Howdy, Stranger!

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

Categories

The Adventures of Robin Hood Australian 3 Sheet

145679

Comments

  • JohnJohn Member, Dealer Posts: 1,122 ✭✭✭✭ Three-Sheeter
    There has been a lot more research and information provided since the earlier posts on this thread and it is quite possible that both 3 sheets are for the late 1940s release. However, I feel that press books for the 1938 release and the 1949 release are required for absolute proof. I still think that the NFSA might have them.

    Based on what has been presented here, does anyone have an opinion on whether the buyer could be entitled to claim a refund?
    John

  • theartofmovieposterstheartofmovieposters Member Posts: 3,928 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector

    I don't think anyone needs to be tarred or feathered.

    Based on the information in front of them people made a call, heck the consignor thinks that it is original to 39.  Happens all the time...I know now some things I own and I thought were original are in fact RR and vice versa.

    Me personally, based on what has been presented here in this thread, there is no absolute proof that the poster is from '39, nor is there absolute proof that it is from '49.  I also think John raised a fair point that since the top panel was recreated completely, we will never know what it actually might have said...

    However, enough circumstantial evidence has been presented to question the original claims of it being from '39.  Seriously, people have been convicted on far less :)

    Based on that, I think it would be fair for the buyer to go back to auction house if they were unhappy to see what could be done.  He/she bought and paid for original paper from 1939, which he/she might not have.

    If it came back up for auction, what do you think - Should it be made clearer that their is a possibility it is for a RR?

  • BruceBruce Member, Captain Movie Poster Posts: 826 ✭✭✭ Daybiller
    John

    It is all on the auction's terms of sale.

    I state on my site that I will give a full refund no matter how long after the fact it is, if a poster I described as original turns out to be a re-release (and in fact, I recently gave a full refund of over $1,200 for a poster I said was a 1954 re-release of a 1945 movie, but which turned out to be a 1956 re-release). So if this poster had been bought from me, and if it were shown to be a 1949 re-release, not a first 1938 release, then I WOULD be obligated to give a full refund.

    But if Heritage states that all sales are final and the terms are buyer beware, then the buyer is stuck with their poster. Since they still print catalogs, just look at the pages in front that have the terms of sale, and you will have your answer.

    This is why I said I will now have to re-think how I present Australian one-sheets and three-sheets. Since, as I also said, I absolutely WOULD have described this as original (as I think every dealer or collector would have, with the possible exception of Lawrence), I think I NOW need to start saying, "This poster appears to be from the first release, but it is possible it is from a re-release, so do not bid unless you can accept this possibility" and that would change my responsibility.
    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
  • JohnJohn Member, Dealer Posts: 1,122 ✭✭✭✭ Three-Sheeter
     
    If it came back up for auction, what do you think - Should it be made clearer that their is a possibility it is for a RR?
    That's where the comments that Bruce made earlier are very significant. I think it would have to be described as undated and many other Australian posters from that era might also get a similar vague description. It might be a bit like HA describing long daybills as "pre war" - that's the safe option. No one will want to take a risk with a very expensive poster.
    John

  • HONDOHONDO Member, Wizard of Aus Posters Posts: 7,748 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector
    One thing I would like to do is compliment Bruce on his determination to have his records correct. Heritage have a lot of inaccurate release dates on a lot of their previously sold items. I have informed them of a few obvious mistakes in the past but they have never altered them or seek any extra information to be supplied to them. There are numerous errors on previously sold Australian sold paper on the Heritage site at present and you probably would be surprised just to how many there are. I am only talking about posters that I have 100% proof about my findings by the way.
    Lawrence
  • BruceBruce Member, Captain Movie Poster Posts: 826 ✭✭✭ Daybiller
    Thanks Lawrence. But I have a massive self-interest in learning ALL I possibly can about originals and re-releases from every country in the world, since I auction absolutely everything, and I guarantee it all. So it saves me lots of money by entering every bit of data I can in our database, so I am far less likely to make mistakes later on.

    But I have to re-think guaranteeing undated posters. There are so many cases where new information shows something to be a re-release that everyone would have sworn was original (as is maybe true in this case). I may have to alter my policy.

    But even if I do, I will still fix every mistake. And I will never retroactively stop guaranteeing whatever I auctioned before I made the change (IF I ever do make a change).
    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: 7,748 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector
    edited April 2016
    When I posted this thread 8 days ago I would  never have thought of the interest and participation that this thread has produced here. 1.9K views and 246 replies and still rolling alone strongly at present. There must be some sort of record occuring here. My only wish is that a resolution to this thread is found in which everyone, particularly David, agree upon a result 100% whichever way it is proved.
    Lawrence
  • SvenSven Member Posts: 2,014 ✭✭✭✭ Three-Sheeter
    HONDO said:
    When I posted this thread 8 days ago I would  never have thought of the interest and participation that this thread has produced here. 1.9K views and 246 replies and still rolling alone strongly at present. There must be some sort of record occuring here. My only wish is that a resolution to this thread is found in which everyone, particularly David, agree upon a result 100% whichever way it is proved.
    Another quality hondo production,  a plot filled with twists and turns and an all star cast!  :)
  • DavidDavid Member Posts: 10,181 admin
    HONDO said:
    When I posted this thread 8 days ago I would  never have thought of the interest and participation that this thread has produced here. 1.9K views and 246 replies and still rolling alone strongly at present. There must be some sort of record occurring here. My only wish is that a resolution to this thread is found in which everyone, particularly David, agree upon a result 100% whichever way it is proved.
    No it's not a record - but keep trying.  ;)

    And why particularly me?


