S2 vs The "Real Deal"

[erik1925]

Early in December, I saw that someone had listed & was selling his S2 litho of The Mummy. In his description, this seller mentioned how he had had the opportunity to see a genuine US OS, and said that the 2 were almost indistinguishable. That got me curious to look at several areas of each poster and compare them side by side.

While the S2 is close in many ways, there are visible differences in the artwork (since the S2 image was based on the original, and not merely copied). The S2s are incredible pieces of art, tho, without question!  

Just for fun, i did several side by sides: The S2 image is on the left, the US OS on the right:

   

[eatbrie]

Awful, just awful.  Sorry Jeff, but you can't even compare.

T

[wonka]

 

This alone shows how much better the OG is. In the S2, she looks like she got punched in the face/designed by a daybill pro. (Sorry, Chris...had to).

[erik1925]

T,

The original US OS is the ticket,.. without question. This was more to show that there are very real differences in the S2 version.. the stone litho presses and process the S2 Group used were a great way to produce these.

But as the side by side images show, they are far from "mirror, spittin' images" of each other, as the seller in Dec described it to be, even after him seeing a genuine MUMMY OS in person.

[erik1925]

This alone shows how much better the OG is. In the S2, she looks like she got punched in the face/designed by a daybill pro. (Sorry, Chris...had to).

Johann's left jawline on the S2 is completely outta whack. 

[CSM]

This alone shows how much better the OG is. In the S2, she looks like she got punched in the face/designed by a daybill pro. (Sorry, Chris...had to).

It's OK Ben.  I agree on this one.  A butchering for sure. 

See usually on daybills the whole of the art is butchered so a terrible mug like that is less noticeable as it blends in nicely.




PS - I am no "fan" of the S2's.  If I wanted the Mummy image I'd rather spend $10 on a more faithful reproduction even if it doesn't have the authentic period litho feel to it.  But I can understand (somewhat) their appeal to others.  But certainly not the $400+ worth of appeal they have attained many a time ---> that's ridiculous

[wonka]

It's OK Ben.  I agree on this one.  A butchering for sure. 

See usually on daybills the whole of the art is butchered so a terrible mug like that is less noticeable as it blends in nicely.




PS - I am no "fan" of the S2's.  If I wanted the Mummy image I'd rather spend $10 on a more faithful reproduction even if it doesn't have the authentic period litho feel to it.  But I can understand (somewhat) their appeal to others.  But certainly not the $400+ worth of appeal they have attained many a time ---> that's ridiculous

I laughed.

Yeah, I don't get the hefty price tag on these. Are all of them altered so drastically?

[MoviePosterBid.com]

I laughed.

Yeah, I don't get the hefty price tag on these. Are all of them altered so drastically?

not exactly "altered" Ben.

each one has an additional name in the bottom border - the artist who actually re-drew all of the posters for the S2Art prints.

I have a Kong 3sh here.. I never checked to see if it is exact.. But it probably isn't

of course, I don't know why what Greg Douglas (former guitarist for such bands as Steve Miller and Joe Walsh) is such a big deal.. If a major dealer like Grey, or Peter or Myself etc were to make the statement.. I could see that as a statement to critique.. Greg can hardly be classified as a dealer

S2Art prints are not reproductions, they are replicas

[wonka]

not exactly "altered" Ben.

each one has an additional name in the bottom border - the artist who actually re-drew all of the posters for the S2Art prints.

I have a Kong 3sh here.. I never checked to see if it is exact.. But it probably isn't

of course, I don't know why what Greg Douglas (former guitarist for such bands as Steve Miller and Joe Walsh) is such a big deal.. If a major dealer like Grey, or Peter or Myself etc were to make the statement.. I could see that as a statement to critique.. Greg can hardly be classified as a dealer

S2Art prints are not reproductions, they are replicas

Used this on Bruce, and I like it...so:

[MoviePosterBid.com]

what's the stare relate to Ben.. the S2's are recreations, not exact reprints. An artist completely re-drew every poster they produced in this series.

Greg Douglass... he's a rock musician, not a poster dealer

what else was there?

[50s]

Up until recently I thought S2's were made from the original plates. Was there a find of original plates not long ago or am I losing my marbles?

