During the will, the late uncle says, "I know what you're thinking. You'll buy a dozen Picasso's and use them for firewood. Forget it. You can't destroy anything that's inherently valuable. That's immediate disqualification."
Well, isn't using the stamp to mail the post card destroying it's value? It got fastened to a post card, and ink from the post office where they stamped it destroyed its value.
No, because he's using the stamp for it's INTENDED purpose, a painting isn't meant to be used as firewood, it's also why he's not disqualified for the expensive champagne he bought and opened at the auction.
Wayne Enterprises buys and sells companies like Stark Industries
He also did not destroy the stamp. He eliminated the value of it but the stamp itself was not destroyed.
shareReally, if the stamp bit broke any rules, it was that he had to get value for money. How is spending more then $1million on a stamp that you intend to put on a postcard and post value for money, when you do the exact same thing with a stamp that would cost him a few cents?
This movie, if you read to much into it, is always going to fall down somewhere. It's meant as a fun comedy, not a realistic documentary.
This movie, if you read to much into it, is always going to fall down somewhere. It's meant as a fun comedy, not a realistic documentary.
He did not destroy the value of the stamp. A stamp does not loose value to a collector if you mail it. Most stamps that are in the hands of collectors have been mailed at one point or another. It's debatable since the stamp is not from the original timeframe but it did not necessarily loose it's value.
Here's an article about a stamp that is worth 2 million dollars. You can clearly see the postmark:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treskilling_yellow
I think humanity should be wiped out and then we can give evolution a second chance.
No, this has been mentioned before. When Rupert (the uncle) gives an example, you see he is talking about physically destroying an asset that is valuable. Brewster never destroyed the stamp that way by mailing it. The stamp is still there, just has no value anymore. It is like depreciation on an asset versus the asset actually disappearing.
shareThere's only one real issue with him mailing the stamp, it couldn't have been enough postage due to its age. He likely would have had to add a few more stamps for it to be taken by the USPS before it was sent, it would have been left undelivered. Thus retaining its value.
shareMaybe, but it was delivered on a postcard, not an actual letter, so it's possible that for a postcard, it would have been enough on its own.
At any rate, thank you to everyone who answered the OP's question, because I'm watching it right now, and bells went off in my head because I thought he should have been disqualified for the stamp.
As for it being "just a comedy that shouldn't be taken seriously?" Yes, you're right, but sometimes, after you've watched something a LOT, you start looking at other aspects of the movie, lol.
There's only one real issue with him mailing the stamp, it couldn't have been enough postage due to its age. He likely would have had to add a few more stamps for it to be taken by the USPS before it was sent, it would have been left undelivered. Thus retaining its value.
"inherently valuable"
That's the snag. A dozen Picasso's mean SQUAT to most people. They are NOT inherently valuable. Only an a-hole who thinks 'art' is inherently valuable is destroying it as such.
**Skin that Smokewagon and see what happens!** Tombstone
Suppose you just bought a really valuable coin - but when you went to ring your wonderful wife to tell her about it you had no change. You would have to use the coin! And for its intended purpose.
shareProblem is, you wouldn't have a receipt for the phone call. The cancelled stamp acted as a receipt.
share