New York Times: As Time Goes By, What’s This Piano Worth?

[silentfilm]

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/ ... ano-worth/

Cultural Affairs December 13, 2012, 11:29 am
As Time Goes By, What’s This Piano Worth?
By JAMES BARRON

Here’s looking at you, piano.

No one would mistake you for Ingrid Bergman, though you and she shared a moment. And what a moment it was. It made you one of the most famous pianos in movie history. You must remember that: The flashback scene in Paris, the one that turned“Casablanca” from simply a war story into one of the most enduring cinematic love stories ever told.

Now you are to be auctioned off at Sotheby’s by an auctioneer who has sold other famous movie props — the “Rosebud” sled from “Citizen Kane,” for example. Sotheby’s expects you to sell from $800,000 to $1.2 million in the auction on Friday. That is between 34 to 48 times what Bergman was paid for sharing top billing with Humphrey Bogart.

And she really had to work. She was in scene after scene. You appeared in only one, in the Parisian cafe known with the words “La Belle Aurore” on the window. Warner Brothers used a different piano in the scenes in Rick’s Café Américain. That was the one that Bogart slipped those “letters of transit” into, not you.

You were not on camera for long — only about 1 minute 10 seconds. And while you were seen, you were not heard. Dooley Wilson, who played Sam, moved his hands up and down your keyboard as he sang. But he was not hitting the notes. Somewhere off camera was a real pianist, performing on another piano.

So moviegoers never really knew what you could do. Bogart implied that you might not have been the greatest. Later in the movie, much later, when he told Miss Bergman that he had “heard a lot of stories in my time,” his next line was: “They went along with the sound of a tinny piano…” But what did he know? You were the silent piano.

Finally, 70 years after the movie came out, you had your “Garbo talks” moment — the moment when your voice was finally heard — at Sotheby’s. As your vaguely honky-tonk sound drifted through Sotheby’s exhibition space, a line from a certain song came to mind: The fundamental things apply as time goes by. And time does go by — pianos get old. They can lose the bounce they had when they were young.

You are not really in tune, but not badly out of tune, either, and that is with no help from a piano technician. Sotheby’s said the piano had not been worked on since it was delivered for display several weeks ago.

Considering that “Casablanca” was shot in black and white, a spoiler alert is probably in order here. Readers who want to keep imagining the movie in black and white should skip to the next paragraph. In real life, the piano is green and tan. Sotheby’s said it still had several coats of paint, apparently left over from appearances in other movies, when it was bought by a Los Angeles collector in the 1980s. He scraped off the layers, revealing colors that “Casablanca” audiences could only guess at.

The piano is weathered, and a bit sluggish. It cannot handle the thrill of a trill, as Michael Feinstein — the well-known pianist and singer, who, with Ian Jackman, is the author of “The Gershwins and Me: A Personal History in 12 Songs” — discovered when he tried it at Sotheby’s on Monday. “It’s not gratifying to play,” he said, “but that’s not actually what it’s about.”

No. As he said after playing “Someone to Watch Over Me,” this piano was a prop. Bogart, who stood 5 feet 9 inches tall, must have liked this piano because it, too, is rather short. He would not have towered over a conventional upright the way he towered this one.

It is also slimmer than most pianos. It has only 58 keys, 30 fewer than a conventional modern instrument. “It’s a cafe piano,” said the auctioneer at Sotheby’s, David N. Redden. “It was designed to be wheeled from table to table. The pianist would move it to the next table. It’s rather like the violinist coming round to each table.”

In “As Time Goes By,” Mr. Feinstein was well aware of just how limited the keyboard was. “At a couple of spots,” he said, “I was reaching for notes that weren’t there.”

He was also aware of its little odor problem, not uncommon among old pianos with dust on the hammers, the strings and the soundboard. Mr. Feinstein said he could “actually smell the dust when the keys are depressed.”

