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 House Heart.
Since Schneider had a protracted relationship with Heritage Auctions, recognized 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 accordance with a lawsuit filed final week in Los Angeles Superior Court docket.
“How do I put this?” mentioned Schneider in an interview, “I was screwed.”
Schneider alleges in his lawsuit that Heritage Auctions didn’t disclose the hat’s potential worth, convincing him to promote it in a non-public sale with a view 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,” mentioned Dale Washington, an legal professional representing Schneider.
An legal professional 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 traditional 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 recognized current hats utilized in filming of the 1939 traditional. This one, product of a black wool material, had a chin strap worn throughout flying scenes.
On this 1939 file photograph 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 needed to purchase the hat when it first got here up on the market when MGM started promoting off its stock of props within the Nineteen 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 worth of $200,000 for insurance coverage functions, in accordance with his lawsuit.
“Wizard of Oz” props are a few of the most coveted amongst collectors. When Schneider approached Heritage, he mentioned its senior director, Brian Chanes, informed him that the objects from the beloved movie had enduring enchantment, saying they’re “as good as it gets,” the swimsuit 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 grievance states.
Mr. S is a former little one actor named Michael Shaw, who had just lately 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 recognized 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 crimson sequin behind. On the time, the footwear have been valued at $1 million.
A pair of ruby slippers worn by Judy Garland within the “The Wizard of Oz” bought 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 bought on to Shaw, who had expressed curiosity. The worth was “more than any Hat had previously sold for,” Chanes informed him, in accordance with the grievance.
A number 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 variation of the hit Broadway musical that opened in November, which would definitely assist enhance enthusiasm.
In response to the swimsuit, Heritage launched a promotional tour of Shaw’s objects, holding occasions in New York, London and Tokyo.
Shaw just isn’t a defendant within the lawsuit towards Heritage.
Through the public sale held on Dec. 7, the ruby slippers bought for a file $32.5 million and the hat hammered down for $2.93 million, which was almost 12 instances the quantity Schneider obtained for his hat. Like different homes, Heritage receives a fee on the objects bought 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 mentioned. He says the home violated its fiduciary obligations to him, having didn’t 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 swimsuit.
Schneider’s grievance echoes one other case introduced towards 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 boys alleged that they agreed to consign the mannequin to Heritage for a deliberate public sale sale after the home gave it a worth 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 consumer that would doubtlessly present a pipeline of memorabilia to the public sale home sooner or later.
Armen Vartian, an legal professional representing Heritage, mentioned the allegations have been unfounded, calling it “an unfortunate misunderstanding.”
The case is pending.