Dating the Peter Pan Daybill

[Silhouette]

As some people know, I like my Disney Daybills and was saddened to see some person being taken to the cleaners with this sale - a $30 poster selling for $350 http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/PETER-PAN-Walt-Disney-1969-Rare-Original-Vintage-Daybill-Movie-Poster-Print-/261415575023?pt=AU_Movie_Memorabilia&hash=item3cdd951def&_uhb=1 worse still (although no bidder), there was this: http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/PETER-PAN-Walt-Disney-1969-Very-Rare-Original-Vintage-DB-Movie-Poster-/321345907486?pt=AU_Movie_Memorabilia&hash=item4ad1b56b1e&_uhb=1

DID YOU SPOT THE PROBLEM? No, it’s not just that both sellers are using that oft abused word 'rare', but both are stating the date is 1969...for different posters! Someone has got it wrong...well here’s what I think – both are wrong (and with that statement, the cat is amongst the pigeons now…)

As I understand it, the G Rating did not come in to effect until 1971 implemented by the NEWLY formed Australian Classification Board (formed in 1970) - the new ratings system implementation would be effective 15 November 1971.

---------------
Here's a press release 15 October 1971:

State Ministers agreed yesterday that the 'R'classification for films would begin to take effect on November 15.

Under this system, people between the ages of six and 18 will be legally excluded from cinemas exhibiting 'R' certificate films. This was announced in Canberra by the Minister for Customs and Excise, Mr Chipp, who was ihc chairman of a meeting on censorship held with six State ministers.

Mr Chipp said that there would also be three advisory classifications for films: (G) general exhibition; (NRC) not recommended for children; and (M) for mature audiences.
---------------

Unless I am mistaken, that means you can't have a poster dated 1969 if the G Rating that is printed on it was not in effect until 1971. So then I did more checking…

http://www.emovieposter.com/agallery/film_title/PETER%2520PAN%2520%2528%252753%2529/type/Aust%2520daybill/archive.html

Unfortunately, almost every single one of the posters that are dated on this page as R60s, R69 is dating it wrong. In fact there are mistakes dating almost every poster on that page with different designs dated with the same date AND/OR the same design dated with different dates!

Also wrong date is stated here:

http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=59073&lotNo=53302

Now I can see why some are dating this poster R69:



The above design is pretty much based on the US Insert of 1969, it seems someone went the easy route, did not check and simply called the Daybill an R69 poster – problem is the G Rating didn’t come in until after 1971, so there is no way it could be from 1969, right? For Daybill collectors, we know that dating an Australian poster based on USA release dates is fraught with danger – there is plenty of evidence where the date of a release (or release) of a movie was not the same date as the USA, in fact often Australia would re-release movies (ergo posters) much more frequently than the USA, so unless you know 100%, stop dating it the same as the USA releases/re-releases!

While researching I found some ads for Peter Pan in 1974, here’s a newspaper advert from 1974, please note two things – (a) the tagline used and (b) the use of Tinkerbell in the advert same as the poster (she is not seen on the other design poster)



So without better evidence I am calling the Peter Pan Daybill poster above, R74.

Which now brings us to the next poster which I now believe is also NOT R69 and is NOT R74, so when was it?



I am still trying to establish exactly when there was a season with the movie after 1974 (and cross checking) but what I currently understand is that the tagline “It Will Live In Your Heart Forever!” was not used in the USA after 1982, so there is some logic that the same applies in Australia, so at this stage one could draw the conclusion that the poster is pre-1982 and post 1974.

Exciting isn't it? More soon…

[Charlie]

You really are a daybill-ofile... 

[guest8]

Why are those posters so skinny

[MoviePosterBid.com]

I wonder how many "refund emails" will be sent regarding all those mis-identified daybills

then of course, more chest thumping

[Pancho]

I notice the GUO logo on the poster - that's Greater Union if I'm not mistaken? However, an IMBD search doesn't list Peter Pan as a film they distributed. The other 'clue' is the Buena Vista logo. Unfortunately all I can tell you is that GUO had an international agreement to distribute Buena Vista films in Australia and New Zealand between 1968 and 1987.

What's odd is that I can't find a cinematic release of Peter Pan in the OFLC database prior to 1992. That in itself isn't unusual; one typo can send a film into obscurity on that database!

[50s]

I wouldn't date any daybill, even it was a Peter Pan



 

[Ari]

Hmmm i think I saw Peter Pan at the movies as a kid. I'll ask my mother.

[MoviePosterBid.com]

it really doesn't surprise me there are so many mis-identifications on non-US posters

frequently people use the same databases to see what they have and the information propagates from that point.
If you look at eBay or anywhere else and the information is incorrect, that continues until corrections are made to erase the mistakes across all platforms..

[Silhouette]

I notice the GUO logo on the poster - that's Greater Union if I'm not mistaken? However, an IMBD search doesn't list Peter Pan as a film they distributed. The other 'clue' is the Buena Vista logo. Unfortunately all I can tell you is that GUO had an international agreement to distribute Buena Vista films in Australia and New Zealand between 1968 and 1987.

