I didn't mean to infer that an expert (or even a well-verse amateur)
could not detect artificial aging, if they thought to look closely enough. But
on a low-priced card, would they? Quite possibly not. Besides, you know as well
as I do that I only, um, scratched the surface on artificial aging. Real pros
can do it so well that major world museums and art galleries and experts with a
lifetime of experience have been fooled on million-dollar items. Not that anyone
is going to go to those extremes on a repro lobby card, but it is quite possible
to age new things in ways that most people will not detect them. Just ask any
good restorer, whose job it is to "legally" age newly restored areas of
posters.
All my life I've been hearing about the mint 60-year old paper that is
genuine. I have never seen any myself that truly seemed "news stand
fresh", and I have collected old pulps and comics for 30-odd years. I've seen
some fine pieces, but none that were not obviously "old" even if they were in
spectacular condition. But maybe I don't move in the right circles -- or perhaps
they have all been slabbed. I myself have never seen a 60-year old movie poster
off linen, no matter how good the condition, that didn't look and feel "old". I
suppose some exist somewhere, but I don't think many of us will ever
see them, much less touch them. For practical every day purchasing purposes, I
personally feel it is reasonable to say that if an 50 or 60-year old unbacked
movie poster looks, feels and smells new, it probably is. Particular in the
case of lobby cards, where the 11x14 paper size is easy to obtain and can
be quickly and cheaply run through the high-end digital printers and
copiers.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005
22:33
Subject: Re: [MOPO] A good fake is always
worth making
JR,
I do agree with you that if one has something to compare to, then
determination can be much easier.
However, I have to disagree about the artificially "aging" aspect.
Pinholes, creases, wrinkles etc. can be INDICATORS of age. But they are not
reflecting "aging", they are reflecting "handling". A crease in a
modern-day repro is going to scream fake. Same with a tack hole. (You alluded
to that). Why? Because there has been no chance for the paper surrounding the
hole or the crease to - how to put it - "mellow". The crease will be
sharp edged and the inner paper white. Same with the tack hole. Same with a
nicked edge etc. Even a sanded down corner will still reveal the freshness of
a new repro.
I suggest everyone on Mopo who be interested in detection of fakes or
undisclosed restoration do this simple experiment. Get one of your most
pristine pieces and take it to a color copy place and get the best color
copies you can. Then hit them with thumbtacks. creases, magic mareker (look on
the back for some tell-tale magic marker bleed through) etc. I guarantee
they will look nothing like an original with decades behind it.
As far as "People really need to understand that when you are talking 50
and 60 year old paper that just isn't any such thing any longer as an original
in "minty fresh" condition" - that is NOT correct. Pieces of newsprint 70
years old still exist bone white and completely supple. I fear I have to go to
my comic book collecting for an example. PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING - IT IS
IMPORTANT. FORGET THIS IS ABOUT COMIC BOOKS. (please?)
The Edgar Church collection of comic books consisted of approximately
22,000 comics from the 1930's and later. Due to the storage conditions, most
of this collection to this day represent the highest quality of any particular
book. And to this day many still have bone white pages. And this is interior
newsprint of the cheapest form. Newsprint that should have yellowed, browned
and/ort brittled long before this. Except they were stored properly. (end
of comic book thing). :-)
50 or 60 years does not mean the paper has to yellow. The CONDITIONS
under which the paper is stored is the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT. And movie
paper is of much higher quality than comic book newsprint.
What are the best conditions? First and foremost, consistency. Nothing
wreaks havoc on paper like constantly changing temperature and humidity.
Airborne acids are also a contributor, as are too high a temperature or too
high humidity. But when the temperature and humidity keep fluctuating, the
cellulose fibres that bond paper will start breaking down more than they will
if the conditions remain consistent. Cellulose is the backbone of paper
and is what holds the paper "mixture" together into a solid sheet.
The bottom line? 50, 60, 70 or even older paper DOES exist that retains
its original freshness and whiteness. Are there acids in this paper?
