9 replies to this topic

[David_M]

I'm going through my old posters with a view to framing some of them and I came across an oddity.  It's a poster for "The Spy Who Loved Me," but I can't remember where I got it; possibly an online purchase years ago in the early days of eBay.  Or maybe it was a gift, I really can't recall.

Anyway, the point is I can't tell if it's an original or a repro.  I have a TSWLM poster that I know is original, but it's a typical poster of the era in that it's printed on a fairly heavy stock paper with a glossy finish, and it's folded.  I have posters for LALD and AVTAK that are very much the same.  However, this "mystery" version is rolled, and on a much lighter weight paper -- almost the weight of standard typing paper -- with more of a matte finish.

 

I have a repro version that I snagged for a pittance years ago, but even that one is on heavier paper and it's no match for this "mystery" version:  the linework on the mystery poster is crisp with bright, vivid colors, where the repro's linework is heavier and thicker with darker, murkier colors.

 

On the bottom of the mystery poster, in fine print, is the usual warning that the poster is intended only for display in an accredited theater and resale is forbidden.  In the bottom right corner is the marking, "77/42" (just like my folded copy).  The repro has neither of these markings, but in the lower left corner it has two copyrights:  1977, for the artwork, and 1997, which I assume is the date of the re-printing.  The "credits" on the bottom of the mystery poster are printed in blue: on the known repro they're in black."

 

So what have I got?  If this mystery poster is an original, why is it on such thin paper?  Is this a "variant" format I hadn't heard of?  It seems awfully fragile for theater use.  Are the thicker, glossier posters an American thing and this thin one is from the UK or Canada?  Having the original printing on the bottom doesn't necessarily rule out the possibility that this is a just a more "faithful" reprint than the other one, I'm guessing.  (I just realized the audience rating -- "PG" or "A" or whatever -- would be a giveaway here, but I forgot to look, and now I'm at work).

 

I'd like to frame it either way as it looks great, but knowing whether it's vintage or a reprint will definitely affect how much I'm willing to spend on the process.  If any of you experts could help me, it'd be wonderful.

[Professor Pi]

Hi David_M,

 

I have over 100 James Bond posters, but most are in storage or framed so forgive me if I can't 100% verify what I think you have here.  My framed The Spy Who Loved Me poster I know is original, and it has crease marks, now flattened.  Most U.S. posters from the 60s and 70s were folded as they were usually returned to the studio (not for resale) because back then the studios didn't realize the secondary market value of their marketing materials.  Other regions tended to roll, not fold their posters, usually the UK, Canada, and Australia.  European and English artwork often has a UIP (United International Pictures) logo on it.  This is true for Licence to Kill and The Living Daylights alternate (and superior) artwork posters, as well as many Brosnan films.  Not sure if that was the case in the 70s.

 

However, I do have two posters that I recall seemed to be printed on thinner paper.  This was Never Say Never Again with alternate artwork, and a hard to find On Her Majesty's Secret Service poster (Style B or C art, if I recall,)  both from Australia.  Also, I have a giant French bus poster for You Only Live Twice and a U.S. 6 sheet Moonraker that I remember being on the thinner paper you describe (perhaps larger posters were cheaper to manufacture than the heavier card stock?)  Since you don't say there are any non-English language markings on it (French, Japanese, etc.), t may be a reproduction but the coloring you describe seems to negate this.

 

I'd say that you have a poster from Australia, if it is indeed original.

[David_M]

Prof, thanks greatly for the reference to the "giant French bus poster."  When I read that comment, I remembered I have an enormous (to me, anyway, at 63 x 47 inches) French "Star Wars" poster from 1977 and so I pulled it out for a look (it'll probably stay folded forever, it's so damn big).  Turns out it is indeed a close match for the paper stock on my mystery "Spy" poster.

 

The Australia angle is intriguing, but I pulled the poster out again and there is a "PG" rating shown.  Did Australia use that rating system, too, or were they on the British system?

 

Also, I got out my original, folded TSWLM poster (on heavier stock, with a glossy front side) and saw that my '97 repro is actually closer to the original than the mystery poster is:  the original, like the 1997 repro, features the heavier linework and darker colors.  The main difference between the original and the 1997 repro -- other than the aforementioned text at the bottom -- is that some finer details in the original are lost in the repro, like subtle shading on the hood of the Lotus and the edges of the triangle frame around the Sphinx.

 

I'm really digging the extra detail I can see on the mystery poster due to the lighter coloring.  Up close there is almost a "comic book" feel to it, a "screened" look to some colors that remind me of the "benday dots" on vintage comics.  This, too, is consistent with the Star Wars poster, whereas all my posters printed on heavy, glossy paper have a more "painting"-like feel.  It's like the difference between a color photo on a newspaper page and the same photo in a slick magazine.