The piano’s life after “Casablanca” is “a little unclear,” Mr. Redden said. “It may have been used in other films, although we haven’t identified any.” There is a photograph from a 1943 War Bond drive. It apparently languished in a prop shop for years. (The other piano in “Casablanca,” the one from Rick’s Café Américain, was sold to the same collector in the 1980s. Sotheby’s said it is now on loan to the Warner Brothers Studio Museum in Burbank, Calif.)

Mr. Redden sold the “La Belle Aurore” piano in 1988 for $155,000, at the time the second highest price for a piece of Hollywood memorabilia. Prices for Hollywood memorabilia have soared since then. And just as Marilyn Monroe’s dress from “The Seven Year Itch” was not bought to be worn when it went for $4.6 million last year, the “Casablanca” piano will probably not be bought to be played.

“This is memorabilia,” Mr. Feinstein said. “Nobody’s buying this as a musical instrument. I mean, this is not something Lang Lang would want to have to play. But you can’t put a price on what it is worth to an individual because there’s only one of these. I’ve played many pianos through the years that people said George Gershwin played — ‘This belonged to George Gershwin’ — and it’s usually apocryphal. But this is the real thing, and so it’s basically worth whatever someone’s willing to pay for it. And it’s going to be a lot.”

The piano could fetch as much as $1.2 million at auction, according to Sotheby's. Marcus Yam for The New York Times

[JFK]

http://www.duckprods.com/weide/harp.html



How I Got Screwed When Buying
Harpo Marx's Harp from EntertainmentRarities.com
AN EDITORIAL (AND CAUTIONARY TALE)
by Robert B. Weide
Hey... what can you say about an auction house whose chairman (Alfred Taubman) was sentenced to a year in prison and ordered to pay millions in fines for a price fixing scandal? You'd think maybe said auction house would learn some humility? That they'd exercise caution? That they'd figure out how to conduct themselves honestly and professionally? Yeah... you'd figure.
Keep figuring.
I'm certainly not saying, nor would I ever imply, that some of the people in the employ of said auction house are weasels or that their behavior is scandalous... or even just plain unforgivably sloppy! I would never say that. What you might say is up to you, after you read what happened to me.

