I'd say full colour was produced first, then duotone. Wouldn't make sense the other way around.
Yes this makes perfect sense that the full colour W & B Litho one was the poster produced for the Australian October 1, 1981 first release ( IMDB ).
Actually certain facts that I have noticed do help regarding both the posters timelines. The MAPS version has 'Distributed By United Internationl Pictures' printed on it, but the W & B version doesn't have this information printed on the poster at all.
Some history regarding UIP. Originally Cinema International Corporation ( CIC ) was formed to release Universal and Paramount product overseas in 1970 and lasted until 1981.Then on November 1,1981 the company was reorganised as United International Pictures ( UIP ). Prior to the merger United Artists product was distributed overseas by their own branches, including Australia, but then after the merger 1981 UA profuct was handed by UIP overseas.
As Eye Of The Needle was released in Australia a month before the merger, it would be safe to say then that the W & B Litho daybill was the one that would have been printed for the Australian 1981 first release commencing October 1, 1981, as it is pre UIP involvement. The MAPS version containing the UIP credit therefore certainly would have to then be a second printing of the poster.
Murder She Said... ( 1961 ) original Australian daybill and the same style poster that was censored for the New Zealand release.
The interesting thing here is that it certainly appears to me that the censoring of the original tagline is in excess of any requirements that would have been requested by the N.Z. censorship department at that time.
On wonders the reason why two areas out of the three that were blacked out were completely just covering over blank areas. By doing this, it just attracted more attention to the censoring of the poster. Had it only been the word ' strangler' covered over it would have surely attracted a little less attention. Was it perhaps altered this way to balance out the poster tagline presentation?
Any other thoughts on why this would have taken place?
The Sundowners ( 1960 ). Australian release one sheet and daybill posters produced for the 1961 first release. Although both posters are credited as being from A & C printers the one sheet artwork is certainly far superior to the daybill artwork.
The Sundowners was re-released in the late 1960s with the above daybill that was designed for this re-release titled only as Sundowners. I prefer this daybill design over the original produced daybill.
Now to focus on this daybill version. Any thoughts as to when this poster may have been printed? Robert Mitchum looking a little sinister I must say.
All four images courtesey of Ves, and originating from her wonderful Australian film poster collection.
It has the same WB shield but could just have been copied form the original? Or perhaps a quick reprint for the original release when they ran out of daybills?
Same year as the original? The years recod shattering tops in entertainment?
Possibly too soon for the same year. The film was released in Sydney only on November 30, 1961 with most venues most likely playing the film would have been 1962 one has to think.
It has the same WB shield but could just have been copied form the original? Or perhaps a quick reprint for the original release when they ran out of daybills?
The WB shield logo on the daybill design in discussion is a little different in design from the original daybill logo. The original design has the word Warner Bros apprearing printed across the centre of the WB letters in the shield, whereas the later poster only has WB in a shield, without the word Warner Bros appearing on the logo. More details about this difference at a later date, if required. An eafly reprint at an unknown date is more than a distinct possibility as the film fared very well at the Australian box office.
A major disappointment hindering the ability to narrow down the printing period on obviously follow up printed posters, is the lack of a printer's credit appearing on the later printed posters. The 1960s is a decade where Australian posters are easier to identify reasonably well a time period, but only when a poster has a printer's name on the poster. Without a printer's name appearing it is then a major problem to accomplish this aim.
An Australian The Sundowners one sheet, most likely printed around the time of the daybill under discussion. It has the same style logo and also no printer's credits appear on the poster.
The logo looks like it was probably mistakenly used, that's quite an old version so I think it might just be due to laziness on the part of the printer.
It has the same WB shield but could just have been copied form the original? Or perhaps a quick reprint for the original release when they ran out of daybills?
The WB shield logo on the daybill design in discussion is a little different in design from the original daybill logo. The original design has the word Warner Bros apprearing printed across the centre of the WB letters in the shield, whereas the later poster only has WB in a shield, without the word Warner Bros appearing on the logo. More details about this difference at a later date, if required.
The logo looks like it was probably mistakenly used, that's quite an old version so I think it might just be due to laziness on the part of the printer.
Tomorrow I will detail some information, as I had mentioned earlier may take place, about the Warner Brothers Australian poster logos. This should prove to be of interest, but it will rule out the thinking that an old logo was mistakingly used on the original release Australian daybill and the one sheet.
It has the same WB shield but could just have been copied form the original? Or perhaps a quick reprint for the original release when they ran out of daybills?
