emovieposter.com - Auction History

theartofmovieposters · August 2015

Ok, so in light of our recent discussions, two things about Bruce's auction history jump out at me.

1. We all value it as a huge resource, not only for the images, but also for the auction history results.

2. The retrospective changing of auction details to show new information brought to light on a particular title.

Now, I am not talking about while an auction is running, and someone sends emovie an email or whatever bringing to their attention something they believe to be listed incorrectly. I haven no issue with this.

I am talking about the complete wipeout of the past auction history details for a title.

This could be because that title was either thought to be an original, but is now known and accepted to be a re-release (or vice versa), or the movie for which the poster was thought to be advertising is now deemed to be something else eg. Castle of Living Dead.

So if a poster was auctioned say 5 years ago as an original release, and got a final sale price of say $300, the auction results have reflected that.

Now in the next auction the same poster is up for auction, but it is brought to emovies attention that, hang on it's actually a re-release, for reasons ABC, this auction will now end and be recorded accurately because the details are amended prior to its completion. This one sells for say $150.

Unfortunately, (I think) the auction details from 5 years ago are also changed to say it was a re-release. This means that this auction is now no longer a true reflection of THIS auctions history.

So when I am looking at the auction history of this particular piece, it brings up two auction histories with quite a difference in the final sale price, but because the details of the auction 5 years ago are changed, I have no idea that it was actually incorrectly at the time (because that was all that was known then) listed as original, which would account for the difference in final value.

I think it would be much better to just make an amendment by adding a paragraph or something which stands out, to advise people that since that auction ended, we now know it is a re-release. The correct information on the title will be present, and a true representation of the auction also remains.

Thoughts?

Not sure if Bruce posts here, but would love to hear from him obviously....

Bruce · August 2015

I see your point, but to amend past results would be a big job. As it stands, I spend many tens of thousands a year on keeping this database going and adding to it, and that is just a labor of love, a gift from me to the hobby (and you will notice I don't even require users to register to use it, as many other sites do).

That said, we always first offer to refund the buyer of the incorrectly described item, and if they do return it, we remove the listing and then re-auction the item, and then that new result replaces the old one.

If they say they want to keep it, then that price was in fact paid for that item after the buyer knew the correct info about it. Now of course the bidding might well have been different had all bidders known that info at that time, but we can never know for sure what would have happened.

Is this perfect? Definitely not. But we are talking about a very tiny number of records overall, and I feel it is not a high priority to look to improve on this small aspect of the overall database. And anyone wanting to set up a more perfect competing database is welcome to do so!

Thanks for the input. Incidentally, this database at www.emovieposter.com/agallery/archive.html now has 1,138,287 past results and 1,086,750 images!

Mark · August 2015

I come across a lot of daybills in the archive that are wrongly listed as original release. Would probably add up to hundreds of sales.

John · August 2015

I agree with Vesna. If it is to be an "Auction History", it has to reflect exactly what was up for auction eg the daybill for Castle of the Living Dead was auctioned as the Italian 1964 film of the same name. The poster was later found to be actually for the 1970s film Nothing But the Night - different cast and probably different value and the listing has been completely revised.

No one can avoid errors, but when new information comes to light, I feel that it would be better to just add a box to the listing which shows the new information but does not change the original title and description.

Bruce · August 2015

"I come across a lot of daybills in the archive that are wrongly listed as original release. Would probably add up to hundreds of sales."

Please provide a list of any or all of these. I promise they will be corrected, and the buyers will be emailed an offer of a full refund, including shipping.

I am willing to bet you $50 that you can't come up with a list of "hundreds" of daybills (200 or more) "that are wrongly listed as original release", but are actually re-releases, within one week. I will be happy to pay you if you can. Do we have a bet?

Bruce

Charlie · August 2015

Cunning as always Bruce...

Mark · August 2015

I said hundreds of sales, not hundreds of different titles.
The onus is on the seller to provide correct information. If you are relying on guesswork, then say so, otherwise spend 20 mins doing some basic research on the printer and distributor information at a minimum.
This mentality of "you have to prove to me it's not from 1942" is laughable.

