Try it, it's not that hard :)
Seriously,
I find the different dot patterns helpful. Not so much for the litho
and offset. I already knew those and I'm frankly amazed that it's
apparently such a big thing even for linenbackers. When you're
interested in movie posters through the years it's kind of impossible
not to notice differences in printing.
I'm not very impressed with the fact that Postermountain had
difficulties spotting a possible fake of Dracula. The fact that "only
two remains and that it is the first time they have a Dracula in their
hands carries no weight. Surely they have seen lots of posters from
let's say 1925-1935? Or did Universal decide to use a never used
before vampire paper?
The photogelatine and inkjet patterns I haven't seen yet. Those have
helped me and now a suspicion that a James Bond lobby was a fake is
pretty much confirmed :(
Wim
Op 29 sep 2009, om 15:54 heeft lobby card invasion het volgende
geschreven:
Good for you, Wim
I also looked at the examples given by Randy, and honestly, I don't
feel I'm an expert yet. In fact, I don't fully understand what I'm
looking at. How about other MOPOers?
Zeev
----- Original Message -----
From: bqjansen
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 6:07 AM
Subject: Re: [MOPO] Vintage Poster Authentication
Thanks Randall. Now this is something I can actually use.
Wim
Op 29 sep 2009, om 07:25 heeft Randall Petersen het volgende
geschreven:
With regard to the current uproar about movie poster forgeries, I
am surprised that there has been virtually no discussion of what to
me is a very straightforward way for virtually anyone to personally
evaluate a supposedly vintage poster or lobby card for authenticity.
Although modern printing techniques have indeed become so good that
forgeries can often fool the naked eye, the same is not true when
viewed under a microscope. Under even low power magnification, the
differences between stone litho printing, offset printing, inkjet
printing and other techniques become glaringly obvious, such that
even an amateur (like myself) can discern them easily.
Here are a couple of examples (photomicrographs) of stone litho
printing:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v370/rkpetersen/poster%20analysis/DSCN4134.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v370/rkpetersen/poster%20analysis/DSCN4137.jpg
Notice the variability in size and spacing of the individual
'greasy' marks created by the litho crayon. Stone litho printing is
very distinctive under the scope.
Here's an example of photogelatin printing, used for vintage lobby
cards from the 30's onward:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v370/rkpetersen/poster%20analysis/DSCN6479.jpg
This photo unfortunately doesn't show it overly well, but with
photogelatin printing technique, under the scope you clearly see a
pattern of fine reticulations, almost like a spider web or sponge,
caused by the gelatin drying and cracking.
Here are older and newer examples of color offset printing:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v370/rkpetersen/poster%20analysis/DSCN4138.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v370/rkpetersen/poster%20analysis/DSCN6467.jpg
Note that the ink dots of three different colors are evenly spaced,
although offset from each other. The dots vary in size depending
on the amount of ink deposited. Although there are many different
forms of offset printing, the nuances of which I don't pretend to
understand, as far as I know, all of them involve evenly space ink
dots.
Here's an example of inkjet printing:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v370/rkpetersen/poster%20analysis/DSCN6472.jpg
Notice how each 'dot' is actually elongated into a smear, due to
the rapid back and forth movement of the print head, which also
results in a definite 'grain' to the image. Ralph DeLuca had an
even better example of this on his website, from one of the fake
Black Cat lobby cards. He posted the link here awhile ago although
the image doesn't seem to be there anymore.
This is very easy stuff to learn, and all it requires is a small
handheld scope, in the 50-100X range. You can get one with a built-
in light off ebay for ten or twenty bucks. With it, you can
inspect a poster properly. For example, under the scope, the
printing on a forged lobby card (like that Black Cat) done on a
high quality inkjet printer would look nothing like a lobby printed
with photogelatin technique. I have a Creature From The Black
Lagoon lobby that is almost too mint to be real; I became
suspicious of it for other reasons as well. However, this card was
clearly done with photogelatin technique. So I consider it to be
authentic, unless someone provides verifiable evidence to the
contrary. On the other hand, as Todd has mentioned, if all known
authentic Dracula onesheets are stone lithos and yet the one
Profiles in History is auctioning is color offset, I would consider
that fairly damning evidence that this poster is not authentic
(although perhaps not intentionally forged).
Certainly it wouldn't hurt for anyone who is at all concerned about
the authenticity of their collection (or of potential future
acquisitions) to obtain and learn to use a small hand microscope.
I've found it to be useful on many occasions.
Randy Petersen
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.
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.
