|
The word "chip" come from the world book collecting, where it has been used
to describe paper loss forever. Many auctioneers sold books before moving into
other areas of paper collecting the term carried over.
But there's no question that condition and condition terms/description are
so subjective that to really do a good job you often make the poster sound far
worse than it really is. This is why I think Bruce has the right idea -- don't
give much of a written condition description at all, just put up an extremely
large-size, well-lit and well-photographed high-resolution picture and tell
people to examine it closely and let them make their own condition
evaluation. That way you only have to mention anything unusual on the back. If
you try to be conscientious and accurately describe every tiny little condition
detail of a poster, you always end up with something that makes your C8 sound
like a C5.
-- JR
----- Original Message -----
From: Phil Edwards
Cinema Arts
Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 21:02
Subject: Re: [MOPO] Nicks, chips and paper loss - A
question. Just my personal take on descriptions:
I'd place a"nick" at 1/8" or less and not
necessarily mean that it was including paper loss.
A "small" border tear means that there's no paper
loss and the tear does not intrude into the image area of the poster. Any paper
loss would be indicated. If a poster has a wide white border, and
has tear/tears over an inch, I'd probably be inclined to give a better
idea of size of tear/s.
Paper loss means missing paper, whether coursed
through fold separations (i.e. not a clean split, but actually missing image or
white border paper loss) or tears. Anything bigger than that comes more under
the term "papr out" or "paper missing".
Of course the more detail one gives often gives a
misleading idea of the overall condition of a poster making it sound far, far
worse than itactually is. We routinely receive feedback that says, "far better
condition than described". Maybve we'd sell more if we were less pedantic about
describing condition issues. Even big digital images "lie" as to seeing what's
what with a poster, and while it takes longer, we prefer a verbal description.
If we say Near Mint-Mint (our top rating, rarely given) it means that there's
nothing discernible. Of course when one is wading through several hundred items
a week and not using a batallion of "buddy graders" to do the work, itis
possible that through eyestrain one misses something.
But we also live in the age of "condition
freak" where 50, 60, 70 year old posters are supposed to still look perfect. And
if they don't, through the fact that they were used for the purpose for which
they were designed, and were never intended for public collectability, they
can have a facelift through linen backing and cosmetic enhancement so they LOOK
perfect. It has to look "perfect" because we live in an age of "perfection". One
only has to look at the degree that many films are "cleaned up" to for DVD
release, but where the "clean-up" has actually removed detail through removal of
grain texture from the film as it was shot. It's like the hard, cold sound that
so many CDs have when conpared to the "warmth" of the original analog vinyl
versions.
There are some collectors who cannot stand the
sight of a single fold line, completely forgetting that this is EXACTLY how
movie posters were made to be seen when created for the use for which they were
created.
Condition is sometimes (often?) in the eye of the
beholder. And that eye can be determined whether it's someone trying to sell it
or someone trying to find reasons to get a price down.
All sorts of stuff.
Phil
|
- [MOPO] Nicks, chips and paper loss - A question. Dave Rosen
- Re: [MOPO] Nicks, chips and paper loss - A q... Phil Edwards Cinema Arts
- Re: [MOPO] Nicks, chips and paper loss -... JR
- Re: [MOPO] Nicks, chips and paper lo... Craig Goebel
