Alamo Drafthouse Goldfinger Valuation - Red Variant

[Adz931]

Hi guys,

I noticed there are a number of forum members, other than myself, searching for the red variant of Alamo Drafthouse's Goldfinger poster by Todd Slater, both on here and on MPF.

I think it would be a great help if it could be known what price the poster is worth in real terms, either through private sale or auction.

Some info:

There are 300 gold variants - 150 of those are signed by Todd Slater.
They now sell for between $350-1500 privately and through auction houses such as Heritage and Christies.

There are just 10 red variants - all 10 are signed by Todd Slater.
I, personally, have never seen one for sale at an auction such as Heritage or Christies.
I do, however, know one sold for around $550 a year or so ago through an auction direct on a dealers site (thanks to Chad for the price).
As far as I am aware, it didn't get much advertising at all and I think had it have done the poster may have sold for more - what do you think?

Thank you,

[erik1925]

Hi guys,

I noticed there are a number of forum members, other than myself, searching for the red variant of Alamo Drafthouse's Goldfinger poster by Todd Slater, both on here and on MPF.

I think it would be a great help if it could be known what price the poster is worth in real terms, either through private sale or auction.

Some info:

There are 300 gold variants - 150 of those are signed by Todd Slater.
They now sell for between $350-1500 privately and through auction houses such as Heritage and Christies.

There are just 10 red variants - all 10 are signed by Todd Slater.
I, personally, have never seen one for sale at an auction such as Heritage or Christies.
I do, however, know one sold for around $550 a year or so ago through an auction direct on a dealers site (thanks to Chad for the price).
As far as I am aware, it didn't get much advertising at all and I think had it have done the poster may have sold for more - what do you think?

Thank you,

Adam,

Do you have an image you could post here?

Jeff

[bondposters.com]

I will, Jeff, no worries.

I have some images of one of them, but not head on.
I think what I'll do this Friday is take a picture of the gold and red versions, because at the moment the images on the website are images that came direct from the artist.

At least one other member here has a red version though, so if they have a head on image and can post it before Friday, then good stuff! 

[bondposters.com]

The image that came from the artist (it's out of focus as you can tell):

[erik1925]

The image that came from the artist (it's out of focus as you can tell):

 

thanks for posting, adam. very cool.

jeff

[bondposters.com]

Ah, it's no problem.
It will be better when I get a proper photograph taken; one that is in focus.

Yes, this poster is not as nice as the gold variant, but in front of you it is actually better than you would think  

[AmovieMasterpiece]

the gold version is a masterpiece.

the red version = pants.

red? RED!! WTF how many red gold bars have you seen, and the movie is called GOLDFINGER... GOLD..

where did he pluck red from..

[Dr Hackenbush]

Mondo needed a color so they could charge people more to buy it

[Ari]

Actually Gold  often gets red spots on it when exposed to air.

[archie leach]

Mondo needed a color so they could charge people more to buy it

Actually, these never sold through mondo.  They all sold through the artist's website which makes them full on art prints.

[AmovieMasterpiece]

Actually Gold  often gets red spots on it when exposed to air.

oh ok, that makes it perfectly alright.

[bondposters.com]

The story on the red variant:

There was never going to be another variant - it wasn't planned.

Slater's printer experiments with colours on a lot of posters.
The printer happened to have red inks lying around after all the gold variants had been printed.
So, he printed 10 extra prints using the red inks.

There is no artist proof; no unsigned versions.
Only the 10 signed versions that were printed.

(source: Todd Slater - I spoke with him direct about this in 2010)

Also, when it comes to limited editions, the artist almost always keeps print #1, but Slater didn't keep any as far as I am aware.
Hope this answers any questions.

[Dr Hackenbush]

Actually, these never sold through mondo.  They all sold through the artist's website which makes them full on art prints.

My bad.  I figured it was like the variants they release nowadays

[Louie D.]

I've seen the brown variant.  Word is that late at night Slater stuck some fingers up his bum and used the poop on the actual screen.  Only 3 copies printed that night as he had his quota of Taco Bell that day. 

[brude]

I've seen the brown variant.  Word is that late at night Slater stuck some fingers up his bum and used the poop on the actual screen.  Only 3 copies printed that night as he had his quota of Taco Bell that day. 

 

[marklawd]

I agree with Adam that the red variant looks better in hand than posted images would suggest and I am pleased to have one in my collection. I tend to appreciate and collect a wide variety of poster art and it does not concern me how this particular poster should be categorised. Given its rarity and a perception that many Bond poster collectors were not previously aware of its existence I would speculate that it would currently sell for a minimum of $1000 -$1200 in a high-profile auction.

Mark

[Louie D.]

In reality there are many other variations of this poster that are very rare:


Olive green with a blue background


Dark green


Burnt orange


and this cool gold one with a dark blue background

These were done as artists proofs and were not available to the public.  They were supposedly destroyed after the initial "gold" version went on sale but a couple are rumored to have survived.

[erik1925]

The gold with the dark blue background variant.. nice contrast and color combo, IMO. 

Jeff

[bondposters.com]

I think I forgot to laugh, Louie! 

I agree with Adam that the red variant looks better in hand than posted images would suggest and I am pleased to have one in my collection. I tend to appreciate and collect a wide variety of poster art and it does not concern me how this particular poster should be categorised. Given its rarity and a perception that many Bond poster collectors were not previously aware of its existence I would speculate that it would currently sell for a minimum of $1000 -$1200 in a high-profile auction.

Mark

I believe a lot more, Mark.
Do you remember the one I offered up for sale?

Well, as it's public knowledge - being on the EB forum - I sold the said print for £1,200.00 last October.
Print #1 sold for over £900.00 in September last year.

If those prices can be commanded privately and through ebay, then what would Christies put on it?
Very interesting.

[Ari]

no offense, well done, but thats just screwed up.

[bondposters.com]

I get what you say, Ari, and no offence taken, but the same can be said about anything, I suppose.

I mean, I was talking to a friend yesterday who I see once in a blue moon as she lives and works in London.
I was educating her in the world of posters etc and crazy people like us ...
... I think I referred to a £200 poster and her response was pretty emphatic:

"What!? For a poster!? Who the hell pays THAT for a poster!? It's only paper!"

I agree partly that it is mad, but stating it's the same with all things - at the end of the day, it's all material.
If people want to pay x price for something, then so be it.
If people want to charge x price for something, then so be it - I'm sure if Dave got hold of one these he would list it at £5000! And he'd probably sell it at that price as well!

[TZimmes]

"What!? For a poster!? Who the hell pays THAT for a poster!? It's only paper!"

Switch "paper" with "shoes", "sturgeon eggs", "spoiled grape juice", or "condensed lumps of coal" and it works just the same!

[kovacs01]

Switch "paper" with "shoes", "sturgeon eggs", "spoiled grape juice", or "condensed lumps of coal" and it works just the same!

or if you are a student of economic history........"tulip bulbs"