But maybe someone at the Rochester warehouse where these were discovered had a time machine they used to go 7 to ten years into the future and brought back that different paper? One must consider all possibilities!
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Todd Spoor <[email protected]> wrote: > 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> > 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 <http://www.mpgrading.com> > 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]> > [email protected]> wrote: > > I remember well when I first heard of the minty <http://whites.It> > 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/><http://www.damnthe.com/mymovieposters/acatalog/> > 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 <http://eMoviePoster.com> > 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 <http://www.emovieposter.com/> > our auctions <http://www.emovieposter.com/agallery/all.html> > > Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at > <http://www.filmfan.com><http://www.filmfan.com> > www.filmfan.com > ___________________________________________________________________ How to > UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: > <[email protected]> <[email protected]> > [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 <http://www.filmfan.com> > www.filmfan.com > ___________________________________________________________________ How to > UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: > <[email protected]>[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 <http://www.filmfan.com> > www.filmfan.com > ___________________________________________________________________ How to > UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: > <[email protected]>[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. > > -- 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 <http://www.emovieposter.com/> our auctions <http://www.emovieposter.com/agallery/all.html> 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.
