Probable solution to Woodstock Style C one-sheet poster mystery!

[Bruce]

Remember those rolls of unfolded Woodstock Style C one-sheet posters that turned up all over the place a while ago? There was debate over whether it was a genuine 1970 movie poster, and there were supporters on both sides.

I think I now know the probable solution.

What happened? I was consigned a Woodstock Style C one-sheet, and while it looks LIKE the rolls of recent ones, it is NOT the same.

Here is the one I was consigned:

http://www.emovieposter.com/unused/woodstock/woodstock_styleC_teaser_linen_NZ02826_L.jpg

Here is an example of the suspect one:

http://www.emovieposter.com/unused/woodstock/woodstock_styleC_linen_LB01341_L.jpg

At first glance, they look like the same poster, but one has credits and the other is a teaser.

But look closer! The "teaser one" has sharp clear printing on the letters of the title and the guitar, and the other one has ragged color in those areas.

The other one also has Copyright 1969 by Magnum Photos Inc in the bottom right, and the "teaser one" does not.

The "teaser one" has machine folds, and when you hold the linen to the light, you can see it was stamped on the back, and the other one was never folded and never stamped.

What is Magnum Photos Inc? They are a photo leasing outfit in New York City. Since this poster has NO photo on it, only art, I think the only reasonable assumption is that what they leased was a photo of the entire poster.

So my best guess is that the newly surfaced posters are commercial posters (which would explain why they are unfolded) that are either from 1970 or later, and that someone found a stash of these (it may be that they were never sold commercially, since I can find no source that had it for sale before these turned up).

You can put whatever value you want on them, but I think it is wrong (in the face of this evidence) to call it a movie poster.

Bruce

[Disheveledamethyst]

I never heard of this problem, poster, or controversy, but this is why I love this community. Fantastic detective work!

[Dread_Pirate_Mel]

The other one also has Copyright 1969 by Magnum Photos Inc in the bottom right, and the "teaser one" does not.

The "teaser one" has machine folds, and when you hold the linen to the light, you can see it was stamped on the back, and the other one was never folded and never stamped.

What is Magnum Photos Inc? They are a photo leasing outfit in New York City. Since this poster has NO photo on it, only art, I think the only reasonable assumption is that what they leased was a photo of the entire poster.

So my best guess is that the newly surfaced posters are commercial posters (which would explain why they are unfolded) that are either from 1970 or later, and that someone found a stash of these (it may be that they were never sold commercially, since I can find no source that had it for sale before these turned up).

You can put whatever value you want on them, but I think it is wrong (in the face of this evidence) to call it a movie poster.

Bruce

There is a topic on this poster in the Authentication Section here. As I pointed out a while back on my own authentication, the Emovie archives have two folded "Magnum Photo Style B" versions, which certainly appear to be legitimate theater-used movie posters.  

Here is the Style B (English language):



Here is the Style B (Spanish language):



They are identical to the "suspect" Style C except that the typed "Style B" has been changed to a handwritten "C" followed by a typed "Style":







Also, aren't 27x41 commercial posters unusual?  Also, why would it have a union logo?

[Bruce]

Mel, I am thinking the style B original was the "credits style" and the the style C original was the "teaser style" (and that would make perfect sense, that they might name them that way).

But the suspect style C credits style combines the two posters, which certainly seems odd, especially since it was never seen before this "find".

Much more troubling to me is the uneven coloring on the title letters and the guitar, which does not exist on any of the previously seen "credits styles" OR "teaser styles" AND the fact that I (who have seen and handled more one-sheets than anyone) feels the paper stock is not consistent with a 1970 poster, but is more likely 1990s.

I am wondering if this might not be some special poster that was created for either the 30th anniversary (1999) or even the 40th anniversary (2009), and maybe it was used (or intended to be used) with any of the many anniversary events held in those years.

