Mid-auction analysis - OMGs!, LOLs!, WTFs!, whatev....

[redman]

Next, to anyone who has an eye, it is absolutely NOT a reproduction of a 1949 tri-color poster. The art is not exactly the same, the fonts are not all the same, the color blocks are not the same

the posters are not the same. it is absolutely not a reproduction of the 1949 poster

furthermore, what evidence is there that this poster is a film festival as they now say? I'd love to hear the evidence, but I doubt it is forthcoming.

don't think anyone said it was repo? taken from a photo of '49 poster and then printed was what i read. anyway you keep banging on about different fonts and i cannot be bothered looking. can you provide links?

[crowzilla]

not digging at anyone (this clown and crowzilla PM each other to dig EMP and lick HA)

I don't believe I've ever said an unkind word to you or disrespected you, why are you dragging me into this?

[redman]

I don't believe I've ever said an unkind word to you or disrespected you, why are you dragging me into this?

i'm not dragging you into anything

[eatbrie]

Just checking Bruce's auctions for later today, and this kinda amazes me.  I know it's not a lot of money, but anything more than $1 is too much imo. 

What are people thinking?



T

[MoviePosterBid.com]

What are people thinking?

they aren't

[hepcatpunk]

If "Faded" is any part of the description, absolute avoid on my end.

[erik1925]

That poster is beyond faded.....

Unreal that people either DONT read a description, as its clearly stated, loudly & boldly, that this poster is very sun faded....

....And, hence, basically worthless..

So, its either that, or just another bidder with cash to burn. 

[MoviePosterBid.com]

in all fairness, it could be a buyer who expects to never be able to afford a nice copy and will be happy to have this in the man cave (or gal cave)

everyone can't necessarily afford to buy high value posters, for a variety of reasons

[eatbrie]

$155 right now, which is exactly the same price than Dave's reprint...



Guess which one will look better in a frame?

T

[erik1925]

in all fairness, it could be a buyer who expects to never be able to afford a nice copy and will be happy to have this in the man cave (or gal cave)

everyone can't necessarily afford to buy high value posters, for a variety of reasons

 

[okiehawker]

Who needs lots of money, when guys like our our very own Jeff still find movie goodies at their local local junk shop!  Say, let's go huntin' with Jeff!   Okie

[redman]

re fading, HA say this has "mild unaddressed color fading"

it's good to see HA use the dreaded word "fading" in their descriptions...but come on..all the reds have gone?

[jayn_j]

re fading, HA say this has "mild unaddressed color fading"

it's good to see HA use the dreaded word "fading" in their descriptions...but come on..all the reds have gone?

Well, Astaire/Rogers material is relatively hard to find.  I paid $100 for this faded one myself a couple of years ago.

[redman]

^ that's a nice card. yours doesn't look that much different from bruces Hershenson/Allen Archive one

[redman]

Bonhams will be selling The Phantom of the Opera (1925) three-sheet in May
estimate is US$ 200,000 - 300,000, £ 150,000 - 230,000
do you think it will sell?

[erik1925]

^ Love , love LOVE that POTO 3 sheet! 

Pricey, but it may sell, as that has to be ONE rare bird, for sure.

[jayn_j]

^ that's a nice card. yours doesn't look that much different from bruces Hershenson/Allen Archive one

Both are faded compared to another scene card I have:


And here is an unfaded Shall We Dance card I own for comparison. (color balance is Bruce's and a bit different)

[redman]

more nice cards - getting quite jealous here the gay divorcee lobby looks almost new
i would guess that the shall we dance with F&G rollerskating is one of the most wanted. you can see the colour in their faces compared to the white ones in the recent HA sale

[CSM]

Cool POTO three sheet - don't believe I have seen it before

[crowzilla]

Bonhams will be selling The Phantom of the Opera (1925) three-sheet in May
estimate is US$ 200,000 - 300,000, £ 150,000 - 230,000
do you think it will sell?

Not at that price, no.
Phantom paper with no Phantom? Still very rare, yes but I can't see someone putting up that kind of price for it.

[erik1925]

Might as well add the Bonhams link and info.

Would love to know the provenance and who had this up to now.

https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/25491/preview_lot/5252254/?category=list&length=10&page=1

The Phantom of the Opera

Universal Pictures, 1925. Three sheet poster, linen-backed, framed. It is hard to imagine that The Phantom of the Opera, in its various incarnations before its 1925 release, went through several directors, massive editing, two dreadful audience previews, two reshoots, and even a romantic comedy plot before it became the jewel of Universal Pictures that it remains to this day. Lon Chaney, in arguably his greatest role, expertly created the makeup that proved to be the most accurate and loyal to the book, more so than any other film version. The unmasking scene in which Chaney's monstrous visage was revealed prompted 1925 audiences into screaming fits. The haunting and atmospheric cinematography, the lavish and exhaustively precise sets, and Chaney's moving yet frightening performance all assemble to create the definitive interpretation of Gaston Leroux's 1910 novel. This sumptuously illustrated three sheet poster is possibly the only one of its kind still in existence.

Overall: 42 x 81 in.; poster: 41 x 78.5 in.

[okiehawker]

Might as well add the Bonhams link and info.

Would love to know the provenance and who had this up to now.

https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/25491/preview_lot/5252254/?category=list&length=10&page=1

The Phantom of the Opera

Universal Pictures, 1925. Three sheet poster, linen-backed, framed. It is hard to imagine that The Phantom of the Opera, in its various incarnations before its 1925 release, went through several directors, massive editing, two dreadful audience previews, two reshoots, and even a romantic comedy plot before it became the jewel of Universal Pictures that it remains to this day. Lon Chaney, in arguably his greatest role, expertly created the makeup that proved to be the most accurate and loyal to the book, more so than any other film version. The unmasking scene in which Chaney's monstrous visage was revealed prompted 1925 audiences into screaming fits. The haunting and atmospheric cinematography, the lavish and exhaustively precise sets, and Chaney's moving yet frightening performance all assemble to create the definitive interpretation of Gaston Leroux's 1910 novel. This sumptuously illustrated three sheet poster is possibly the only one of its kind still in existence.

Overall: 42 x 81 in.; poster: 41 x 78.5 in.

Pretty darn cool that exists, eh Jeff?!  Thanks for pointing it out.  Okie

[erik1925]

Pretty darn cool that exists, eh Jeff?!  Thanks for pointing it out.  Okie

You're darn tootin', Okie. 

[crowzilla]

Would love to know the provenance and who had this up to now.

Pretty sure this was owned by Wes Shank

[pratschm]

Think I'll bid on a 6sh... oh wait...