Thanks for alerting me to the website when you did Diego. Whatever the reason for the removal of the poster from the website, I was very lucky to have seen the poster image, and to have been made aware of it and also to have made a copy of it before they removed it.
''Poverty row'' studio Monogram pictures operated between 1931 until 1953, producing mainly low budget films such as westerns and crime genre films. In the early 1930's Monogram unsuccessfully attempted to adapt some classic novels to the screen. The films were not critically received, and soon this culture push by Monogram finished up.
In my copy of ''The British Film Catalogue 1995-1970 ( c1973 ) by Dennis Gifford this film is not listed. The publication mentions the following -
This is the first complete catalogue of every British film produced for public entertainment since the invention of cinematography.
The following information is also of interest.
FEATURED REVIEW
The lost Lugosi
LOCK UP YOUR DAUGHTERS was released in 1959 and classified with an X certificate by the British Board of Film Censors, permitting screening only to those persons over 16 years of age. It is doubtful that the footage of Lugosi introducing the clips from old Monogram productions, was new material. It may well have been borrowed from the earlier GLEN OR GLENDA. This 50 minute offering, marketed as the first film quiz, had selected bookings in the flea-pits around London, including the Grand in Camberwell ( November 1959 ), and the Empire in Staines Middlesex. The film was made by the E J Fancey Organisation and released by New Realm Pictures, one of the company's distribution outlets, which also included DUK Films, SF Distributors, and E J Fancey Productions. Fancey had the UK theatrical rights to distribute a few of the old Lugosi pictures including LOCK YOUR DOORS ( US:The Ape Man ), CASE OF THE MISSING BRIDES ( US:The Corpse Vanishes ) and THE CORPSE VANISHED (US: Revenge of the Zombies ). This unusual oddity now appears to be a lost film. In all probability there were very few prints made, and unless a negative still exists somewhere this film will remain unavailable for reappraisal. ( IMDb )
And yet it must have had two releases, as here's a much cheaper version which I have. I'm sure I have some stills also. It is a film I still haven't seen so couldn't comment, but it certainly got around at the time..
.As The Neanderthal Man was a 1953 United Artists U.S.A release, I am wondering if this is a re-release of this film.
The Neanderthal Man was released in Australia in 1955 by United Artists, so I am curious to learn if there was an earlier U.K release in the early 1950's by United Artists of this film.
Yes I had thought the New Realm Pictures The Neanderthal Man would be a re-release. Thanks for supplying the attention grabbing image.The original released U.K. quad is impressive.
The poster has a real oddity. The rating circle at lower right was either overprinted or printed with red over much of the rating words. We don't know why this would have been done, except that we auctioned a different example of this poster that had the same oddity (and that was definitely a different example), but searching the Internet, we found an example that did not have this oddity. It is definitely in the printing (or overprinting) and not a defect.
So what do you say, oh most knowledgable one?
Here is a handy checklist to help tell eMoviePoster.com apart from all other major auctions!
HAS lifetime guarantees on every item - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS unrestored and unenhanced images - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS 100% honest condition descriptions - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS auctions where the winner is the higher of two real bidders - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS "buyers premiums" - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS "reserves or starts over $1 - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS hidden bidder IDs - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS no customer service to speak of - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS "nosebleed" shipping charges - NOT eMoviePoster.com
The poster has a real oddity. The rating circle at lower right was either overprinted or printed with red over much of the rating words. We don't know why this would have been done, except that we auctioned a different example of this poster that had the same oddity (and that was definitely a different example), but searching the Internet, we found an example that did not have this oddity. It is definitely in the printing (or overprinting) and not a defect.
So what do you say, oh most knowledgable one?
Firstly thank you Bruce for your compliment.
I firmly believe that the poster in question is just a case of the Australian censorship rating being painted over for poster distribution in New Zealand.
All the Australian daybills, 3 sheets and one sheets ( apart from your two o,s, examples ) that I am aware of all have the Australian ''not suitable for children'' censorship rating printed on them. This cover up certainly doesn't enhance the look of the poster, but nevertheless still is a great looking poster.
I understand your thinking, but the ration is not painted over. It has either been printed that way, or, less likely was overprinted in a second press run. And we once had a second example (definitely a different poster) that had the exact same printed over rating.
Maybe it is a second printing solely for New Zealand? That would seem to explain it.
Here is a handy checklist to help tell eMoviePoster.com apart from all other major auctions!
