(on all images click on thumbnails for full-sized photos)

Based on a 1976 novel by Stephen King, Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining opened nationwide May 23, 1980.  The movie went on to make $44 million at the boxoffice.  Even though it only made $44 million at the box  office (#14 that year, sandwiched between ‘Urban Cowboy’ and ‘Seems Like Old Time’), it remains one of the most revered horror movies of all time.  In 2001, the film was ranked 29th on AFI’s 100 Years… 100 Thrills list and Jack Torrance was named the 25th greatest villain on the AFI’s 100 Years… 100 Heroes and Villains list in 2003.

The poster artwork was designed by Saul Bass (yes, the Saul Bass of Vertigo fame).

Now for the little story.  I stumbled upon what looked like a mint rolled copy of the poster.  The color felt right, the paper felt right, it had all the NSS markings at the bottom center and right.  The folks at Hollywood Books and Posters, a famed poster store on Hollywood Blvd. in Hollywood, told me that they had received this poster as a late 80’s “studio” reprint.  Why would Warner Brothers have reprinted the poster, no one knew.  Now, keep in mind that the poster has no reprint markings.  So I took it home and compared it to my US folded original and my UK folded original.

This is what I found:

The reprint (left on the picture) is slightly smaller than the original (right on the picture).  The reprint is 27 by 40 9/16 inches.  The original measures 27 1/8 by 41 inches.  Also, the color is a little bit off on the reprint, with the original being a little brighter and yellower.

The title on the reprint is bolder, not as sharp as on the original.  Also, the original has a vertical bar before the 10, which the reprint lacks.

Again, the printing is not as clear on the reprint (left). The Gau logo is slightly fuzzy compared to the original.

Reprint on the left, US one-sheet in the middle, UK version on the right.

In the end, although I don’t know the actual provenance of this poster, two things remain certain:  It is out there and it is not an original 1980 poster.

Thierry

LOST IN TRANSLATION Japanese B2 poster authentication

Several years ago I purchased a Lost in Translation B2 Japanese poster in a well-bid-on auction on eBay.  There were two sold within a couple weeks of each other by the same seller.  Well, it was quite obvious to me and to the other dealer that purchased the subsequent poster that it was a FAKE.  However, at that time I did not have an original to compare it to — now I do, and that is what you see here. Witness the exposure of an obvious fake in this authentication:

First, a picture of the FAKE LOST IN TRANSLATION B2:

Looks pretty good, especially in a typically tiny eBay advertisement. However, as soon as you put it next to a real poster:

It’s obvious it’s fake.  First, notice the color discrepancy — the real Lost in Translation poster is on the top.  Night and day different. Also, notice that I’ve aligned the top borders of the posters.  Now look at the bottom — the fake is substantially shorter, probably by a full centimeter.  It is also substantially narrower as you can see here:

Here are some more detail photos:

Part of the challenge on this poster is that the original poster has a grainy photo as the main image.  However, as you can see the letters are easily distinguishable as authentic on the real poster.  On the real poster the characters are crisp, sharp, and black.  On the fake they are fuzzy and dull, and barely even gray.

At the bottom, the credits area has a deep dark color on the original. On the fake it is much lighter and grainy.  The credits lettering is also fuzzy, although that may be difficult to distinguish in this picture:

Moving back to the right side, we use the old authentication trick of checking the art at the border.   Sure enough, an easy difference to spot is right above Scarlett Johannson’s head.   There is a dark piece from the umbrella at about 2 o’clock above her hair that is completely missing on the fake:

And moving to the left side, just above and to the left of the red arrow you can see a semi-circle.  There is much more of that semi-circle present on the real poster:

Lastly, there’s just much more color depth and a completely different color balance on the real vs the fake (real is on the left):

This is an easy authentication.  As I stated above, it was clear to me that this was a fake even before I had the real one next to it for comparison.  That said, I have going on a decade of experience collecting Japanese posters so it might not be so obvious to a casual buyer.  There ARE fakes and repros of Japanese posters out there being sold by unscrupulous sellers.  Anyone who is at the point of selling posters should know better — claiming ignorance is a non-starter if you ask me.

