All Poster Forum
Common Poster Subjects => Research & Collecting Tools => Topic started by: erik1925 on January 16, 2014, 05:49:37 PM
-
Early in December, I saw that someone had listed & was selling his S2 litho of The Mummy. In his description, this seller mentioned how he had had the opportunity to see a genuine US OS, and said that the 2 were almost indistinguishable. That got me curious to look at several areas of each poster and compare them side by side.
While the S2 is close in many ways, there are visible differences in the artwork (since the S2 image was based on the original, and not merely copied). The S2s are incredible pieces of art, tho, without question! thumbup
Just for fun, i did several side by sides: The S2 image is on the left, the US OS on the right:
(http://i1355.photobucket.com/albums/q719/spitfire3992/compare2_zpsde426a9b.jpg)
(http://i1355.photobucket.com/albums/q719/spitfire3992/compare1_zps8d08c65a.jpg)
(http://i1355.photobucket.com/albums/q719/spitfire3992/compare3_zps87530d59.jpg)
(http://i1355.photobucket.com/albums/q719/spitfire3992/full_zpse2171695.jpg)
-
Awful, just awful. Sorry Jeff, but you can't even compare.
T
-
(http://i1355.photobucket.com/albums/q719/spitfire3992/compare1_zps8d08c65a.jpg)
This alone shows how much better the OG is. In the S2, she looks like she got punched in the face/designed by a daybill pro. (Sorry, Chris...had to).
-
T,
The original US OS is the ticket,.. without question. This was more to show that there are very real differences in the S2 version.. the stone litho presses and process the S2 Group used were a great way to produce these.
But as the side by side images show, they are far from "mirror, spittin' images" of each other, as the seller in Dec described it to be, even after him seeing a genuine MUMMY OS in person.
-
This alone shows how much better the OG is. In the S2, she looks like she got punched in the face/designed by a daybill pro. (Sorry, Chris...had to).
Johann's left jawline on the S2 is completely outta whack. :-X
-
This alone shows how much better the OG is. In the S2, she looks like she got punched in the face/designed by a daybill pro. (Sorry, Chris...had to).
It's OK Ben. I agree on this one. A butchering for sure.
See usually on daybills the whole of the art is butchered so a terrible mug like that is less noticeable as it blends in nicely.
PS - I am no "fan" of the S2's. If I wanted the Mummy image I'd rather spend $10 on a more faithful reproduction even if it doesn't have the authentic period litho feel to it. But I can understand (somewhat) their appeal to others. But certainly not the $400+ worth of appeal they have attained many a time ---> that's ridiculous
-
It's OK Ben. I agree on this one. A butchering for sure.
See usually on daybills the whole of the art is butchered so a terrible mug like that is less noticeable as it blends in nicely.
PS - I am no "fan" of the S2's. If I wanted the Mummy image I'd rather spend $10 on a more faithful reproduction even if it doesn't have the authentic period litho feel to it. But I can understand (somewhat) their appeal to others. But certainly not the $400+ worth of appeal they have attained many a time ---> that's ridiculous
I laughed.
Yeah, I don't get the hefty price tag on these. Are all of them altered so drastically?
-
I laughed.
Yeah, I don't get the hefty price tag on these. Are all of them altered so drastically?
not exactly "altered" Ben.
each one has an additional name in the bottom border - the artist who actually re-drew all of the posters for the S2Art prints.
I have a Kong 3sh here.. I never checked to see if it is exact.. But it probably isn't
of course, I don't know why what Greg Douglas (former guitarist for such bands as Steve Miller and Joe Walsh) is such a big deal.. If a major dealer like Grey, or Peter or Myself etc were to make the statement.. I could see that as a statement to critique.. Greg can hardly be classified as a dealer
S2Art prints are not reproductions, they are replicas
-
not exactly "altered" Ben.
each one has an additional name in the bottom border - the artist who actually re-drew all of the posters for the S2Art prints.