I'm not a big movie memorabilia collector. I'm comfortable financially, but not filthy rich. And my wife and I live in a 2,000 square foot home with limited wall and floor space. Most of the movie memorabilia I bought when I was single (posters, lobby cards, etc.) now resides in the attic. But when I got wind that Sotheby's.com was auctioning off Harpo Marx's harp, personally owned by the silent comedian and played in several Marx Brothers movies, I got the old itch.
I produced the film The Marx Brothers in a Nutshell. The Marxes were my reason for living throughout high school and most of college. They made me decide to become a film-maker. They were my first loves and will always hold a special place in my heart. As the potential winning bidder on Harpo's harp, I could watch his harp solos from the movies on my DVD player and cock my head to see the very same harp proudly displayed in my living room. How could I resist?
When I announced to my wife that I was going to make a bid on the harp, I was almost apologetic about it. (Sotheby's was declaring the value between $30 - 35,000.) I figured I had been making good money producing and directing the HBO series Curb Your Enthusiasm. I had recently received some ''found money'' in the form of a payment for a film script I had written six years ago. We didn't have kids; there were no little shoes or big college tuitions to pay for. The harp would be a lovely item to display in our home...
It winds up I was preaching to the choir. My wife cut me off before I even started my litany of justifications. ''Who else deserves this harp more than you?'' she asked. (What a gal!)
Sotheby's on-line auctions are held on eBay. That was good. Unintimidating. I was a respected eBay bidder with nothing but positive feedback. I was also a qualified member of Square Trade, signifying that I was an honest buyer and seller and would agree to third-party mediation in the unlikely event of a dispute.
The auction opened on June 18 and would close on June 28, 2002. The listed seller of the harp was an outfit called Entertainment Rarities. The President of ''ER,'' Darren Julien, would later explain that ER was an affiliate of Sotheby's, whose job it was to consign rock and roll and movie memorabilia to sell through Sotheby's. When I asked him why Sotheby's doesn't just consign and sell such material through their own name, he told me it was ostensibly to create some distance in the wake of Sotheby's scandal a couple of years back.
Aha. Okay.
When I initially logged onto the Sotheby's/ Entertainment Rarities (hereafter ''S/ER'') webpage for the harp auction, the first thing that struck me was what great condition the harp was still in, judging from the color photo they posted of the sale item. It seemed extremely well preserved. (The harp is a Lyon & Healy, Gold Style 23. Lyon & Healy is known as the ''Steinway'' of harp makers, and is the harp of choice for most serious harp players who can afford one.)
Next to the recent color picture of the harp was a black and white photo of Harpo hugging the very same harp in the late 1930's. On the soundboard (the top part of the harp's body, where the strings connect at the bottom), there was a very distinctive floral design in gold leaf. It exactly matched the design in the vintage photos of Harpo with his harp. I started to get goosebumps.
The current photo of the harp looked so good, in fact, I started to wonder if the harp had been refinished and, if so, how that might affect the future antique value and historical integrity of the instrument. I e-mailed ER on June 20 and inquired specifically, ''Can you describe any faults with the harp -- cosmetic or otherwise? Has it ever been refinished?'' Their response assured me that, ''there are no major damages or faults. The harp has never been refinished...'' So much for my overly cautious nature. (Hey, when spending five figures on something you can't drive, you want to be careful!)
I did find one thing troubling in their lot description. The auction headline referred to the sale item as, ''Harpo Marx Gold Harp Used In Many Films.'' The description stated, ''The films where this harp was played by Harpo Marx include: Monkey Business (1931), Horsefeathers (1932), Duck Soup (1933), A Night at the Opera (1935), A Day at the Races (1937), Room Service (1938).''
Well, as any good Marx Brothers fanatic knows, there were no harp solos at all in ''Duck Soup'' or ''Room Service.'' Although ''A Day at the Races'' includes a harp solo of sorts, Harpo plays a gag harp in the film, made from a set of strings he ripped out of a piano. It was disconcerting that S/ER would be so sloppy with their description. (How assured would you be bidding on a Babe Ruth autograph if the description claimed that he signed it during his tenure with the New York Mets?)
Although the mistake seemed a bit dubious to me, I wrote it off as a mere academic error. Even if Harpo played this harp in three films instead of six, so what?