I hope this is helpful.  We must remain careful and vigilant about exposing fakes and I hope this article achieves that purpose.

(Erich can be found on the NSFGE poster forum.)

JAMES BOND RE-RELEASE POSTERS

James Bond posters are amongst the most collectible in the hobby. However, despite or maybe because of their popularity, they are responsible for one of the most common occurrences of collectors getting burned on eBay buying posters they believe to be an original release but are in fact something else.

In the early 1980’s MGM/UA reprinted a number of Bond 1-sheets in preparation for a “film festival” re-release of the early Bond films. These posters have been confusing collectors ever since, due to the fact that they are pretty much exact copies (albeit with some key differences) of the originals right down to having the copyright dates on them from the first releases.  Of course, as the posters are produced by the studio so they are worth something, it’s just a lot less than an original release.

A photo on eBay of the whole poster from a distance with a close up of the original copyright date is enough to snag many unsuspecting collectors into paying well over the odds for a re-release poster.  And in case you think it is just new collectors likely to do this, I have seen dealers, collectors who spend thousands of dollars a year and the world’s largest seller of movie posters over the Internet not spot the difference.

The 1980 re-release posters are 1-sheets for the following films:

Dr No

From Russia With Love (Style A)

Goldfinger

Thunderball

You Only Live Twice (Style B)

On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (Style B)

Diamonds Are Forever

If you had any of these 1-sheets in your hands you could probably tell the difference straight away as the posters are printed on the thinner glossy paper stock of the late 70’s early 80’s as opposed to the thicker glossy stock of the mid-60’s to mid-70’s or the matte paper stock in use prior to then.  Similarly, all the R80 1-sheets fold outwards, so that the poster art is exposed when folded, and all the original posters should fold inwards and have the NSS stamp on the back.  However, when you buy from eBay you often don’t have the luxury of getting your hands on them until it is too late.

In addition, it is possible to find rolled copies of the R80 1-sheets, although I have never seen rolled copies of the original release posters, but they might exist.

I will now run you through the differences between the 1980’s and original printings. Please note I am missing copies of the Thunderball and OHMSS R80 1-sheets, but describe their differences.  I will update the post if I personally get copies.

DR NO and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE

The From Russia With Love R80 1-sheet is a reprint of the Style A only.  There is no reprint of the Style B.  The Dr No 1-sheet was originally produced in only one style (although there are two otherwise identical printings with different Continental Litho numbers).  Both the R80 posters (left in the photo) have the same differences from the originals (right):

Note that the art for the From Russia With Love is shifted an inch down the poster.

1. The original posters are the only ones of these posters that are guaranteed to be on the matte paper stock. You can usually see the difference in a photo, particularly if taken with a flash, as the glossy paper stock is much better at reflecting light (in both cases above the R80 1-sheet is on the left).

2. There is no NSS info at the bottom of the R80 poster, or stamp on the back, but a GAU logo is present.

Note the picture above has two original Dr No 1 sheets at the bottom that have different Litho numbers 62-2004 and 62-2237 (the latter is linen-backed)

In the photo below, the original is on top.

3. There is the title in block letters in the bottom right hand corner, as was common in most 1-sheets from the early 1970’s until the early 80’s.

The most obvious of these differences is the title.  It is very visible even on a small eBay photo and is the first thing you should look for upon seeing an auction for these re-release 1-sheets.  Of course some sellers take photos that “accidentally” crop off this area of the poster, but even if they do that, it is usually possible to see whether the NSS paragraph is present at the bottom on an original release, or blank on the R80.

As mentioned above, the re-release posters fold differently with the artwork showing outwardly, and all the originals I have seen have the NSS stamp on the back (it wouldn’t surprise me however to learn there are copies that don’t).