 

Thanks to your bringing up the giant French poster, I'm starting to think that the mystery poster may indeed be a '77 original that had some special purpose other than display in a theater.  The graphics are so sharp and clear I have to believe they are struck from an original plate and not a scanned or photographed second- or third-generation copy.  I believe that the brighter colors and "little dots" are the result of a printing process specific to this type of paper.  As with vintage comics books that were printed on pulp paper, I think this paper required a process that generated fewer black-to-gray gradients to avoid muddiness.

 

This is getting interesting.

[Professor Pi]

Cool, glad to be of help.  I recall the "dot" printing on some posters too, and that sounds consistent with the thinner paper.  If you live in L.A., there are some poster shops that might be able to verify it for you (I got the rare Goldfinger 'hand' quad poster at a place in Hollywood, and OHMSS in Westwood.)  This was long before eBay when collecting took more effort and socializing, and was a ton of fun.

[stromberg]

I'd say what you have here is something that wasn't intended for theater use but for use on an outdoor advertising column or a billboard. 

 

These posters are usually printed on a thinner, non-glossy paper. In order to stick properly on a wall or a column, the posters need to be soaked with the adhesive paste, which does not work very good with glossy papers. These papers are usually calendered (which means they run through heavy metal rolls) and sometimes coated to close all pores and achieve the glossy finish.

 

Posters for outdoor advertising are usually printed on a thinner paper, about 115 grammes per square meter with a more rough surface and must have certain other specifications (such as a certain wet strength etc.), Very often, these posters have a blue back side which is to avoid older posters on the column or board to shine through. 

 

And yes, printings on glossy papers are usually much finer than those on rough papers. The halftone screen resolution on rough papers is usually around 30, sometimes up to 40 lines per centimeter (sorry, I learned my trade in metric system – Royale with cheese), on glossy papers, it starts about 40 and goes up to 60 lines/cm or even more. Has to do with the fact that the printing colors tend to bleed more on rough papers than on glossy papers.

[David_M]

Thanks for the insights, Stromberg, I really appreciate you sharing  your expertise (plus I know it can't be easy typing all that with webbed fingers!  )

 

Whatever this thing is, I like it.  It's going to get the white-glove treatment when I frame it.

[Simon]

Indian 1 sheets are of a lighter paper stock - but they are comical to look at, and use the A rating.

 

It isn't Australian as at the time, they used the Daybill which are 13" by 28".  Not 1 Sheet sized.

 

The 77/42 is the NSS marking indicating the year 1977 and the 42nd film of the year to be considered for advertising material.  US-looking posters Without the NSS and PG Rating information were printed in the US, but for International use where this information was redundant.

 

However, this gets us no closer to understanding the point about the 1997 inclusion.  I am tempted to say it is a licenced reprint of some sort.

[David_M]

Sorry, I probably confused the issue with my rambling.  There are three TSWLM posters in my possession:

 

1.  Known original (bought in '77), folded, glossy, 27x41 and with the NSS and 77/42 markings, with blue text for the credits

2.  Known repro from 1997 with both copyright dates ('77 and '97), rolled, glossy (ish), 27x40, with no NSS or 77/42 markings and black text for credits

3.  "Mystery" poster, rolled, on lighter stock, 27x41 (with nearly an extra 1/8 inch in both directions), not glossy, with brighter colors and sharper linework than the other two, NSS and 77/42 markings with blue text for credits

 

So at least we've narrowed it down to the US (unless Canada's a possibility), and either an original with an unusual purpose or a very well-done "bootleg" repro.  But I'm betting against the latter as I don't know how you could make a reproduction that has more detail in it than the original.  

 

Actually, I guess there is another possibility: as you say, some kind of *licensed* repro.  It would have to have been licensed because it seems to have been struck from Peak's original art and not scanned or photographed from an earlier poster.  Only EON or UA, logically, would have access to the original art to make that possible.

[stromberg]

So at least we've narrowed it down to the US (unless Canada's a possibility), and either an original with an unusual purpose or a very well-done "bootleg" repro.  But I'm betting against the latter as I don't know how you could make a reproduction that has more detail in it than the original.  

 

Actually, I guess there is another possibility: as you say, some kind of *licensed* repro.  It would have to have been licensed because it seems to have been struck from Peak's original art and not scanned or photographed from an earlier poster.  Only EON or UA, logically, would have access to the original art to make that possible.

It has to be done from the original artwork (or a high quality photo). If you use a printed version, you'll always get the original halftone screen patterns interfering with the new ones, which will result in ugly Moiré patterns. This can be eliminated to some extent – there are techniques for de-rasterization, but it requires a lot of fumbling and always end with a certain loss of quality and detail. Pros hate this, it's one of the deadly sins in printing.

[Professor Pi]

Thanks for the info, Stromberg.  I think I have some posters that fit your descriptions.

 

I wonder if it might have been for a festival?  I have a Connery Thunderball film festival poster (original artwork), and a Roger Moore Live and Let Die festival that seem to have that dot matrix pattern.