I did think it wise to advise ER of their mistake, however, as these are exactly the kinds of facts that help establish an accurate appraisal of such cinema memorabilia. On June 20, I e-mailed ER and told them of the mistaken film titles. Their reply stated: ''This was a mistake made by one of our employees who put together the description for the auction. ... We have over 750 items currently in the Sotheby's auction and at that volume the occasional mistake arises unfortunately. Because the item has already received bids, I am unable to revise the description until after the auction has ended."
This response was puzzling, as any good eBayer knows that sellers can always add corrections and revisions during the bidding period. (Such revisions appear as addenda on the lot description.) In fact, an honest seller is obligated to report such corrections if they become aware of misinformation during the bidding period. But ER never posted a corrected revision of the relevant Marx Brothers movies. At the time, I was still willing to write this off as a simple matter of confusion and never considered that their response was indicative of a more troubling problem.
I even gave them the benefit of the doubt when they showed they did know how to make additions to the lot description by subsequently adding two addenda during the bidding period. In fact, one of their additions stated that the sale also included ''the original harpist's stool as seen in the ... photo accompanying the description.'' Sure enough, in the black and white photo of Harpo hugging his harp, there sits a wooden harp stool. So that was also part of the sale. Cool.
Finally, on the afternoon of June 28, I placed the winning bid on the harp. The final sale price was $32,900. There was no sticker shock... no buyer's remorse. This was an investment that would appreciate. (What else was I going to do -- watch my savings disappear even further into the sinking stock market?) My wife actually cried tears of joy when I called her from the ''Curb'' set to tell her that I won the harp. We were thrilled. I even e-mailed Darren Julien at ER to tell him how pleased we were with the purchase and to discuss shipping arrangements.
Later that night, I looked at the official website for the harp manufacturers, Lyon & Healy (hereafter ''L&H''). When I studied their webpage describing the Gold 23 harp, something troubling caught my eye. The page contained a photo of a brand new L&H Gold 23 that looked strikingly familiar. It now dawned on me that it was the same picture used on the ER website to illustrate the sale harp. This meant that the photo I had been admiring on the ER webpage was not of the actual sale item after all, but was taken right out of the L&H catalogue. The ER auction webpage posted no disclaimer to that effect.
The first pangs of nausea now started to set in. How could ER post a photo of a new harp, taken from a catalogue, and pass it off as the 72 year old harp they were selling? (I had recently sold my '96 BMW on eBay. How convenient it would have been, rather than to photograph my own car in detail, to just scan pictures of a new model right out of the BMW catalogue! I would have been kicked off of eBay faster than you could say ''Richard Diebenkorn.'')
The next day I spoke with a man named Dickie Fleisher, who had owned the harp for the past decade, and had consigned the item to Sotheby's for auction. (He had e-mailed me the previous day, inviting me to contact him.)
More good news: He proceeded to tell me, rather nonchalantly, that the harp's soundboard ''may have been replaced'' and he wasn't certain whether the replacement board was even a Lyon & Healy. He did know that the design decal on the harp was not the original L&H decal. (These are highly distinctive design decals, patented by L&H and used only on their harps. The use of each decal has to be authorized by L&H).
This information further made my heart sink. The decal is an important part of the harp's aesthetic; so now the harp would not even look like the one Harpo played. Plus, a part of the harp itself (the soundboard) probably wasn't the original and may not even be an L&H. (How would you like to buy a Steinway piano, and then find out that the piano lid is not a Steinway but a knock-off of unknown origin?)
During this same conversation, I informed Fleisher of my discovery that the S/ER webpage had a photo of a Gold 23 with the L&H decal, taken right from the L&H catalogue. He said he already knew this. I asked him why ER used this photo. He said he didn't know, as he had supplied them with photos of the actual harp.
Despite the fact that part of the harp had been replaced with an unauthorized part and the aesthetic of the harp had changed materially since Harpo's ownership, at least one thing was certain: The auction website had posted a letter from Lyon & Healy verifying that Harpo had, in fact, purchased this harp in 1930. So I never had to question whether Harpo owned it. However, something else was gnawing at me: ER and Fleisher had played so loose with the facts, how could I be certain that this same harp was ever played by Harpo in any of the films? Sure, Harpo may have kept this harp in his home, but who could say whether it was brought to the studios on the day he filmed his harp solos? Who could say that the studios didn't supply him with an L&H Gold 23 rental? After all, Harpo purchased this harp in 1930, but can be seen playing an identical harp in ''The Cocoanuts,'' filmed in 1929.
