Yes Richard, all of the tested Minty Whites were made with different paper fiber compared to the originals and were acid vs alkaline which the paper mills in the U.S did NOT start using until the late 1980's. So to answer your question, with all the titles so far, the Minty White were made 7-10 years after the original release dates of the films in question.
Sent from my iPad On Jun 4, 2011, at 10:07 AM, Richard Evans <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Todd, > > Finally managed to view pdf, thanks. > Have a mac, and don't have Microsoft Office. > > For anyone with similar issues, the Powerpoint file can be viewed online by > uploading to https://viewer.zoho.com/home.do. > > Pretty good though it crops the bottom slightly. > > Though I don't doubt these are fakes I have a question about the detail. > > "Tested Titles of "Minty White" Inserts and Lobby Cards were made at > Distinctly Different Times with Different Paper Fiber" > > Since I'm sure I can recall the issue of the different paper being discounted > by the argument that the printers merely used a different stock to usual, > what was proven about the date they were made? > Obviously, don't imagine this could be precise, but the distinctly different > times, is there a ballpark figure of how much later? > Years rather than months say? > > (Apologies if this is covered in any bit that got cropped off.) > > Thanks, > Richard > > > On 4 Jun 2011, at 16:51, Todd Spoor wrote: > >> Bruce and MOPO >> >> Thanks to Bruce's efforts, Dan Rickard and Bob's, it lead us down this path >> to have these Minty Whites forensically tested so that we have indisputable >> proof that these posters were faked with the intent to deceive the poster >> buying public. I myself bought some of these inserts when I was just >> starting my collection, how many hundreds of other have bought these >> fakes?!?! >> >> We now have on our website the presentation I gave at Cinevent regarding the >> Minty whites and a few other posters in question. It is at the very top of >> the screen when you log into www.mpgrading.com >> >> In a few days I will have have a section just on fakes and the forensic >> testing we are doing posted on our website. >> >> It is my goal to check all of the posters LAMP has on their website as >> "suspected as being fake" >> >> Regards >> Todd spoor >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Jun 3, 2011, at 9:10 PM, Bruce Hershenson <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> I remember well when I first heard of the minty whites.It was around the >>> year 2,000, a couple of years after I first got on eBay and saw the same >>> few dealers with the same insert titles over and over. Shortly after this, >>> a major dealer called me to warn me that there was a dealer from a certain >>> part of the country who was going to lots of dealers looking to trade or >>> sell large quantities of those very same titles, and he said he had seen >>> them in person, and that there was something "wrong" about them, and he >>> wanted to let me know. >>> >>> I thanked him, but at that point I still had never seen one in person (at >>> that time I sold very little post 1970 stuff), so it was nothing tangible >>> that I could publicly take a side on, but the info from my friend seemed >>> awfully damning. >>> >>> Around a year later Dan Rickard and his friend Bob began announcing the >>> inserts were absolutely fake, but still I had nothing tangible to >>> contribute. >>> >>> But one more year later (in June of 2002, NINE YEARS ago) I DID get >>> first-hand evidence of these being fakes, and I first joined the fray on >>> MoPo (and it is hard to believe now that there were LOTS of major dealers >>> defending these as absolutely real) and here is how I a couple of weeks >>> later reported on what occurred to the then 1,942 collectors in my e-mail >>> club: >>> >>> "Over the past couple of years there has been a great controversy in our >>> hobby over certain insert posters that were constantly being offered on >>> eBay (titles like The Godfather and Blade Runner). The inserts were always >>> mint, and the sellers who offered them almost always re-offered the same >>> titles over and over. After a year or more of constant selling of the same >>> 20 or so titles, the prices on those titles had plummeted, even though many >>> of the titles are very desirable. >>> >>> At the time all this was first going on, I had little to do with it, >>> primarily because at that time I sold very very few post-1970 items. But I >>> heard rumblings through the hobby that these inserts were reproductions, >>> and that they had originated from upstate New York. About a year ago, there >>> was a big discussion about these inserts on the Internet discussion group >>> MoPo, and some dealers came to the defense of these inserts, saying that >>> there had