[MoviePosterBid.com]

you're losing your marbles

[MoviePosterBid.com]

correction, you already lost your marbles, but if you had any marbles left, you'd be losing them now.

[CSM]

Up until recently I thought S2's were made from the original plates. Was there a find of original plates not long ago or am I losing my marbles?

They did not use the original plates but did use a period-correct lithography machine/printing press (which probably has a proper name that escapes me right now)

[MoviePosterBid.com]

I don't know where you got that information Chris

I spoke to Jack Solomon at length about these posters when the Dracula forgery scandal was going on and I went down there to shoot pics of the Dracula for debunking John at Poster Mountain when he authenticated the fake for Profiles in History and Jack explained that David Copson redrew the posters for the institute

the bottom corners from Dracula. Copson's name is in the bottom right corner and the date he did the art in the left





furthermore, the actual plates for printing 99.9% of the time are repurposed for subsequent jobs at the printer and due to their bulk are not cost effective to store. What is more common to continue to exist would be the films from which the plates are made, but I am not aware that the films for any of these posters exist.

[MoviePosterBid.com]

here is a bio of Copson.

http://inyostudio.com/bio.html

[CSM]

I don't know where you got that information Chris

That information is widely circulated Rich.  Examples:

http://www.learnaboutmovieposters.com/newsite/index/articles/S2.asp

http://www.allposterforum.com/index.php?topic=3518.0 (the Certificate that comes with them suggests as much)

http://www.jackgallery.com/ (S2 Art Group says they use "antique presses")

[erik1925]

They did not use the original plates but did use a period-correct lithography machine/printing press (which probably has a proper name that escapes me right now)

Chris, i think you were referring to these presses, used by the S2 Group:

"At the heart of the Sē Ateliers are five extremely rare, made-in-Paris Marinoni Voirin editioning presses. Each is over 100 years old. As far as we can determine, there are only seven of these magnificent machines left in the world, and Sē is the proud owner of five of them. (We are continually trying to purchase the remaining two.)"*

Full page here, from which the above snippet was taken from:

http://www.jackgallery.com/s2atelier.php  *

[CSM]

[CSM]

Thanks Jeff - yes indeed.  And the post above has a nice pic of said press

[MoviePosterBid.com]

Chris

LAMP can say all they want about original plates, but it is a mistake
All Poster Forum is hardly the place to find the data if it was sourced from an incorrect source.

and the AFI site refers to the presses, not the original plates

to add info, there are reasons the posters were recreated, the main reason being copyrights and a lack of availability to materials allowing exact replicas.

On copyrights, the only way that the AFI & S2Art could claim copyright protection for the posters was by acquiring new art. The original posters are not under copyright and you cannot copyright the images today. So anyone could take an S2 print and reproduce it if it was a reprint, rather than a recreation. The recreations however are a new piece of art that enjoy full copyright protections and no one can lawfully reproduce any S2Art print without threat of civil action.

again, all explained by Jack Solomon

[CSM]

Chris

LAMP can say all they want about original plates, but it is a mistake
All Poster Forum is hardly the place to find the data if it was sourced from an incorrect source.

and the AFI site refers to the presses, not the original plates

to add info, there are reasons the posters were recreated, the main reason being copyrights and a lack of availability to materials allowing exact replicas.

On copyrights, the only way that the AFI & S2Art could claim copyright protection for the posters was by acquiring new art. The original posters are not under copyright and you cannot copyright the images today. So anyone could take an S2 print and reproduce it if it was a reprint, rather than a recreation. The recreations however are a new piece of art that enjoy full copyright protections and no one can lawfully reproduce any S2Art print without threat of civil action.

again, all explained by Jack Solomon

Rich you had better re-read my post - I said nothing about them using the original plates - in fact, I said the exact opposite

[MoviePosterBid.com]

oops.. indeed you did.. it was Steve who stated he thought they used original plates

[MoviePosterBid.com]

by the way.. those 2 presses now reside just down the street from where I live.
the company that bought the S2Art remains through the auction is a hop, skip and a jump from here. They maintain a gallery location on Valley View.

[erik1925]

Thanks Jeff - yes indeed.  And the post above has a nice pic of said press

Hard to imagine that the heaviest of those presses (from the 1860s) weighs in at 11 TONS!