Provenance

[Pancho]

Hi fellow collectors!

I've been watching some art shows on TV lately and they're always talking about the importance of provenance. The oldest of my posters probably tick in somewhere between 50 - 60 years old, but I've been thinking as to how I'd ever show provenance if I was required to. A lot of provenance appears to be sales records, so would it be wise to start keeping records of the who / when / where of my poster purchases?

When these posters are 100 years old, it might be important to show that my Night of the Living Dead daybill has a past.

[eatbrie]

I personally don't think it matters at all because posters are mass produced and there is no way to prove that your poster is the one that sold at that auction.  Unless we're talking about an extremely rare poster, something no one else owns or less than a handful of people.

Provenance is EXTREMELY important with fine art, because the pieces are unique and you can actually track them down.  But posters, I think not.

T

[Pancho]

So are you saying that maybe authentication rather than provenance is the key? In a world of increasing fakes, buyers need confidence they're getting what they're paying for.

[eatbrie]

I'm not an expert in Aussie paper, but if you're talking about a 68 NotLD, I'm sure it is pretty easy to identify from a reprint, if reprints even exist.

But yes, authentication is key.  Which is why companies like Heritage and Emovie sell their gear for more... collectors trust their expertise.

T

[Ari]

Luckily there is so few fake daybills it IS funny. I like some of my posters that the old owners had stamped the back of. Like from the collection of Ron Borst or forry Ackerman etc. it's not important but I find it fun.

[CSM]

Thierry is right.  Provenance counts for very, very little other than for perhaps continuity or curiosity's sake.  It's all about authenticity

[Pancho]

I could see there being some room for a provenance discussion if an older poster was in really good condition. Being able to show that it's been in your collection, safely stored away for 15 years would help a buyer to feel safer.

[erik1925]

Pancho, your comment here made me curious about a pre-war Belgian poster I have from 1927. I can trace back the 2 previous owners and I just wrote the earlier of the 2 owners, who resides in France, to ask how and when they acquired it.

If nothing else, it's neat to be able to follow the road back a bit, on the life a poster has led, and see where it might lead.

[Pancho]

Pancho, your comment here made me curious about a pre-war Belgian poster I have from 1927. I can trace back the 2 previous owners and I just wrote the earlier of the 2 owners, who resides in France, to ask how and when they acquired it.

If nothing else, it's neat to be able to follow the road back a bit, on the life a poster has led, and see where it might lead.

And I personally believe that a poster (or anything else collectible) that has a history is far more appealing to a buyer. I'll be very interested to hear how your search turns out.

There are some daybills in my collection that have come direct from closed theatres and having that knowledge just increases my love for them!

[eatbrie]

And I personally believe that a poster (or anything else collectible) that has a history is far more appealing to a buyer. I'll be very interested to hear how your search turns out.

There are some daybills in my collection that have come direct from closed theatres and having that knowledge just increases my love for them!

Your love, but not someone else's.

Like Jeff said, if you own a poster and know it's provenance, it's fun to you.  But it also ends with you.  My first poster was Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.  I didn't collect posters back then, I was a kid, I only started collecting in 2000.  But I kept it all these years.  I got it from a theater in Woodstock, IL, where they shot Groundhog Day.  That's its provenance, and I cherish it.  But it doesn't mean shit to anyone else and I cannot prove it.

[Mirosae]

I would agree with that. Unless it has a specific added value, for example as part of the director or actor own collection etc. But I think largely it does not matter much.

[Crazy Vick]

At face value - i'd say provenance is an asset for sure.  It rarely comes into play though because its near impossible to prove. 

When you sell your daybills from that closed theatre, the seller will more than likely perpetuate that story, but will be a little less special for him because he doesn't have first-hand knowledge. If you can prove it, it will add appeal and by extension, value, to your pieces.

[MoviePosterBid.com]

provenance in movie posters is as T says, not really much of an asset.
Art yes, other unique one-of-a-kind items yes. A car that used to belong to Elvis.. yes..

in posters, other than a truly unique piece (like say "THis Metropolis 3 sheet belonged to Leonardo DeCaprio") it means nothing as he was not the first owner. It doesn't add to it's cachet

here's an example
My friend has an insert for Double Indemnity that (supposedly) was owned by Stanwyck.
I need this poster and will trade him for it. But the possible Stanwyck ownership, which really can't be traced, means nothing to me and it means nothing to his price.
It isn't signed, it comes with no letter, there are no pics showing it in her home, etc

if a set of James Bond posters from Dr No to YOLT came from Connery's collection and is sold at an auction that can include a letter stating so, that could have an added value to someone, but fo rthe most part, who owned a poster - especially a poster for which many copies exist - it's nothing

[jayn_j]

Agree with everyone.

I have a large Broadway theatrical poster for Grease that I can show hung in front of the Royal theater for a known short period of dates.  Didn't cost me much, and it isn't worth much.  But it gives me pleasure to know this.

