All Poster Forum

Common Poster Subjects => Authentication => Topic started by: Zorba on April 26, 2010, 07:05:10 PM

Title: To Live and Die in L.A. question(s)
Post by: Zorba on April 26, 2010, 07:05:10 PM
I recently picked up an original(?) To Live and Die in L.A. one sheet. I have some newbie questions.

1) It doesnt quite reach the full 27 x 41. It comes up 1/16 short on both measurements. I understood that that is within reason. Is that true?

2) It is rolled. Was this common in 1985?

3) The NSS number on the lower right seems messy to me. A little smudged. None of my other NSS posters have that. Was that something that happened?

4) There is a little bit of what I assume is ink bleed thru on the top back. I havent seen this before either. Common  :o?

5) Is this a poster that got the repro treatment?

6) Am I being paranoid ?...because Im pretty sure I have a movie goods poster?
Title: Re: To Live and Die in L.A. question(s)
Post by: Zorba on April 27, 2010, 09:24:54 PM
Not everyone all at once.   laugh1

 

Title: Re: To Live and Die in L.A. question(s)
Post by: wonka on April 27, 2010, 09:33:14 PM
Zorba, I meant to post here the other day, but had to go.

Is there anyway you can post a picture?  That would really help.

But even without seeing it, I would venture to say that you are in the clear.

I say this because:

1/16th of an inch off is not really cause for concern in this case.  Several posters from this era can be off by around that amount and be ok.  Not all "41 inches long" one sheets are on the dot in terms of precise measurements.

Rolled is the exception rather than the rule for most posters before the late 80s, but they can be found, some easier than others...depends on the title.

I have NSS text to be more smudged than others on some posters, all legit pieces.

Again, I am about 99% sure...if you can post a pic that would really help.

Title: Re: To Live and Die in L.A. question(s)
Post by: eatbrie on April 27, 2010, 09:36:49 PM
1) True.
2) Not common, but not uncommon either.
3) Check the pic... all versions seem to be like this.
4) It happens.
5) I don't know, but Moviegoods posters (to my understanding) are really easy to spot.
6) Maybe.

T

(http://www.eatbrie.com/large_posters_files/Photos/Toliveanddieinla.jpg)
Title: Re: To Live and Die in L.A. question(s)
Post by: Zorba on April 27, 2010, 09:49:58 PM
Thanks guys!...I really do appreciate the help. I feel much better about it now.  :)

This is a cool place but reading this forum( a little knowledge can be dangerous in the wrong hands) makes me wonder about every poster I have :P

 APF = sm1



Title: Re: To Live and Die in L.A. question(s)
Post by: ddilts399 on April 28, 2010, 07:22:16 AM
Normally the paper moviegoods uses will give away the poster as a reprint no matter how good the source image was. It is normally a heavier paper, which would not match up to 80's paper at all.
Title: Re: To Live and Die in L.A. question(s)
Post by: Zorba on April 30, 2010, 05:30:38 PM
Normally the paper moviegoods uses will give away the poster as a reprint no matter how good the source image was. It is normally a heavier paper, which would not match up to 80's paper at all.

The paper seems good as it mostly matches up to the others I have from same period.


There is one thing about the surface. Its rougher where the ink is black than the lighter colored areas.


I would have posted a full pic but it looks like the one T posted and I dont have a good camera(YET).
This is the bleed thru? I mentioned.

(http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll225/xxxiv/Posters/2010-04-30143625.jpg)