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

[Mirosae]

^ touchè 

[timelessmoviemagic]

How many vintage still would you say you have in your collection, Louie?

Agreed, some of the prices are very high.

[erik1925]

Agreed, some of the prices are very high.

Seem so. I guess, like posters, things like title, condition, actor, and if signed, whether that signature is genuine or a facsimile, can all come into play.

[crowzilla]

Anyone who has been following still prices for a while knows that they are one of the hottest areas of the market for a few years now - especially if you attach names like Hurrell, Sinclair-Bull, or Abbe to them. Profiles has been especially strong in them where prices average in the mid-four figures and it's not unusual for stellar examples to bring five figures.

Definitely a case of rising tides lifting all boats, and one area of the market where (finally!) classic images and titles dominate sci-fi/horror (though of course they do well also).

[MoviePosterBid.com]

Sean is totally correct.

what Profiles has done with stills is incredible and that's why their catalogs are sometimes full of more stills lots than other Hollywood memorabilia

[erik1925]

Amazing result for a poster described as a commercial reproduction created and meant to be sold directly to the public. The updated, 1995 NSS# was a nice touch, too. I wonder what these were sold for, when new, to those that attended the screening back then.

And considering what an original HS goes for, I guess it all balances out in the wash.

The winning bid was $411.00

http://auctions.emovieposter.com/Bidding.taf?_function=detail&Auction_uid1=4247349

[jayn_j]

Amazing result for a poster described as a commercial reproduction created and meant to be sold directly to the public. The updated, 1995 NSS# was a nice touch, too. I wonder what these were sold for, when new, to those that attended the screening back then.

And considering what an original HS goes for, I guess it all balances out in the wash.

The winning bid was $411.00

http://auctions.emovieposter.com/Bidding.taf?_function=detail&Auction_uid1=4247349

I own one of these, and was the one that sent Bruce the added info.  This poster has an interesting history.  Back in 1995, members of MOPO got together and decided to create a special repro of an iconic poster.  The FB half sheet was chosen because it was iconic and also science fiction themed.  The half sheet because it would be on heavier stock and easier to handle.  The group agreed that only 100 would be printed, and that 100 immediately sold out.  They went to the trouble of contacting the remanants of the NSS and managed to get a number assigned  (9503-56)  They then arranged a special arthouse showing in NYC and placed a copy of the poster in the lobby, thus making it an actually re-release poster.

Sewems to me that this poster is as legitimate as an Alamo Drafthouse.  Certainly rarer.  The printing process was very carefully monitored, so the quality is also as good or better than anything made.  Thus the price is certainly not out of line.  Oh, you asked what it originally sold for.  We paid $100 plus postage and handling of $10.

I posted a thread on this poster here several years ago, but didn't bother to dig it up for this response.

[jayn_j]

But, actually I came here to discuss another poster.

This one sold on emovieposter last night for $17


I own the 1 sheet and was going to bid on this, but life got in the way and I never got a bid placed.

A lot of members seem to place value on poster art.  IMO, this one is unique and very much in the flavor of Lichtenstein or Worhol.  BTW, I agree that the movie is mediocre at best, but the poster deservers better in my mind.

Edit: I went and looked at auction history.  This generally goes for around $50, so somebody got a bargain this week.

[originalcinemaposters]

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/ORIGINAL-1975-ADVANCE-JAMES-BOND-MAN-WITH-THE-GOLDEN-GUN-UK-QUAD-CALENDAR-POSTER-/142023321066?hash=item21113fe5ea%3Ag%3AQYYAAOSwqBJXXbTY&nma=true&si=V4y1nq87T4RkAWNC3YmY1IHltJI%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557
wow £1,142.00 for this Man with the Goldun Gun Advance quad, once for the completists for sure

[Simes]

And I be that completist...

[originalcinemaposters]

blimey! well done, i am sure its made you very happy!

[Simes]

Quite amazed really.

Was aware from Adam's site that one of these Calendar posters existed for Spy.  And I think mention was made of one for Moonraker.

