That’s hitting the nail on the head. The info on EMP/HA is not as reliable as it is often given credit for. EMP in particular does not use the term „according to a collector” for nothing and rightly so. There’s just too little info around in general. As there’s no printer’s info at all on the other re-release posters on EMP/HA I would not be surprised to hear later that those are from re-releases in the very late fifties or even sixties.
I still like the idea that this is a British re-release poster, in any case this one is surely a rare one. You really need the press books from the various releases (if such a series exist) to be sure. Has Bruce not a couple of British press books in his collection? Op 21 jun. 2015, om 04:46 heeft David <shadow....@gmail.com> het volgende geschreven: > So if that is NOT a 1949 original UK1SH for foreign distribution but perhaps > a 1955 first release foreign 1SH (and I am not saying one way or another), it > does lead down the dark path to the next most obvious question: what are and > what date are these sold by EMP and the same question for these ones sold by > HA (who have sold the same poster both as an original 1949 and as an R-50s) > all of which look like poor quality productions of this BIDLL one and this > EMP one and none include the printer's details nor the litho details etc etc. > > I guess when Jeff you said "More research should be done on this before > calling it a "for certain" '49 original release OS, one would think" it seems > obvious the seller did exactly that by and referred to the two biggest > databases around, taken the information as presented and understandably has > now put his piece up for auction based on all that information. > > Obviously there are a few stones to look under before we get there. > > David > > > > Jeff Potokar wrote on 21/06/2015 8:17 AM: >> It does. >> >> And Bruce may be mistaken, as well. >> >> Jeff >> >> >> >> On Jun 20, 2015, at 3:01 PM, David wrote: >> >>> Question to all... >>> >>> Doesn't the BIDLL one look a whole lot like this 1949 version? >>> >>> http://www.emovieposter.com/agallery/archiveitem/12681291.html >>> >>> David >>> >>> >>> >>> Wim Jansen wrote on 21/06/2015 5:07 AM: >>>> Okay this is bugging me, I have done a quick reference search based on >>>> pics of Heritage (nice details!) and Emovie (aaargh not enough detail) of >>>> London Films productions from Imdb. >>>> >>>> >>>> Here we go: >>>> FALLEN IDOL 1948 onesheet London Film logo, nothing on Lion International >>>> Nottingham only >>>> MAN BETWEEN 1953 one sheet London Film logo, nothing on Lion International >>>> printer not visible >>>> CAPTAIN�S PARADISE 53 halfsheet London Film credits no logo, British Lion >>>> logo (actual lion) Nott.ham only >>>> HOBSON�s CHOIce 1954 one sheet London Film logo, nothing on Lion >>>> International probably just Nottingham - unclear >>>> BELLES OF ST.TRINIANS 1954 3sheet London Films International and logo >>>> printer not visible >>>> RICHARD III 1955 onesheet �distribution controlled by London Films >>>> International", no logo Nottingham and London >>>> Kid FOR TWO FARTHINGS 1955 one sheet London Film logo >>>> Nott.ham and London >>>> IRON PETTICOAT 1956 six sheet Lion International, no London Film printer >>>> not visible >>>> >>>> I think I have solid ground for my position that it�s a rerelease, I�d say >>>> after 1955. There�s a book on the history of the Stafford Company by a >>>> local heritage writer, but there�s not a copy available on the net. Grrr, >>>> I want that. However I would not be at all surprised the Biddll one is >>>> printed in London in late 1955 the earliest. >>>> >>>> Wim >>>> >>>> Op 20 jun. 2015, om 20:22 heeft Jeff Potokar <jpotok...@ca.rr.com> het >>>> volgende geschreven: >>>> >>>>> From the British Lion website. A brief history of the company, also >>>>> mentioning that BL became a distribution company in 1955, after it fell >>>>> into receivership. >>>>> >>>>> http://www.britishlion.com/british-lion-history.shtml >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Jeff >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jun 20, 2015, at 11:04 AM, Wim Jansen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I disagree, I think the absence off the London Film logo is pretty >>>>>> crucial. Anyway I�m gonna find my Carol Reed book, maybe that has some >>>>>> more details on the release schedule, probably not though. >>>>>> >>>>>> Looking at the re-release posters on Heritage and emovie I�m wondering >>>>>> how sure are we that those are not international releases and the Biddl >>>>>> one is the real English rerelease. That would also explain the >>>>>> differences in the printer information. >>>>>> >>>>>> W >>>>>> Op 20 jun. 2015, om 19:49 heeft Simon Oram <fab5fre...@btinternet.com> >>>>>> het volgende geschreven: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm more in the thinking that it's a International UK 1 sheet for the >>>>>>> first release in one of the >>>>>>> colonies. Due to its obvious closeness and decent printing standard >>>>>>> it's very close to the original release date. David said that The Third >>>>>>> Man was released in Australia March 1950. OK the poster is in New >>>>>>> Zealand but I think with that sort of info that sways me into thinking >>>>>>> that way. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Simon >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone. >>>>>>> From: Richard C Evans >>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, 20 June 2015 18:06 >>>>>>> To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU >>>>>>> Reply To: evan...@mac.com >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [MOPO] [FA] ULTRA Rare English One Sheet - The Third Man >>>>>>> (1949) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The unfavourable scenario (presumably no one is thinking fake), is that >>>>>>> it could be an International RR? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (Prior to that horrible "RR" which is based on it. I think based on the >>>>>>> actual printed poster, and no connection to original plates.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Would they bother doing it for International RR? Especially with decent >>>>>>> quality printing, (as good as the domestic). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Everything points to it being contemporary to the domestic printed >>>>>>> version, and any variances between the posters make sense. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> One print run for domestic version, one run for international. Whether >>>>>>> done at the same branch of the printers or not. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A different version would require a different set of plates to be made >>>>>>> up, hence any minor differences with illustration along with required >>>>>>> changes. (?) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 20 Jun 2015, at 16:40, Paul Gerrard >>>>>>> <00000060c3f9be9c-dmarc-requ...@listserv.american.edu> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Different companies! Eagle-Lion was Rank as you correctly say; but >>>>>>>> Lion International was part of London Films/British Lion. It's just >>>>>>>> that we can't be 100% sure when Lion International started... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Paul >>>>>>>> www.movieposterstudio.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In a message dated 20/06/2015 15:19:47 GMT Daylight Time, >>>>>>>> fab5fre...@btinternet.com writes: >>>>>>>> Hi David, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I would presume Lion International was part of Eagle-Lion owned by J. >>>>>>>> Arthur Rank. Eagle Lion were founded in 1946. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is interesting from Wikipedia, especially the last part �From >>>>>>>> 1946-1949 Eagle-Lion was under the control of Arthur Krim who in >>>>>>>> addition to releasing films by Rank and reissues of David O. Selznick >>>>>>>> films�. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Obviously I�m not saying the poster on Bidll is definitely a >>>>>>>> reissue/re-release but I think it would be worth checking on more. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards Simon >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from the MoPo-L list, click the following link: >>>>>>>> https://listserv.american.edu/scripts/wa-american.exe?SUBED1=MoPo-L&A=1 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from the MoPo-L list, click the following link: >>>>>>> https://listserv.american.edu/scripts/wa-american.exe?SUBED1=MoPo-L&A=1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from the MoPo-L list, click the following link: >>>>>>> https://listserv.american.edu/scripts/wa-american.exe?SUBED1=MoPo-L&A=1 >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> To unsubscribe from the MoPo-L list, click the following link: >>>>>> https://listserv.american.edu/scripts/wa-american.exe?SUBED1=MoPo-L&A=1 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> To unsubscribe from the MoPo-L list, click the following link: >>>>> https://listserv.american.edu/scripts/wa-american.exe?SUBED1=MoPo-L&A=1 >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> To unsubscribe from the MoPo-L list, click the following link: >>>> https://listserv.american.edu/scripts/wa-american.exe?SUBED1=MoPo-L&A=1 >>>> >>> >>> >>> To unsubscribe from the MoPo-L list, click the following link: >>> https://listserv.american.edu/scripts/wa-american.exe?SUBED1=MoPo-L&A=1 >>> >> >> >> To unsubscribe from the MoPo-L list, click the following link: >> https://listserv.american.edu/scripts/wa-american.exe?SUBED1=MoPo-L&A=1 >> > > > To unsubscribe from the MoPo-L list, click the following link: > https://listserv.american.edu/scripts/wa-american.exe?SUBED1=MoPo-L&A=1 > Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___________________________________________________________________ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: lists...@listserv.american.edu In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
