Two years in the past, Adam Schneider, a longtime film memorabilia collector, was about to retire and started the method of downsizing. That’s when he determined to promote the Depraved Witch’s hat he owned from the film “The Wizard of Oz.”
Schneider is a distinguished purchaser of “Star Trek” props. In 2013 he and his spouse made headlines after they restored after which donated the “Star Trek” Galileo shuttlecraft prop to NASA’s Johnson Area Heart.
Since Schneider had an extended relationship with Heritage Auctions, identified for its high-octane gross sales of film and tv props and memorabilia, he turned to the Dallas-based home to promote the hat and different objects from his famend “Star Trek” assortment.
That’s when the difficulty started, in keeping with a lawsuit filed final week in Los Angeles Superior Courtroom.
“How do I put this?” stated Schneider in an interview, “I was screwed.”
Schneider alleges in his lawsuit that Heritage Auctions did not disclose the hat’s potential worth, convincing him to promote it in a personal sale in an effort to higher place the sale of one other Depraved Witch’s hat that was owned by an necessary collector, in a serious public sale held final 12 months. He’s suing the public sale firm, claiming constructive fraud and misleading commerce practices.
“Either, in the best case, they favored another client … and in the worst case, they bought it [the hat] for themselves which is self-dealing,” stated Dale Washington, an lawyer representing Schneider.
An lawyer for Heritage didn’t reply to a request for remark.
The litigation is a window into the profitable world of Hollywood memorabilia, the place collectors bid high greenback for merchandise from basic movies.
Schneider says he acquired the Depraved Witch’s hat in 2019 for $100,000, from Profiles in Historical past, a film memorabilia home that Heritage acquired two years later.
It was considered one of about three identified present hats utilized in filming of the 1939 basic. This one, product of a black wool cloth, had a chin strap worn throughout flying scenes.
On this 1939 file picture initially launched by Warner Bros., from left, Bert Lahr because the Cowardly Lion, Ray Bolger because the Scarecrow, Judy Garland as Dorothy, and Jack Haley because the Tin Woodman are proven in a scene from “The Wizard of Oz.”
(Warner Bros.)
Schneider had wished to purchase the hat when it first got here up on the market when MGM started promoting off its stock of props within the Seventies however missed out. So, when it got here up on the market six years in the past, he bid on it.
In July 2023, Schneider agreed to consign his hat to Heritage and the merchandise was given a price of $200,000 for insurance coverage functions, in keeping with his lawsuit.
“Wizard of Oz” props are among the most coveted amongst collectors. When Schneider approached Heritage, he stated its senior director, Brian Chanes, advised him that the objects from the beloved movie had enduring enchantment, saying they’re “as good as it gets,” the go well with says.
Schneider alleges Heritage later started speaking with one of many foremost collectors of props from the film, a person recognized within the lawsuit as “Mr. S.” He owned three of essentially the most iconic objects from the film: a pair of Dorothy’s ruby slippers, her broom and one other of the Depraved Witch’s hats, the criticism states.
Mr. S is a former baby actor named Michael Shaw, who had not too long ago recovered possession of the ruby slippers. In 2005, Shaw had lent his pair of Dorothy’s ruby slippers to the Judy Garland Museum in her hometown of Grand Rapids, Minn. It’s considered one of 4 identified pairs that Garland wore within the film.
The identical 12 months that Shaw put the slippers on mortgage, they have been stolen from the museum. A person shattered the plexiglass case holding them, leaving a single purple sequin behind. On the time, the sneakers have been valued at $1 million.
A pair of ruby slippers worn by Judy Garland within the “The Wizard of Oz” offered for $32.5 million.
(Jeff Baenen / Related Press)
The FBI recovered the slippers in Minnesota.
In March of final 12 months, eight months after Schneider had already agreed to consign his witch’s hat to Heritage, Shaw introduced that he deliberate to promote the slippers at public sale by means of Heritage.
Quickly after, Schneider contends that Heritage modified course.
In August, Chanes referred to as Schneider and supplied him a fast personal sale of the hat for $250,000. As a substitute of taking it to public sale, the hat worn by actor Margaret Hamilton could be offered on to Shaw, who had expressed curiosity. The value was “more than any Hat had previously sold for,” Chanes advised him, in keeping with the criticism.
A couple of months later, Heritage started selling a December public sale of film memorabilia that included Shaw’s three Oz items.
The sale would capitalize on the extremely anticipated film, “Wicked,” the difference of the hit Broadway musical that opened in November, which would definitely assist increase enthusiasm.
Based on the go well with, Heritage launched a promotional tour of Shaw’s objects, holding occasions in New York, London and Tokyo.
Shaw shouldn’t be a defendant within the lawsuit in opposition to Heritage.
Throughout the public sale held on Dec. 7, the ruby slippers offered for a report $32.5 million and the hat hammered down for $2.93 million, which was practically 12 occasions the quantity Schneider obtained for his hat. Like different homes, Heritage receives a fee on the objects offered at public sale.
“It’s very unusual to have an item plucked out of an auction and get an offer like that from the auctioneer,” Schneider stated. He says the home violated its fiduciary obligations to him, having did not disclose the extent of market curiosity within the hat or its deliberate roadshow for the public sale.
Schneider alleges that Heritage struck the take care of him as a “device for HERITAGE or its executives to get ownership at a deep discount while also favoring Mr. S by making his Hat the only one in the auction,” states the go well with.
Schneider’s criticism echoes one other case introduced in opposition to Heritage final 12 months by a pair of self-described storage unit entrepreneurs, who purchased the unique mannequin of the united statesS. Enterprise used within the opening credit of the Sixties TV collection “Star Trek.”
The lads alleged that they agreed to consign the mannequin to Heritage for a deliberate public sale sale after the home gave it a price of $800,000. Nonetheless, following their settlement, they claimed that the public sale home falsely questioned their title to the mannequin after which satisfied them to promote it for a low-ball $500,000 to Roddenberry Leisure Inc., a shopper that would doubtlessly present a pipeline of memorabilia to the public sale home sooner or later.
Armen Vartian, an lawyer representing Heritage, stated the allegations have been unfounded, calling it “an unfortunate misunderstanding.”
The case is pending.
