Poster Guarantee: emovieposter and Bruce- talk the talk and walk the walk

[ATLfun]

  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.    

[Harry Caul]

I got one of those messages too regarding a French A1 for Butch Cassidy. I kept mine as well.

[CSM]

Those damn daybills can be tricky bastids

[erik1925]

Those damn daybills can be tricky bastids

That's one way to describe them. 

[Bruce]

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!

[erik1925]

 

[MoviePosterBid.com]

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

[MoviePosterBid.com]

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

[erik1925]

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. 

[MoviePosterBid.com]

according to one of the leading experts on Australian posters, the data that began this thread is 100% incorrect

[CSM]

So the assertion is that this one is the original:



and this the re-release?



I'd bet that one might be Oz release and the other with no rating (or stamped rating) is NZ

[MoviePosterBid.com]

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)

[Silhouette]

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)

[MoviePosterBid.com]

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?

[Bruce]

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/rUp3vhMSfZE" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/rUp3vhMSfZE</a>

[MoviePosterBid.com]

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

[Bruce]

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

[MoviePosterBid.com]

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.

[Ari]

Well without any doubt Chris example number one is a New Zealand used poster.
Aussie rating removed, NZ Rating stamped.

[erik1925]

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?

[MoviePosterBid.com]

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]

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.

[Bruce]

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.

[Silhouette]

Posters with a New Zealand ratings stamp WERE used there, but it makes no sense that they were printed there,

Agree

[Ari]

Also agree. And add again, there are Aussie printed daybills with NZ ratings printed at the time, in Australia and never used in Australia.