Re: [MOPO] My history of bad luck chasing an original "Third Man (1949)."

[Philipp Kainbacher]

Yes Jeff from today's conversation. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 24, 2015, at 9:56 PM, Jeff Potokar  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  
>>> 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=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

Re: [MOPO] My history of bad luck chasing an original "Third Man (1949)."

[Jeff Potokar]

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  
 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=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?s

Re: [MOPO] My history of bad luck chasing an original "Third Man (1949)."

[Richard Halegua Comic Art]

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 
<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=808&lotNo=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.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 rep

Re: [MOPO] My history of bad luck chasing an original "Third Man (1949)."

[Philipp Kainbacher]

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  
> 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=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 co

Re: [MOPO] My history of bad luck chasing an original "Third Man (1949)."

[Jeff Potokar]

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 
To: MoPo-L 
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  
dis

Re: [MOPO] My history of bad luck chasing an original "Third Man (1949)."

[Philipp K]

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 
To: MoPo-L 
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 fo

Re: [MOPO] My history of bad luck chasing an original "Third Man (1949)."

[Philipp K]

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 
To: MoPo-L 
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

Re: [MOPO] My history of bad luck chasing an original "Third Man (1949)."

[Jeff Potokar]

A Great write up, David... as always.

Kudos!

Jeff




On Jun 22, 2015, at 4:07 PM, David Kusumoto 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=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