|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Deadbeats in the industry (see page 7 for current info on Ron Purtee)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster
Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 12-03-2009 04:37 PM
Tony,
I was referring to Scott's situation but there are a few things that need to be cleared up regarding this. I will only respond this one last time to Tim's whining.
Tim was sold everything in the pictures he was sent BEFORE we agreed on a deal for the camera. I still have those pictures here.
Tim did get the the following:
Camera in GWO and had been recently serviced.
Crystal Motor and power cable there was no power source as part of the deal.
Baltar Lens set with one lens iffy and no case, he knew about it.
Matte box that as was shown in the pictures of the camera.
Mitchell case for the camera in usable shape. The cases are old and collectors items so I hope Tim did not throw it away.
Magazine Blmip
1000' Magazine
Tim's complaining started about the cracked pellicle but I had used the camera for a few of years on and off with the crack just fine. I had also had the camera serviced about once a year by Les Day up till when he passed on, then it sat for about a year. He always said to leave it alone because it's NOW WHERE near the convergence point of the lenses and it would not be in the photographed image. It could be seen in the ground glass which goes a bit beyond the photographed area, typical of just about all reflex MP Cameras. Obviously he's also used it on and off for 10 years with the crack because he implies that it hasn't been repaired because the manufacturer is out of buisness and there are no parts. Yes! Both Mitchell AND Cinema Products ARE out of buisness but I provided Tim the name of a reliable place it could be repaired that was reccomended to me by Les whan he became ill. They can still repair it today and they specialize in reflex modifications to non-reflexed cameras just like Tim's camera. I also told him that the camera required at least yearly servicing anyway so he should have a reputable place at hand to send it to. Tim had or may still have the info. The pellicle IS NOT a field replacable part. It requires special tools, ground glass re-alignment, and possibly the flange focal distance to be re-set properly. Aside from the place I reccomended to Tim there are at least three other places or people that can repair any aspect of that camera today. Many are still in use. As far as I know the designer of the reflex conversion is also still living and I definately know his company is which is very well known for building cameras. Perhaps the crack has grown over the ten years he's had the camera, I haven't seen it since it left here. Have you ever had the camera properly serviced Tim? If not you should write and I'll be happy to give you a list of those places.
He complained about the matte box:
That he'd prefer the bellows type matte box and I said I would see what I could do. I had a couple of others here at the time but they turned out to be for other cameras. There were NO PROMISES made on getting that type of the matte box and I did try to locate one and would have been happy to exchange it with his. I could not locate one. There are a few of those Matte Boxes around but they are scarce has hens teeth beacause parts of them are fragile. You normally see them in museums such as the ASC Museum.
RE: The Gear Head:
The gear head came from Lucas Film. They used it for a long time. It very likely served duty on Star Wars and Empire. However Tim complained about the gear ratio. And yes, it did have a different gear ratio than other heads that I had used but it still worked fine for me. Some heads have two speed gear boxes and some don't. So I used it and Lucas used it and so whats up with that? A case was included with the gear head that should have also fit the camera. No case was included in the price of the gear head. So Tim got the case he asked for.
In essence I'm guilty of very late delivery and nothing else. If the camera was non-functional I wouldn't have sold it. Other film collectors also suffered as well on delivery but everyone eventually got what they bought and paid for.
I have a pretty good reputation in this buisness for doing good work promptly and I always treat people fairly. I also have a 100% feedback rating on E-Bay after 233 transactions. Here are a few of my E-Bay reviews. Look for yourself... "KSA50"
"Very nice item. Great packing job! Highly recommended!!"
"Super ebayer! Item in perfect condition, fast shipping and nice contact. Thanks!"
"Great transaction & communication! Very kind seller. MUCH RECOMMENDED +++++"
"As-described, fast shipping, great communication. A good seller to have on Ebay"
The above represents who I actually am. We all go through tough points in our lives! Tim has gone through one of the toughest points in life that a person can face. I live in the present, not the past. Tim seems to live in the past for what ever reason. I got my life back on track quickly after I left the sucky job I had at the time. And personally, I'd rather be friends with Tim than not and I don't really hold grudges against anyone and if I do it's not for very long, I'm never been that type of person.
Case closed in my book, and I will ignore any future posts by anyone regarding the subject. You can all say what you want or think what you want... It's a free Country after all!
Mark
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tim Reed
Better Projection Pays
Posts: 5246
From: Northampton, PA
Registered: Sep 1999
|
posted 12-04-2009 12:11 AM
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
I will only respond this one last time to Tim's whining <snip>
Tim did get the the following: <snip> Matte box that as was shown in the pictures of the camera.
Good, I'm whining now! Show everyone how you treat dissatisfied customers, Mark. I really didn't expect you to own up to anything. BTW, that's not a matte box, it's a lens shade. There's a difference. You did NOT send the matte box. quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Mitchell case for the camera in usable shape.
Nonsense, it was falling apart. You admitted it, and said from the beginning you were sending a new Anvil case for it. The case with the geared head was a DIFFERENT TRANSACTION, and is too small for the camera anyway. What were you going to do, send the head without its case, too? quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Tim's complaining started about the cracked pellicle <snip> it would not be in the photographed image. <snip> I had also had the camera serviced about once a year <snip> then it sat for about a year.
Of course we complained! The crack extends well into the image area. You conveniently never told us about that 'minor' item! Oh, since you brought it up: the prism area and pellicle was filthy - spotted with dirt and oil - so, contrary to your assertion, it had not been serviced in quite some time. quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Obviously he's also used it on and off for 10 years with the crack <snip> I provided Tim the name of a reliable place it could be repaired that was reccomended to me by Les
Obviously? We got ZERO use from that camera. None. FWIW, the "reliable place" told me I was out of luck finding a replacement. quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
The pellicle IS NOT a field replacable part. It requires special tools, ground glass re-alignment, and possibly the flange focal distance to be re-set properly.
