You're completely discounting Greg Edwards' input based on perceived logic and patterns of behaviour?
I think you'd need to explain why the number is right for first release (even if counter to reason) when it should from your standpoint be a post 55 code. Sent from my iPhone > On 25 Jun 2015, at 18:34, Jeff Potokar <jpotok...@ca.rr.com> wrote: > > Well said, David K. > > As was noted prior, also,.. the missing London Films logo in the lower right > corner, is also a potential real indicator/"flag" that the bidll copy is a > later RR. > > There would be no reason to remove the logo of the production company that > produced/made the film, and replace it with a distributor's name. > > This, tho, has been seen on many a RR poster, COO notwithstanding. (Realart's > later distribution of many of Universal's horror titles being but one example > of this). > > > > > >> On Jun 24, 2015, at 11:13 PM, David Kusumoto wrote: >> >> I just read the string of posts since I posted mine two days ago. Thanks >> for the public comments from Jeff Potokar and Phillipp Kainbacher - (and >> from Bruce H. via Jeff) - and from others who privately wrote me about this. >> >> And Phillipp, congratulations for getting a happy resolution from Grey. >> He's a good man. -d. >> >> P.S. - As for the rolled Third Man poster being offered at Bidll - what >> stands out in Bruce H.'s comments - is his opinion that a rolled (vs. >> folded) 1949 international one-sheet - seems unusual. I will say the colors >> and detail in the Bidll poster are more vivid than the re-issue 1950s poster >> I bought in 2003 that was mistakenly represented as original. I think if a >> buyer likes the image and can live with everything else about it, it's still >> a fine poster from a great movie. (See web-hosted images again below to >> compare.) >> >> The Third Man 1950s international re-issue one-sheet, Heritage, November >> 2003: >> >> >> >> The Third Man (?) international one-sheet, Bidll, June 2015: >> >> >> Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 10:39:11 PST >> From: 00000015e579331a-dmarc-requ...@listserv.american.edu >> Subject: Re: My history of bad luck chasing an original "Third Man (1949)." >> To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU >> >> Yes Jeff from today's conversation. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 21:56:35 -0700 >> From: jpotok...@ca.rr.com >> Subject: Re: My history of bad luck chasing an original "Third Man (1949)." >> To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU >> >> Was that offered refund a result of this 2015 conversation, Phillipp? >> >> Good for you, if so. That's what discussion and collecting is all about. >> >> Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 20:41:38 -0700 >> From: 00000015e579331a-dmarc-requ...@listserv.american.edu >> Subject: Re: My history of bad luck chasing an original "Third Man (1949)." >> To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU >> >> I would like to inform that Grey has immediately offered to refund the money >> for the Third Man poster. I have been dealing with Grey since day one of his >> auctions buying and selling posters. >> Philipp >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 12:45:54 -0700 >> From: jpotok...@ca.rr.com >> Subject: Re: [FA] ULTRA Rare English One Sheet - The Third Man (1949) >> To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU >> >> I wrote to Bruce to ask his thoughts on this poster and discussion. He wrote >> me back and also said I could post his reply to MOPO: >> >> Jeff >> >> >> "I personally think it is very likely that it is from 1955 or so. >> >> Here is why: >> >> IMDb only lists a handful of films from Lion International. But because we >> have auctioned a zillion English one-sheets, WE know that there are at least >> 92 from 1955 on. There is not ONE that is from before 1955 other than the >> disputed Third Man poster. 36 of the 92 are from exactly 1955 to 1959. When >> you combine this with the stuff MoPo members found online, I think that is >> pretty definitive. >> >> In addition, there is the issue of the poster being unfolded. Again, I have >> sold a zillion English one-sheets, and the ONLY other one that was unfolded >> was the African Queen re-release, which is surprisingly similar to the Third >> Man re-release, because it has a very similar image to the English original, >> except it is not as finely detailed, and it has been found unfolded, but it >> has no printer information on it (unlike the Third Man poster in question). >> >> I think I would have an even more definite opinion if I saw this poster in >> person. I know that studios used the same type paper for a number of years, >> and when they changed, they changed for all their printing. That is how you >> can pinpoint a poster to a specific handful of years, or a decade. The >> English one-sheets I have handled have remarkably similar paper. If this >> poster had paper that was at all different, that would be even more reason >> to be sure it was not from the same year. >> >> Put it all together, and I think you certainly have far more than a >> reasonable doubt, and I would certainly auction this poster as "undated, >> likely a mid-1950s re-release, likely for the international distribution". >> There is also re-release one-sheet which is very similar to the African >> Queen one (no printing on the bottom), and I would think both that and the >> African Queen are from the late 1950s or early 1960s. >> >> The reason the poster was entered incorrectly in our database was that we >> never auctioned it. It is one of the tens of thousands of posters that >> Richard Allen owned and photographed when amassing his archive. When those >> were put online, some mistakes crept in, and this is one of them. I have >> corrected it to match what I wrote above. >> >> Finally, as David Kusumoto noted, we DID incorrectly auction a late 1950s >> re-release as original in one of our Christie's auctions. It does NOT appear >> in our database at all. WHY? Because the buyer contacted us ten years later >> and complained that we made a mistake, and we fully refunded him, so it >> can't be in our database, because it was not original, and we do not want to >> mislead people into thinking a reissue sold for that price. We took a huge >> loss on that, but that is just part of our "lifetime guarantee". >> >> Feel free to post this on MoPo. >> >> Thanks, >> Bruce" >> >> Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 11:48:53 -0700 >> From: jpotok...@ca.rr.com >> Subject: Re: My history of bad luck chasing an original "Third Man (1949)." >> To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU >> >> 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). >> >> Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 11:37:59 AM PST >> From: 00000015e579331a-dmarc-requ...@listserv.american.edu >> Subject: Re: My history of bad luck chasing an original "Third Man (1949)." >> To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU >> >> by the way I was one highest bidder below of the Third Man original release >> poster from Heritage in 2006.... >> >> Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 11:33:44 AM PST >> From: 00000015e579331a-dmarc-requ...@listserv.american.edu >> Subject: Re: My history of bad luck chasing an original "Third Man (1949)." >> To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU >> >> 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 >> >> Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 09:49:49 -0700 >> From: jpotok...@ca.rr.com >> Subject: Re: My history of bad luck chasing an original "Third Man (1949)." >> To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU >> >> A Great write up, David... as always. >> >> Kudos! >> >> Jeff >> >> Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 16:07:13 -0700 >> From: davidmkusum...@hotmail.com >> Subject: My history of bad luck chasing an original "Third Man (1949)." >> To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU >> >> * 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 paper 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 them. 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 - November 2004 - 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. >> >> * So in November 2004 - when Heritage sold ANOTHER 1950s re-issue - but this >> time, correctly identified it as a re-issue, it fetched $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 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 issue 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 the re-issue poster I bought 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 my net take after I sold it with proper identifiers via eMoviePoster for >> $362 in December 2007 - or even had I chosen Heritage to sell it for $478 >> three months later in March 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 a 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 lose confidence in >> eMoviePoster as a future buyer basing 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 >> > > > 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.
