W.E.Smith were certainly printing many daybills from the 1920s onwards so it is possible that the details on the Sherlock Holmes daybill are correct.
I had a quick look through my long daybills and the1935 film The Healer has the printers details listed as "Lithographed & Printed By W.E. Smith Ltd. Sydney." I have a couple of other examples of Smith printed daybills from the mid 30s with the same notation. It would take a lot of time to go through everything but I also have a long daybill for 3 Keys (1925) which carried the printers details as "Printed by W.E.Smith Ltd Sydney Australia.
There is always a possibility that the printers details on the Sherlock Holmes poster were added by the restorer as a "best guess" but you can never be sure with linen backed posters unless you have a before and after photo.
It would certainly appear that there was originally a missing section of paper at the bottom of the poster. A correct ''best guess'' for W.E. Smith being the correct printer, and the application of the correct credit details that were used on W.E. Smith printed posters at that period of time were added. Unfortunately though some other essential information regarding the creation of this poster design that I am certain should be there is missing. I'll do a little more digging and return back here soon with some details.
Unless they copied from another exactly the same designed daybill image I am convinced the printer's credit is correct, but is missing some additional preceding credit information.
Thanks John and Hondo for the response. Apologies i actually missed your reply when I posted above (maybe a caching issue on my device) I didn't know We smith printed during the 1920s and this is the first time I have seen the lithographed notation. Good to know other examples exist with it. Thanks John for taking the time to look through your other long daybills. Thanks Hondo I am interested in what you think is missing from the poster design.
The Spotlight (1927),The Racket (1928) and The Letter (1929) Australian W. E. Smith printed daybill images from the 1920s. These are three examples of a number of daybills that I have image for of W.E.Smith printed posters from the '20s
O.k. my thoughts follow below on the Sherlock Holme daybills printer's missing credits.
Sherlock Holmes was released in Australia in very early 1933. In the early and mid 1930's Fox poster daybills were designed by the Montgomery Campbell Studio and lithographed by W.E.Smith Ltd. Sydney. Montgomery Campbell appears to have produced the Everyones Fox advertisements as well during this period of time. .
(1933) Released in Australia in November 1933.
(1932) Released in Australia in October 1932.
You will notice that appearing on this particular daybill the Montgomery Campell and the W.E.Smith credits positioning have been reversed on the poster.
(1935) Released in Australia in 1935.
I also have other examples of Fox daybills from the early and Mid 1930's including The Big Trail (1930) which was released in Australia in 1931.
The remaining daybill images I have from 1931 have the following credits presentation on them.
To sum things up the Sherlock Holmes printer's credit that was applied to the daybill is incorrect.
I have presented three versions above of Montgomery Campbell / W.E.Smith daybill credit applications used from 1931 to 1935.
The following version is the most commonly used application so most likely was the version originally printed on the Sherlock Holmes daybill. On saying that no 100% proof of this being the case but I strongly believe it to be the correct.
As previously stated here on the forum I personally am not a fan of the restoration of film posters. It is mainly for the extent of how often it takes place and how regularly it happens to examples of minor film titles where the need seems to be not required. The same poster in question is often found to be available in quantity and in excellent condition, and at a reasonable price elsewhere, and can be easily acquired. The cost of linen backing alone surely makes it a strange choice, and most likely often financially an unwise decision.,
Put yourself in the position of if you were the buyer of the Sherlock Holmes daybill and you then discovered that the printer's credits were incorrect, how then would you react?
My question is if a section or sections of a film poster as seen in the following example be just treated in the following manner? I will say though that this is a minimal example of restoration.
Happiness Ahead (1934). Second image displayed courtesy of Ves.
The following is the damaged unrestored image of a The Mysterious Pilot (1937) daybill. Although left in its original condition and not tampered with the poster still looks magnificent without any major restoration in both framed and unframed appearance.
(Images courtesy of Wil)
Finally poster restoration usually includes colour correction, repairing tears and creases and restoring any missing elements of the artwork.
My question then is if no other original artwork is available for comparison how can the restoring of any missing material be accurate, and not just guessing? Also corrected colour shadings appear to be often over applied.
Some of the images used by me do also appear in the earlier thread that I started in February 2022 titled Restoration pitfalls. You may like to have either a first read of it or as a refresher.
My thoughts. Agree or disagree? Let's heat your thinking on the subject.
Linenbacking and restoration definately have their place. I've had and have several posters which you can't handle without a bit coming off.
If there is MINIMAL (and I mean minimal) amounts of restoration needed to bring the poster back to life and there are references available, I dont mind that. However, anything I get restored is for me to enjoy...I dont think about the resale value...Ive had so many done, that I would never get my money back if I tried to sell them. But I love the posters and they bring me so much joy.
When there is no reference available, but you need to stablise the paper, just leave the bits that are missing, alone...dont guess.
