andrewmcharlton
|
I see them, but they are a UK set I think with a different set of picture stills to the US set.
|
||||||||||||
|
Rich
Guest
|
Fellows.. like McCartney I don't want to spoil the party but how can you be sure these things made out of cardboard and paper are legit? A few weeks ago I read about an artist who did some real great repros of the "Masters" out there. He pulled it off pretty good. They couldn't even tell the difference. I just wonder to the extent any of that would go on with AZW memorabilia. Lotsa people would like to make more than... how you say it? a few quid or whatever.
(Wasn't it John Lennon Rich? - Alan) |
||||||||||||
|
Sheldon Hall
|
It's not just the cardboard and paper stuff which is of dubious provenance. I've noticed quite a number of items on eBay purporting to feature 'genuine', 'authentic' 35mm film 'cells' (the implication is that they are frames from an original 35mm release print of the movie) arranged in a frame with a mini-poster and accompanied by a 'certificate of authenticity stating the cells are genuine'. Well, they may be genuine 35mm film (the stuff you can buy in Boots for a stills camera, for instance) but they certainly aren't from a print of the movie itself.
Whoever manufactured them evidently doesn't know what 35mm anamorphic film frames actually look like; the images certainly don't have the 2.35:1 letterboxed framing visible in the cells in this item, for example: http://cgi.ebay.com/ZULU-1964-MIICHAEL-CAINE-RARE-35MM-FILM-CELL-MONTAGE_W0QQitemZ7612216740QQcategoryZ53594QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem#ebayphotohosting Nor do they feature full-frame publicity shots (the sort of posed portraits which do not actually appear in the film at all) evident in this item: http://cgi.ebay.com/ZULU-HUGE-1964-35MM-FILM-CELL-DISPLAY-STUNNING-DISPLAY_W0QQitemZ7613176678QQcategoryZ53594QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem#ebayphotohosting Of course, the sellers may be perfectly innocent of any deception and may indeed be under the impression that the images in question are 'genuine' and 'authentic'. And the items do make an attractive display. But potential buyers should be aware that they will NOT be getting frames clipped from an actual print of the film, whatever the certificates imply: they are most likely photographed from a DVD display or duplicated from publicity material. |
||||||||||||
|
ayr41
|
Yes these were the ones from my original post, the seller told me they were from the re-released film not the 1964 original, I think they have gone round a few times on ebay.
Stephen |
||||||||||||
|
Alekudemus
|
No wonder at 225 pounds for a re-release set. Can't see anyone offering that for an OPENING bid. Mind you, I bought one of the ...ahem...film cells...that Sheldon has now exposed as nothing of the sort.
|
||||||||||||
|
Sawubona
|
Rich,
Good question on the "authentic" spin! Hey, I'm no Lovejoy and I'll admit it's difficult sometimes when one's bidding on a JPG of a piece of ephemeral, but once the item in one's hand and one has "played the game" for a bit, it's easy to tell when one's been had. I imagine it's a combination of comparing the stock on which it's printed to that of "known" stock, the incidental damage through use and age that it's acquired through the years, an appraisal of the "value" of the item as compared to the difficulty involved in making a convincing forgery and a fair amount of "gut" feeling tempered with knowledge. And any collector has to admit to a degree of rationalizing to "justify" an otherwise bad purchase. I've a bayonet that's either a bad repro of a bayonet that no one would pay anything for anyway for an original or an authentic badly made bayonet. It's a poor copy of a sapper and miners bayonet, probably from India. The quality can only be called "munitions grade", the workmanship isn't much to speak of, and it's collectablity is marginal. Is it authentic? I haven't a clue. Is it old? I've still no clue! Is it interesting and has it occupied my limited time trying to find out more? Most definitely! My point is that sometimes fakes can be every bit as entertaining as the "real deals". One sheets are 27X41 inches and even lobby cards are 11X14, which sort of takes them out of the realm of cottage industry "scan it and print it". And like any good counterfit (sp?), it's easier to get the image correct than it is to find the paper to print it on. And then you've got to age it with thumb-tack holes, scotch tape residue, foxing and general wear and tear of decades. I've a one sheet from Zulu with bicycle tire marks on the back of it! How creative a forgery is that? |
||||||||||||
|
Rich
Guest
|
Thanks Sheldon for that great elucidation of "dubious provenance".
Me, I always take the advice found in "Zulu"..."Look to yer front, look to yer front", OK? And Saw I understand what you say. In my case, I guess I go only go for stuff that, if I did make a mistake, it would only p*ss me off an hour and then I'd be happy with my purchase! heh heh I have this Zulu War helmet in my den, yeah it's a fake and I know it but when people come over I tell'em hey did you know this was found on the Isandhlwana battlefield and brought thousands of miles to my home! Now I have to get some satisfaction out of my purchases don't I, eh?? Alan: Wasn't it LENNON/McCARTNEY??????..........yes, provenance even extends to songwriting! (I thought you meant the singer - Alan.) |
||||||||||||
|
Zulu Re-Released |
|
||
Powered by phpBB © 2001-2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Style created by phpBBStyles.com and distributed by Styles Database.
phpBB Style created by phpBBStyles.com and distributed by Styles Database.