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

[movieposterstudio]

Not sure what this is, although Esquire Magazine is a brit publication..could it have been a give away?

Stew

Stew, Esquire was a US publication originally. Like the Life Magazine posters, I've always understood they were cross-promotional and used in movie theatres, but maybe one of the US members can verify this for sure.
I wouldn't be surprised if Mr Waines didn't have some similar cross-promotional quads and DCs in his collection...

Paul 

[stewart boyle]

Stew, Esquire was a US publication originally. Like the Life Magazine posters, I've always understood they were cross-promotional and used in movie theatres, but maybe one of the US members can verify this for sure.
I wouldn't be surprised if Mr Waines didn't have some similar cross-promotional quads and DCs in his collection...

Paul 

Thanks Paul,I learn something new every day..

Regards
Stew

[Ari]

Thanks Paul,I learn something new every day..

Regards
Stew

1+1=2

(there's another one for ya)

[stewart boyle]

1+1=2

(there's another one for ya)

Where`s my calculator.....

Stew

[movieposterstudio]

I haven't seen this poster before. Have you guys?

Actually, I've now seen there is still an example on ebay courtesy of Dave L, and Heritage have sold a few in the past, so where have you been looking Bruce? Or have I fallen into a subtle advertising trap for emovieposter ?
BTW that French Invisible Man is quite amazing.

Paul

[Ari]

subtle

hehe

[Harry Caul]

Yup, I'd steer clear... here is a close-up comparison:

On the left is the seller's copy (taken on a blue background).  On the right is a folded copy from here (taken on a black background): http://www.filmposters.com/movie-poster.asp?ProdID=14819  I wanted to find a comparison picture where you could see the complete poster including the edges.  The seller's uses artwork that has been significantly cropped.  The shadows on her face look too dark too... contrast issues (especially shadow detail) are usually a clear sign of a reproduction.

I feel sorry for the poor sucker who wins this poster.  I bet it goes well north of a $1000.

It sold for $2000.  Ouch.  Mel, how do we find out who won it?  And can they be contacted?  I thought I remember you saying they could...

[erik1925]

Did anyone from APF ever write the Goldfinger quad seller to tell them what they didn't have and get any reply? Or was this seller sitting silent, as far as anyone knows?

Hate to see that someone got taken for 2 grand, potentially. In cases like this, one would think one or 2 "Red Flag" emails to ebay directly, and alerting them, would have been enough for them to cancel this listing before it had a chance to finish.

A real shame. Hopefully, the buyer can be notified. Looks like this was a Private Listing auction. All IDs are hidden.  

[paul waines]

What was someone saying about Mr Waines and cross-dressing....





I think I did send an email to the seller, but got no reply, which was why I posted it on here in the hope the guy with too much money and no Knowledge could bail out.

[movieposterstudio]

What was someone saying about Mr Waines and cross-dressing....

I said cross-PROMOTIONAL, Mr Waines, cross-PROMOTIONAL. Whatever you do in the privacy of your own home is your own business.  

I sent another email to the seller, but that time was met with a stony silence. Going by the number of times "original" is mentioned in the auctions, I don't think he/she was going to be talked out of it. We can only hope the buyer isn't persuaded to pay by cheque, is savvy enough to recognize what they receive, and get a PayPal refund.

Paul

[Harry Caul]

By the way, I think pointing out suspect auctions is a perfect use for this thread...

I hope no one is planning on bidding on this Thunderball quad on eBay...



For starters, it looks far too glossy.  Also, if it truly measures 30x40, the this is printed differently than every other example I could find.  Heritage has sold 3 and Christies has sold 19 (with images, actually much more than 19) and none match the poster on eBay.  Here is an image from Heritage:



On the originals, the bottom line of text is almost all the way at the bottom (with the fine print text barely making it on the poster) and there is a disproportionately large amount of white space at the top.  It looks like whoever made the repro centered the image vertically.

Buyer beware.  I would also recommend sending the seller links to HA and Christies to let them know this looks suspect.  It has already been bid up to $250.  If the sale goes through I bet it gets close to a grand.  As a Bond quad collector I have to say that all these fakes popping up on eBay is very disconcerting....

[erik1925]

Yup, I'd steer clear... here is a close-up comparison:

On the left is the seller's copy (taken on a blue background).  On the right is a folded copy from here (taken on a black background): http://www.filmposters.com/movie-poster.asp?ProdID=14819  I wanted to find a comparison picture where you could see the complete poster including the edges.  The seller's uses artwork that has been significantly cropped.  The shadows on her face look too dark too... contrast issues (especially shadow detail) are usually a clear sign of a reproduction.

