Restoration pitfalls.

HONDO

Firstly I will admit that I do believe personally that film posters should not be restored and to be left  in their original  condition, whatever this may be.. If others prefer to restore posters that's fine with me though.

There is one example that I will present here where the restorer overlooked and left off important details and even added new information on to the restored poster that wasn't on the original version.



The original unrestored 1932 U.S.A. three sheet.




The restored version.




This original  poster has the artist Wynne W. Davies credit appearing on it. One of a number of Columbia Pictures poster artwork Wynne W. Davies completed during his time in Hollywood in the early 1930s. 

No credit at all of the Morgan logo credit to be seen.

The advertising information appears on the bottom left hand side of the poster within a dark brown background.

The Columbia copyright details appear on the bottom right hand side of the poster, again within a dark drown background,



The restored poster is minus the Wynne W. Davis. signature.

The Morgan logo that wasn't on the original poster has been now added,

The advertising information  originally printed on the bottom left of the poster now appears on the bottom right hand side of the restored poster, and minus the dark brown background.

The Columbia copyright information details that appeared on the bottom right hand side of the original poster now appear on the restored poster version in an altered version of this information, and again minis being within the dark brown  background.

Sorry, but I am a sticker for information being 100% accurate. I am looking forward to any feedback regarding this poster's restoration. 

CSM_2_Point_0

Lawrence the “original” version you are referencing is actually the original poster artwork/painting.  It is not an unrestored poster and is much much smaller than a 3 sheet

HONDO

CSM_2_Point_0 said:

Lawrence the “original” version you are referencing is actually the original poster artwork/painting.  It is not an unrestored poster and is much much smaller than a 3 sheet

Thanks for pointing this out to me Chris. I have established now that the original image that I included is the original 16.5'' x 28,25'' poster artwork.

This in my eyes just establishes that the restored poster bottom credits on the posters are just educated guesses, and are not necessarily 100% accurate.  

 

Both  the above One Man Law and Ridin' For Justice Columbia 3 sheets, also from 1932, do not have the Morgan logo printed on them. 

 

This Forbidden Trail  Columbia Pictures 1932 U.S.A. one sheet, just out of interest has a Wynne W. Davis alternative  W W D / signature printed on it.

CSM_2_Point_0

This was discussed here previously:

https://vintagemoviepostersforum.com/discussion/705/its-a-wonderful-life-daybill-rko-1946

But one of my favourite "restoration pitfalls" - oops!

HONDO

 

And the award for the all time worse daybill restoration must go to Rebecca ( 1940 ).The restorer or owner of the poster seemingly  believing the 1947 re-release  poster on the right was an original release poster, and then proceeded to convert it to being a pre 1941 long daybill in size..  

HONDO

I am surprised at the lack of replies to this rare entry from me regarding the subject matter of poster restoration. Other members on the forum certainly know a lot more about this subject than me,  so any comments from anyone would be most appreciated..

theartofmovieposters

I am no stranger to restoration.  I can understand why some people would prefer not to go down that path.
But as someone who handles and displays her posters, I can say that some really need it to ensure they don't fall apart.
Alot of the long daybills are practically falling apart and without resto, there is no way they could make it up on my walls.
But the poster has to need it.  Anything which is in pretty good condition to start with, I dont touch.  It's not needed.

HONDO

theartofmovieposters said:

I am no stranger to restoration.  I can understand why some people would prefer not to go down that path.
But as someone who handles and displays her posters, I can say that some really need it to ensure they don't fall apart.
Alot of the long daybills are practically falling apart and without resto, there is no way they could make it up on my walls.
But the poster has to need it.  Anything which is in pretty good condition to start with, I dont touch.  It's not needed.

Thanks Ves.  Sound advice that certainly makes sense for the decisions that you make with the restoration and preservation of some of your more fragile posters.

Charlie

I've learned not to diagree with you!  

I think restoration has its place... The layers of painting is were I think too much is being done. Just conserve it, support it and be done. At the most touchup with watercolor pencils only.  Anything more than that I think it loses originality - although I have many peices that have al kinds of restoration. 