I have a Kong 3sh here.. I never checked to see if it is exact.. But it probably isn't
of course, I don't know why what Greg Douglas (former guitarist for such bands as Steve Miller and Joe Walsh) is such a big deal.. If a major dealer like Grey, or Peter or Myself etc were to make the statement.. I could see that as a statement to critique.. Greg can hardly be classified as a dealer
S2Art prints are not reproductions, they are replicas
Used this on Bruce, and I like it...so:
(http://www.lauryndoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Uh_wtf_gif.gif)
-
what's the stare relate to Ben.. the S2's are recreations, not exact reprints. An artist completely re-drew every poster they produced in this series.
Greg Douglass... he's a rock musician, not a poster dealer
what else was there?
-
Up until recently I thought S2's were made from the original plates. Was there a find of original plates not long ago or am I losing my marbles?
-
you're losing your marbles
-
correction, you already lost your marbles, but if you had any marbles left, you'd be losing them now.
-
Up until recently I thought S2's were made from the original plates. Was there a find of original plates not long ago or am I losing my marbles?
They did not use the original plates but did use a period-correct lithography machine/printing press (which probably has a proper name that escapes me right now)
-
I don't know where you got that information Chris
I spoke to Jack Solomon at length about these posters when the Dracula forgery scandal was going on and I went down there to shoot pics of the Dracula for debunking John at Poster Mountain when he authenticated the fake for Profiles in History and Jack explained that David Copson redrew the posters for the institute
the bottom corners from Dracula. Copson's name is in the bottom right corner and the date he did the art in the left
(http://www.comic-art.com/apf/dracula_litho_001.jpg)
(http://www.comic-art.com/apf/dracula_litho_003.jpg)
furthermore, the actual plates for printing 99.9% of the time are repurposed for subsequent jobs at the printer and due to their bulk are not cost effective to store. What is more common to continue to exist would be the films from which the plates are made, but I am not aware that the films for any of these posters exist.
-
here is a bio of Copson.
http://inyostudio.com/bio.html
-
I don't know where you got that information Chris
That information is widely circulated Rich. Examples:
http://www.learnaboutmovieposters.com/newsite/index/articles/S2.asp
http://www.allposterforum.com/index.php?topic=3518.0 (the Certificate that comes with them suggests as much)
http://www.jackgallery.com/ (S2 Art Group says they use "antique presses")
-
They did not use the original plates but did use a period-correct lithography machine/printing press (which probably has a proper name that escapes me right now)
Chris, i think you were referring to these presses, used by the S2 Group:
"At the heart of the Sē Ateliers are five extremely rare, made-in-Paris Marinoni Voirin editioning presses. Each is over 100 years old. As far as we can determine, there are only seven of these magnificent machines left in the world, and Sē is the proud owner of five of them. (We are continually trying to purchase the remaining two.)"*
Full page here, from which the above snippet was taken from:
http://www.jackgallery.com/s2atelier.php *
-
(http://www.saatchigallery.com/galleryimages/hjy200711095011dg.jpg)
-
Thanks Jeff - yes indeed. And the post above has a nice pic of said press
-
Chris
LAMP can say all they want about original plates, but it is a mistake
All Poster Forum is hardly the place to find the data if it was sourced from an incorrect source.
and the AFI site refers to the presses, not the original plates
to add info, there are reasons the posters were recreated, the main reason being copyrights and a lack of availability to materials allowing exact replicas.
On copyrights, the only way that the AFI & S2Art could claim copyright protection for the posters was by acquiring new art. The original posters are not under copyright and you cannot copyright the images today. So anyone could take an S2 print and reproduce it if it was a reprint, rather than a recreation. The recreations however are a new piece of art that enjoy full copyright protections and no one can lawfully reproduce any S2Art print without threat of civil action.
again, all explained by Jack Solomon
-
Chris
LAMP can say all they want about original plates, but it is a mistake
All Poster Forum is hardly the place to find the data if it was sourced from an incorrect source.
and the AFI site refers to the presses, not the original plates
to add info, there are reasons the posters were recreated, the main reason being copyrights and a lack of availability to materials allowing exact replicas.
