Robert, Dave, et al. First, if a slight has been made to dead4404 it is entirely my fault, not anybody at deadlists. They only provide space for my GD concert poster archive site.
Second, I've removed all that information regarding fake (or not) posters from the 2/4/68 page. I never intended my site to be anything other than pictures of concert posters. I really shouldn't be getting into what's authentic or not, what's a first print, what's a second print, (unless it is absolutely clear that a particular poster is a particular printing, e.g. Wes Wilson's 1986 reprints in different colors), etc. The last thing I need is somebody spending or somebody losing lots of money because they used my site as a credible reference. Must add disclaimers! :) Third, I would love any good images of those handbills you may have Robert. You can send them directly to me if you like. Fourth, I'm a little confused by part of Robert's message. You wrote > > But you REALLY need to undo the damage that > > you've done to dead44004 on ebay. I assumed you referred to my site indicating that what I said was a fake poster was actually not a fake poster. But then you wrote > > By the way, if you look at your "Fake Poster" notice > > for 2/4/68, please note that all three posters > > depicted have EXACTLY the same printed background. My > > clear digital photos will show you the details. My point of that Fake Poster notice was precisely to show that all three posters depicted have exactly the same printed background. It looked to me as if somebody made a high quality reprint of the image in AOR and then digitally changed it to look like a handbill from a different date. But are you saying that the actual first print handbills really do have the same printed background? Because to me the marks look like folds and stains unique to one individual poster, not an entire print run. But I would love to know what the actual case is so any information from you would be most helpful. Thanks a lot! Iver