HAS lifetime guarantees on every item - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS unrestored and unenhanced images - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS 100% honest condition descriptions - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS auctions where the winner is the higher of two real bidders - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS "buyers premiums" - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS "reserves or starts over $1 - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS hidden bidder IDs - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS no customer service to speak of - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS "nosebleed" shipping charges - NOT eMoviePoster.com
I understand your thinking, but the ration is not painted over. It has either been printed that way, or, less likely was overprinted in a second press run. And we once had a second example (definitely a different poster) that had the exact same printed over rating.
Maybe it is a second printing solely for New Zealand? That would seem to explain it.
In an attempt to support my beliefs that the poster alteration was for New Zealand use I contacted Wil in New Zealand. For those who may not know Wil is a forum member ( Collectahollic ), who also runs The Film Poster Gallery in N.Z. He has given me permission to include his reply to my query here on the forum, so I am thankful for that.
Hi Lawrence,
Yes, a common modification for Australian posters used in NZ, although often the Australian decal is missing altogether, where the posters were intentionally printed without it.
However, I'm assuming to fill an NZ order, that in some cases the Australian printer simply modified existing stock that had already been printed for local distribution.
A few more examples are attached.
Also of note is that the blue or red colouring of your decals would have proved too dark a background for the NZ stamps to show, so you often find the stamp placed elsewhere.
Wil sent me five image examples of which only one, being 7 Women had an added N/Z. censorship rating stamp applied to the poster. It appears more than not the N.Z. censorship rating wasn't always added on. Perhaps the ones that didn't include the rating were never distributed, or just a case of the rating not being added to the poster in N.Z. when circulated there.
You earlier sold 5 / 6 / 2003 poster mentions that the poster is painted over
Condition: good. there is paper loss in all four corners; in the top two corners it is blank white border; in the bottom two it extends into the yellow background and cuts off some of the small writing in the lower right corner; the red "NOT SUITABLE FOR CHILDREN" circle in the lower right corner has been painted over (it does not appear to be paint that is easily removable
I did not write that condition description from 2003. Looking at the image, I think the person who wrote it saw that the rating was only partly covered, and assumed it was paint. I think it was printed that way, and I think the same thing about the recent one. I AM guessing it was printed that way for New Zealand, and that the person who altered the printing plate was just sloppy and did not cover over all the rating.
Here is a handy checklist to help tell eMoviePoster.com apart from all other major auctions!
HAS lifetime guarantees on every item - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS unrestored and unenhanced images - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS 100% honest condition descriptions - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS auctions where the winner is the higher of two real bidders - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS "buyers premiums" - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS "reserves or starts over $1 - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS hidden bidder IDs - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS no customer service to speak of - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS "nosebleed" shipping charges - NOT eMoviePoster.com
I did not write that condition description from 2003. Looking at the image, I think the person who wrote it saw that the rating was only partly covered, and assumed it was paint. I think it was printed that way, and I think the same thing about the recent one. I AM guessing it was printed that way for New Zealand, and that the person who altered the printing plate was just sloppy and did not cover over all the rating.
I agree sloppy work applied when adjusted for New Zealand Distribution.
What the clean appearance should have looked like as per the 7 Women one sheet poster from 1965, then The Time Machine botch-up effort.
Babes In Toyland ( 1961 ) clean censorship adjustment application. Then followed by The Adventures Of Huckleberry Finn ( 1961 ) showing a slightly flawed cover over effort.
Girl Happy ( 1965 ) flawed effort also.
All images, apart from The Time Machine were isolated and enlarged from intact one sheet images sent to me from New Zealand courtesy of Wil.
6 Black Horses ( 1962 ) U.S.A,. one sheet and an Australian one sheet. The original U.S.A. artwork actor's credits switched around in Australia to tie in with the actor's image appearing directly above.
Clash By Night ( 1952 ). Australian one sheet and daybill poster images. The Australian one sheet uses the U.S.A, Marilyn Monroe image. but the daybill was changed to apparently cash in on her new found fame.
You can also notice the two different censorship ratings presentations are displayed in a different layout style as well. Simmons used a slightly different presented Suitable Only For Adults censorship rating than was applied by other printers.
I nominate The African Queen as being the worse duotone daybill ever produced. It certainly stands out to me in this category, even though there are so many close runner ups breathing down its neck, Also I nominate the above Godzilla King Of The Monsters poster as being the best of the worse. At least it is humourous. I always have a laugh every time I take a Iook at it.
