Dating the Sleeping Beauty Daybill

[Silhouette]

Well this has been a veritable nightmare to research, lots of mistakes and assumptions in dating this Daybill movie poster, I believe much of my research (along with logic) will agree with the statements I've made, as always I don't claim to be 100% accurate but I think in general I am more accurate than what's out there at the moment. As before, I am contributing to the Daybill pot for edification and general discussion.

First of all I want to give a brief overview of the distribution of films in Australia which will help identify a few dates:

In 1928 Greater Union (GU) sold their first distribution company “Australasian Films” but by 1932 they were back in the game with Union Theatres Feature Exchange which was subsequently restructured in 1932 to become British Empire Films (BEF). Over the years Disney has used a range of companies to distribute their films in Australia, including Union Theatres Exchange in 1929; United Artists 1933 to 1937; RKO 1937 to 1954; Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer 1959 to 1972 and BEF-MGM from 1973 to 1975.

So bearing all that in mind, along with the information we already know about (the dating of) censorship here in Australia, let’s look at some Sleeping Beauty Daybill movie posters…

http://www.emovieposter.com/agallery/film_title/SLEEPING%2520BEAUTY%2520%2528%252759%2529/type/Aust%2520daybill/archive.html

------------------------------------

This poster is called R70 – correct!



•   The designs was used on US 1SH in 1970 (and I believe 1979?).
•   The movie was released in the USA in June 1970 (according to IMDB)
•   I have found evidence it played in limited theatres in Australia in May 1970


This poster is called R70 (and also R80s) – wrong!



http://www.emovieposter.com/agallery/archiveitem/8656758.html
http://www.emovieposter.com/agallery/archiveitem/2217387.html


•   The design is the same one from the 1970 Daybill, so I can see why it is assumed to be 1970.
•   The designs was used on US 1SH in 1970 (and I believe 1979?), so that’s why it is assumed to be 1970.
•   The poster shows the G Rating so that dates it post November 1971
•   The BEF logo dates it before 1976 (and after 1973).
•   There WAS a general release in 1975 during the August School Holidays and the Christmas Holidays of 1975.
•   I am aware that is has a 1970 date printed on it (“Re-released by Buena Vista Distribution Co 1970 Walt Disney Productions”) but given the statements above it seems more logical the poster has simply been re-used from the earlier distribution and overprinted with the G rating and BEF logo.

So I am calling it R75

------------------------------------

In 1976 BEF (Film Distributors) was renamed Greater Union Film Distributors, and became the distribution arm of Greater Union cinemas. From 1976 to 1987 Disney titles were distributed in Australia by Greater Union Film Distributors (after their merger with BEF). In 1987, Greater Union Film Distributors merged with Village Roadshow Distributors.

------------------------------------

This poster is called R70 (and also R80, R86, R90s) – wrong!



http://www.emovieposter.com/agallery/archiveitem/9866864.html
http://www.emovieposter.com/agallery/film_title/SLEEPING%2520BEAUTY%2520%2528%252759%2529/type/Aust%2520daybill/tag/R86/archive.html
http://www.emovieposter.com/agallery/archiveitem/2252834.html
http://movieposters.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=161146&lotNo=51459

Also it is dated R80s
http://www.emovieposter.com/agallery/archiveitem/3306828.html

•   This design was first used on the US 1SH in 1986
•   The poster shows the G Rating so that dates it post November 1971
•   The poster has the Greater Union stamp, which dates it post 1976 and pre 1988.
•   There was an August holiday release in 1987

So I am calling it R87

------------------------------------

This poster is called R70 – wrong!



http://www.emovieposter.com/agallery/archiveitem/12786566.html

•   The design is based on the R70 US Insert and 3SH so I can see why it is dated that.
•   The poster shows the G Rating so that dates it post November 1971
•   At the bottom of the poster is the Disney mission statement “Look to the name Walt Disney for the finest in family entertainment” that I believe was used from the 60s (perhaps earlier?). In 1973 this was changed to “50 Happy Years of Family Entertainment”

Unfortunately I cannot read the bottom left of the poster and I suspect that will have a copyright date on it.

Although I feel it is R72 I cannot call it – anyone?

------------------------------------

You’re welcome.

[MoviePosterBid.com]

so David, are you saying that after "20 years of research" someone needs to do more research??

