Scaling roughly, the height is half the length, so not 15 x 40 horizontal. Renwick Pride bottom right, I think.
Unlike the source that I had originally found, which called the poster a daybill poster, Leski Auctions only list it as only being a motion picture poster and not a daybill with no poster size listed.
As this particular unknown sized poster is credited as being displayed in a cinema one has to wonder what size the poster is then. Perhaps a larger poster?
By definition, a daybill is vertical in orientation, so not surprised that an auction house wouldn't refer to it as a db. Mounted on cardboard would suggest a smaller poster to me. Another poster on back, so possibly an unfolded herald. That's the sort of thing Renwick were printing. Also tickets and programs. Only 3 colours also suggests a lesser size.
So now we only have one pre-war horiz db. I respect everyone else's opinions, but I still think that Ben Hur is some kind of tribute to Powis. Could be completely wrong, of course!
Just noticed the text in that Congo article - 10,000 broadsides were got rid of ... the throwaway being a reprint of the full page spread from the "Herald".
The 24 sheet mentioned above poster that was used outdoors. Display cards are also mentioned as being used in the foyer of the Melbourne Capitol theatre.
Renwick Pride announced in 1934 they were producing couriers, stills, window cards antd other aids. Mentioned above are display cards being used in Congorilla advertising, so then does our poster in question possibly fit into this category?
Now we have established the Ben Hur poster image is an Australian horizontal daybill I will move on to something completely different. Keep digging though for any more information on the Congorilla poster, but it does look to me that it is unlikely to be a daybill
I recently watched on Foxtel Australia a screening of the British film One Of Our Aircraft Is Missing ( 1942 ).
What I find interesting is that the screening included a copy of the above British censorship classification attached at the beginning of the film before the credits. The print screened is from Paramount Pictures and the film rights were earlier owned in the 1950s in the U.S.A. by NTA, then later by Republic Pictures before Paramount acquired the Republic Pictures film library.
I have been informed that in Australia in the 1950's for the odd cinema screenings of British Empire Films releases the Britisn censorship ratings were seen at the beginning of the shown film.
Whoa, whoa whoa, buddy. Where's your evidence for Ben Hur being a daybill? You don't even know the size.
This is where you called Congorilla a db in 2018. No one else said it was.
I have stumbled across another horizontal style Australian daybill poster poster image in the form of a very rare title from way back in the early 1930's. The title is Congorilla ( 1932 ), and has been credited as being printed by Renwick Pride Printers Pty. Ltd. I cannot confirm the printer though as these details on the image are impossible to read with the image available, but the Fox credit dates it as being from 1932.
Whoa, whoa whoa, buddy. Where's your evidence for Ben Hur being a daybill? You don't even know the size.
This is where you called Congorilla a db in 2018. No one else said it was.
I have stumbled across another horizontal style Australian daybill poster poster image in the form of a very rare title from way back in the early 1930's. The title is Congorilla ( 1932 ), and has been credited as being printed by Renwick Pride Printers Pty. Ltd. I cannot confirm the printer though as these details on the image are impossible to read with the image available, but the Fox credit dates it as being from 1932.
I thought that the Ben Hur evidence was is the recent following reply from John.
I have spoken to the owner of the poster and he confirmed that it is indeed a long daybill. Printer is Simmons Litho Sydney and the artist is Powis. It came from a collection of other long daybills, all stuck to board and all with the same writing on them,
Regarding my comment that you have included above regarding Congorilla being a long daybill I believe it was quoted as being one with a reposting of the poster by someone who had called it one.
I'd like to clarify that what we have established, is that Congorilla is not a horizontal daybill. Jury is out on Ben Hur, pending accurate measurements and further research. Your thread, so carry on.
I'd like to clarify that what we have established, is that Congorilla is not a horizontal daybill. Jury is out on Ben Hur, pending accurate measurements and further research. Your thread, so carry on.
I enjoy our conversations although we disagee on the Ben Hur poster size. I believe it has been proved by the owner confirming that the poster is indeed a long daybill.
Regarding Congorilla it most likely is a poster not being a long daybill. but having the size to determine what style of poster it is would be great.
