To me, the fact that there are at least 92 Lion International Films posters from 1955 on and not ONE of those from
before 1955 (other than the disputed Third Man poster) is a "smoking gun". And it is not a tiny sample, since 36 of the 92
are from exactly 1955 to 1959.
But if some want to believe it to be 1949 (and I agree it is odd they reused the printer number from the bottom, but I have seen many re-release posters that kept info from the original release, likely because they had access to the original printing plates) that is fine with me. I personally would not auction it that way but to each his own. I always err on the side of caution, because I am giving a Lifetime Guarantee.
Incidentally, you keep saying Lion International Films was formed in 1956. But since some of their posters are from 1955 films, one would think they were formed at the end of 1955.
Bruce
HAS lifetime guarantees on every item - IS eMoviePoster.com HAS unrestored and unenhanced images - IS eMoviePoster.com HAS 100% honest condition descriptions - IS eMoviePoster.com HAS auctions where the winner is the higher of two real bidders - IS eMoviePoster.com HAS up to SIXTEEN weeks of "Pay and Hold" to save a fortune on shipping - IS eMoviePoster.com HAS real customer service before, during and after EVERY auction, and answers all questions - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS 25% or 26% "buyers premiums" of any kind (but especially the dreadful "$29 or $49 minimum" ones) - NOT eMoviePoster.com HAS "reserves or starts over $1 - NOT eMoviePoster.com HAS hidden bidder IDs - NOT eMoviePoster.com HAS "nosebleed" shipping charges - NOT eMoviePoster.com HAS inadequate packaging - NOT eMoviePoster.com HAS no customer service to speak of, before, during and after any auction, and answers almost no questions - NOT eMoviePoster.com
You are probably right for the U.K but it was most likely in 1956 Lion International set up distribution in Australia. I think they used the original material and just altered a couple of things.To me it is not 1949 but that's only my opinion.
Not quite sure where Greg got those numbers from, but my On the Town Quad 1949, but actual release in the UK January 1950 has only two numbers. My Dr Jekyll from 1941 has only three, but my Miracle on 34th street 1947 has 4 with an "a" at the end, and starts with an 8... ?? So if Greg is right it's from 1950?
I have asked Sim Brannigan author of the excellent British film poster book about Stafford's numbers and he says there's no actual recorded history for them, as I'd tried to get that info a fair while back.
You are probably right for the U.K but it was most likely in 1956 Lion International set up distribution in Australia. I think they used the original material and just altered a couple of things.
No one has said the poster is a UK1SH bound for the Australian market so when Lion International set up in this country is not necessarily relevant afterall there were some 60 colonies/dominions of the British Empire back then
Not quite sure where Greg got those numbers from, but my On the Town Quad 1949, but actual release in the UK January 1950 has only two numbers. My Dr Jekyll from 1941 has only three, but my Miracle on 34th street 1947 has 4 with an "a" at the end, and starts with an 8... ?? So if Greg is right it's from 1950?
I have asked Sim Brannigan author of the excellent British film poster book about Stafford's numbers and he says there's no actual recorded history for them, as I'd tried to get that info a fair while back.
I'm just reporting the info supplied not judging it
Yes, if Greg is correct then it would be 1950 which would makes sense as that is the year it would have been released in many of the colonies, parrticularly in the Northern Hemisphere, whose to say it wasn't used in Hong Kong or Malta etc etc
The poster was printed in England. If the poster is supposed to be from the original 1949 or thereabouts release overseas why would the two references to London Films be removed when Alexander Korda took great pride in his films and British Lion was owned by Korda?
Secondly someone please post an image of any poster at all pre 1955 where Lion International appears on it.
The poster was printed in England. If the poster is supposed to be from the original 1949 or thereabouts release overseas why would the two references to London Films be removed when Alexander Korda took great pride in his films and British Lion was owned by Korda?
One can draw many opinions based on all the data that has been presented to date, it does not always make it fact, remember you were categoric in your conclusions/statement about the An American in Paris daybill when you said one was absolutely an original and the other a re-release, this turned out to be wrong even tho the evidence you would have presented could allow one to draw the conclusion you were correct.