GOLDFINGER

The Goldfinger R80 1-sheet is by far the easiest poster to tell apart from the original as for some reason the credits were re-arranged. Note the original Goldfinger poster was printed in both a matte and a glossier version (though not as glossy as the 70’s and 80’s posters)

The photo above shows an original glossy version on the left, with the R80 on the right.  In the re-release, note that “GOLDFINGER” is missing the quotation marks, the word “TECHNICOLOR” has been shifted to the bottom row from beneath the title, the “AS” next to “GOLDFINGER” and “PUSSY GALORE” moved and that the soundtrack promo switched from the left side to the right.

In addition, the printing info in the re-release was removed from the bottom middle and the NSS info was removed from the bottom left and the title put in block letters. Note also the ink is much more black, red and yellow on the R80, rather than dark brown, orange(?) and gold. 

The photo below also includes the matte original printing, but this poster has been linen-backed so although the poster is much duller and the background browner some of that would have been brought on by the preservation.

The folded 1-sheets typically face outwards for the 1980 version and inwards on the original with stamp of the ‘64 original release.

THUNDERBALL

Although I have seen photos of it, I do not have the R80 version of Thunderball.  Interestingly, they seem to come up for auction less often than the original poster.  Nevertheless, here is a photo of my original release 1-sheet, which is the cropped jetpack style, rather than the full jetpack version. The 80 re-release is reprinted from the cropped style.

The key differences, visible from a photo are:

1. The R80 has the title in block letters in the bottom right hand corner, whereas it is blank on the original.

2. The original release has the usual NSS paragraph and number at the bottom.

YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE

The Style B version is the only one reprinted for the 1980 release. There are three versions you should be aware of looking when looking at a You Only Live Twice Style B: the original release poster, the R80 1-sheet and “the far less common, but when it shows up it’s guaranteed to fool people” Indian 1-sheet.  I do not have a copy of the Indian 1-sheet for precisely this reason.  When it shows up on eBay somebody almost always pays over the odds for thinking it is one of the other versions.  I will, however, describe what to look for.

Comparing the original release with the R80, again all the action is at the bottom of the poster. There are colour differences in the art (the R80 colours appear more ‘washed out’) but not necessarily something you can pick up without a side-by-side comparison.  But at the bottom of the poster the R80 has a GAU logo, the title printed in red ink (not black for some reason) and is missing the designation “Printed in USA. Style B” on the left and the NSS# and info on the right.

As usual the R80 does not have an NSS stamp on the back, nor does it fold inwards.

Finally look out for an Indian 1-sheet, this poster is guaranteed to fool. At quick glance this will pass for an original because there is no title in block letters in the bottom right hand corner, but note the washed out colours and that the border for the art is not blue but a grey.

ON HER MAJESTY’S SECRET SERVICE

There are three versions of both the On Her Majesty’s Secret Service Style B 1-sheets: original US 1-sheet, original International 1-sheet and the R80. The 1980’s reprint is similar to the international 1-sheet.

Why did they reprint the International 1-sheet? Well, the MPAA ratings system was introduced on November 1, 1968 and therefore OHMSS was the first Bond film to be rated. By the early-70’s the ‘M’ rating had been abolished, so printing posters with this rating would have made no sense and copying the International 1-sheet would have been the best option. I can’t answer the question as to why none of the re-release 1 sheets have a ‘PG’ rating on them.

As mentioned I do not have a copy of the R80 1-sheet, nor the international 1-sheet.  The following photo is the US 1-sheet.

The tell-tale signs of the R80 1-sheet are at the bottom of the poster. It has the title in block letters and it is missing: 1) the ‘M’ certificate (as would the International 1-sheet) 2) the NSS standard legal paragraph, the ‘B’ style designator and the NSS# in the bottom right (which DO appear on the international 1-sheet) and 3) note that beneath the United Artists logo the reference to “Entertainment from the Transamerica Corporation” was also removed, I assume because the Transamerica Corp sold UA which happened in 1981, so it may be that these 1-sheets date from 1981 rather than 1980.  The bottom of an original US 1-sheet is shown below.

DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER

The final film for which I have seen a 1-sheet labeled as being an R80’s is Diamonds Are Forever.

It is impossible to tell apart the Diamonds Are Forever International 1-sheet and R80 1-sheet without some detailed analysis.  Note, I do not have a copy of the original international 1-sheet, but I will alert you to the differences.  The photos show an original US 1-sheet next to an R80’s 1-sheet.

Unfortunately, the differences between the original International 1-sheet and the R80 1-sheet are very minor.  A closer look at the bottom of the two 1-sheets reveals just how alike they are. Remember the top poster (in the photo below) is the US 1-sheet. The International 1-sheet would have no NSS paragraph in the bottom middle, no NSS# in the bottom right and no Ratings Box, and neither has the title in block letters, so the usual giveaways are not there.

So the differences are:  First, the printer’s union logo is for the GAU rather than the LPIU and second, the framer’s marks in the corners are in the later style (mid-70’s onwards) rather than the early style (pre-mid 1970’s).

The LPIU union logo started appearing on 1-sheets in 1968 (this is in reference to my own collection which contains a good number of 1-sheets from each year from about the early 1950’s onwards). Arranging my collection in NSS# order (which I know is not strictly in chronological order) the first 1-sheet with the LPIU logo is Hang ‘Em High NSS# 68/108. The GAU union was formed by a merger of the LPIU and a sister union on Labor Day 1972, well after the release of Diamonds Are Forever, which came out in December 1971.

I will digress here because the issue of the printer’s logo seems to be fairly complicated to me.

The earliest 1-sheet (by NSS#) that I own with a GAU logo on it is for A Clockwork Orange, but that is a special case.  Its NSS# is 72/30, and it was released in February 1972 before the GAU union was formed; however, it was originally released as an X certificate movie, and the 1-sheet I have is for the R-rated version which was rated in 1972 according to the MPAA website and released in 1973 according to IMDB. There is one other 1-sheet with a 72/XXX NSS number that I own with the GAU logo, which is The Godfather (I actually have two 1-sheets one with each printers logo) and this film was released in March 1972, so the GAU logo must have been a later printing and the LPIU on an earlier printing. The 73/XXX 1-sheets I have are mostly LPIU, with a couple of exceptions, and another example where I have a 1-sheet with each logo. It is the latter 74/XXX numbers before the GAU logo takes over.

Finally, of course, there is no NSS stamp on the R80 version and they fold differently.

The upshot of this is that the Diamonds Are Forever 1-sheet with the GAU logo cannot be original release as the union was not formed at the time, it could be a later printing of the International 1-sheet in the early 70’s but I have never seen it labeled as such by a credible source, and I have seen a more conventional printing of the original international 1-sheet with the LPIU logo.

What concerns me as to whether it is definitively an R80 version (which I have always seen it described as) are three things:

1.  I have to say the paper stock of each 1-sheet is really close in look and feel (but you might expect this from posters printed less than 10 years apart) and I cannot tell them apart by feel or look alone.  The early 70’s and in particular late 71/’72/’73 was when the NSS changed from the inward folded 1-sheets to the outward folded 1-sheets with the titles in block letters, and at roughly the same time stopped using the stamps on the back, and at roughly the same time changed from the thick glossy stock to the thinner glossy stock (and I also have 1-sheets from this time on the thick matte paper stock), so I’m not sure paper stock can be definitive.

2. The Diamonds Are Forever 1-sheet is the only R80 version without the title in block letters in the corner, why?

3. Unlike the OHMSS version the Transamerica Corporation is left underneath United Artists.  Is this because the sale of UA was announced while they were being printed?  If not, why was it left on one but not another?

