Perla selling Slash memorabilia

[Sydney Fan]

Why slash never signed a prenup ill never understand. It wouldnt stop her from selling her letters and shit from slash but anyway. 

[Blackstar]

There are many cases where journals, letters and other personal items of writers, painters, musicians etc. have been published or sold posthumously. There's surely a moral question when a deceased person had expressed a wish for items not to be ever publicised, but, generally speaking, privacy doesn't have a meaning any more for dead people, because, well, they're dead. 

It's different when the person is alive. I think all living people, whoever they are, have a right to privacy. Part of famous people's lives is public, but it doesn't mean they want to share everything. And the fact that we, the "public", are deadly curious and tempted to read it, doesn't mean that it's right. This as a general principle, regardless of this particular case and whether Slash is bothered or not (which we don't know).

Edited April 5, 2019 by Blackstar

[smiley]

22 hours ago, BlueJean Baby said:

Slash's iconic black hats expected to fetch big bucks at auction

Raechal Shewfelt

Yahoo CelebrityApril 4, 2019, 8:20 PM GMT

Slash performs wearing one of his signature hats on Oct. 20, 2012, in Paris. (Photo: David Wolff - Patrick/Redferns via Getty Images)

Slash just wouldn’t be Slash without his iconic black hats.

Now several of the toppers, along with many other items that once belonged to the famed Guns N’ Roses guitarist, are going up for sale. All of it is from the collection of Slash (real name: Saul Hudson) and Perla Hudson, who was married to the rocker from 2001 to 2014. (They share two teenage sons, London and Cash.)

 

The items will be exhibited for the public at the Hard Rock Cafe in New York City’s Times Square from May 13 to 17. Those who want to make a bid can do so either in person or through the Julien’s Auctions website on May 17-18.

The hats that Slash has worn while jamming onstage to “Sweet Child O’ Mine,” “November Rain” and more hits from his collaboration with Axl Rose and company are expected to go for hundreds of dollars each.

Slash drew on this top hat with a silver marker pen. (Photo: Julien's Auctions)

It’s estimated that a felt top hat, featuring drawings by Slash himself, will sell for $600.

A custom bowler hat that Slash wore in 2010 will likely go for $1,200, according to pre-auction estimates.

This bowler hat is estimated at $1,200. (Photo: Julien's Auctions)

Slash has such a thing for hats that his bride even wore a tiny hat as part of her veil at the couple’s 2001 wedding, and it’s also on the block.

The veil Perla wore when marrying Slash is up for auction, estimated to sell for $600. (Photo: Julien's Auctions)

Hats aren’t the only Slash apparel available: pants, boots and leather jackets are part of the auction, too.

This trio of Slash's pants shows off Slash's rock 'n' roll style. (Photo: Julien's Auctions)

 

One of Slash's leather jackets is expected to sell for a cool $3,000. (Photo: Julien's Auctions)

 

Any takers for these ostrich and leather boots? (Photo: Julien's Auctions)

Slash’s other belongings in the sale include the Moonman that he took home from the 1988 MTV Video Music Awards for his Best New Artist in a Video performance in the Guns N’ Roses hit “Welcome to the Jungle.” It’s expected to bring in up to $15,000 — more than almost all of the other merchandise.

(Photo: Julien's Auctions)

Whatever the final count of the proceeds, a portion will go toward Youth Emerging Stronger, a charity supporting homeless and foster youth in Los Angeles, Calif.

 

 

 

any way to see more pictures other and buy the $100 catalog?

is there a link to the news story quoted above? there are different pictures in it than in this (wondering where they got them from) https://www.juliensauctions.com/exhibition-press-release?id=286

[BlueJean Baby]

25 minutes ago, smiley said:

any way to see more pictures other and buy the $100 catalog?

is there a link to the news story quoted above? there are different pictures in it than in this (wondering where they got them from) https://www.juliensauctions.com/exhibition-press-release?id=286

Here is the link, but I posted the whole story.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/slashs-iconic-black-hats-expected-to-fetch-big-bucks-at-auction-202009834.html

[killuridols]

1 hour ago, Blackstar said:

It's different when the person is alive. I think all living people, whoever they are, have a right to privacy. Part of famous people's lives is public, but it doesn't mean they want to share everything. And the fact that we, the "public", are deadly curious and tempted to read it, doesn't mean that it's right. This as a general principle, regardless of this particular case and whether Slash is bothered or not (which we don't know).

So buying magazines like People or reading that kind of stuff, even the Rolling Stone mag interviews, is "wrong", if we have to follow your logic? 

You pay money to dig up old newspaper articles in search of rumors, gossip and information about the band and the band members. Is that an illegal activity or morally wrong too?

Lol, I don't think so.

No one here, as far as I know, have committed a crime in reading "private" letters that became public, because those letters were made available to the public by decision of their owners.

It'd be a totally different thing, and indeed a crime and also morally wrong, if one of us had broke into Slash house or Axl house and stolen the letters and the other items that are being auctioned.