Seeing as neither the seller nor the consignor seemed capable of doing the proper research, I figured it was up to me to do the necessary homework. I spoke to three Harpo experts whom I hoped could shed some light on the question of the films. The first was Gregg Miner, a harp player and Harpo enthusiast/collector who was an expert on Harpo's music career. The second was Dale Barco, a former Lyon & Healy employee who still repaired harps, who knew Harpo and worked on his later harps. The third person I spoke to was Bill Marx, Harpo's son. None of these very helpful gentlemen, with all their collective knowledge, could absolutely confirm that Harpo played his own personal harp in any of his movies.
What's more, in an e-mail from Bill Marx dated July 6, he had this to say about Entertainment Rarities: ''When I heard about the auction, I e-mailed (ER) and told them of a few non-truths in advertising they were claiming. I suggested that they add addendums to the sale to protect themselves from any possible law suit ... I contacted them before the sale and they had the opportunity to contact me which they never did.''
I received another unsolicited e-mail from a Marx fan who said she also e-mailed ER with some corrections, but they never responded to her. She chose not to bid because of ''the shoddiness of the description and the fact that Sotheby's is even allowed on eBay what with their recent criminal past still perfuming the air.''
Gregg Miner also informed me that one of the black and white photos on ER's website, presumably showing Harpo playing the sale harp, actually showed Harpo playing a different model harp; a Lyon & Healy ''Natural 17'' from the movie ''Love Happy'' (1949). Bill Marx had already informed me that Harpo had retired the Gold 23 in the mid-40's, and started playing 17's, a smaller harp.
I met with ER's Darren Julien on July 2 , hoping that he would have some reassuring explanation for all of these mistakes. He was friendly enough. In fact, before I even alerted him to the possible dispute, he handed me several laminated photos of my ''purchase.'' Included were the color harp photo and another one detailing the same pristine harp. After a minute or so, I asked him if these were photos of the actual sale harp. He looked a little flustered before saying that he didn't know. (Then why was he showing them to me?) He had also handed me the 1949 photo of Harpo playing the Natural 17 harp, and another photo I knew to be from the 1927 Broadway production of ''The Cocoanuts,'' three years before Harpo purchased the sale harp. When I asked for an explanation, he said these were the photos supplied by Dickie Fleisher and they were presumed to be of the sale harp. (Again, Fleisher said he provided photos of the sale harp, but they were never used.)
Julien said one reason they presumed Fleshier to be reliable was ''because of his friendship with Bill Marx.'' I told him that I knew Fleisher and Bill Marx weren't friends. ''Well, I mean they've corresponded at least,'' was Julien's reply. Nice try, but Bill Marx had already told me he had never even heard of Dickie Fleisher's name prior to this sale.
I then asked Julien why the S/ER website failed to correct the mistaken films during the bidding period. He said he was too overloaded by the number of lots in this auction and he didn't have the adequate manpower to address every problem. He also said that the mistakes were only made known to him after the bidding started. I told him that they could still be corrected during the bidding period. He said he wasn't very computer savvy and didn't know how to do that. (He did not say why the corrections weren't delegated to the same person who added the two other addenda.)
I informed Julien that we'd have to work out a reasonable solution to these problems, but that I would want to view the harp personally during my trip to New York on the week of July 22.
Meanwhile, I sent a New York harp expert (another former Lyon & Healy employee) to view the harp on July 11. He reported back to me with more bad news: Not only was the current decal a non-Lyon & Healy, but he confirmed that the replacement soundboard was definitely not an L&H. Furthermore, he discovered the neck of the harp had also been replaced with a non-L&H neck. (Nobody wanting to retain the integrity or monetary value of the harp would use non L&H replacement parts). He guessed the work was probably done 20-30 years ago. It also meant that approx. 1/3 of this harp was not the original, but, in fact, a copy. He felt this information, if disclosed, would definitely impact the appraisal value of the harp.

