The sellers of questionable material have been using the "it wouldn't be economically feasible to reproduce that item" crap for a long time. They often pull that one out when trying to justify the fake 70's inserts. Right now, I could go down to my local print shop and have a very high quality lobby card repro made for 90 cents - and that's on cardstock... Even an inexpensive lobby card might sell for $10 or 20. That's a massive profit (1000-2000%). Far more than they could make by buying and selling a real lobby.
The best way to tell a LC repro (but, it doesn't always work) is to look at the edges and try and see if there are any defects (pin-holes, yellowing, etc...) that have been copied onto your card (or quite often you can see the edges of the real card copied onto the repro).
Good day,
Bob
----- Original Message ----- From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 12:16 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] Poster allocations and imperfections
This is a subject I have been thinking about ever since I bought a lobby card several months ago that I am sure is a reproduction. The card was from a reputable and long-standing seller from whom I have bought cards in the past, and in this particular case, had purchased several cards at once. One of the cards was an early 50s noir, and I had another card from the set from an earlier purchase. The card in question looked immediately suspicious. I am not an expert, but I have been buying movie paper now for about two years and feel that my eye is pretty "trained" when it comes to looking at 50 to 60 year old paper (I don't buy anything past 1959). The card in question was flawless - no nicks, dings, tears, or even pinholes. I have never seen a 50 year old lobby without even so much as some yellowing of the white border, but this had none. Also, the lobby was not printed on the same heavy stock as the other one I had. The stock was slightly lighter in weight, and when ! I held both cards up to a bright light, I could see the color image through the back of the suspect card, but not through the back of the other one. The card was not expensive and the seller offered to take it back, although he maintained that it was an original that had been stored for 50 years and never used (a conjecture on his part). I kept it as an example of what I believe to be a reproduction (albeit a decent one). The seller also said that it was not worth the money to reproduce and sell a card that is not a top price getter. I have heard this argument several times before, and I have to wonder: You can get a color Xerox now that looks fabulous, and it's pretty cheap to do so. So, the bottom line for me is, while I don't like glaring deficiencies on my movie paper, I don't mind - and even EXPECT - for them to more or less "look their age." For me this means definitely some yellowing or tanning of the border, and preferably a pinhole or two. I suppose these things can be faked, but it can't be as easy to do as it must be to make a reproduction of an old card and make it look "mint."
Barton
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___________________________________________________________________ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
-- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.8 - Release Date: 03/01/2005
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.8 - Release Date: 03/01/2005
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-LThe author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