But this is not the case. If things are public and are available to either read, see, watch or buy, and they've been made available through a legal system like an auction or a sale, then there's nothing "wrong" in it, except if you personally feel bad about it. And that would be your personal moral issue, not to be applied to everybody else.

[Blackstar]

10 hours ago, killuridols said:

So buying magazines like People or reading that kind of stuff, even the Rolling Stone mag interviews, is "wrong", if we have to follow your logic? 

You pay money to dig up old newspaper articles in search of rumors, gossip and information about the band and the band members. Is that an illegal activity or morally wrong too?

Lol, I don't think so.

1) I never said anything about "illegal" or a "crime," only that it isn't right.

2) Maybe it wasn't clear enough what I meant with it isn't right. I meant that the fact that the public is curious to read private stuff doesn't make its publicising right.

3) What do interviews and articles with information about the band have to do with this topic? In interviews the people talk about things they choose to share, as far as I know. 

I don't dig up for gossip or rumours particularly, btw. I have found articles that fall into the personal/sensitive area involving family members etc. which I haven't shared (with the exception of 2-3 cases where I posted a rough description confirming something already public, but not the details or the full article) because I just don't think it would be appropriate, as, even though it's actually public information, the people involved didn't choose to share it. Someone else could see it differently, of course. 

Also btw, I don't pay money for the purpose of finding stuff about Guns N' Roses. I do have subscriptions to online libraries, collections etc. that I use mainly for purposes related to my work, and I also use them for other things that might interest me.

Edited April 6, 2019 by Blackstar

[Fourteenbeers]

20 hours ago, alfierose said:

That was my thought. He strikes me more as a saucy limerick kinda guy. 

Roses are crap 
Violets are shit 
Sit on my face 
And wiggle a bit
 

Edited April 6, 2019 by Fourteenbeers

[Towelie]

Calling a former pole dancer/stripper tacky is like calling the Pope Catholic.

This is what you get for marrying with your dick.

[Towelie]

Although to be fair, she did have a cracking pair of jugs.

[Drexl]

She keeps falling lower and lower. Pathetic.

[killuridols]

3 hours ago, Blackstar said:

2) Maybe it wasn't clear enough what I meant with it isn't right. I meant that the fact that the public is curious to read private stuff doesn't make its publicising right.

It isn't right by your moral principles. But at the same time, when these private letters go public, they aren't private anymore. Even more so, when it is their owners who make them available.

3 hours ago, Blackstar said:

3) What do interviews and articles with information about the band have to do with this topic? In interviews the people talk about things they choose to share, as far as I know. 

These letters and other stuff are also willingly being shared by their owners, so where's the difference?

Information is a commodity, that's why I bring it up here. Articles, interviews and journalistic research are sold to the audience on a daily basis. Sometimes the people involved choose to share that information, other times they do not. But the tabloids are still sold and people read them. Is it morally wrong to read a tabloid?

3 hours ago, Blackstar said:

I don't dig up for gossip or rumours particularly, btw. I have found articles that fall into the personal/sensitive area involving family members etc. which I haven't shared (with the exception of 2-3 cases where I posted a rough description confirming something already public, but not the details or the full article) because I just don't think it would be appropriate, as, even though it's actually public information, the people involved didn't choose to share it. Someone else could see it differently, of course. 

Also btw, I don't pay money for the purpose of finding stuff about Guns N' Roses. I do have subscriptions to online libraries, collections etc. that I use mainly for purposes related to my work, and I also use them for other things that might interest me.

Your reasons to be subscribed to information outlets are irrelevant, I'm not morally judging you for that because you're not committing a crime.

What I'm saying is that all the information you have access to is made available for all kinds of people, so the personal moral choices should not be a parameter to say that something is generally right or wrong.

[Lio]

21 minutes ago, killuridols said:

It isn't right by your moral principles. But at the same time, when these private letters go public, they aren't private anymore. Even more so, when it is their owners who make them available.

These letters and other stuff are also willingly being shared by their owners, so where's the difference?

Information is a commodity, that's why I bring it up here. Articles, interviews and journalistic research are sold to the audience on a daily basis. Sometimes the people involved choose to share that information, other times they do not. But the tabloids are still sold and people read them. Is it morally wrong to read a tabloid?

Your reasons to be subscribed to information outlets are irrelevant, I'm not morally judging you for that because you're not committing a crime.

What I'm saying is that all the information you have access to is made available for all kinds of people, so the personal moral choices should not be a parameter to say that something is generally right or wrong.

So... spreading someone else's nude pics that they have sent you in private is okay too? Because you're the 'owner' of the pic? And everyone looking at it and doing whatever they want to it, is okay too, as they were made publicly accessible and they're not private anymore?

Personal moral choices? WTF? Don't you think there's something like a universal moral compass? Or even if people don't have that, could they maybe stop to think: Would I like it if it happened to me/my child? And if they wouldn't like it, maybe just, I don't know, don't do it?

