That seems extremely meaty.
Can't help wondering whether the same law enforcement agency that have
been taking an interest in Haggard would like this one.
Though spread thinner and wider, I wouldn't know if legally there's a
difference, though morally I really can't see one.
On 4 Jun 2011, at 18:27, Todd Spoor 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.
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.
