Dirty Dozen UK quad

[Mardukas]

I wonder if the good folks on here can help.
Was looking at buying a nice condition UK quad for The Dirty Dozen from someone I believe to be a reputable dealer..
The tag line on the poster was in blue coloured text and the placing of the text led me to believe it was a poster from the rerelease rather than the first release in 1967. The dealer in question denied it was a rerelease poster and said it was a second printing of the original release (his explanation: they moved the text and changed the colour for the second printing). Does this sound right? I'm doubtful, and assume I've been looking at a rerelease poster.
I've no issue with buying a rerelease (especially given it is rolled and in great shape) but don't like the idea of being misled (whether knowingly or not).
Thank you in advance for any thoughts.

[paul waines]

If you can post a pic of the poster, I'll be glad to look at it.  Also if you can get a pic of the printers info, that would be great.

[erik1925]

Does the one you are looking at have the tag line lower on the paper like on this 70s RR copy?



http://www.emovieposter.com/agallery/archiveitem/8444994.html

[Hicks77]

The re-release quads on EMP have the text placed lower but Posterati has one listing for the re-release and one for the original release with the text in the same position

R1970 link
https://posteritati.com/poster/8052/the-dirty-dozen-r1970s-british-quad-poster

1968 release link
https://posteritati.com/poster/8056/the-dirty-dozen-1968-british-quad-poster

(unless the person updating the listings was out on a bender the night before and mistakenly used the same pic for the 2 listings...)

[BruceH]

The re-release quads on EMP have the text placed lower but Posterati has one listing for the re-release and one for the original release with the text in the same position

R1970 link
https://posteritati.com/poster/8052/the-dirty-dozen-r1970s-british-quad-poster

1968 release link
https://posteritati.com/poster/8056/the-dirty-dozen-1968-british-quad-poster

(unless the person updating the listings was out on a bender the night before and mistakenly used the same pic for the 2 listings...)

It looks like you are correct that they have a re-release identified as original (or used the wrong photo), but it also looks like you spotted that we sold re-releases as originals years ago, and never caught it when we later learned of the difference.

So now we will contact those were were sold re-releases as originals (no matter how many years ago) and we will offer them a full refund, including shipping, something NO other auction does.

Good catch, and thanks for doing so, even if it costs me lots of money. And please let me know of any other mistakes you find, so we can correct those too (and offer those people refunds as well).

[paul waines]

Looks like they have just used the same photo for both releases..    Both are a pic of the first release..


Bruce, the one Jeff posted from your site is correct, it's a 71 re-release.

[Hicks77]

Sorry Bruce, but which ones on EMP are categorised incorrectly?  All of the ones that I see in the EMP listings have the lower placed text identified as R70 (one from 2011 doesn't have the R70 link but if you click through to the description it shows the correct dating as R70).  Did I miss something?  (my comment about "person out on a bender" was referring to the Posterati site ... who if that person is reading this .... I was joking!)

[BruceH]

Sorry Bruce, but which ones on EMP are categorised incorrectly?  All of the ones that I see in the EMP listings have the lower placed text identified as R70 (one from 2011 doesn't have the R70 link but if you click through to the description it shows the correct dating as R70).  Did I miss something?  (my comment about "person out on a bender" was referring to the Posterati site ... who if that person is reading this .... I was joking!)

I see. You are correct that it is solely the "style info" tag that is missing from the 2011 one. The auction itself is right, so I don't have to email that buyer, but I WILL have the correct style info tag added on Monday. Thanks for helping me find that error.

[Mardukas]

Thank you for all the replies.

Paul: Unfortunately, I don't have a photo of the poster or printer details. Sorry, I wish I did. I saw the poster in person butI didn't take one. There is no online pic either sadly.

Jeff: The pic you posted is the same as the one I saw in terms of the main details - eg the tag line is lower down than in the original release quad and it is made up of blue lettering (the original release tag line was in a more greenish coloured font). So in broad appearance it looked like the rerelease version of the poster, but the dealer said it was a second printing from the first release (his logic was the film had proved such a surprise hit at the UK box office, they had to do a new print run).

Hicks77: As Bruce and Paul mentioned, both images from Posteritati's site look like the original release version. The poster I saw was the same as the rerelease version as Jeff posted but the dealer claimed it was from the first UK release and was merely a reprinting, hence the change in text placement and colour.

I find it odd that for a second print run they would have changed the tag line positioning and font colour. To me, it makes more sense they would do this for a rerelease years later, to distinguish the two. But I could be wrong to think this. Thanks again for any advice.

[paul waines]

The simple way to tell is the printers logo,  if it's oval circles, it's a re-release, if it has a square looking one it's first release.

[Mardukas]

Thanks, Paul, that's exactly what I need. I'll email the dealer and ask. Hopefully he'll be happy to oblige. I'll let you know how I get on.

[Mardukas]

So the dealer in question sent me a couple of pics. Oval-shaped printers' logo so I think that  clinches it: rerelease.

In his email, the  dealer described it as 'a later issue', which is much more accurate than his earlier description of it being a second printing from the first release.

I'll probably still end up going for it.. It's a fantastic image and a rolled example in decent nick. And, obviously, an awesome film, too!

Thanks APFers for all the help on this.

[paul waines]

Yep definitely a 70's release.

Mines the same, but I bought mine for the ABC logo and date on it.. still looks great on the wall...