All Poster Forum
Movie Posters => General Discussion => Topic started by: archstanton on February 05, 2015, 09:37:46 PM
-
In regards to Used vs Unused posters I'd like to hear what everyone prefers. By "used" I mean displayed as intended in a theater or elsewhere to promote the movie; "unused" being printed off then stored away in a NSS factory or something for years but never displayed at the time of the movie's release.
As for myself: I am torn. Of course a mint, unused poster sure looks nice and is often harder to find. Yet, I can't help but get a little teary-eyed (though that may be from the pet dander) when I look at a poster that I know was hung up in the theater at the time a favorite movie of mine was in theaters. In a way, an unused poster doesn't feel a whole lot different than a reproduction poster: it just got printed off, then sold to someone eventually to put on display in their house. It never got to fulfill its purpose.
In my "movie room" I have a The Good, the Bad and the Ugly 1/2sh that has been used next to a linen backed, pristine Once Upon a Time in the West 1sh. While the OUATITW looks fantastic and I love it, I get a warm feeling of nostalgia and a sense of the passage of time when I gaze at the GTBATU 1/2sh, with its staple holes around the border, little dings and etc. I know that back in 1968 folks walked into some theater, saw that poster up on the wall, then walked into see the crazy movie that Sergio Leone had made.
That itself makes me want to say I prefer a used poster, because I feel that history has been bestowed upon it. It's even cooler when I know the specific theater a poster was displayed at. The caveat for me is that a beat up, super ugly used poster is nothing I'd want to display, but if it is still very displayable then I think I'd prefer it over an unused one.
It's a tough choice for me. What do ya'll think?
-
USED 100%
(like you) In some ways an unused poster feels like a repro to me.
saying that, I don't collect newer posters, not even past the 70's REALLY.
But I understand more with new glossy posters, even folds are more distracting.
Older softer paper folds look fine.
I would love it if all my hammer daybills had screening times/nights hand written on the top or whatever.
Plus they are cheaper!
-
USED 100%
Yes
-
I love a poster with experience. One that has been there and done that.
-
Quite a few people enjoy the nostalgic or authentic aesthetic flavour an obviously used poster offers while many also go for unused minty mint.
For some reason a lot have issues with fold lines (that is why so many posters that are in fantastic condition are linenbacked - just to get rid of the fold lines). Myself I have no issue with fold lines. I also prefer unbacked posters when possible. And a used, dinged up poster is A-OK by me in most instances - if there is significant staining or paper loss and it's an important piece to me I will send it off for restoration. Then again I only collect older posters that tend to pick up indications of their longevity regardless of if they ever hung outside a theatre or not...all part of the history of the poster.
However, in this hobby like just about all others 'value' comes down to demand, rarity and condition above all else.
-
New twist for me at least about a backed poster. You know us newbs....
I have bought about ten backed ones now...The one I bought before it was backed is um more liked than them.
-
New twist for me at least about a backed poster. You know us newbs....
I have bought about ten backed ones now...The one I bought before it was backed is um more liked than them.
I understand that feeling. When you make the decision to have it backed/restored the transformation results in a much more personal attachment
-
saying that, I don't collect newer posters, not even past the 70's REALLY.
But I understand more with new glossy posters, even folds are more distracting.
Older softer paper folds look fine.
I'm also not too interested in anything past the early 1980's. As far as fold lines go, it seems like some posters it almost adds, whereas others it does detract. For instance, on a Taxi Driver one sheet the fold lines intersect right through De Niro's face and through the heart of the image. I had one backed and it really looked awesome. On the other hand, seeing a cleaned up and backed '68 Night of the Living Dead just looked wrong next to a folded copy.
-
YEAH.
hell yeah
-
I agree with everyone so far. I prefer them used, with play dates or stuff as long as no part of the image is missing or -god forbid- borders are cropped
-
Well, folks who have been around here for awhile know I have posted my preference for "posters with character and history" often.
So, me too.
-
The better question is: If it wasn't hung outside a theater, is it a real movie poster?
-
The better question is: If it wasn't hung outside a theater, is it a real movie poster?
yep, see above, trouble is, if it ever went that way, you could FAKE the USED part of it, at home.
So, Im glad better condition gets a premium, so nobody is stupid enough to FAKE theatre use/damage/.wear.
