Re-release vs. Original

Pancho

Hi guys,

I've recently come across some daybills (still negotiating price, so no pics yet) and several are re-release variants that I've not seen before. A little something about me - this sort of thing really blows my hair back and it got me thinking: are re-release daybills rarer than originals? It stands to reason that a re-release run of daybills would be less than the original run, but I'd like to hear your thoughts?

Rick

Some are nicer and more valuable. The Outlaw is one, North by Northwest is nicer, though probably worth less. Overall thought, I'd imagine originals are more desirable.

theartofmovieposters

Rarer?  I wouldn't have thought so with some exceptions. 

More valuable?  All a matter of opinion, but in theory I agree with Rick...most people generally speaking would prefer the original.

HONDO

Mostly re-releases are more available in numbers to purchase than the original release daybills and much cheaper. The Outlaw is one example where the re-release design is superior and much more expensive than the original but you will have to search far and wide to find too many other examples.

David

Agree with Rick, it varies and is a personal taste thing. Completionists will have them in their collection no matter.

Due the frequency of the films being regurgitated in this country (more than the USA) Disney re-releases (Daybills) are in abundance and often mis-dated, but are generally very collectible. 

Pancho

So the general view is that a re-release is more common? Maybe it's because I tend to collect posters more from the 1970s onwards, but I would've thought that a re-release is harder to find. Daybills for film like 'Jaws' and 'Carrie' are plentiful, but the re-release ones, not so much.

theartofmovieposters

Sounds like we are both a bit OCD when it comes to collecting paper.

Like you, original or re-release, if it's for something I want I have to have it.  So many ugly daybills in my collection

I would add, just because something is rarer, or available in smaller quantities, doesn't make it necessarily more desirable or valuable.  Most collectors still want the original, and are happy to pass up the RR...it's just us OCD folk, who have a problem

David

theartofmovieposters said:

...it's just us OCD folk, who have a problem

Unlike the rest of you lot I don't suffer from it, by the way it is correctly spelled O.C.D

[Deleted User]

David said:

theartofmovieposters said:

...it's just us OCD folk, who have a problem

Unlike the rest of you lot I don't suffer from it, by the way it is correctly spelled O.C.D

Neither do I but it is spelt not spelled

David

CSM said:

David said:

theartofmovieposters said:

...it's just us OCD folk, who have a problem

Unlike the rest of you lot I don't suffer from it, by the way it is correctly spelled O.C.D

Neither do I but it is spelt not spelled

"In American English, spelt primarily refers to the hardy wheat grown mostly in Europe, and the verb spell makes spelled in the past tense and as a past participle. In all other main varieties of English, spelt and spelled both work as the past tense and past participle of spell, at least where spell means to form words letter by letter or (with out) to make clear. Outside the U.S., the two forms are interchangeable in these uses, and both are common."

[Deleted User]

David you missed my 2nd level OCD joke nature of my post

David

Chris, did you miss my OCD response...