All Poster Forum
Common Poster Subjects => Auction House, Dealer & Other Seller Experiences => Topic started by: ATLfun on November 15, 2013, 12:27:02 PM
-
I received an email from emovieposter today. I thought I would take a moment to share part of the email from Bruce about a poster that I bought two years ago. Now, everybody claims to stand behind their product, but this is crazy. Since I am currently out of the loop, I would have never known about this except for Bruce's email.
It amazes me that emovie spends the manpower to track down customers who would have never known about an unintentional error in the description of a movie poster. Here is a part of the email that I received:
"This is Bruce. I'm e-mailing you regarding your purchase of a BUTTERFIELD 8 Aust daybill on 8/11/2011 for $40.00.
At the time we auctioned this poster (a little over two years ago), we believed it was the first release poster. But we recently discovered that the poster is actually from the 1966 re-release.
Know that if you still own the poster, then you are welcome to return it to us for a full refund (and we will even pay the return shipping, as long as you send it by an inexpensive method), because we guarantee everything we sell, no matter how long it is after the sales date! Of course, you may have sold the poster, or you may prefer to keep it even with knowing the new information (assuming you did not know it at the time you purchased it). Either way, please let us know right away whether you want to keep it or return it (and if you want to return it, we will send you easy-to-follow instructions)."
Job well done.
Brian
PS. I will be keeping it. wynk
-
I got one of those messages too regarding a French A1 for Butch Cassidy. I kept mine as well. :)
thumbup
-
Those damn daybills can be tricky bastids
-
Those damn daybills can be tricky bastids
That's one way to describe them. ;)
-
We send a lot of those, because we are constantly learning more difficult to find information about old movie paper!
Here's what happens when someone (an expert) lets us know about a mistake in our current auctions:
1) We add to (or correct) that auction, and then email the info to everyone who bid on it (or who even clicked on it) to make sure they know about it
2) We check EVERY past example of that poster to discover if we made that mistake in the past, and if so, how many times.
3) We take the ones where we made the same mistake and compile the info on those (who bought it, what they paid, etc)
4) We email each person with the correct information, and make the exact same offer Brian received above
5) If anyone wants to, they return the poster and we refund the amount they paid, INCLUDING the cost of original shipping (if it was bought by itself) PLUS the cost of return shipping, so they lose nothing because of our mistake
6) We re-list the item, properly identified, as our own consignment, and we take the loss if it sells for less.
Is this expensive, and does it take a great deal of work by several employees? Yes! But I feel it is time and money far better spent than if I instead took out giant full-color ads all over the place, or bought Google adwords to constantly find new customers. PLUS, I get to sleep well at night, and you can't put a price on that!
-
clap clap clap clap
-
I have sold this poster several times and of course, wanting to be sure of release year, I would always use a "supposedly" correct database because I am no Daybill expert.
seeing as I would also have to also send emails to the buyers of this poster, I first emailed someone in Australia who is a well known expert of several decades and who should know very well.
Here was his response:
I only know this as the original first release. The "simplified" version being the re-release.
I wonder who told him that this was a RR.
so now we have completely conflicting information that may actually be worse than the originally conflicting or incorrect information on someone's website
-
a little remembrance from NSF, posted by Filip in relation to another poster that had been sold as original when it was an obvious re-issue
for me the question is not about are all going to refund years back etc but how comes that a sought after poster that has sold a lot of times since the last 30 years can be so often sold as original whilst re-release by some of the biggest movie posters sellers in the world though it is easy to recognize what is the original and the re-release ?? it has always been known for this poster that it had re-releases so doesn't anyone give a f*** amongst those billion dollar a year sellers when they put posters up for auction ? go sell stamps .
