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

[erik1925]

A different seller jumping into the game with a high opening bid. Can you blame them? Maybe they are a member here.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/La-La-Land-Original-Australian-Double-Sided-One-Sheet-movie-poster-/162369437777?

Even with 8 watchers and a little under 2 days to go, until it recycles again (it is a BIN or Best offer), maybe folks are holding off, realizing that this isn't (an almost) $700.00 poster. 

[Simes]

More along the lines of whether I need another 3 sheet, and if so, probably better to wait for the right one to come along.  I gave it some thought, but in the end it didn't seem right.

Fair play fella.  Hope the right one turns up....

[50s]

Grading VG to Fine sounds dodgy. What is fine about it having pieces missing and a big water stain!
https://movieposters.ha.com/itm/drama/the-barefoot-contessa-united-artists-1954-one-sheet-27-x-41-drama/a/161706-51030.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515

[DekeThornton]

Grading VG to Fine sounds dodgy. What is fine about it having pieces missing and a big water stain!
https://movieposters.ha.com/itm/drama/the-barefoot-contessa-united-artists-1954-one-sheet-27-x-41-drama/a/161706-51030.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515

Ava Gardner looks pretty "fine" to me!

[motsm]

There is a linen backed, R81 Raiders of the Lost Ark poster on ebay right now, for $65 + shipping. Only major problem I see, is it has some uneven fading, mostly on the left side. It's high on my want list, and maybe I'm dumb to pass on it, but the fading is a bit much for me.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Raiders-of-the-Lost-Ark-Linen-Backed-/322420805943

I was thinking it could be this poster, auctioned at emovieposter.com in 2015, what do you guys think?. http://www.emovieposter.com/agallery/archiveitem/3592969.html

[50s]

There is a linen backed, R81 Raiders of the Lost Ark poster on ebay right now, for $65 + shipping. Only major problem I see, is it has some uneven fading, mostly on the left side. It's high on my want list, and maybe I'm dumb to pass on it, but the fading is a bit much for me.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Raiders-of-the-Lost-Ark-Linen-Backed-/322420805943

I was thinking it could be this poster, auctioned at emovieposter.com in 2015, what do you guys think?. http://www.emovieposter.com/agallery/archiveitem/3592969.html

Maybe fade it a bit on the right side to balance it up?

[motsm]

Maybe fade it a bit on the right side to balance it up?

So you're thinking two wrongs could make a right in this situation, heh?

It was listed a couple days ago at $75, I'm pretty surprised it didn't sell then.

[50s]

It doesn't look the same to me:
- edge threads different
- one has wavy wrinkles at bottom
- one has touch up right edge by credits
- most telling is linen overhang is same all sides on one, bigger at bottom than sides on the other.

I think this is left side faded variant

[motsm]

It doesn't look the same to me:
- edge threads different
- one has wavy wrinkles at bottom
- one has touch up right edge by credits
- most telling is linen overhang is same all sides on one, bigger at bottom than sides on the other.

I think this is left side faded variant

Yeah, you are right about the linen size, they are different for sure.

By variant, are you thinking there was a run that printed with this faded look? Perhaps unintentionally?

[50s]

Sorry, just kidding, though seems strange the effect is on different ones

[Chris9000]

I see it is ended now... did you bite on it?

There is a linen backed, R81 Raiders of the Lost Ark poster on ebay right now, for $65 + shipping. Only major problem I see, is it has some uneven fading, mostly on the left side. It's high on my want list, and maybe I'm dumb to pass on it, but the fading is a bit much for me.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Raiders-of-the-Lost-Ark-Linen-Backed-/322420805943

I was thinking it could be this poster, auctioned at emovieposter.com in 2015, what do you guys think?. http://www.emovieposter.com/agallery/archiveitem/3592969.html

[motsm]

I see it is ended now... did you bite on it?

No, it was tempting, as I don't have a huge poster budget, but I'd rather spend more and get one without the fading. Looks like the seller ended the listing manually though, so who knows if it actually sold.

[Chris9000]

I'd rather spend more and get one without the fading.

Seems like the logical choice to me! 

[erik1925]

+1

Good decision, methinks, too. Between the rippled backing and the fading <---which can't be fixed, you're better off waiting for a copy that's correct from to to bottom.

[BruceH]

First, what makes it "R81"?

Second, the seller says "The color is slightly lighter on the left side which may be considered a defect". Is it really "slightly" lighter, and is there anyone who wouldn't "consider it a defect"?

[motsm]

First, what makes it "R81"?

Yeah, I misspoke, was just thinking of the R82 version, it's the 1981 poster

[50s]

Second, the seller says "The color is slightly lighter on the left side which may be considered a defect". Is it really "slightly" lighter, and is there anyone who wouldn't "consider it a defect"?