On copyrights, the only way that the AFI & S2Art could claim copyright protection for the posters was by acquiring new art. The original posters are not under copyright and you cannot copyright the images today. So anyone could take an S2 print and reproduce it if it was a reprint, rather than a recreation. The recreations however are a new piece of art that enjoy full copyright protections and no one can lawfully reproduce any S2Art print without threat of civil action.
again, all explained by Jack Solomon
Rich you had better re-read my post - I said nothing about them using the original plates - in fact, I said the exact opposite
-
oops.. indeed you did.. it was Steve who stated he thought they used original plates
-
by the way.. those 2 presses now reside just down the street from where I live.
the company that bought the S2Art remains through the auction is a hop, skip and a jump from here. They maintain a gallery location on Valley View.
-
Thanks Jeff - yes indeed. And the post above has a nice pic of said press
Hard to imagine that the heaviest of those presses (from the 1860s) weighs in at 11 TONS! :o
-
Hard to imagine that the heaviest of those presses (from the 1860s) weighs in at 11 TONS! :o
But I bet that hefty weight has some correlation with the quality of the build (and so why these pressing are still operable today!)
-
But I bet that hefty weight has some correlation with the quality of the build (and so why these pressing are still operable today!)
No doubt, Chris... solid state in every way... but that sheer weight is pretty mind boggling... for ONE press alone. Think about the flooring structure to be able to support that--especially when new, back in 1860!
;)
-
one of these presses, I think it was the main one, is the same type of press that Toulouse Lautrec used for his prints.
I believe it is the massive press and the Lautrec press is one of the two that S2 did not own
-
I wonder when they started using the French Voirin press, as Mel's certificate for the one he purchased just two years ago states that it was printed on a German Dufa press. If that's the "heart" of the operation, it seems they haven't had their heart very long - or at least don't use it for everything.
-
Simes, take a look in this thread, too, for some close up side by side detail shots from The Mummy S2 vs the original OS.
Again, these kinds of variations exist on all the S2s. None are mirror copies of the originals.
-
by the way.. those 2 presses now reside just down the street from where I live.
the company that bought the S2Art remains through the auction is a hop, skip and a jump from here. They maintain a gallery location on Valley View.
Rich, are the presses used by the (then) new owners? Or just on display? They must be something to see, in person.
-
A quick Google search produced this find. It seems that the original S2 lithographs are still being produced withe the same presses and attention to detail.
The new company is called Rue Royale Fine Art and their site (and store of various poster prints) can be found here:
http://www.rueroyalefinearts.com/
This part of their site might most appeal to some members here: thumbsup.gif
http://www.rueroyalefinearts.com/shop/posters/art-of-the-movies/
-
This alone shows how much better the OG is. In the S2, she looks like she got punched in the face/designed by a daybill pro. (Sorry, Chris...had to).
(http://i1355.photobucket.com/albums/q719/spitfire3992/compare1_zps8d08c65a.jpg)
Poor Zita. Her ear also looks like a growth coming out of her jawbone. Doh.gif
She could have been "recreated" much better, that's for sure.
-
These S2 are just the worst, imo. If one MUST own a copy of these rare posters, find a jpg, go to Kinko's and blow it up. Much, much better than one of those S2s.
T
-
The old school printing process and story with the S2s are cool, but wow. They really dropped the ball, in various aspects on that "recreation."
-
I've seen like 8 in person, and they look phenomenal in my opinion.
-
Big fan of the S2's myself. Next best thing from having an original. I don't care that they aren't 100% accurate copies of the original artwork -- they were completely redrawn from scratch so of course they'll be a bit different. I like that these modern artists were able to capture the spirit of these old classics and do it in a way faithful to the originals, and the litho colors pop wonderfully on the thick paper.
I don't have millions lying around to blow on posters (and if I did I wouldn't blow it on posters) so I'll never have an original Universal monster one sheet.
