Hi Phil and MoPoers I'm not sure that I entirely agree with you on this although I think its hard to be completely definitive. Let me preface all this by saying that either Phil or I could be correct on this or the truth could be a mix of the two. We both have a great deal of experience dealing with Australian posters but from very different backgournds. This is my opinion.
Here are links to the two posters in question: A and C printer http://cgi.ebay.com/a485-BUTTERFIELD-8-A-C-Printers-Aust-daybill-60-Liz_W0QQitemZ280135232655QQihZ018QQcategoryZ60349QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem Robert Burton printer http://cgi.ebay.com/a484-BUTTERFIELD-8-Robert-Burton-Aust-daybill-60-Liz_W0QQitemZ280135232582QQihZ018QQcategoryZ60349QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem Firstly, these are two entirely different posters. Let's take the A & C printed daybill first. To the best of my knowledge, A & C printers did not print anything after 1960 so this is certainly an original daybill. This poster was clearly used in New Zealand but it should be noted that the censor stamp was added later in New Zealand and not part of the original printing. Generally New Zealand used original Australian, US and British posters in their original form and they added their own censorship to the posters after they had arrived in New Zealand. This often led to mutilation of posters with areas blacked out and NZ details roughly stamped in place or stickers added or both. You can see more about this in my guide about NZ censor details. http://reviews.ebay.com/ORIGINAL-MOVIE-POSTERS-New-Zealand-Censorship-1916-90s_W0QQugidZ10000000002981268 The vast majority of daybills were printed in Australia. On some occasions, Australian posters were printed without the Australian censor details, generally with exactly the same art as the original release, but used in the "territories". The NZ distributors would then add a stamp or a sticker. Now, Phil notes that the second poster, printed by Robert Burton, has SUITABLE ONLY FOR ADULTS printed in the lower portion. The poster printed by A and C printers does not have these Australian censor details but has a blue box in the lower section which, to me, indicates that this poster had the Australian details blocked out. I believe that the original daybill used in Australia was exactly the same but had the Australian censor details intact instead of the blue box (more about that later). Phil makes the comment that this poster "lacks a plate" with little detail in Liz's negligee but I dont think this is the case. Remember, these are two different posters. Although similar, there are clear differences eg the mink coat, etc etc. In my opinion, this poster was printed as intended but is simply one of the poorer examples of Australian movie posters. In any case there is no doubt from either of us that this is original. Now, to the second daybill printed by Robert Burton. When I first came across one of these I had no reason to doubt that it was not orignal but I received several emails from a well known and respected collector who suggested that the poster was, in fact, a 1966 reissue. A daybill for Cat On a Hot Tin Roof was also released, apparently, at the same time with similar art and colouring. The collector emailed me photos of what he described as the original daybills for these titles. The Butterfield 8 daybill was the same as the A and C printed poster that Bruce has currently on auction but had the words SUITABLE FOR ADULTS ONLY instead of the blue box. The second daybill is printed by Robert Burton who started printing movie posters around 1960 so that does not help. Daybills are generally undated so no clue there. The only definitive proof might be a pressbook but I havent seen any for this title. I have seen similar daybills that were reissued around this time in full colour. One that comes to mind is North By Northwest, although there is even some doubt/dispute about this. I can give you my opinions on this as well if anyone is interested. Over the years, I tended to take the word of the collector who suggested that the second poster was a 1966 reissue although I never really had any absolute proof positive that this was the case. I have always sold the second poster as a reissue - maybe way too cheap! The two daybills for Butterfield 8 (with the SUITABLE FOR ADULTS ONLY notation at the bottom of the poster) and Cat On a Hot Tin Roof have been rarely seen. In fact, I have only ever seen a scan of Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. I wonder if anyone out there has any definitive information, or an opinion, on this. Regards John Sign up for my regular newsletter on movie memorabilia: http://www.moviemem.com/pages/page.php?mod=account&go=register Visit my Website: www.moviemem.com All About Australian posters: http://search.reviews.ebay.com/members/johnwr_W0QQuqtZg My eBay Store and Lisitngs: http://myworld.ebay.com/johnwr/ Exhibitions: http://www.moviemem.com/pages/page.php?page=15 JOHN REID VINTAGE MOVIE MEMORABILIA PO Box 92 Palm Beach Qld 4221 Australia ----- Original Message ----- From: Phil Edwards Cinema Arts To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 12:07 PM Subject: [MOPO] BUTTERFIERLD 8 - THE MYSTERY OF TWO DAYBILLS... is no mystery at all. Bruce Hershenson is running two daybills for BUTTERFIELD 8 at the moment. They are easy to differentiate in printing, as clearly one is short a plate (see lack of detail in Liz's negligee as one example). The version with SUITABLE ONLY FOR ADULTS at the bottom of the poster was printed for use in Australia. That's the Australian censor rating. The one without that censor rating was printed in Australia for use in New Zealand, as the NZ censor stamp clearly indicates. NZ had a different rating system to Australia, with different terminology and different standards. Ad sales material for NZ was supplied out of Australian distributors - even for films banned in Australia but passed for NZ, such as some of the early Hammer horrors. This was particularly true of daybills - a format commonly used in both Australia and New Zealand. For one sheets, either regular US domestics or US internationals were used, of if it were a British film then UK internationals were frequently used. In other cases, Australian one sheets were used, and were printed without the Australian rating, or with the Australian rating over-stamped or over-sniped. This is about the 29th time I have explained this on numerous forums and privately to dealers over the years. It will probably be the last. Why does everyone have such a short memory about this stuff, especially people who handle this sort of material all the time in volume and over many years - either the consignors or the sellers? Regards, Phil E. Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___________________________________________________________________ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content. Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___________________________________________________________________ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
