Really? Is this about what EMP does when they discover they've made
another mistake with the dating a poster they've sold or is it about
dating a poster being offered for sale?
What does HA do? What if the buyer on EMP has moved? What if the buyer
on eBay is not a collector, they're just a buyer of something they like
and never again hangs round the darkened hallways of movie poster
collector clubs? What if this poster never made the public forum and
therefore the miss-dated posters sold by EMP & HA and others are never
discovered? Does that make those purchases less fortunate?
It really doesn't matter, the point is, despite your remarks the seller
is a genuine collector who _did_ make every reasonable attempt to
correctly identify the poster and based on that he has listed the poster
on BIDLL here. <http://bidll.com/Listing/Details/420722> I have been
keeping him abreast of the some expert thoughts from here about the
poster. However based on all the comments thus far, it does appear to be
an original print that was bound for the overseas markets; I have also
had this comment from a old time, some would say, expert UK collector
(who cannot post to MoPo) but has been following the conversations and
has this to say [some edit].
/Helmut had it about right, but the problem is not all copies were
printed at the same printers, quite often posters were subbed out. So
it's likely the overseas ones were printed at a different depot... I
think Stafford's had 3. and If they were very busy, a complete other
outfit would do the work./
/
/
/The poster on {BIDLL} is a first release 1sht for overseas. These were
sometimes printed in the UK, and sometimes abroad. 1shts were used in
the UK, but 95% of the time were for the colonies. there was also
different artworks for the same artwork, so you can see sometimes slight
differences. This was due to the unions to keep British artists working.
They even copied US artwork for use in the UK. it gets a bit
complicated, but this is why there is sometimes slight differences./
David
Jeff Potokar wrote on 22/06/2015 2:49 AM:
The other idea, too, is this.
What if this poster is sold as a first release and is later found to
be a later RR? This seller is asking for a good amount of coinage for
it, as a BIN. Would this seller refund the winning bidder or buyer, if
it was worth much less than he sold it for, because it was found (some
time down the road) to be a later RR?
EMP would offer that option, by contacting the new owner and offering
his/her $$ back; ebay has buyer protection, where a buyer/winning
bidder could get a full refund if an item isn't as described.
At the end of the day, it's more about protecting both seller and buyer,
Jeff
On Jun 20, 2015, at 7:46 PM, David wrote:
So if that is NOT a 1949 original UK1SH for foreign distribution but
perhaps a 1955 first release foreign 1SH (and I am not saying one way
or another), it does lead down the dark path to the next most obvious
question: what are and what date are these sold by EMP
<http://www.emovieposter.com/agallery/search/third%2520man/tag/nation%253AU.K./type/English%25201sh/style/R50s/archive.html>
and the same question for these ones sold by HA
<http://movieposters.ha.com/c/search-results.zx?N=54+790+231+232&chkNotSold=1&Ne=230&Ntk=SI_Titles&Nty=1&Ntt=third+man+british+one+sheet>
(who have sold the /same/ poster both as an original 1949 and as an
R-50s) all of which look like poor quality productions of this BIDLL
one <http://bidll.com/Listing/Details/420722> and this EMP one
<http://www.emovieposter.com/agallery/archiveitem/12681291.html> and
none include the printer's details nor the litho details etc etc.
I guess when Jeff you said "/More research should be done on this
before calling it a "for certain" '49 original release OS, one would
think/" it seems obvious the seller did /exactly/ that by and
referred to the two biggest databases around, taken the information
as presented and understandably has now put his piece up for auction
based on all that information.
Obviously there are a few stones to look under before we get there.
David
Jeff Potokar wrote on 21/06/2015 8:17 AM:
It does.
And Bruce may be mistaken, as well.
Jeff
On Jun 20, 2015, at 3:01 PM, David wrote:
Question to all...
Doesn't the BIDLL one look a whole lot like this 1949 version?
http://www.emovieposter.com/agallery/archiveitem/12681291.html
David
Wim Jansen wrote on 21/06/2015 5:07 AM:
Okay this is bugging me, I have done a quick reference search
based on pics of Heritage (nice details!) and Emovie (aaargh not
enough detail) of London Films productions from Imdb.