What a world are we living in if all you have to ask yourself is: is it allowed by law/not strictly illegal? Yes? Okay, go for it! Is it a commodity and is someone willing to pay? Yes? Go for it! Sad.

[jacdaniel]

You are a very disturbed individual if you’d pay money for a love letter. 

Why on earth would anyone care about these things? 

[killuridols]

6 hours ago, Lio said:

So... spreading someone else's nude pics that they have sent you in private is okay too? Because you're the 'owner' of the pic? And everyone looking at it and doing whatever they want to it, is okay too, as they were made publicly accessible and they're not private anymore?

This comparison does not apply. Because first you have to determine who is the owner of a photo and what kind of photo that is. A nude photo of the selfie type belongs to the person who took it, usually this person is the owner of the camera, so that's their picture.

Love letters stop being yours when you send them away. From then on you no longer have control on them. The receiver could wipe their ass with them and what would you do? Tell them it is wrong? 

I'm not sure what's the legislation on love letters being auctioned in the USA, but it doesn't seem to be a criminal offense, unlike the 'revenge porn' photos you are talking about.

6 hours ago, Lio said:

Personal moral choices? WTF? Don't you think there's something like a universal moral compass? Or even if people don't have that, could they maybe stop to think: Would I like it if it happened to me/my child? And if they wouldn't like it, maybe just, I don't know, don't do it?

There are some universal moral messages only meant to dominate other people, make them slaves of stupid moral orders, like that it is wrong to have sex before marriage, or that it is wrong to purchase auction items. Nietzsche has written largely about it 

6 hours ago, Lio said:

What a world are we living in if all you have to ask yourself is: is it allowed by law/not strictly illegal? Yes? Okay, go for it! Is it a commodity and is someone willing to pay? Yes? Go for it! Sad.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble but that's how many things function in this world, i.e. "legal/illegal substances" and the battle on whether it is right or wrong to let people have access to them with all the consequences it brings.

Yet again, being scandalized because a pair of old boots or some stupid letters are auctioned borders on the ultra moralist hysteria.

[janrichmond]

[Nosaj Thing]

Aah, feels so good to not give a fuck anymore.  

I remember when Slash auctioned stuff at Juliens, I bid $5,000 for that Snakepit 'Ain't Life Grand' painting but ended up selling for $8,000.  I really wanted that shit.

[janrichmond]

5 minutes ago, Nosaj Thing said:

I remember when Slash auctioned stuff at Juliens, I bid $5,000 for that Snakepit 'Ain't Life Grand' painting but ended up selling for $8,000.  I really wanted that shit.

I remember that ALL the proceeds went to charity in previous auctions, now it's the (super rich) ex-wife selling her ex-husbands stuff and only a 'portion' goes to charity. 

[Nosaj Thing]

It's quite risible that they stated that only a "portion" will go towards charity.

Define "portion."  

[janrichmond]

6 minutes ago, Nosaj Thing said:

It's quite risible that they stated that only a "portion" will go towards charity.

Define "portion."  

1% 

[lame ass security]

A friend of mine was bartending in a hotel bar where the band was staying during the Aerosmith tour in '88.  In the early evening Slash came sauntering in, plopped himself down at the bar and asked if he could just buy a bottle of Jack and drink it at the bar, he was told he couldn't.  Anyway, after awhile he started writing messages on napkins and was asking my friend or a barmaid to give them to the various women in the bar.  Maybe they should've saved these "love letters" from Slash. 

[dontdamnmeuyi2015]

I guess more spite work on her part.

It's not like she needs the money. I would think maybe her sons would like to keep some of Slash's things? I wonder if they care or not?

[Ratam]

1 hour ago, janrichmond said:

I remember that ALL the proceeds went to charity in previous auctions, now it's the (super rich) ex-wife selling her ex-husbands stuff and only a 'portion' goes to charity. 

Is really funny as people misinterpret this auction. Yesterday i read few comments in Yahoo and people think that Slash selling all this stuff, " and how is possible that an legend as Slash is need money and is broke"...

[Tourettes2400]

Anyone bid or buy on anything today?

Edited June 14, 2019 by Tourettes2400

[appetite4illusions]

Do you think that Moonman was the same Moonnman that Slash claims he lost in taxi-cab in his book?

It's so insignificant to Slash, that he plum forgot that he never even lost it...

[Amaya]

I am the desenting opinion with respect to all of you.  They were legally married. She did not steal anything. What was left at their house, which was then her house, she decided to sell. It was hers. Letters and cards are owned by the receiver. If any of his awards or clothes were important , then  he would have taken them. What she auctioned , in my opinion, made no sense including letters.  Spiteful.  The time and money was not worth. To me, it would have been easier to have the housekeeper box up his crap and drop it off at his office ,    home, whatever. Petty because  in the big picture  her divorce was 6 million something upfront plus the lady will get a little over a million a year  for the rest of life.