What I am not saying is you are wrong because I get the whole Lion International point, but I am saying there is enough on the table from other experts to not make you 100% right either; I do believe the BIDLL poster is an original poster for it's first overseas release and not for a re-release. Look at it beside the other supposed R-50s re-release UK1SH (below is both an HA and EMP version), not even close - colour, quality, details of print and print details at the bottom.
One can draw many opinions based on all the data that has been presented to date, it does not always make it fact, remember you were categoric in your conclusions/statement about the An American in Paris daybill when you said one was absolutely an original and the other a re-release, this turned out to be wrong even tho the evidence you would have presented could allow one to draw the conclusion you were correct.
What I am not saying is you are wrong because I get the whole Lion International point, but I am saying there is enough on the table from other experts to not make you 100% right either; I do believe the BIDLL poster is an original poster for it's first overseas release and not for a re-release. Look at it beside the other supposed R-50s re-release UK1SH (below is both an HA and EMP version), not even close - colour, quality, details of print and print details at the bottom.
Nowhere did I say the word absolutely or was i categoric in my conclusion. I only used the words I believe and I think which are a long way different in their meanings. I believe a retraction and apology are in order.
Have you thought there may have been two re-releases post 1954?
Still say I am right.on the evidence I have presented to date.
Nowhere did I say the word absolutely or was i categoric in my conclusion. I only used the words I believe and I think which are a long way different in their meanings. I believe a retraction and apology are in order.
hahaha...ummm no, this is not parliament and you were quite firm in your statements and also stated you had evidence that would confirm what you thought (to be true), that makes it fairly categoric.
Nowhere did I say the word absolutely or was i categoric in my conclusion. I only used the words I believe and I think which are a long way different in their meanings. I believe a retraction and apology are in order.
hahaha...ummm no, this is not parliament and you were quite firm in your statements and also stated you had evidence that would confirm what you thought (to be true), that makes it fairly categoric.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The confirmation I was referring to was solely to confirm the printer's name on the Australian one sheet that I thought may help in solving the daybill releases dates.It had nothing to do with my opinion on the daybill release dates. I have email evidence to support this.Again the word categoric doesn't apply and I don't believe I was quite firm either as you stated . I'll wait for your apology.
Still say I am right.on the evidence I have presented to date.
DAVID said -
OK, fair enough.
Are you also saying there is no way no other possibility exists?
No I cannot say that but that doesn't change my opinion that I believe in all the evidence I have produced is more convincing that you or anyone else have presented.
I'm curious about what everybody thinks about the comments from Greg Edwards ...
"As the film was released in 1949 any original poster would have a 4 figure number in the bottom right corner which should start with a '9' and end in an 'A'. If the poster is from 1950-51 it would have a 3 figure number but with no 'A'. From some time in 1952 onwards it would be a 4 figure number, also with no 'A'."
I'm curious about what everybody thinks about the comments from Greg Edwards ...
"As the film was released in 1949 any original poster would have a 4 figure number in the bottom right corner which should start with a '9' and end in an 'A'. If the poster is from 1950-51 it would have a 3 figure number but with no 'A'. From some time in 1952 onwards it would be a 4 figure number, also with no 'A'."
Greg was was suggested by both you and Ves as one who would likely know, what do you think because I've no idea. I understand he's more an expert on English paper than almost everyone else here so I certainly can't judge.
I'm still a bit woosey from the migraine drugs, so can't sit to read through everything...which I will do when I am feeling better.
I don't know much at all about UK paper, but I know that Greg knows his stuff.
I am not sure who your UK source was for the other info, so I can't comment...have you tried unka? He knows a bit about the UK stuff too, having spent some time there.
Can't think of anyone else you can ask...surely the kind of info Greg gave can be verified somewhere/somehow, but in my drug haze I can't think of anything.
Personally I think Greg is correct, as I've said from day 1 It's a first release for overseas. I was only mentioning the numbers are not always that straight forward......bit like the UK poster market...
Well, I think Greg has a great deal of knowledge about British posters. From what he is saying, the poster is from 1950-51. It seems strange that no one on MoPo has commented on the numbers at the bottom.
Personally I think Greg is correct, as I've said from day 1 It's a first release for overseas. I was only mentioning the numbers are not always that straight forward......bit like the UK poster market...
Looks like every poster market is not so straight forward...lucky us for picking such a hobby eh!