Charlie · August 2015

I don't think this is Bruce's mentality at all...

Bruce · August 2015

I did NOT mean different titles. I mean ANY 200 or more RECORDS (they can all be for the same titles sold over and over).

The $50 is yours for the taking, IF you can back up your statement above.

Free money!

Bruce · August 2015

EVERY single time ANYONE sends us a correction (or even some new info) we exhaustively research it and then make the correction if necessary. EVERY TIME.

Ask Hondo. Ask John Reid!

HONDO · August 2015

Bruce's business so his rules are in force. Bruce has been aware of certain opinions for a long while now so if he hasn't wished to alter anything he is doing that is his right not to. I believe the main thing is people should be made aware of any incorrect information in whichever way Bruce decides to do it and I for one am most appreciative of him and his staff in the time and effort taken in accomplishing this objective.

Retreating to my bunker as I prepare to receive incoming friendly fire.

HONDO · August 2015

One other thing is Bruce acts where Heritage don't wish to know.

Mark · August 2015

Bruce said:

EVERY single time ANYONE sends us a correction (or even some new info) we exhaustively research it and then make the correction if necessary. EVERY TIME.

Ask Hondo. Ask John Reid!

Peace, brother! I'm only telling you what I see.
Sell now, authenticate later seems to be the industry norm from my POV.

theartofmovieposters · August 2015

Just a quick one from me to say thanks to Bruce for replying...more to come later tonight when time is permitting...busy day today!

John · August 2015

Bruce said:

EVERY single time ANYONE sends us a correction (or even some new info) we exhaustively research it and then make the correction if necessary. EVERY TIME.

Ask Hondo. Ask John Reid!

That is certainly true and Bruce does a lot more than most auction houses with checking release dates, etc.

However, the point Vesna has made is that the corrections alter the auction history so that the listing can sometimes be completely different to the original auction. I do think a separate box with the revised details would be better.

John · August 2015

HONDO said:

One other thing is Bruce acts where Heritage don't wish to know.

I think (not 100% sure) that Heritage policy is not to alter past auction records.

Bruce · August 2015

theartofmovieposters said:

Just a quick one from me to say thanks to Bruce for replying...more to come later tonight when time is permitting...busy day today!

You are welcome and I thank you for bringing this up.

I really do understand what you would prefer, but it is too complicated for us to implement, and as I said, it only affects a tiny percentage of records. Do you prefer other databases which are filled with "results" that never happened?

And of course, anyone can set up a new database however they choose, if they want to fix what we do "wrong".

Bruce · August 2015

Mark said:

Peace, brother! I'm only telling you what I see.
Sell now, authenticate later seems to be the industry norm from my POV.

That is EXACTLY wrong when it comes to OUR auctions. We maintain a massive database of saved information, and date every single poster using every bit of info available to us, PLUS we have collectors and dealers like Hondo, John and many others who help us when we are stumped.

You are more than welcome to start helping us.

Thanks
Bruce

John · August 2015

That is EXACTLY wrong when it comes to OUR auctions. We maintain a massive database of saved information, and date every single poster using every bit of info available to us, PLUS we have collectors and dealers like Hondo, John and many others who help us when we are stumped.

You are more than welcome to start helping us.

Thanks
Bruce

Its great to see you posting on the forum again Bruce.

Eisenhower · August 2015

As I'm fairly new to this hobby & only within the past 6 months have come to realize the complexity of dating those dandy Daybills, if a database such as EMP has gotten some wrong-amongst the 1,000s they've gotten right, that's not too bad. It's a business, not a encyclopedia.

I use the auction history nearly every day to look up images & prices. Great resource for everyone to utilize & enjoy!

Bruce · August 2015

John said:

Its great to see you posting on the forum again Bruce.

Thanks John. As long as there are no troll posts, I am happy to participate.