The WB shield logo on the daybill design in discussion is a little different in design from the original daybill logo. The original design has the word Warner Bros apprearing printed across the centre of the WB letters in the shield, whereas the later poster only has WB in a shield, without the word Warner Bros appearing on the logo. More details about this difference at a later date, if required.
The logo looks like it was probably mistakenly used, that's quite an old version so I think it might just be due to laziness on the part of the printer.
Tomorrow I will detail some information, as I had mentioned earlier may take place, about the Warner Brothers Australian poster logos. This should prove to be of interest, but it will rule out the thinking that an old logo was mistakingly used on the original release Australian daybill and the one sheet.
A question directed to Dede. I wish to clarify which poster logo you were referring to. I am thinking now that perhaps I misunderstood which poster logo you had in mind. I thought you were referring to the original poster logo with the word Warner Bros included within the shield, but I now think you it was the following logo from the later printed posters.
Please notify me which of the two different logos is the one that you were alluding to?
That's correct, it's the shield without Warner Brothers across it. I don't know how accurate it is but this website shows variants of the shield and looks like that version is from 1937, although the solid version of it could be from 1953-1967 and might have been drawn in reverse to suit the printing.
That's correct, it's the shield without Warner Brothers across it. I don't know how accurate it is but this website shows variants of the shield and looks like that version is from 1937, although the solid version of it could be from 1953-1967 and might have been drawn in reverse to suit the printing.
You can disregard the website's accuracy regarding what happened with logo's used on Australian film posters. A different application of logos occurred in this area a good number of times over the years..
This logo was used sparingly in 1959, then extensively in 1960 and part of 1961 by Warmer Bros. Australia short lived preferred poster printer Chromo Print.
After Advertising & Commercial Printers ( aka A. & C. ) succeeded Chromo Print in 1961 as preferred Warner Bros. Australian poster printers, they reverted back to using the above pictured W.B. logo, used previously by W.E.Smith around 1959 on Warner's Australian posters.
In 1963 Robert Burton Ltd. Sydney became the preferred Warner Bros. Australian film poster printer and they continuued to use the A. & C. Warner's used logo on their imput.
Out of interest the following different logo was used by the then preferred Warner's printer Victory Publicity Pty.Ltd. on Stage Fright in 1951. The poster then included the wording Warner Bros. Pictures Inc. in the shield.
Fascinating stuff. Do you think they had an official WB logo here in Australia (was it a different company that the US parent company with different logo?) or do you think they were just using the logo they liked?
Fascinating stuff. Do you think they had an official WB logo here in Australia (was it a different company that the US parent company with different logo?) or do you think they were just using the logo they liked?
The original logo used on the Stage Fright insert in the U.S.A., wiich is different from the one used on the Stage Fright daybill here in Australia.
The French used logo is different from the U.S.A. and Australian ones applied to their posters. Although the Swedish logo is similar to the U.S. one, the border is a little different in design. It would appear to me each country was free to use the logo of their choice, as long as it was a U.S. sanctined logo in the first place.
A lot of information and discussion has taken place but we still don't know for certain when the queried daybill and one sheets of The Sundowners raised on this thread were printed. The best I can speculate on is they were printed as very early second printings, but in the process used an earlier style logo.
This poster image is currently appearing on Google.com on the Pinterest.com.au website. It is credited as being - ''Australian daybill HORRORS OF THE BLACK MUSEUM released April 29, 1959.''
First of all one then could believe that this film was released in Australia on April 29, 1959. The problem here is that the film was never released theatrically in Australia.The date quoted was for the U.S.A. release It appears as previously mentioned elsewhere on the forum by me that the film was most likely banned in Australia.
Secondly the poster is actually an English 3 sheet ( 41'' x 85'' ). The size of an Australian daybill at that time was around 13'' x 30''. There is a huge difference in size between the two posters, and seeing that the above poster has a British X certificate printed on it, along with the British film distributor's name, how then did the poster come to be credited as being an Australian daybill is way beyond my comprehension.
The Sting ( 1973 ) Australian one sheets printed during the first release. The posters were printed by MAPS, Robert Burton and the remaining one from an unknown non credited printer.
One could ponder the order in which the three posters were printed. I am sure we will never find out for sure though exactly when this happened. I have my own thinking on the matter, but would like to hear anyone else's comments.
Was there one without the Academy Award info up top?
This is a section of a reply to a question that was asked of me regarding The Sting Australian one sheets recently.