Absolutely. But the real question is: What is required for these acids to have
an impact on the paper itself? The answer is simply improper storage
conditions. But the flip side is that proper storage conditions will pevent
the acids from having an effect.
Why am I saying all this? I spent well over ten years studying comic book
restoration and preservation. (You may still see my name in the Mopo page with
a few restoration tips - Povertyrow - that be me). I spent some time with the
best comic book restorer learning some techniques. Cost me a packet but was
worth it.
But comic book or movie poster - all is PAPER. Paper is what we love. And
paper is what we have to really understand.
Bottom line? There is no absolute? There is only self-education. Paper
from the 30's can and does exist ion the exact same condition as it diud when
it was new. Simple age is not a criteria to determine reproductions.
Oh - one more tip - take a magnifying glass to any piece you are
suspicious of. Look for ANY type of crease or color break. Examination through
the lens should quickluy determine if it is real or fake!
SO collect what you love. And love what you collect! :-)
Pov
J R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Barton,
Your description -- and the fact that you can compare it to a known
original from the *same* lobby card set -- makes this an open and shut case
in my mind. You have a reproduction. Very likely, as you say, a very good
color Xerox printed on card stock (but not quite as heavy as the originals,
a weight of paper which they really don't make anymore and which wouldn't go
through the color Xerox machine if they did).
I get so miffed when I hear people who ought to know better
continue to say, "Well, it just wouldn't be worth it for someone to create
reproductions of that card... it only sells for $10... $20... $30...
whatever." People who believe this simply aren't paying attention to the
recent revolution in color printing. At the 11x14 size of a lobby card -- if
you have a near-mint or restored original (or have created a
high-resolution digital image of one) you can make a convincing reproduction
of it for $3 bucks. Less if you work in a print/copy shop or have a friend
who does. Now, even if the card only sells for $10 to $20 bucks, if it is a
popular title that you *know* you can sell multiple copies of on eBay, then
it is a perfectly profitable and easy thing to do. Your cost: is $3 bucks.
And you make $7 to $17 or more on each one. And you can make as many as you
can sell.
It is a perfectly viable business model, particularly if you have a
large inventory of originals that you also sell, so you can just slip
it into the mix.
This is happening folks... has been happening for some time. The one
mistake the forger made in this case is that he failed to artificially "age"
the card a bit. He should have put a couple of light creases or a wrinkle in
a corner. Maybe a pin hole or two. Perhaps nicked one edge just a tiny
bit... maybe lightly run a bit of fine sandpaper across the points of the
corners to dull them just a hair... and maybe left it sitting in a window
in full sun for a few days. If he had done that, you probably
wouldn't have even bothered to compare it to an original, unless the paper
is really noticeably lighter.
People really need to understand that when you are talking 50 and 60
year old paper that just isn't any such thing any longer as an original in
"minty fresh" condition. I don't care if they were pulled from the NSS press
and stored in a vault all those years. They would still have some yellowing
from the acids in the paper, the paper would have a slightly musty sense to
it, from absorbing moisture out of the air for all those years, and the
paper would feel a little "soft" for the same reason... particularly at the
edges, which would no longer be razor-sharp (they never were to begin
with on the heavier card stock). And, of course, the paper would be the
exact same kind of paper they used back them, which they simply don't make
anymore.
Of course, all of this is impossible to gauge when buying through the
mail. You have to actually hold the card or poster in your hands and compare
it to known originals from the same time (not necessarily the same title).
This is a prime reason for only buying from sellers who offer a
no-questions-asked money-back refund policy. The seller may not have looked
at the item closely enough and may very well be passing on a reproduction
without being aware of it. But if you want to return it -- for any reason or
no reason at all -- the seller should be willing to give your money back
(maybe not shipping costs, though... a good reason to only buy from those
who charge reasonable shipping costs).
-- JR
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005
14:16
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.&nb!
sp; 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 yellowin! g 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.
--
Internal Virus Database is
out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.298 / Virus
Database: 265.6.7 - Release Date: 12/30/04
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.
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.
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG
Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.7 - Release Date:
12/30/04