Take one humble Australian daybill, and with multiple copies of it create a display inside and out of an unidentified New Zealand theatre using them. Along with two one sheets on the outside there are seven daybills on display of The Mississippi Gambler ( 1929 ). Inside the front entrance there is another five daybills that I am informed are displayed on the walls which are a little difficult to make out in the image. It is possible I am thinking that there may have been some additional daybills of this title that are not sighted here that were on display further on into the theatre as well.
This large sighting of daybills used in one location, along with many other finds containing multiple copies of the same daybill design, including one from Tasmania had me thinking. This discovery included many of the same design daybill titles in numerous numbers. including the below pictured Waltzing Matilda and One Precious Year 1933 images.
( joyonthego )
It certainly would appear to me that the number of daybills, particularly in the 1920s and the 1930s that were produced would have been much larger in quantity than previously thought of having been printed. These are just two examples of cinemas purchasing large amounts of daybill posters. This would have to indicate to me that this was a common practice, at least during the 1920s and 1930s, for cinema owners to purchase large amounts of daybill posters to use at the cinema, and also in many cases to display around the area.
It would be great to hear any thoughts regarding this matter.
I dont have photos or actual evidence, but I think it still went on esp for big releases. I had one of the guys who used to work at a theatre in the 70s tell me that one of the displays they had for the release of Mad Max was a crapload of the one sheets plastered one after the other all over the theatre.
I dont have photos or actual evidence, but I think it still went on esp for big releases. I had one of the guys who used to work at a theatre in the 70s tell me that one of the displays they had for the release of Mad Max was a crapload of the one sheets plastered one after the other all over the theatre.
I saw a photo of a major city U.S. theater from 1932 that had an entire side wall covered in Tarzan the Ape Man one-sheets. Must have been 100 of them!
Here is a handy checklist to help tell eMoviePoster.com apart from all other major auctions!
HAS lifetime guarantees on every item - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS unrestored and unenhanced images - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS 100% honest condition descriptions - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS auctions where the winner is the higher of two real bidders - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS "buyers premiums" - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS "reserves or starts over $1 - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS hidden bidder IDs - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS no customer service to speak of - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS "nosebleed" shipping charges - NOT eMoviePoster.com
Kelly's Heroes ( 1970 ) original American artwork.
An original first release Australian daybill containing above average artwork. The film had at least two follow up Australian daybill posters that were also designed, and printed by the original Australian printer Robert Burton. The above colour version first up and then followed later with the duotone one, you would have to think.
The Australian poster artist's version of Clint Eastwood and Telly Savalas. As each daybill was produced the artwork became progressively more inferior,
Comments
( Everyones June 12, 1935 ).
''Poverty row'' studio Monogram pictures operated between 1931 until 1953, producing mainly low budget films such as westerns and crime genre films. In the early 1930's Monogram unsuccessfully attempted to adapt some classic novels to the screen. The films were not critically received, and soon this culture push by Monogram finished up.
Mr. Deeds Goes To Town ( 1936 ) Australian and U.S.A. ( with incomplete number of poster images shown ) original press sheets comparison.
Lock Up Your Daughters ( 1959 ) U.K. quad poster. A film most likely not known to most film enthusiasts.
LOCK UP YOUR DAUGHTERS (1959) Overview - MOVIES and MANIA
Lock Up Your Daughters (1959 film) - Wikipedia
In my copy of ''The British Film Catalogue 1995-1970 ( c1973 ) by Dennis Gifford this film is not listed. The publication mentions the following -
This is the first complete catalogue of every British film produced for public entertainment since the invention of cinematography.
The following information is also of interest.
And yet it must have had two releases, as here's a much cheaper version which I have. I'm sure I have some stills also. It is a film I still haven't seen so couldn't comment, but it certainly got around at the time..
.As The Neanderthal Man was a 1953 United Artists U.S.A release, I am wondering if this is a re-release of this film.
The Neanderthal Man was released in Australia in 1955 by United Artists, so I am curious to learn if there was an earlier U.K release in the early 1950's by United Artists of this film.
First UK release poster..
I am currently auctioning an Australian Time Machine one-sheet at http://auctions.emovieposter.com/Bidding.taf?_function=detail&Auction_uid1=6364946
The poster has a real oddity. The rating circle at lower right was either overprinted or printed with red over much of the rating words. We don't know why this would have been done, except that we auctioned a different example of this poster that had the same oddity (and that was definitely a different example), but searching the Internet, we found an example that did not have this oddity. It is definitely in the printing (or overprinting) and not a defect.
So what do you say, oh most knowledgable one?
