Two years ago, Adam Schneider, a lifelong movie memorabilia collection, was about to leave and began the process of downsizing. When he made the decision to sell the hat worn by the Wicked Witch from the film” The Wizard of Oz” at the time.
Schneider is a prominent buyer of” Star Trek” props. In 2013 he and his wife made headlines when they , restored and then donated , the” Star Trek” Galileo shuttlecraft prop to NASA’s Johnson Space Center.
Since Schneider had a long relationship with Heritage Auctions, known for its high-octane sales of movie and television props and memorabilia, he turned to the Dallas-based house to sell the hat and other items from his renowned” Star Trek” collection.
According to a lawsuit filed last week in Los Angeles Superior Court, that is when the problem first started.
” How do I throw this”? said Schneider in an interview,” I was screwed”.
In his lawsuit, Schneider alleges that Heritage Auctions allegedly misrepresented the hat’s probable value, allowing Schneider to market it privately in a bid to boost the sale of another Wicked Witch’s hat, which an important collector had previously held for a big auction last year. He is suing the auction business, claiming creative scams and deceptive business methods.
” 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”, said Dale Washington, an attorney representing Schneider.
A representative for Heritage did not respond to a request for comment.
The prosecution provides a window into the profitable world of Hollywood antiques, where collectors offer top prices for items from classic movies.
Schneider says he acquired the Wicked Witch’s hat in 2019 for$ 100, 000, from Profiles in History, a movie memorabilia house that Heritage acquired two years later.
It was one of the three already-known scarves that were used in the 1939 classic’s shooting. This one, made of a dark wool cloth, had a neck strap worn during flying images.
When MGM began selling off its prop products in the 1970s, Schneider had wanted to buy the helmet when it first came up for sale, but he had to wait. But, when it came up for sale six years ago, he bid on it.
In July 2023, Schneider agreed to abandon his hat to Heritage and the piece was given a benefit of$ 200, 000 for coverage purposes, according to his complaint.
” Wizard of Oz” accessories are some of the most prized among collectors. When Schneider approached Heritage, he said its top director, Brian Chanes, told him that the items from the precious drama had sustaining appeal, saying they are” as good as it gets”, the suit says.
Schneider alleges that Heritage later forged a deal with one of the most prominent film prop lovers, named” Mr. S.” He owned three of the most memorable items from the movie: a pair of Dorothy’s rose boots, her broom and another of the Wicked Witch’s clothes, the complaint states.
Mr. S is a previous child actor by the name of Michael Shaw, who had just acquired the rose boots. In 2005, Shaw had lent his set of Dorothy’s ruby slippers to the Judy Garland Museum in her hometown of Grand Rapids, Minnesota. Garland wore one of four sets in the video, and it is one of them.
The same year that Shaw put the boots on borrowing,  , they were stolen from the gallery. A single red sequins was left behind after a man broke into the polycarbonate case that was in their possession. At the time, the shoes were valued at$ 1 million.
The FBI recovered the boots in Minnesota.
In March of last year, eight times after Schneider had previously agreed to abandon his magician’s hat to Heritage,  , Shaw announced , that he planned to sell the boots at auction through Heritage.
Shortly after, Schneider contends that Heritage changed program.
Schneider was contacted by Chanes in August and given a fast offer to sell the helmet for$ 250, 000. The actor’s hat, worn by Margaret Hamilton, may be sold to Shaw, who had expressed attention, rather than the auctioneer. The cost was “more than any Hat had formerly sold for”, Chanes told him, according to the problem.
A few months after, Heritage began promoting a December bidding of movie memorabilia that included Shaw’s three Kansas items.
The price may capitalize on the highly anticipated video,  ,” Wicked” , , the version of the reach Broadway musical that opened in November, which would surely help boost joy.
According to the fit, Heritage launched a special journey of Shaw’s goods, holding events in New York, London and Tokyo.
Shaw is never named in the Heritage complaint.
The rose boots sold for a record$ 32 million during the December 7 bidding, and Schneider’s hat was hammered down for$ 2.93 million, which is roughly 12 times the price of his hat. Like other properties, Past receives a fee on the products sold at auction.
Schneider said it’s uncommon to receive an offer from the auctioneer for an item that has been taken out of an auction. He claims that the house broke its moral responsibilities by failing to disclose the level of business interest in the helmet or its anticipated roadshow for the auction.
Schneider alleges that Heritage made the deal with him as a “device for HERITAGE or its managers to obtain equity at a very cheap while even favoring Mr. S by making his Helmet the only one in the auction,” according to the lawsuit.
Schneider’s problem echoes , another case brought against Heritage , last year by a pair of self-described backup system companies, who bought the original design of the U. S. S. Enterprise used in the opening credits of the 1960s TV line” Star Trek”.
After the house valued the model at$ 800,000, the men claimed that they agreed to consign it to Heritage for an anticipated auction sale. However, they claimed that the auction house falsely disputed the model’s title and persuaded them to sell it for a low-ball$ 500, 000 to Roddenberry Entertainment Inc., a client who might be able to sell a pipeline of memorabilia to the auction house in the future.
Armen Vartian, an attorney representing Heritage, said the allegations were unfounded, calling it” an unfortunate misunderstanding”.
The case is pending.
___
© 2025 Los Angeles Times
Distributed by , Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