I feel sorry for the poor sucker who wins this poster.  I bet it goes well north of a $1000.

Since this was discussed recently, yet another has appeared on the shores of the bay; this one for $9500.00 (at that price, I hope there wont be an issue with pointing this auction out, for comparative purposes). But this looks to be the real deal. No cropped artwork and the shadows/eyeliner dont appear to be overly dark.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/GOLDFINGER-SEAN-CONNERY-JAMES-BOND-1964-BRITISH-QUAD-NM-/150675533817?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2314f62ff9

[erik1925]

By the way, I think pointing out suspect auctions is a perfect use for this thread...

I agree on this, wholeheartedly.  

Edit: and, hopefully, one's suspicions are correct.

[stewart boyle]

I agree on this, wholeheartedly.  

Something else i was thinking about,do we need to move on from the un-written gentlemans agreement of not outing an auction..?
If we tried (vainly) to keep this stuff between our selves,to me it`s just folly...
It would only mean someone else benefits by snatching the poster in question...

Stew

[archie leach]

By the way, I think pointing out suspect auctions is a perfect use for this thread...

This too can also be problematic...Just ask Dale about those uncut no-date Revenge of the Jedi one sheets that were Keyser Söze'd from his grasp. 

One man's suspect auction can be another man's potential find.

Just sayin'...

[Harry Caul]

Simple, when it doubt, don't post it until after the auction ends.  It seemed pretty clear cut in this case after a bit of research.

[stewart boyle]

Simple, when it doubt, don't post it until after the auction ends.  It seemed pretty clear cut in this case after a bit of research.

Harry,I suspect you where replying to Arch ?

Stew

[movieposterstudio]

Since this was discussed recently, yet another has appeared on the shores of the bay; this one for $9500.00 (at that price, I hope there wont be an issue with pointing this auction out, for comparative purposes). But this looks to be the real deal. No cropped artwork and the shadows/eyeliner dont appear to be overly dark.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/GOLDFINGER-SEAN-CONNERY-JAMES-BOND-1964-BRITISH-QUAD-NM-/150675533817?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2314f62ff9

Yep, it's a real Goldfinger. That's John Hazelton, a reliable long-time seller.

The Thunderball on the other hand looks a wrong 'un. Quads with the print misaligned (or possibly just incorrectly cut) are very unusual but not unknown, but that one looks, well er, minty white. The background colour should be more of a creamy/very light green colour. I've just sent a message to the seller to see if looks are deceptive.

Paul

[archie leach]

Simple, when it doubt, don't post it until after the auction ends.  It seemed pretty clear cut in this case after a bit of research.

I am only speaking in the most abstract here (I tend agree that it looks wobbly), but there are level of clarity and oddballs do pop up from time to time.  Posting known repro like a portal or hairy belt where there is near 100% certainty is one thing, anything else and waters get murkier...

I paused, but ultimately decided to post a warning regarding the 'second printing' Fight Club (where there is less certainty, but certainly questions) before the auction ended only because we've had a number of new members come aboard since they were discussed and Bruce had already flogged the listing on here multiple times.

It's a sliding scale is all that I'm saying...

[Dread_Pirate_Mel]

It sold for $2000.  Ouch.  Mel, how do we find out who won it?  And can they be contacted?  I thought I remember you saying they could...

My best guess is that it is a trimmed original.  As you noted the poster has been cropped at the top but it may a trim. The colors look right in the broad view. It looks theater-used, although it's hard to believe any rolled examples would show up nowadays. The Stafford text in the lower right looks legit:





Anyone can contact the buyer when s/he leaves feedback here for the seller fluffycarrott:

http://feedback.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewFeedback2&userid=fluffycarrott&&_trksid=p4340.l2560&iid=140745733880&sspagename=VIP:feedback&ftab=FeedbackAsSeller

[wonka]

The Goldfinger quad was reprinted (and sent rolled) for a limited engagement in 2007.

I would bet that this^ is one of those.

[CSM]

To me, it looks far too glossy to be an original (aside from the comparison above which casts quite a bit of doubt)

[wonka]

To me, it looks far too glossy to be an original (aside from the comparison above which casts quite a bit of doubt)

Yes, forgot to mention this. Thanks.

[Dread_Pirate_Mel]

The 2007 re-release, which I have, says "restored and remastered" and is easily distinguishable:

[CSM]

And it's not folded either of course