We should be having robust discussions, and I have no issue with anyone disagreeing with what I propose. Let's just keep it evidence-based. The difference between a daybill and a fold-out is many thousands of dollars. That's why I don't believe someone who has a vested interest in the item.
To keep it evidence based - Campaign book pages do not have printers names at the bottom of them and cinemas did not use sundry items like pages from campaign books, they used actual accessories of which there were many available.
We should be having robust discussions, and I have no issue with anyone disagreeing with what I propose. Let's just keep it evidence-based. The difference between a daybill and a fold-out is many thousands of dollars. That's why I don't believe someone who has a vested interest in the item.
Not sure what you mean by the "vested interests" comment. I simply contacted the owner of the poster to ask whether it was a long daybill or not because I thought it might help the dicussion. The owner of the poster says it is indeed a long daybill. Although I have never seen the poster in person, I have no reason to disbelieve him.
This image just sent to me by Wil. This image is from an MGM 1927 exhibitor's book that was printed for Australian and New Zealand usage. Size is listed as being 10'' x 12.5''. You will notice that the pillars on the right hand side of the poster show six pillars on one image but only four on the other.
With a screening date on the poster in question and the difference in size I am thinking it is a horizontal poster.
Would be also be good to hear from John with his thoughts, as he was the person who originally posted the image on the 8th of February of this year on the forum.
I would also like to hear from other members on their thoughts also.
The facts I know about the following poster..
1 It has a printers credit, most likely Simmons Ltd. Litho Sydney who were printing MGM daybills around this period.
2 This poster as mentioned earlier has some extra image on the right hand design of pillars compared to the other campaign book image.
3 There is a black outlined border around this poster similar to the previously posted MGM daybills from that period of time Across To Singapore and Annie Laurie. I don't believe the campaign book entries normally used this border presentation.
4 The handwritten date on the poster would indicate to me that it may have been used by a cinema to promote Ben Hur on that date.
The only way we will most likely know for sure the poster style is the find out the size of this poster.
Anyway I have said all that I had to say and hopefully we can hear now on what others think.
I think definitely a poster, and probably a daybill, given it has no folds in it - consistent with most long daybills. Obviously there's no wide border for screening date as that would need to be very wide to be read properly hence the writing in the body. It could have been trimmed off but I doubt it, it would look weird in this format. Ben Hur was a major release, the type of film that would have had special format or irregular size posters (like King Kong for example) and spectacular ones that wouldn't necessarily have or need credits, the name alone sells this movie. Campaign books often had their exact art used for posters and the art here only fits a horizontal format not vertical, so that's how they printed it. It's not very likely that this is a poster done just to show executives what another 'concept' piece in a campaign book will be like, proof art like that was usually distributed in photo format, with annotations where the copy goes and printed in b&w. I've owned such things and they never had a printers name attached to it - unnecessary as the company knows who they're dealing with. Note that the campaign book foldout doesn't have MGM on it but the poster does, that fits with the order that they would have been generated.- more details are added along the way. Also I don't see how a poster for MGM executives makes its way to a cinema, which this one has. An exchange wouldn't send such a thing out. That handwriting on this poster, I've spotted that many times on daybills from the 20's. There has to be a good reason why the owner described it as a daybill, I mean he did have it in his hands - that has to count quite a bit.
I have spoken to the owner of the poster and he confirmed that it is indeed a long daybill. Printer is Simmons Litho Sydney and the artist is Powis. It came from a collection of other long daybills, all stuck to board and all with the same writing on them,
To keep it evidence based - Campaign book pages do not have printers names at the bottom of them and cinemas did not use sundry items like pages from campaign books, they used actual accessories of which there were many available.
We should be having robust discussions, and I have no issue with anyone disagreeing with what I propose. Let's just keep it evidence-based. The difference between a daybill and a fold-out is many thousands of dollars. That's why I don't believe someone who has a vested interest in the item.
Not sure what you mean by the "vested interests" comment. I simply contacted the owner of the poster to ask whether it was a long daybill or not because I thought it might help the dicussion. The owner of the poster says it is indeed a long daybill. Although I have never seen the poster in person, I have no reason to disbelieve him.
