Re: [MOPO] Everett personal Movie Poster sale Part 1
Hi Morrie et al, After reviewing the pdf file for the auction with all of the RARE paper in this event (and several more in the future!!!) ... all I can say ... Hot Smacky Damn ad On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:47 PM, Morris Everett Jr. morriseveret...@gmail.com wrote: Online profilesinhistory.com 1400 lot auction. Reserves are often less than half the value. Something for every collector. June 29 and 30th starting at 10:00 AM in Calabasas California.There will be deals. Mail, fax, and phone bidders save 8%. -- To unsubscribe from the MoPo-L list, click the following link: https://listserv.american.edu/scripts/wa-american.exe?SUBED1=MoPo-LA=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.
[MOPO] FA: Heritage has African Queen, Tarzan and the Huntress, 12 Angry Men, WWI Propaganda, King Kong, and Much, Much More!
[http://dyn1.heritagestatic.com/lf?set=path%5bcovers/recurring/subtypeid-11/type-i/3.jpg%5d,sizedata%5b200x280%5dcall=url%5bfile:cover.chain%5d] This week Heritage features a GREAT selection of 484 VINTAGE lots of RARE MOVIE POSTERS, LOBBY CARDS, PHOTOS, and related Memorabilia ending this Sunday, June 28th, with a LIVE AUCTION beginning at 6PM CT! www.ha.com/161526http://www.ha.com/161526 We are always seeking quality consignments of vintage movie posters and advertising ephemera as well as vintage travel, advertising and propaganda posters. Contact us to learn how we can help you. https://movieposters.ha.com/c/acquisitions.zx or tel:1-800-872-6467 X 1367. Here are just a few of the lots available for bidding this week!! The African Queen (United Artists, 1952). Lobby Card Set (11 X 14). http://movieposters.ha.com/itm/adventure/the-african-queen-united-artists-1952-title-lobby-card-andamp-lobby-card-11-x-14-adventure-total-2-items-/a/161526-54016.s http://movieposters.ha.com/itm/adventure/the-african-queen-united-artists-1952-lobby-cards-2-11-x-14-adventure-total-2-items-/a/161526-54015.s http://movieposters.ha.com/itm/adventure/the-african-queen-united-artists-1952-lobby-cards-2-11-x-14-adventure-total-2-items-/a/161526-54014.s http://movieposters.ha.com/itm/adventure/the-african-queen-united-artists-1952-lobby-cards-2-11-x-14-adventure-total-2-items-/a/161526-54017.s [http://dyn3.heritagestatic.com/lf?set=path%5b1/2/8/6/1/12861071%5d,sizedata%5b450x2000%5dcall=url%5bfile:product.chain%5d] [http://dyn1.heritagestatic.com/lf?set=path%5b1/2/8/6/1/12861069%5d,sizedata%5b450x2000%5dcall=url%5bfile:product.chain%5d] [http://dyn3.heritagestatic.com/lf?set=path%5b1/2/8/6/1/12861068%5d,sizedata%5b450x2000%5dcall=url%5bfile:product.chain%5d] [http://dyn2.heritagestatic.com/lf?set=path%5b1/2/8/6/1/12861070%5d,sizedata%5b450x2000%5dcall=url%5bfile:product.chain%5d] Tarzan and the Huntress (RKO, 1948). Italian 2 - Foglio (39 X 55). http://movieposters.ha.com/itm/adventure/tarzan-and-the-huntress-rko-1948-italian-2-foglio-39-x-55-adventure/a/161526-54429.s [http://dyn1.heritagestatic.com/lf?set=path%5b1/0/6/2/6/10626672%5d,sizedata%5b450x2000%5dcall=url%5bfile:product.chain%5d] 12 Angry Men (United Artists, 1957). One Sheet (27 X 41). http://movieposters.ha.com/itm/drama/12-angry-men-united-artists-1957-one-sheet-27-x-41-drama/a/161526-54002.s [http://dyn3.heritagestatic.com/lf?set=path%5b1/2/8/4/9/12849056%5d,sizedata%5b450x2000%5dcall=url%5bfile:product.chain%5d] World War I Propaganda Poster (U.S. Government Printing Office, 1918). Victory Liberty Loans Poster (20 X 30) For Home and Country. http://movieposters.ha.com/itm/war/world-war-i-propaganda-poster-us-government-printing-office-1918-victory-liberty-loans-poster-20-x-30-for-home-an/a/161526-54481.s [http://dyn3.heritagestatic.com/lf?set=path%5b1/2/8/5/6/12856492%5d,sizedata%5b450x2000%5dcall=url%5bfile:product.chain%5d] King Kong (RKO, R-1960s). Poster (18.5 X 24.5). http://movieposters.ha.com/itm/horror/king-kong-rko-r-1960s-poster-185-x-245-horror/a/161526-54280.s [http://dyn3.heritagestatic.com/lf?set=path%5b1/2/8/5/7/12857034%5d,sizedata%5b450x2000%5dcall=url%5bfile:product.chain%5d] Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (Columbia, 1964). Half Sheet (22 X 28). http://movieposters.ha.com/itm/comedy/dr-strangelove-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-the-bomb-columbia-1964-half-sheet-22-x-28-comedy/a/161526-54141.s [http://dyn2.heritagestatic.com/lf?set=path%5b1/2/8/5/6/12856431%5d,sizedata%5b450x2000%5dcall=url%5bfile:product.chain%5d] American Graffiti (Universal, 1973). One Sheet (27 X 41). http://movieposters.ha.com/itm/comedy/american-graffiti-universal-1973-one-sheet-27-x-41-comedy/a/161526-54025.s [http://dyn1.heritagestatic.com/lf?set=path%5b1/2/8/5/1/12851518%5d,sizedata%5b450x2000%5dcall=url%5bfile:product.chain%5d] The Empire Strikes Back (20th Century Fox, 1980). International One Sheet (27 X 41) Style A. http://movieposters.ha.com/itm/science-fiction/the-empire-strikes-back-20th-century-fox-1980-international-one-sheet-27-x-41-style-a-science-fiction/a/161526-54149.s [http://dyn3.heritagestatic.com/lf?set=path%5b1/2/8/4/9/12849557%5d,sizedata%5b450x2000%5dcall=url%5bfile:product.chain%5d] Marnie (Universal, 1964). Lobby Cards (7) (11 X 14). http://movieposters.ha.com/itm/hitchcock/marnie-universal-1964-lobby-cards-7-11-x-14-hitchcock-total-7-items-/a/161526-54321.s [http://dyn2.heritagestatic.com/lf?set=path%5b1/2/3/5/7/12357949%5d,sizedata%5b450x2000%5dcall=url%5bfile:product.chain%5d] Rebel without a Cause (Warner Brothers, 1964). Spanish One Sheet (27.25 X 39.25). http://movieposters.ha.com/itm/drama/rebel-without-a-cause-warner-brothers-1964-spanish-one-sheet-2725-x-3925-drama/a/161526-54382.s [http://dyn1.heritagestatic.com/lf?set=path%5b1/2/8/5/1/12851347%5d,sizedata%5b450x2000%5dcall=url%5bfile:product.chain%5d] Jungle Man-Eaters (Columbia, 1954). One Sheet (27 X 41).
Re: [MOPO] My history of bad luck chasing an original Third Man (1949).
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. On Jun 24, 2015, at 8:41 PM, Philipp Kainbacher wrote: 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 On Jun 22, 2015, at 4:07 PM, David Kusumoto davidmkusum...@hotmail.com wrote: * 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=808lotNo=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:
Re: [MOPO] My history of bad luck chasing an original Third Man (1949).
Yes Jeff from today's conversation. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 24, 2015, at 9:56 PM, Jeff Potokar jpotok...@ca.rr.com wrote: 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. On Jun 24, 2015, at 8:41 PM, Philipp Kainbacher wrote: 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 On Jun 22, 2015, at 4:07 PM, David Kusumoto davidmkusum...@hotmail.com wrote: * 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=808lotNo=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
Re: [MOPO] My history of bad luck chasing an original Third Man (1949).
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 On Jun 22, 2015, at 4:07 PM, David Kusumoto davidmkusum...@hotmail.com wrote: * 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=808lotNo=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=633lotNo=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
Re: [MOPO] My history of bad luck chasing an original Third Man (1949).
outstanding service! At 08:41 PM 6/24/2015, Philipp Kainbacher wrote: 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 On Jun 22, 2015, at 4:07 PM, David Kusumoto mailto:davidmkusum...@hotmail.comdavidmkusum...@hotmail.com wrote: * 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=808lotNo=1119http://comics.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=808lotNo=1119 Image 1 of 5 (Heritage, November 2003, $1725): http://imageshack.us/a/img69/2497/s3mu.jpg * 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.shttp://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): http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img538/7156/1PIk60.jpg * 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
[MOPO] FA/FS: Some Great Items ENDING TONIGHT!!
