To the best of my knowledge it was "Hackett" - the Bidll copy is "tt"
(I am aware of ) Michael Oregon's site (it) was last updated well over a
decade ago so not sure how accurate it is and a lot more definitive
answers have been uncovered since then. There is a follower of this
conversation (L. Bailey) who is somewhat of an expert on these matters
(including dating the printer) and although he does not post I am
hopeful he will share some more information privately with his usual
contacts which can then be updated here.
As to printer's information on the bottom and the guidelines for the
printer, no idea - one would assume the printer would ensure their name
was correctly represented.
David
Richard Evans wrote on 13/03/2015 1:41 PM:
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/%7Emorgan/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 <shadow....@gmail.com
<mailto:shadow....@gmail.com>> 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 O*ffset 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 <shadow....@gmail.com
<mailto:shadow....@gmail.com>> 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 <jpotok...@ca.rr.com
<mailto:jpotok...@ca.rr.com>> 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 <shadow....@gmail.com
<mailto:shadow....@gmail.com>> 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
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:
lists...@listserv.american.edu
<mailto:lists...@listserv.american.edu>
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the MoPo-L list, click the following link:
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
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: lists...@listserv.american.edu
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