Bruce · August 2015

Eisenhower said:

As I'm fairly new to this hobby & only within the past 6 months have come to realize the complexity of dating those dandy Daybills, if a database such as EMP has gotten some wrong-amongst the 1,000s they've gotten right, that's not too bad. It's a business, not a encyclopedia.

I use the auction history nearly every day to look up images & prices. Great resource for everyone to utilize & enjoy!

Thanks much Mark. We have auctioned exactly 30,091 Australian daybills. Even if someone COULD find 200 of those auctions that have incorrect dates (and I have FREE MONEY for anyone who can show that is true) then that would still only amount to less than two thirds of ONE PERCENT of the total!

In actuality, there are probably between 10 and 100 that are dated wrong, and the moment any expert shows us which ones those are, we will fix those as well.

Mark · August 2015

Here's a start for you.
Rocky, blue style R80s - 18 results.

Mark · August 2015

Butterfield 8 Aust one sheet - 11 results.

That's 29 in 2 minutes! Send the $50!!

Bruce · August 2015

If those are accurate, you have 171 to go.

I will ask Hondo and John Reid. Are the Rocky, blue style R80s and the Butterfield 8 Aust one sheets dated incorrectly, and if so, how? Tell me, and I give Mark credit for 29 corrections, and I will of course fix them when I return to work, and email the buyers.

Incidentally, Mark, in your original post, you said, "I come across a lot of daybills in the archive that are wrongly listed as original release"

NEITHER of your first two "corrections" involve daybills wrongly listed as originals (one is one-sheets and the other is a reissue that I guess you are saying has the wrong reissue date).

But I am not a stickler for accuracy in what you say. So I will count both those, IF the judges (Hondo and John Reid) say you are right.

Now find 171 more Australian corrections. Remember that you not only have over 30,000 daybill results to choose from, but now that you expanded your parameters, you also have 5,668 other Australian sizes we auctioned as well to choose from (but please don't try to start adding other countries as well, because it is a virtual certainty there are at least 200 mistakes in our current 1,138,287 results!).

John · August 2015

The Butterfield 8 one sheet is a 60s re release corresponding with the reissue daybill. There is an earlier original release one sheet that is very rare.

theartofmovieposters · August 2015

I've got a few free minutes, so thought I would jump on.

Bruce said:

If they say they want to keep it, then that price was in fact paid for that item after the buyer knew the correct info about it. Now of course the bidding might well have been different had all bidders known that info at that time, but we can never know for sure what would have happened.

This here kinda illustrates my point clearly...Had the correct information been known at the time, we have no idea what the results would have been. However, by completely changing the auctions details retrospectively, we now also don't know what the original results were based on. We've lost visibility of this completely now.

In terms of their being 1 or 1000 incorrect results in the database, that is kinda to be expected right? No one knows everything, and until joining this forum, even as primarily a daybill collector, I've learned heaps already! So to me, this is kinda nor here, nor there...

HONDO said:

Bruce's business so his rules are in force. Bruce has been aware of certain opinions for a long while now so if he hasn't wished to alter anything he is doing that is his right not to. I believe the main thing is people should be made aware of any incorrect information in whichever way Bruce decides to do it and I for one am most appreciative of him and his staff in the time and effort taken in accomplishing this objective.
Retreating to my bunker as I prepare to receive incoming friendly fire.

Yep, I agree. His business with his name on it, but I don't think there is anything wrong with his customer base raising things with him that they think might be able to be done differently, or dare I say better...In your response I made a part of it bold. Again my point is this. If you change the original auction details, you are not aware of the incorrect information...you never know it was incorrect or rather different at one point in time. We don't see the evolving history of the items, in terms of what we now know to be true about them. There is nothing wrong with thinking based on the information you had at hand then, that something was/is original...only to find out later its not. Gees, we all make errors all the time. And considering the volume of items emovie turns over, mistakes are a given...and actually I wouldn't even call them mistakes. It's a call made on information known at the time...

