Author Topic: Rare, but not valuable  (Read 17558 times)

Offline jayn_j

  • Hoarder
  • ****
  • Posts: 2599
Rare, but not valuable
« on: April 24, 2012, 07:02:55 PM »
We were discussing rarity vs value in the ultra rare thread, and a few people asked that I post this lobby set.  I used it as an example of something that was rare, but probably wasn't worth a lot.  Use this thread to post your own stuff that is one of a kind, but which doesn't have a lot of value.

The lobbies are a set of 6 cards from a 1919 silent titled "Why Smith left Home".  Note that the title card has hand applied glitter around the letters.  Each card is hand colored in pastels and has a caption.

Title Card.  Note the hand applied glitter


"Hubbie, I'm going to be the best little housekeeper a man ever had" (The book is titled "The Practical Housekeeper")


"Is it worth $500 to keep quiet?"


"Come on, kick in.  Do you think I'm running a taxi for my health?"


"Married people are not supposed to kiss in public"


"Was that an earthquake?"
-Jay-

Offline 110x75

  • Hoarder
  • ****
  • Posts: 2942
Re: Rare, but not valuable
« Reply #1 on: April 24, 2012, 07:16:27 PM »
Note the hand applied glitter


So, Vincent Gallo didn't invent it!!
Matias
http://110x75.blogspot.com.ar/

IG: @cinepapelarchivo

Offline MoviePosterBid.com

  • Post-aholic
  • **********
  • Posts: 10339
    • MoviePosterBid.com only movie memorabilia
Re: Rare, but not valuable
« Reply #2 on: April 24, 2012, 07:24:40 PM »
So, Vincent Gallo didn't invent it!!

 laugh1

Movieposterbid.com is the FIRST All-Movie Poster Auction Site. We're not #1, but we try harder
"LIKE" MoviePosterBid.com on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/Movieposterbidcom

-------

Offline jayn_j

  • Hoarder
  • ****
  • Posts: 2599
Re: Rare, but not valuable
« Reply #3 on: April 24, 2012, 07:47:24 PM »
Rats, I had to google it to get the joke.  Good one.
-Jay-

Bruce

  • Guest
Re: Rare, but not valuable
« Reply #4 on: April 24, 2012, 07:52:54 PM »
Labor was dirt cheap back then. The handcoloring and glitter were put on at the Exchanges by poor immigrants working for pennies an hour.

No two cards are the same, and many have fairly sloppy coloring.

Bruce

Offline TheAnswerMVP2001

  • Collector
  • ***
  • Posts: 582
  • Just Mellin'
    • Voluptuous Vinyl
Re: Rare, but not valuable
« Reply #5 on: April 24, 2012, 08:05:32 PM »
That's some quality glue on there to have kept the glitter on this long!

Offline jayn_j

  • Hoarder
  • ****
  • Posts: 2599
Re: Rare, but not valuable
« Reply #6 on: April 24, 2012, 08:10:27 PM »
That's some quality glue on there to have kept the glitter on this long!

I am very careful handling them, and I still lose a bit every time I take them out.
-Jay-

Offline paul waines

  • Curator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9038
Re: Rare, but not valuable
« Reply #7 on: April 25, 2012, 11:59:35 AM »
Those are great Jay, thanks for posting them. I can't help thinking, if there was a bigger named star in the film, how much would they be worth then....

I'll dig a few odds out myself, will post soon...
It's more than a Hobby...

Offline jayn_j

  • Hoarder
  • ****
  • Posts: 2599
Re: Rare, but not valuable
« Reply #8 on: April 25, 2012, 12:22:18 PM »
Those are great Jay, thanks for posting them. I can't help thinking, if there was a bigger named star in the film, how much would they be worth then....

I'll dig a few odds out myself, will post soon...

Hmmm, beyond Laurel and Hardy, Chaplin, keaton, and possibly Pickford, Fairbanks and Barrymore, does anyone from the silent era have a name that has endured?

A good example is the poster in my avatar.  The actor pictured is Richard Dix.  The man made 100 films, mostly as the lead spanning a period from 1917 to 1947.  He was one of the few that made the transition from silents to talkies and was huge in the '30s.  However, I bet the value in my poster is more because it is a well preserved stone litho with a good image than it is because Richard Dix is on it.  BTW, AFAIK it is also an only known copy.
-Jay-

Offline paul waines

  • Curator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9038
Re: Rare, but not valuable
« Reply #9 on: April 25, 2012, 12:26:47 PM »
I picked up quite a lot of these Silver Bromide Poster Proofs. They came from Berry's printers in the U.K. They were a photographic record of posters they had done. Such a shame they were only Black and White, but it's a great record of what was, as these posters no longer exist. I paid peanuts for them, and guess they are worth less than that, but as a window of what had been they are invaluable....

A small selection....


















« Last Edit: April 03, 2016, 02:27:15 PM by erik1925 »
It's more than a Hobby...

Offline Ari

  • Curator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8495
    • OFFALEATERS HOUSE OF THE DAMNED
Re: Rare, but not valuable
« Reply #10 on: April 25, 2012, 12:27:35 PM »
priceless.
An Error Has Occurred!
You can't report your own post to the moderator, that doesn't make sense!

Offline jayn_j

  • Hoarder
  • ****
  • Posts: 2599
Re: Rare, but not valuable
« Reply #11 on: April 25, 2012, 12:29:21 PM »
Those are fantastic.  A shame the posters no longer exist.
-Jay-

Offline paul waines

  • Curator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9038
Re: Rare, but not valuable
« Reply #12 on: April 25, 2012, 12:30:37 PM »
In answer to your silent star names Jay, the great Lon Chaney, and Valentino are still well recognised....
It's more than a Hobby...