-
Neo, T, and Jeff:
(http://i1320.photobucket.com/albums/u536/HereComesMongo1968/3%20stooges_zpsvstn7b2m.gif) (http://s1320.photobucket.com/user/HereComesMongo1968/media/3%20stooges_zpsvstn7b2m.gif.html)
S2s are "rock star" art prints! In Round 1, I bought 8 at $300 a piece and they were worth every penny.
As I posted here, I just bought 12 at $125, a great bargain:
http://www.allposterforum.com/index.php/topic,3518.msg221459.html#msg221459 (http://www.allposterforum.com/index.php/topic,3518.msg221459.html#msg221459)
As noted above, they are nearly as good as the originals for 1% of the price. The colors are amazing. Everybody I've showed them to has praised them, including an apartment social in DC and my office colleagues.
EMP and HA have sold lots of them, usually for more the original retail price. Both are selling them in their upcoming major/signature auctions.
But let my pics speak for themselves:
(http://i1320.photobucket.com/albums/u536/HereComesMongo1968/2013-10%20Den1c_zpslehelgjo.jpg) (http://s1320.photobucket.com/user/HereComesMongo1968/media/2013-10%20Den1c_zpslehelgjo.jpg.html)
(http://i1320.photobucket.com/albums/u536/HereComesMongo1968/2011-12%20Den_zpsyxdclbkx.jpg) (http://s1320.photobucket.com/user/HereComesMongo1968/media/2011-12%20Den_zpsyxdclbkx.jpg.html)
(http://i1320.photobucket.com/albums/u536/HereComesMongo1968/2013-03-Bath1_zpsmjhs3v9m.jpg) (http://s1320.photobucket.com/user/HereComesMongo1968/media/2013-03-Bath1_zpsmjhs3v9m.jpg.html)
(http://i1320.photobucket.com/albums/u536/HereComesMongo1968/2013-01%20S2a_zpspgwo6epa.jpg) (http://s1320.photobucket.com/user/HereComesMongo1968/media/2013-01%20S2a_zpspgwo6epa.jpg.html)
(http://i1320.photobucket.com/albums/u536/HereComesMongo1968/2013-03-Bath2_zpskwvam4ny.jpg) (http://s1320.photobucket.com/user/HereComesMongo1968/media/2013-03-Bath2_zpskwvam4ny.jpg.html)
Again the dealer's much-better pics are posted here:
http://www.allposterforum.com/index.php/topic,3518.msg221459.html#msg221459 (http://www.allposterforum.com/index.php/topic,3518.msg221459.html#msg221459)
-
A reprint is a reprint. You can call it a limited edition re-creation, it is not an original poster and therefore a reprint. And if you want to call them art, then they are forgeries. Not my thing.
T
-
That face is rubbish
-
The old school printing process and story with the S2s are cool, but wow. They really dropped the ball, in various aspects on that "recreation."
Your had the smarts (and eyes) to see and realize I was talking about a very specific element (Zita Johann's comparative imagery) on The Mummy poster, Brandon, and also realized I wasn't commenting At All about the litho process or the print quality overall.
Good on you. cool1
Even though re-drawn, the artist didn't do her justice on the S2 re-creation, imho.
-
A reprint is a reprint. You can call it a limited edition re-creation, it is not an original poster and therefore a reprint. And if you want to call them art, then they are forgeries. Not my thing.
T
We'll have to "agree to disagree" on this.
I'll add that most of the original artwork used to create the S2s had been in the "public domain" for decades by the time they were recreated/printed in 2002. (The one exception is maybe The Sting.) Thus, they were not "forgeries."
This awesome - yet totally unsolicited - legal analysis was provided by:
(http://i1320.photobucket.com/albums/u536/HereComesMongo1968/Honest%20Lawyer%20copy_zpsxeoac5ur.jpeg) (http://s1320.photobucket.com/user/HereComesMongo1968/media/Honest%20Lawyer%20copy_zpsxeoac5ur.jpeg.html)
-
Your had the smarts (and eyes) to see and realize I was talking about a very specific element (Zita Johann's comparative imagery) on The Mummy poster, Brandon, and also realized I wasn't commenting At All about the litho process or the print quality overall.
