My favourite Star Wars poster is the style D one sheet, which apparently was the one George Lucas had displayed in his office, yet it doesn't seem to be very popular among collectors. As regards the poster auction prices, I wonder if Grey or Bruce can offer any insights?
Tommy On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 at 12:40, David Kusumoto <davidmkusum...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Helmut and Tommy - you guys are onto something. Because yesterday I was > tracking a Blazing Saddles insert at Heritage and I saw it jump to near > $200 with its 20% buyer's premium, a poster that can be had for a little > more or a little less, depending upon condition and this one was pretty > nice. A Star Wars public health vaccination poster sold for a hefty amount > too. Yes, there is something going on with the market. > > Meanwhile, at Nathalie, LOL. Yes I agree with you - a Johansson image on a > poster is definitely one of personal taste. Maybe I, too, wouldn't pay > "two cents" for an image of her on a poster from any of her recent films - > (although I did like her in "Hitchcock" and "Marriage Story") - and even > though she's almost jail bait in Sofia Coppola's Oscar-winning "Lost in > Translation," a contemplative drama more than a comedy - I WOULD pay two > cents for this.... > > https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img923/8798/8brXpr.jpg > > ... but I wouldn't pay a nickel for the satirical poster below from 1997, > LOL - (even though a ton of Seinfeld fans would)... > > https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/8946/IBnMBj.jpg > > > *But here's a question I'll throw out there for MoPo'ers and buyers and > dealers to think about. It's about "Star Wars" posters from 1977.* Now > that at least three generations have embraced the first 1977 film - I'm > puzzled why this 43-year-old half-sheet... > > https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/5577/fZ6t6z.jpg > > > ...which has arguably better art by Tom Jung than other domestic '77 issue > posters - (save for probably the Chantrell Style C) - rarely sells for more > than $1,000. It seems stuck in that range like a money market fund with no > interest. The half-sheet has never been implicated among the bootlegs like > the minty inserts, the Style A or Style C knock-offs. Yet when offered - > it's not just underrated - but unloved - even though to me, it's a great > collage of what's in the film. *Do collectors think the half-sheet > format hurts it?* As a horizontal poster, maybe not as good as the > Chantrell British Quad which resembles the Style C - but I think it's still > good - with an image only seen on the half-sheet. I thought maybe the > reason is some think it's "too busy." Can't put my finger on why it's > regarded as an "also-ran," not as good as the other domestic 1977 posters. > > ***perplexed* -d. > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* MoPo List <mopo-l@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU> on behalf of Helmut Hamm > <texasmu...@web.de> > *Sent:* Monday, March 1, 2021 6:03 AM > *To:* MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU <MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU> > *Subject:* Re: Auction prices > > Tommy, > > I think there is one simple reason: With shops, bars, and restaurants > closed in wide parts of the world and no holiday trips in sight either, > many people have a lot of extra cash to spend. Many of them are working > from their home office right now, and no commuting means more extra time to > spend. And with the kids going on your nerve all day long, online shopping > might deliver a much needed self-gratification. Well, that was three simple > reasons... > > Plus, many new collectors may have the false impression that buying at > auction sort of guarantees a 'fair market price'. In cases like a rare and > desirable Tarantino poster, this might even be true. If you are bidding > against another newbie, it's not. Last not least, people are lazy. Ooops, > that five simple reasons now. > > Helmut > > > Am 01.03.2021 um 12:50 schrieb Tommy Barr <tommymb...@gmail.com>: > > After our musings on the prices fetched at the Ewbank's auction I notice > that HA has also seen some strange price hikes at the weekend. For example, > Battle of Britain o/s folded 7.5 @$300; The Lion King o/s rolled 8.5 @$324: > Titanic 2xo/s rolled 8.5 @$324. Given that those can be bought online for > a lot less, as has been the case with quite a number sold at auction > recently, it leaves me perplexed as to what is going here. I don't think > there is any one simple reason but at the moment movie poster values are > proving weirdly unpredictable. > > Tommy > > ------------------------------ > *From:* S Yafet <sya...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Sunday, February 28, 2021 2:59 PM > *To:* David Kusumoto <davidmkusum...@hotmail.com> > *Cc:* MoPo-L@listserv.american.edu <MoPo-L@listserv.american.edu> > *Subject:* Re: [MOPO] Ewbanks Auction today - and thoughts about Once > Upon A Time in Hollywood posters > > Very interesting reading. > Guess it's all personal. I wouldn't pay 2 cents for a Johansson image. > > Nathalie > > On Sun, Feb 28, 2021, 1:36 AM David Kusumoto <davidmkusum...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > I've noticed similar trends of recent titles fetching higher prices. > Newbies tend to temporarily push up prices for posters still in release. (I > remember one-sheets from "Titanic" selling for crazy prices more than 20 > years ago before falling to earth - and recently, I saw the same for > one-sheets from "The Shape of Water" and "Parasite" after winning the Oscar > for Best Picture.) > > > > But there is another "outlier" of recent note, certainly not vintage - and > it's the posters from Quentin Tarantino's "Once Upon A Time in Hollywood" > from 2019. The "wilding" Italian-style posters by old-school artists > Martin Duhovic and Renato Casaro fetch prices north of $1K - but even > standard one-sheets with collage art by another classic artist - (Steven > Chorney) - sell at or near the $100 mark in better condition. > > > > Almost exactly two years ago - "Once Upon A Time..." was "teased" as a > summer 2019 release - and two one-sheets were shipped to theaters - an > international "COMING SOON" - and a domestic "JULY" - the latter was tagged > with a "This film has not yet been rated" in the lower left. Both were > popular - but the international versions were more - and still remain - > plentiful. > > > > https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/6972/krbNwK.jpg > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fimagizer.imageshack.com%2Fimg924%2F6972%2FkrbNwK.jpg&data=04%7C01%7C%7C88d475658d7642bffde208d8dc3c8859%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637501499824573696%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=A2IiRR7U0mIDrgWMJVWclAKJHnCINoGpr7%2BCI9BKykA%3D&reserved=0> > > > https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/7235/yfEDhd.jpg > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fimagizer.imageshack.com%2Fimg922%2F7235%2FyfEDhd.jpg&data=04%7C01%7C%7C88d475658d7642bffde208d8dc3c8859%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637501499824583697%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=%2Bs%2B72IexJhlFvBgQZk3Oa%2FEKR2pOPNuPBNw2CaBjTow%3D&reserved=0> > > By the spring of 2019, though, the MPAA issued its "R" rating for > Tarantino's film. Theaters were already displaying the other one-sheets. > Nevertheless, Sony-Columbia went ahead and printed a third one-sheet - a > small batch with the "R" rating in the lower left corner. This became > the true domestic "final" - even though few theaters displayed it. > > > > It took me FOREVER for me to find this version and the difficulty made it > obvious there weren't many - and those that I did see - were unused but > roughly handled by re-sellers. I mention this because it was right here > on MoPo - that I first talked about the differences in the three one-sheets > and why I was looking for the "R" rated final. I solicited dealers > everywhere, including here on MoPo. Not even the reliable Dale Dilts - > who specializes in newer release posters, could help. Many months later > - I finally found one in nice condition - from an amateur re-seller in > Pennsylvania. > > > > https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img923/8048/Hs9kJW.jpg > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fimagizer.imageshack.com%2Fimg923%2F8048%2FHs9kJW.jpg&data=04%7C01%7C%7C88d475658d7642bffde208d8dc3c8859%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637501499824593683%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=Z0Gh8iKD%2BW0Tl%2FUnRW4%2F%2FOccQlMbSYiZ8ZbwjM00KVI%3D&reserved=0> > > > Well, earlier this month, for the first time ever - eMoviePoster put up > all three known 1-sheets featuring the Steven Chorney art - up against each > other. Apparently, a few others had the same info that I did. > > > > 1. International double-sided advance (which is the most plentiful) - sold > for $108. > > 2. Domestic USA single-sided advance with no rating - sold for $142. > > 3. Domestic USA double-sided advance FINAL with the R rating - sold for > $285. > > > > eMoviePoster had sold the "R" version just once before - a typical "fair" > condition example that still fetched $90. I'm not sure if Heritage has > ever sold the "R" version - but it and eMoviePoster have both sold the > international and the unrated domestic enough times - to rack up a track > record of prices realized. > > > > What I'm leading to is I have a funny feeling that no matter how one feels > the Tarantino film - this "standard theatrical" one-sheet - has a shot at > joining this century's "Lost in Translation" - (Johansson image, 2003) - > for being consistently sought after by collectors. I remember consigning > a giant vinyl banner with the Johansson image (I had nowhere to hang it) - > I was shocked when it sold for more than $1,000. Even high grade DS > one-sheets with her image fetch hundreds of $$$. I could be wrong, but > prices for the Tarantino poster haven't dropped yet. > > > > Forgive the long ramble, just musings sparked by Helmut's and Tommy's > observations. - d. > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* MoPo List <mopo-l@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU> on behalf of Tommy Barr < > tommymb...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Saturday, February 27, 2021 6:06 AM > *To:* MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU <MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU> > *Subject:* Re: Ewbanks Auction today > > I watched the auction sporadically and agree that there were some strange > results. I think, however, that prices have been volatile on all the > auction sites recently, even HA and emovie showing some anomalous > results.Some posters which normally fetch mid double figures have been > going for three figures, and the bids on many mid-level items seem to have > grown exponentially. No idea why, but I can't accept the premise that there > are lots of new collectors suddenly coming in to the market. I would have > thought that anyone starting to collect now would initially be looking for > posters from the comic-inspired superhero movies, Bond or Star Wars, but > there weren't many of those in the Ewbank's auction. > Tommy > > On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 at 21:34, Helmut Hamm <texasmu...@web.de> wrote: > > Over the day, I watched the Ewbanks auction on and off and the results > were quite astounding: The best thing they had was a GET CARTER quad, which > hammered at 3,800 Pounds. A few other lots sold in the 1000-2000 Pound > range. > > Much more interesting was the vast amount of low-end material that sold > for astounding prices: A french petite for THE GOONIES hammered for 100 > Pounds. That‘s about 125 with premium, plus VAT, plus shipping. It > shouldn‘t be too hard to find one of these on ebay France for 10 to 15 > Euros. There were tons of stuff like that, including bulk lots, Argentine > posters, Spanish US posters, a lot of bottom end ebay material. The auction > lasted overall several hours and I had other things to do in between, but I > did not see a single pass. > > Most of the lots sold today are totally boring for the seasoned collector, > but exactly the sort of material that might appeal to beginners. > > It seems to me there was A LOT of new blood present in this auction. > Obviously, it makes online buying a lot harder for me, but in the end I > guess it can only be good for the hobby. > > HH > > ------------------------------ > > 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.
