Am I right in thinking it was written as “Hackett” as well as “Hacket”.
The Bidl one reads to me as “Hackett”? On Michael Organ’s page on printers, there are two from '39 recorded. One as Daybill, lithograph. Hacket Offset Print Syd Melb., 14 3/4 x 40. The other: Daybill. 'Hackett Offset.' 14 x 40. http://www.uow.edu.au/~morgan/posters2.htm <http://www.uow.edu.au/~morgan/posters2.htm> I don’t know what kind of strictly enforced guidelines there were over what exactly was written at the bottom, is it possible it was pretty slack? > On 13 Mar 2015, at 00:02, David <[email protected]> wrote: > > Richard > > Indeed possible (that the second word could say Hackett), although the > company name (which is printed on the Bidll copy) is in fact Hacket Offset > Print Syd Melb, why would they print their own name differently elsewhere? > > But...squint those misty, alcohol infused, aged eyes real tight and look > again, could that second word be Offset? Could the third word be Print? The > last two words I agree are Syd Melb. Certainly the owner of the HA copy is > about the only one who could shed light at this point. > > And the point you make is of course feasible (about printing in the two > different states), I guess one would have to wonder why for such a short run, > but of course it is possible. > > Still a lot of cross checking to go. > > David > > > > Richard Evans wrote on 13/03/2015 10:35 AM: >> David, yep, and it is interesting. >> >> I was reacting to Jeff’s post. >> >> Agreed with everything, except assumption that one was drawn after the >> other, and based on whichever was the earlier printing. >> >> May well be the case, but perhaps a little bit of a leap at this stage. And, >> that would make one poster the lesser example. >> >> But, I’m not absolutely clear on the process, and whether there would have >> been a piece of art that would have been followed, if there was more than >> one printer used. >> >> Blowing up the Heritage one, doesn’t it look like the second word is >> possibly “Hackett”? And the last two words I’m pretty certain are “Syd Melb”. >> >> Is it not feasible with Hackett having offices in Sydney and Melbourne, that >> they could have printed at each? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 12 Mar 2015, at 21:11, David <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> I don't think anyone is suggesting a conspiracy of Dracularian proportions, >>> more that it has been noticed by a long time dealer/collector that there is >>> marked differences between two posters for the same title and supposedly >>> the same release and given this is not normal (for the period) people >>> asking the questions to find the answers - we may never have the definitive >>> answer, but certainly I think it is better to ask openly than second guess >>> quietly and forever wonder. >>> >>> What is very clear is these are two different posters. >>> >>> David >>> >>> >>> Richard Evans wrote on 13/03/2015 5:56 AM: >>>> This is "hand drawn litho", yes? >>>> >>>> And that is drawn directly onto the plate? (Or is that "auto lithography"? >>>> Or is that another name for that same thing along with "stone litho"?) >>>> >>>> Need new plates, it's redone. >>>> >>>> Or more than one set of plates, then it's done following the guidelines as >>>> closely as possible. >>>> >>>> And if it's a big release, wouldn't it make sense to have more than one >>>> printer, rather than ship from one location? >>>> >>>> Big place Oz. Think any conspiracy theory here may be going down the Red >>>> Brick Road. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPad >>>> >>>> On 12 Mar 2015, at 18:19, Jeff Potokar <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Those are 2 totally different posters. >>>>> >>>>> One based on the other, with one redrawn, based on the other's artwork. >>>>> >>>>> It's more than just color and slight printing differences. >>>>> >>>>> As quick examples-- Look at the witch's nose (its profile), or Glinda or >>>>> Dorothy's faces.. or the letter 'g" in the word "Songs." All the >>>>> same pose and look and general placement, but NOT >>>>> the same drawn/created imagery. Not at all (imo). >>>>> >>>>> Jeff >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 12, 2015, at 11:06 AM, David wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks Allen >>>>>> >>>>>> All good information, although I don't think it was the evil drink in >>>>>> this case that would explain all these the differences! >>>>>> >>>>>> David >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> allen day wrote on 12/03/2015 10:26 PM: >>>>>>> Hi David, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I read the discussion and checked the pics provided. If there was only >>>>>>> one printer (and one printing company location) for all the paper >>>>>>> involved, it is obvious that the examples were manufactured at >>>>>>> different times. However, the subtle differences can be due to >>>>>>> different printers / locations / printing companies, as well as the >>>>>>> restoration process. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I used to be a printer some time ago (1970s), on machines as small as >>>>>>> an ABDick letterpress to as large as a Harris 35x45 or a Miehle 43x60. >>>>>>> Large machines had their own platforms / walkways, and bars so the >>>>>>> printer would not fall off the machine to prevent serious injury. All >>>>>>> printers in those days were male and nearly all of the older printers >>>>>>> were alcoholics. Differences in finished product (even in the same >>>>>>> plant) could be due to (among others) different machines, printers, >>>>>>> registration, ink, plates, paper quality, what time of day finished >>>>>>> product was manufactured (printers were less concerned as they >>>>>>> continued to drink all day), indoor temperature and air conditioning >>>>>>> (yeah, humidity played a heckuva part in printing). Now ... nearly >>>>>>> every difference has now been corrected by improved technology. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ad >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 1:52 AM, David <[email protected] >>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>>> There is some strong discussion going on in a forum about all many the >>>>>>> differences between an original Wizard Of OZ un-restored one sheet sold >>>>>>> on bidll.com <http://bidll.com/> recently and the linen backed one >>>>>>> apparently sold some 12 years ago on HA. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://vintagemoviepostersforum.com/discussion/866/wizard-of-oz-aust-one-sheet-spot-the-weird-differences >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <http://vintagemoviepostersforum.com/discussion/866/wizard-of-oz-aust-one-sheet-spot-the-weird-differences> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thoughts? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com >>>>>>> <http://www.filmfan.com/> >>>>>>> ___________________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List >>>>>>> Send a message addressed to: >>>>>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>>> In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L >>>>>>> The author of this message is >>>>>>> solely responsible for its content. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> To unsubscribe from the MoPo-L list, click the following link: >>>>>> https://listserv.american.edu/scripts/wa-american.exe?SUBED1=MoPo-L&A=1 >>>>>> <https://listserv.american.edu/scripts/wa-american.exe?SUBED1=MoPo-L&A=1> >>>>> >>>>> To unsubscribe from the MoPo-L list, click the following link: >>>>> https://listserv.american.edu/scripts/wa-american.exe?SUBED1=MoPo-L&A=1 >>>>> <https://listserv.american.edu/scripts/wa-american.exe?SUBED1=MoPo-L&A=1> >>>> To unsubscribe from the MoPo-L list, click the following link: >>>> https://listserv.american.edu/scripts/wa-american.exe?SUBED1=MoPo-L&A=1 >>>> <https://listserv.american.edu/scripts/wa-american.exe?SUBED1=MoPo-L&A=1> >> > 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.