Humm, that kind of precision doesn't come cheap. But in the other thread, you clearly stated: quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Its an inexpensive fix
So, does that mean they will do all of that work cheaply (given they have the part, that is), or did I just catch you in another fib? But forget fixing it, the real issue is you knew it was broken and you didn't tell us about it. That pissed me off almost as much as you not sending it. quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
RE: The Gear Head:<snip>However Tim complained about the gear ratio.
Oh, silly me. The pan is just geared so high that it's useless for following live action, that's all, and I asked if there was another gear. But I don't see where I mentioned that here? quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
A case was included with the gear head that should have also fit the camera. No case was included in the price of the gear head.
This is pretty weak, Mark. It's also a falsehood. One of your selling points to get me to buy the head in the first place, was that it came with a case. But again, a case for a geared head isn't big enough for a huge freakin' BNC camera. No, you promised the camera case from day one, and you still owe it to us. quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
1. I have a pretty good reputation in this buisness
2. I also have a 100% feedback rating on E-Bay
3. I live in the present, not the past.
1. Depends on who you talk to.
2. Too bad this wasn't an eBay transaction.
3. That's because it behooves you to forget your past (remember Chicago?) Old wounds run deep. quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Case closed in my book,
Obviously. For nearly 10 years.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sean McKinnon
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1712
From: Peabody Massachusetts
Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted 01-27-2010 12:29 PM
Intersting article in a pennsylvania news paper about a New York based theatre operator...
Pike County Courier
Movie magic gone bad
$17 million trail of debt and judgement follows cinema developer, By Nick Troiano
WESTFALL — It’s a story for the movies, but Westfall has no place to see it.
Norman Adie, the man who promised to provide one and didn’t, is a Scottish businessman who first made his name in the cinema industry as a theatre manager in London. He arrived in New York City in 1971 and worked as production manager at Radio City Music Hall before he began building a big screen empire, which once included seven movie houses in the Times Square area. Decades later, that empire now appears to be crumbling and the entrepreneur who once inspired confidence in investors is now referred to by the same people as a crook and a con man.
In 2002, Adie made his debut on the local stage in Monroe, N.Y., where he sought to renovate an old 1940s theatre into a modern five-screen complex. Legal issues emerged shortly after construction. One Liberty Properties, a real estate company that was a partner in the joint venture that owned the property, alleged that Adie, along with its own president and CEO, conspired to defraud the company. During this period, no progress was made on the new theatre, despite the old cinema having already been torn down and a new steel frame erected.
Mayor John Karl said the Village of Monroe was about to declare the property blighted and take control, but Adie quickly returned from Brooklyn to ask for an extension to get his finances in order. Karl recalls being “jerked around” and feeling skeptical, but Adie settled the litigation, purchased back the property and opened the theatre in May 2008. The movie house operates successfully to this day, although Karl said that Adie still owes the town a $7,000 contribution for new light posts.
Soon before the theatre’s completion, Adie set his sights on Westfall Township where he planned to convert the vacated Grand Union into an even larger theatre with seven screens. When word first broke in 2007, many residents were overjoyed. Local resident Carol Hass told the Courier, “I can’t tell you how excited I am about the movie theatre coming. I am so excited to know I will have a place to enjoy with my kids.”
These hopes were dashed, however, when “Grand Opening” promises were missed, first by Thanksgiving 2007 then by Independence Day 2008. At the time, Adie claimed that there were complications with getting approval for building plans.
But Charles Miller of Westfall Town Center Joint Venture says Adie fell into financial trouble, did not pay the lease and abandoned the project altogether in 2008-leaving behind an incomplete renovation.
In June 2009, Pike County Judge Kameen ruled in favor of Westfall Town Center Joint Venture and issued a $12.7 million judgment against Adie and Westfall Cinema, LLC.
Miller said that although he was aware of Adie’s past legal issues, he felt reassured by Adie’s long-standing reputation, self-confidence and ability to ultimately complete the Monroe cinema. Now he says that he believes his company was “dealing with a man who misrepresented himself and his financial ability.” Miller said, “This man knows no limits…he made a vain effort to defraud investors and to lead us up the garden path.”
Around the same time, unbeknownst to Miller, Adie refused to pay rent on his Foxmoor 7 Theatre in Marshalls Creek, according to property owner Dr. Ram Rayasam. Adie took over that theatre in 2006, and by 2007, he and Rayasam were in legal battles. Both sides settled out of court, but Adie did not pay a dime more since, Rayasam said. Adie was evicted in December and owes some $3.45 million on his lease. “He is a con man and egomaniac. He does not pay anyone, even the little guys,” said Rayasam.
In the aftermath, would-be competitors Rayasam and Miller are now friends that share much in common. While neither expects to recoup any lost money, both are close to securing new tenants to carry on their respective theatre projects and both are determined to ensure others are warned about Adie.
As of late 2009, Adie promised to open another theatre in Middle Smithfield Township that would include a 3D and Imax screen. Kate Galinus, open records officer for the township, said Adie has not yet submitted any plans for construction but could not confirm a report by source familiar with the situation that a stop work order had recently been issued.
“I’m sure that he can find people to dupe just as he duped us,” Miller said, “but I am hopeful that people will get word of him and not fall for his tricks.”
Adie did not return phone messages seeking his response to this story.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
I knew someone that actually was on the old Judge Wappner Show and they won their complaint. Oh, and in some States like Utah getting paid is not a problem because probate pays you if you win your case then they collect from the defendant. Defendants are much more likely to pay the State back thanthey are the plantiff.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic