Yes, I certainly noticed that the logos were slightly different. However, you said in earlier posts that the logo that is on the Australian three sheet was only used in 1937 -38. You were also suggesting that the logo should be plain. Another required point of research would be to establish how many other Australian posters have the logo "Warner Brothers Pictures Inc" across the logo. One other example is Sea Hawk. How many others can you find? Maybe that might help in dating the poster.
3) The wording Warner Bros. Pictures Inc. Present which appeared on the top of Warner Bros. posters roughly around this time is missing from the 3 sheet.
The above comment was one of the three major points you used in saying that the Australian poster was a reissue. The original US three sheet which is strikingly similar to the Australian three sheet in question does not have any mention of Warner Bros. Pictures Presents on it. So, does this mean that we can discount Point 3 of your original findings?
Yes as I had based this statement on information on Warner Bros. logos I had located on the net. I had thought the logo information would have applied to Australia as well as the U.S.A. but I now know it didn't apply to Australia. Actually this has turned out to be a godsend as I now have some information which I am currently working on that will help me greatly to support my case.
I feel like I am under fire here but all is well as I like a challenge when I believe I am right I can be persistent in attempting to accomplish my goals to convince people to accept information that I believe to be correct.
Nope, not under fire at all but John's point is right on the money, that one of the main things you absolutely said proved you were right has actually proved to be wrong.
You may indeed be right but you just haven't proved it with fact all you've done is present some probables which should not be the evidence for people to start calling out the auctioneer or saying the buyer has been wronged but that is what has happened.
Reminder, Victory had two offices (Sydney & Melbourne) and most of their large format printing was done in Melbourne (where they actually were started) and they when the installed an offset printing machine in 1933 the Master Printer's Association of Victory tried to get them disqualified from the membership.
No one has so far been able to explain or comment on the fact that the Australian 3 sheet was copied directly from the original 1938 US 3 sheet. That is surely significant in this discussion and it would be very strange indeed if they copied the original 1938 US 3 sheet for the 1949 release.
Reminder, Victory had two offices (Sydney & Melbourne) and most of their large format printing was done in Melbourne (where they actually were started) and they when the installed an offset printing machine in 1933 the Master Printer's Association of Victory tried to get them disqualified from the membership.
Yes, I certainly noticed that the logos were slightly different. However, you said in earlier posts that the logo that is on the Australian three sheet was only used in 1937 -38. You were also suggesting that the logo should be plain. Another required point of research would be to establish how many other Australian posters have the logo "Warner Brothers Pictures Inc" across the logo. One other example is Sea Hawk. How many others can you find? Maybe that might help in dating the poster.
Sorry I thought I had responded to the question a little while back about the 1937-1938 logo in which I had said - '' Yes and I had based this information on Warner Bros. logos I had located on the net. I had thought the logo information would have applied to Australia as well as the U.S.A. but I now know it didn't apply to Australia. Actually this has turned out to be a godsend as I now have some information which I am currently working on that will help me greatly to support my case.''
I have also previously supplied an amended explanation regarding the plain logo for this as well. I responded in saying the plain logo that appeared on The Film Weekly trade magazine just prior to the film's release in Australia but was most likely changed then to what appears on the herald around very late 1938 or very early 1939. Most likely late 1938 as printers would close down over the Christmas break.
Your next point John is regarding the Warner Bros. Pictures Inc. logo. Yes this logo is crucial in helping support my case and detailed information will be forthcoming but before I say any more I need confirmation as to what is written across the red WB logo on the front page of the herald?
No one has so far been able to explain or comment on the fact that the Australian 3 sheet was copied directly from the original 1938 US 3 sheet. That is surely significant in this discussion and it would be very strange indeed if they copied the original 1938 US 3 sheet for the 1949 release.
Were all formats always printed for original release?
Well, in the past you have said that logos on trade ads, heralds, etc can often be slightly different to those used on posters (eg some RKO logos) so why would it be significant to check the logo on the herald?
As I said in an earlier post, I think it would be more useful if you could come up with other examples of Australian posters with "Warner Brothers Pictures Inc) printed across the shield apart from Robin Hood and Sea Hawk.
''Nope, not under fire at all but John's point is right on the money, that one of the main things you absolutely said proved you were right actually proved to be wrong''.
