I sold a copy of this poster a number of years ago to a very well
known director
who is a Hawks fan for very nearly the same money. I did a lot of
research
on this, and I believe that this poster was printed by Hughes for use in
exhibiting the film before it was distributed by U.A. It was four-
walled in
Seattle and perhaps other locations, defying the censors. After some
changes
in the film, U.A. agreed to distribute the picture. The posters
could then have
been re-struck with the UNITED ARTISTS PICTURE in question. I could
never find
any evidence to corroborate the notion that this poster was a
reissue. So I fully
believe that it passes muster as an original poster.
That is not to say that posters with the UNITED ARTISTS PICTURE logo
on them aren't
scarce. They are -- very. After the film was finished being
distributed by UA, it is
believed that Hughes took back all of the promotional material for
the film. Why?
Perhaps because of his films, he was obsessively protective, and
proud, of this one.
So, oddly, I believe that this poster is a pre-release or first
edition as it were.
Kirby McDaniel
On Nov 15, 2007, at 1:25 PM, Smith, Grey - 1367 wrote:
Rick:
If you would read the lengthy description I wrote on this piece,
linked below, I believe you would see some interesting details
concerning this poster being original vs. an early re-issue sheet.
This poster was most likely done by Hughes himself as he was a well-
known self promoter of his films. This poster has been compared to
the "Hell's Angels" one and three sheet, the original "Cock of the
Air" one sheet and the "Scarface" three sheet, two of which are
picture in Nourmand's "Film Posters of the 1930s" book and all of
which were produced by Hughes. Two others are shown in Steve
Shapiro's book. Neither the "Hell's Angels" nor the "Cock of the
Air" has ever been contested as re-issue. They were all printed by
M.R. Litho of NY. The description addresses your concerns on this
being a re-issue.
http://movieposters.ha.com/common/view_item.php?
Sale_No=667&Lot_No=28254
Thanks
-----Original Message-----
From: MoPo List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 12:53 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [MOPO] QUESTION RE: SCARFACE One Sheet Sold in Heritage
Auction
Hi,
I have in my collection an original 1932 US 1/2 Sheet from the
movie "Scarface", on which is clearly printed "United Artists" as
being the production company. I don't see ANY mention of "United
Artists" on the one sheet that sold in the Heritage Auction for
over $30,000! About 15 or so years ago, I believe this same one
sheet appeared and was considered to be NOT the true original one
sheet, otherwise it WOULD HAVE DEFINITELY mentioned "United
Artists" somewhere on it. Back then, they referred to it as a VERY
early reissue---possibly even an alternate one sheet issued the
same year as the original. To me, the selling price seems
INCREDIBLY high, insofar as there appears to me no United Artists
logo on the one sheet. Could someone out there shed a little light
on this. I'd really appreciate it.
Thanks,
Rick
See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at
www.filmfan.com_______________________________________________________
____________How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing ListSend a
message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] the BODY of
your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-LThe 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 ListSend a
message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] the BODY of
your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-LThe 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.
