I posed the question (of this topic) in another forum/message board (MoPo for those who don't follow the emails from them). A lot of experienced and knowledgeable people, I don't think they will mind if I gather all the comments made and add them here. Hopefully we can shed some light on the matter sooner than later.
I read the discussion and checked the pics provided. If there was only one printer (and one printing company location) for all the paper involved, it is obvious that the examples were manufactured at different times. However, the subtle differences can be due to different printers / locations / printing companies, as well as the restoration process.
I used to be a printer some time ago (1970s), on machines as small as an ABDick letterpress to as large as a Harris 35x45 or a Miehle 43x60. Large machines had their own platforms / walkways, and bars so the printer would not fall off the machine to prevent serious injury. All printers in those days were male and nearly all of the older printers were alcoholics. Differences in finished product (even in the same plant) could be due to (among others) different machines, printers, registration, ink, plates, paper quality, what time of day finished product was manufactured (printers were less concerned as they continued to drink all day), indoor temperature and air conditioning (yeah, humidity played a heckuva part in printing).
Now ... nearly every difference has now been corrected by improved technology.
ad
Thanks Allen
All good information, although I don't think it was the evil drink in this case that would explain all these the differences!
the differences are obvious, but more likely than not, there’s a simple explanation. Australia is pretty large, and the movie was a big-budget release from a major studio. Now the posters MAY have been printed at a single facility, but there’s a good chance they were produced at more than one machine and/or at different times. For all I know, the movie was an immediate success, so additional posters may have been needed pretty fast.
Cheers,
Helmut
Whilst Australia is a pretty big country it is sparsely populated, today we have just 23 million, back in 1940 there was only 7 million.
Of course that was the heyday of movie-going, back then there was about 1600 picture theatres covering some 1200 towns/suburb (estimate based on the 1950 count), and there there was only one screen per cinema. Today there are less cinemas, around 300 but with more screens, a little over 2,000 screens today.
How many posters were produced per film is the unknown - based on first hand information about printing movie posters and the above numbers we can probably safely estimate around 500-1,000 One Sheets were printed as a run by the printer (1,500-2,500 Daybills - which were more popular), so not a lot. WoZ may indeed have been popular but it did not enjoy an extended run of any note.
It is possible that the poster was printed by a second printer; we do know the printer of the Bidll un-restored original was out of business by 1941, there is a different printer's name at the bottom of the other poster which no one can identify at this time.
And that is drawn directly onto the plate? (Or is that auto lithography? Or is that another name for that same thing along with stone litho?)
Need new plates, it's redone. Or more than one set of plates, then it's done following the guidelines as closely as possible.
And if it's a big release, wouldn't it make sense to have more than one printer, rather than ship from one location? Big place Oz. Think any conspiracy theory here may be going down the Red BrickRoad.
I don't think anyone is suggesting a conspiracy of Dracularian proportions, more that it has been noticed by a long time dealer/collector that there is marked differences between two posters for the same title and supposedly the same release and given this is not normal (for the period) people asking the questions to find the answers - we may never have the definitive answer, but certainly I think it is better to ask openly than second guess quietly and forever wonder.
What is very clear is these are two different posters.
One based on the other, with one redrawn, based on the other's artwork.
It's more than just color and slight printing differences.
As quick examples-- Look at the witch's nose (its profile), or Glinda or Dorothy's faces.. or the letter 'g in the word Songs. All the same pose and look and general placement, but NOT the same drawn/created imagery. Not at all (imo).
Looks like the same printer used different print details at the same time
http://www.uow.edu.au/~morgan/posters2.htm
1939 Marx Bros. At the Circus Daybill, lithograph. Hacket Offset Print Syd Melb., 14 3/4 x 40.
1939 Ninotchka Daybill. 'Hackett Offset.' 14 x 40.
Looks like the same printer used different print details at the same time
http://www.uow.edu.au/~morgan/posters2.htm
1939 Marx Bros. At the Circus Daybill, lithograph. Hacket Offset Print Syd Melb., 14 3/4 x 40.
1939 Ninotchka Daybill. 'Hackett Offset.' 14 x 40.
Its not unusual for the same printer to have different printing details at the bottom of different Australian posters but I do think it would be very unusual for the printers details to be different for the same poster. There are plenty of instances where linen backers use a "best guess" when restoring missing details on posters and it is possible that that might have happened in this case.
I think another possibility could be that the Heritage poster might have been a second printing, resulting from the huge popularity of Wizard of Oz, where new plates had to made with artwork copied from the original.