In response to this the following.
In my original statement I had said ''In my opinion only I believe ......'' and ''The second and third facts in my mind only serve to support my opinion''. I never said absolutely and as just stated what you are saying as being one of the main things was said to be a support only. As it turned out my thoughts were based on information gathered from a Warner Bros. logo website from which the information provided didn't apply to Australia. I have since explained about this a few times now so may we let it go. The Warner Bros. logo will be a key factor though in the long term discussions.
As I said in an earlier post, I think it would be more useful if you could come up with other examples of Australian posters with "Warner Brothers Pictures Inc) printed across the shield apart from Robin Hood and Sea Hawk.
All will be revealed soon as I am still working on it as I sit and smile.
One thing certain on French and Italian posters is that they often printed re-releases printed from the same plates as the originals, so the image and credits appear identical, but you can tell they are re-releases by the tiny printer identification at bottom.
I don't know if this was true of Australia, but it DOES explain why sometimes a re-release can have the same image or studio info as the original.
HAS lifetime guarantees on every item - IS eMoviePoster.com HAS unrestored and unenhanced images - IS eMoviePoster.com HAS 100% honest condition descriptions - IS eMoviePoster.com HAS auctions where the winner is the higher of two real bidders - IS eMoviePoster.com HAS up to SIXTEEN weeks of "Pay and Hold" to save a fortune on shipping - IS eMoviePoster.com HAS real customer service before, during and after EVERY auction, and answers all questions - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS 25% or 26% "buyers premiums" of any kind (but especially the dreadful "$29 or $49 minimum" ones) - NOT eMoviePoster.com HAS "reserves or starts over $1 - NOT eMoviePoster.com HAS hidden bidder IDs - NOT eMoviePoster.com HAS "nosebleed" shipping charges - NOT eMoviePoster.com HAS inadequate packaging - NOT eMoviePoster.com HAS no customer service to speak of, before, during and after any auction, and answers almost no questions - NOT eMoviePoster.com
How likely for the rating to be printed on the poster in '38?
A lot had ratings but a lot didn't. The ratings appearing on Australian posters appears to have been enforced by about 1940.
What determined this? Studio? Printer? State? or completely random?
Would only be an educated guess in this case and as I have to be careful these days I will stay out of it but I will say Paramount/ Richardson daybills appear to be the main offender in leaving the censorship rating classifications off the posters.
One thing certain on French and Italian posters is that they often printed re-releases printed from the same plates as the originals, so the image and credits appear identical, but you can tell they are re-releases by the tiny printer identification at bottom.
I don't know if this was true of Australia, but it DOES explain why sometimes a re-release can have the same image or studio info as the original.
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.
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:
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.
Here is a UA RR press sheet c1952 for Red River which was re-released to coincide with Montgomery Clift's AA nomination for A Place in the Sun. No 3 sheets offered, which seems to have been general practise.
I am sceptical about the Errol 3 sheets because of the printer's logo, but there are other factors that weight against a RR printing. It certainly would have been unusual to print identical full-colour 3 sheets for RR 11 years later.
And thanks for letting me know about Hackett printing 3 shts, Ves.
I was thinking it was done that way deliberately as the print for their logo would be impossible to see on a 3 sheet had it been the one liner on the OS, but I know nothing really
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.
I had to go back and find this. Missed it first time around. Another very interesting read!
I was thinking it was done that way deliberately as the print for their logo would be impossible to see on a 3 sheet had it been the one liner on the OS, but I know nothing really
It's a thought I suppose, but if a 3SH is printed big so you can see from further away than a 1SH then would you be able to see the printer's logo any better?
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:
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.
I have NOT seen "proof" on this thread that it is a re-release. I am hoping to see proof it is original.
Why?
Two reasons: 1) If a poster like this (full-color, resembling the first release U.S. three-sheet in printing and size) is a re-release, then I would have to start drastically hedging my bets when auctioning ANY undated posters, NOT giving a lifetime guarantee on every poster, but rather giving a limited warantee on posters, saying the buyer must live with the uncertainty, and that would certainly not be good for the hobby, as John says.
2) If it turns out to be a re-release, Heritage has no obligation (because it was sold Buyer Beware) and the buyer would have massively overpaid and have no recourse, and that would be sad, and again be bad for the hobby.