been a "warehouse" find, but that the posters were 100% >>> legitimate. There was lots of back-and-forth e-mails (some of it quite >>> heated), but there was no "meeting of the minds". Those dealers who felt >>> they were real were unconvinced, and felt there might well have been a >>> warehouse find. >>> In addition to the controversy over the inserts, there also has been much >>> discussion about many other posters that seem to have been copies, >>> including several Star Wars posters and a Pulp Fiction poster. In the past >>> couple of months, two very courageous Canadian collector/dealers have kept >>> bringing the "repros being sold as original" subject issue back up on MoPo, >>> refusing to let it die. They did not do this for personal gain, but rather >>> because it angered them that this selling of repros as originals was >>> causing many collectors to be cheated out of lots of money. >>> One of them, Bob, sent many e-mails to MoPo giving his reasons why he felt >>> SURE these various posters were repros, and the other, Dan, started a >>> website where he tried to warn collectors about the many reprints being >>> sold as originals (go to http://www.damnthe.com/mymovieposters/acatalog/ to >>> view this site). >>> >>> A couple of months ago, something happened to bring me into this >>> discussion. A collector sent me 8 different titles of the disputed inserts >>> to auction for him (he had purchased them one by one from eBay from one of >>> the dealers in question). As soon as I saw them, I knew they were odd. But >>> I couldn't say for 100% they were bogus, just that they were troubling. >>> >>> But fortunately for everyone in the hobby, a separate collector had months >>> before consigned around 1000 posters he had gotten from a friend who worked >>> for NSS in the 1970s and 1980s, and that collection included 30 x 40s, 40 x >>> 60s, half-sheets, one-sheets, and some inserts. Incidentally, that >>> collection was just like every other warehouse find I have ever seen. There >>> were good titles and bad, and around 80% were bad titles (anyone want both >>> the A & B style 30x40s of "Slow Dancing in the Big City"?) Maybe 5% to 10% >>> were good titles. (In the disputed inserts warehouse find, 90% of the >>> titles were good, and that alone tells me it is very very doubtful, since >>> over the years I have been in on a huge number of such finds and it is rare >>> that as many as 10% of the items in any "find" are from good titles). >>> >>> The collector with the "straight from NSS" stuff had a Blade Runner insert >>> and a Godfather insert, along with many other lesser titles. I took them >>> out and laid them side by side with the disputed inserts of Blade Runner >>> and The Godfather that had been sent to me. >>> The comparison was striking! There are three things one looks for when >>> comparing printed items; printing clarity, color matching, and paper >>> matching. Here is what I saw looking side by side: >>> Printing clarity: The Godfather looked extremely similar, no doubt >>> because it is only one color, and easier to reproduce. The Blade Runner was >>> clearly slightly fuzzy, especially in the credits at bottom. Result >>> Inconclusive. >>> Color matching: The Godfather appeared to be a perfect match, but it >>> is a black and white poster and how hard is it to match black? The Blade >>> Runner had very slightly different coloration, like someone tried to match >>> the color but couldn't get a perfect match, but who really knows if the >>> originals didn't have several print runs? Result Inconclusive. >>> Paper Matching: The NSS copies looked like every other inserts I have >>> ever seen from this time period. The suspect inserts were on a different >>> kind of paper (and both were on exactly the same paper!). The paper is >>> slightly different looking so that it appears to be a different shade of >>> white. It is really striking when you compare them side by side (although I >>> don't know if it would show well on a digital image). But the giant >>> difference is in the coating! The NSS inserts have a glossy surface on the >>> front, and a much duller finish on the back (just like every other insert I >>> have ever seen from that period). The suspect inserts have a greater gloss >>> on the front, and a similar gloss on the reverse (and I have never seen any >>> insert that has a glossy finish on the back). THIS DIFFERENCE IS SOMETHING >>> MUCH MORE "FELT" THAN SEEN. >>> >>> So it wouldn't do much good to put digital images on a website, which is >>> why I didn't do so. But I had one of my employees feel both inserts, and he >>> felt the difference was striking. I don't think anyone could not tell them >>> apart, and they wouldn't have to look at the fronts of either poster! >>> Result: Proof in my mind that these are fakes. The paper used is of a kind >>> never used on any other