Howdy, Stranger!

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

Categories

Classic Ernst Lubitsch Film Poster Angel Up For Sale With An Incorrect Copyright Date

HONDOHONDO Member, Wizard of Aus Posters Posts: 7,559 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector


An original U.S.A. ''Angel'' one sheet copyrighted and released in 1937.




A similar Australian one sheet  ( with Herbert Marshall's pose altered ) released in Australia in 1937.

This Australian one sheet poster is included in the Heritage Auctions Movie Poster auction  set down for July 28-29, 2018.

I have emailed Heritage Auctions regarding this matter and I am awaiting a reply.

Something I haven't mentioned to Heritage is that they credit the artwork to being Hans Flato. Is it just me but shouldn't the Australian artwork which isn't Hans Flato's original artwork, but a copied and altered version,  be credited as '' artwork adapted from original artwork designed by Hans Flato'' ? 


Lawrence

Comments

  • HONDOHONDO Member, Wizard of Aus Posters Posts: 7,559 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector
    When I originally contacted Heritage asking for a clearer image of the Australian Angel one sheet copyright details the response was quick and forthcoming. I then contacted them again on receipt of the image, filling them in on the discrepancy between the copyright date on the Australian poster compared to the U.S. one sheet. As is the case that has happened in the past once you query a poster they either don't respond or are very slow in doing so. At this stage nothing, but I will let you know if and when I do.
     
    Lawrence
  • EisenhowerEisenhower Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 3,799 admin
  • HONDOHONDO Member, Wizard of Aus Posters Posts: 7,559 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector
    I have just received a reply back from an unidentified person at HA after a second email was sent to them. "' Yes, I noticed the dates - Thanks " was the reply. No mention regarding the Hans Flato artwork though. The HA website hasn't adjusted and placed any further information there on either of the points I had made to them.
    Lawrence
  • EisenhowerEisenhower Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 3,799 admin
     HONDO said:
    I have just received a reply back from an unidentified person at HA after a second email was sent to them. "' Yes, I noticed the dates - Thanks " was the reply. No mention regarding the Hans Flato artwork though. The HA website hasn't adjusted and placed any further information there on either of the points I had made to them.

    Shocking!!! :wink:
  • theartofmovieposterstheartofmovieposters Member Posts: 3,755 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector
    I'm confused, what are you saying about the date error?

    Totally agree with you on the artwork...in the style of AT BEST.
  • HONDOHONDO Member, Wizard of Aus Posters Posts: 7,559 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector
    I'm confused, what are you saying about the date error?

    Totally agree with you on the artwork...in the style of AT BEST.
    Angel was released in the both the U.S.A. and Australia in 1937. The film was copyrighted 1937 on the U.S. one sheet and all other U.S. posters, yet the Australian one sheet was copyrighted 1935 which happens to be two years earlier.
    Lawrence
  • theartofmovieposterstheartofmovieposters Member Posts: 3,755 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector
    edited July 17
    Yes I understand that bit, but surely that is a printer error?  
    So what are you saying Heritage need to disclose?
  • CSM_2_Point_0CSM_2_Point_0 Member, Super Sleuth Posts: 897 ✭✭✭ Daybiller
    I was assuming it was incorrectly restored with the 1935 date?
    -Chris

    There's a street of lights

    A long dark night
    Restaurant scenes
    And dark machines...

  • CSM_2_Point_0CSM_2_Point_0 Member, Super Sleuth Posts: 897 ✭✭✭ Daybiller
    edited July 17
    I was assuming it was incorrectly restored with the 1935 date?
    Look at me quoting myself B)

    Now that I read the description more closely it doesn't mention anything about pieces of the bottom border being replaced (but possible HA just didn't notice...)
    -Chris

    There's a street of lights

    A long dark night
    Restaurant scenes
    And dark machines...