[CSM]

I think Bruce needs a little slack in some instances - especially those auctions involving foreign posters.  Just consider the sheer number and variety that he has sold.

Cannot be unequivocal on every single poster.  And without "his" research/information as a starting point where would you/we be in your/our own in a lot of cases?

[CSM]

Of course this somewhat harkens back to my issues with the Casablanca that appears to have magic marker on it that was sold recently...I believe, ultimately, the responsibility lies with the buyer to know what they are buying and not just blankly trust any seller.  Use your own common and not so common sense...

[Silhouette]

I think Bruce needs a little slack in some instances - especially those auctions involving foreign posters.  Just consider the sheer number and variety that he has sold.

Cannot be unequivocal on every single poster.  And without "his" research/information as a starting point where would you/we be in your/our own in a lot of cases?

I am not sure by what you mean 'needs a little slack' - what should I do, nothing? I am NOT 'picking on' on anyone in particular, I list incorrect listings by HA as well, either you are right or you are not. I am doing this as much for me as for anyone else, I like Disney Daybills and I like doing this sort of thing - it's my genealogy research bones being warmed up.

How many one has sold should not get in the way of the facts. But of course you are right, without his "research" then we may not be at this point of course but I am not going to email PMs every time I find a mistake, I will post publically because I believe I have data which backs up my research, I would like to share this information with other collectors because I am adding to the history of the hobby it's not just about dating a poster and for me THAT makes it even more interesting, and well worth sharing. And as I have said, I am not saying I am 100% right and if others can add more information to the melting pot to make collecting Daybill poster even more fun and more accurate then all power to them.

Look, I actually could care less about the errors per se, everyone makes them, remember this all started because two rip-off merchants were selling two same titled poster that they dated the same yet were different design (http://www.allposterforum.com/index.php/topic,7814.0.html) so I decided to check, from there, well it has sort of snowballed.

Where I am a little annoyed is seeing the same poster being dated differently, within the same database - really, that should not happen - my position is if you can't be 100% sure then don't date it at all.

[CSM]

I have no problem at all with what you're doing David.  I have made similar posts and raised similar concerns myself in the past...

Although I didn't quote I was more so responding to Rich's comment.  In all honesty how can one expect Bruce (or any other seller) to be an infallible expert in all areas of movie posters?  What is important is that dealers/sellers/auctioneers recognize and correct errors after being presented with new evidence or information (this also means accurately describing posters in the future and offering refunds etc. to past buyers). 

[Bruce]

My policy with all these corrections is to handle them exactly as I do with those that are sent privately. We research what was written, and then make corrections to past sales, and then email anyone who was sold something incorrectly marked, and offer them a full refund. If they want the refund, we remove the result and re-auction it correctly identified. If they want to keep it, then we correct the listing but leave it, because the item did sell for that price on that date.

Have any of you buyers ever received a similar email from any other major auction house or eBay seller, especially years after the fact? Maybe it is because they never make a single error, but that can be tested by looking through a results database (for those that have one), and if you find an error, contact them and see if they even bother to correct it. Of course, you will never know if they emailed the person who was sold the item.

I am happy for all of you to find errors in our Auction History and to post them here. It would be nice if you would also send a copy to "matt@emovieposter.com" (he is in charge of this) because then it saves me the time of finding these topics and passing them on to him. I have been spending less and less time on online forums (due to how busy I am), so if we are not emailed, then I may well miss one or more of these, and that would be a shame.

[MoviePosterBid.com]

my comment would be this

#1 people who live in glass houses should not ever have been throwing stones at other dealers

#2 the real issue with making such mistakes - and we have all made mistakes - is that when I make a mistake, I'm wasting someone else's time and simply said, it's an incorrect way to handle things. The variety of mistakes noted - on the same posters - shows a lack of research even within one's own databases. Going back & telling my buyer I made a mistake is great, but it reduces my ability to claim how great I am and how much better than others I may be. I am not perfect and I never met anyone who was, even though every girlfriend and my ex-wife and some other people like to say they are, but they aren't and it isn't fair to exclaim constantly that people should do business they way you do, and ignore the failures you make. professional courtesy is not a catch-phrase, It's something that has a real meaning

but I digress. The reason be sure you aren't making mistakes is not YOUR TIME, it's THE OTHER GUY'S TIME

Corporate structure today (for instance) - when you call to make a complaint, how long does it take you listening to prompts and pushing buttons before you can get an answer or a real live person? The corporation does not care about that. They only care that by using such a system they don't have to pay more employees to answer the phones and get your answers. Your time has no value to them.