Filip was really rolling in that thread
as for the blabla regarding heritage auctions (let's face it , the only reason you post this topic is to show you refund years and years back , which means actually years and years of having been totally incompetent) and to spread doubts as for heritage being as white a knight as you are
as for : This is the R69 that they sold as 1966:
http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=693&lotNo=65245
they did mistakenly sell an original as re-release which is interesting for the buyer but
what's Re-release about this ?? it has the year and the cannes palm and the small sonis logo , where do you see just from the picture that this is not the 1966 release ?
the thread I'm referring to
http://stylec.yuku.com/topic/9410
(http://www.comic-art.com/apf/mpb_stamp.jpg) (http://www.comic-art.com/apf/mpb_stamp.jpg) (http://www.comic-art.com/apf/mpb_stamp.jpg) (http://www.comic-art.com/apf/mpb_stamp.jpg) (http://www.comic-art.com/apf/mpb_stamp.jpg)
(http://www.comic-art.com/apf/mpb_stamp.jpg) (http://www.comic-art.com/apf/mpb_stamp.jpg) (http://www.comic-art.com/apf/mpb_stamp.jpg) (http://www.comic-art.com/apf/mpb_stamp.jpg) (http://www.comic-art.com/apf/mpb_stamp.jpg)
(http://www.comic-art.com/apf/mpb_stamp.jpg) (http://www.comic-art.com/apf/mpb_stamp.jpg) (http://www.comic-art.com/apf/mpb_stamp.jpg) (http://www.comic-art.com/apf/mpb_stamp.jpg) (http://www.comic-art.com/apf/mpb_stamp.jpg)
(http://www.comic-art.com/apf/mpb_stamp.jpg) (http://www.comic-art.com/apf/mpb_stamp.jpg) (http://www.comic-art.com/apf/mpb_stamp.jpg) (http://www.comic-art.com/apf/mpb_stamp.jpg) (http://www.comic-art.com/apf/mpb_stamp.jpg)
-
We send a lot of those, because we are constantly learning more difficult to find information about old movie paper!
Here's what happens when someone (an expert) lets us know about a mistake in our current auctions:
1) We add to (or correct) that auction, and then email the info to everyone who bid on it (or who even clicked on it) to make sure they know about it
2) We check EVERY past example of that poster to discover if we made that mistake in the past, and if so, how many times.
3) We take the ones where we made the same mistake and compile the info on those (who bought it, what they paid, etc)
4) We email each person with the correct information, and make the exact same offer Brian received above
5) If anyone wants to, they return the poster and we refund the amount they paid, INCLUDING the cost of original shipping (if it was bought by itself) PLUS the cost of return shipping, so they lose nothing because of our mistake
6) We re-list the item, properly identified, as our own consignment, and we take the loss if it sells for less.
Is this expensive, and does it take a great deal of work by several employees? Yes! But I feel it is time and money far better spent than if I instead took out giant full-color ads all over the place, or bought Google adwords to constantly find new customers. PLUS, I get to sleep well at night, and you can't put a price on that!
And having the most accurate info, even if learned years later, is what it's all about.
And the fact that your team does that, Bruce, at least gives bidders and buyer the peace of mind, should they opt to return something back to you.. even if it is years after the fact. thumbup
-
according to one of the leading experts on Australian posters, the data that began this thread is 100% incorrect
(http://www.comic-art.com/apf/mpb_stamp.jpg)(http://www.comic-art.com/apf/mpb_stamp.jpg)(http://www.comic-art.com/apf/mpb_stamp.jpg)(http://www.comic-art.com/apf/mpb_stamp.jpg)(http://www.comic-art.com/apf/mpb_stamp.jpg)
-
So the assertion is that this one is the original:
(http://emovieposter.com//images/moviestars/AA120403/550/australian_db_butterfield_8_R60s_NZ04902_L.jpg)
and this the re-release?
(http://emovieposter.com//images/moviestars/AA130822/550/australian_db_butterfield_8_HP05537_L.jpg)
I'd bet that one might be Oz release and the other with no rating (or stamped rating) is NZ
-
I'd bet that one might be Oz release and the other with no rating (or stamped rating) is NZ
I would bet that Chris is the correct one in the group, especially because both exhibit a "Suitable Only For Adults" tag (what Chris proposes is NZ does have the line on others shown at that website)
-
Read here: http://www.ozefilm.com/butterfield-8-daybill/
As our Prime Minister would say "...a suppository of wisdom"
In recent times there has been a number of titles I've done a crap load (pardon the pun) of research regarding the Daybill release dates for a number of titles, and there has been a shared discussion amongst a few of us collectors/dealers (John included) it's fair to say there are mistakes abound with some dating. One thing is that re-release dates down-under did not always follow USA releases dates and sometimes the distributor would follow their own set of rules...I have found as many 2 or 3 local re-releases before the official USA one yet the daybill date would be dated as per the USA re-release date.