  • theartofmovieposterstheartofmovieposters Member Posts: 3,755 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector
    From the description:

    The poster has been mounted on linen and touchup was applied to the folds, pinholes, and to a few spots in the black background. There is a small reattached chip in the right border. Unaddressed wear includes small border tears, a dust shadow at the lower right edge, and a scratch to the upper right. Very Fine- on Linen. 

    What am I missing?  In the past they usually mention if the borders are replaced...
  • theartofmovieposterstheartofmovieposters Member Posts: 3,755 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector
    Here from the Metropolis daybills:

    This vibrant stone litho image is most certainly a standout piece among the few advertisements still remaining ninety years after the film's release, and has had professional restoration to address missing paper at the imprint area and along the bottom border, including copyright information. It has also replaced part of the left and right borders and a very small part of the right image just into the skyline. The majority of Bragg's beautiful artwork is still completely intact with no touchup applied.


  • CSM_2_Point_0CSM_2_Point_0 Member, Super Sleuth Posts: 897 ✭✭✭ Daybiller
    From the description:

    The poster has been mounted on linen and touchup was applied to the folds, pinholes, and to a few spots in the black background. There is a small reattached chip in the right border. Unaddressed wear includes small border tears, a dust shadow at the lower right edge, and a scratch to the upper right. Very Fine- on Linen. 

    What am I missing?  In the past they usually mention if the borders are replaced...
    One would think if the bottom border was replaced the rest of the "issues" noted would have been addressed too...interesting
    -Chris

    There's a street of lights

    A long dark night
    Restaurant scenes
    And dark machines...

  • theartofmovieposterstheartofmovieposters Member Posts: 3,755 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector
    There is one on emovie but too small to see

  • HONDOHONDO Member, Wizard of Aus Posters Posts: 7,559 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector
    edited July 17
    Yes I understand that bit, but surely that is a printer error?  
    So what are you saying Heritage need to disclose?
    Heritage need to point out this incorrect copyright date printer's error to potential buyers.

    Out of interest another Paramount Pictures Australian one sheet printing error from the late 1930's. Wells Fargo was copyrighted and released in the U.S.A in 1937. The Australian one sheet has copyright 1938 printed on it.
     
     

    Lawrence
  • theartofmovieposterstheartofmovieposters Member Posts: 3,755 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector
    Hmmm...I understand what you are saying, but I am not sure I agree in this instance.
    IF the border had been replaced, then yes this needs to be disclosed.

    Would it be nice?  Yes it would.  Is it necessary?  I'm not sure I agree.
  • theartofmovieposterstheartofmovieposters Member Posts: 3,755 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector
    Oh and it's a beautiful poster.  NOBODY BID!
  • MarkMark Member Posts: 517 ✭✭✭ Daybiller
    edited July 18
    No rating makes me sus on this poster. 
    Is it Melvyn Douglas or Marshall depicted? Looks like MD to me.
  • MarkMark Member Posts: 517 ✭✭✭ Daybiller
  • HONDOHONDO Member, Wizard of Aus Posters Posts: 7,559 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector
    Mark said:
    Douglas on Aust poster and Marshall on U.S.
    Weird ...
    I had picked up on the copyright and the pose change differences but hadn't picked up on the different actors depicted. Well spotted.



    Australia decided to go with the lover and not the husband then.

    Lawrence
  • theartofmovieposterstheartofmovieposters Member Posts: 3,755 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector
    Mark said:
    No rating makes me sus on this poster. 
    Is it Melvyn Douglas or Marshall depicted? Looks like MD to me.
    I have some aussie posters from this period with no rating...
  • MarkMark Member Posts: 517 ✭✭✭ Daybiller
    Mark said:
    No rating makes me sus on this poster. 
    Is it Melvyn Douglas or Marshall depicted? Looks like MD to me.
    I have some aussie posters from this period with no rating...
    Yes, I remember when I had The Citadel and that had no rating. Still makes me sus though. The censors weren't lax back then.
  • HONDOHONDO Member, Wizard of Aus Posters Posts: 7,559 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector

    Mark said:
    Mark said:
    No rating makes me sus on this poster. 
    Is it Melvyn Douglas or Marshall depicted? Looks like MD to me.
    I have some aussie posters from this period with no rating...
    Yes, I remember when I had The Citadel and that had no rating. Still makes me sus though. The censors weren't lax back then.
    In the 1930's there are numerous examples of Australian film posters minus the censorship rating from all distributors. If you were to take a look at Bruce, John and Ves's sites this will be confirmed. I have had an extensive look at my stored images, so then let's concentrate on the year 1937 and the distributor Paramount Pictures that are currently being discussed with the Angel one sheet.  As an example the majority of daybill images from 1937 printed for Paramount Pictures do not have an Australian censorship rating appearing on them. If one were to say that these daybills were printed for New Zealand, I would then reply that not a one of them has any N.Z. Censorship rating snipes or stamping appearing on them. The earliest example of Australian censorship appearing on an Australian daybill that I have located is a WB title from 1930, and that could well be a re-release poster. It appears to me that they didn't take too seriously to applying censorship ratings on all Australian film posters until the latter part of the 1930's.


    Lawrence
  • MarkMark Member Posts: 517 ✭✭✭ Daybiller
    Pre-code in the US was prior to 1934. Might not mean much locally, but I guess that date sticks in my mind. 
    Ves has some Everyone's mags from the early 1930s with articles on Aussie and NZ censorship.
      
  • JohnJohn Member, Dealer Posts: 1,106 ✭✭✭✭ Three-Sheeter
    HONDO said:
    When I originally contacted Heritage asking for a clearer image of the Australian Angel one sheet copyright details the response was quick and forthcoming. I then contacted them again on receipt of the image, filling them in on the discrepancy between the copyright date on the Australian poster compared to the U.S. one sheet. As is the case that has happened in the past once you query a poster they either don't respond or are very slow in doing so. At this stage nothing, but I will let you know if and when I do.
     
    What do you think caused the discrepancy Lawrence?
    John

  • HONDOHONDO Member, Wizard of Aus Posters Posts: 7,559 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector
    John said:
    HONDO said:
    When I originally contacted Heritage asking for a clearer image of the Australian Angel one sheet copyright details the response was quick and forthcoming. I then contacted them again on receipt of the image, filling them in on the discrepancy between the copyright date on the Australian poster compared to the U.S. one sheet. As is the case that has happened in the past once you query a poster they either don't respond or are very slow in doing so. At this stage nothing, but I will let you know if and when I do.
     
    What do you think caused the discrepancy Lawrence?




    Angel ( 1937 ) Australian one sheet copyright, distributor & printer's credits details.


    I think it was a simple case of a mistake being made by Hackett Offset Print with the incorrect year printed on the poster. They also made a similar error with their Wells Fargo ( 1937 ) printed Paramount one sheet appearing being printed as 1938. One error you can forgive, but two mistakes around the same period of time is below par, and the sub-standard hand printing of the bottom line credits leaves a lot to be desired.




    The Richardson Studio / W.E.Smith Paramount daybills designed and printed around this time  appeared not to include the copyright date. One can just compare the following 1937 Richardson daybill details from Waikiki Wedding ( 1937 ) to see how professional  they were at that time with the overall daybill presentation.



    Lawrence
  • JohnJohn Member, Dealer Posts: 1,106 ✭✭✭✭ Three-Sheeter
    HONDO said:
    John said:
    HONDO said:
    When I originally contacted Heritage asking for a clearer image of the Australian Angel one sheet copyright details the response was quick and forthcoming. I then contacted them again on receipt of the image, filling them in on the discrepancy between the copyright date on the Australian poster compared to the U.S. one sheet. As is the case that has happened in the past once you query a poster they either don't respond or are very slow in doing so. At this stage nothing, but I will let you know if and when I do.
     