Well, I think Greg has a great deal of knowledge about British posters. From what he is saying, the poster is from 1950-51. It seems strange that no one on MoPo has commented on the numbers at the bottom.
Ah I forgot about mopo...will need to remember to read through that too...silence ey, usually speaks volumes...oh wait, maybe it's just the time zones...pft, time for another tablet.
Well, I think Greg has a great deal of knowledge about British posters. From what he is saying, the poster is from 1950-51. It seems strange that no one on MoPo has commented on the numbers at the bottom.
That is indeed what he is saying.
Two did comments were passed, more about the post I made (relaying Greg's post) from Simon Oram and Richard Evans, both knowledgeable UK collectors in their own right.
Richard said: "Game still on. Phew, almost waved the white flag last night after the Big Bruce email."
Simon said: "Is there a like button for this post:)
I guess the next step is to have a look at other British one sheets from the era that have similar numbers and cross check them but it certainly is looking more like a 1950/1 one sheet which will be very good news for the consignor.
Comments
To me, the fact that there are at least 92 Lion International Films posters from 1955 on and not ONE of those from before 1955 (other than the disputed Third Man poster) is a "smoking gun". And it is not a tiny sample, since 36 of the 92 are from exactly 1955 to 1959.
But if some want to believe it to be 1949 (and I agree it is odd they reused the printer number from the bottom, but I have seen many re-release posters that kept info from the original release, likely because they had access to the original printing plates) that is fine with me. I personally would not auction it that way but to each his own. I always err on the side of caution, because I am giving a Lifetime Guarantee.
Incidentally, you keep saying Lion International Films was formed in 1956. But since some of their posters are from 1955 films, one would think they were formed at the end of 1955.
Bruce
HAS unrestored and unenhanced images - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS 100% honest condition descriptions - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS auctions where the winner is the higher of two real bidders - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS up to SIXTEEN weeks of "Pay and Hold" to save a fortune on shipping - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS real customer service before, during and after EVERY auction, and answers all questions - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS 25% or 26% "buyers premiums" of any kind (but especially the dreadful "$29 or $49 minimum" ones) - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS "reserves or starts over $1 - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS hidden bidder IDs - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS "nosebleed" shipping charges - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS inadequate packaging - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS no customer service to speak of, before, during and after any auction, and answers almost no questions - NOT eMoviePoster.com
You are probably right for the U.K but it was most likely in 1956 Lion International set up distribution in Australia. I think they used the original material and just altered a couple of things.To me it is not 1949 but that's only my opinion.
Hondo
The poster was printed in England. If the poster is supposed to be from the original 1949 or thereabouts release overseas why would the two references to London Films be removed when Alexander Korda took great pride in his films and British Lion was owned by Korda?
Secondly someone please post an image of any poster at all pre 1955 where Lion International appears on it.
Hondo
For no particular reason I thought I would mention Thr Third Man had a screening in Australia on March 4, 1955.
Hondo
Curious to know what results you are referring to. Are you pro 1949 or a re-release from the1950's believer?
Hondo
I'm curious about what everybody thinks about the comments from Greg Edwards ...
"As the film was released in 1949 any original poster would have a 4 figure number in the bottom right corner which should start with a '9' and end in an 'A'. If the poster is from 1950-51 it would have a 3 figure number but with no 'A'. From some time in 1952 onwards it would be a 4 figure number, also with no 'A'."
I'm still a bit woosey from the migraine drugs, so can't sit to read through everything...which I will do when I am feeling better.
I don't know much at all about UK paper, but I know that Greg knows his stuff.
I am not sure who your UK source was for the other info, so I can't comment...have you tried unka? He knows a bit about the UK stuff too, having spent some time there.
Can't think of anyone else you can ask...surely the kind of info Greg gave can be verified somewhere/somehow, but in my drug haze I can't think of anything.
Looks like every poster market is not so straight forward...lucky us for picking such a hobby eh!
Ah I forgot about mopo...will need to remember to read through that too...silence ey, usually speaks volumes...oh wait, maybe it's just the time zones...pft, time for another tablet.That is indeed what he is saying.
Wasn't Richard the one that brought the whole S2 scandal to light?
Will definitely need to go back and read...
He definitely played a major role in figuring out exactly what the Profiles Dracula really was - i.e. the S2.
The thread on NSFGE is fantastic...