''The Sting was released in the U.S.A. on the 25th of December 1973. The film was scheduled to be released in Australia on the 5th of April 1974. My belief is that the Australian distributor had all the main artwork done early, leaving space for the anticipated Oscar win details to be added at the last minute. It would have been tight, but I think that they had the printer on standby to do the emergency run.
To the best of my knowledge there appears there isn't any Australian daybill or one sheets of The Sting ever printed without the Oscar wins information.''
There were ten films passed by the Australian film censor during 1944 that were imported by Hoyts Theatres Ltd. They all originated from the U.S. poverty row studio PRC ( Producers Releasing Corporation ).
The titles are -
Black Raven,The Career Girl Dead Men Walk ( Classified as special condition - Horror ( Adult ) ) Harvest Melody Isle Of Forgotten Sins Jungle Siren Law Of TheTimber Tiger Fangs Today I Hang Queen Of Broadway
Hoyts Distribution began distributing films in Australia in Australia in 1979. The Muppet Movie I am thinking was their first release, and if not was one of their earliest releases. Hoyts Distribution was acquired in July 2012 by Studiocanal.
Prior to this Hoyts were involved in some tie-ins with a couple of Australian independent film distributors in the release in the 1950s of a number of minor films as listed below.-
The Tall Texan ( 1953 ). Listed in the Australian The Film Weekly Motion Picture Directiory trade annual 1954-5 edition as being released in Sydney on October 22, 1953 by Hoyts. The Australian daybill credits National Films of NSW as being the distributor.
New Faces ( 1954 ). Listed in the Australian The Film Weelky Motion Picture Directory trade annual 1955-6 edition as being released in Sydney on February 10, 1955 by Hoyts, with a notation of it later being released under the IFD banner. No daybill sighted. Does anyone have one by any chance?
Invaders From Mars ( 1953 ). Listed in the Australian The Film Weekly Motion Picture Directory trade annual 1955-6 annual as being released in Sydney on February 10, 1955 by Hoyts. The Australian duotone daybill credits IFD as being the distributor.
New Faces and Invaders From Mars were screened as a double bill in Sydney and Melbourne city and surburban cinemas when first released in Australia in 1955.
I wasn't aware that Hoyts Theatres imported films into Australia for theatrical distribution in the 1940s until recently. The above listed ten films were passed in a three week period at the very end of 1944. Three in week ending 25 November, three also in week ending 2 December and five in week ending 9 December. I am also unaware of any Australia daybills, one sheets, 3 sheets. glass lantern slides or press sheets existing for any of the above nine films. If anyone has images in any form of any of the ten listed films please post them here.
I have just discovered on Google this Alfred Hitchcock Saboteur ( 1942 ) Australian duotone reissue daybill poster design.. This poster it would appear would have been printed for a 1960s national rerelease. Saboteur was screened in a Sydney city cinema in 1960. Has anyone seen this poster design previously ? It is certainly first time for me. I actually don't mind the design.
Hondo, It's interesting that it looks to have both images of Karloff and Lon Chaney. I like that it has the Universal credit and logo. Do you think it's a 1960s or later release? Okie
I have always been more than curious about the origins of the above ''The original Frankenstein'' Australian daybill poster.
Any thoughts on the history benind this particular poster?
NRC was only around from 1970 until 1989 wasn't it? I'm wondering whether it was picked up by a smaller distributor and just shown at smaller suburban theatres, or even a repertory theatre like Valhalla?
Hondo, Also, It appears to have the Son of Frankenstein credits, eh? The word "New" to describe this Universal film is fun to try and figure out as well. If they had included a picture of Jennifer Beals, it would all make sense!!! Okie
Hondo, Also, It appears to have the Son of Frankenstein credits, eh? The word "New" to describe this Universal film is fun to try and figure out as well. If they had included a picture of Jennifer Beals, it would all make sense!!! Okie
''The New Universal''credit was used for a period of time in advertising from the very late 1930s into 1940. This credit is seen on the following original Son Of Frankenstein 1939 U.S.A. one sheet poster and Australian herald.
Don't let this New Universal credit influence you thoughts, as all isn't as it appears to be on the daybill image.
The above daybill poster is usually credited as beiing a Son Of Frankenstein ( 1939 ) 1970s's re-release. I firmly believe is is a Frankensrein ( 1931 ) re-release.