    David
  • HONDOHONDO Member, Wizard of Aus Posters Posts: 7,748 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector
    edited April 2016
    David said:
    HONDO said:
    When I posted this thread 8 days ago I would  never have thought of the interest and participation that this thread has produced here. 1.9K views and 246 replies and still rolling alone strongly at present. There must be some sort of record occurring here. My only wish is that a resolution to this thread is found in which everyone, particularly David, agree upon a result 100% whichever way it is proved.
    No it's not a record - but keep trying.  ;)

    And why particularly me?

    Out of curiosity what is the record holder?

    The hardest person i'll need  to convince going on past experiences.

    Lawrence
  • DavidDavid Member Posts: 10,181 admin
    edited April 2016
    HONDO said:
    The hardest person i'll need  to convince going on past experiences.

    Are you saying if I agree with your findings then it will be so?


    David
  • HONDOHONDO Member, Wizard of Aus Posters Posts: 7,748 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector
  • DavidDavid Member Posts: 10,181 admin
    Well I'm hardly the only one who is asking for concrete evidence. Or am I?

    Ves is right, we've hung people with a lot less info, drawn and quartered them and then tortured them, and that's just the fun stuff.  :)

    But it is fair to say that your information in general is far more  researched than many of us would have even attempted or even bothered to try in the past. You've rightly prompted us to be more careful and helped us be far better educated, but that in itself is a doubled edge sword, it also means the Jedi himself must be cross checked. Remember, it is you by your own actions who has effectively insist now that we all take nothing at face value so we all should rightly demand more than just a few coincidental or tenuous links before we accept what is presented as fact. 
    David
  • JohnJohn Member, Dealer Posts: 1,122 ✭✭✭✭ Three-Sheeter
    I agree with you David. It is now clear that the original research was far from complete and it has taken some time to come up with revised information since then. There is still no press book to prove the theory and doubt still exists.
    John

  • HONDOHONDO Member, Wizard of Aus Posters Posts: 7,748 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector

    Just to add some more confusion here. Sold on Heritage Auctions in the past this 3 sheet credited as being an Australian 3 sheet R-1960s. Some doubt that it is Australian but one thing is sure it isn't from the 1960s.

    Lawrence
  • DavidDavid Member Posts: 10,181 admin
    edited April 2016
    As I understand it, Heritage's policy is not to correct old sales as that was the condition/description it was sold under. They will ensure future pieces of the same will show the correct information - eg It's Wonderful Life Daybill, first incorrectly offered as trimmed, subsequent ones now show it correctly described - full bleed, full size. 

    I also understand if you can show proof that your items was misrepresented in the auction Heriatge will offer a full credit.

    Now whilst Bruce will contact people who have purchased an incorrectly described item and obviously is to be commended for this, I would imagine he is one of the rare exception to the rule anywhere in the world, the fact Heritage does not doesn't make them scoundrels at all and really one should not spend anytime criticising them for this, simply congratulate Bruce for his policy.

    David
  • JohnJohn Member, Dealer Posts: 1,122 ✭✭✭✭ Three-Sheeter
    edited April 2016
    That's also my understanding of how the HA policy works and it is quite reasonable.
    Post edited by John on
    John

  • BruceBruce Member, Captain Movie Poster Posts: 826 ✭✭✭ Daybiller
    edited April 2016
    The key question is when someone contacts any auction and proves to them they misrepresented an item, do they not only NOT correct the listing, but do they also NOT contact the buyer, but wait for the unlikely time when that person contacts them? And whether any auction makes the same "mistake" a second time even after an expert tells them they did it wrong the first time.

    And if you want to argue that an auction doesn't want to fix old listings because "that was the condition/description it was sold under", you could also argue they don't want to fix them because that would make it far more likely the buyer of that item would discover the error and then demand a refund. If it is because "that was the condition/description it was sold under", then just add a correction notice, saying the above item was sold as a 1938 original, but it has since been learned it was a 1949 re-release".

    Obviously, anyone can run their auction any way they want. But the way I run mine DOES give me a competitive advantage over other auctions, and you can't be surprised when I note that difference.

    And the biggest distinction of this entire thread is that (as I understand it) Heritage has zero liability in this case (or any other similar one) because of their "as is" policy, whereas I AM responsible for every item I auction (even the most expensive ones) because of the written warranty I give all buyers. This DOES give a competitive advantage over other auctions as far as buyers go, and again, you can't be surprised when I note that difference.