I like european style with water color touch-up. I am even in more favor of paperbacking vs. linenbacking... However - the mainstream collector community wants linebacked, painted posters. Not conserved and supported.

HONDO

I appreciate your first comment. 

All reasonable comments that you make regarding restoration. 

If restoration is done with the sole purpose of enhancing and preserving a poster's artwork without altering the original poster artwork in any way by adding anything new  or even removing anything original, I am fine with that. What I object to is, as in the case of the earlier posted Hello Trouble U.S.A. one sheet and Rebecca Australian daybill posters, is the guessing aspect where unconfirmed material is added to a poster, and as a result of this having it losing it's originality. 

Rick

I'm with Ves, only restore or linen-back if needed

theartofmovieposters

HONDO said:

I appreciate your first comment. 

All reasonable comments that you make regarding restoration. 

If restoration is done with the sole purpose of enhancing and preserving a poster's artwork without altering the original poster artwork in any way by adding anything new  or even removing anything original, I am fine with that. What I object to is, as in the case of the earlier posted Hello Trouble U.S.A. one sheet and Rebecca Australian daybill posters, is the guessing aspect where unconfirmed material is added to a poster, and as a result of this having it losing it's originality. 

I think Wil's long daybill of Mysterious Pilot (I think) is a good example. (I'll try to find a pic)
When you dont know leave it as it is...

HONDO

   

Here you go Ves. 

theartofmovieposters

Thanks Lawrence.  I think this is a great way to save something rare and still be true to its history.

theartofmovieposters

For me, this is how NOT to do it.  Either do it all, not at all...

Bruce

A very long time dealer (and good friend of mine) was with me at a major auction (that shall remain nameless) and he looked over the posters on display (many of which had tons of restoration) and he said "these look like they have been dipped in paint". That phrase stuck with me, and I now use it myself to describe over-restored posters.

I have two complaints with this technique. While the posters look better NOW, the restoration paint often ages far differently than the poster, and becomes super-noticeable over time. And that can be very expensive (and difficult) to address down the line. And just as bad, these posters are often passed off as having "minor restoration" to newer collectors. 

I have had abominations that were massively repainted consigned to me, and I have looked them up at other auctions they were sold at, and the extent of the restoration was barely hinted at. Bah

HONDO

 

To follow up on the partially restored poster image recently included here by Ves of Happiness Ahead ( 1934,I thought that you may like to see the before and after restoration images.

The added grass image on the bottom left hand side of the restored poster ruins it for me. The dogs legs were seen firmly planted on the grass in the original U.S.A. one sheet as seen below. The legs and feet are nowhere to be seen on the restored version, thus losing its originality.

  

Rick

sorry but that is not a good restoration. The colours look brighter but the flying dog looks silly and why not complete the title? It looks like an okay job of linen-backing and cleaning but restoration incomplete

theartofmovieposters

Rick said:

sorry but that is not a good restoration. The colours look brighter but the flying dog looks silly and why not complete the title? It looks like an okay job of linen-backing and cleaning but restoration incomplete

Couldn't agree more.  This one was an example of where fixing what's not there (for me anyway) doesn't really affect the originality of the poster.  95% is there...just completing and cleaning a few missing bits...

Duke

As a restorer of posters, using conservation techniques, I think restoration has its place. As a restorer for one of the largest collectors, we restore posters, that many are possibly a one of a kind just because of age. Restoration means they will not go away.

HONDO

Duke said:

As a restorer of posters, using conservation techniques, I think restoration has its place. As a restorer for one of the largest collectors, we restore posters, that many are possibly a one of a kind just because of age. Restoration means they will not go away.

Restoring rare older posters I have no problem with that have complete material artwork to copy off. Restoring posters where the example being restored is incomplete with large missing sections, and the poster doesn't have a complete artwork example to copy from I do though in certain cases. Guesswork then comes into play, and this is what I have a problem with, This is mainly though regarding in particular to the credits section  printed on the very bottom of the poster that may be missing this information. In some cases after the restoration is applied it is not 100% certain the correct details have been applied.

Secondly the restoration of more modern common place available posters with complete copies easily sourced elsewhere, that have only very minor damage is something unnecessary in my thinking.