I also learned that the harp stool which ER claimed was the one seen in the photo with Harpo was a standard L&H stool. As the stools don't have serial numbers, there was no way to confirm that Harpo ever owned this particular one. Considering how sloppy S/ER had been in their lot description, it was an easy guess that their claim that Harpo owned this stool was mere conjecture.
In fact, Dickie Fleisher had told me that when he bought the harp from a woman in Minnesota in 1991, the seller had no idea that Harpo ever owned this harp. Consequently, there was a huge hole in the harp's recorded history and she would have had no idea whether Harpo ever owned the stool.
At this point, what had earlier been such a delightful event was now ruining my appetite and interfering with my sleep. I considered that the one mistake I knew of during the bidding period (i.e., the film titles) now seemed more than ''academic.'' It was false information that artificially enhanced the "value" of the harp, like much of the other false and misleading info ER promulgated. To me, their refusal to correct the mistake was behavior indicative of someone who wanted the highest price for their sale item, let the facts be damned.
On July 16, I had a conversation with Steven Fritzmann, sales manager at L&H in Chicago, who told me their records confirmed that the repair work was not done by an authorized L&H person with genuine L&H parts. He also said that the cost of replacing the neck and soundboard with L&H parts would be around $11,000. Replacing the decal alone would cost about $3,000. The harp would also have to be shipped to Chicago -- the only location authorized to do the work.
As all this information came down the pike, I continued communicating with Darren Julien at ER, who offered no explanation for their actions, but told me that they would let me back out of the sale, and they would simply sell the harp to the next highest bidder. I told him this was not an acceptable solution. In three separate letters, I asked him to answer four very basic, straightforward questions:
1) Why was a decision made to post a photo of a new harp from the L&H catalogue, rather than photos of the actual sale item provided by the consignor?
2) What solid evidence did they have that Harpo played this harp in any movie at all?
3) How did they determine that the harp stool included in the sale was ever owned by Harpo?
4) Why did they fail to make corrections in their lot description during the bidding period when several people informed them of relevant inaccuracies?
Like an automaton, Julien just wrote back that he understood I was unhappy and that he would let me back out of the sale. To this day, he has made no attempt to adequately answer these very simple questions.
I made a good faith settlement offer to pay $25,000 (their reserve price) for the harp. That offer was refused. I asked Square Trade (eBay's voluntary mediation arm) to mediate this dispute. Julien refused to participate. I filed a fraud report with eBay. Julien responded to that one by saying they were conferring with their own legal counsel and did not feel fraud was committed. (But again, refused to address the specific issues in question.) ER's CEO finally wrote to me saying that my offering $25,000 for the harp was ''tantamount to extortion.''
So now the lawyers are into it. E.R.'s position is that I never paid for the harp so I haven't been damaged and that my only recourse is to back out of the sale. But what does this say about the care that goes into S/ER's lot descriptions and appraisals for their other auctions? What have you bought from them lately? What are you planning to buy? How much do you really know about the item? How do they arrive at their appraisal figures? Who do they have to answer to, if not their bidders and buyers?
Enter Darren Julien's name into a search engine and you'll find on-line articles referring to him setting the appraisal values for all kinds of movie collectibles. But have a conversation with Julien and you discover he's just a guy who moved here recently from Indiana who ''never expected to be in show business.'' (Who knew that selling Madonna's dresses on-line meant you were in show business?) He boasts of a recent ''Seinfeld'' auction through Sotheby's.com that netted thousands of dollars for a single episode script; not autographed, not even necessarily used on the set. Just a xeroxed script that you can buy at any number of shops on Hollywood Blvd. for $20.
While at his home/office, he showed me an item that is going up in their next big auction: The famous ''Puffy Shirt'' from the Seinfeld episode of the same name. Great item, but if you bid on it, ask a few questions: Is this the same shirt that Jerry himself wore in the episode? Was it worn by one of the actors playing a homeless person in the final scene? Might it have been worn by a non-speaking extra? Was it ever worn by any actor on that episode or might it be part of the back-up wardrobe that was never actually used on the show? Could it have even been produced by the wardrobe person after the episode was filmed, specifically to auction? All of these questions affect the value of the item, and if you don't get answers and certification for those answers, you could be paying inflated prices at the whim of dilettantes who are admittedly too ''overwhelmed'' by a large auction to do the proper research and set an appropriate appraisal figure.
Entertainment Rarities has indicated they may re-list Harpo's harp in a future auction. (More recently, their lawyer has stated that this is very unlikely.) In a letter to me dated July 6, Darren Julien states, ''Legally our obligation is to inform any potential bidders of the information available to us about each lot to the best of our ability and if we fail to do so, we must allow the sale to be dismissed.'' A cynical translation of this may be: ''If you catch us doing something wrong and raise a fuss, we'll sell it to the next guy.''
By Julien's definition of S/ER's ''(legal) obligation,'' I assume that if they re-list the harp, they will this time:
1) Include a photo of the actual sale item.
2) Disclose that the harp's soundboard and neck were replaced subsequent to Harpo's ownership.
3) State that the repair work was not done by Lyon & Healy personnel or using Lyon & Healy parts.
4) Mention that the non-L&H soundboard decal differs materially in appearance from the L&H decal the harp bore when Harpo owned it.
5) Admit that it is only conjecture that Harpo ever played this harp in any motion picture at all (or else provide solid evidence that he did).
6) State that there is no verification that Harpo ever owned the stool offered in the sale.
If they disclose all this information in the next auction, then they'll have lived up to their legal obligation and anyone can bid with confidence and know what they're getting. The only question is what they'll list as an accurate appraisal and where they'll set their reserve price.
I've reached my own conclusion here which has subsequently been backed-up by several collectors I know: Sotheby's simply does not treat movie memorabilia with the same care and respect they would a piece of fine art or a Victorian era antique, even when they're asking upwards of $30,000.
One friend of mine, a respected film historian and collector, has a different theory. He can cite many other instances where Sotheby's and other auctioneers have dropped the ball on properly authenticating the movie memorabilia they sell. ''If they're that sloppy when they sell items that we know so much about,'' he queries, ''what makes you think they're any more reliable when they're selling antiques and art objects?''
Hmmm. Good point.
Perhaps wrongly, I just assumed that if the reckless standards exercised in my case were applied by Sotheby's across the board, they'd be out of business in an Upper-East-Side minute (or else Taubman might be surrounded by familiar faces in his prison cell).
So, now that we know they don't do their homework, that means you'll have to do it for them. Be sure to ask the right questions and demand straightforward answers, lest you be the winning bidder and a big-time loser all at once.
Meanwhile, don't forget what those wacky Latins used to say, in anticipation of Sotheby's and Entertainment Rarities' on-line auctions:
Caveat emptor!