    What do you think caused the discrepancy Lawrence?




    Are you sure that the Wells Fargo copyright 1938 is a mistake? It might just be referring to the Australian release date.
    John

  • HONDOHONDO Member, Wizard of Aus Posters Posts: 7,559 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector
    John said:
    HONDO said:
    John said:
    HONDO said:
    When I originally contacted Heritage asking for a clearer image of the Australian Angel one sheet copyright details the response was quick and forthcoming. I then contacted them again on receipt of the image, filling them in on the discrepancy between the copyright date on the Australian poster compared to the U.S. one sheet. As is the case that has happened in the past once you query a poster they either don't respond or are very slow in doing so. At this stage nothing, but I will let you know if and when I do.
     
    What do you think caused the discrepancy Lawrence?




    Are you sure that the Wells Fargo copyright 1938 is a mistake? It might just be referring to the Australian release date.
    They probably were referring to the Australian release date, but it is still an error as the poster clearly states ''Copyright 1938'' when the film was actually copyrighted in 1937.

    Lawrence
  • JohnJohn Member, Dealer Posts: 1,106 ✭✭✭✭ Three-Sheeter
    HONDO said:
    John said:
    HONDO said:
    John said:
    HONDO said:
    When I originally contacted Heritage asking for a clearer image of the Australian Angel one sheet copyright details the response was quick and forthcoming. I then contacted them again on receipt of the image, filling them in on the discrepancy between the copyright date on the Australian poster compared to the U.S. one sheet. As is the case that has happened in the past once you query a poster they either don't respond or are very slow in doing so. At this stage nothing, but I will let you know if and when I do.
     
    What do you think caused the discrepancy Lawrence?




    Are you sure that the Wells Fargo copyright 1938 is a mistake? It might just be referring to the Australian release date.
    They probably were referring to the Australian release date, but it is still an error as the poster clearly states ''Copyright 1938'' when the film was actually copyrighted in 1937.

    Calling it an error on Wells Fargo is a moot point but the much more glaring discrepancy is in the Angel poster in referring to the copyright date as 1935.
    John

  • HONDOHONDO Member, Wizard of Aus Posters Posts: 7,559 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector

    John said:
    HONDO said:
    John said:
    HONDO said:
    John said:
    HONDO said:
    When I originally contacted Heritage asking for a clearer image of the Australian Angel one sheet copyright details the response was quick and forthcoming. I then contacted them again on receipt of the image, filling them in on the discrepancy between the copyright date on the Australian poster compared to the U.S. one sheet. As is the case that has happened in the past once you query a poster they either don't respond or are very slow in doing so. At this stage nothing, but I will let you know if and when I do.
     
    What do you think caused the discrepancy Lawrence?




    Are you sure that the Wells Fargo copyright 1938 is a mistake? It might just be referring to the Australian release date.
    They probably were referring to the Australian release date, but it is still an error as the poster clearly states ''Copyright 1938'' when the film was actually copyrighted in 1937.

    Calling it an error on Wells Fargo is a moot point but the much more glaring discrepancy is in the Angel poster in referring to the copyright date as 1935.


    Exactly correct in your comment regarding the Angel one sheet 1937 copyright date. Firstly this thread was commenced to highlight this discrepancy.  When I first introduced this thread on July 12 the subject matter was solely to do with the film Angel. I only mentioned the other example of Wells Fargo yesterday the 17th, and only starting with ''Out of interest'' regarding  about this other poster. I don't believe it is a moot point at all. The film was copyrighted in the U.S.A. the country of origin in 1937. To print copyright 1938, the year it was released in Australia is still a discrepancy in my eyes. The only reason that I mentioned Wells Fargo again tonight was mainly to point out the artistic difference between the Hackett Offset Print one sheets and the Richardson Studio / W.E.Smith daybill printer's, etc. credits. presentation at the bottom of the posters.
    Lawrence
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.