-
I like the best possible condition paper I can find. I do not like writing on posters - it usually distracts from the image - and whilst I have no problem with folded posters I am always pleased to replace them with rolled equivalents, particularly those dating from the late 70's/early 80's. I imagine the majority of earlier posters would at least have been distributed to cinemas and it would be hard to tell whether a poster, still in near mint condition today, received fastidious care from a conscientious employee during its display or whether it just sat unused on a shelf. Tears and stains reflect careless handling to me. I do understand however why some collectors like the history associated with writing showing the name of the theatre or screening times.
Whilst appearing to contradict myself, I do like to obtain a director/A-list actor's signature on a modern poster if the opportunity arises but that subject is discussed on other threads.
Mark
-
yep, see above, trouble is, if it ever went that way, you could FAKE the USED part of it, at home.
So, Im glad better condition gets a premium, so nobody is stupid enough to FAKE theatre use/damage/.wear.
This is one reason I love snipes so much... No doubt that poster was hung up and hundreds or people saw it as they went in to see the film.
-
Tears and stains reflect careless handling to me.
I don't think we grasp how, especially older poster, weren't meant to be collected. I don't think a theater owner would think twice to staple a poster up or glue it over another one (Berwick). It's like thinking a grocery store would be careful not to damage a paper coke sign after the display is done. If a poster is in mint condition it wasn't used. Even now when trying to put up a poster in a double sided case, most times you can tell it was used by edge damage from when the theater minion went to remove it and it gets caught on one side or the other.
-
I don't think we grasp how, especially older poster, weren't meant to be collected. I don't think a theater owner would think twice to staple a poster up or glue it over another one (Berwick)...
Good point.
If a poster is in mint condition it wasn't used. Even now when trying to put up a poster in a double sided case, most times you can tell it was used by edge damage from when the theater minion went to remove it and it gets caught on one side or the other.
Agree with mint condition. But I look for near mint posters from the 50's/60's with 4 neat little pinholes! Modern posters - I don't want those theatre-used at all for the reason you state.
Mark
-
It's like thinking a grocery store would be careful not to damage a paper coke sign after the display is done. If a poster is in mint condition it wasn't used. Even now when trying to put up a poster in a double sided case, most times you can tell it was used by edge damage from when the theater minion went to remove it and it gets caught on one side or the other.
Except that posters from the 40s-70s were owned by NSS and leased out to the theaters. I would guess that more care was taken with them because they would be charged for damage. Most posters I see from that era have at most small edge tears. The damage seems to mostly be at the folds from constant opening and refolding.
-
Except that posters from the 40s-70s were owned by NSS and leased out to the theaters. I would guess that more care was taken with them because they would be charged for damage. Most posters I see from that era have at most small edge tears. The damage seems to mostly be at the folds from constant opening and refolding.
Were they really charged? The NSS paragraphs usually say "This material either must be returned or destroyed immediately after use." I doubt there was much enforcing going on. If someone knows otherwise please inform me.
-
Were they really charged? The NSS paragraphs usually say "This material either must be returned or destroyed immediately after use." I doubt there was much enforcing going on. If someone knows otherwise please inform me.
Back in the day it was a big deal... Join learnaboutmovieposters and read up...
-
It depends on the movie for me. It sounds kind of weird but if the movie itself was kind of a "grittier movie" then I like having the used poster (EX: Taxi Driver), but if it isn't and it's more of a fun comedy or family movie then I'd like it to look as new and un-used as possible (Ex: Back to the Future).
-
It's always nice to have a poster in first rate condition, but I don't think it's be all and end all. I think it's a sliding scale, the further back in time you go, your more forgiving of flaws.
Plus they all most authenticate them selves if there's flaws, it's all part of the posters history, and should be accepted as such.
-
I'm not too fussy about condition, it doesn't bother me at all. The only time it annoys me is if it happens due to poor packaging in transit.
Having said that, I'd rather have rolled over folded (if rolled exists), but if it's a giant price premium, then folded is just fine!
-
well I don't collect low grade posters unless it's a super-rare Chandler or Gambling item (or maybe Fritz Lang)
the older and more rare an item is determines how low you will go.
newer titles? why would I want one with pinholes if I can get one without?
-
well I don't collect low grade posters unless it's a super-rare Chandler or Gambling item (or maybe Fritz Lang)
the older and more rare an item is determines how low you will go.
newer titles? why would I want one with pinholes if I can get one without?
Most modern movie posters that are used probably don't have pinholes, right? I assume nowadays they are all slid right in out of theater frames. Modern to me being 1990-present.
