Ellie said:

As far as I know they're real. Most of the clothes were put on show in London for a month during September-October. I went to see them and they were clearly well worn and the Dirty Diana shirt from the video still had sweat patches and foundation make-up that had rubbed off on the collar.

I remember one jacket that I really didn't recognise at all as it was labelled as one MJ had worn to "an awards show with Flava Flav" which I really couldn't recall any such photo or award show with them together. The rest were definitely genuine... although one of the photo prints on the wall at the show was a HIStory tour snapshot which was labelled as a performance in New York. I guess Splash News or Getty Images wherever they were from are sometimes wrong.

[Edited 12/4/12 14:07pm]

WOW. I think the real ones shouldn't be sold. I think his kids should have them. Even though it must be cool owning his sweaty shirt - getting a bit fetishistic.

[Edited 12/4/12 14:35pm]

Well if thats the case... I dont think she should own them.

I dont care if she is a fan or not. Any descent person would have just left it alone. Doesnt she think the children might want their father clothes?

Replicas are still pricey though, just saying

It sucks they didn't go to his kids, but if they had to of been sold, i'll take them going to someone like Gaga vs. some ass clown like Howard Mann who doesn't give a rat's ass about MJ or the pieces just hanging on the walls of some buinessman.

Maybe she'll give them to the kids when they're older, I can see her doing that. She's more humble than she gets credit for cause of her outrageous public persona.

mjscarousal said:

Well if thats the case... I dont think she should own them.

I dont care if she is a fan or not. Any descent person would have just left it alone. Doesnt she think the children might want their father clothes?

Replicas are still pricey though, just saying

Why not?? Michael, either way, didn't own those clothes anymore in the first place (if he'd still own them, the estate would have them) and they were offered for sale. Somebody had to buy them. If the children wanted them, they (or the estate) could have bought them back. They didn't, so somebody else did. Kinda like with the Beatles catalog.

I'd rather some public figure, who hopefully appreciates it, owns those clothes than some private collector, who will lock them up somewhere never to be seen and heard again. I would only object if she would start going to events wearing that shit... that would be wrong. But I don't think that will happen.

PatrickS77 said:

mjscarousal said:

Well if thats the case... I dont think she should own them.

I dont care if she is a fan or not. Any descent person would have just left it alone. Doesnt she think the children might want their father clothes?

Replicas are still pricey though, just saying

Why not?? Michael, either way, didn't own those clothes anymore in the first place (if he'd still own them, the estate would have them) and they were offered for sale. Somebody had to buy them. If the children wanted them, they (or the estate) could have bought them back. They didn't, so somebody else did. Kinda like with the Beatles catalog.

I'd rather some public figure, who hopefully appreciates it, owns those clothes than some private collector, who will lock them up somewhere never to be seen and heard again. I would only object if she would start going to events wearing that shit... that would be wrong. But I don't think that will happen.

But you dont know that so dont assume that

Over the years there have been personal items that belonged to Michael that have went on sale or auctioned. Just recently, graphic medical records of when his hair got caught on fire was being auctioned so going by this logic your implying its okay for somone to purchase that since its being auctioned?..................... NO... Its not okay. Items such as that should not even be made public or sold.

I honestly dont think the children were even aware of their fathers clothes being on sale because Im pretty sure they would want them for themselves. Obviously since Gaga brought them, the Estate and the children know its a possibility they still dont even know.

Once something no longer is owned by that person and no one is asking for it back, what's the point?

have none of you heard of juliens auctions before? the items are real.. Juliens Auction house was going to sell all the items at neverland at the request of MJ, but michael changed his mind. They have auctioned off things like his glove from the Motown 25 performance and TONS of rare memorabillia. im sure the kids knew about the auction, it was very publisised, im suprised some of you didnt know this was taking place.. Personally i wish all these things were archieved and they made a big museum at neverland, but seeing how the estate does not own these items these things are being auctioned off left and right... im glad Gaga won the items, i believe they are in good hands.

dm3857 said:

have none of you heard of juliens auctions before? the items are real.. Juliens Auction house was going to sell all the items at neverland at the request of MJ, but michael changed his mind. They have auctioned off things like his glove from the Motown 25 performance and TONS of rare memorabillia. im sure the kids knew about the auction, it was very publisised, im suprised some of you didnt know this was taking place.. Personally i wish all these things were archieved and they made a big museum at neverland, but seeing how the estate does not own these items these things are being auctioned off left and right... im glad Gaga won the items, i believe they are in good hands.

