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

[eatbrie]

I know.

I mentioned that to him, and asked how that huge difference got by them, too.

I have told them many many times about this or that mistake, but it's usually about French posters and I know it can be extremely confusing and I don't expect them to know it all since I don't and I don't know anyone who does.  But this is different and they need to be on top of it, which is why I mentioned it here.

[erik1925]

 

[erik1925]

So there is a good inch missing at the top (the top of the light saber is missing) and at least 2 inches missing at the bottom (Leia's dress should be completely in).  I guess most people don't care but shouldn't it be mentioned or are these subway posters so common it doesn't need to be mentioned anymore?



http://auctions.emovieposter.com/Bidding.taf?_function=detail&Auction_uid1=3968716



What is should look like...



T

It ran to the end, closing at $331.00.

Maybe tomorrow something will be mentioned about it by EMP.

[brude]

That's a damn shame.
Buyer is probably gonna have a shat-attack when they realize the difference.

[50s]

SW is not my thing but a quick observation because I have better things to look at   , there is a dark thin vertical line in the full size poster but not in the trimmed one. Is it a scuff mark? It is up from bottom right corner crossing the blue & yellow

P.S.I'm on a tiny mobile phone screen, but pretty sure its not lunch splash on screen

[erik1925]

I came across this Authentication notation about this same quad on this poster site, They also have the same EMP version for sale: https://originalvintagemovieposters.com/star-wars-return-of-the-jedi-original-british-quad-movie-cinema-poster-for-sale/


"Authentication Note: There are two versions of this British Quad, there is a version with the Ewoks directly underneath Han Solo’s body and there is this version without. Noted Star Wars specialists have identified that this version without Ewoks was the first poster released by Lucas film for this film. There are also some printing anomalies to note: some were released 27.5 x 40″ (thought to be made for the London underground) there was the standard quad printed at 30×40″ and another printed at 31×40″.



Here is the link, showing the quad with the redesigned  Kirby art, done by Feref Assoc.

https://originalvintagemovieposters.com/star-wars-return-of-the-jedi-original-british-quad-ewok-style-cinema-poster-for-sale/

[erik1925]

This looks to be a slightly resized (reduced) image of a WC for the the 1939 Bette Davis movie, Jezebel. It is described as being 11x17 inches. It's too small for a standard WC (14x22) and too large for a midget WC (8x14). And with an asking price of $499.99, and advertised in the "Original" section, it sure seems like the seller might be trying to dupe someone and make some quick, getaway cash.    And the back of the piece looks too minty white, too.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/141743869886?_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

 

[eatbrie]

I have never seen or heard of a 31x40in.

I own both versions, they are both 30x40in.



T

[CSM]

11x17 is usually a giveaway that it is a print

[CSM]

I do believe there was discussion about the size differences in the ROTJ quads somewhere on APF before...

[erik1925]

11x17 is usually a giveaway that it is a print

Precisely.  

[eatbrie]

I do believe there was discussion about the size differences in the ROTJ quads somewhere on APF before...

Yes, none of this is new, Chris.  Bruce also knows about it.  I even think he was part of the conversation.  Even more reason why it should have been mentioned on EMP.

T

[CSM]

Yes, none of this is new, Chris.  Bruce also knows about it.  I even think he was part of the conversation.  Even more reason why it should have been mentioned on EMP.

T

Are you thinking it is trimmed Thierry or an undersized reprint?  Would it not be odd to have several trimmed examples all cut to exactly the same size?

[paul waines]

They aren't trimmed, or re-prints, they are original posters at that size, and Steve is correct, the line he mentions is writing which is on the full size Quad, but not the shorter one.

I'm just off to work or would have checked what mine says...

[erik1925]

Agree 100%. I just emailed Matt over at EMP with your comparative image.

I guess we will see if they pull the auction or not.

I got an email back from Matt over at EMP this morning. He wrote:

"This quad measures 27 1/2" x 40". Obviously, this should have been added to the auction along with the following note.

"Note that this British quad measures 27 1/2" x 40". According to Star Wars experts, many original British quads from this title (and other titles of this time period) measure this size (the accepted reason is that there were quads made this size for use in the London Underground), but that there are also some British quads that measure the full 30" x 40" (in some cases, those full-sized ones may only be "printer's proofs")."

We will be contacting the winning bidder with this information."

So the quad is not trimmed but is one of the other sizes that was produced for this title, as mentioned previously.

[brude]

I've found this entire SW Kirby quad auction incident a bit disturbing.
Don't get me wrong -- I love Bruce and the team for all the hard work they do, but I'm thinking they might need an ombudsman?

[eatbrie]

It only takes TWO people.  I really hope one of them is the seller...

http://auctions.emovieposter.com/Bidding.taf?_function=detail&Auction_uid1=3978937

 

T

[erik1925]

It only takes TWO people.  I really hope one of them is the seller...

http://auctions.emovieposter.com/Bidding.taf?_function=detail&Auction_uid1=3978937

 

T

That's a whole lotta pressbook goin' on!   

[eatbrie]

It looks like I'm not the only one to like Bardot.

http://auctions.emovieposter.com/Bidding.taf?_function=detail&Auction_uid1=3979504

It's a great poster, I have to say, one of my favs.

T

[hepcatpunk]

Have to say I've been a bit disappointed in the conditions of a lot of the modern posters (speaking of the rolled 80's and newer ones) Bruce has had up for auction lately.  Since most aren't that rare, if it's not in Very Good to Fine or better, there's really no point, at least to me, in bidding.  A lot of good to very good and worse the past month or so....bleh.

[brude]

It looks like I'm not the only one to like Bardot.

http://auctions.emovieposter.com/Bidding.taf?_function=detail&Auction_uid1=3979504

It's a great poster, I have to say, one of my favs.

T

Yowza.
That's a lot of money.
Call me a slope-brow, but I prefer my Americanized version with art by Jon Whitcomb. 

[erik1925]

Have to say I've been a bit disappointed in the conditions of a lot of the modern posters (speaking of the rolled 80's and newer ones) Bruce has had up for auction lately.  Since most aren't that rare, if it's not in Very Good to Fine or better, there's really no point, at least to me, in bidding.  A lot of good to very good and worse the past month or so....bleh.

Yeah.. when it comes to the moderns...many want their posters to be as close to mint as possible.

[erik1925]

Yowza.
That's a lot of money.
Call me a slope-brow, but I prefer my Americanized version with art by Jon Whitcomb. 

That poster is a knockout, Ted. 

[110x75]

Yowza.
That's a lot of money.
Call me a slope-brow, but I prefer my Americanized version with BOOBS by Jon Whitcomb. 

 

[50s]

I'd go for your one as well Ted as she is happier and falling out of her top, but if the EMP poster didn't have foxing, for me, it would be a close call... Semi see thru top plus a very decent set of pins