Overall, though, I am happy with the general consensus that it is a reprint from the early 80’s and I personally received my copy along with another R80 1-sheet.

If anybody has anything to add on these points please contact me via the administrator.

[Note from the Admin:  Damian has provided a great deal of valuable information and there may be questions from readers as to where you can see the photos of the posters that Damian does not have. Originally, Damian included links to those photos, but MPA has a standing policy of not linking or referring to commercial, auction and dealer poster sites.  There may be some question about the link to L.A.M.P., since advertisements are shown at the site.  However, L.A.M.P. does provide important information to the poster community and it itself does not sell posters, so the link to a particular piece of information has been provided.  If you do have any questions for or information to share with Damian, you may contact the Admin who will pass them on to him.]

The Chaykin – First Star Wars Poster “Star Wars Corp. Poster 1″

In 1976, a poster was introduced at the San Diego Comic Con to promote a movie that was expected by the industry to fail or, at the most, to barely make an impression at the box office.  Taken from Akira Kurosawa’s 1958 The Hidden Fortress, a young director by the name of George Lucas reimagined the tale as a space adventure to be called Star Wars and was trying to get Universal Studios, the studio which financed his very successful American Graffiti, to also finance this new movie.  But, the movie was thought to be incomprehensible, bizarre and kind of silly, so Universal and every other studio in Hollywood passed on making it, except for 20th Century Fox, and even then the directors and studio heads at Fox thought Alan Ladd, Jr. was crazy for greenlighting the making of this movie.

The studio heads felt that only a good marketing campaign could sell the movie, which they believed should be initiated as a comic under a deal with Marvel Comics.  Howard Chaykin, an already known comics artist, was asked to illustrate this new Star Wars graphic serial.  It was hoped that the comic would generate good buzz for the movie.  Only after this deal was made was there a plan for a poster to be created and presented at the comics conventions and, once again, Howard Chaykin was asked to do the artwork for the poster.

And so it was that the very first poster for Star Wars, titled “Star Wars Corp. Poster 1″, was presented to the world for a piddling $1.75 at the 1976 San Diego Comic Con.  When one says “The Chaykin”, as it is popularly known, every collector of Star Wars posters and memorabilia knows what “The Chaykin” refers to and no further descriptors are needed.

The Star Wars movie posters are the most bootlegged posters of any movie.  The Chaykin is no different, but what is unusual is that the bootleg for it did not appear until well after the other well-known bootlegs surfaced (such as the SW Advance Style ” B”, Regular Style “A”, Style “C”, and various inserts.)

(on all images click on thumbnails for full-sized photos)

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ORIGINAL VS. THE BOOTLEG

I. Variations on a theme

There are licensed reprints of The Chaykin.  However, the sizes of these are completely different from the original 20×29 inches and are easily distinguishable:

1. A larger size 27×40 inches single-sided US reprint
2. A French 15.75×23.5 inches reprint given away with the Star Wars Vault book to stores and dealers: has butter-yellow borders and is printed on thick, dull cardstock.

It would be difficult to try to pass these off as originals as the size differential is substantial.

II. The whole view

Here are two complete side-by-side views of the entirety of both posters.  The first photo was taken indoors with natural filtered light and the second outdoors in bright sunlight.  The original is the poster to the left in both photos.  In these images, we can immediately see the difference in color between the original and the bootleg.  The most clear and obvious is the outermost halo sunburst surrounding the spherical Death Star, where the original’s is golden yellow and the bootleg’s is deep orange.   Notice also the overall darker saturation of all the colors throughout the bootleg on the right, from Luke’s darker brown hair to the blacker space background to the darker fuchsia instead of the light pink blast from the lightsabers.

When viewed individually, the bootleg’s color deviation is not all that appreciable, but viewed next to the original, it becomes glaringly obvious.   If you had nothing else to rely on except for a small, poor quality photo, you could probably be able to pick out the bootleg by the deep orange color alone.