I knew of them. I thought they had sold most of that stuff off long time ago.

mjscarousal said:

I honestly dont think the children were even aware of their fathers clothes being on sale because Im pretty sure they would want them for themselves.

But you dont know that so dont assume that.

Also don't assume that Michael didn't still own some of his own clothing. The estate stated, that they still have plenty of stuff, so they could open a museum.

[Edited 12/6/12 0:17am]

PatrickS77 said:

mjscarousal said:

I honestly dont think the children were even aware of their fathers clothes being on sale because Im pretty sure they would want them for themselves.

But you dont know that so dont assume that.

Also don't assume that Michael didn't still own some of his own clothing. The estate stated, that they still have plenty of stuff, so they could open a museum.

[Edited 12/6/12 0:17am]

YOU ARE assuming that not me

I suggested that since those clothes were his they should go to the Estate or MJs children that doesnt mean im implying that his ENTIRE wardrobe does not belong to him

dm3857 said:

have none of you heard of juliens auctions before? the items are real.. Juliens Auction house was going to sell all the items at neverland at the request of MJ, but michael changed his mind. They have auctioned off things like his glove from the Motown 25 performance and TONS of rare memorabillia. im sure the kids knew about the auction, it was very publisised, im suprised some of you didnt know this was taking place.. Personally i wish all these things were archieved and they made a big museum at neverland, but seeing how the estate does not own these items these things are being auctioned off left and right... im glad Gaga won the items, i believe they are in good hands.

Yes but was unaware that was still currently going on and I heard numerous reports that when it was going on that his family and Michael tried to retrieved those items off the market. Regardless of the case, I think the items should go to the Estate or MJs children. Why would I choose Gaga having them over the Estate or MJs children if it was possible they could get it back?

Items such as that belong in a MUSEUM or a Exibit not not owned by someone. Gaga might wear them or put them on display at her house but that is something that should be put on display for HIS FANS to see!!!! NOT FOR HER OWN pleasures or collectibles.

[Edited 12/6/12 5:57am]

mjscarousal said:

YOU ARE assuming that not me

I'm not. The estate issued a statement saying that they still got plenty of stuff.

And again. That stuff that is being sold wasn't owned by him. So why should his children get it? By your logic Michael shouldn't have had the Beatles catalog and should have returned it to McCartney and Lennon's children, because he (they) once owned it.

And seriously, what logic would that be? He once owned it and didn't own it anymore and the person who got to own it, sold it fair and square. There is no need to return anything to anyone.

[Edited 12/6/12 6:35am]

mjscarousal said:

Items such as that belong in a MUSEUM or a Exibit not not owned by someone. Gaga might wear them or put them on display at her house but that is something that should be put on display for HIS FANS to see!!!! NOT FOR HER OWN pleasures or collectibles.

[Edited 12/6/12 5:57am]

How do you know that that is not going to happen one day?? Her statement didn't sound like she wants to keep it only for herself.

PatrickS77 said:

mjscarousal said:

YOU ARE assuming that not me

I'm not. The estate issued a statement saying that they still got plenty of stuff.

And again. That stuff that is being sold wasn't owned by him. So why should his children get it? By your logic Michael shouldn't have had the Beatles catalog and should have returned it to McCartney and Lennon's children, because he (they) once owned it.

And seriously, what logic would that be? He once owned it and didn't own it anymore and the person who got to own it, sold it fair and square. There is no need to return anything to anyone.

[Edited 12/6/12 6:35am]

YOUR Logic or Paul Mcartney has nothing to do with it..... thats just MY OPINION... period.

[Edited 12/6/12 8:08am]

PatrickS77 said:

mjscarousal said:

Items such as that belong in a MUSEUM or a Exibit not not owned by someone. Gaga might wear them or put them on display at her house but that is something that should be put on display for HIS FANS to see!!!! NOT FOR HER OWN pleasures or collectibles.

[Edited 12/6/12 5:57am]

How do you know that that is not going to happen one day?? Her statement didn't sound like she wants to keep it only for herself.