But never knew one existed for Golden Gun.  I was going to pop this up when it arrived and to ask after its heritage, and raison d'etre.  The calendar dates are for 1975.  The film was released in 1974.  Was the film's release staggered around the country 'from' 1974 to whenever in 1975?

[skyjackers]

Congratulations, but begs the question, do you need to get the other days now?

[Simes]

Good question - much like the Star Wars posters where there was a special showing at a select number of theatres.  Of which only seven (I think) posters were produced; one for each cinema.  And the name of the cinema was printed on the poster.

Indeed, I asked that question.  At $20k a pop, does one collect the other six to cover off the cinema names....?

As for this poster, the white on red number is only a snipe.  There are three or so snipes under it.  So I think I am done.

[paul waines]

Well done for getting it Simon, love it when a passionate collector gets something scarce...

[eatbrie]

I love completists.  True collectors, imo.

T

[Louie D.]

I love completists.  True collectors, imo.

T

+1

[jayn_j]

+1

But there are different types of completists.  You are describing someone who must have every piece of paper from a particular film. I would also consider someone a completist if they had to have a piece of paper from every film in a genre.  For example, Rich's gambling and Chandler collections, Rosa's Bogart obsession, or my own classic musicals collection.

[skyjackers]

You're right. I think each completist sets their own goals. The thing that unites most completists is that they rarely feel complete.

[erik1925]

I looked at the results of EMP tonight and saw that this 1991 commercial poster of Scarlett O'Hara, from GWTW, sold for $365.00!

The fine print looks to read: " ®1991 Turner Entertainment Co. All rights reserved. Gone With the Wind™ and Scarlett™ are trademarks of Turner Entertainment Co and The Stephens Mitchell Trusts"

http://auctions.emovieposter.com/Bidding.taf?_function=detail&Auction_uid1=4270522



In looking at the image, it looked familiar to me, and then I remembered where I had seen it before. The actual, original, life size painting was created as a prop piece for the film, and hung in Rhett Butler's bedroom, in the Atlanta mansion.

The original was painted by a woman named Helen Carlton.

http://atlantahistorycenter.tumblr.com/post/34670222926/portrait-of-scarlett

Here is the original painting today:




And as seen in the movie. The painting needed a bit of repair after Gable damaged it when throwing his whiskey glass at it:

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/x9U8ACSoZqY" target="_blank" class="new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/x9U8ACSoZqY</a>

[eatbrie]

That reprint is absolutely awful.  The yellow sky when it should be blueish white, the blue dress that's not even blue, everything is off, and the title at the bottom.  So cheesy.  I can't believe anyone would spend more than $1 on it.

T

[erik1925]

I did a quick look around to find the GWTW commercial poster and didnt find anything. I wonder if it was offered thru Turner (the network) directly, or if it was available in stores that carried other commercial movie posters of this type? I was curious what a regular copy sold for, either now, or back when it was new and first sold.

I agree... that figure is quite the price to pay for a poster of this kind, printer's test, or otherwise. 

And I wonder how many that bid on it actually knew it was a repro of the painting from the film? This wasn't mentioned in the description, so it would be by recognition only. Maybe that factoid would have driven the final price higher?

Hard to know.

[Damomac]

A printers test of a repo can't see how that is worth anything at all. Well done to the seller. EMP should not be selling half repos with half true originals they should be sold on different days. Newer collectors could easily may an error and it just doesn't look good at all

[erik1925]

Based on EMP's description, they didnt know where the original image came from either, and probably thought it was created in 1991 specifically as the design for this commercial poster.  So I dont know if Id actually call that poster a repro, (as the definition is typically used in the hobby), as the original wasn't a poster but a life size (approx 5 x 7 foot tall) oil painting. Yes, it reproduces that art, but is not a reproduction poster that was made to fool or deceive anyone.

It's a commercial piece, similar to those kinds of posters one can buy at a museum, for example, where posters of great masters' works are offered for sale at the gift shop area. It was also described by EMP as just that - a commercial poster.

I bet when this poster was originally offered in 1991, it's appeal WAS that the original image was actually used in the movie, and described as such.

[Damomac]

Thanks for the comment Jeff - as i am learning about poster collecting in general your comment was much appreciated,