No record found of Son Of Frankenstein Australian 35mm screenings was located in the 1970s for this title. However a number of screenings of Frankenstein( 1931 ) were found to have taken place in the 1970s and early 1980s billed as being The original Frankenstein. Two examples follow below.
( 1976) ( 1983 )
The above daybill design seems to have suffered due to having almost no original Frankenstein 1931 material to work with in the design..
Let's analysis this poster.
Firstly they included Boris Karloff's name at the top of the poster.
Next came Stark Terror! Added Thrills! in a Spine- tingling Experience ! wording, Monter's head, skull, monster holding Elsa Frankensteiin and Ygor in graveyard taken the Realart 1947 re-relase one sheet poster of the Ghost of Frankenstein ( 1942 ). Also adapted to the daybill the The and the Frankenstein words of the title.Original replacing Ghost Of.
The following scene is the only one that appeared in the 1931 Frankenstein film.
The following head image of the monster,, the Universal logo and the four lines of the credits that appeared on the bottom right hand side of the Son Of Frankenstein 1939 U.S.A. one sheet poster were used to complete the nice looking but vastly inaccurate hotchpotch of a daybill poster design.
This now leads me to the certificate of authenticity attached to the poster appearing below..
Important Added Info: Note that this
Australian daybill comes with a certificate of authenticity ("A Genuine
Treasure of the Ackermuseum, Horrorwood, Karloffornia") personally signed
by "The Ackermonster" (Forrest J. Ackerman). Note that only a limited
number of these
color certificates were made (for a sale of FJA movie paper by Bruce Hershenson)! (
EMOVIEPOSTER.COM )
My final words are the the daybill poster was printed for the 1931 film Frankenstein and not Son Of Frankenstein.. Seeing Frankenstein was screened on numerous occasions in the 1970's classiied as having an M certificate and only in the 1980's was a NRC certificate sited for the film, my belief that the daybill poster in question was most likely printed for a 1980's re-release of Frankenstein.. I am also thinking the poster looks more 1980s that 1970s in appearance.
Comments
Peter
Actually certain facts that I have noticed do help regarding both the posters timelines. The MAPS version has 'Distributed By United Internationl Pictures' printed on it, but the W & B version doesn't have this information printed on the poster at all.
Some history regarding UIP. Originally Cinema International Corporation ( CIC ) was formed to release Universal and Paramount product overseas in 1970 and lasted until 1981.Then on November 1,1981 the company was reorganised as United International Pictures ( UIP ). Prior to the merger United Artists product was distributed overseas by their own branches, including Australia, but then after the merger 1981 UA profuct was handed by UIP overseas.
As Eye Of The Needle was released in Australia a month before the merger, it would be safe to say then that the W & B Litho daybill was the one that would have been printed for the Australian 1981 first release commencing October 1, 1981, as it is pre UIP involvement. The MAPS version containing the UIP credit therefore certainly would have to then be a second printing of the poster.
Murder She Said... ( 1961 ) original Australian daybill and the same style poster that was censored for the New Zealand release.
The interesting thing here is that it certainly appears to me that the censoring of the original tagline is in excess of any requirements that would have been requested by the N.Z. censorship department at that time.
On wonders the reason why two areas out of the three that were blacked out were completely just covering over blank areas. By doing this, it just attracted more attention to the censoring of the poster. Had it only been the word ' strangler' covered over it would have surely attracted a little less attention. Was it perhaps altered this way to balance out the poster tagline presentation?
Any other thoughts on why this would have taken place?
The Sundowners ( 1960 ). Australian release one sheet and daybill posters produced for the 1961 first release. Although both posters are credited as being from A & C printers the one sheet artwork is certainly far superior to the daybill artwork.
The Sundowners was re-released in the late 1960s with the above daybill that was designed for this re-release titled only as Sundowners. I prefer this daybill design over the original produced daybill.
Now to focus on this daybill version. Any thoughts as to when this poster may have been printed? Robert Mitchum looking a little sinister I must say.
All four images courtesey of Ves, and originating from her wonderful Australian film poster collection.
Peter
Possibly too soon for the same year. The film was released in Sydney only on November 30, 1961 with most venues most likely playing the film would have been 1962 one has to think.
The WB shield logo on the daybill design in discussion is a little different in design from the original daybill logo. The original design has the word Warner Bros apprearing printed across the centre of the WB letters in the shield, whereas the later poster only has WB in a shield, without the word Warner Bros appearing on the logo. More details about this difference at a later date, if required. An eafly reprint at an unknown date is more than a distinct possibility as the film fared very well at the Australian box office.
