It's great to see the way discussions here can morph from poster prices to Star Wars to collectors' wives. In reply to Toochis I think the fact that she is also a collector means that she may not be typical. I know that I have had to negotiate with my wife for specific spaces for hanging posters, so have to rotate those on display and those stored occasionally.
On Wed, 3 Mar 2021 at 08:09, David Kusumoto <[email protected]> wrote: > I remember the Style D when it came out. It appealed to us "old boomers" > who understood the "retro spirit" of Lucas's vision of Star Wars being a > vintage weekend matinee serial. My first was TACKED onto my bedroom wall > and my pals would say, "That doesn't look like a Star Wars poster." - > hanging as it did next to my equally TACKED Style A. (I never owned the > Style C.) Later, I heard people call it the "circus poster," and I > wondered, "who comes up with these names?" > > My guesses about why Style D never caught fire are - 1) It's an homage and > thus doesn't look like what collectors expect from SW, notwithstanding > Lucas's preference for it, and, 2) Style D was issued in 1978, deep into > its FIRST run but before the celebrated "first anniversary" poster that > fetches $$ today. I also think there's a bias for 1977 issue paper vs. > later re-issues - and the style D was also re-issued as a fan-club > one-sheet in 1992. In my lifetime, I think I've owned about 7-8 style As, > including a few first printings which - back then - I didn't know the > difference and why they might be important to later generations. (My first > posters were purchased at Comic-Con in San Diego.) In hindsight, I now > find the style A to be color "drab" - which is a personal thing yet > consistent with my early collecting years of treating posters like books, > e.g., caring only about first-issue country-of-origin one-sheets of films > that I had to love MORE than the poster. It's why I hung onto the > pre-Awards "Graduate" one-sheets despite the BQ looking better. > > Of course, if I could be young again, I'd chase art regardless of what I > thought of a film's merits, and I'd go heavy into BQs and Australian > daybills. I never collected horror because as I say, back then I had to > LOVE the movie too. And "Frankenstein" was the only classic that made the > cut - even though I could never afford it, then and now. When I > re-discovered Rita Hayworth via "Gilda," the Style B was the perfect match > of poster art with a script loaded with sexual tension, power and ownership > themes, delivered via double entendrés which I felt were ahead of its > time. It's a kinky picture. If I could do a "rewind" - I'd chase "The > Invasion of the Saucer Men" with those cabbage head aliens - but because my > wife forbade horror images in the house - I would've kept that poster in my > work room so she wouldn't be creeped out by it. > > It was Freeman Fisher who said it best. "The greatest obstacle to > collecting posters you want isn't money - it's having wives." -d. > > ------------------------------ > *From:* MoPo List <[email protected]> on behalf of Smith, Grey > - 1367 <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 2, 2021 8:54 AM > *To:* [email protected] <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: Auction Prices > > > Hi Tommy and MOPO, > > I’m not sure I have any terrific insight other than business seems to have > grown well during the last year and likely due to a number of reasons. > > I suggest the already discussed stay at home element makes people more > interested in online activity and the need of a pleasant distraction. I > also agree that spending on other entertainment has been curtailed so seems > more activity in buying items of personal interest. I’m not so sure how > much is being spent by those wishing to more diversely invest in their > portfolio in collectibles, but there surely must be that element too. > > I’m thankful for the gain in the hobby and hope perhaps those who’ve not > spent on posters before will, as we always seem to have a steady growth in > the hobby with new buyers. > > > > ----- > > > > *From:* MoPo List <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Tommy Barr > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 2, 2021 8:07 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [MOPO] Auction Prices > > > > *External Email* > > My favourite Star Wars poster is the style D one sheet, which apparently > was the one George Lucas had displayed in his office, yet it doesn't seem > to be very popular among collectors. As regards the poster auction prices, > I wonder if Grey or Bruce can offer any insights? > > > > Tommy > > > > ----- > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 at 12:40, David Kusumoto <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Helmut and Tommy - you guys are onto something. Because yesterday I was > tracking a Blazing Saddles insert at Heritage and I saw it jump