Here is a handy checklist to help tell eMoviePoster.com apart from all other major auctions!
I firmly believe that the poster in question is just a case of the Australian censorship rating being painted over for poster distribution in New Zealand.
All the Australian daybills, 3 sheets and one sheets ( apart from your two o,s, examples ) that I am aware of all have the Australian ''not suitable for children'' censorship rating printed on them. This cover up certainly doesn't enhance the look of the poster, but nevertheless still is a great looking poster.
Maybe it is a second printing solely for New Zealand? That would seem to explain it.
Here is a handy checklist to help tell eMoviePoster.com apart from all other major auctions!
Hi Lawrence,
Director
The Film Poster Gallery
Mob 021 152 5521
www.filmpostergallery.co.nz
Wil sent me five image examples of which only one, being 7 Women had an added N/Z. censorship rating stamp applied to the poster. It appears more than not the N.Z. censorship rating wasn't always added on. Perhaps the ones that didn't include the rating were never distributed, or just a case of the rating not being added to the poster in N.Z. when circulated there.
Condition: good. there is paper loss in all four corners; in the top two corners it is blank white border; in the bottom two it extends into the yellow background and cuts off some of the small writing in the lower right corner; the red "NOT SUITABLE FOR CHILDREN" circle in the lower right corner has been painted over (it does not appear to be paint that is easily removable
Here is a handy checklist to help tell eMoviePoster.com apart from all other major auctions!
What the clean appearance should have looked like as per the 7 Women one sheet poster from 1965, then The Time Machine botch-up effort.
Babes In Toyland ( 1961 ) clean censorship adjustment application. Then followed by The Adventures Of Huckleberry Finn ( 1961 ) showing a slightly flawed cover over effort.
Girl Happy ( 1965 ) flawed effort also.
All images, apart from The Time Machine were isolated and enlarged from intact one sheet images sent to me from New Zealand courtesy of Wil.
A rare example of colour overprinting on a daybill poster of Irma La Douce ( 1963 ), where the New Zealand censorship rating was included as well.
6 Black Horses ( 1962 ) U.S.A,. one sheet and an Australian one sheet. The original U.S.A. artwork actor's credits switched around in Australia to tie in with the actor's image appearing directly above.
Clash By Night ( 1952 ). Australian one sheet and daybill poster images. The Australian one sheet uses the U.S.A, Marilyn Monroe image. but the daybill was changed to apparently cash in on her new found fame.
You can also notice the two different censorship ratings presentations are displayed in a different layout style as well. Simmons used a slightly different presented Suitable Only For Adults censorship rating than was applied by other printers.
A New Zealand, most likely re-release daybill poster. You just have to love the depiction of Bogie's face and his claw like left hand.
I agree.
I nominate The African Queen as being the worse duotone daybill ever produced. It certainly stands out to me in this category, even though there are so many close runner ups breathing down its neck, Also I nominate the above Godzilla King Of The Monsters poster as being the best of the worse. At least it is humourous. I always have a laugh every time I take a Iook at it.
Agree or have any other nominations?
\
Take one humble Australian daybill, and with multiple copies of it create a display inside and out of an unidentified New Zealand theatre using them. Along with two one sheets on the outside there are seven daybills on display of The Mississippi Gambler ( 1929 ). Inside the front entrance there is another five daybills that I am informed are displayed on the walls which are a little difficult to make out in the image. It is possible I am thinking that there may have been some additional daybills of this title that are not sighted here that were on display further on into the theatre as well.
This large sighting of daybills used in one location, along with many other finds containing multiple copies of the same daybill design, including one from Tasmania had me thinking. This discovery included many of the same design daybill titles in numerous numbers. including the below pictured Waltzing Matilda and One Precious Year 1933 images.
( joyonthego )
It certainly would appear to me that the number of daybills, particularly in the 1920s and the 1930s that were produced would have been much larger in quantity than previously thought of having been printed. These are just two examples of cinemas purchasing large amounts of daybill posters. This would have to indicate to me that this was a common practice, at least during the 1920s and 1930s, for cinema owners to purchase large amounts of daybill posters to use at the cinema, and also in many cases to display around the area.
It would be great to hear any thoughts regarding this matter.
Here is a handy checklist to help tell eMoviePoster.com apart from all other major auctions!
Kelly's Heroes ( 1970 ) original American artwork.
An original first release Australian daybill containing above average artwork.
The Australian poster artist's version of Clint Eastwood and Telly Savalas. As each daybill was produced the artwork became progressively more inferior,