[stairstars]

So, posting that situation is to condemn all future sales of legitimate artifacts from film history?

I grant you that the discovery, preservation and saving of the films themselves is paramount, and what many of you here do is laudable for those efforts. Others, write about the history of the people and the studios who produced them. And then, there are people like me who try and save the pieces of what went into that process whether it be a camera, set piece, costume, poster, document, matte painting or prop. Many of the studios sold or dumped these pieces for decades and only now are the Academy (through their 'Angels") the studios and museums seeking these items to show along with the films themselves. People who come to these places can see something physical and concrete before or after watching the films. I like to think it is a way the craftsmen, some of who labored at the same studio for 4 or 5 decades, can finally be praised. Many were great artists that have been ignored; it is not all about actors and directors.

There are probably as many fakes and misrepresented pieces at major auctions as there are fake master works in art museums. They are being ferreted out. Most of these pieces are vetted and exposed online in blogs like the Original Prop Blog and the Movie Prop Forum before these auctions. Anyone who spends any amount of serious money on a film artifact might better acquaint themselves with what is discussed there or seek out professional advice. NO auction house has ever employed an in house expert in the field and often assigns the departments to art history or manuscripts. Five years ago both major NYC venues stopped having entertainment sales at all due to lack of real goods. The majority of the LA based lots offered at Profiles In History and Juliens (the leaders now) offer modern film and rock lots like Michael Jackson. Years ago Bill Thomas was quoted as saying that less than 5 % of classic costumes survive. I think props, by their very nature , is a smaller figure. When true quality pieces make the news, it is because they so seldom come to market. The MM 7 YEAR ITCH gown was from the Debbie Reynolds sale which took over 40 years to amass by someone who could walk right into a studio and ask for, buy or take what she wanted. Her manager was tried for stealing pieces from WB several times in the 1980s. The sale grossed nearly 23 million dollars for less than 800 lots - still a record. Many of the pieces, like that one, are the only known copies of star wardrobe and most from the greatest films ever made. She owned Francis X. Bushman's winged helmet, knife and sandals from BEN HUR. I doubt another identifiable piece from that film survives.

Some of the studios care about preserving their heritage and history while others do not. One studio ten years ago quietly sold their set pieces from CITIZEN KANE, GWTW and other classics as furniture barring the auction house from revealing the name of the studio, their logo or to use the stills. Another, does it to this day and let a piece from THE MALTESE FALCON go for nothing to dealers who buy used furniture.