to near > $200 with its 20% buyer's premium, a poster that can be had for a little > more or a little less, depending upon condition and this one was pretty > nice. A Star Wars public health vaccination poster sold for a hefty amount > too. Yes, there is something going on with the market. > > > > Meanwhile, at Nathalie, LOL. Yes I agree with you - a Johansson image on a > poster is definitely one of personal taste. Maybe I, too, wouldn't pay > "two cents" for an image of her on a poster from any of her recent films - > (although I did like her in "Hitchcock" and "Marriage Story") - and even > though she's almost jail bait in Sofia Coppola's Oscar-winning "Lost in > Translation," a contemplative drama more than a comedy - I WOULD pay two > cents for this.... > > > > https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img923/8798/8brXpr.jpg > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__imagizer.imageshack.com_img923_8798_8brXpr.jpg%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3D03pYNlCxo1ES3gYVXxnxa61Lf80sedKVS5k9kL9xToA%26r%3D5Zsg7Uh_TXidOEjAziT8qDdZz28JZS1XAJHmIoJP84s%26m%3DML73X9QdCA9v7eJ4bn-el3F5ihm2nqLboCN5oPLyC4w%26s%3DXSKWYjR2IJQqaFV52Bxr7EWNxTUdOxmkKc_FaBOqhZA%26e%3D&data=04%7C01%7C%7C735ba6a1f388403f6f0108d8dd9beac9%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637503009017314254%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=faBGieUztG16rHcSVdczlz%2BiCn2yQrSQ%2FPRPH08irm0%3D&reserved=0> > > > > ... but I wouldn't pay a nickel for the satirical poster below from 1997, > LOL - (even though a ton of Seinfeld fans would)... > > > https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/8946/IBnMBj.jpg > > > > > > *But here's a question I'll throw out there for MoPo'ers and buyers and > dealers to think about. It's about "Star Wars" posters from 1977.* Now > that at least three generations have embraced the first 1977 film - I'm > puzzled why this 43-year-old half-sheet... > > > > https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/5577/fZ6t6z.jpg > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__imagizer.imageshack.com_img924_5577_fZ6t6z.jpg%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3D03pYNlCxo1ES3gYVXxnxa61Lf80sedKVS5k9kL9xToA%26r%3D5Zsg7Uh_TXidOEjAziT8qDdZz28JZS1XAJHmIoJP84s%26m%3DML73X9QdCA9v7eJ4bn-el3F5ihm2nqLboCN5oPLyC4w%26s%3D05ruqZ_HnLNaoYaEFOqiMVL4vroY2AopvawxK3hvAGY%26e%3D&data=04%7C01%7C%7C735ba6a1f388403f6f0108d8dd9beac9%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637503009017324239%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=WvQ%2F2BGhrWXllvKcQpOe6s%2FLt9xU7cKTtGfXfnUphGE%3D&reserved=0> > > > > ...which has arguably better art by Tom Jung than other domestic '77 issue > posters - (save for probably the Chantrell Style C) - rarely sells for more > than $1,000. It seems stuck in that range like a money market fund with no > interest. The half-sheet has never been implicated among the bootlegs like > the minty inserts, the Style A or Style C knock-offs. Yet when offered - > it's not just underrated - but unloved - even though to me, it's a great > collage of what's in the film. *Do collectors think the half-sheet > format hurts it?* As a horizontal poster, maybe not as good as the > Chantrell British Quad which resembles the Style C - but I think it's still > good - with an image only seen on the half-sheet. I thought maybe the > reason is some think it's "too busy." Can't put my finger on why it's > regarded as an "also-ran," not as good as the other domestic 1977 posters. > > > > ***perplexed* -d. > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* MoPo List <[email protected]> on behalf of Helmut Hamm > <[email protected]> > > *Sent:* Monday, March 1, 2021 6:03 AM > > *To:* [email protected] <[email protected]> > > *Subject:* Re: Auction prices > > > > Tommy, > > > > I think there is one simple reason: With shops, bars, and restaurants > closed in wide parts of the world and no holiday trips in sight either, > many people have a lot of extra cash to spend. Many of them are working > from their home office right now, and no commuting means more extra time to > spend. And with the kids going on your nerve all day long, online shopping > might deliver a much needed self-gratification. Well, that was three simple > reasons... > > > > Plus, many new collectors may have the false impression that buying at > auction sort of guarantees a 'fair market price'. In cases like a rare and > desirable Tarantino poster, this might even be true. If you are bidding > against another newbie, it's not. Last not least, people are lazy. Ooops, > that five simple reasons now. > > > > Helmut > > > > > > Am 01.03.2021 um 12:50 schrieb Tommy Barr <[email protected]>: > > > > After our musings on the prices fetched at the Ewbank's auction I notice > that HA has also seen some strange price hikes at the weekend. For example, > Battle of Britain o/s folded 7.5 @$300; The Lion King o/s rolled 8.5 @$324: > Titanic 2xo/s rolled 8.5 @$324. Given that those can be bought online for > a lot less, as has been the case with quite a number sold at auction > recently, it leaves me perplexed as to what is going here. I don't think > there is any one simple reason but at the moment movie poster values are > proving weirdly unpredictable. > > > > Tommy > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* S Yafet <[email protected]> > > *Sent:* Sunday, February 28, 2021 2:59 PM > > *To:* David Kusumoto <[email protected]> > > *Cc:* [email protected] <[email protected]> > > *Subject:* Re: [MOPO] Ewbanks Auction today - and thoughts about Once > Upon A Time in Hollywood posters > > > > Very interesting reading. > > Guess it's all personal. I wouldn't pay 2 cents for a Johansson image. > > > > Nathalie > > > > On Sun, Feb 28, 2021, 1:36 AM David Kusumoto <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I've noticed similar trends of recent titles fetching higher prices. > Newbies tend to temporarily push up prices for posters still in release. > (I remember one-sheets from "Titanic" selling for crazy prices more than 20 > years ago before falling to earth - and recently, I saw the same for > one-sheets from "The Shape of Water" and "Parasite" after winning the Oscar > for Best Picture.) > > > > But there is another "outlier" of recent note, certainly not vintage - and > it's the posters from Quentin Tarantino's "Once Upon A Time in Hollywood" > from 2019. The "wilding" Italian-style posters by old-school artists > Martin Duhovic and Renato Casaro fetch prices north of $1K - but even > standard one-sheets with collage art by another classic artist - (Steven > Chorney) - sell at or near the $100 mark in better condition. > > > > Almost exactly two years ago - "Once Upon A Time..." was "teased" as a > summer 2019 release - and two one-sheets were shipped to theaters - an > international "COMING SOON" - and a domestic "JULY" - the latter was tagged > with a "This film has not yet been rated" in the lower left. Both were > popular - but the international versions were more - and still remain - > plentiful. > > > > https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/6972/krbNwK.jpg > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fimagizer.imageshack.com-252Fimg924-252F6972-252FkrbNwK.jpg-26data-3D04-257C01-257C-257C88d475658d7642bffde208d8dc3c8859-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C637501499824573696-257CUnknown-257CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0-253D-257C1000-26sdata-3DA2IiRR7U0mIDrgWMJVWclAKJHnCINoGpr7-252BCI9BKykA-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3D03pYNlCxo1ES3gYVXxnxa61Lf80sedKVS5k9kL9xToA%26r%3D5Zsg7Uh_TXidOEjAziT8qDdZz28JZS1XAJHmIoJP84s%26m%3DML73X9QdCA9v7eJ4bn-el3F5ihm2nqLboCN5oPLyC4w%26s%3DMFZ03i-DiZ5YfdhVQ_isEXlsH79y18rZcDSrIQmwHUA%26e%3D&data=04%7C01%7C%7C735ba6a1f388403f6f0108d8dd9beac9%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637503009017324239%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=9xyfVtt9QFj9pMqtvkWnxAx4WBlA8oqP1bJmMEDWf48%3D&reserved=0> > > > > https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/7235/yfEDhd.jpg > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fimagizer.imageshack.com-252Fimg922-252F7235-252FyfEDhd.jpg-26data-3D04-257C01-257C-257C88d475658d7642bffde208d8dc3c8859-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C637501499824583697-257CUnknown-257CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0-253D-257C1000-26sdata-3D-252Bs-252B72IexJhlFvBgQZk3Oa-252FEKR2pOPNuPBNw2CaBjTow-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3D03pYNlCxo1ES3gYVXxnxa61Lf80sedKVS5k9kL9xToA%26r%3D5Zsg7Uh_TXidOEjAziT8qDdZz28JZS1XAJHmIoJP84s%26m%3DML73X9QdCA9v7eJ4bn-el3F5ihm2nqLboCN5oPLyC4w%26s%3DzOnfIvyzhfc7LMP75eCBeIaGs_IPPILosUyiHqifZPQ%26e%3D&data=04%7C01%7C%7C735ba6a1f388403f6f0108d8dd9beac9%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637503009017334239%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=3ytZ0JzKqo4qF8rdIzy15opX6msz7DSgCcrMkbmacew%3D&reserved=0> > > > > By the spring of 2019, though, the MPAA issued its "R" rating for > Tarantino's film. Theaters were already displaying the other one-sheets. > Nevertheless, Sony-Columbia went ahead and printed a third one-sheet - a > small batch with the "R" rating in the lower left corner. This became the > true domestic "final" - even though few theaters displayed it. > > > > It took me FOREVER for me to find this version and the difficulty made it > obvious there weren't many - and those that I did see - were unused but > roughly handled by re-sellers. I mention this because it was right here on > MoPo - that I first talked about the differences in the three one-sheets > and why I was looking for the "R" rated final. I solicited dealers > everywhere, including here on MoPo. Not even the reliable Dale Dilts - who > specializes in newer release posters, could help. Many months