[Crazy Vick]

provenance in movie posters is as T says, not really much of an asset.
Art yes, other unique one-of-a-kind items yes. A car that used to belong to Elvis.. yes..

in posters, other than a truly unique piece (like say "THis Metropolis 3 sheet belonged to Leonardo DeCaprio") it means nothing as he was not the first owner. It doesn't add to it's cachet

here's an example
My friend has an insert for Double Indemnity that (supposedly) was owned by Stanwyck.
I need this poster and will trade him for it. But the possible Stanwyck ownership, which really can't be traced, means nothing to me and it means nothing to his price.
It isn't signed, it comes with no letter, there are no pics showing it in her home, etc

if a set of James Bond posters from Dr No to YOLT came from Connery's collection and is sold at an auction that can include a letter stating so, that could have an added value to someone, but fo rthe most part, who owned a poster - especially a poster for which many copies exist - it's nothing

I think we're all saying the same thing here, its an asset if you can prove it.  By asset I mean more interesting to more potential buyers resulting in more value.  If an auction house puts a Dr No in an auction and states that it belonged to Connery, or a metropolis 3sh that belonged to Dicaprio, it is likely to sell for more, probably regardless of documentation (but moreso with the official proof)  That doesnt mean big shot deep pockets who picks up both posters (ie. Thierry) gives a sh+t about either actor, and influenced HIS decision, but I reckon more people overall were attracted by this.  

[MoviePosterBid.com]

I think we're all saying the same thing here, its an asset if you can prove it.  By asset I mean more interesting to more potential buyers resulting in more value.  If an auction house puts a Dr No in an auction and states that it belonged to Connery, or a metropolis 3sh that belonged to Dicaprio, it is likely to sell for more, probably regardless of documentation (but moreso with the official proof)  That doesnt mean big shot deep pockets who picks up both posters (ie. Thierry) gives a sh+t about either actor, and influenced HIS decision, but I reckon more people overall were attracted by this.  

that's not what I'm saying, or at least in part not what I'm saying.

I'm not so sure that the Metropolis 3sh would sell for more money at all. It's already a very valuable poster and the potential buyers wouldn't  necessarily pay more because Leo has no connection to the film. If it was Fritz Lang's I don't think it would increase the price, unless it was signed from Thea Von Harbou to Fritz maybe.

The Bond posters probably would, because Connery is the iconic Bond.

Overall, I don't think who owned any poster would increase it's value except in an extremely limited fashion on a very tiny hyper-focused area.

[erik1925]

Any poster previously owned by people like DiCaprio or Nick Cage would make NO difference to me, value-wise, in the least.    

[Crazy Vick]

Any poster previously owned by people like DiCaprio or Nick Cage would make NO difference to me, value-wise, in the least.    

You lie.  If the "Cage Collection" appeared as EMP December Major Part V you would all totally try and pick up a piece. How could you not want to be able to say you own a Nicolas Cage provenance Pretty in Pink OS or Weekend at Bernie's one sheet?

[MoviePosterBid.com]

I could care less who owned anything except me.. If "I" own it, that's important to me.

the rare exception.
Raymond Chandler's typewriter. That would be interesting.
a book on medieval history owned by Chandler? who cares. He had nothing to do with the book.

I know someone who owns a piano & desk that was owned by Tommy Dorsey
I know an art collector who owns the drawing board of Wally Wood and another who owns one that belonged to Jack Kirby

these are hyper-focused items.
I don't care if Boris Karloff owned a pair of shoes on sale at the flea market. Did he make the shoes?

[Neo]

Some folks, including me a few years ago, think that buying a poster from well known dealers or well known folks like Dan R., Ron Borst, Professor Powers, etc. would add some market value to them.  Nowadays, I agree with those who say that provenance with movie posters really doesn't add much market value to them.

Personally, now that I'm confident in authenticating most posters myself, the way I look at is that it's cool to have some history on items, but it's not really "provenance" in the same way as original paintings and unique items, as others have mentioned.

[Neo]

I could care less who owned anything except me.. If "I" own it, that's important to me.

the rare exception.
Raymond Chandler's typewriter. That would be interesting.
a book on medieval history owned by Chandler? who cares. He had nothing to do with the book.

I know someone who owns a piano & desk that was owned by Tommy Dorsey
I know an art collector who owns the drawing board of Wally Wood and another who owns one that belonged to Jack Kirby

these are hyper-focused items.
I don't care if Boris Karloff owned a pair of shoes on sale at the flea market. Did he make the shoes?

+1

It's a little baffling to me that people put much added value on stuff like Elvis' cup or something like that.  However, items that have historical significance, like Elvis' guitars, customized cars, etc. are another story, IMO.

[Crazy Vick]

To some folks, including me a few years ago, people think that buying a poster from well known dealers or well known folks like Dan R., Ron Borst, Professor Powers, etc. would add some market value to them.  Nowadays, I agree with those who say that provenance with movie posters really doesn't add much market value to them.

Personally, now that I'm confident in authenticating most posters myself, the way I look at is that it's cool to have some history on items, but it's not really "provenance" in the same way as original paintings and unique items, as others have mentioned.

Who the f-ck is Ron Borst or Raymond Chandler?

I am talking about NICOLAS CAGE and LEONARDO DICAPRIO.  

God you guys are frustrating.  

[Crazy Vick]

+1

It's a little baffling to me that people put much added value on stuff like Elvis' cup or something like that.  However, items that have some historical significance, stuff like Elvis' guitars, customized cars, etc. are another story, IMO.

All kidding aside...

As bafling as it is, people WILL pay more for elvis' stinky socks or DiCarpio's Gremlins 1 sheet. 
 

[MoviePosterBid.com]

Who the f-ck is .....Raymond Chandler?

you are dead to me
 

[jayn_j]

I don't care if Boris Karloff owned a pair of shoes on sale at the flea market. Did he make the shoes?

I would if they were the shoes/boots he wore as the Frankenstein monster.  Look at auction results over those 6 pairs of ruby slippers.