Of course in some cases these dates are purely subjective as no real distributor records have come to light, but sometimes logic and alcohol is all we have as a reliable source of discovery (not always in that order)
-
Read here: http://www.ozefilm.com/butterfield-8-daybill/
As our Prime Minister would say "...a suppository of wisdom"
In recent times there has been a number of titles I've done a crap load (pardon the pun) of research regarding the Daybill release dates for a number of titles, and there has been a shared discussion amongst a few of us collectors/dealers (John included) it's fair to say there are mistakes abound with some dating. One thing is that re-release dates down-under did not always follow USA releases dates and sometimes the distributor would follow their own set of rules...I have found as many 2 or 3 local re-releases before the official USA one yet the daybill date would be dated as per the USA re-release date.
Of course in some cases these dates are purely subjective as no real distributor records have come to light, but sometimes logic and alcohol is all we have as a reliable source of discovery (not always in that order)
David, the author (John Reid) clearly states he can't be sure of his data concerning the full color poster and as I said, a noted Australian poster expert said to me he believes the full color poster is original release. I find it entirely possible that both are original release posters printed for different reasons or different regions. As john notes the final arbiter might be a pressbook, but he hasn't seen one
when was Suitable Only For Adults retired?
-
http://www.youtube.com/v/rUp3vhMSfZE
-
another mature response.
facts are, that if you can't debate the issue you really can't claim any high ground
i think it's time to give people a story of what happened at Movie Poster Talk that lead to it's closing down and the creation of NSF. I gots a feelin though that story may have to post in Let It All Out
Randall Peterson.. if you read over here, I was incorrect arguing with you about that issue and the material that followed. Clearly you were right and I was on the wrong side defending the wrong person
-
Rich
You have endlessly attacked me on all forums. Now you make open threats. Your actions seem massively disproportionate to whatever it is you think I have done to you.
I plead with you to take a few minutes and think about what you are doing and why, and what you are hoping to gain.
I don't know what is going on in your life, but clearly it seems to be more than what you have revealed here, and it seems you would greatly benefit from just stepping away from this situation, at least for a little while.
We were once friends, and as a former friend I urge you to talk to your current friends and ask for their opinion of what you should be doing next.
I truly wish you the best of luck in the future, and hope you can achieve whatever it is you are looking for, but I can't see how carrying on this obsession with me will get that for you.
Bruce
-
Bruce, what has been going on has been 100% mutual. I think you need to step back and look at things objectively.
We were once friends, and I still count you as a friend, but realistically, you need to stop running down your competitors (including me) to promote yourself.
I have never understood that philosophy. You can promote yourself just fine on your reputation without trying to belittle other dealers and making false accusations.
Using video to say I'm crazy is not exactly a mature way to debate an issue. It is also clear that you make comments meant to inflame, like for instance your dig at "experts" about art in posters when clearly you are talking about me or taking Grey Smith's compliment to me and repeating it verbatim several times to other people including Grey (okay, that was just silly and not a dig). A lot of this is just silliness, but is stuff that needs response.
stop
just stop
and to be sure, I don't know why you see a threat in my comment. There is no threat. It would just be a history lesson.
but look.. just stop.
stop digging at me, stop digging at others, stop saying things to make yourself look better at the expense of others and you will see critique end pretty quick.
back top this subject on this Daybill.
My source says you are incorrect. I'll be happy to debate the issue with you in an honest, fair and gentlemanly maner.
That doesn't mean the other focus of the thread - that you offer great customer service and would actually go back and contact these buyers isn't a laudable action - it is, but if it is correct then I have to also contact several buyers. If it's just supposition, I don't know why you would trust one expert over another expert in another area.
-
Well without any doubt Chris example number one is a New Zealand used poster.
Aussie rating removed, NZ Rating stamped.
-
Well without any doubt Chris example number one is a New Zealand used poster.