Bruce

[Bruce]

Expert collector/dealer Helmut Hamm posted this excellent additional info on MoPo (where I also posted my original post):

Hi Bruce,

I have no real idea what the true story behind the 'Style C' is, but there's definitely something odd about it... The credit to 'Magnum Photos Inc' and the following photographer's names have NOTHING to do with this poster, they apparently refer to the set of six photos that are found on the REGULAR onesheet.

The type set and credit section and the Magnum Photos reference are perfectly identical to the regular onesheet, and if you compare that one and the Style C TEASER, it appears that somebody copied the credit section and the copyright INDIVIDUALLY into the teaser poster.

So, somebody at Warner Bros. likes the teaser poster so much, that they decide to do an additional 'full credit'  version with this artwork, and whoever did this painstakingly copies a wrong copyright, yet fails to add the NSS disclaimer or NSS number? I don't think so.

Whatever they are, whether forgery or older 'commercial' posters, at this point I tend to agree that these are no theatrical posters.

Helmut

[CineMasterpieces]

this is almost becoming dead horse territory......

Bruce "feels the paper stock is not consistent with a 1970 poster, but is more likely 1990s."

I (and several others I might add) wholeheartedly and respectfully disagree. I have several posters from that time period that are printed on the exact same kind of paper.

This one for example even has the same light blue printing on the bottom:

http://www.cinemasterpieces.com/92010/boymar10.jpg

and the printers union logo when magnified does not look "fishy" or blurry at all, it looks correct.

Some of the dealers and collectors who have contacted me who share my opinion do not like to express their opinions publicly on these forums for fear of looking foolish by disagreeing with "the big Bruce".

Bruce...you know I love ya.....but please send it to Todd Spoor and let him examine it. I'd love to see the analysis. If he says its from the 90's I'd be shocked.

In my opinion the most likely reason that these exist is that they were some sort of wilding poster. Some guy was supposed to post them up all over some town/city and probably decided to get high instead (it was 1970) and threw them in the back of a closet until a few years ago. He then shopped them around to several poster dealers on ebay...some bought.....and some didn't....some legitimate....and some not so legitimate.



There is zero evidence that this was ever a commercial poster.

btw....I've really got nothing invested in this.......I only have one of them......it is on consignment.

I just think it is overreacting and pretty silly to scream "FAKE" when there is no evidence.

Many dealers and collectors who have personally handled one agree that it does look and does feel "right".

Anyone who expresses a firm opinion without actually handling one in person is being ridiculous.

[Dread_Pirate_Mel]

I don't have a large picture of the Magnum Photos Style B but the lettering quality from my own copy (top) does not seem any different than the foreign styles:

[Bruce]

Dave

Please send yours to Todd Spoor. I will pay shipping both ways. The one I have is linenbacked.

If he says it is from the 1970s, you will know for sure.

I am not sure who "Anyone who expresses a firm opinion without actually handling one in person is being ridiculous." is aimed at, but I DID handle one and to me it IS not right.

Why is this a dead horse, when no one knows the answer, and it is all guesses for now?

In the meantime I will continue investigating!

Bruce

[CineMasterpieces]

I said ALMOST a dead horse
 
mine is on consignment......I can't send it to anyone unless they buy it.
 

"Anyone who expresses a firm opinion without actually handling one in person is being ridiculous."
 
obviously this was not for you.

[raulleaf]

I know nothing about this poster, but according to IMDB the film was re-released in the UK in 1994....  Could the suspected newer poster be a UK rerelease?  Just a thought...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066580/releaseinfo

[Dread_Pirate_Mel]

Somebody sent me a high-res pic of the "Style B Magnum Photos" version and it sure looks identical to my "Style C Magnum Photos" except it is slightly redder:

[stewart boyle]

Mel is it just the photo or does the Joan Baez text look really faded on your style "c" ?

Stew

[Dread_Pirate_Mel]

Mel is it just the photo or does the Joan Baez text look really faded on your style "c" ?