Like I said Thats my opinion, I already explained why I felt this way and thats that, take it or leave it

Going by your comebacks we can go all night long with this, we will just end it with that is how I feel, you obviously feel differently, agree to simply disagree.

mjscarousal said:

YOUR Logic or Paul Mcartney has nothing to do with it..... thats just MY OPINION... period.

[Edited 12/6/12 8:08am]

It's not my logic. It's yours. But I can't help to notice the doublestandard. You say it belonged to Michael (at one point) and thus should be given back to his children. I'm aware that that is your opinion. It just doesn't make much sense and is not really rational as Michael simply was not the owner of that shit anymore, so whoever owned it could do whatever with it. In this case they choose to sell it.

Here is what the estate had to say:

Hello:

Michael Jackson was always giving items to friends, fans, sick children he visited and others he met throughout his life. As a result, the Estate does not own all Michael Jackson costumes and/or other pieces. Many people now possess different Michael Jackson items, and those items are the property of those individuals; the Estate cannot control what private citizens do with their own property. But all of Michael's fans can rest assured that while the Estate may not have every single item ever worn by Michael as a result of his own generosity, the Estate does have more than enough costumes and fashion accessories along with all Michael's other possessions to enable the Estate to create a museum/exhibition for fans to enjoy and to honor Michael appropriately. Any fans who attended the Michael Jackson Fan Fest exhibit in Las Vegas last year saw that. Everything that was part of that exhibition was and remains Estate property and there is more property that was not displayed. Although it is premature to do so now, the Estate looks forward to sharing its future plans with then fans at the appropriate time.

[Edited 12/6/12 10:25am]

And that's why it ain't coming back in Michael's name. Like I said, once something is given to someone or someone decides not to own it anymore, what's worth the fight to get it back?

PatrickS77 said:

mjscarousal said:

YOUR Logic or Paul Mcartney has nothing to do with it..... thats just MY OPINION... period.

[Edited 12/6/12 8:08am]

It's not my logic. It's yours. But I can't help to notice the doublestandard. You say it belonged to Michael (at one point) and thus should be given back to his children. I'm aware that that is your opinion. It just doesn't make much sense and is not really rational as Michael simply was not the owner of that shit anymore, so whoever owned it could do whatever with it. In this case they choose to sell it.

Here is what the estate had to say:

Hello:

Michael Jackson was always giving items to friends, fans, sick children he visited and others he met throughout his life. As a result, the Estate does not own all Michael Jackson costumes and/or other pieces. Many people now possess different Michael Jackson items, and those items are the property of those individuals; the Estate cannot control what private citizens do with their own property. But all of Michael's fans can rest assured that while the Estate may not have every single item ever worn by Michael as a result of his own generosity, the Estate does have more than enough costumes and fashion accessories along with all Michael's other possessions to enable the Estate to create a museum/exhibition for fans to enjoy and to honor Michael appropriately. Any fans who attended the Michael Jackson Fan Fest exhibit in Las Vegas last year saw that. Everything that was part of that exhibition was and remains Estate property and there is more property that was not displayed. Although it is premature to do so now, the Estate looks forward to sharing its future plans with then fans at the appropriate time.

[Edited 12/6/12 10:25am]

Why are you angry?

Thats my opinion hun It is not a double standard. If the clothing was able to go back to Michael I think they should belong to the Estate/MJ kids since they were his and he performed in those clothes. Its not like my opinion is going to make changes geez

You still seem to look over the point I made which was that I never stated that what Gaga brought was ALL MJ clothes he performed in. Of course their are more clothes. That still does not change the fact that if it was possible the estate should have them but they dont so shit Thats not going to change my opinion though You disagree just leave it at that Because we are going to go in circles all day long

Agreed with Patrick and Timmy. Besides, they were costumes for the stage, videos and photoshoots for the most part. It even makes sense that the designers owned them in the first place. Should runway models lay claim to the clothes they're exhibiting just because they were the first to wear them?

I say this: better his music is still in his name than his clothing. Real talk. He ain't the only legend whose clothes were bought at an auction. It's over.

