I was more talking about the zillions of Star Wars Style C one-sheets without ratings which showed up a couple of years after the movie's initial release.
I would agree that the hairy belt poster was likely copied from an original and not from the original plates. Bruce On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 3:47 AM, Richard Halegua Comic Art < [email protected]> wrote: > the hairy belt poster is not of the same quality of an original SW poster > and I suggest it was copied from an original > > > > > At 01:39 AM 10/13/2009, Bruce Hershenson wrote: > > I agree with David that the Star Wars posters may well have been printed > "after hours" from the original plates. > > But I have never seen a single minty white insert or lobby card that > appears to have been printed this way. > > All the ones I have seen was clearly copied from an original, resulting in > a loss of print quality. > > Show me one insert on the weird paper stock that was only used for minty > whites that has print quality that matches the original. Send it to me, and > I will run great images of it in my club. > > Bruce > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 1:53 AM, David Lieberman <[email protected]> wrote: > I repeat: > > they were printed several years after the films were originally released. > > for some of the titles they used the same "plates".........if they were > available. Some were, some weren't. > > some of them were made using the same printing "elements"..........so they > are sort of restrikes....... > > so whether you want to call them restrikes, sort of restrikes, reprints, > repros...........whatever.........it isn't really that important........what > is important is that they are NOT original. > > > it is totally plausible that the bad guys bought a few thousand of each for > just pennies a piece directly from the source 20+ years ago......and that > they still have plenty of them left. > > A few months ago I personally acquired 600 of the FAKE star wars style c > one sheets (which I gave one away for free to anyone who wanted one a few > months ago...permanently marked as FAKE).....and my source still has another > roll of 300 in her closet. So my point is that these fakes were produced in > MASS quantities and it is totally plausible that the bad guys still have > stacks of them even after all these years. > > I do not think they are still printing the inserts..........but that is > just my opinion......and anything is possible........they could possibly > still be making them, but I would be very surprised if they were. > > > as for the minty white lobby card sets.......its probably a similar kind of > story except that it is a little more plausible (in my opinion) that they > are still printing them....... > > > David Lieberman > CineMasterpieces.com <http://www.cinemasterpieces.com/> | 15721 N. > Greenway Hayden Loop, Suite 105 -- Scottsdale, Az 85260 > Vintage Original Movie Posters| 602 309 0500 | Office/Gallery Open By > Appt. Only. > > > In a message dated 10/12/2009 10:28:28 P.M. US Mountain Standard Tim, > [email protected] writes: > David, > > You could be right about an employee of the print shop doing restrikes > after hours using the same press, plates and paper as the genuine strikes. > But, in that case, they aren't really "fakes" at all, are they? Since they > are 100% identical to those inserts which were printed by the same employee > during regular business hours? What makes them fake -- the fact that they > were printed after hours but nothing else? No, that doesn't float. If > there's no way to identify a difference between with a microscope or > chemical paper analysis, then it's not viable to say "well this one was > printed after hours and so it is a fake even though it is 100% physically > identical to this original one over here, which was printed 6 hours earlier > during regular business hours." > > Now if there is a subtle difference in image size or area, a slight > difference of text placement, etc., then you've got something to work with. > But why would a restrike from a genuine original plate have a different > image size or text position? It wouldn't. The only way that would happen is > if someone used a genuine original poster for their artwork in the > plate-making process and had to zoom and crop it a tiny bit to make it work > (or were just sloppy and didn't notice they had cropped the artwork a tiny > bit). So restrikes don't work for me as an explanation if there is a > difference in image size, area, text placement or "fuzziness" of printing. > With a restrike from original plates you would have none of that. > > The big thing that made people start wondering about the Mintys was the > fact that certain specific sellers seemed to have a unlimited supply of > inserts for certain titles -- and the use of inserts was fading away at the > time these films were released and fewer inserts were being officially > printed than in earlier decades. So, having an unlimited supply to sell is a > big red flag (thus their "warehouse find" cover story). But unlimited supply > doesn't fit in with your employee-after-hours-restrikes theory because > surely the guy doesn't still work for that 1970's or 1980's print shop and > surely the plates are still not available to him, much less the original > type of paper? > > How come they haven't run out of the restrikes? What, this after-hours guy > printed up thousands of these restrikes for this very odd variety of titles > back in the late 70s and early 80s and then held onto them all these years > waiting for EBay to be invented so he could dump them on the market? Doesn't > compute. The "warehouse find" explanation actually seems more likely to me > than that, and I don't buy the warehouse find explanation. > > If they were restrikes made 20- to 30- odd years ago, surely the original > restrike print run would have been exhausted by now? > > This leads me to suspect that most of the Mintys, if not all, were not > restrikes from original plates but just very good quality printing plates > made using genuine original posters as the artwork for the plate making > process -- and I suspect new inventory is still being printed (or could be > printed). > > -- JR > > David Lieberman wrote: > > how many times do we have to discuss this same topic? ;) > > > The "minty white" inserts were printed in the mid to late 1980's. They are > "unauthorized" restrikes. They were most likely done "after hours" at the > same place the originals were printed years before (at one of the nss > printing facilities).....that is why the quality is just as good as the > originals.........that is why they fooled so many people......and that is > why they still fool people today. Some are virtually identical with the same > art cropping etc., and some have the artwork slightly cropped. > > The list of titles is on our website.....some of these fake inserts > include: a clockwork orange -X rated, jaws, star wars, esb, rotj, scarface, > blade runner, manhattan. > > There were also several unauthorized restrike one sheets printed around the > same time. They probably came from the same source as the minty white > inserts (at least that's my humble opinion!). The manhattan style b 1sh, > fast times 1sh, rocky horror 1sh, star wars a,b,c one sheets.....as well as > several others. > > > We have done several comparisons side by side and have close ups of some of > them (not all) on our site. They aren't all in one place though on the > website. Some of them (like scarface and manhattan) we haven't done only > because we haven't had a fake one and a real one in stock at the same time > so we could compare them side by side. > > Anybody who thinks the minty white inserts are "real".....is flat out > wrong. > > > > > > David Lieberman > CineMasterpieces.com <http://www.cinemasterpieces.com/> | 15721 N. > Greenway Hayden Loop, Suite 105 -- Scottsdale, Az 85260 > Vintage Original Movie Posters| 602 309 0500 | Office/Gallery Open By > Appt. Only. > 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. > 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.
