So when there has been this kind of listing error, and something has
sold because it was said to be an original release and later turns
out to be a RR, has HA never done anything/reached out to winning
bidders who were misinformed? (More so on "big ticket" items,
especially, but also important when anything is not what it was
presented to be).
On Jun 24, 2015, at 11:33 AM, Philipp K wrote:
David....I was the person winning the Third Man from Heritage in
November 2004...my good the times does go fast....I paid the price
thinking that I get a low price based on the "original" Third Man
poster David was winning a year earlier....Nobody told me that
Davids copy was a re-release poster....certainly a bad day with
Heritage....really bad considering everything...I would have never
bid so high knowing that the poster is a re-release poster....I
believe that David and myself are on the same boat....we both love
the film but got really mis-informed of the poster....this was a
domino effect....really bad...bad bad....Philipp
-----Original Message-----
From: David Kusumoto <davidmkusum...@hotmail.com>
To: MoPo-L <MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU>
Sent: Mon, Jun 22, 2015 4:07 pm
Subject: [MOPO] My history of bad luck chasing an original "Third
Man (1949)."
* 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,
------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the MoPo-L list, click the following link:
https://listserv.american.edu/scripts/wa-american.exe?SUBED1=MoPo-
L&A=1
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.