Ellie said:

Agreed with Patrick and Timmy. Besides, they were costumes for the stage, videos and photoshoots for the most part. It even makes sense that the designers owned them in the first place. Should runway models lay claim to the clothes they're exhibiting just because they were the first to wear them?

I see your point, Its really not a big a deal I just suggested if it was possible they should go to the Estate like some others here have stated. Its nothing wrong with having other interpretations or opinions. People here act like you cant have your OWN opinion unless 5 other people agree with you

In case any of you are on Google+, I started a new MJ community on there. Would be nice to see some of you there. https://plus.google.com/c...4467031756

I'm sure a lot of celebs participated in the auction and I'm sure there were a lot of people who bought more than 1 item...but Gaga's the only one who made a public announcement of how many pieces she bought and all. I don't know what she's gonna do with the clothes but I'm just curious, what's the point of bragging like that (especially when you bought that many) if you are gonna be like one of those private collectors and keep them all in your closet? It'd be nice if she could donate them to a museum one day. Not saying that's her responsibility just my opinion.

Ok this did crack me up though she does seem to get MJ, kind of lol

She tries toooooooooo hard, just be yourself Gaga

ROTFLMAO! Are you kidding me!?! People here actually think Elvis had a bigger peak than MJ?!?! Chile pleeeease MJ's gone and people still hating on the man..

JasonWill1980 said:

ROTFLMAO! Are you kidding me!?! People here actually think Elvis had a bigger peak than MJ?!?! Chile pleeeease MJ's gone and people still hating on the man..

Exactly

I don't think it's ridiculous for someone to think that Elvis Presley had a bigger peak than MJ, Elvis Presley is the best-selling solo music artist of all time and one of the most famous people ever. I agree that MJ was more international though, even though Elvis himself is well-known all over the world, I don't think his music is. I've lived in different countries and even though they know who Elvis is, few can name even one song of his (and those that do can't name more then one, Heartbreak Hotel). On the other hand, everyone knows Billie Jean, Beat It, Thriller, and most of his singles from his first three adult solo albums.

Of course it was a different era, so that is one reason Elvis isn't as international but I think it's still arguable who had the bigger peak. I don't think it is an obvious answer for either as some people seem to present it. Not that it matters much anyways, both were awesome artists who changed the music world in a significant way and were both Kings in their own right.

[Edited 12/7/12 20:08pm]

MiniJamesW said:

I don't think it's ridiculous for someone to think that Elvis Presley had a bigger peak than MJ, Elvis Presley is the best-selling solo music artist of all time and one of the most famous people ever. I agree that MJ was more international though, even though Elvis himself is well-known all over the world, I don't think his music is. I've lived in different countries and even though they know who Elvis is, few can name even one song of his (and those that do can't name more then one, Heartbreak Hotel). On the other hand, everyone knows Billie Jean, Beat It, Thriller, and most of his singles from his first three adult solo albums.

Of course it was a different era, so that is one reason Elvis isn't as international but I think it's still arguable who had the bigger peak. I don't think it is an obvious answer for either as some people seem to present it. Not that it matters much anyways, both were awesome artists who changed the music world in a significant way and were both Kings in their own right.

[Edited 12/7/12 20:08pm]

I agree with this to.

MiniJamesW said:

I don't think it's ridiculous for someone to think that Elvis Presley had a bigger peak than MJ, Elvis Presley is the best-selling solo music artist of all time and one of the most famous people ever. I agree that MJ was more international though, even though Elvis himself is well-known all over the world, I don't think his music is. I've lived in different countries and even though they know who Elvis is, few can name even one song of his (and those that do can't name more then one, Heartbreak Hotel). On the other hand, everyone knows Billie Jean, Beat It, Thriller, and most of his singles from his first three adult solo albums.

Of course it was a different era, so that is one reason Elvis isn't as international but I think it's still arguable who had the bigger peak. I don't think it is an obvious answer for either as some people seem to present it. Not that it matters much anyways, both were awesome artists who changed the music world in a significant way and were both Kings in their own right.

True. It's hard to measure too because they were just different eras. It's like comparing Katy Perry's album to Bad, or Rihanna who thanks to downloads and releasing about 100 singles, is now in the Top 10 biggest selling singles artists of all time. You just can't compare when quoting figures and suddenly say that Rihanna is on her way to becoming bigger than Madonna. She really isn't.