Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Rolf Harris Prints


fretplay

Recommended Posts

My wife bought a Rolf Harris print a couple of years ago. It is a hand signed small limited edition print in a fine frame and has hung in our living room until recently I discovered it was no longer there. When I asked my wife she said she couldn't have it hanging there any longer knowing what he had done.

 

This got me thinking, if you had a guitar that was owned by someone famous or a named model would you stop playing it if the they were in court for a crime of any kind and if you decided to sell it would the notoriety put it's value we or down? Food for thought!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Farnsbarns

Wagner was an antisemitic, homophobic Nazi, people still appreciate his art. Harris is accused of peadophilia (accused, not convicted) and (IMO) with some very shakey evidence. It will probably be worthless if he is convicted but a print would have no great value now I don't think. I'd hold on to it until there is an outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wagner was an antisemitic, homophobic Nazi, people still appreciate his art. Harris is accused of peadophilia (accused, not convicted) and (IMO) with some very shakey evidence. It will probably be worthless if he is convicted but a print would have no great value now I don't think. I'd hold on to it until there is an outcome.

 

Well for me it seems a pity that the picture is now in the cupboard under the stairs but the root of my thread was how would we feel if we had say, a Rolf Harris Signature Martin D28?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...the root of my thread was how would we feel if we had say, a Rolf Harris Signature Martin D28?

Are we imagining it might be possible to have the actual signature re-modelled so that it reads 'Rudolf Harrison'?...

 

Seriously though?

A lot will depend on the outcome of the trial and the nature of the actual circumstances of the events under consideration.

RH has strenuously denied the charges and has entered a plea of Not Guilty on all counts.

 

I will give him the benefit of the doubt for the time being. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

As such I would continue to play the guitar.

 

Would I continue to use the guitar if he's found guilty? That would require some serious thought...

 

P.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we imagining it might be possible to have the actual signature re-modelled so that it reads 'Rudolf Harrison'?...

 

Seriously though?

A lot will depend on the outcome of the trial and the nature of the actual circumstances of the events under consideration.

RH has strenuously denied the charges and has entered a plea of Not Guilty on all counts.

 

I will give him the benefit of the doubt for the time being. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

As such I would continue to play the guitar.

 

Would I continue to use the guitar if he's found guilty? That would require some serious thought...

 

P.

 

 

Rudolf Harrison, I like it! I do remember some years ago the MD of a well known retail chain being 'involved' with a page three model. Head lines in the paper were about her night of love. The next day the shares went up. RH, we can only wait and see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wagner was an antisemitic, homophobic Nazi, people still appreciate his art. Harris is accused of peadophilia (accused, not convicted) and (IMO) with some very shakey evidence. It will probably be worthless if he is convicted but a print would have no great value now I don't think. I'd hold on to it until there is an outcome.

 

I beg to differ. I suspect if he is convicted the value will likely go up.

 

I really don't know this cat and couldn't care less about him or his art.

 

However, I was in an antique shop a few weeks ago. One bay had a short stack of laminated photographs of the WWII era. One of Pearl Harbor as it still smoldered, several pictures of European country side, cities and such. All offered at the princely some of $6.00 each Two, however were of a parade, with cheering onlookers to an uncovered sedan of the era with people inside, both of which were doubly priced at $12.00 each. The passenger? Adolph Hitler.

 

A little farther down the aisle was a case with copies of vintage photographs, actually, the originals were likely tintypes. The seller offered a pair, one of Abraham Lincoln and the other of Mary Todd Lincoln, his wife. It is interesting to note that Abraham was photographed at various times with his boys, but never with his wife. The pair was offered at $75.00 for the set. Next to the presidential couple was another, single photo offered at $150.00. The subject, John Wilkes Booth. That just ain't right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all this kerfuffle about Rolf Harris (this is the first have heard of it) I can't help but think about a few years ago when Pete Townshend was tried and convicted by the "court of public opinion" as soon as the news of his being charged with possessing child pornography came over the airwaves,and of course there are a lot of people who still believe that he's a diddler.Mike Tyson comes to mind too.He is a convicted woman abuser and rapist and now he has his own TV show and people look up to him like he has solar rectal syndrome.As far as I'm concerned a rapist is about the most disgusting of human beings and is only surpassed in repulsiveness by murderers.