Aussie rating removed, NZ Rating stamped.
Ari, so does that mean it is actually a revamped (yet original) Aussie daybill? Not unique for NZ, i mean.
Just "updated" with the Aussie rating obliterated and stamped randomly like that for the NZ market?
-
Well without any doubt Chris example number one is a New Zealand used poster.
Aussie rating removed, NZ Rating stamped.
so what do you think the full color one is Ari
-
Ari, so does that mean it is actually a revamped (yet original) Aussie daybill? Not unique for NZ, i mean.
Just "updated" with the Aussie rating obliterated and stamped randomly like that for the NZ market?
so what do you think the full color one is Ari
Well for me it's all guess work, it's not a title or genre I've ever had an interest in to find out, but it's not uncommon for a second, third or just alternative run of daybills, still first release, with variations.
Possibly the NZ one was also used in Australia,
There are daybills printed in Australia ONLY for use in New Zealand though.
Like the curse of Frankenstein, which was banned here, until the seventies but NZ got an earlier release. Which was printed in Australia with a NZ rating printed. Rather than added later. There's others, but I like this one.
As to variations, I have three different vampire lovers daybills, and have seen a fourth, one more colourful than the others (I'm still reluctant to say full colour). I don't believe any are rereleases.
-
Posters with a New Zealand ratings stamp WERE used there, but it makes no sense that they were printed there, for they would have printed the ratings on them. I have had lots of New Zealand posters with printed ratings, and lots of Australian posters with New Zealand ratings stamps.
I am in contact with Phil, John, and several other longtime daybill collectors (the others do not post on forums) and I feel I have received enough evidence to say that the one is original and the other is from a 1966 re-release.
Others are free to keep claiming both are original. It is like the Invaders From Mars one-sheet with 1955 printed on it. One person now claims it is a 1953 "second printing" with a typo. I don't believe that is correct, but each person can do as they choose, and believe what they choose to believe.
-
Posters with a New Zealand ratings stamp WERE used there, but it makes no sense that they were printed there,
Agree
-
Also agree. And add again, there are Aussie printed daybills with NZ ratings printed at the time, in Australia and never used in Australia.
-
Step 1: Go to Wikipedia and get a list of all MGM films from 1960.
Step 2: See who printed all those daybills.
Step 3: Go to Wikipedia and get a list of all MGM films from 1966.
Step 4: See who printed all those daybills.
eyeroll
-
Step 1: Go to Wikipedia and get a list of all MGM films from 1960.
Step 2: See who printed all those daybills.
Step 3: Go to Wikipedia and get a list of all MGM films from 1966.
Step 4: See who printed all those daybills.
eyeroll
OK.... I'm on it. ;D
-
Wasn't that hard after all, was it!! ;)
-
apart from a refund, how about $ for pain and suffering, when for years you have been telling all your friends about your great original poster from year X, now you have to sheepishly admit its a darn reissue from year xxy!???
-
apart from a refund, how about $ for pain and suffering, when for years you have been telling all your friends about your great original poster from year X, now you have to sheepishly admit its a darn reissue from year xxy!???
Poster collectors can have friends? When did this happen!?
-
of course I meant those little friends that live inside our heads.
-
of course I meant those little friends that live inside our heads.
Ok...mine is getting a little crowded - are you renting?
-
mines full of squatters, and they never wash.
-
mines full of squatters, and they never wash.
I thought that was the norm... aside from those in Port Douglas or Goolwa. ;D
-
As john notes the final arbiter might be a pressbook, but he hasn't seen one
when was Suitable Only For Adults retired?
In this case a press sheet wouldn't have helped, Rich. The reason being most Aussie sheets are undated (can't recall ever seeing a dated one). You don't know whether you're looking at the original release or RR sheet! Also they are notoriously inaccuarate regarding the art. Sometimes the posters are completely different.
I have a Mad Max press sheet for sale on ebay atm. I know it is original from 1979 because the poster image on the back is pre-release to the movie. I have seen it in a newspaper ad and also in other communications to the media before MM was released. The press sheet from MM RR in 1981 would be different, but few would spot it.
I've also seen other Aussie press sheets for 007 sold as originals that were definitely RR.
