Post-auction analysis - OMGs!, LOLs!, WTFs!, whatev....

[erik1925]

The Universal first release material as compared to the later RR campaigns done by Realart, could make for an interesting, tho separate thread/discussion, too.

[Antoine1973]

Rich, I agree that not all Realart OS are bad, but I still can't say that I find any of them superior to the first release versions. 

The 2 examples that you provide (House of Dracula and The Wolf Man) are interesting, because I think in both cases, the original OS wasn't very good to begin with.  I always found the House of Dracula OS to be oddly cluttered, and the floating heads of Frankenstein and the Wolf Man seem especially awkward-looking to me, so I agree that the Realart version isn't necessarily inferior (although I'm not a big fan of the use of photographs for the various characters instead of their drawn likeness on the first release paper).  Similarly, I never found the first release OS for The Wolf Man very interesting: the composition is weak and unbalanced, at least to my eyes (I'm fully aware how subjective such opinions are).  Therefore I could see how the oddly surreal montage of the 1948 Realart version, which seems to echo Salvador Dali or Giorgio de Chirico, might be considered more appealing visually, although personally I find it wacky as can be.

In other words, to each his own.  I'm certainly not trying to argue for my opinion to be the correct one.

[MoviePosterBid.com]

Rich, I agree that not all Realart OS are bad, but I still can't say that I find any of them superior to the first release versions. 

The 2 examples that you provide (House of Dracula and The Wolf Man) are interesting, because I think in both cases, the original OS wasn't very good to begin with.  I always found the House of Dracula OS to be oddly cluttered, and the floating heads of Frankenstein and the Wolf Man seem especially awkward-looking to me, so I agree that the Realart version isn't necessarily inferior (although I'm not a big fan of the use of photographs for the various characters instead of their drawn likeness on the first release paper).  Similarly, I never found the first release OS for The Wolf Man very interesting: the composition is weak and unbalanced, at least to my eyes (I'm fully aware how subjective such opinions are).  Therefore I could see how the oddly surreal montage of the 1948 Realart version, which seems to echo Salvador Dali or Giorgio de Chirico, might be considered more appealing visually, although personally I find it wacky as can be.

In other words, to each his own.  I'm certainly not trying to argue for my opinion to be the correct one.

poster & art collecting is totally based on to each his own
what people like is usually very subjective

that said, I know a number of people who think the 1947R one sheets on Dracula or Frankenstein are superior to the 1931 paper
I have no opinion particularly, because realistically, most of the posters -original release and any re-release except a few - are great posters

[crowzilla]

that said, I know a number of people who think the 1947R one sheets on Dracula or Frankenstein are superior to the 1931 paper
I have no opinion particularly, because realistically, most of the posters -original release and any re-release except a few - are great posters

There is no doubt the 47 Dracula 1-sheet is superior to the original release posters.

The Realart Frankenstein insert might be the best piece on the title.

Some prefer the Realart Wolf Man insert because of the full length image of the monster.

Realart does have the only scene card out of the entire Universal cannon that shows two monsters in make-up though - the close-up fight card from Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man.

And Jeff posted that great Chaney portrait card from Mummy's Ghost in the other thread.

[Louie D.]

Would be interesting to hear where this one came from:

http://auctions.emovieposter.com/Bidding.taf?_function=detail&auction_uid1=4668161

the only copy I ever saw was from a well known film collector who also had tons of movie paper. He passed away and his house got broken into and all the paper stuff "disappeared".

[crowzilla]

Rich, must you take such crass and unsubstantiated potshots at EMP/BH? The evidence:
HA last sold one of these in 2012 for the 2017 equivalent of $15,874:
EMP sold its one - the same condition as HA's (although lbacked) - for $15,150:

Although not as bad as the "evidence" a few months back that EMP knocked it out of the park with their Casablanca offering (before you came back Mel), this really isn't a good comparison.
2012 was at the apex of the 2011-2013 period where the bottom fell out of Universal horror.  Prices seen at auctions across the board during this time (whether at HA or EMP) were usually 50% or less than the going rate of the 2008-2011 peak prices.

The best of the best of this material has recovered somewhat of course, but it seems quite obvious that prices on a lot of the material have quite a ways to go to reach the prices they were selling for 10 years ago (if they ever do).

[guest4955]

Although not as bad as the "evidence" a few months back that EMP knocked it out of the park with their Casablanca offering (before you came back Mel), this really isn't a good comparison.