A summary of all the posts and evidence pointing to the image being a long horizontal daybill poster.
A thank you to all those members above who contributed information. I am now waiting for Mark's response to counter again this information.
Surely there must be some other members, not heard from yet, who have an opinion as to the poster style? Love you hear from you.
I believe it's a painting by Prowis, never designed or intended to be a daybill. Like you guys, I have viewed thousands of images from Everyones, Trove & state libraries etc. Never seen a pre-war horizontal daybill. Should have this logo or similar with lion / MGM picture.
As per horizontal db thread: 7cm Simmons mark. Divide resolution of 68 x 273 = 4.01 4 x 7 = 28cm.
John, it's not your vested interest, it's Keith's. He doesn't want it to be anything but a long db and I'm not saying that he's lying. Is just human nature.
Lawrence, 10 x 12.5" is the book size, not the fold-out. Would be 3 x 10 approx.
To keep it evidence based - Campaign book pages do not have printers names at the bottom of them and cinemas did not use sundry items like pages from campaign books, they used actual accessories of which there were many available.
I've seen many home-made daybills and posters written up on the back of other posters etc. BH was released July 1, 1927. Going by the date, this was Nov 10, 1928, or 16 months after release. MGM may not have had stock.
So far, I am giving you guys two points. 1. Simmons mark 2. Black border
Should have this logo or similar with lion / MGM picture.
1929 and 1930's Australian posters, some Simmons credited and all by Fred Powis, not using the Lion included logo and going against the norm of Leo being shown on MGM's posters.
An Everyones late 1926 MGM advertisement published in Trove. No image of the lion at all, and this being published not all that far away from when the film was released. It would then certainly appear not all MGM advertising always included Leo the lion.
Why aren't you comparing against 1927 - 1928 daybills? There are examples online. Don't try and prove me wrong. Prove to yourself that the poster is correct. That's what this is about. Unknown size, no credits, no cast, horizontal format ...
I wasn't saying the non usage of the lion was a regular occurance, but just pointing out it did occur from time to time.
Closer to the time period of the film's release is the Everyones example I just included on the thread. Seeing the film was released in the U.S.A. in December 1925, who's to say then that the poster wasn't printed earlier in 1926, probably awaiting a delayed release possibly due to cinema unavailability. They certainly had more than plently of ample time to print the poster.
Just to hopefully create some interest in that once this seemingly neverending Ben Hur tit fot tat, which by the way I am enjoying very much, runs it course I will have something on very early Alftred Hitchcock related paper that John and many other members may find to be of interest.
I know you love a challenge. Plus you have to redeem yourself for Congorilla! Can we agree that the MGM logo is not typical for 1927 - 1928 daybills? Being a sceptic, I feel there are more reasons not to accept that the poster was issued by MGM for public display. Could be wrong, and always respect other members' opinions. There is no uni degree for Aussie movie memorabilia and I am always learning.
Without any proof existing now on Google to refer back to on where I saw the mention of Congorills being a daybill, it would certainly appear I won't be able then live this one down with you then. .
I certainly agree that the usage on the disputed poster of the MGM credit isn't typical of the MGM logo used on 1927-1928 daybills. What I can say though is that this poster isn't your typical in design poster anyway, but a special designed poster created for a blockbuster production that just happened to turn out to be designed differently in the form of a horizontal style daybill.
Comments
Unlike the source that I had originally found, which called the poster a daybill poster, Leski Auctions only list it as only being a motion picture poster and not a daybill with no poster size listed.
As this particular unknown sized poster is credited as being displayed in a cinema one has to wonder what size the poster is then. Perhaps a larger poster?
Mounted on cardboard would suggest a smaller poster to me. Another poster on back, so possibly an unfolded herald. That's the sort of thing Renwick were printing. Also tickets and programs.
Only 3 colours also suggests a lesser size.
From Everyones magazine some of the Renwick Pride printers 1930's smaller artwork.
Peter
10,000 broadsides were got rid of ... the throwaway being a reprint of the full page spread from the "Herald".