Stew

No, all the lettering on mine is clear. See the photo below of my Magnum C (lower left). I just don't have a great camera, especially for distance shots:

[Bruce]

Mel, please send it to Todd Spoor and he'll have the paper tested at no charge and I'll pay shipping both ways, so you will soon be able to DEFINITIVELY know if it is from the 1970s or much later.

Bruce

[Dread_Pirate_Mel]

Mel, please send it to Todd Spoor and he'll have the paper tested at no charge and I'll pay shipping both ways, so you will soon be able to DEFINITIVELY know if it is from the 1970s or much later.

Bruce

Sure, I'm game but will that damage the poster?  I did shell out $60 for it.  Now the supply has run low and they're going for $125+.

[Cj]

I don't know what this poster is and I really cant offer any input as to whether or not it is legit but what I can say is that the person Mel bought his copy from is not a trustworthy person from my past experiences with him. His story could be legit but I highly doubt it. My opinion of him is not based off receiving a fake poster but how he handled a transaction. http://www.allposterforum.com/index.php/topic,1233.25.html

Cj

[Dread_Pirate_Mel]

I don't know what this poster is and I really cant offer any input as to whether or not it is legit but what I can say is that the person Mel bought his copy from is not a trustworthy person from my past experiences with him. His story could be legit but I highly doubt it. My opinion of him is not based off receiving a fake poster but how he handled a transaction. http://www.allposterforum.com/index.php/topic,1233.25.html

Cj

Well 600 people disagree with you, so you're in a distinct minority:

[Cj]

yeah but 4 people from this board alone has had bad dealings with him...so his feedback don't mean shit to me.

[Dread_Pirate_Mel]

yeah but 4 people from this board alone has had bad dealings with him...so his feedback don't mean shit to me.

CJ, you claimed he sent you some poorly-packed posters. That has no relevance to whether this Woodstock poster is some sort of re-release or bootleg poster.  Many dealers (including some reputable and disreputable) have sold this poster, so this particular seller is not relevant to the issue either.

[Bruce]

Mel, he has tested $15,000+ posters, and if he harms it in any way I will get you a new one.

And I am surprised you quote feedback. The worst repro sellers have incredible feedback, so it does in fact mean next to nothing.

Bruce

[MoviePosterBid.com]

feedback on ebay means nothing in lots of circumstances

[50s]

Mel, he has tested $15,000+ posters, and if he harms it in any way I will get you a new one.

Is this MPG we are taking about? If they do the advertised grading service on it I believe they put DNA that is invisible and permanent on the poster. Whatever the 'DNA' is, I am not sure, and whether the DNA or the liquid applied wont discolor the poster over time I am not sure has been sufficiently tested... only time will tell.

[CSM]

Again, just thinking out loud - does anyone else think a chicken scratched "C" as in "C Style" is weird for a 1969/1970 poster? I mean why isn't it machine lettered/typed?

[Dread_Pirate_Mel]

Again, just thinking out loud - does anyone else think a chicken scratched "C" as in "C Style" is weird for a 1969/1970 poster? I mean why isn't it machine lettered/typed?

I think that favors its legitimacy.  If someone wanted to bootleg this poster, they certainly would have typed the "C".

[Cj]

Mel, the relevance is the fact that there is a question regarding the authenticity of this Woodstock poster. I was under the assumption that this guy has/had an entire roll of them and is the source for a majority of these things popping up.  It so happens this guy is someone who I have had negative dealings with. Through conversations between him and I, he lied several times, which is why I said he was not trustworthy. I'll add that I sent back his poorly packaged damaged posters and he stated that it must be 6 pounds worth of moldy bananas and how no one will ever know what it was I sent back and the fact that he kept my money ($700.00).  My only saving grace was my CC company. So believe whatever story he told you about his fiends - friends uncle who knows someone that knows someone who had an entire roll of these posters and traded them away. Like I said in my initial post, I really don't have anything significant to add about the poster itself.  All I can offer up here is my experience with the guy who you bought it from and gave you the story of this poster that you posted here on the forum. So take it for what its worth.


Cj