My customer's time is valuable to me and that's what makes me want to do a good job.

[MoviePosterBid.com]

Chris

David is being eminently fair in his authentication posts. They are clearly informative and no one person is being singled out

but let me pose something else.
why don't you say "people should leave Andy at MPF alone & stop ragging on him in a very obvious post"?

is he hurting you?

I'm no hypocrite. I don't think other people should be hypocrites either
what's good for the goose is good for the gander

[guest4208]

Excellent research David. Its obviously very difficult to date some reissue daybills but the work that has been done by various people is a great help. There are some definite clues in dating daybills. The censorship changeover in 1971 is one that makes it fairly easy to distinguish daybills that are post 1971.

Everyone can make a mistake and most are usually honest mistakes based on the available information. It is great that Bruce and Heritage immediately correct any errors. Errors on ebay are a different story.

However, I am not sure I completely agree with you on what is usually referred to as the 1970 Sleeping Beauty daybill/s. The one that does not have the censor rating actually came from New Zealand. These daybills were printed in Australia without censor ratings to be used in NZ. I think it is fair to assume that they were printed at the same time as the ones with the censor rating. I saw your comment "I have found evidence it played in limited theatres in Australia in May 1970" but the daybill you are referrng to has no censorship. You would think that it would have had "For General Exhibition" if it was used for the 1970 release in Australia.

The problem with dating them is that this is one of the rare daybills that is actually dated - 1970. I think that they pretty much reproduced the US art from the 1970 re release and used it for the daybill including the date. However, I think the actual release date was probably around 1971 in Australia for both daybills hence the "G" rating on the second daybill.

Its very hard to be 100% sure of all of this. Maybe it might be better to describe those two daybills as early 70s release rather than specifically 1970.

[MoviePosterBid.com]

I think I would make a suggestion that there should be a pinned topic that links to all authentication threads as an index

Holiday and Thierry...what do you think

[Silhouette]

Excellent research David. Its obviously very difficult to date some reissue daybills but the work that has been done by various people is a great help. There are some definite clues in dating daybills. The censorship changeover in 1971 is one that makes it fairly easy to distinguish daybills that are post 1971.

Everyone can make a mistake and most are usually honest mistakes based on the available information. It is great that Bruce and Heritage immediately correct any errors. Errors on ebay are a different story.

However, I am not sure I completely agree with you on what is usually referred to as the 1970 Sleeping Beauty daybill/s. The one that does not have the censor rating actually came from New Zealand. These daybills were printed in Australia without censor ratings to be used in NZ. I think it is fair to assume that they were printed at the same time as the ones with the censor rating. I saw your comment "I have found evidence it played in limited theatres in Australia in May 1970" but the daybill you are referring to has no censorship. You would think that it would have had "For General Exhibition" if it was used for the 1970 release in Australia.

The problem with dating them is that this is one of the rare daybills that is actually dated - 1970. I think that they pretty much reproduced the US art from the 1970 re release and used it for the daybill including the date. However, I think the actual release date was probably around 1971 in Australia for both daybills hence the "G" rating on the second daybill.

Its very hard to be 100% sure of all of this. Maybe it might be better to describe those two daybills as early 70s release rather than specifically 1970.

Thanks John, problem with eBay is they are probably using the aforementioned databases as a reference.

So are you saying that the BEF/G Rated poster would be correct as R75 and the non rated poster was dated R70s in NZ?

[guest4208]

I think the one without the rating was used only in NZ but probably around 1971. I guess the BEF one could be 1975 but hard to be sure. Its possible that it may have also been printed at a similar time as the one without the rating and they just added the BEF logo and rating.

[Silhouette]

I think the one without the rating was used only in NZ but probably around 1971. I guess the BEF one could be 1975 but hard to be sure.

•   The BEF logo dates it before 1976 (and after 1973).
•   There WAS a general release in 1975 (in Australia) during the August School Holidays and the Christmas Holidays of 1975.

[guest4208]

One thing to consider is that it looks as though both daybills might have been printed from the same plates.  There are many cases where daybills from the same plates had the ratings or distributors information blocked out for use in NZ. Invisible Boy is a good example. This didnt happen all the time incidentally - sometimes they just blacked out the censor details or added a sticker over the top. The information I have had is that they didnt keep the plates long so I wonder if they would have had a separate 1971 and 1975 release. Not sure what the answer is.