 

Getting back to the Rolf Harris issue,I would imagine that whether he is convicted or not there will be a period where his works will not be as valuable as they used to be because a lot the public generally believes that just being charged with a crime means a person is guilty.The general public has a very short memory when it comes to some things and the case of Mike Tyson really demonstrates this in a big way.So even if Rolf Harris is found guilty or if he kicks the bucket the value of his works will go back to where it was in a fairly short while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Guest Farnsbarns

I was staggered to hear the guilty verdict. I really thought this one wasn't going to come to anything. I know very little about the case (only what the papers wrote) but I really thought it unlikely he was guilty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forgive my cynicism, but I remain a sceptic re the application of "Law" in these cases. No - one notices anything until many years after the event then everybody comes out of the woodwork with observations they made but never commented on. Having watched a good mate thrown to the wolves recently on the basis of undemonstrable spurious allegations, also relating to the mid seventies, which I personally know to be absolutely false, and obviously so to any observer, my faith is non -existant. To watch a Prosecutor pursue with Salem- like zeal a case which was so fractured and inaccurate , and had to be so to him, was truly unbelievable to witness. In the end , my good friend , having spent 5 months in remand , was terrified into accepting a deal ( to the stated horror of the Judge) which involved a lesser charge if he pleaded guilty to it, or face the possibility of taking his chances with a slew of truly horrific charges if he did not. All to record a conviction for that prosecutor, who had invested a mighty amount of Crown Money on the pursuit, and would be in deep s**t if it came to nothing . I despise them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the risk of going slightly off-topic...

 

I, too, have watched (and been called as a witness by) one of my very best friends go through Hell over the last 5 years facing a list of similarly unfounded allegations.

At every stage his evidence was found to be 'Entirely credible' and that of his antagonist 'Entirely non-credible' (judges summing-up remarks to the court) yet no-one would risk finding him innocent just in case they were wrong.

Eventually, at long last, he was cleared of all charges and his accuser was proven to the court to have been lying, consistently, throughout the whole process - for five years!

By this time he had lost pretty much everything - house; job; possessions - and was in debt to the tune of almost $500,000 which, of course, he didn't have.

All of this just to prove he was innocent.

In the same manner as the friend mentioned by Starpeve he was also offered 'a deal' by his accuser if he pleaded guilty. He declined. He needed to prove himself innocent.

 

At every stage of the process - at least once the preliminary evidence had been presented after the first 3 months - it must have been perfectly clear to the solicitiors acting for both parties which of their clients was telling the truth yet they both had a vested interest in dragging the court case out for as long as was 'humanly' possible. As an example; a two hour meeting with both parties' solicitors in attendance? £2,000 / $3,430. Each.

 

How can these people sleep at night knowing they have been trying, to the best of their ability, to destroy an innocent person's life?

 

Clearly there will also be some in the profession who are solely concerned with trying to uphold 'the truth' but in general I share Starpeve's deep mistrust of the judiciary.

 

P.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the risk of going slightly off-topic...

 

I, too, have watched (and been called as a witness by) one of my very best friends go through Hell over the last 5 years facing a list of similarly unfounded allegations.

At every stage his evidence was found to be 'Entirely credible' and that of his antagonist 'Entirely non-credible' (judges summing-up remarks to the court) yet no-one would risk finding him innocent just in case they were wrong.

Eventually, at long last, he was cleared of all charges and his accuser was proven to the court to have been lying, consistently, throughout the whole process - for five years!

By this time he had lost pretty much everything - house; job; possessions - and was in debt to the tune of almost $500,000 which, of course, he didn't have.

All of this just to prove he was innocent.

In the same manner as the friend mentioned by Starpeve he was also offered 'a deal' by his accuser if he pleaded guilty. He declined. He needed to prove himself innocent.

 

At every stage of the process - at least once the preliminary evidence had been presented after the first 3 months - it must have been perfectly clear to the solicitiors acting for both parties which of their clients was telling the truth yet they both had a vested interest in dragging the court case out as long for as was 'humanly' possible. As an example; a two hour meeting with both parties' solicitors in attendance? £2,000 / $3,430. Each.

 

How can these people sleep at night knowing they have been trying, to the best of their ability, to destroy an innocent person's life?

 

Clearly there will also be some in the profession who are solely concerned with trying to uphold 'the truth' but in general I share Starpeve's deep mistrust of the judiciary.

 

P.

It's interesting to note that in North America, the term "solicitor" refers to someone who canvasses homes and businesses trying to make some sort of deal for goods or services. They are annoying and usually unwelcome. There are signs everywhere that state "No Solicitors".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting to note that in North America, the term "solicitor" refers to someone who canvasses homes and businesses trying to make some sort of deal for goods or services. They are annoying and usually unwelcome. There are signs everywhere that state "No Solicitors".

Which leads us to the verb; " Soliciting; To Solicit." - which is (partly) defined as;

"...to accost someone and offer one's or someone else's services as a prostitute."

 

So, pretty much spot on, then?

"Bluddy Hooers" as they would say in Glasgow.

 

P.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...