From: toddfeier...@msn.com To: mopo-l@listserv.american.edu Subject: FA/FS: Some Great Items ENDING TONIGHT TOMORROW EVENING!! Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 19:10:48 -0400 Hello MoPo, I currently have 148 items on ebay with some ENDING TONIGHT including: THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK 1980 * STAR WARS * ADVANCE ONE SHEET * C10 MINT UNUSED!ALIEN 1979 * RIDLEY SCOTT * SCI-FI HORROR * 27 x 41 ONE SHEET * C10 MINT UNUSED!SCARFACE 1983 * AL PACINO * MICHELLE PFEIFFER * ONE SHEET * C10 MINT UNUSED!!THE BREAKFAST CLUB 1984 * MOLLY RINGWALD * RARE ADVANCE SUBWAY POSTER * C10 MINTCONAN THE BARBARIAN 1982 * ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER * SANDAHL BERGMAN * ONE SHEET!!CEILING ZERO 1936 * JAMES CAGNEY * PAT O'BRIEN * HOWARD HAWKS * 14 x 36 INSERT!!RETURN OF THE JEDI 1983 * GEORGE LUCAS * STYLE-B ONE SHEET * C10 MINT UNUSED!!THE DARK CRYSTAL 1982 * JIM HANSEN * FRANK OZ * ONE SHEET * NEAR MINT UNUSED!! If you have a minute, please feel free to check them all out at the following link: http://www.ebay.com/sch/toddfeiertag/m.html?_ipg=200_sop=10_rdc=1 If the above link doesn't work, you can search by my Ebay User id: toddfeiertag **Many of the MINT UNUSED posters I obtained personally almost 40 years ago when I had a good connection with National Screen Service. You would be hard pressed to find these same titles that are now almost 40 years old in this MINT UNUSED condition anywhere else and if you do, they probably came from me and will be a lot more expensive!! Here's a small sampling of some of the items listed. HALLOWEEN ll 1981 * JAMIE LEE CURTIS * DONALD PLEASENCE * HORROR 1 SHEET * MINT!MONTY PYTHON'S THE MEANING OF LIFE 1983 * JOHN CLEESE * 27 x 41 ONE SHEET * MINTRETURN OF THE JEDI 1983 * GEORGE LUCAS * STYLE-B ONE SHEET * C10 MINT UNUSED!!THE WRONG MAN 1956 * ALFRED HITCHCOCK * EXTREMELY RARE HALF SHEET * MINT!!RINGS ON HER FINGERS 1942 * HENRY FONDA * GENE TIERNEY * STONE LITHO THREE SHEETCHAMPAGNE SAFARI 1954 * RITA HAYWORTH * PRINCE ALY KHAN * TITLE CARD * RARE!!!2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY 1968 * STANLEY KUBRICK * COMPLETE LOBBY CARD SET * RARE!!MOONRAKER 1979 * JAMES BOND 007 * 27 x 41 REVIEW ONE SHEET * C10 MINT UNUSED!!GAME OF DEATH 1978 * BRUCE LEE * KUNG FU * 27 x 41 ONE SHEET * C10 MINT UNUSED!!GOLDFINGER 1964 * JAMES BOND 007 * SEAN CONNERY * RARE MINT PRESSBOOK * L@@K!!THE ENFORCER 1977 * CLINT EASTWOOD * DIRTY HARRY * ONE SHEET * C10 MINT UNUSED!WESTERN GOLD R-1940'S * SMITH BALLEW * 27x41 B-WESTERN MORGAN LITHO * NEAR MINT! Plus Lots More!! Again, please feel free to check them ALL out! Thanks. Todd Feiertag 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.
Re: [MOPO] My history of bad luck chasing an original Third Man (1949).
DavidI was the person winning the Third Man from Heritage in November 2004...my good the times does go fastI paid the price thinking that I get a low price based on the original Third Man poster David was winning a year earlierNobody told me that Davids copy was a re-release postercertainly a bad day with Heritagereally bad considering everything...I would have never bid so high knowing that the poster is a re-release posterI believe that David and myself are on the same boatwe both love the film but got really mis-informed of the posterthis was a domino effectreally bad...bad badPhilipp -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=808lotNo=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
Re: [MOPO] My history of bad luck chasing an original Third Man (1949).
by the way I was one highest bidder below of the Third Man original release poster from Heritage in 2006 -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=808lotNo=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
Re: [MOPO] [FA] ULTRA Rare English One Sheet - The Third Man (1949)
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 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.
Re: [MOPO] My history of bad luck chasing an original Third Man (1949).
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: DavidI was the person winning the Third Man from Heritage in November 2004...my good the times does go fastI paid the price thinking that I get a low price based on the original Third Man poster David was winning a year earlierNobody told me that Davids copy was a re-release postercertainly a bad day with Heritagereally bad considering everything...I would have never bid so high knowing that the poster is a re-release posterI believe that David and myself are on the same boatwe both love the film but got really mis-informed of the posterthis was a domino effectreally bad...bad badPhilipp -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=808lotNo=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