Bruce said:

theartofmovieposters said:

Just a quick one from me to say thanks to Bruce for replying...more to come later tonight when time is permitting...busy day today!

You are welcome and I thank you for bringing this up.

I really do understand what you would prefer, but it is too complicated for us to implement, and as I said, it only affects a tiny percentage of records. Do you prefer other databases which are filled with "results" that never happened?

And of course, anyone can set up a new database however they choose, if they want to fix what we do "wrong".

I am not aware of the mechanics of how the database is set up and maintained, so no idea what is easier or harder...I am assuming you would have to go into every auction results anyway to make the changes, so if this is the case, I would think it would be just as hard/easy to amend...but I really have no idea...

John said:

HONDO said:

One other thing is Bruce acts where Heritage don't wish to know.

I think (not 100% sure) that Heritage policy is not to alter past auction records.

If this is true, then this might kinda be better no? This is assuming that once something which they have listed incorrectly in a currently running auction is actually amended. If they don't change the auction history, and I research a particular title, I will see that the same poster sold in 2005 as an original release for $300 but in 2010 sold as a re-release for $150, which gives me more of an understanding in the price difference.

At the end of the day, it is Bruce's business to run and do with as he sees fit. Your database is an extremely valuable tool which we all use and rely on regularly. Believe you me, I for one am greatful it is there. All I am saying is, I think that there is room for improvement and by amending to and not completely changing the past results, it would be a lot more accurate and reflective, and in my opinion useful. That's all I'm saying...enough rambling.

Mark · August 2015

You seem to be taking my earlier comments as some sort of personal attack, Bruce. They are only my observations as I browse through your record at different times. Unfortunately I don't have the time to email your staff on every discrepancy I find.
If you believe the database for Aussie posters is 99.9% correct, I'll go with that. No one wants to see a slanging match back and forth like occurred on other forums.

theartofmovieposters · August 2015

theartofmovieposters said:

In terms of their being 1 or 1000 incorrect results in the database, that is kinda to be expected right? No one knows everything, and until joining this forum, even as primarily a daybill collector, I've learned heaps already! So to me, this is kinda nor here, nor there...
To clarify this point...I meant this in terms of, we know that some things are wrong, but we know that if they are brought to emovie's attention, they are corrected...it is HOW they are corrected that we see differently on right...

Rick · August 2015

I think some people are too pedantic when it comes to dates of issue/re-issue. Bruce's database is a fantastic resource and the vast majority is correct. I've alerted Bruce and his team to a few things over time and they have always responded and changed accordingly.
I don't really mind if a King Kong daybill is 1948, 1949 or 1952 re-release, or when the blue Rocky came out.

Pancho · August 2015

I appreciate people's passion about such things are original vs re-release - it's the minute details that thrill many poster collectors.

I frequent EMP as often as I can and utilize their database all the time.

My view is that Bruce and the team at EMP offer collectors like me a great service in having such a large searchable database. I like to think that as part of the poster collecting community, if I can provide details to EMP that allows them to update their information and therefore increase the overall knowledge in the poster community then I should do so. Matt is usually the guy I deal with and he's always been really grateful and polite when I've sent him any research I've done that can clear up a daybill mystery. As recently as the auctions that closed today I was able to help him identify a sexploitation daybill that they had listed but had no details for. I actually get a real buzz out of filling in the gaps on these mysteries and knowing that my time has now allowed that poster to be added to a huge database for all collectors to use. Plus I like to think that by EMP having the extra details maybe it allowed them to get the consignor a few extra dollars too!

I've probably helped EMP amend the auction results for a dozen or so daybills and I can't say I ever thought about the effect that would have on previous sales...I could see that someone who thought they bought a first release only to learn later that it wasn't could be a bit unhappy. I'm sure that on any big ticket items that Bruce would contact those buyers to offer compensation if appropriate, but I don't think the sexploitation daybill buyers are going to be too fussed!

emovieposter.com - Auction History

Comments

Contact us

Get In Touch