Good points Sean, but really I'm more concerned with Rich taking endless potshots at EMP/HA, driving Bruce off this and other forums. This is still going on three years after I left the hobby! BH still makes excellent posts on another forum and he's sorely missed here.

[MoviePosterBid.com]

Good points Sean, but really I'm more concerned with Rich taking endless potshots at EMP/HA, driving Bruce off this and other forums. This is still going on three years after I left the hobby! BH still makes excellent posts on another forum and he's sorely missed here.

what a laugh.

pay attention Mel, my comment was very specific, that HA would have done much better with the Frankenstein poster. That's no potshot at anyone, it's a simple statement from a knowledgeable dealer & collector who has the inside scoop on the poster collecting hobby in ways you can only dream of.

[erik1925]

Scarlett Empress OS just closed at $27,001.00

http://auctions.emovieposter.com/Bidding.taf?_function=detail&Auction_uid1=4669824

[guest4955]

So the sublime Scarlett Empress goes for $27K:





PS Well Jeff already posted this but I'll leave up the pics.

[erik1925]

The pressbook cover for Bride Of Frankenstein closed at $7850.00 this afternoon.

http://auctions.emovieposter.com/Bidding.taf?_function=detail&Auction_uid1=4669917

[Simes]

A pressbook Cover??

Wonder what the price might have been had the whole pressbook had been available?

Hope whomever bought it has the rest and can cobble it all together.

[MoviePosterBid.com]

A pressbook Cover??

Wonder what the price might have been had the whole pressbook had been available?

Hope whomever bought it has the rest and can cobble it all together.

HA sold one in March 2016 and it was $34k. They sold a back cover for $2600 a few auctions ago also. I think Bruce sold one a couple years ago also, for 25-30k

it's a great pressbook, as is the Kong.
I wonder what a sharp condition copy would sell for

[erik1925]

HA sold one in March 2016 and it was $34k. They sold a back cover for $2600 a few auctions ago also. I think Bruce sold one a couple years ago also, for 25-30k

it's a great pressbook, as is the Kong.
I wonder what a sharp condition copy would sell for

$29,500.00 back in Dec of 2015.

http://www.emovieposter.com/agallery/archiveitem/12534736.html

[MoviePosterBid.com]

yeah I knew it was something like that.. Wouldn't it be great to find those 3 sheets!

[erik1925]

yeah I knew it was something like that.. Wouldn't it be great to find those 3 sheets!

You know it. 

[erik1925]

This more rare, partly restored WC from D.W. Griffith's flicker, Way Down East (1920), also closed today, at $915.00

http://auctions.emovieposter.com/Bidding.taf?_function=detail&Auction_uid1=4669981

[guest4955]

When the hell did ROTJ become a $2600 MP?


 
This was 400ish tops 4-5 years ago.

Less than 2 years ago EMP resold mine for 525, although mine was l-backed (bleh! not by me).

T has 8 of these deep in the bowels of his collection. Could buy a car with them now....

[MoviePosterBid.com]

Profiles in History got even more than that, almost 5k

C-9 rolled is a $2500 poster and has increased dramatically the past 2 years

[guest4955]

The prices are still sane on eBay, running $300-$500. All seemed legit from a quick review of the listings:

[erik1925]

The lower priced copies shown on ebay are all folded copies, too, which, I would assume, also accounts for some of the price difference.

The $2600.00 copy from emp was rolled (never folded).

When you sort those sold on emp (rolled, and not backed) from high to low, it shows a different story, price wise, too, with prices hovering higher. A rolled copy auctioned back in 2005 sold for $2042.77:

http://www.emovieposter.com/agallery/archiveitem/15727597.html

Sorted from high $$ to low $$:

http://www.emovieposter.com/agallery/film_title/RETURN%2520OF%2520THE%2520JEDI/style/teaser/style/UF/sort/4/archive.html

[MoviePosterBid.com]

Mr Dopey, those are folded copies. All the big prices on that poster are for rolled copies.

[guest4955]

I didn't say they were the same just "sane." The folds don't seriously detract from this particular poster IMO.

[erik1925]

The folds may not detract for you, from an aesthetic POV, but for many collectors, I'm sure a premium is placed on rolled copes (as is the case with many posters where both folded and rolled copies are available).

[eatbrie]

T has 8 of these deep in the bowels of his collection. Could buy a car with them now....

I don't have 8, unfortunately, or I'd be rich and wouldn't talk to any of you people, but I have a few rolled mint.  3 or 4, I think.  Waiting for them to hit $10k and then I'll trade 

T