A major disappointment hindering the ability to narrow down the printing period on obviously follow up printed posters, is the lack of a printer's credit appearing on the later printed posters. The 1960s is a decade where Australian posters are easier to identify reasonably well a time period, but only when a poster has a printer's name on the poster. Without a printer's name appearing it is then a major problem to accomplish this aim.
An Australian The Sundowners one sheet, most likely printed around the time of the daybill under discussion. It has the same style logo and also no printer's credits appear on the poster.
Peter
Please notify me which of the two different logos is the one that you were alluding to?
from: https://logos.fandom.com/wiki/Warner_Bros._Pictures
Peter
This logo was used sparingly in 1959, then extensively in 1960 and part of 1961 by Warmer Bros. Australia short lived preferred poster printer Chromo Print.
After Advertising & Commercial Printers ( aka A. & C. ) succeeded Chromo Print in 1961 as preferred Warner Bros. Australian poster printers, they reverted back to using the above pictured W.B. logo, used previously by W.E.Smith around 1959 on Warner's Australian posters.
In 1963 Robert Burton Ltd. Sydney became the preferred Warner Bros. Australian film poster printer and they continuued to use the A. & C. Warner's used logo on their imput.
Out of interest the following different logo was used by the then preferred Warner's printer Victory Publicity Pty.Ltd. on Stage Fright in 1951. The poster then included the wording Warner Bros. Pictures Inc. in the shield.
Peter
The original logo used on the Stage Fright insert in the U.S.A., wiich is different from the one used on the Stage Fright daybill here in Australia.
The French used logo is different from the U.S.A. and Australian ones applied to their posters. Although the Swedish logo is similar to the U.S. one, the border is a little different in design. It would appear to me each country was free to use the logo of their choice, as long as it was a U.S. sanctined logo in the first place.
A lot of information and discussion has taken place but we still don't know for certain when the queried daybill and one sheets of The Sundowners raised on this thread were printed. The best I can speculate on is they were printed as very early second printings, but in the process used an earlier style logo.
This poster image is currently appearing on Google.com on the Pinterest.com.au website. It is credited as being - ''Australian daybill HORRORS OF THE BLACK MUSEUM released April 29, 1959.''
First of all one then could believe that this film was released in Australia on April 29, 1959. The problem here is that the film was never released theatrically in Australia.The date quoted was for the U.S.A. release It appears as previously mentioned elsewhere on the forum by me that the film was most likely banned in Australia.
Secondly the poster is actually an English 3 sheet ( 41'' x 85'' ). The size of an Australian daybill at that time was around 13'' x 30''. There is a huge difference in size between the two posters, and seeing that the above poster has a British X certificate printed on it, along with the British film distributor's name, how then did the poster come to be credited as being an Australian daybill is way beyond my comprehension.
The Sting ( 1973 ) Australian one sheets printed during the first release. The posters were printed by MAPS, Robert Burton and the remaining one from an unknown non credited printer.
One could ponder the order in which the three posters were printed. I am sure we will never find out for sure though exactly when this happened. I have my own thinking on the matter, but would like to hear anyone else's comments.
''The Sting was released in the U.S.A. on the 25th of December 1973. The film was scheduled to be released in Australia on the 5th of April 1974. My belief is that the Australian distributor had all the main artwork done early, leaving space for the anticipated Oscar win details to be added at the last minute. It would have been tight, but I think that they had the printer on standby to do the emergency run.
To the best of my knowledge there appears there isn't any Australian daybill or one sheets of The Sting ever printed without the Oscar wins information.''
There were ten films passed by the Australian film censor during 1944 that were imported by Hoyts Theatres Ltd. They all originated from the U.S. poverty row studio PRC ( Producers Releasing Corporation ).
The titles are -
Black Raven,The
Career Girl
Dead Men Walk ( Classified as special condition - Horror ( Adult ) )
Harvest Melody
Isle Of Forgotten Sins
Jungle Siren
Law Of TheTimber
Tiger Fangs
Today I Hang
Queen Of Broadway
Hoyts Distribution began distributing films in Australia in Australia in 1979. The Muppet Movie I am thinking was their first release, and if not was one of their earliest releases. Hoyts Distribution was acquired in July 2012 by Studiocanal.
