Howdy, Stranger!

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

Categories

Things To Come Authenticity ?

HONDOHONDO Member Posts: 8,814 ✭✭✭✭✭✭ Le Grande Collector

 

Things To Come ( 1936 ). Your thoughts on this poster that has been described as an original release Australian daybill poster?  If this poster is original it would have been a long daybill which it appears to be in size by looking at it.

The four problems I have in it being an authentic original Australia daybill printed for the 1936 Australian release are as follows.

No printer's credit on the poster.

No censorship classification appearing.

No United Artists film distributor credit appearing.

No blank section on the top of the poster.

What do you think?

Lawrence

Comments

  • 110x75110x75 Member, Sarli Connoisseur Posts: 1,786 ✭✭✭✭ Three-Sheeter
    My knowledge on australian paper is close to non existant, but that's a fine looking poster to me...
  • CSM_2_Point_0CSM_2_Point_0 Member, Super Sleuth Posts: 1,322 ✭✭✭✭ Three-Sheeter
    Are we sure that isn't a 3 sheet - kind of like the perplexing Robin Hood poster
    -Chris

    There's a street of lights

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

  • EisenhowerEisenhower Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 4,450 admin
    110x75 said:
    My knowledge on australian paper is close to non existant, but that's a fine looking poster to me...
    Agreed! Sweet looking rocket! 
  • DavidDavid Member Posts: 10,308 admin
  • theartofmovieposterstheartofmovieposters Member Posts: 4,434 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector

    Oh, I've been meaning to post about this poster.  Come across it on several occasions when looking for other things and it always struck me as odd for an Aussie Daybill.  Just doesn't look right.

    The blank section at the top had me going, but then thought trimmed?  If so, it would be off in terms of proportions and it isn't to the eye at least.

    Would love to hear more...


  • DavidDavid Member Posts: 10,308 admin
    HA sold one and it has more white space at the top than that pic.
    David
  • theartofmovieposterstheartofmovieposters Member Posts: 4,434 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector
    Large chip in bottom border could explain no printer info...size is there...
  • HONDOHONDO Member Posts: 8,814 ✭✭✭✭✭✭ Le Grande Collector

     The U.S. original insert. Very similar to the Australian poster except the wording at the top of this poster is different and the insert has more of the cast listed, along with the production and distribution details.

    An image appears in the Hershenson / Allen archives of the Australian poster in question, minus any sale date. I am wondering if only one copy actually exists and the Hershenson / Allen poster is the one that was sold and  then the purchaser restored it on linen and it ended up being sold by Heritage om March 11, 2008?

    Lawrence
  • DavidDavid Member Posts: 10,308 admin
    HONDO said:

    I am wondering if only one copy actually exists and the Hershenson / Allen poster is the one that was sold and  then the purchaser restored it on linen and it ended up being sold by Heritage om March 11, 2008?


    Entirely possible/likely.

    HA's description: "fold wear, and some edge chipping, including a large chip out of the bottom right border. Additionally, all of the borders have been repaired."

    Which of course would explain why no printer information.



     



    David
  • HONDOHONDO Member Posts: 8,814 ✭✭✭✭✭✭ Le Grande Collector
    edited April 11
                                                                                                                                                                                                HONDO said:

     

    Things To Come ( 1936 ). Your thoughts on this poster that has been described as an original release Australian daybill poster?  If this poster is original it would have been a long daybill which it appears to be in size by looking at it.

    The four problems I have in it being an authentic original Australia daybill printed for the 1936 Australian release are as follows.

    No printer's credit on the poster.

    No censorship classification appearing.

    No United Artists film distributor credit appearing.

    No blank section on the top of the poster.

    What do you think?


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

    I haven't been able to locate until now an original London Films / United Artists daybill produced around the time that Things to Come was released in Australia. The above Fire Over England  daybill from Ves, which has just appeared on another thread, was printed for the 1937 release in Australia. Things To Come was released in Australia the previous year.

    You will observe that all the four items of concern regarding the Things To Come that I listed previously appear on the Fire Over England daybill. plus now a London Films logo that I hadn't mentioned as being absent from the Things to Come poster.

    The Things To Come poster due to restoration most likely accounts for the missing top blank section and the missing printer'e credits, but this still leaves the missing London Films logo, the United Artists logo and the censorship classification ( ? ) being absent. 

    I am not saying one way or another that the Things To Come poster is not an original Australian daybill poster printed for the 1936 release, or is possibly something altogether different.  All I have done is to supply the facts as I know them, and you can make up your own mind. I know many people that believe it to be an original release Australian daybii, and they may me correct, but there are others who aren't 100% convinced that it is.

    Now a case to be presented for why the poster may be an original Australian 1936 release daybill. My original reasons are followed by what may have happened.  

    ''The four problems I have in it being an authentic original Australia daybill printed for the 1936 Australian release are as follows.''

    ''No printer's credit on the poster.'' Due to large chip in this printers's credit placement area they are missing..

    ''No censorship classification appearing.'' Some films from around this period still didn't have censorship ratings appearing on Australian film posters. 

    ''No United Artists film distributor credit appearing.'' The artwork used on the daybill appears to have been copied from the U.S.A. insert design rather than any original British used artwork. The insert has a London Film released thru United Artists credit printed on it. Due to either an oversight or just lack of enough remaining space there to include these credits, along with some other actors' names,  could explain the absense of these credits appearing on the Australian daybill.


    ''No blank section on the top of the poster.'' Possibly trimmed.

    Love to hear any new or first time comments from anyone that would like to contribute, or from any previous cobtributors who perhaps have altered their thinking on the origins of this poster. 

    Lawrence
  • theartofmovieposterstheartofmovieposters Member Posts: 4,434 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector
    I always had my doubts about the Things to Come being a daybill, but I honestly have no idea.
    It is possible that much of the things that ring the alarm bells are caused by the restoration done to the poster.
    Having handled so many daybills over the years, you would think that HA would know the difference.
    Certainly one of those times where if only we could get our hands on it!
  • HONDOHONDO Member Posts: 8,814 ✭✭✭✭✭✭ Le Grande Collector




    I noticed some different artwork so I thought I would highlight in here, although it has nothing to do with the authenticity question.

     The U.S.A. insert has the fire blazing in the background only, with no people appearing in the streets whatsoever.

     The Australian version has four men in the streets all appearing to be reacting to something further away than the  above pilot's legs, and the men are among still burning building ruins.
    Lawrence
  • MattMatt Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 5,556 admin
    The person who restored the poster would surely know Australian daybill paper and how thin it is. If it was artwork proposed for the film or for what ever reason, I doubt if it would be as thin as poster paper. My 2 cents.

    Doesn't HA get a poster restored when it a valuable poster comes their way? I think you told me that Ves? Like you said, HA should know the difference.
  • theartofmovieposterstheartofmovieposters Member Posts: 4,434 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector
    Matt said:
    The person who restored the poster would surely know Australian daybill paper and how thin it is. If it was artwork proposed for the film or for what ever reason, I doubt if it would be as thin as poster paper. My 2 cents.

    Doesn't HA get a poster restored when it a valuable poster comes their way? I think you told me that Ves? Like you said, HA should know the difference.
    Yep, that's right.  Standard practice was to get things of a high value restored as part of the process of selling, if not already done.  At least it used to be.

Sign In or Register to comment.