Good on you. cool1
Even though re-drawn, the artist didn't do her justice on the S2 re-creation, imho.
You are too kind, Jefe.
I recall you mentioning some of the cool things about the S2s. As that side by side photo clearly shows, though, there was clearly a lack of attention to detail in some aspects. Arguably they missed the most important mark of recreating that legendary piece.
I've heard tattoo guys say that portraits are very difficult, because one incorrect feature can make someone's portrait unrecognizable, and completely change the vibe. There are other similar things going on, if you look closely at the differences from the original, also.
-
The framed gallery of them S2s looks good. After seeing that side by side photo above, I wonder what a framed gallery of "regular" repros would look like. The S2s are probably better in some ways, with their production process, and many people would probably prefer the S2s for that and other reasons.
-
You are too kind, Jefe.
I recall you mentioning some of the cool things about the S2s. As that side by side photo clearly shows, though, there was clearly a lack of attention to detail in some aspects. Arguably they missed the most important mark of recreating that legendary piece.
I've heard tattoo guys say that portraits are very difficult, because one incorrect feature can make someone's portrait unrecognizable, and completely change the vibe. There are other similar things going on, if you look closely at the differences from the original, also.
Well said, Brandon.
We all know that S2s are NOT reproductions of the original OS art. If someone wants that, those are readily available, in undersized (24x36) versions, in many cases. And yes, artists re-drew the art - no tracing or anything of that nature was done. I think Karloff looks pretty amazing and spot on, in the c/u side by side.
Same can be said of many of the others. The artwork is mighty fine, the colors vivid and the print quality top notch. But Johann got smacked with a lazy hand and, thus, the ugly stick. Its happens. Had her image not been based or compared to an original of any kind, it would have stood on its own.
-
.... I wonder what a framed gallery of "regular" repros would look like....
You can do repros the "right" way but most collectors don't have the technical skill/software/drive to do it right.
1) Find an XL unwatermarked image of the poster you want to print.
2) Convert the image to a lossless format, tiff, png, psd, etc.
3) Digitally repair its fold lines/defects/color issues in Photoshop.
4) "Blow up" the image to 5000 pixels height with after-market Pshop additions like:
https://www.alienskin.com/blowup/
5) Take to a professional printer.
I did this 5-6 times back in Round 1. The posters looked great! My favorites:
Printed 27x41 This Gun For Hire (combo of HS and 1S)
(http://i1320.photobucket.com/albums/u536/HereComesMongo1968/2011-11-90_zpsju8xamyt.jpg) (http://s1320.photobucket.com/user/HereComesMongo1968/media/2011-11-90_zpsju8xamyt.jpg.html)
Small version of cleaned-up BoF image:
(http://i1320.photobucket.com/albums/u536/HereComesMongo1968/Bride%20of%20Frankenstein%201935%20US%201S%20adv_zpsmeyizur5.jpg) (http://s1320.photobucket.com/user/HereComesMongo1968/media/Bride%20of%20Frankenstein%201935%20US%201S%20adv_zpsmeyizur5.jpg.html)
Printed at 27x41 and displayed at office 2013 Halloween party:
(http://i1320.photobucket.com/albums/u536/HereComesMongo1968/2013-11-office-party1_zpsjtxxml8w.jpg) (http://s1320.photobucket.com/user/HereComesMongo1968/media/2013-11-office-party1_zpsjtxxml8w.jpg.html)
-
In looking again, at the side by side of The Mummy (full poster), I now wonder of the S2 artist does perhaps use a traced or other digital image of the original, in order to re-create the right size, scale and placement. In looking at small things like the hands on Karloff's chest, the placement and layout looks almost identical.
This would make sense, and then the S2 artist makes it his own creation by adding his own artistic "eye" & details to the "bare bones."
