Best Of

I do think it is very important to get definitive evidence when making a case for the origin of these posters for a number of reasons:

1. Someone paid 15,000 plus for Robin Hood which was described as an original Australian three sheet.
2. Someone else paid 2500.00 approx. for Sea Hawk also described as an original Australian three sheet.
3. If both posters are proved to be reissues then the buyers might be entitled to return the items for a refund.
4. The credibility and origins of rare Australian posters inevitably comes into question when these issues come up. It is fine to raise concerns but we need to be absolutely sure before using words like "definite".
5. Major auction houses are already wary about accepting high value Australian posters for their auctions. Heritage now appears to describe all long daybills as "pre war" rather than say, original 1926 daybill. This is probably because it can be so difficult to accurately date Australian posters and it is easier to describe them all as pre war.
6. The controversy over the Wizard of Oz one sheets left another cloud over Australian posters that only serves to make people from overseas continue to be very wary and dismissive about our posters.

These are just a few reasons why I think you need to absolutely prove your theory before stating it as a fact.

HONDO said:

In my original statement I had said ''In my opinion only I believe ......'' 

Semantics, you make it clear you are feel you are right and the evidence you presented backed up your claims. And further, then Bruce went on to make this point:

Bruce said:

So if the poster is indeed from 1949, what next? Is the unnamed buyer just out of luck? Of does the unnamed seller have any responsibility for making an error of this proportions.

Incidentally, I absolutely would have been fooled by this poster, UNLESS I had Lawrence to find this out.

So, let's assume EMP sold the poster (which we know they didn't) and you made these findings and NO ONE challenged them then Bruce (who 'would have been fooled by this poster') would have contacted the buyer to offer him his money back.

Without absolute proof then all it is is supposition and conjecture.

I would remind everyone that a whole lot of over thinking went into this thread which in the end was a simple answer that came from the horse's mouth, one of which was that 'printer's make mistakes' - not suggesting it is the case here.