III. Color Deviations

As already noted, the colors between the original and the bootleg are clearly different even from a distance, once a side-by-side comparison is done.  The following photos show in closer view and detail how deeper the saturation is on the bootleg.  The conspicuous deep orange of the halo sunburst in the bootleg is a very distinctive characteristic.  In the third photo below, it is not as discernable, though, that the red text of the “Star Wars” title in the bootleg (bottom poster) is darker than the original’s.   This is where having the actual posters in hand would make it easier to see.  The lightsaber in the bootleg is also darker with a fuchsia hue compared to the pink found in the original.  And, the Death Star is a light, turquoise sky-blue in the original, whereas the one in the bootleg is a darker purplish blue.

IV. The Missing Copyright © Symbol

But perhaps the most important detail of all that distinguishes the bootleg from the original is the missing Copyright © symbol.  Barring everything else, this copyright symbol must be present.  In the photo below, the bootleg is missing this essential component.  Please keep in mind that fake symbols can be created after the fact.  If this is to be the case in the future, then matching the text becomes important, because in the bootleg the text font is different from the original’s. This characteristic is discussed in the next section.

The question is, Could the poster without the © symbol have been a first print run mistake that was subsequently corrected and this poster simply got out into the wild instead of destroyed?  I could believe in that possibility if it weren’t for the fact that the text font does not match up with the one used in the original.  And, as will be seen, there are more deviations from the original that point towards this poster’s being a bootleg.

V. Completely Different Text Font

The font used in the printing of the bootleg’s text isn’t just a slight variation in crispness or clarity from the original, it’s a completely different font. This can already be seen in the previous photo displaying the missing Copyright © symbol.  The font used in the bootleg (top poster) is a block type that is bolder and thicker than the one used in the original.

Now, why didn’t the fonts match up if the entire poster were duplicated?  Recall that this reproduction did not surface until long after the other Star Wars bootlegs surfaced.  In the making of modern day posters, the graphics file containing the artwork is separate from the file containing all the text.  Someone actually has to compile these two separate files together to produce the final poster.  This is so that any text can be changed and moved around easily without affecting the graphics portion, and because different people in different departments work on different sections of the poster at different times.  I suspect that whoever reproduced this poster could have had possession of a digital image file (remember that the 27×40 inch licensed reprints would have a digital source) but did not have the text file or the exact same font available to accurately reproduce the text.  They probably thought whatever font they used matched closely enough to the original that only close inspection and comparison would expose the disparity.  Or, they had a copy of the original artwork, which, of course, would not have any studio or copyright information, and so had to reproduce the text. Another thought is that they intentionally left out the original text portion of the poster because it didn’t come out clearly enough in the reproduction process and the blurred text with fuzzy edges would have tipped people off towards its bootlegged status.  In any event, the third most defining characteristic of the bootleg is the variance in the text font.

VI. Reduced artwork area with change in white borders

Another defining characteristic of the bootleg is the reduced artwork area.  The actual artwork portion of the original measures 26 14/16 in length and that of the bootleg measures 26 6/16 (slightly less than 26.5 inches).  However, a reduced artwork area would be difficult to discern from a small photo, which might be the only image offered by a seller.  To look for the reduction in the artwork, examine the bottom white border.

In the bootleg (on the right), the bottom white border is widened to 1.5 inches from the original’s 1 inch.  This widening corresponds to the reduced length of the artwork area.  In contrast, the left and right white borders of the bootleg have been reduced to 3/4 inch from the original 1 inch.  The top border of the bootleg remains 1 inch. Basically, the white border areas of the original poster (the top, the bottom, the left and the right) are all 1 inch.  Look for this consistency in an original. Notice also in the photo the dissimilarity between the fonts of the posters.  And not only this, the subtitle “Poster 1” is flush with the left edge of the artwork area in the original, but in the bootleg, “Poster 1” is not aligned with, and instead precedes, the left edge.

