Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Eddy on July 5, 2022 at 9:20pm

Interesting.  REBEL was not released by Warner Bros. until Oct. 27, 1955 - almost a month after Dean's death on Sept. 30.  Original stills usually would have been prepared for exhibitor and press use after production as the studio was gearing up for release.

Even without a clear image, this seems to be a later repro. still.  Note the production numbers are chopped off at the bottom where the image meets the border....would not be the case with an original studio issued still.  This photo is a copy and the original still image has been blown up (would explain the numbers being chopped off).

On most of the authentic surviving signed pieces from him, he usually made a dedication.  

Is this signature in ballpoint?  Fountain pen?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bryan on July 5, 2022 at 9:24pm

That's an amazing analysis, I believe its black ballpoint pen

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eddy on July 5, 2022 at 9:47pm

He was signing in ballpoint.  

It's amazing to think that he arrived in L.A. in March of 1954.....filmed 3 movies...and was gone by the end of Sept. 1955.  EAST OF EDEN was the only film he would see in release (and then he wasn't top billed).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on July 5, 2022 at 9:38pm

There are production stills released before the film. I have several - some a year before release and signed. Another from Treasure of the Sierra Madre. This signature is odd. The "es" appears correct. The date is an issue - the cut off neg number is what bothered me as well.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eddy on July 5, 2022 at 10:08pm

Well, as I said, stills usually would have been prepared for exhibitor and press use in prep. for release.  These were not meant for the general public but to be used in the trade.  Regardless, this appears to be a repro. just based on what I can see here.

Dean's signature did vary some. In fact, it seems to have morphed in early/middle 1955.  I did a study on him after I had made a big mistake with a major purchase and felt I needed to justify a return.  Two other dealers I had shown it to for more opinions were not favorable and I wanted to dig deeply before approaching the original dealer I had purchased it from.  I made notes and they are around here somewhere (should put them together in a comprehensible form).     

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bryan on July 5, 2022 at 10:20pm

Thanks again for the response. The photo is glossy, if that helps. It appears we are leaning  to 'no' on this?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eddy on July 5, 2022 at 10:26pm

p.s.  Here are two authentic ones.  The first is his earlier signature style part of an inscription (New York/early L.A period).   The second is what I believe became his mid.-late'55 style (swirl below the name optional):

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on July 5, 2022 at 11:09pm

You said "...Original stills usually would have been prepared for exhibitor and press use after production ..." Emphasis yours.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eddy on July 6, 2022 at 6:59am

I should have emphasized the earlier word usually in the sentence.  I've got a long day of work ahead and no time so I'll bow and concede.  Thank you for teasing it out a bit more.

• ▶ Reply