[Silhouette]

I guess the trick is to fly to NZ and research it there...I have my passport ready, send the bill or will you just give me your credit card?

[CSM]

Chris

David is being eminently fair in his authentication posts. They are clearly informative and no one person is being singled out

but let me pose something else.
why don't you say "people should leave Andy at MPF alone & stop ragging on him in a very obvious post"?

is he hurting you?

I'm no hypocrite. I don't think other people should be hypocrites either
what's good for the goose is good for the gander

so David, are you saying that after "20 years of research" someone needs to do more research??

That's a potshot directed at Bruce.  I was not calling into question the fairness of David's post but more specifically your comment Rich (although David did use Bruce's links as the main examples).  You can try to disguise it but the insinuation is clear to most...

[MoviePosterBid.com]

I'm curious Chris, how many times over the past 10 years did you stand up for Heritage, or for myself?

[CSM]

I'm curious Chris, how many times over the past 10 years did you stand up for Heritage, or for myself?

Other than your bickering back and forth with Bruce and Bruce's blanket carnival barker advertising statements (a method which some other dealers/auctioneers view as a personal affront somehow even if no one other dealer or auctioneer is singled out specifically) I don't recall a time you were shot at Rich?  The difference, to me at least, is that your posts are clearly directed solely at Bruce.  I do not feel I am specifically trying to defend Bruce - I am not an eMovieposter apologist - I just feel, getting back to the original issue, that it's not right to expect infallibility across the board when the subject matter is so diverse.  Again, this is tempered with the caveat that corrections should be made once errors are noted and accepted based on firm evidence.  The auction results databases of both eMovie and HA are invaluable FREE resources.  They should be utilized as starting points to research and not as movie poster bibles.  Waiting in the weeds to fire a shot at Bruce because he may or may not have a few daybills listed as the incorrect release year (+/- what is it about 5 years or so based on the research? - research which has no firm consensus yet) is rather juvenile.  This is of course not the first instance of "potshotting" noted recently... 

The Belgian Casablanca is another story.  Not only was the poster far more "valuable" and likely to bring a higher result but artwork was identical (and thus far trickier to pin down) and the margin in supposed release year was far greater.  To my mind there was greater importance in getting the release year right on that poster (as the buyer could potentially lose far more $$$ in paying for something described as something it may not be based on some clear visual cues) vs. the several 1970s/80s re-releases of certain Disney posters.  But that's probably showcasing some personal bias on my part.  Although I commended Bruce on his actions to explain to the buyer the uncertainty of its release year and offering of a refund etc. I am still left unsatisfied by the lack of clarification and resolution on that one.

Rest assured, if I felt you were being singled out or sniped at specifically and unfairly on a topic that held interest to me I would make my grievances known.     

[MoviePosterBid.com]

Chris, you clearly have not been on this forum for the past 5 years and you certainly haven't been on mopo for 10

concerning my statement, it is just a comment that prefaces itself on something previously said by someone else and is no different than anyone else here commenting on some statement previously said by anyone else.. There isn't anything nasty being said. Just a reflection of past statements against a very obvious fail
it is only ironic because because someone for a decade or more has insinuated that we should be measured against his perfection, which clearly is a product of fantasy

Previously I noted that like others on this forum, you have been taking "pot shots" at MPF and you also did not ask anyone to stop, including the forum owners.
so it's hard to get a handle on what you think is hypocrisy and what you don't, because to me, what I point out in these words is hypocrisy, especially since what you guys are doing to Andy is specifically meant to be nasty

T&H never said you cannot critique things, they just said there is to be no more arguing & fighting and there shouldn't have to be. people can state facts clearly enough without being nasty and beyond that, as long as people are being honest, I don't see anything that needs to be curtailed.

[Matt]

Cough...sorry, I'm going a wee bit off topic here but Dave, which daybill do you like?

I like the 1970/71 version with the witch swept up in flames but from afar looks like an eagle. Clever artwork!


PS Make that 7

[Silhouette]

Lol!

Actually truth be told I don't like either, but I have an original it doesn't matter - but if I had to choose then because I like animation I'd go for the (what I am calling) R72 version.