So I am very much hoping to see proof it is original.
HAS lifetime guarantees on every item - IS eMoviePoster.com HAS unrestored and unenhanced images - IS eMoviePoster.com HAS 100% honest condition descriptions - IS eMoviePoster.com HAS auctions where the winner is the higher of two real bidders - IS eMoviePoster.com HAS up to SIXTEEN weeks of "Pay and Hold" to save a fortune on shipping - IS eMoviePoster.com HAS real customer service before, during and after EVERY auction, and answers all questions - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS 25% or 26% "buyers premiums" of any kind (but especially the dreadful "$29 or $49 minimum" ones) - NOT eMoviePoster.com HAS "reserves or starts over $1 - NOT eMoviePoster.com HAS hidden bidder IDs - NOT eMoviePoster.com HAS "nosebleed" shipping charges - NOT eMoviePoster.com HAS inadequate packaging - NOT eMoviePoster.com HAS no customer service to speak of, before, during and after any auction, and answers almost no questions - NOT eMoviePoster.com
Incidentally, I much prefer discussion of movie posters to discussions of politics or food (but I understand that people are free to talk about what they want).
This is far and away the most interesting and civil discussion of movie posters I have seen on any forum in a very long time, and it shows there is massive expertise on this forum. Well done.
Now I hope one of you comes up with a "smoking gun", either way. It would be a shame if we are all left in suspense!
HAS lifetime guarantees on every item - IS eMoviePoster.com HAS unrestored and unenhanced images - IS eMoviePoster.com HAS 100% honest condition descriptions - IS eMoviePoster.com HAS auctions where the winner is the higher of two real bidders - IS eMoviePoster.com HAS up to SIXTEEN weeks of "Pay and Hold" to save a fortune on shipping - IS eMoviePoster.com HAS real customer service before, during and after EVERY auction, and answers all questions - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS 25% or 26% "buyers premiums" of any kind (but especially the dreadful "$29 or $49 minimum" ones) - NOT eMoviePoster.com HAS "reserves or starts over $1 - NOT eMoviePoster.com HAS hidden bidder IDs - NOT eMoviePoster.com HAS "nosebleed" shipping charges - NOT eMoviePoster.com HAS inadequate packaging - NOT eMoviePoster.com HAS no customer service to speak of, before, during and after any auction, and answers almost no questions - NOT eMoviePoster.com
Comments
Nope, not under fire at all but John's point is right on the money, that one of the main things you absolutely said proved you were right has actually proved to be wrong.
You may indeed be right but you just haven't proved it with fact all you've done is present some probables which should not be the evidence for people to start calling out the auctioneer or saying the buyer has been wronged but that is what has happened.
http://vintagemoviepostersforum.com/discussion/1045/victory-publicity-history/p1
That's interesting.
Sorry I thought I had responded to the question a little while back about the 1937-1938 logo in which I had said - '' Yes and I had based this information on Warner Bros. logos I had located on the net. I had thought the logo information would have applied to Australia as well as the U.S.A. but I now know it didn't apply to Australia. Actually this has turned out to be a godsend as I now have some information which I am currently working on that will help me greatly to support my case.''
I have also previously supplied an amended explanation regarding the plain logo for this as well. I responded in saying the plain logo that appeared on The Film Weekly trade magazine just prior to the film's release in Australia but was most likely changed then to what appears on the herald around very late 1938 or very early 1939. Most likely late 1938 as printers would close down over the Christmas break.
Your next point John is regarding the Warner Bros. Pictures Inc. logo. Yes this logo is crucial in helping support my case and detailed information will be forthcoming but before I say any more I need confirmation as to what is written across the red WB logo on the front page of the herald?
Were all formats always printed for original release?
As I said in an earlier post, I think it would be more useful if you could come up with other examples of Australian posters with "Warner Brothers Pictures Inc) printed across the shield apart from Robin Hood and Sea Hawk.
What determined this? Studio? Printer? State? or completely random?
David said above -
''Nope, not under fire at all but John's point is right on the money, that one of the main things you absolutely said proved you were right actually proved to be wrong''.
In response to this the following.