Here we go:
FALLEN IDOL 1948onesheetLondon Film logo, nothing on Lion
International Nottingham only
MAN BETWEEN 1953one sheetLondon Film logo, nothing on Lion
International printer not visible
CAPTAIN�S PARADISE 53 halfsheetLondon Film credits no logo,
British Lion logo (actual lion) Nott.ham only
HOBSON�s CHOIce 1954 one sheetLondon Film logo, nothing on Lion
Internationalprobably just Nottingham - unclear
BELLES OF ST.TRINIANS 1954 3sheet London Films International and
logoprinter not visible
RICHARD III1955onesheet �distribution controlled by London Films
International", no logo Nottingham and London
Kid FOR TWO FARTHINGS 1955 one sheet London Film logoNott.ham and
London
IRON PETTICOAT1956 six sheetLion International, no London
Filmprinter not visible
I think I have solid ground for my position that it�s a rerelease,
I�d say after 1955. There�s a book on the history of the Stafford
Company by a local heritage writer, but there�s not a copy
available on the net. Grrr, I want that. However I would not be at
all surprised the Biddll one is printed in London in late 1955 the
earliest.
Wim
Op 20 jun. 2015, om 20:22 heeft Jeff Potokar <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> het volgende geschreven:
From the British Lion website. A brief history of the company,
also mentioning that BL became a distribution company in 1955,
after it fell into receivership.
http://www.britishlion.com/british-lion-history.shtml
Jeff
On Jun 20, 2015, at 11:04 AM, Wim Jansen wrote:
I disagree, I think the absence off the London Film logo is
pretty crucial. Anyway I�m gonna find my Carol Reed book, maybe
that has some more details on the release schedule, probably not
though.
Looking at the re-release posters on Heritage and emovie I�m
wondering how sure are we that those are not international
releases and the Biddl one is the real English rerelease. That
would also explain the differences in the printer information.
W
Op 20 jun. 2015, om 19:49 heeft Simon Oram
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
het volgende geschreven:
I'm more in the thinking that it's a International UK 1 sheet
for the first release in one of the colonies. Due to its
obvious closeness and decent printing standard it's very close
to the original release date. David said that The Third Man was
released in Australia March 1950. OK the poster is in New
Zealand but I think with that sort of info that sways me into
thinking that way.
Simon
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
*From: *Richard C Evans
*Sent: *Saturday, 20 June 2015 18:06
*To: *[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Reply To: *[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject: *Re: [MOPO] [FA] ULTRA Rare English One Sheet - The
Third Man (1949)
The unfavourable scenario (presumably no one is thinking fake),
is that it could be an International RR?
(Prior to that horrible "RR" which is based on it. I think
based on the actual printed poster, and no connection to
original plates.)
Would they bother doing it for International RR? Especially
with decent quality printing, (as good as the domestic).
Everything points to it being contemporary to the domestic
printed version, and any variances between the posters make sense.
One print run for domestic version, one run for international.
Whether done at the same branch of the printers or not.
A different version would require a different set of plates to
be made up, hence any minor differences with illustration along
with required changes. (?)
Sent from my iPhone
On 20 Jun 2015, at 16:40, Paul Gerrard
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
Different companies! Eagle-Lion was Rank as you correctly say;
but Lion International was part of London Films/British Lion.
It's just that we can't be 100% sure when Lion International
started...
Paul
www.movieposterstudio.com <http://www.movieposterstudio.com/>
In a message dated 20/06/2015 15:19:47 GMT Daylight Time,
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
writes:
Hi David,
I would presume Lion International was part of Eagle-Lion
owned by J. Arthur Rank. Eagle Lion were founded in 1946.
This is interesting from Wikipedia, especially the last
part �From 1946-1949 Eagle-Lion was under the control
ofArthur Krim
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Krim>who in addition
to releasing films by Rank and_reissues of__David O.
Selznick_
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_O._Selznick>_films�._
Obviously I�m not saying the poster on Bidll is definitely
a reissue/re-release but I think it would be worth
checking on more.
Regards Simon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: [email protected]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