I used that Mysterious Pilot as my inspiration for this one:
I can't find another copy anywhere...not a heavy hitting poster but I love it. Loved it since I laid eyes on it, but it was falling about. So had it backed, but left alone...No guessing what should be there.
Any additional feedback from any other members regarding my earlier comments would be most welcomed. I am very interested in hearing any other members thoughts, even if they may differ from nine.
I'd leave the posters as is if you're not sure of what the missing material is, and even then, it's a 50/50 decision. Some of those unrestored posters above look great with bits missing. Gives them character.
I'd leave the posters as is if you're not sure of what the missing material is, and even then, it's a 50/50 decision. Some of those unrestored posters above look great with bits missing. Gives them character.
Thanks Peter for your thoughts. Yes indeed they do have character when left untouched.
Comments
W.E.Smith were certainly printing many daybills from the 1920s onwards so it is possible that the details on the Sherlock Holmes daybill are correct.
I had a quick look through my long daybills and the1935 film The Healer has the printers details listed as "Lithographed & Printed By W.E. Smith Ltd. Sydney." I have a couple of other examples of Smith printed daybills from the mid 30s with the same notation. It would take a lot of time to go through everything but I also have a long daybill for 3 Keys (1925) which carried the printers details as "Printed by W.E.Smith Ltd Sydney Australia.
There is always a possibility that the printers details on the Sherlock Holmes poster were added by the restorer as a "best guess" but you can never be sure with linen backed posters unless you have a before and after photo.
Unfortunately though some other essential information regarding the creation of this poster design that I am certain should be there is missing.
I'll do a little more digging and return back here soon with some details.
I didn't know We smith printed during the 1920s and this is the first time I have seen the lithographed notation. Good to know other examples exist with it. Thanks John for taking the time to look through your other long daybills.
Thanks Hondo I am interested in what you think is missing from the poster design.
The Spotlight (1927),The Racket (1928) and The Letter (1929) Australian W. E. Smith printed daybill images from the 1920s. These are three examples of a number of daybills that I have image for of W.E.Smith printed posters from the '20s
An even earlier 1920's W.E.Smith daybill printing of Held To Answer (1923)
Sherlock Holmes was released in Australia in very early 1933. In the early and mid 1930's Fox poster daybills were designed by the Montgomery Campbell Studio and lithographed by W.E.Smith Ltd. Sydney. Montgomery Campbell appears to have produced the Everyones Fox advertisements as well during this period of time.
.
You will notice that appearing on this particular daybill the Montgomery Campell and the W.E.Smith credits positioning have been reversed on the poster.
I also have other examples of Fox daybills from the early and Mid 1930's including The Big Trail (1930) which was released in Australia in 1931.
The remaining daybill images I have from 1931 have the following credits presentation on them.
To sum things up the Sherlock Holmes printer's credit that was applied to the daybill is incorrect.
I have presented three versions above of Montgomery Campbell / W.E.Smith daybill credit applications used from 1931 to 1935.
The following version is the most commonly used application so most likely was the version originally printed on the Sherlock Holmes daybill. On saying that no 100% proof of this being the case but I strongly believe it to be the correct.
Peter
Put yourself in the position of if you were the buyer of the Sherlock Holmes daybill and you then discovered that the printer's credits were incorrect, how then would you react?
My question is if a section or sections of a film poster as seen in the following example be just treated in the following manner? I will say though that this is a minimal example of restoration.
Happiness Ahead (1934). Second image displayed courtesy of Ves.
The following is the damaged unrestored image of a The Mysterious Pilot (1937) daybill. Although left in its original condition and not tampered with the poster still looks magnificent without any major restoration in both framed and unframed appearance.
Finally poster restoration usually includes colour correction, repairing tears and creases and restoring any missing elements of the artwork.
My question then is if no other original artwork is available for comparison how can the restoring of any missing material be accurate, and not just guessing? Also corrected colour shadings appear to be often over applied.
Some of the images used by me do also appear in the earlier thread that I started in February 2022 titled Restoration pitfalls. You may like to have either a first read of it or as a refresher.
My thoughts. Agree or disagree? Let's heat your thinking on the subject.
If there is MINIMAL (and I mean minimal) amounts of restoration needed to bring the poster back to life and there are references available, I dont mind that. However, anything I get restored is for me to enjoy...I dont think about the resale value...Ive had so many done, that I would never get my money back if I tried to sell them. But I love the posters and they bring me so much joy.
When there is no reference available, but you need to stablise the paper, just leave the bits that are missing, alone...dont guess.
I used that Mysterious Pilot as my inspiration for this one:
I can't find another copy anywhere...not a heavy hitting poster but I love it. Loved it since I laid eyes on it, but it was falling about. So had it backed, but left alone...No guessing what should be there.
Any additional feedback from any other members regarding my earlier comments would be most welcomed. I am very interested in hearing any other members thoughts, even if they may differ from nine.
Peter