In my original statement I had said ''In my opinion only I believe ......'' and ''The second and third facts in my mind only serve to support my opinion''. I never said absolutely and as just stated what you are saying as being one of the main things was said to be a support only. As it turned out my thoughts were based on information gathered from a Warner Bros. logo website from which the information provided didn't apply to Australia. I have since explained about this a few times now so may we let it go. The Warner Bros. logo will be a key factor though in the long term discussions.
I don't know if this was true of Australia, but it DOES explain why sometimes a re-release can have the same image or studio info as the original.
HAS unrestored and unenhanced images - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS 100% honest condition descriptions - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS auctions where the winner is the higher of two real bidders - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS up to SIXTEEN weeks of "Pay and Hold" to save a fortune on shipping - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS real customer service before, during and after EVERY auction, and answers all questions - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS 25% or 26% "buyers premiums" of any kind (but especially the dreadful "$29 or $49 minimum" ones) - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS "reserves or starts over $1 - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS hidden bidder IDs - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS "nosebleed" shipping charges - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS inadequate packaging - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS no customer service to speak of, before, during and after any auction, and answers almost no questions - NOT eMoviePoster.com
Would only be an educated guess in this case and as I have to be careful these days I will stay out of it but I will say Paramount/ Richardson daybills appear to be the main offender in leaving the censorship rating classifications off the posters.
Explanation soon.
Thank you Bruce - thank you. More soon.
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.
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.
Here is a UA RR press sheet c1952 for Red River which was re-released to coincide with Montgomery Clift's AA nomination for A Place in the Sun. No 3 sheets offered, which seems to have been general practise.
I am sceptical about the Errol 3 sheets because of the printer's logo, but there are other factors that weight against a RR printing. It certainly would have been unusual to print identical full-colour 3 sheets for RR 11 years later.
And thanks for letting me know about Hackett printing 3 shts, Ves.
You're welcome
Found these this morning...I dunno if this helps or hinders - noticed while the printer is the same, the way they print their name is different
One Sheet
3 Sheet:
Plate change out for their logo perhaps wouldn't be a priority.
With my eyesight, I would see neither, but I reckon the young folk would have a better chance
Besides, I just noticed something far more disturbing, she has different coloured bows on her shoes on the 3 sheet!
Where are the quality standards!
Why?
Two reasons:
1) If a poster like this (full-color, resembling the first release U.S. three-sheet in printing and size) is a re-release, then I would have to start drastically hedging my bets when auctioning ANY undated posters, NOT giving a lifetime guarantee on every poster, but rather giving a limited warantee on posters, saying the buyer must live with the uncertainty, and that would certainly not be good for the hobby, as John says.
2) If it turns out to be a re-release, Heritage has no obligation (because it was sold Buyer Beware) and the buyer would have massively overpaid and have no recourse, and that would be sad, and again be bad for the hobby.
So I am very much hoping to see proof it is original.
HAS unrestored and unenhanced images - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS 100% honest condition descriptions - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS auctions where the winner is the higher of two real bidders - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS up to SIXTEEN weeks of "Pay and Hold" to save a fortune on shipping - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS real customer service before, during and after EVERY auction, and answers all questions - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS 25% or 26% "buyers premiums" of any kind (but especially the dreadful "$29 or $49 minimum" ones) - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS "reserves or starts over $1 - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS hidden bidder IDs - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS "nosebleed" shipping charges - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS inadequate packaging - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS no customer service to speak of, before, during and after any auction, and answers almost no questions - NOT eMoviePoster.com
This is far and away the most interesting and civil discussion of movie posters I have seen on any forum in a very long time, and it shows there is massive expertise on this forum. Well done.
Now I hope one of you comes up with a "smoking gun", either way. It would be a shame if we are all left in suspense!
HAS unrestored and unenhanced images - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS 100% honest condition descriptions - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS auctions where the winner is the higher of two real bidders - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS up to SIXTEEN weeks of "Pay and Hold" to save a fortune on shipping - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS real customer service before, during and after EVERY auction, and answers all questions - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS 25% or 26% "buyers premiums" of any kind (but especially the dreadful "$29 or $49 minimum" ones) - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS "reserves or starts over $1 - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS hidden bidder IDs - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS "nosebleed" shipping charges - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS inadequate packaging - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS no customer service to speak of, before, during and after any auction, and answers almost no questions - NOT eMoviePoster.com