It's easy to make mistakes with Aussie posters. It just goes with the territory.
That's my quarterly rant over with!
-
the aussie press sheet for DAWN OF THE DEAD uses the following Art for the film (?)
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/DAWN-OF-THE-DEAD-03-B-MOVIE-REPRODUCTION-ART-PRINT-CANVAS-A4-A3-A2-A1-/290699488861
sorry this is a repro, first one i saw with same art. you get the idea.
PS- I wish it was true, rather than the abomination we got.
-
I am in contact with Phil, John, and several other longtime daybill collectors (the others do not post on forums) and I feel I have received enough evidence to say that the one is original and the other is from a 1966 re-release.
what did Phil tell you Bruce?
it's not like I don't want to know if this poster is original or if it is a re-issue. I see Mark Rich posts later in the thread but I'm reading posts in order (haven't been in the main forum for a day or so) so if he gives other info I'd like to know and I'd like my buyers to know just as you do, but some reasonably definitive evidence is what I need and if the experts don't all say the same thing, it's hard to make a determination based on sketchy data..
ps Bruce: no there is nothing happening in my life that is negatively affecting anything here other than an abundance of work. I'm fine and getting plenty of sleep and definitely eating.. maybe a bit too well lately.. I'm fine and thanks for asking
-
Step 1: Go to Wikipedia and get a list of all MGM films from 1960.
Step 2: See who printed all those daybills.
Step 3: Go to Wikipedia and get a list of all MGM films from 1966.
Step 4: See who printed all those daybills.
eyeroll
where do I find a list of #2 & #4 ??
-
where do I find a list of #2 & #4 ??
On the bottom of each individual daybill!!!
Yes, I did check, and I'm sure others have followed up too.
In 1960 A&C (Advertising & Commercial) were printing the MGM daybills.
In 1966 it was Burton.
Mystery over.
I doubt you will find any daybills after about 1962/3 printed by A&C.
-
we have a winner.
-
On the bottom of each individual daybill!!!
Yes, I did check, and I'm sure others have followed up too.
In 1960 A&C (Advertising & Commercial) were printing the MGM daybills.
In 1966 it was Burton.
Mystery over.
I doubt you will find any daybills after about 1962/3 printed by A&C.
okay so the poster is a re-issue.. okie dokie.. lets contact some buyers
where is a list of what company prints what company's daybills?
-
okay so the poster is a re-issue.. okie dokie.. lets contact some buyers
where is a list of what company prints what company's daybills?
There are no lists. It's a matter of checking against the titles. For a company like MGM it might be 10 - 15 films for that year, so just check what images are up on Bruce's site.
FYI Suitable / Not Suitable was retired 1970ish. You still see it on a few posters like You Only Live Twice R70s & R80s, but it's not common.
Bruce has the Aust 1sht for Butter 8 as 1960. I'm not so sure about that.
-
There are no lists. It's a matter of checking against the titles. For a company like MGM it might be 10 - 15 films for that year, so just check what images are up on Bruce's site.
FYI Suitable / Not Suitable was retired 1970ish. You still see it on a few posters like You Only Live Twice R70s & R80s, but it's not common.
Bruce has the Aust 1sht for Butter 8 as 1960. I'm not so sure about that.
so do you think the other Daybill is original release, or that while it released in NZ, it didn't in Australia in 1960 actually seeing it's first release there in 1966?
-
Getting back to the original topic, eMoviePoster.com's policy (in writing) is that if we EVER sell any item that is not what we represented either in terms of being genuine as opposed to being a repro, or being a reissue as opposed to being a first release, then we will take that item back for a FULL refund, including shipping (both ways, if the item was bought by itself), no matter how many years have passed since the sale date.
There are two exceptions to this. One is on signed items, where we give all buyers 30 days to check the authenticity, and the other is Italian posters where we state that we can't be certain of whether it is first release. Otherwise, this policy applies to EVERY item we sell.
Do ANY other auctioneers or dealers want to state now that they have the same policy (or any variation there of)? If so, please do so, but please realize that you are then binding yourselves in writing to honoring it on every item you sold or auctioned in the past, and every item you will sell or auction in the future.
