FS: Angels with Dirty Face US OS (Early RR)

Charlie · January 2018

Recently I went in on a joint buy with some buddies and we've managed to move everything through EMP except one poster (and a few lobbies that haven't popped up on EMP yet). We really don't know what it would fetch at auction and before we take that risk, I though I would lay it out here. It is a rerelease of some sort but is pretty much the exact same poster as the original release except for the "RERELEASED" text... It is beat to hell and needs restoration.

$800
OBO

Image: https://scontent.fhou1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/26804656_1957790887571685_3064399332818914828_n.jpg?oh=ccd5539bd8b2fb9017bd4e9f66b247c3&oe=5AF0A84C

jayn_j · January 2018

Now where did I put my 11' pole?

Charlie · January 2018

Well, Iâ€™ve gotten no bites... What do you guys think is a reasonable price for this poster?

David · January 2018

I would have thought $800 is a good price - $5K - $10K expected for an original on HA soon. Restored I'd have thought $2K +/-

Bruce · January 2018

Except a reissue might be $1,500 in nice shape.

David · January 2018

Bruce said:

Except a reissue might be $1,500 in nice shape.

$2K +/- was about right then

Given Charlie's one is probably the only one I could find (none in Bruce's database or HA's), and it's an exact copy of the original it may even go for more... Bruce's ones are from the 50s, it appears there was a re-release in 1948, likely this one then?

HONDO · January 2018

It appears to me to be an original release 1938 poster with the word ''rereleased'' added sometime later. Has Bruce or anyone else ever seen an official re-release poster of any description using an exact original poster design, with just the wording '' rereleased'' added to it ?

David · January 2018

Do you think they would have carry over posters to do an overprint on 10 years later?

Bruce · January 2018

HONDO said:

It appears to me to be an original release 1938 poster with the word ''rereleased'' added sometime later. Has Bruce or anyone else ever seen an official re-release poster of any description using an exact original poster design, with just the wording '' rereleased'' added to it ?

That is not correct Lawrence. It is almost surely from 1943 or 1944. With many of their stars in the service, and with their European distribution in tatters, Warners re-released their top late 1930s hits in those two years. They mostly used the same plates, and the one-sheets and title cards sometimes had "Rereleased" added to them (but sometimes not), and the scenes had nothing added, but the paper on the lobbies went from a "linen-like" texture to a flat finish.

However, on this poster, it IS certainly possible the word "Rereleased" was hand painted on, but Charlie never mentioned that, and I would think he could tell by looking at the actual poster. Also, if he will provide a closeup of the litho number at the bottom (or what those numbers are), then I can almost surely date the poster based on that.

Here is the title card that goes with the (to now) undated 1940s re-release of this movie:

Image: http://www.emovieposter.com/images/moviestars/AA160628/550/lc_angels_with_dirty_faces_R40s_tc_a_LF00868_T.jpg

And note that Charlie's poster is definitely NOT from the 1948 re-release, because that went through NSS, and his poster would have a 1948 NSS number if it is from that release, which it does not. Here is the title card from 1948:

Image: http://www.emovieposter.com/images/moviestars/AA150426/550/lc_angels_with_dirty_faces_R48_tc_TB00985_C.jpg

Finally, here is another Cagney re-release of a 1935 movie that was re-released in 1944 (we were able to date that one from the litho number on the re-release one-sheet, like I hope to do with Charlie's poster):

Note the small "re-release" next to the Warner Bros.

Charlie · January 2018

I dug it out again and Iâ€™ll throw up more detailed pictures when I get in front of an actual computer. There are printing marks below the â€œGâ€ on the original that match those on this poster. So they were definetly from the same plates. There are no differences other than â€œRERELEASEDâ€ on the poster. There is no NSS number on the poster other than the litho number that matches the original â€œ9204â€... For the life of me I canâ€™t say the RERELEASED wasnâ€™t printed on but could have been screen printed with the same ink since there is a box mark under the â€œAâ€... The other note to this is the stamp on the back say â€œWarner First Natâ€™lâ€ and there is a Canadian censor stamp on front... Would an international release been considered a rerelease?

HONDO · January 2018

Bruce said:

HONDO said:

It appears to me to be an original release 1938 poster with the word ''rereleased'' added sometime later. Has Bruce or anyone else ever seen an official re-release poster of any description using an exact original poster design, with just the wording '' rereleased'' added to it ?

That is not correct Lawrence. It is almost surely from 1943 or 1944. With many of their stars in the service, and with their European distribution in tatters, Warners re-released their top late 1930s hits in those two years. They mostly used the same plates, and the one-sheets and title cards sometimes had "Rereleased" added to them (but sometimes not), and the scenes had nothing added, but the paper on the lobbies went from a "linen-like" texture to a flat finish.

However, on this poster, it IS certainly possible the word "Rereleased" was hand painted on, but Charlie never mentioned that, and I would think he could tell by looking at the actual poster. Also, if he will provide a closeup of the litho number at the bottom (or what those numbers are), then I can almost surely date the poster based on that.