Offline brude

  • Post-aholic
  • **********
  • Posts: 13565
Re: Rare, but not valuable
« Reply #13 on: April 25, 2012, 12:31:59 PM »
priceless.

Exactly.
Thank goodness they are safe and sound in Paul's hands.

Offline paul waines

  • Curator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9038
Re: Rare, but not valuable
« Reply #14 on: April 25, 2012, 12:35:38 PM »
Sorry for some of the poor pics, some of the artwork on them is amazing. The posters must have looked fantastic on display....
It's more than a Hobby...

Offline jayn_j

  • Hoarder
  • ****
  • Posts: 2599
Re: Rare, but not valuable
« Reply #15 on: April 25, 2012, 12:38:42 PM »
In answer to your silent star names Jay, the great Lon Chaney, and Valentino are still well recognised....

I agree.  However, it terms of valuable posters from the era, most of the ones we could mention would be for those films that survived:

Birth of a nation, The Gold Rush, Ben Hur, The General, Phantom of the Opera, etc.

The only lost film I can think of where the poster gets major attention (and sells high) is London After Midnight.  Can anyone think of others?
-Jay-

Offline brude

  • Post-aholic
  • **********
  • Posts: 13565
Re: Rare, but not valuable
« Reply #16 on: April 25, 2012, 12:39:00 PM »
"Was that an earthquake?"


"Was that an earthquake?"

Sleeping-car orgasm, maybe?
Cool cards, Jay.
 thumbup

Offline paul waines

  • Curator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9038
Re: Rare, but not valuable
« Reply #17 on: April 25, 2012, 12:48:15 PM »
I agree.  However, it terms of valuable posters from the era, most of the ones we could mention would be for those films that survived:

Birth of a nation, The Gold Rush, Ben Hur, The General, Phantom of the Opera, etc.

The only lost film I can think of where the poster gets major attention (and sells high) is London After Midnight.  Can anyone think of others?


Cleopatra 1917 springs to mind, maybe Life without soul 1915....I'm sure there's others, there's one just in the back of my mind,but just can't bring it out...
It's more than a Hobby...

Offline paul waines

  • Curator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9038
Re: Rare, but not valuable
« Reply #18 on: April 25, 2012, 12:56:46 PM »
The Cat Creeps, got there in the end, also the Gorilla 1927...
It's more than a Hobby...

Offline erik1925

  • Post-aholic
  • **********
  • Posts: 20330
Re: Rare, but not valuable
« Reply #19 on: April 25, 2012, 01:27:11 PM »
I agree.  However, it terms of valuable posters from the era, most of the ones we could mention would be for those films that survived:

Birth of a nation, The Gold Rush, Ben Hur, The General, Phantom of the Opera, etc.

The only lost film I can think of where the poster gets major attention (and sells high) is London After Midnight.  Can anyone think of others?

Jay (and Paul), wouldn't you think that posters from that era (whether they be lost films or not) that included actors that are well known, even today, would still command a decent price? Chaney comes to mind, as he has is collected across several genres (silent, early horror, for his makeups), Pickford, Fairbanks, Chaplin (much of who's poster material comes to light now and then), Griffith films, Murnau?

LAM has certainly been the grail of lost films. One of Chaney's earlier films, called A BLIND BARGAIN (1922) is also lost. I havent found a sales record for it's OS. Chances are, it would go for less, as it was pre-Hunchback and Phantom. But, being Chaney, it would still have tremendous appeal. Chaney also played a dual role in this film, as well:


But I think it is also true that for lost films, a poster may be the only remaining visual record (aside from possible script or "office" type material) that has survived -- so valuable or not, it is important that these are preserved and conserved, if necessary.

« Last Edit: April 25, 2012, 01:28:08 PM by erik1925 »


-Jeff

Offline erik1925

  • Post-aholic
  • **********
  • Posts: 20330
Re: Rare, but not valuable
« Reply #20 on: April 25, 2012, 01:29:52 PM »
I picked up quite a lot of these Silver Bromide Poster Proofs. They came from Berry's printers in the U.K. They were a photographic record of posters they had done. Such a shame they were only Black and White, but it's a great record of what was, as these posters no longer exist. I paid peanuts for them, and guess they are worth less than that, but as a window of what had been they are invaluable....



A part of cinema history preserved in the hands of Mr Waines.  clap clap



-Jeff

Offline paul waines

  • Curator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9038
Re: Rare, but not valuable
« Reply #21 on: April 25, 2012, 01:33:38 PM »
The great thing from my point of view Jeff, is they are all of U.K. posters, which are much more difficult to find any image of never mind the poster....
It's more than a Hobby...

Offline erik1925

  • Post-aholic
  • **********
  • Posts: 20330
Re: Rare, but not valuable
« Reply #22 on: April 25, 2012, 01:47:12 PM »
The great thing from my point of view Jeff, is they are all of U.K. posters, which are much more difficult to find any image of never mind the poster....

Yes, Paul, and that makes them even more invaluable, from that perspective.





-Jeff

Bruce

  • Guest
Re: Rare, but not valuable
« Reply #23 on: April 25, 2012, 01:51:30 PM »
That is why I endlessly buy silent pressbooks. They have most of the poster images from each campaign. Few others than me find them worth collecting, so the price is almost always reasonable.

I have been sharing one of my pressbooks (silent and sound) a week with my e-mail club. See them at http://www.emovieposter.com/coolitem_archive.php

In around 25,000 more weeks I will have shared them all!

Bruce

« Last Edit: April 25, 2012, 01:52:15 PM by Bruce »

Offline 110x75

  • Hoarder
  • ****
  • Posts: 2942
Re: Rare, but not valuable
« Reply #24 on: April 25, 2012, 02:31:23 PM »
Matias
http://110x75.blogspot.com.ar/

IG: @cinepapelarchivo