Talk:Ruby slippers worn by American actress Judy Garland in 1939 film The Wizard of Oz break sales record, sold for US$28 million at auction
Add topicmove request
[edit]"Slippers worn by American actress Judy Garland in 1939 film The Wizard of Oz break sales record record, sold for $28 million at auction" Lofi Gurl (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Title Ruby Slippers not just slippers have to be specific. Thoughts? @Lofi Gurl: BigKrow (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Go for it. I can't move pages Lofi Gurl (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
5W Where
[edit]Hi :-)
5Ws: Where did the auction take place?
Optional extra: Any details how it occurred, how many bidders etc?
Regards, Gryllida (talk) 23:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Lofi Gurl Thanks Gryllida (talk) 23:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Suggest adding File:The Wizard of Oz Lahr Garland Bolger Haley 1939.jpg if same slippers there. Gryllida (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- (I'm mildly freaking out as I still don't see location where the auction took place, nor in article nor sources, this is odd) Gryllida (talk) 01:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Headline should state 28M of what currency i believe?
- Gryllida (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
{{helpme}}
it was Heritage Auctions according to [1] please add and attribute as i cannot do this addition and remain eligible to review? @Lofi Gurl @BigKrow Thanks :-) Gryllida (talk) 05:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi All, anyone please add this into article, then will be ready to publish I believe. Gryllida (talk) 05:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- I added it @Gryllida: BigKrow (talk) 12:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- thank you. Lofi Gurl (talk) 13:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
The "why" of the record-high price
[edit]Our article states "CBS News speculated that the high bid was at least partially ascribed to renewed public attention to Oz in regards to the recent release of a prequel film centered on the original film's antagonist, the Wicked Witch of the West."
I don't see that in the CBS article. It does mention ""The Wizard of Oz" story has gained new attention in recent weeks with the release of the movie "Wicked..." but does not attribute that to the slippers' high selling price.
Hollywood Reported discusses the fact that the slippers were screen-matched and their history—being stolen and eventually recovered—as possibly attributing to the final price: "The provenance of this fourth pair, listed in a pre-auction estimate by Heritage to sell “for $3 million and up,” also may have contributed to its final total."
This statement supports the "why" of the record-high price and is therefore necessary. Once it is fixed, move the article back to the review queue. It should be publishable then (I have time this morning to do so). —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 16:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Noted. Check my edit, I did what I could Lofi Gurl (talk) 17:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- We still need the statement to answer the question 'why was the price so high?'. It said it before, but I think was just mis-attributed to the wrong source. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 21:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Lofi Gurl: BigKrow (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Michael.C.Wright - You can add it and I can review? Please confirm within the next hour, or @Lofi Gurl please add it within next hour. Failing that, I'll add it myself and will require another reviewer to publish. Thanks. Gryllida (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- I did what I could to answer the question as to why they were so expensive. Lofi Gurl (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- I mentioned that they were used in the film and had an interesting history and that is why it was so expensive. What am I still missing? I'm so confused right now. Lofi Gurl (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- You fixed it with this edit. 👍 —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 13:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I mentioned that they were used in the film and had an interesting history and that is why it was so expensive. What am I still missing? I'm so confused right now. Lofi Gurl (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- I did what I could to answer the question as to why they were so expensive. Lofi Gurl (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- We still need the statement to answer the question 'why was the price so high?'. It said it before, but I think was just mis-attributed to the wrong source. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 21:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Why the slippers were so expensive
[edit]"The slippers' origins and history were speculated to have played a role in their record-breaking selling price. They have been called the "Holy Grail of Hollywood memorabilia", and [Source] "the most iconic piece of memorabilia in movie history"
Can I have an explanation on why this does not adequately explain why the shoes were so expensive? I am not able to do any better than this, unfortunately.
- Hi Lofi Gurl,
- Please sign your messages. Not doing so breaks my scripts, and it takes me more time to reply.
- I'll paraphrase what Michael wrote above.
- 1) While article says "CBS News speculated that the high bid was at least partially ascribed to renewed public attention to Oz in regards to the recent release of a prequel film centered on the original film's antagonist, the Wicked Witch of the West.", CBS does not say this -- it only mentions the recent release and the increased attention to Oz, but does not connect it to the high bid -- according to Michael.C.Wright, and this statement is unsourced and/or incorrect.
- "renewed public attention to Oz in regards to the recent release of a prequel film centered on the original film's antagonist, the Wicked Witch of the West" is OK.
- "CBS News speculated that the high bid was at least partially ascribed to renewed public attention to Oz" is unsourced and/or incorrect.
- 2) Michael.C.Wright pointed out, "Hollywood Reported discusses the fact that the slippers were screen-matched and their history—being stolen and eventually recovered—as possibly attributing to the final price: "The provenance of this fourth pair, listed in a pre-auction estimate by Heritage to sell “for $3 million and up,” also may have contributed to its final total."" In this quote "provenance" means "history of ownership". It appears to me that Michael.C.Wright identifies this sentence to be the answer to the 'Why' question, and wants this statement to be included in the leading paragraph.
- 1) While article says "CBS News speculated that the high bid was at least partially ascribed to renewed public attention to Oz in regards to the recent release of a prequel film centered on the original film's antagonist, the Wicked Witch of the West.", CBS does not say this -- it only mentions the recent release and the increased attention to Oz, but does not connect it to the high bid -- according to Michael.C.Wright, and this statement is unsourced and/or incorrect.
- It would appear to me that writing 'The Hollywood Reported attributed the high price to the slippers' provenance, them having been stolen from a museum and recovered more than ten years later' in the first paragraph would resolve the issue. (Michael.C.Wright, correct me now if I'm wrong.)
- Hope it helps, and have a great day. Gryllida (talk) 01:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, thank you. How does it look now? Lofi Gurl (talk) 01:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Looks good to me, thank you! I am publishing now. @Michael.C.Wright can make further edits in 24 hour window if needed. Gryllida (talk) 02:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Review of revision 4808941 [Passed]
[edit] ![]() |
Revision 4808941 of this article has been reviewed by Gryllida (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 02:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Notes
Thanks Michael for a detailed look and inquiries, and thanks to Lofi Gurl for authoring and continuously, relentlessly helping with revisions. Further edits may be made within 24 hours, after which {{correction}} will be required to propose further changes. Keep up the great work. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Revision 4808941 of this article has been reviewed by Gryllida (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 02:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Notes
Thanks Michael for a detailed look and inquiries, and thanks to Lofi Gurl for authoring and continuously, relentlessly helping with revisions. Further edits may be made within 24 hours, after which {{correction}} will be required to propose further changes. Keep up the great work. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
sisterlink
[edit]Added here -- Gryllida (talk) 02:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Spelling correction
[edit]An IP address found and corrected the spelling[2] of Dorothy (was "Dorthy"). Unfortunately they also made post-publication content changes more than 24 hours after publication so I reverted them. However, I have corrected the spelling and my changes will need to be sighted by another reviewer after considering the following:
I don't think that this requires a public correction as the misspelling was not a content issue, was of a fictional character, and it did not impact factual accuracy (the article is about Judy, not Dorothy). However, if consensus is that we need a correction, I propose the following:
Correction: A previous version of this article misspelled the name of the fictional character Dorothy Gale. It has been updated to reflect the correct spelling.
—Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 14:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)