later - I > finally found one in nice condition - from an amateur re-seller in > Pennsylvania. > > > > https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img923/8048/Hs9kJW.jpg > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fimagizer.imageshack.com-252Fimg923-252F8048-252FHs9kJW.jpg-26data-3D04-257C01-257C-257C88d475658d7642bffde208d8dc3c8859-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C637501499824593683-257CUnknown-257CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0-253D-257C1000-26sdata-3DZ0Gh8iKD-252BW0Tl-252FUnRW4-252F-252FOccQlMbSYiZ8ZbwjM00KVI-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3D03pYNlCxo1ES3gYVXxnxa61Lf80sedKVS5k9kL9xToA%26r%3D5Zsg7Uh_TXidOEjAziT8qDdZz28JZS1XAJHmIoJP84s%26m%3DML73X9QdCA9v7eJ4bn-el3F5ihm2nqLboCN5oPLyC4w%26s%3DHS0SBV_Wh28nb17pGBiJ00-Os1gEflG566RrouM6frM%26e%3D&data=04%7C01%7C%7C735ba6a1f388403f6f0108d8dd9beac9%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637503009017334239%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=YEKRZOj7TLVupQ5%2FSV5tnlS8VAw0gAeyTBT2iZyhJg4%3D&reserved=0> > > > > Well, earlier this month, for the first time ever - eMoviePoster put up > all three known 1-sheets featuring the Steven Chorney art - up against each > other. Apparently, a few others had the same info that I did. > > > > 1. International double-sided advance (which is the most plentiful) - sold > for $108. > > 2. Domestic USA single-sided advance with no rating - sold for $142. > > 3. Domestic USA double-sided advance FINAL with the R rating - sold for > $285. > > > > eMoviePoster had sold the "R" version just once before - a typical "fair" > condition example that still fetched $90. I'm not sure if Heritage has > ever sold the "R" version - but it and eMoviePoster have both sold the > international and the unrated domestic enough times - to rack up a track > record of prices realized. > > > > What I'm leading to is I have a funny feeling that no matter how one feels > the Tarantino film - this "standard theatrical" one-sheet - has a shot at > joining this century's "Lost in Translation" - (Johansson image, 2003) - > for being consistently sought after by collectors. I remember consigning a > giant vinyl banner with the Johansson image (I had nowhere to hang it) - I > was shocked when it sold for more than $1,000. Even high grade DS > one-sheets with her image fetch hundreds of $$$. I could be wrong, but > prices for the Tarantino poster haven't dropped yet. > > > > Forgive the long ramble, just musings sparked by Helmut's and Tommy's > observations. - d. > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* MoPo List <[email protected]> on behalf of Tommy Barr < > [email protected]> > > *Sent:* Saturday, February 27, 2021 6:06 AM > > *To:* [email protected] <[email protected]> > > *Subject:* Re: Ewbanks Auction today > > > > I watched the auction sporadically and agree that there were some strange > results. I think, however, that prices have been volatile on all the > auction sites recently, even HA and emovie showing some anomalous > results.Some posters which normally fetch mid double figures have been > going for three figures, and the bids on many mid-level items seem to have > grown exponentially. No idea why, but I can't accept the premise that there > are lots of new collectors suddenly coming in to the market. I would have > thought that anyone starting to collect now would initially be looking for > posters from the comic-inspired superhero movies, Bond or Star Wars, but > there weren't many of those in the Ewbank's auction. > > Tommy > > > > On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 at 21:34, Helmut Hamm <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Over the day, I watched the Ewbanks auction on and off and the results > were quite astounding: The best thing they had was a GET CARTER quad, which > hammered at 3,800 Pounds. A few other lots sold in the 1000-2000 Pound > range. > > > > Much more interesting was the vast amount of low-end material that sold > for astounding prices: A french petite for THE GOONIES hammered for 100 > Pounds. That‘s about 125 with premium, plus VAT, plus shipping. It > shouldn‘t be too hard to find one of these on ebay France for 10 to 15 > Euros. There were tons of stuff like that, including bulk lots, Argentine > posters, Spanish US posters, a lot of bottom end ebay material. The auction > lasted overall several hours and I had other things to do in between, but I > did not see a single pass. > > > > Most of the lots sold today are totally boring for the seasoned collector, > but exactly the sort of material that might appeal to beginners. > > > > It seems to me there was A LOT of new blood present in this auction. > Obviously, it makes online buying a lot harder for me, but in the end I > guess it can only be good for the hobby. > > > > HH > > ------------------------------ > > 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.
