles, this is supremely comforting.
* In sum, specific to Bidll's "The Third Man," I'm glad we're all talking about
what it may or may not be - because no lifetime guarantee is being offered for
a high-ticket item. I'm sorry I can't add anything more to reveal its origin,
hence I wish Bruce would proffer an opinion even though my story illustrates my
troubled history with this title and why I won't buy it unless it's a BQ. And
while the wisdom of offering lifetime returns for posters is a discussion for
another day, I think the seller has been wise making adjustments accordingly.
Bruce himself uses BLUNT English that works when doubt exists, e.g., he'll
write, "please don't bid unless you're satisfied with our uncertainty about
this poster's origins" - and/or - "please don't bid unless you can live with
our condition grade and all defects as described." That's more than fair, amid
a guarantee he offers that few can afford offering without tacking on an
expiration date. And to be fair, I know if I was a dealer, I could never offer
a lifetime guarantee. Retailers frown but all customers applaud. More power
to him and to people like him. -d.
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 06:39:18 +1000
From: shadow....@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [FA] ULTRA Rare English One Sheet - The Third Man (1949)
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Really? Is this about what EMP does when they discover they've made
another mistake with the dating a poster they've sold or is it about
dating a poster being offered for sale?
What does HA do? What if the buyer on EMP has moved? What if the
buyer on eBay is not a collector, they're just a buyer of something
they like and never again hangs round the darkened hallways of movie
poster collector clubs? What if this poster never made the public
forum and therefore the miss-dated posters sold by EMP & HA and
others are never discovered? Does that make those purchases less
fortunate?
It really doesn't matter, the point is, despite your remarks the
seller is a genuine collector who did make every reasonable
attempt to correctly identify the poster and based on that he has
listed the poster on BIDLL here. I
have been keeping him abreast of the some expert thoughts from here
about the poster. However based on all the comments thus far, it
does appear to be an original print that was bound for the overseas
markets; I have also had this comment from a old time, some would
say, expert UK collector (who cannot post to MoPo) but has been
following the conversations and has this to say [some edit].
Helmut had it about
right, but the problem is not all copies were printed at the
same printers, quite often posters were subbed out. So it's
likely the overseas ones were printed at a different depot... I
think Stafford's had 3. and If they were very busy, a complete
other outfit would do the work.
The poster on {BIDLL} is
a first release 1sht for overseas. These were sometimes printed
in the UK, and sometimes abroad. 1shts were used in the UK, but
95% of the time were for the colonies. there was also different
artworks for the same artwork, so you can see sometimes slight
differences. This was due to the unions to keep British artists
working. They even copied US artwork for use in the UK. it gets
a bit complicated, but this is why there is sometimes slight
differences.
David
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2015 09:49:24 -0700
From: jpotok...@ca.rr.com
Subject: Re: [FA] ULTRA Rare English One Sheet - The Third Man (1949)
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
The other idea, too, is this.
What if this poster is sold as a first release and is later found to be a later
RR? This seller is asking for a good amount of coinage for it, as a BIN. Would
this seller refund the winning bidder or buyer, if it was worth much less than
he sold it for, because it was found (some time down the road) to be a later
RR?
EMP would offer that option, by contacting the new owner and offering his/her
$$ back; ebay has buyer protection, where a buyer/winning bidder could get a
full refund if an item isn't as described.
At the end of the day, it's more about protecting both seller and buyer,
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.