VII. Size and Paper

First, one or two millimeters difference in the width or length between posters is not impressive enough to make me suspicious of a poster’s origins.  Slight variations in the cut of the paper is not an impossibility and unless there is a significant amount of difference in dimensions, I don’t use a minimal size variation as a disqualifying factor.  A poster at 20×29 inches is much easier to duplicate than one that is 27×41 or larger.  In fact, the physical dimensions of the bootleg are almost exactly the same as those for the original and so size alone cannot be relied upon to make a distinction.  For all practical purposes, both posters measure 20×29 inches, with the bootleg’s dimensions falling short by barely 1 millimeter in the width and by barely 1 millimeter in the length.

As for the paper quality, there is some difference in sheen and texture in the bootleg, but these tactile qualities are difficult to appreciate without being able to feel them for yourself.  The most noticeable difference is in the paper thickness, where the paper of the bootleg is thicker than the original’s.  Expectedly, of course, this particular characteristic is not one that can be easily verified prior to purchase without having a comparison original piece.

VIII. Speculations about the Origins of the Bootleg

We really have no definitive facts concerning this particular Star Wars bootleg.  There is speculation that this bootleg originated from France, but we simply do not know.  This is what we do know:  This particular bootleg was obtained in 2004 from a seller in Georgia by one of MPA’s own contributing authors, Jason, a.k.a. morphine.  Up until this time, this bootleg had not been seen before (as far as we are aware) and the only known reproduction at that point was the officially licensed 27×40 U.S. reprint.

It would appear that those who bootlegged The Chaykin are not the same sources for the bootlegging of the other Star Wars posters.

I was told by an indirect source about private printings of The Chaykin using the original artwork, but I have not been able to substantiate this from the person purported to be making the private printings for friends.

IX. Credits

Thanks to:

* Jason/morphine, who was the first to identify this bootleg and who passed the poster on to me.

* Pete Vilmur, Lucasfilm online content manager and co-author of The Star Wars Poster Book, who relayed to me the information regarding the French reprint, provided me with photos of it and confirmed the relative newness of the appearance of the Chaykin bootleg.

* The Star Wars Poster Book by Stephen Sansweet and Pete Vilmur, which I used as a historical reference.

* John Leslie Williams, who gave me access to his original Chaykin until I could obtain my own.

* A Paramount and former Dreamworks production executive, who wished to remain unidentified, who provided me with information on how posters were created at his company.

Jeannie

EMPIRE STRIKES BACK STYLE B INSERT POSTER

There are inserts (14″x36″) from a number of films first released in the 70’s and early 80’s that are available from a small number of sellers on eBay in rolled near mint condition and in seemingly endless supply. They are probably the most controversial posters in the hobby and opinion is divided on them:  those who sell them say they are genuine NSS printed inserts, everybody else in the hobby thinks they are bootlegs. They are the infamous “minty white” inserts, so called because of the bright, glossy and white cardstock they are printed on, so bright, glossy and white in fact that they could have been printed yesterday! (If, in fact, the general consensus is that they have been around since at least the mid-90’s.)

Fortunately, they are relatively easy to identify and you don’t have to put them side-by-side with originals to spot them. In most cases, either the art was cropped in reproduction and/or there were small printing defects which would allow you to identify the bootlegs.

The Empire Strikes Back Style B insert features artwork attributed to Tom Jung.

I don’t know whether the bootleggers got better at making copies as they rolled different titles off the presses, but this insert is incredibly difficult to tell from a real one without reference to a side-by-side comparison.

(click on thumbnails for full-sized photos and again to zoom in)

1.  Art crop.

Unlike the Star Wars insert bootleg, there is only a minimal art crop on both sides. It’s most obvious in two places (all photos with bootleg on top):

On the left side, the mountain range of the ice planet Hoth starts sloping up in the genuine version and sloping downwards in the bootleg:

On the right side, Darth Vader’s cape touches the border in the bootleg, but there is a definite gap in the original: