Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Rare English One Sheet - The Third Man

24

Comments

  • BruceBruce Member, Captain Movie Poster Posts: 845 ✭✭✭ Daybiller
    Hondo

    To me, the fact that there are at least 92 Lion International Films posters from 1955 on and not ONE of those from before 1955 (other than the disputed Third Man poster) is a "smoking gun". And it is not a tiny sample, since 36 of the 92 are from exactly 1955 to 1959.

    But if some want to believe it to be 1949 (and I agree it is odd they reused the printer number from the bottom, but I have seen many re-release posters that kept info from the original release, likely because they had access to the original printing plates) that is fine with me. I personally would not auction it that way but to each his own. I always err on the side of caution, because I am giving a Lifetime Guarantee.

    Incidentally, you keep saying Lion International Films was formed in 1956. But since some of their posters are from 1955 films, one would think they were formed at the end of 1955.

    Bruce
    We (eMoviePoster.com) hold 3,000 auctions a week, 138,000 a year.
    See all of our current auctions in one gallery here: http://www.emovieposter.com/agallery/all.html
  • HONDOHONDO Member, Wizard of Aus Posters Posts: 7,918 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector

    You are probably right for the U.K but it was most likely in  1956 Lion International set up distribution in Australia. I think they used the original material and just altered a couple of things.To me it is not 1949 but that's only my opinion.


    Hondo

    Lawrence
  • PaulPaul Member, Quad Master Posts: 1,608 ✭✭✭✭ Three-Sheeter
    edited June 2015
    Not quite sure where Greg got those numbers from, but my On the Town Quad 1949, but actual release in the UK January 1950 has only two numbers. My Dr Jekyll from 1941 has only three, but my Miracle on 34th street 1947 has 4 with an "a" at the end, and starts with an 8... ??  So if Greg is right it's from 1950?

    I have asked Sim Brannigan author of the excellent British film poster book about Stafford's numbers and he says there's no actual recorded history for them, as I'd tried to get that info a fair while back.  
    It's more than a Hobby...
  • DavidDavid Member Posts: 10,210 admin
    edited June 2015

    The number at the bottom (right) is B.L. 838
    Post edited by David on
    David
  • DavidDavid Member Posts: 10,210 admin
    HONDO said:

    You are probably right for the U.K but it was most likely in  1956 Lion International set up distribution in Australia. I think they used the original material and just altered a couple of things.


    No one has said the poster is a UK1SH bound for the Australian market so when Lion International set up in this country is not necessarily relevant afterall there were some 60 colonies/dominions of the British Empire back then
    David
  • DavidDavid Member Posts: 10,210 admin
    Paul said:
    Not quite sure where Greg got those numbers from, but my On the Town Quad 1949, but actual release in the UK January 1950 has only two numbers. My Dr Jekyll from 1941 has only three, but my Miracle on 34th street 1947 has 4 with an "a" at the end, and starts with an 8... ??  So if Greg is right it's from 1950?

    I have asked Sim Brannigan author of the excellent British film poster book about Stafford's numbers and he says there's no actual recorded history for them, as I'd tried to get that info a fair while back.  
    I'm just reporting the info supplied not judging it

    Yes, if Greg is correct then it would be 1950 which would makes sense as that is the year it would have been released in many of the colonies, parrticularly in the Northern Hemisphere, whose to say it wasn't used in Hong Kong or  Malta etc etc
    David
  • HONDOHONDO Member, Wizard of Aus Posters Posts: 7,918 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector

    The poster was printed in England. If the poster is supposed to be from the original 1949 or thereabouts release overseas why would the two  references to London Films be removed when Alexander Korda took great pride in his films and British Lion was owned by Korda?

    Secondly someone please post an image of any poster at all pre 1955 where Lion International appears on it.


    Hondo

    Lawrence
  • HONDOHONDO Member, Wizard of Aus Posters Posts: 7,918 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector

    For no particular reason I thought I would mention Thr Third Man had a screening in Australia on March 4, 1955.


    Hondo

    Lawrence
  • DavidDavid Member Posts: 10,210 admin
    HONDO said:

    The poster was printed in England. If the poster is supposed to be from the original 1949 or thereabouts release overseas why would the two  references to London Films be removed when Alexander Korda took great pride in his films and British Lion was owned by Korda?

    One can draw many opinions based on all the data that has been presented to date, it does not always make it fact, remember you were categoric in your conclusions/statement about the An American in Paris daybill when you said one was absolutely an original and the other a re-release, this turned out to be wrong even tho the evidence you would have presented could allow one to draw the conclusion you were correct.

    What I am not saying is you are wrong because I get the whole Lion International point, but I am saying there is enough on the table from other experts to not make you 100% right either; I do believe the BIDLL poster is an original poster for it's first overseas release and not for a re-release. Look at it beside the other supposed R-50s re-release UK1SH (below is both an HA and EMP version), not even close - colour, quality, details of print and print details at the bottom.

    image image image


    David
  • HONDOHONDO Member, Wizard of Aus Posters Posts: 7,918 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector
    edited June 2015
    David said:

    One can draw many opinions based on all the data that has been presented to date, it does not always make it fact, remember you were categoric in your conclusions/statement about the An American in Paris daybill when you said one was absolutely an original and the other a re-release, this turned out to be wrong even tho the evidence you would have presented could allow one to draw the conclusion you were correct.

    What I am not saying is you are wrong because I get the whole Lion International point, but I am saying there is enough on the table from other experts to not make you 100% right either; I do believe the BIDLL poster is an original poster for it's first overseas release and not for a re-release. Look at it beside the other supposed R-50s re-release UK1SH (below is both an HA and EMP version), not even close - colour, quality, details of print and print details at the bottom.

     
    Nowhere did I say the word absolutely or was i categoric in my conclusion. I only used the words I believe and I think which are a long way different in their meanings. I believe a retraction and apology are in order.

    Have you thought there may have been two re-releases post 1954?

    Still say I am right.on the evidence I have presented to date.

    Hondo
    Post edited by David on
    Lawrence
  • HumphreyBogartHumphreyBogart Member Posts: 924 ✭✭✭ Daybiller
    Looks to me though someone doesn't want to accept the results because it doesn't suit them..
    Reg
  • DavidDavid Member Posts: 10,210 admin
    HONDO said:
    Nowhere did I say the word absolutely or was i categoric in my conclusion. I only used the words I believe and I think which are a long way different in their meanings. I believe a retraction and apology are in order.

    hahaha...ummm no, this is not parliament and you were quite firm in your statements and also stated you had evidence that would confirm what you thought (to be true), that makes it fairly categoric.

    HONDO said:
    Have you thought there may have been two re-releases post 1954?

    Yes of course. Was there?


    HONDO said:
    Still say I am right.on the evidence I have presented to date.
    OK, fair enough.

    Are you also saying there is no way no other possibility exists?
    David
  • HONDOHONDO Member, Wizard of Aus Posters Posts: 7,918 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector
    David said:
    HONDO said:
    Nowhere did I say the word absolutely or was i categoric in my conclusion. I only used the words I believe and I think which are a long way different in their meanings. I believe a retraction and apology are in order.

    hahaha...ummm no, this is not parliament and you were quite firm in your statements and also stated you had evidence that would confirm what you thought (to be true), that makes it fairly categoric.



    Wrong, wrong, wrong. The confirmation I was referring to was solely to confirm the printer's name on the Australian one sheet that I thought may help in solving the daybill releases dates.It had nothing to do with my opinion on the daybill release dates. I have email evidence to support this.Again the word categoric doesn't apply and I don't believe I was quite firm either as you stated . I'll wait for your apology.


    HONDO said:
    Have you thought there may have been two re-releases post 1954?

    DAVID said -
    Yes of course. Was there?


    Another source thinks so but i personally don't know.
     I was solely asking the question.


    HONDO said:
    Still say I am right.on the evidence I have presented to date.

    DAVID said -

    OK, fair enough.


    Are you also saying there is no way no other possibility exists?



    No I cannot say that but that doesn't change my opinion that I believe in all the evidence I have produced is more convincing that you or anyone else have presented.

    Hondo

    Lawrence
  • HONDOHONDO Member, Wizard of Aus Posters Posts: 7,918 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector
    Looks to me though someone doesn't want to accept the results because it doesn't suit them..

    Curious to know what results you are referring to. Are you pro 1949 or a re-release from the1950's believer?


    Hondo

    Lawrence
  • JohnJohn Member, Dealer Posts: 1,133 ✭✭✭✭ Three-Sheeter

    I'm curious about what everybody thinks about the comments from Greg Edwards ...

    "As the film was released in 1949 any original poster would have a 4 figure number in the bottom right corner which should start with a '9' and end in an 'A'.  If the poster is from 1950-51 it would have a 3 figure number but with no 'A'.  From some time in 1952 onwards it would be a 4 figure number, also with no 'A'."


    John

  • DavidDavid Member Posts: 10,210 admin
    edited June 2015
    HONDO said:
    Looks to me though someone doesn't want to accept the results because it doesn't suit them..

    Curious to know what results you are referring to. Are you pro 1949 or a re-release from the1950's believer?

    Hondo

    Yes, I'd be curious too and to whom are you referring, and why does it not suit them?
    David
  • DavidDavid Member Posts: 10,210 admin
    edited June 2015
    John said:

    I'm curious about what everybody thinks about the comments from Greg Edwards ...

    "As the film was released in 1949 any original poster would have a 4 figure number in the bottom right corner which should start with a '9' and end in an 'A'.  If the poster is from 1950-51 it would have a 3 figure number but with no 'A'.  From some time in 1952 onwards it would be a 4 figure number, also with no 'A'."


    Greg was was suggested by both you and Ves as one who would likely know, what do you think because I've no idea. I understand he's more an expert on English paper than almost everyone else here so I certainly can't judge.
    David
  • theartofmovieposterstheartofmovieposters Member Posts: 4,031 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector

    I'm still a bit woosey from the migraine drugs, so can't sit to read through everything...which I will do when I am feeling better.

    I don't know much at all about UK paper, but I know that Greg knows his stuff.

    I am not sure who your UK source was for the other info, so I can't comment...have you tried unka?  He knows a bit about the UK stuff too, having spent some time there.

    Can't think of anyone else you can ask...surely the kind of info Greg gave can be verified somewhere/somehow, but in my drug haze I can't think of anything.

  • PaulPaul Member, Quad Master Posts: 1,608 ✭✭✭✭ Three-Sheeter
    Personally I think Greg is correct, as I've said from day 1 It's a first release for overseas.  I was only mentioning the numbers are not always that straight forward......bit like the UK poster market...
    It's more than a Hobby...
  • JohnJohn Member, Dealer Posts: 1,133 ✭✭✭✭ Three-Sheeter
    Well, I think Greg has a great deal of knowledge about British posters. From what he is saying, the poster is from 1950-51. It seems strange that no one on MoPo has commented on the numbers at the bottom.
    John

  • PaulPaul Member, Quad Master Posts: 1,608 ✭✭✭✭ Three-Sheeter
    If it means they are wrong maybe they won't..

    The one who had it most right was Helmut, but I think he was backing down due to pressure from the others. He and Greg are both wise fellows.
    It's more than a Hobby...
  • theartofmovieposterstheartofmovieposters Member Posts: 4,031 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector


    Paul said:
    Personally I think Greg is correct, as I've said from day 1 It's a first release for overseas.  I was only mentioning the numbers are not always that straight forward......bit like the UK poster market...

    Looks like every poster market is not so straight forward...lucky us for picking such a hobby eh!



    John said:
    Well, I think Greg has a great deal of knowledge about British posters. From what he is saying, the poster is from 1950-51. It seems strange that no one on MoPo has commented on the numbers at the bottom.
    Ah I forgot about mopo...will need to remember to read through that too...silence ey, usually speaks volumes...oh wait, maybe it's just the time zones...pft, time for another tablet.
  • DavidDavid Member Posts: 10,210 admin

    John said:
    Well, I think Greg has a great deal of knowledge about British posters. From what he is saying, the poster is from 1950-51. It seems strange that no one on MoPo has commented on the numbers at the bottom.
    That is indeed what he is saying.

    Two did comments were passed, more about the post I made (relaying Greg's post) from Simon Oram and Richard Evans, both knowledgeable UK collectors in their own right.

    Richard said: "Game still on. Phew, almost waved the white flag last night after the Big Bruce email."
    Simon said: "Is there a like button for this post:)

    I lol'd 
    :D
    David
  • JohnJohn Member, Dealer Posts: 1,133 ✭✭✭✭ Three-Sheeter
    I guess the next step is to have a look at other British one sheets from the era that have similar numbers and cross check them but it certainly is looking more like a 1950/1 one sheet which will be very good news for the consignor.
    John

  • theartofmovieposterstheartofmovieposters Member Posts: 4,031 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector

    Wasn't Richard the one that brought the whole S2 scandal to light?

    Will definitely need to go back and read...

  • theartofmovieposterstheartofmovieposters Member Posts: 4,031 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector
    Why can't I see the recent MOPO posts?
  • JohnJohn Member, Dealer Posts: 1,133 ✭✭✭✭ Three-Sheeter
  • PaulPaul Member, Quad Master Posts: 1,608 ✭✭✭✭ Three-Sheeter
    They are all mixed up, most confusing....
    It's more than a Hobby...
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Three-Sheeter

    Wasn't Richard the one that brought the whole S2 scandal to light?

    Will definitely need to go back and read...

    He definitely played a major role in figuring out exactly what the Profiles Dracula really was - i.e. the S2.

    The thread on NSFGE is fantastic...

    Chris
  • theartofmovieposterstheartofmovieposters Member Posts: 4,031 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector
    As our Prime Minister would say, Chris you are the "suppository" of all information...(the aussies will get it..you're pretend, not sure...)
Sign In or Register to comment.

This Vintage Movie Poster Forum is powered by some old cinema posters, the flame retardant properties of a Top Gun Daybill, and a
British Quad which has been folded just the right amount of times and shoved under one of the corners to stop the place from wobbling.