(http://i1355.photobucket.com/albums/q719/spitfire3992/full_zpse2171695.jpg)
-
You can do repros the "right" way but most collectors don't have the technical skill/software/drive to do it right.
1) Find an XL unwatermarked image of the poster you want to print.
2) Convert the image to a lossless format, tiff, png, psd, etc.
3) Digitally repair its fold lines/defects/color issues in Photoshop.
4) "Blow up" the image to 5000 pixels height with after-market Pshop additions like:
https://www.alienskin.com/blowup/
5) Take to a professional printer.
Those look very high quality. However, they have the "too good to be true" look, of course. Lawl. I think the "wear" that older stuff gets over the years gives them a different vibe, as well as the look of older style production processes, but these are cool in a different way. Personally, I'm not a big fan of editing, which is partially why I got into film photography, as it has more of a timeless look, imo.
Anyway, good tutorial there for folks who want to do that. Nice work. thumbup thumbup
-
Those look very high quality. However, they have the "too good to be true" look, of course. Lawl. I think the "wear" that older stuff gets over the years gives them a different vibe, as well as the look of older style production processes, but these are cool in a different way....
Thanks. I want my repros to match what came out of NSS back in the day, which means they look "minty white."
(http://www.cinemasterpieces.com/nss4.jpg)
-
In looking again, at the side by side of The Mummy (full poster), I now wonder of the S2 artist does perhaps use a traced or other digital image of the original, in order to re-create the right size, scale and placement. In looking at small things like the hands on Karloff's chest, the placement and layout looks almost identical.
This would make sense, and then the S2 artist makes it his own creation by adding his own artistic "eye" & details to the "bare bones."
(http://i1355.photobucket.com/albums/q719/spitfire3992/full_zpse2171695.jpg)
Jeff, wasn't the poster on the right (the original) heavily-damaged and heavily-restored b4 it sold for $435K in 1997? Could have sworn I read that back in the day but the "Google God" returns no info. What parts of the original were restored and how did that restorer know what it originally looked like?
https://www.theguardian.com/film/gallery/2012/mar/14/10-most-expensive-film-posters-in-pictures (https://www.theguardian.com/film/gallery/2012/mar/14/10-most-expensive-film-posters-in-pictures)
PS Just noticed Wikipedia uses the S2 version! Who will fix that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mummy_(1932_film)#/media/File:The_Mummy_1932_film_poster.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mummy_(1932_film)#/media/File:The_Mummy_1932_film_poster.jpg)
-
This alone shows how much better the OG is. In the S2, she looks like she got punched in the face/designed by a daybill pro. (Sorry, Chris...had to).
hahahahahahahahaha.....
Gotta love those dodgy daybill artists!
(http://i1320.photobucket.com/albums/u536/HereComesMongo1968/DB144964-2DFA-4933-94C2-D73473E07CFC-1691-0000052CCCD163AC_zps0gboytk4.jpeg) (http://s1320.photobucket.com/user/HereComesMongo1968/media/DB144964-2DFA-4933-94C2-D73473E07CFC-1691-0000052CCCD163AC_zps0gboytk4.jpeg.html)
PS Whatever happeed to Ben. He dropped out of APF a year ago.....
-
The Mummy OS that sold for $453K back in 1997 was from the collection of Todd Feiertag, and I dont think his copy was heavily damaged and restored. (I'll email him and ask, for verification). At the time it was auctioned, 2 copies were known to exist, so maybe it was the other copy that needed a lot of restoration. (I seem to remember reading one was found sandwiched under some other posters on an exterior barn wall or something similar, and was heavily damaged due to exposure, moisture etc).
Here's an article from The Deseret News, dated March 2, 1997, after the Sotheby's auction was over, giving more details:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/546423/MUMMY-POSTER-COSTS-A-TREASURE.html
And the wikipedia image is not the S2 version. The 1932 US OS is shown.
-
Great info Jeff.