Also the point is as Hondo pointed out and as we can see, it says "Kett" which means the restorer went with a best guess, again makes me wonder how much was missing, given so much is different that is. Certainly a second plate print is possible, however what is of concern is the picture quality of the five stars at the top, it is not in the style/finish of the Bidll copy, more like the R48 poster or not?
I think another possibility could be that the Heritage poster might have been a second printing, resulting from the huge popularity of Wizard of Oz, where new plates had to made with artwork copied from the original.
Now this makes sense, it's hard enough to find and date reissues from the 50s and 60s from other films, let alone from the 30s and 40s.
Was Wizard of Oz even all that popular on its initial release necessitating a 2nd printing or 2nd release? I was always under the impression it was a 'slow burn' over many years prior to it becoming the iconic film it is today for some...
Was Wizard of Oz even all that popular on its initial release necessitating a 2nd printing or 2nd release? I was always under the impression it was a 'slow burn' over many years prior to it becoming the iconic film it is today for some...
From what I can gather it was not generally an "extended run" movie (a few exceptions), it opened in Sydney (NSW) in late November 1939, it opened in Melbourne, Western Australia, Queensland a month later, and from what I can find it opened in early January in 1940 in South Australia and Tasmania. It was not unusual to have staggered openings in other states.
The Liberty theatre in Sydney did advertise the film in February 1940 "...is continuing a phenomenally long season..." and I can find adverts for the film throughout 1940 (I doubt an extended run from the original opening dates).
Given the poor quality of the HA copy perhaps it is a re-print, however what disturbs me is the printer's name as Hondo pointed out, is probably "KETT OFFSET PRINT Syd & Melb (instead of HACKETT).
I think it is probably a safe bet that, aside from all the other issues, the printing info was restored/recreated at least partially on the HA copy given the incomplete and erroneous name and its positioning
I'm not convinced that the printers name on the HA poster is "KETT OFFSET PRINT Syd & Melb". I just had another very close look with zoom and I think its impossible to be absolutely sure what it is. One thing for certain is that it is different to the Bidll one sheet.
I have often seen posters where restorers replace missing detail when they are not 100% sure of what it should look like. This is particularly the case with posters that have had all of the borders trimmed. Restorers and/or their clients have used other posters from different films as a reference for printers details, etc. The problem is that the fonts and details often change and when another unrestored example turns up with the correct details it leads to confusion.
I'm not saying that's what happened with this poster. Its still a mystery to me.
In a perfect world restored posters for sale/auction that are linenbacked and/or restored should also include a 'before' image, the reality is that this is not going to ever happen because, IMO, most sellers want to hide how much the poster has had to be restored or recreated.
I think it is probably a safe bet that, aside from all the other issues, the printing info was restored/recreated at least partially on the HA copy given the incomplete and erroneous name and its positioning
Because of the poor restoration job we now have no idea how much of the WoZ was original - certainly, and I think we are all in agreement, it appears not to be an original release.
So then we must wonder: How much was there to start with, was it restored from pieces of an original, was the original so faded it had to be heavily restored, was it recreated from an R48?
Again, I think we agree the only true original is the Bidll copy.
Comments
I believe the HA poster printers details are --- kett Offset Print Syd & Melb. The Hac from Hackett is missing.
First posting.
Hondo
Its not unusual for the same printer to have different printing details at the bottom of different Australian posters but I do think it would be very unusual for the printers details to be different for the same poster. There are plenty of instances where linen backers use a "best guess" when restoring missing details on posters and it is possible that that might have happened in this case.
I think another possibility could be that the Heritage poster might have been a second printing, resulting from the huge popularity of Wizard of Oz, where new plates had to made with artwork copied from the original.
From what I can gather it was not generally an "extended run" movie (a few exceptions), it opened in Sydney (NSW) in late November 1939, it opened in Melbourne, Western Australia, Queensland a month later, and from what I can find it opened in early January in 1940 in South Australia and Tasmania. It was not unusual to have staggered openings in other states.
I'm not convinced that the printers name on the HA poster is "KETT OFFSET PRINT Syd & Melb". I just had another very close look with zoom and I think its impossible to be absolutely sure what it is. One thing for certain is that it is different to the Bidll one sheet.
I have often seen posters where restorers replace missing detail when they are not 100% sure of what it should look like. This is particularly the case with posters that have had all of the borders trimmed. Restorers and/or their clients have used other posters from different films as a reference for printers details, etc. The problem is that the fonts and details often change and when another unrestored example turns up with the correct details it leads to confusion.
I'm not saying that's what happened with this poster. Its still a mystery to me.
There may be a decent image in one of the Film Weekly Trade Magazines. Also, someone out there must have a pressbook.
I know this is known by all, but the picture reminds me of the obvious of 1939...what a great year for movies! :-bd