I think that is sad that the illustrious past these pieces have witnessed might have been lost. Maybe the LACM and AMPAS will finally have a home for them at the May Building. Some of us have been holding stuff for 20 years for such a venue. The few places that have mounted displays have been successful if only for limited engagements. There are traveling exhibits, something Jane Withers started years ago. To finally have a Hollywood/LA based institution would be nice. Artifacts are an important part of telling the story of film.


rick

[Rollo Treadway]

It would be worth more if those letters of transit were still hidden inside it.

[stairstars]

It would be worth more if those letters of transit were still hidden inside it.

They never were in this one. This one is from the Paris flashback. The letters were in the cream colored one at the Cafe.

But, they were sold at a later auction.

rick

[Darren Nemeth]

I'd rather spend that kind of money on restoring films than buying a small piano.

[silentfilm]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/16/showbiz/c ... 3A+U.S.%29

'Casablanca' piano will be played again
By Joe Sterling and Gabriel Falcon, CNN
updated 8:29 AM EST, Mon December 17, 2012

(CNN) -- For one private collector, it's the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

A buyer has purchased the piano used in one of the most beloved scenes in all of film: the playing of "As Time Goes By" in "Casablanca" -- the 1942 classic movie starring Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman.

Sotheby's New York auctioned the piano for $602,500 on Friday, a sale price lower than expected. The estimated price for the piano had been $800,000 to $1.2 million.

The 58-key piano is a memorable part of the romantic flashback sequence in Paris at La Belle Aurore, where Rick (Bogart) and Ilsa (Bergman) listen to Sam (Dooley Wilson) sing and play "As Time Goes By."

The piano is distinctive for its diminutive size and distinct hue. "Seeing the piano in real life you end up with a couple of things," said David Redden, vice chairman at Sotheby's.

"It's quite colorful, green and distressed yellow. And you don't realize how small it is, so small in fact Bogart and Bergman sort of tower over it."

Redden is no stranger to this famous Hollywood prop. He first auctioned it off back in 1988. "It was sold to a Japanese man and now it's come back to us," Redden told CNN. "He paid $154,000 for it."

On Friday, a pianist played "As Time Goes By" in the Sotheby's salesroom "before the piano was spun around on the turnstile to an awaiting audience and bought by a private collector," the auction house said.

The sale was greeted by applause, Sotheby's said.

The instrument had no significant value in the golden age of moviemaking, Redden added. "It would be re-used again and again," he said.

Many critics and movie-lovers regard "Casablanca" as one of the greatest films ever made. Directed by Michael Curtiz, it won three Oscars, and is replete with memorable lines and scenes.

"The piano is a star of the film," Redden said. "The music is so emotive, so moving and the piano really becomes a symbol of the love story between Bogart and Bergman."

Wilson, the actor who portrayed Sam, was a trumpeter, not a pianist, according to Redden.

"He is sort of miming the fingering. But someone else is playing nearby and he was following the real player," Redden said.

Now, the unknown new owner -- just a "citizen of the world," like the character Rick -- gets to tickle the ivories as time goes by.

[stairstars]

I'm glad it's back from Japan and hope it does find it's way to the museum.

However, on the other coast, these prizes fell on deaf ears and wallets:






If there is no dollar amount at the end of the listing it means the piece passed.

The majority of Theda Bara's costume pieces, many from CLEOPATRA, failed to find a new home. I would agree the starting prices for the major pieces was high at $10,000, but not that high compared to what film relics have been selling for since the Debbie sale. They are sourced from Joan Craig. I also thought they should have been grouped together to make as complete a single costume as possible.

rick

[Marr&Colton]

As a former long-time auction-goer, I learned long ago to stay away from fancy auction houses that have huge opening bids on items, charge ridiculous extra fees and then don't guarantee authenticity.

Most of these items sell on esoteric nostalgic feelings--which can be a very expensive luxury, indeed.
I'll just admire the movie artifacts as they appear on the big screen of my home theatre in the original films.