What's odd is that I can't find a cinematic release of Peter Pan in the OFLC database prior to 1992. That in itself isn't unusual; one typo can send a film into obscurity on that database!

GUO - those dates unfortunately don't narrow this one down any better.

This off Wiki: "The introduction of the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) occurred in 1994." - so dating pre-'94 would be difficult would it not?

IMBD is not an accurate for distribution, certainly not in Australia anyway - I did some research on Pinocchio Daybill (will save that for another day...bet you lucky buggers can't wait!), you'd be surprised how many times it was actually re-released in Australia...dating the posters is even more fun than this!

[CSM]

I know you're discussing the R69 & R74 specifically but here is the 1953 RKO original for reference:

[Pancho]

GUO - those dates unfortunately don't narrow this one down any better.

This off Wiki: "The introduction of the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) occurred in 1994." - so dating pre-'94 would be difficult would it not?

IMBD is not an accurate for distribution, certainly not in Australia anyway - I did some research on Pinocchio Daybill (will save that for another day...bet you lucky buggers can't wait!), you'd be surprised how many times it was actually re-released in Australia...dating the posters is even more fun than this!

The OFLC site lists everything since the current ratings system came into place in the early 1970s. I completely agree with you re: IMDB; I recently picked up a daybill for the film 'Because of the Cats' which IMDB has listed as a 1973 release. The OFLC site shows that it was passed for exhibition in Australia in Sept 1977 - quite a difference if you're looking to age the poster!

[Pancho]

This link: http://technicolouryawn.com/?p=2386 shows that Peter Pan was screening at Greater Union in December 1973 / January 1974.

[Pancho]

This item: http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/PETER-PAN-Title-Card-1976-/370758234635#ht_384wt_923 is said to be from a 1976 re-release and looks to be the same as the latter daybill.

Wikipedia also says that there was a 1976 re-release: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Pan_(1953_film)#Release_and_later_history

[Pancho]

One more!

Google found me this poster from 1982 (apparently): http://www.aussieposters.com/tag/peter-pan-1982-original-movie-poster-adventure-animation-disney-family/

It's safe to say the daybill you've mentioned is older than this one.

Again, Wikipedia suggests there was a 1982 re-release: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Pan_(1953_film)#Release_and_later_history

[Silhouette]

This link: http://technicolouryawn.com/?p=2386 shows that Peter Pan was screening at Greater Union in December 1973 / January 1974.

That links in with the ad I have shown (above) - same ad, and because of the tag line etc it is 100% like the US insert from 1969 (which is why everyone has dated it so, but since we know when G Rating was brought in and since we have those adverts also dating it around '74 - 1969 is waaaay off then.

[Silhouette]

This item: http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/PETER-PAN-Title-Card-1976-/370758234635#ht_384wt_923 is said to be from a 1976 re-release and looks to be the same as the latter daybill.

Except that design was used earlier too http://www.emovieposter.com/agallery/archiveitem/13058438.html remember even if that is a R76 LC that is no indication it was the same re-release date as Australia (specially as Aus had re-released the movie in 1974)

[Silhouette]

I wonder how many "refund emails" will be sent regarding all those mis-identified daybills

then of course, more chest thumping

Up to Bruce it's his policy so up to him whether he enforces it, it's not my reason for posting; I was only doing the research because I was annoyed at the two eBay sellers ripping off people by claiming two different posters to be the same date which then caused me to check emp database which is when I discovered all the errors.

Besides, I am hopeful the information on which I based my findings is worth sharing for discussion, share the knowledge...

"Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he will sit in a fishing boat and drink beer all day" - something like that.

[Reggie]

As some people know, I like my Disney Daybills and was saddened to see some person being taken to the cleaners with this sale - a $30 poster selling for $350 http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/PETER-PAN-Walt-Disney-1969-Rare-Original-Vintage-Daybill-Movie-Poster-Print-/261415575023?pt=AU_Movie_Memorabilia&hash=item3cdd951def&_uhb=1 worse still (although no bidder), there was this: http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/PETER-PAN-Walt-Disney-1969-Very-Rare-Original-Vintage-DB-Movie-Poster-/321345907486?pt=AU_Movie_Memorabilia&hash=item4ad1b56b1e&_uhb=1

DID YOU SPOT THE PROBLEM? No, it’s not just that both sellers are using that oft abused word 'rare', but both are stating the date is 1969...for different posters! Someone has got it wrong...well here’s what I think – both are wrong (and with that statement, the cat is amongst the pigeons now…)

As I understand it, the G Rating did not come in to effect until 1971 implemented by the NEWLY formed Australian Classification Board (formed in 1970) - the new ratings system implementation would be effective 15 November 1971.