Prior to this Hoyts were involved in some tie-ins with a couple of Australian independent film distributors in the release in the 1950s of a number of minor films as listed below.-
The Tall Texan ( 1953 ). Listed in the Australian The Film Weekly Motion Picture Directiory trade annual 1954-5 edition as being released in Sydney on October 22, 1953 by Hoyts. The Australian daybill credits National Films of NSW as being the distributor.
New Faces ( 1954 ). Listed in the Australian The Film Weelky Motion Picture Directory trade annual 1955-6 edition as being released in Sydney on February 10, 1955 by Hoyts, with a notation of it later being released under the IFD banner. No daybill sighted. Does anyone have one by any chance?
Invaders From Mars ( 1953 ). Listed in the Australian The Film Weekly Motion Picture Directory trade annual 1955-6 annual as being released in Sydney on February 10, 1955 by Hoyts. The Australian duotone daybill credits IFD as being the distributor.
New Faces and Invaders From Mars were screened as a double bill in Sydney and Melbourne city and surburban cinemas when first released in Australia in 1955.
I wasn't aware that Hoyts Theatres imported films into Australia for theatrical distribution in the 1940s until recently. The above listed ten films were passed in a three week period at the very end of 1944. Three in week ending 25 November, three also in week ending 2 December and five in week ending 9 December. I am also unaware of any Australia daybills, one sheets, 3 sheets. glass lantern slides or press sheets existing for any of the above nine films. If anyone has images in any form of any of the ten listed films please post them here.
I have just discovered on Google this Alfred Hitchcock Saboteur ( 1942 ) Australian duotone reissue daybill poster design.. This poster it would appear would have been printed for a 1960s national rerelease. Saboteur was screened in a Sydney city cinema in 1960. Has anyone seen this poster design previously ? It is certainly first time for me. I actually don't mind the design.
I have always been more than curious about the origins of the above ''The original Frankenstein'' Australian daybill poster.
Any thoughts on the history benind this particular poster?
Peter
Please keep the feedback coming in. I am interested in hearing any thoughts on this matter.
The only thing that I will say at the present time is that the poster is grossly misleading.
okie said: ''The New Universal''credit was used for a period of time in advertising from the very late 1930s into 1940. This credit is seen on the following original Son Of Frankenstein 1939 U.S.A. one sheet poster and Australian herald.
Don't let this New Universal credit influence you thoughts, as all isn't as it appears to be on the daybill image.
The above daybill poster is usually credited as beiing a Son Of Frankenstein ( 1939 ) 1970s's re-release. I firmly believe is is a Frankensrein ( 1931 ) re-release.
No record found of Son Of Frankenstein Australian 35mm screenings was located in the 1970s for this title. However a number of screenings of Frankenstein( 1931 ) were found to have taken place in the 1970s and early 1980s billed as being The original Frankenstein. Two examples follow below.
The above daybill design seems to have suffered due to having almost no original Frankenstein 1931 material to work with in the design..
Let's analysis this poster.
Firstly they included Boris Karloff's name at the top of the poster.
Next came Stark Terror! Added Thrills! in a Spine- tingling Experience ! wording, Monter's head, skull, monster holding Elsa Frankensteiin and Ygor in graveyard taken the Realart 1947 re-relase one sheet poster of the Ghost of Frankenstein ( 1942 ). Also adapted to the daybill the The and the Frankenstein words of the title.Original replacing Ghost Of.
The following scene is the only one that appeared in the 1931 Frankenstein film.
The following head image of the monster,, the Universal logo and the four lines of the credits that appeared on the bottom right hand side of the Son Of Frankenstein 1939 U.S.A. one sheet poster were used to complete the nice looking but vastly inaccurate hotchpotch of a daybill poster design.
This now leads me to the certificate of authenticity attached to the poster appearing below..
Important Added Info: Note that this Australian daybill comes with a certificate of authenticity ("A Genuine Treasure of the Ackermuseum, Horrorwood, Karloffornia") personally signed by "The Ackermonster" (Forrest J. Ackerman). Note that only a limited number of these color certificates were made (for a sale of FJA movie paper by Bruce Hershenson)! ( EMOVIEPOSTER.COM )
My final words are the the daybill poster was printed for the 1931 film Frankenstein and not Son Of Frankenstein.. Seeing Frankenstein was screened on numerous occasions in the 1970's classiied as having an M certificate and only in the 1980's was a NRC certificate sited for the film, my belief that the daybill poster in question was most likely printed for a 1980's re-release of Frankenstein.. I am also thinking the poster looks more 1980s that 1970s in appearance.
Any comments would be appreciared.