Phil,
There were always some who preferred the non-backed poster and paid more
for it but, in general, 3 or 4 years ago the fashion seemed to be
"linen-backing is the only way to fly, and all other things being equal
between two identical posters, you should expect and want to pay more
for the linen-backed one because it is better, right? I mean it must be
better because it's linen-backed and de-acidified and can't be easily
damaged by handling and all that jazz."
While that attitude was always true for an old, fragile poster, it seems
to have been fading away over the last several years as far as applying
it to posters that don't really "need" it. And now, with all the
scandal, the un-backed poster seems to be commanding the premium more
often than not. This is a good trend. Except for the backers, of course.
But even they can take some comfort in the fact that while people may
not have quite as many nice old posters backed as they once did, those
posters still really should be de-acidified at least. This is something
I've been meaning to get around to on my older un-backed posters and I
keep putting it off... and that has lead to some serious paper-quality
deterioration on some items. Drat.
-- JR
Phil Edwards wrote:
Can I ask this another way?
Is a pristine double-sided one sheet of greater or lesser value
if it is linen backed?
Does one add on the "value" (i.e. cost) of the linen-backing?
Phil
-
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.
