Two years ago, Adam Schneider, a longtime movie memorabilia collector, was about to retire and began the process of downsizing. That’s when he decided to sell the Wicked Witch’s hat he owned from the movie “The Wizard of Oz.”
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.
That is when the trouble began, according to a lawsuit filed last week in Los Angeles Superior Court.
“How do I put this?” said Schneider in an interview, “I was screwed.”
Schneider alleges in his lawsuit that Heritage Auctions failed to disclose the hat’s potential value, convincing him to sell it in a private sale in order to better position the sale of another Wicked Witch’s hat that was owned by an important collector, in a major auction held last year. He is suing the auction company, claiming constructive fraud and deceptive trade practices.
“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.
An attorney for Heritage did not respond to a request for comment.
The litigation is a window into the lucrative world of Hollywood memorabilia, where collectors bid top dollar for merchandise from classic films.
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 about three known existing hats used in filming of the 1939 classic. This one, made of a black wool fabric, had a chin strap worn during flying scenes.
Schneider had wanted to buy the hat when it first came up for sale when MGM began selling off its inventory of props in the 1970s but missed out. So, when it came up for sale six years ago, he bid on it.
In July 2023, Schneider agreed to consign his hat to Heritage and the item was given a value of $200,000 for insurance purposes, according to his lawsuit.
“Wizard of Oz” props are some of the most coveted among collectors. When Schneider approached Heritage, he said its senior director, Brian Chanes, told him that the items from the beloved film had enduring appeal, saying they are “as good as it gets,” the suit says.
Schneider alleges Heritage later began talking with one of the foremost collectors of props from the movie, an individual identified in the lawsuit as “Mr. S.” He owned three of the most iconic items from the movie: a pair of Dorothy’s ruby slippers, her broom and another of the Wicked Witch’s hats, the complaint states.
Mr. S is a former child actor named Michael Shaw, who had recently recovered ownership of the ruby slippers. In 2005, Shaw had lent his pair of Dorothy’s ruby slippers to the Judy Garland Museum in her hometown of Grand Rapids, Minnesota. It is one of four known pairs that Garland wore in the movie.
The same year that Shaw put the slippers on loan, they were stolen from the museum. A man shattered the plexiglass case holding them, leaving a single red sequin behind. At the time, the shoes were valued at $1 million.
The FBI recovered the slippers in Minnesota.
In March of last year, eight months after Schneider had already agreed to consign his witch’s hat to Heritage, Shaw announced that he planned to sell the slippers at auction through Heritage.
Soon after, Schneider contends that Heritage changed course.
In August, Chanes called Schneider and offered him a quick private sale of the hat for $250,000. Instead of taking it to auction, the hat worn by actor Margaret Hamilton would be sold directly to Shaw, who had expressed interest. The price was “more than any Hat had previously sold for,” Chanes told him, according to the complaint.
A few months later, Heritage began promoting a December auction of movie memorabilia that included Shaw’s three Oz pieces.
The sale would capitalize on the highly anticipated movie, “Wicked,” the adaptation of the hit Broadway musical that opened in November, which would certainly help boost enthusiasm.
According to the suit, Heritage launched a promotional tour of Shaw’s items, holding events in New York, London and Tokyo.
Shaw is not a defendant in the lawsuit against Heritage.
During the auction held on Dec. 7, the ruby slippers sold for a record $32.5 million and the hat hammered down for $2.93 million, which was nearly 12 times the amount Schneider received for his hat. Like other houses, Heritage receives a commission on the items sold at auction.
“It’s very unusual to have an item plucked out of an auction and get an offer like that from the auctioneer,” Schneider said. He says the house violated its fiduciary obligations to him, having failed to disclose the level of market interest in the hat or its planned roadshow for the auction.
Schneider alleges that Heritage struck the deal with him as a “device for HERITAGE or its executives to get ownership at a deep discount while also favoring Mr. S by making his Hat the only one in the auction,” states the suit.
Schneider’s complaint echoes another case brought against Heritage last year by a pair of self-described storage unit entrepreneurs, who bought the original model of the U.S.S. Enterprise used in the opening credits of the 1960s TV series “Star Trek.”
The men alleged that they agreed to consign the model to Heritage for a planned auction sale after the house gave it a value of $800,000. However, following their agreement, they claimed that the auction house falsely questioned their title to the model and then convinced them to sell it for a low-ball $500,000 to Roddenberry Entertainment Inc., a client that could potentially provide 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.
