Yuck to the “wife” statement. I’m a wife and have no problem with buying posters.
Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 3, 2021, at 12:09 AM, David Kusumoto <davidmkusum...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > I remember the Style D when it came out. It appealed to us "old boomers" who > understood the "retro spirit" of Lucas's vision of Star Wars being a vintage > weekend matinee serial. My first was TACKED onto my bedroom wall and my pals > would say, "That doesn't look like a Star Wars poster." - hanging as it did > next to my equally TACKED Style A. (I never owned the Style C.) Later, I > heard people call it the "circus poster," and I wondered, "who comes up with > these names?" > > My guesses about why Style D never caught fire are - 1) It's an homage and > thus doesn't look like what collectors expect from SW, notwithstanding > Lucas's preference for it, and, 2) Style D was issued in 1978, deep into its > FIRST run but before the celebrated "first anniversary" poster that fetches > $$ today. I also think there's a bias for 1977 issue paper vs. later > re-issues - and the style D was also re-issued as a fan-club one-sheet in > 1992. In my lifetime, I think I've owned about 7-8 style As, including a few > first printings which - back then - I didn't know the difference and why they > might be important to later generations. (My first posters were purchased at > Comic-Con in San Diego.) In hindsight, I now find the style A to be color > "drab" - which is a personal thing yet consistent with my early collecting > years of treating posters like books, e.g., caring only about first-issue > country-of-origin one-sheets of films that I had to love MORE than the > poster. It's why I hung onto the pre-Awards "Graduate" one-sheets despite > the BQ looking better. > > Of course, if I could be young again, I'd chase art regardless of what I > thought of a film's merits, and I'd go heavy into BQs and Australian > daybills. I never collected horror because as I say, back then I had to LOVE > the movie too. And "Frankenstein" was the only classic that made the cut - > even though I could never afford it, then and now. When I re-discovered Rita > Hayworth via "Gilda," the Style B was the perfect match of poster art with a > script loaded with sexual tension, power and ownership themes, delivered via > double entendrés which I felt were ahead of its time. It's a kinky picture. > If I could do a "rewind" - I'd chase "The Invasion of the Saucer Men" with > those cabbage head aliens - but because my wife forbade horror images in the > house - I would've kept that poster in my work room so she wouldn't be > creeped out by it. > > It was Freeman Fisher who said it best. "The greatest obstacle to collecting > posters you want isn't money - it's having wives." -d. > > From: MoPo List <mopo-l@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU> on behalf of Smith, Grey - > 1367 <gre...@ha.com> > Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 8:54 AM > To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU <MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU> > Subject: Re: Auction Prices > > Hi Tommy and MOPO, > I’m not sure I have any terrific insight other than business seems to have > grown well during the last year and likely due to a number of reasons. > I suggest the already discussed stay at home element makes people more > interested in online activity and the need of a pleasant distraction. I also > agree that spending on other entertainment has been curtailed so seems more > activity in buying items of personal interest. I’m not so sure how much is > being spent by those wishing to more diversely invest in their portfolio in > collectibles, but there surely must be that element too. > I’m thankful for the gain in the hobby and hope perhaps those who’ve not > spent on posters before will, as we always seem to have a steady growth in > the hobby with new buyers. > > ----- > > From: MoPo List <mopo-l@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU> On Behalf Of Tommy Barr > Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 8:07 AM > To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU > Subject: Re: [MOPO] Auction Prices > > External Email > > 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://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/7235/yfEDhd.jpg > > > 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 > > > 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.