---------------
Here's a press release 15 October 1971:

State Ministers agreed yesterday that the 'R'classification for films would begin to take effect on November 15.

Under this system, people between the ages of six and 18 will be legally excluded from cinemas exhibiting 'R' certificate films. This was announced in Canberra by the Minister for Customs and Excise, Mr Chipp, who was ihc chairman of a meeting on censorship held with six State ministers.

Mr Chipp said that there would also be three advisory classifications for films: (G) general exhibition; (NRC) not recommended for children; and (M) for mature audiences.
---------------

Unless I am mistaken, that means you can't have a poster dated 1969 if the G Rating that is printed on it was not in effect until 1971. So then I did more checking…

http://www.emovieposter.com/agallery/film_title/PETER%2520PAN%2520%2528%252753%2529/type/Aust%2520daybill/archive.html

Unfortunately, almost every single one of the posters that are dated on this page as R60s, R69 is dating it wrong. In fact there are mistakes dating almost every poster on that page with different designs dated with the same date AND/OR the same design dated with different dates!

Also wrong date is stated here:

http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=59073&lotNo=53302

Now I can see why some are dating this poster R69:



The above design is pretty much based on the US Insert of 1969, it seems someone went the easy route, did not check and simply called the Daybill an R69 poster – problem is the G Rating didn’t come in until after 1971, so there is no way it could be from 1969, right? For Daybill collectors, we know that dating an Australian poster based on USA release dates is fraught with danger – there is plenty of evidence where the date of a release (or release) of a movie was not the same date as the USA, in fact often Australia would re-release movies (ergo posters) much more frequently than the USA, so unless you know 100%, stop dating it the same as the USA releases/re-releases!

While researching I found some ads for Peter Pan in 1974, here’s a newspaper advert from 1974, please note two things – (a) the tagline used and (b) the use of Tinkerbell in the advert same as the poster (she is not seen on the other design poster)



So without better evidence I am calling the Peter Pan Daybill poster above, R74.

Which now brings us to the next poster which I now believe is also NOT R69 and is NOT R74, so when was it?



I am still trying to establish exactly when there was a season with the movie after 1974 (and cross checking) but what I currently understand is that the tagline “It Will Live In Your Heart Forever!” was not used in the USA after 1982, so there is some logic that the same applies in Australia, so at this stage one could draw the conclusion that the poster is pre-1982 and post 1974.

Exciting isn't it? More soon…

Looks like someone got anal raped..

[MoviePosterBid.com]

Besides, I am hopeful the information on which I based my findings is worth sharing for discussion, share the knowledge...

"Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he will sit in a fishing boat and drink beer all day" - something like that.

of course it's worth sharing David
the more places where people who actually DO KNOW the actual information & post it can only be a benefit for the hobby

[Silhouette]

Good to see Bruce has updated his databases for the dates of the Peter Pan Daybill movie posters - Daybillers unite!

Personally I still don't care whether people have been contacted or not, that's not my worry - I suspect most people could care less about sending them back too. But it does raise another question, I believe that if the item is credited the original sale stays in the database/online for viewing - if I am correct, why is that?

[CSM]

Personally I still don't care whether people have been contacted or not, that's not my worry - I suspect most people could care less about sending them back too. But it does raise another question, I believe that if the item is credited the original sale stays in the database/online for viewing - if I am correct, why is that?

Even if a refund/credit is given the poster still technically sold at whatever amount it did

[Bruce]

NO. If The sale is refunded, then it is removed. If the person asks for a partial refund, and I agree to it, the new lower price is added and the old price removed. If the person says "I want to keep it" then it stays as is. And YES, they will all be notified, even though it is likely all will keep them.

[Silhouette]

NO. If The sale is refunded, then it is removed. If the person asks for a partial refund, and I agree to it, the new lower price is added and the old price removed. If the person says "I want to keep it" then it stays as is. And YES, they will all be notified, even though it is likely all will keep them.

Cool, makes perfect sense - just askin'

[Ari]

Doesn't REALLY matter to me. But at auction it takes at least two to tango (unless sold at opening bid) so wouldn't the "real" value depend also on what the under bidder would have paid if correctly described ?

Splitting Hairs and playing devils advocate.

[MoviePosterBid.com]

Doesn't REALLY matter to me. But at auction it takes at least two to tango (unless sold at opening bid) so wouldn't the "real" value depend also on what the under bidder would have paid if correctly described ?

Splitting Hairs and playing devils advocate.

I completely agree with this

a few times people have entered incorrect bids and being as I had no bid retraction ability on the old site (I do now), I was unable to make a correction.In general this happened when  bidder may have bid $600 instead of $6.00 or $2000 instead of $20.00

In this case, I rarely offered it to the underbidder because it would have to have been walked back to the 3rd bidder, who may or may not have stopped bidding after bids got a point, but may have bid if the auction did not have the incorrect bid due to the incorrect bid

Invariably I would re-auction the item and let them duke it out again, which is obviously how I believe it should work