-
Most modern movie posters that are used probably don't have pinholes, right? I assume nowadays they are all slid right in out of theater frames. Modern to me being 1990-present.
okay, then allow me to change that too "why would I want any modern poster with any defects if I can afford to buy said poster in better than "not mint" condition
moron1
;)
-
okay, then allow me to change that too "why would I want any modern poster with any defects if I can afford to buy said poster in better than "not mint" condition
moron1
;)
and all was right with the world...
-
yeah but some people don't even want a finger print on a modern poster.
Let alone whatever edge damage sliding it into the contraption does, handling it, etc.
So they collect posters that are back-doored somehow (or whatever)
Thats all well and good, and each his / her own.
But please don't let posters go the way of comics or coins etc.
Comics are meant to be read, and posters meant to be used.
IMHO of course ;)
-
I don't collect modern posters much at all as there are so many printed that they don't even feel special, and that is beside the fact the most of them have fairly boring artwork (if you can call it that), imo. It doesn't help that I haven't fallen in love with too many movies from the past couple decades to warrant buying its original poster.
How cool would it be if they started having artists (painters, illustrators, etc.) do movie posters again!
-
newer titles? why would I want one with pinholes if I can get one without?
How long has it been since you saw a theater pin a poster? Doesn't work with lightboxes.
-
Rich only just realised we have talkies now.
:o
-
Talkies....Ha, yea right....what next Colour?
-
I saw an ad for a color film oncet. I think it was Wizard of Oz, back in 1923 you whipper snapper
-
Colour? that's crazy fool talk.
We'll see a Blackman in Washington before we see any darn' colour in them picture shows.
-
You do still see pin holes in modern posters, more so in countries outside the US perhaps (I have some modern posters from Japan with pinholes for example).
I think edgewear/pinholes/light damage doesn't bother me much because if it's a common poster, it's not worth losing sleep over and if it's a rare poster, I'm just happy to have it regardless of condition! Having said that, I look after the poster in my collection carefully (sleeves and stored flat).
-
Not sure if this has been covered already, but for my part, a modern poster only looks good if mint.
And an old and historical poster is sort of expected to Come with some historical artifacts.
It is sort of comparable to a modern chair and an antique leather chair. One would buy and try to keep mint, a modern chair. But an antique leather chair with wear and tear, cracked and worn leather, and history is part of its appeal.
Quite what the line is then between old and new, chairs and posters, I couldn't possibly say.
-
In regards to Used vs Unused posters I'd like to hear what everyone prefers. By "used" I mean displayed as intended in a theater or elsewhere to promote the movie; "unused" being printed off then stored away in a NSS factory or something for years but never displayed at the time of the movie's release.
As for myself: I am torn. Of course a mint, unused poster sure looks nice and is often harder to find. Yet, I can't help but get a little teary-eyed (though that may be from the pet dander) when I look at a poster that I know was hung up in the theater at the time a favorite movie of mine was in theaters. In a way, an unused poster doesn't feel a whole lot different than a reproduction poster: it just got printed off, then sold to someone eventually to put on display in their house. It never got to fulfill its purpose.
In my "movie room" I have a The Good, the Bad and the Ugly 1/2sh that has been used next to a linen backed, pristine Once Upon a Time in the West 1sh. While the OUATITW looks fantastic and I love it, I get a warm feeling of nostalgia and a sense of the passage of time when I gaze at the GTBATU 1/2sh, with its staple holes around the border, little dings and etc. I know that back in 1968 folks walked into some theater, saw that poster up on the wall, then walked into see the crazy movie that Sergio Leone had made.
That itself makes me want to say I prefer a used poster, because I feel that history has been bestowed upon it. It's even cooler when I know the specific theater a poster was displayed at. The caveat for me is that a beat up, super ugly used poster is nothing I'd want to display, but if it is still very displayable then I think I'd prefer it over an unused one.
It's a tough choice for me. What do ya'll think?
Im with you all the way on this, archstanton. Knowing that a poster was displayed in a theater lobby somewhere, ones that might have some grease pencil notation on the back (not writing that bleeds thru, of course) and other indications that it has lived the life it was meant to live and not just folded up in some box in a warehouse, also makes me think of that same nostalgia.
I prefer and collect older material for the most part, so folds are basically the norm on US OS. And those dont bother me.
I guess the best of both worlds is finding a poster that has been used and displayed in a theater, bears a few "life" scars, but is basically in fantastic condition, especially if it's 50+ years old. Those that fit both bills always makes me happy to find.