Duke

Agree with your comments. I don’t restore just to get a buck. In fact, I had a customer that wanted a rare rock poster backed. It was rolled and in nice shape. I recommended that instead of backing to use the money to have professionally framed. He thanked me, and said it is beautiful and secure from the elements.

Bruce

How do you guys feel about the restorer recreating the tiny writing in the bottom otherwise blank border? I dislike it, because the only reason I can see for doing so is to deceive a future buyer into thinking the border is original.

I say leave it blank. What do you think?

Duke

I agree leave it blank. On my restorations, I only use water color pencils. I restore some posters for a large collector in Ohio, and likes my technique. I have posted some pics on this forum under following Charlie’s path.

Eisenhower

my two cents; only restore if necessary or a simple linenback/paperback to help frame. As someone with limited skills, I enjoy helping the paper/poster to last a little longer; washing rehydrates the fibers, deacid bath pushes the acids out and a nice bleaching can brighten the poster up; all in the interest of preservation and display of an original piece. Agree that too much makes it too polished. But each to his own that they want on the wall. 

I will say, if it was my piece, i'd try to recreate the tiny writing at the bottom, always fun to try to make it as original as possible. I've always looked at poster restoration akin to classic cars. Trying to bring them back to life; to enjoy and hopefully pass on that piece of history to the next generation to enjoy. So, i think preservation and some restoration certainly has it's place. ....thank goodness they preserved the Berwick Discovery of paper. Great stuff to see!

theartofmovieposters

Bruce said:

How do you guys feel about the restorer recreating the tiny writing in the bottom otherwise blank border? I dislike it, because the only reason I can see for doing so is to deceive a future buyer into thinking the border is original.

I say leave it blank. What do you think?

If you know what the tiny writing should say, recreate it else leave it.  The above is true of any recreation on the poster, not just the border, so I dont see any issues with it.

theartofmovieposters

Here is an example where neither the person getting the poster restored, nor the restorer knew what they were doing, nor it seems took the time to find out, which would have been relatively simple.

In this instance, I agree with Bruce...better to have left it blank if you had NFI!

HONDO

And let us not forget agreeing with me also.

For those that may be unaware of the significance regarding the printer's details the following information.

The Marquis Preferred film is from 1929. yet the printer appearing on the poster Robert Burron Pty. Ltd. Sydney only commenced printing film posters circa very late 1956 in Australia. A major mistake happened here which I do find annoying.

If the people involved in the restoration had taken the time to check out Bruce's website they would have found a more likely to be credit to apply to the poster.



This Richardson W.E.Smith credit was used on the following two Paramount Pictures 1929 Australian released film daybill posters.

  

Sometime between 1930 and 1931, the year where the following example comes from, the Paramount printer's credit printed on the bottom of the poster was replaced by a more detailed version.

Bruce

theartofmovieposters said:

Here is an example where neither the person getting the poster restored, nor the restorer knew what they were doing, nor it seems took the time to find out, which would have been relatively simple.

In this instance, I agree with Bruce...better to have left it blank if you had NFI!

In the case of THIS poster, it is worse than you might think. It appears the "restorer" used the bottom border from a completely different poster (one that originally measured 14" wide) and just glued it on, and then also added new left and right borders.

I SO wish the people who own posters like these would leave them as they are, OR give them to REALLY talented restorers. Undoing amateur restoration can be very hard and expensive.

Duke

Many great comments. As a restorer, just restore what you have, don’t add any embellishments. Matching paper to fill large voids, ok. Using water color pencil to match colors, ok. Cleaning and restoring colors, ok. Anything else is in my opinion defacing.
my 2 cents.

collectahollic

I've had a number of my 1920's fire damaged 'longs' restored. Predominantly because the paper was brittle and if at a minimum they weren't backed, they were literally toast. The damage was mostly confined to the borders, so where the printer's info was partially visible (and with the aid of Ves), Roger Jeffery was able to add this text back in. 

A couple however, I chose to simply hang with the burnt edges on display (it creates a good conversation starter for visitors and in some way goes with the burning candle on Hell's Hole).