Finally, here is another Cagney re-release of a 1935 movie that was re-released in 1944 (we were able to date that one from the litho number on the re-release one-sheet, like I hope to do with Charlie's poster):

Note the small "re-release" next to the Warner Bros.

The above Frisco Kid lobby card example wasn't taken from the plates used in 1935. My original question was '' Has Bruce or anyone else ever seen an official re-release poster of any description using an exact original poster design, with just the word ''re-released added to it?'' In the case of this film it had a Warner Bros. Productions Corp. Picture credit appearing on the original title lobby card and not just Presented by Warner Bros as shown above and on the other scene lobby cards from the 1944 re-release, Warner Bros. Picture. appears. The style of the 1944 rr title lobby card is also completely different from the original title card in presentation also.

HONDO · January 2018

Charlie said:

I dug it out again and Iâ€™ll throw up more detailed pictures when I get in front of an actual computer. There are printing marks below the â€œGâ€ on the original that match those on this poster. So they were definetly from the same plates. There are no differences other than â€œRERELEASEDâ€ on the poster. There is no NSS number on the poster other than the litho number that matches the original â€œ9204â€... For the life of me I canâ€™t say the RERELEASED wasnâ€™t printed on but could have been screen printed with the same ink since there is a box mark under the â€œAâ€... The other note to this is the stamp on the back say â€œWarner First Natâ€™lâ€ and there is a Canadian censor stamp on front... Would an international release been considered a rerelease?

Warner First Nat'l doesn't help as this name was used both in the the 1930's and the 1940's, so we cannot narrow the date down. I wouldn't think an international release would have been considered a re-release. Looking forward to your more detailed pictures Charlie.

Bruce · January 2018

Finally, here is another Cagney re-release of a 1935 movie that was re-released in 1944 (we were able to date that one from the litho number on the re-release one-sheet, like I hope to do with Charlie's poster):

Note the small "re-release" next to the Warner Bros.

The above Frisco Kid lobby card example wasn't taken from the plates used in 1935. My original question was '' Has Bruce or anyone else ever seen an official re-release poster of any description using an exact original poster design, with just the word ''re-released added to it?'' In the case of this film it had a Warner Bros. Productions Corp. Picture credit appearing on the original title lobby card and not just Presented by Warner Bros as shown above and on the other scene lobby cards from the 1944 re-release, Warner Bros. Picture. appears. The style of the 1944 rr title lobby card is also completely different from the original title card in presentation also.

Sigh

I wasn't saying that the re-release card I posted was from the original plates. I just was illustrating the use of "re-release".

Here is Tropic Zone, where it very much DOES appear they used the original plates, but added "re-released" (this time, in a box):

Image: http://www.emovieposter.com/images/moviestars/AA171221/550/lc_torrid_zone_R42_tc_a_CS00045_B.jpg

and the original, for comparison:

Image: http://www.emovieposter.com/images/moviestars/AA150813/550/lc_torrid_zone_tc_TB01040_C.jpg

Bruce · January 2018

Charlie said:

I dug it out again and Iâ€™ll throw up more detailed pictures when I get in front of an actual computer. There are printing marks below the â€œGâ€ on the original that match those on this poster. So they were definetly from the same plates. There are no differences other than â€œRERELEASEDâ€ on the poster. There is no NSS number on the poster other than the litho number that matches the original â€œ9204â€... For the life of me I canâ€™t say the RERELEASED wasnâ€™t printed on but could have been screen printed with the same ink since there is a box mark under the â€œAâ€... The other note to this is the stamp on the back say â€œWarner First Natâ€™lâ€ and there is a Canadian censor stamp on front... Would an international release been considered a rerelease?

If the litho numbers are the same, you almost surely have an original, but with the word "RERELEASED" stenciled on. I can't think of a single older rerelease where the litho number remained unchanged.

But the much larger problem is the painted over gun. Whatever paint Canadian censors used is never removable. It bonds in with the paper, and anything that would take it off would remove the ink too. So that area needs to be painted over and recreated. Doable, but the poster will look dipped in paint. And of course it has many other defects, as well.

Charlie · January 2018

Ok pictures:

Bottom right:

Charlie · January 2018

Center:

Bottom Left:

Charlie · January 2018

Original from HA:

Notice the "G": and not the line headed to the right under the "RERELEASED"...

Charlie · January 2018

Other images:

Charlie · January 2018

I looked up continental litho and the number is the plate number according to LAMP. So since the plate numbers match then it must be at least made with the same plate.

CSM_2_Point_0 · January 2018

I seriously considered making you an offer Charlie but I am absolutely terrified of sending anything out for restoration now (and this would clearly need extensive work just to be presentable). Still a nice poster!

I wonder if there is a support group out there for me?

Charlie · January 2018

With this new study into the poster, it may have been karma not to have gotten any bites. If there is a consensus that it is an original with modifications that is...

FS: Angels with Dirty Face US OS (Early RR)

Comments

Contact us

Get In Touch