(http://i1320.photobucket.com/albums/u536/HereComesMongo1968/Screen%20Shot%202017-06-11%20at%2012.59.40%20AM_zpsrdkuna33.jpg) (http://s1320.photobucket.com/user/HereComesMongo1968/media/Screen%20Shot%202017-06-11%20at%2012.59.40%20AM_zpsrdkuna33.jpg.html)
So he paid $5 for it in the late 60s and sold it in 1997 for the 2017 equivalent of $668K. That's a hell of an investment!
Wonder what the damaged copy went for?
Somebody changed the Wiki page. When I looked at the source image it was the 3000px image of the S2, no doubt taken from HA. Now it's an 800px image of the original.
-
The image source for The Mummy wikipedia page is (and has been for a long period of time) the Los Angeles Public Library. The library also holds a copy of the US OS and it's referenced as the source at the bottom of the actual wiki poster page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Mummy_1932_film_poster.jpg
(http://www.allposterforum.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7410.0;attach=6459;image)
-
S2 BATTLE 2.0:
(http://i1320.photobucket.com/albums/u536/HereComesMongo1968/DAY%20-ORIG_zpsczzob2hs.jpeg) (http://s1320.photobucket.com/user/HereComesMongo1968/media/DAY%20-ORIG_zpsczzob2hs.jpeg.html)
(http://i1320.photobucket.com/albums/u536/HereComesMongo1968/Invisible%20Man%20The%201933%20US%201S%20adv_zpsj6k1zkvt.jpg) (http://s1320.photobucket.com/user/HereComesMongo1968/media/Invisible%20Man%20The%201933%20US%201S%20adv_zpsj6k1zkvt.jpg.html)
(http://i1320.photobucket.com/albums/u536/HereComesMongo1968/KK-AUS_zpsrdu0zg89.jpeg) (http://s1320.photobucket.com/user/HereComesMongo1968/media/KK-AUS_zpsrdu0zg89.jpeg.html)
-
I've ordered two S2's which are Gilda and Lady from Shanghai.
There's now way I'd be able to afford shelling out $30000 for the Gilda so I'll take an S2 instead.
The Lady from Shanghai I have been outbid on so many times, seems to go anywhere from $4000-$7000 now so I'll take an S2 on that until I can finally get an original.
They do look good and as Mel says they are currently a pretty good deal seeing as they sell on other auction sites for $300
Marc
-
I've ordered two S2's which are Gilda and Lady from Shanghai.
There's now way I'd be able to afford shelling out $30000 for the Gilda so I'll take an S2 instead.
The Lady from Shanghai I have been outbid on so many times, seems to go anywhere from $4000-$7000 now so I'll take an S2 on that until I can finally get an original.
They do look good and as Mel says they are currently a pretty good deal seeing as they sell on other auction sites for $300
Marc
The S2s work as good placeholders, Marc. I agree with you there. ;)
(And with the S2s also being stone lithos -- that's another added perk, I have to say).
-
I've ordered two S2's which are Gilda and Lady from Shanghai.
There's now way I'd be able to afford shelling out $30000 for the Gilda so I'll take an S2 instead.
The Lady from Shanghai I have been outbid on so many times, seems to go anywhere from $4000-$7000 now so I'll take an S2 on that until I can finally get an original.
They do look good and as Mel says they are currently a pretty good deal seeing as they sell on other auction sites for $300
Marc
but are there any S2 for Gene Tierney.......
;)
-
but are there any S2 for Gene Tierney.......
;)
Now if there was a Laura S2 I'd probably buy that as well. Considering most of the other posters are within my price range that's the only one which, to me, is a big outlay.
Although I have seen a few Razor's Edge one sheets which the asking price has been middle five figures :(
-
These are really cool. I wish more 2.0 vs original matchups had been shared, but looks like the thread died a slow death.
-
The only one that I have is the Gilda one, and it looks phenomenal, but they did make a few mistakes. The biggest of which is the producer's name is clipped (becomes GINIA instead of VIRGINIA). lol