Bruce
-
Getting back to the original topic, eMoviePoster.com's policy (in writing) is that if we EVER sell any item that is not what we represented either in terms of being genuine as opposed to being a repro, or being a reissue as opposed to being a first release, then we will take that item back for a FULL refund, including shipping (both ways, if the item was bought by itself), no matter how many years have passed since the sale date.
There are two exceptions to this. One is on signed items, where we give all buyers 30 days to check the authenticity, and the other is Italian posters where we state that we can't be certain of whether it is first release. Otherwise, this policy applies to EVERY item we sell.
Do ANY other auctioneers or dealers want to state now that they have the same policy (or any variation there of)? If so, please do so, but please realize that you are then binding yourselves in writing to honoring it on every item you sold or auctioned in the past, and every item you will sell or auction in the future.
Bruce
20 minutes ago I emailed everyone who bought one of these in my auctions that they can get a full refund if they like, although I could have mentioned they don't need to bother sending it back and can keep the poster. I guess I'll do that if any of them emails me back
so yeah, I 100% guarantee what I sell also Bruce and I have for the 45 years plus that I have sold collectibles
-
so do you think the other Daybill is original release, or that while it released in NZ, it didn't in Australia in 1960 actually seeing it's first release there in 1966?
That's a good question but I don't know the answer. It's rare to see any Aust poster without a rating (unless specifically for NZ). There may have been some issue with distribution rights at the time, but that would need further research.
I wouldn't fault anyone for unknowingly mirepresenting Aussie posters. You can often find clues if you dig deep enough. Other times you just have to take your best educated guess.
No wonder terms like pre-war daybill became popular. Much of the history has simply been lost in time ...
-
20 minutes ago I emailed everyone who bought one of these in my auctions that they can get a full refund if they like, although I could have mentioned they don't need to bother sending it back and can keep the poster. I guess I'll do that if any of them emails me back
so yeah, I 100% guarantee what I sell also Bruce and I have for the 45 years plus that I have sold collectibles
That's wonderful! Anyone else?
-
yeah, why not?
-
Whenever I'm unsure I leave the date off. I just sell as original movie poster for Butterfield 8 etc, no year.
I would still refund for any mistakes I've made unwittingly in the past.
One thing to watch for is Aussie horror / sex titles from the 1970s. Some movies like Texas C/saw & I Spit on Your Grave were refused classification and released later. Texas was banned 10 years until Jan 1984 in Australia.
-
I think that you will find I make very few mistakes in identifying anything
I've been involved in this stuff since 1963 when I started collecting comic books & 1966 when I bought my first movie posters and started selling collectibles for bubble gum & comic book money
I'm supposed to know stuff.
But when information is scarce, everyone makes the same mistake. I'm sure that myself, not knowing nearly what I need to with Australian posters - largely because I have never had many of them - I'll check other databases and in this case I definitely did and I was misled.
:P
If that had been updated anytime between when I sold the first copy & then later copies I wouldn't know as I would trust my first listing until I was notified differently
as to returns.. I honestly haven't hardly any of that over the years for any reason at all. Someone wants to return something in a reasonable period of time because he lost interest - fine. damaged in shipping (twice in 35 years. BFD), ya want a refund - no problem. Misrepresented purposely - never happened. Accidental misrepresentation, wanna refund - no problem, that's fine. If I were to count up all the refunds I've had to give people over all those years I don't think it would take all the fingers on one hand
now.. let's end this crap in main forum... this post is completely commercial in content throughout. I don't need to promo my rep here on this issue anymore. isn't dealer praise supposed to be in Dealer Experiences - The Good, Bad and Ugly of the Dealer-Customer Relationship?
http://www.allposterforum.com/index.php/board,40.0.html
-
That's wonderful! Anyone else?
Sure, add me to the list of others who have put their hand up. I always look to try and rectify the fault if it lays with us if I or the staff eff up, in all of my businesses, that's how I stay in business.
It's not like it new or sensational way of running a business, I would imagine all smart business people strive to look after their clients no matter what, going that extra mile if that's what it takes to keep a satisfied client, but to be perfectly honest we all probably don't use forums to tell everyone about it all the time however.