    If there IS any major auction anywhere (one million + annual sales) that DOES have a Lifetime Guarantee like mine, please let me know what auction that is, so I can change my advertising!


    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
  • JohnJohn Member, Dealer Posts: 1,122 ✭✭✭✭ Three-Sheeter
    The fact that you contact the buyers whenever a mistake is identified is very commendable and I certainly don't know of any major auction that does that.
    John

  • HONDOHONDO Member, Wizard of Aus Posters Posts: 7,748 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector

    HONDO said:
    John said:
    I have also had a look through Everyone's Film Weekly trade magazines from the era. There are quite a few different Warner Bros logos shown which must indicate that there was no hard and fast rule that they had to follow. That leads to the question why Victory Publicity would exclusively put Warner Brothers Pictures Inc across the shield on some of their posters and when did they start doing that?


    After extensive research especially since this thread opened this is what I have found.

    Daybills printed by Hackett Offset Print the preferred printer of Warner Bros. posters  in 1940 into 1941 had the Warner Bros. only wording across the shield appearing on them. The last daybill located with this style of logo from Hackett that I have managed to  locate at this point of time is Invitation To A Murder ( aka Flight From Destiny ) which was released in Australia in early 1941. I also have an image of an Australian press sheet of Footsteps In The Night which also has just the Warner Bros style logo appearing on it from its Australian first release around mid 1941. It appears around late1941 Hackett stopped printing Warner Bros. posters and Marchant & Co, replaced them as preferred printer. The only Marchant & Co. poster I have located with Warner Bros. only printed on it is an Australian one sheet of Strawberry Blonde from circa August 1941.Shortly after that on Daybills and one sheet the  logo that appeared on Marchant & Co. posters was the Warner Bros. Pictures Inc logo shield. A few years later when Victory Publicity took over as preferred printer from Marchant & Co. they stuck with the Warner Bros. Pictures Inc. logo until the early 1950s when W.E.Smith replaced them and changed over to the plain Warner Bros wording only shield logo.

    One thing I would like to point out though is a Warner Bros. one sheet from circa August 1941 printed early in the time Marchant & Co. took over the Warner Bros. printers role has Warner Bros. only shield but appears to have been replaced  shortly after and the Warner Bros. Pictures logo then appeared on one sheets from then on.

    Other posters printed in the 1940s and 1950s which were mainly, but not exclusively re-releases, by F. Cunninghame appear to have used the plain Warner Bros shield logo including on The Adventures Of Robin Hood re-release daybill poster Bruce has recently posted an image of.





                                                                                                                                                                                                Santa Fe Trail ( 1940 ). Both daybills printed for the April, 1941 release in Australia. The Warner Bros. Shield appearing on both posters was used up to the end of 1941 or early 1942 by Marchant & Co. when the Warner Bros. Pictures Inc. logo appears to have replaced the Warner Bros. only printed shield. The other Marchant & Co.poster with the Warner Bros. only shield, which I mentioned previously, was on the Marchant & Co. Australian one sheet circa August, 1941 of Strawberry Blonde.
    Lawrence
  • HONDOHONDO Member, Wizard of Aus Posters Posts: 7,748 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector
    I will be out of action and not participating on this thread or on any other threads in fact on our forum for a while. When I return back to the forum I will respond to anything raised in my absence that I feel I needs a response to.
    Lawrence
  • HumphreyBogartHumphreyBogart Member Posts: 924 ✭✭✭ Daybiller
    That's no good Lawrence. Hope everything is OK matey.
    Reg
  • DavidDavid Member Posts: 10,181 admin
    Take care, see you soon Lawrence.
    David
  • DavidDavid Member Posts: 10,181 admin
    Exhibit #74 - Warner Bros Logo.

    Smashing the Money Ring (1939) - Long Daybill


    David
  • EisenhowerEisenhower Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 3,880 admin
    Huh?...aren't we looking for a 3-sheet, Warner Brothers, Victory Publicity printing?...

    Beautiful Daybill I'd like to add...
  • DavidDavid Member Posts: 10,181 admin
    Yes we are and that is the real the issue.

    Just adding another WB logo that doesn't match with others from that era that have been presented as supporting evidence.
    David
  • EisenhowerEisenhower Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 3,880 admin
    I see...
    ...the shield change during '38-'39 seems to be a difficult part of this mystery...
  • theartofmovieposterstheartofmovieposters Member Posts: 3,928 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector
    HONDO said:
    I will be out of action and not participating on this thread or on any other threads in fact on our forum for a while. When I return back to the forum I will respond to anything raised in my absence that I feel I needs a response to.


    Oh...hope it is/was nothing too serious.  All the best.


  • MattMatt Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 4,962 admin
  • SvenSven Member Posts: 2,014 ✭✭✭✭ Three-Sheeter
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.