The 24 sheet mentioned above poster that was used outdoors. Display cards are also mentioned as being used in the foyer of the Melbourne Capitol theatre.
Renwick Pride announced in 1934 they were producing couriers, stills, window cards antd other aids. Mentioned above are display cards being used in Congorilla advertising, so then does our poster in question possibly fit into this category?
Got the size for long horiz db.
I recently watched on Foxtel Australia a screening of the British film One Of Our Aircraft Is Missing ( 1942 ).
What I find interesting is that the screening included a copy of the above British censorship classification attached at the beginning of the film before the credits. The print screened is from Paramount Pictures and the film rights were earlier owned in the 1950s in the U.S.A. by NTA, then later by Republic Pictures before Paramount acquired the Republic Pictures film library.
I have been informed that in Australia in the 1950's for the odd cinema screenings of British Empire Films releases the Britisn censorship ratings were seen at the beginning of the shown film.
This is where you called Congorilla a db in 2018. No one else said it was.
I have stumbled across another horizontal style Australian daybill poster poster image in the form of a very rare title from way back in the early 1930's. The title is Congorilla ( 1932 ), and has been credited as being printed by Renwick Pride Printers Pty. Ltd. I cannot confirm the printer though as these details on the image are impossible to read with the image available, but the Fox credit dates it as being from 1932.
Regarding my comment that you have included above regarding Congorilla being a long daybill I believe it was quoted as being one with a reposting of the poster by someone who had called it one.
Your thread, so carry on.
Regarding Congorilla it most likely is a poster not being a long daybill. but having the size to determine what style of poster it is would be great.
The difference between a daybill and a fold-out is many thousands of dollars. That's why I don't believe someone who has a vested interest in the item.
A thank you to all those members above who contributed information. I am now waiting for Mark's response to counter again this information.
Surely there must be some other members, not heard from yet, who have an opinion as to the poster style? Love you hear from you.
Like you guys, I have viewed thousands of images from Everyones, Trove & state libraries etc. Never seen a pre-war horizontal daybill.
Should have this logo or similar with lion / MGM picture.
As per horizontal db thread:
7cm Simmons mark.
Divide resolution of 68 x 273 = 4.01
4 x 7 = 28cm.
John, it's not your vested interest, it's Keith's. He doesn't want it to be anything but a long db and I'm not saying that he's lying. Is just human nature.
Lawrence, 10 x 12.5" is the book size, not the fold-out. Would be 3 x 10 approx.
BH was released July 1, 1927. Going by the date, this was Nov 10, 1928, or 16 months after release. MGM may not have had stock.
So far, I am giving you guys two points.
1. Simmons mark
2. Black border
Is that all you have?
1929 and 1930's Australian posters, some Simmons credited and all by Fred Powis, not using the Lion included logo and going against the norm of Leo being shown on MGM's posters.
An Everyones late 1926 MGM advertisement published in Trove. No image of the lion at all, and this being published not all that far away from when the film was released. It would then certainly appear not all MGM advertising always included Leo the lion.
Don't try and prove me wrong. Prove to yourself that the poster is correct. That's what this is about.
Unknown size, no credits, no cast, horizontal format ...
Closer to the time period of the film's release is the Everyones example I just included on the thread. Seeing the film was released in the U.S.A. in December 1925, who's to say then that the poster wasn't printed earlier in 1926, probably awaiting a delayed release possibly due to cinema unavailability. They certainly had more than plently of ample time to print the poster.
Can we agree that the MGM logo is not typical for 1927 - 1928 daybills?
Being a sceptic, I feel there are more reasons not to accept that the poster was issued by MGM for public display. Could be wrong, and always respect other members' opinions. There is no uni degree for Aussie movie memorabilia and I am always learning.
I certainly agree that the usage on the disputed poster of the MGM credit isn't typical of the MGM logo used on 1927-1928 daybills. What I can say though is that this poster isn't your typical in design poster anyway, but a special designed poster created for a blockbuster production that just happened to turn out to be designed differently in the form of a horizontal style daybill.
28
29
27
28
29