It might be considered an enhancement if it brings the price down into someone's budget

[erik1925]

A different seller jumping into the game with a high opening bid. Can you blame them? Maybe they are a member here.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/La-La-Land-Original-Australian-Double-Sided-One-Sheet-movie-poster-/162369437777?

This listing ended on 2/14/17 with no takers, looks like.

[erik1925]

Im confused about what year this Belgian poster for Casablanca is actually from because the description is saying 2 different things:

http://auctions.emovieposter.com/Bidding.taf?_function=detail&Auction_uid1=4555724

First, the description states:

"We do not know exactly when it was released in Belgium, but it was released in France in 1947, and it is extremely likely that it was released in Belgium at the same time or very soon after, and this poster is from that first Belgian release."

But then further down, it states:

"...it is the small size Belgian that we have only seen on Belgian posters from during and right after World War II, but it is possible that the movie was re-released in the early 1950s, and that they printed the posters from the exact same plates, which would account for the smaller size. Please do not bid on this poster unless you can accept the uncertainty as to its year of origin."

So how can it be definitely said that it's from the first Belgian release, when there is also wording that suggests there is uncertainty about its year of origin? And if there is some question, why does the auction title say it's a first release from 1947? From the emp info, it reads like this could also be a possible, later RR. 

[MoviePosterBid.com]

this again?
when do they learn?

[Harry Caul]

Im confused about what year this Belgian poster for Casablanca is actually from because the description is saying 2 different things:

http://auctions.emovieposter.com/Bidding.taf?_function=detail&Auction_uid1=4555724



First, the description states:

"We do not know exactly when it was released in Belgium, but it was released in France in 1947, and it is extremely likely that it was released in Belgium at the same time or very soon after, and this poster is from that first Belgian release."

But then further down, it states:

"...it is the small size Belgian that we have only seen on Belgian posters from during and right after World War II, but it is possible that the movie was re-released in the early 1950s, and that they printed the posters from the exact same plates, which would account for the smaller size. Please do not bid on this poster unless you can accept the uncertainty as to its year of origin."

So how can it be definitely said that it's from the first Belgian release, when there is also wording that suggests there is uncertainty about its year of origin? And if there is some question, why does the auction title say it's a first release from 1947? Could this also be a possible, later RR? 

Seems to me he's hedging while being as transparent as possible, which everyone does with this poster.  Some claim the only true first release poster is printed on old recycled maps.  Others claim there are original first release posters not on maps -- on normal white paper.  Both appear to have exactly the same print quality/density/colors/fine printers info/etc... But some of these seemingly exact same posters also show up in early 50s distribution (known from the tax stamp cancelation dates).  Was there a second early 50s printing using the exact same plates?  Were there left-overs from the 46/47 release that were later sent out in the early 50s?  Or are all of these from the early 50s release and printed with the same plates used to print the handful of map-back posters that have surfaced (with nearly identical output)?  I don't think anyone will ever know for sure. 

Anyways, it's one of the best Casablanca images IMO -- wish it were printed in a larger size 

[50s]

The spot of lipstick on her lower lip bothers me

[bigmike]

The spot of lipstick on her lower lip bothers me

  lol. I agree, it's kind of distracting.

[erik1925]

Seems to me he's hedging while being as transparent as possible, which everyone does with this poster.  Some claim the only true first release poster is printed on old recycled maps.  Others claim there are original first release posters not on maps -- on normal white paper.  Both appear to have exactly the same print quality/density/colors/fine printers info/etc... But some of these seemingly exact same posters also show up in early 50s distribution (known from the tax stamp cancelation dates).  Was there a second early 50s printing using the exact same plates?  Were there left-overs from the 46/47 release that were later sent out in the early 50s?  Or are all of these from the early 50s release and printed with the same plates used to print the handful of map-back posters that have surfaced (with nearly identical output)?  I don't think anyone will ever know for sure. 

Anyways, it's one of the best Casablanca images IMO -- wish it were printed in a larger size 

Then it would seem to boil down to this: Do not call it a 1947 First release poster in the bold red title, and then speak about it possibly being a later RR down in the fine print.

Since this poster seems to be a bit of a mystery, shouldnt it be titled accordingly, rather than calling it something it might not be? There's no harm in that.

[MoviePosterBid.com]

Then it would seem to boil down to this: Do not call it a 1947 First release poster in the bold red title, and then speak about it possibly being a later RR down in the fine print.

Since this poster seems to be a bit of a mystery, shouldnt it be titled accordingly, rather than calling it something it might not be? There's no harm in that.

I 1000% agree with Jeff.

if you don't know what it is, assigning a designation to it is false advertising

it totally destroys your own blabber that you're the only honest auction around.