inserts I am aware of, other than these exact >>> disputed titles, which are from different studios and years, so presumably >>> would have been printed at different times. >>> >>> Once I had been able to make this side-by-side comparison, I felt I had a >>> "smoking gun" that needed to be presented to this club, MoPo, and the >>> readers of Movie Collectors World (which I intend to do in MCW's next >>> issue). So I posted most of the above information to MoPo, and added the >>> following (I am paraphrasing what I wrote, but the meaning is unaltered): >>> >>> Those of you who defend these inserts are those who either own bunches of >>> them and/or those who have sold bunches of them. Obviously, you have a huge >>> stake in their being at least questionable. If they are declared fake, then >>> you will both lose on the ones you currently own, but more importantly you >>> will potentially face an angry mob of collectors (no doubt with torches) >>> demanding their money back. I imagine that nothing I (or anyone else) can >>> say will change THOSE dealers' minds, so I am addressing this to everyone >>> else in the hobby. >>> >>> First. I ask anyone to find me even ONE insert from any non-disputed title >>> that is on the kind of paper stock that is described above. Second, don't >>> blur this debate into saying that all inserts from this time period are >>> suspect or that all inserts of these titles are suspect. Let me make this >>> perfectly clear! I AM SAYING THAT THE ONLY SUSPECT INSERTS ARE THOSE WHICH >>> APPARENTLY ORIGINATED FROM ONE SPECIFIC REGION (BUT ARE NOW LIKELY SPREAD >>> ALL OVER THE GLOBE). >>> >>> It is vital that all of you remember that there are many many authentic >>> copies of these inserts. I am 100% sure that many dealers have inserts that >>> are the real deal (even if they have some of the disputed titles) because >>> many of these guys bought their inserts many years ago, before the fakes >>> were created (which is why I am 100% sure they are real). >>> >>> But there are other dealers who I would bet have lots of fakes. If they >>> bought them in the last few years from someone who only sold them the >>> disputed titles, I would bet anything they are fakes. I firmly believe that >>> once you have read what I wrote above, you yourself will be able to know >>> for yourself if you have originals or repros (except for those who own tons >>> of them; "there are none so blind as those who will not see"). >>> >>> Third, I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO GAIN BY THIS. Those who own tons of >>> these (and those who reprinted them in the first place) clearly have much >>> to gain by keeping the possibility alive they are real. But I only gain >>> their anger, so does this not show I must passionately believe in what I am >>> saying? And it is not just me. Dan and Bob (the two Canadian >>> collector/dealers referred to above) have repeatedly brought this issue up, >>> and it almost surely hurts their ability to sell posters. Greg Ferland >>> (trydnt on eBay), who is one of the most major of poster dealers and >>> all-around nice guy, felt a need to post to MoPo that he absolutely >>> believes these to be fakes). Joe Burtis, manager of the MPA Gallery, one of >>> the people in this hobby who probably knows more about posters than I do, >>> says he is sure they are fakes. WHY ARE ALL THESE PEOPLE SO SURE OF >>> THEMSELVES AND WILLING TO GO ON THE RECORD? >>> >>> Finally, it is important to realize that these fake inserts do not (and >>> will not) "kill" the prices of the real ones. This is because they can be >>> relatively easily distinguished from the originals, once you know how. Of >>> course this won't stop novice collectors from getting cheated, which is why >>> we all need to expose these fakes (just as Dan's fine site will not keep >>> every new collector from buying the many other fake posters currently >>> circulating). >>> >>> I have sold several ORIGINAL inserts of these titles in the past year and I >>> have gotten good (pre-fake) prices for them. Of course, people know I must >>> be selling the originals, which might not be the same for someone off the >>> street, but it shows that the prices will be what they should be once these >>> fakes are exposed. I also just last week auctioned 300 inserts and 300 >>> half-sheets and prices were pretty much "through the roof". The problem is >>> solely with the fake repro inserts, which need to be exposed, by getting >>> the word out to every collector, and you can do your part by spreading the >>> word!" >>> -- >>> Bruce Hershenson and the other 29 members of the eMoviePoster.com team >>> P.O. Box 874 >>> West Plains, MO 65775 >>> Phone: 417-256-9616 (hours: Mon-Fri 9 to 5 except from 12 to 1 when we take >>> lunch) >>> our site >>> our auctions >>> >>> 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.
