Hey Rich, et al:
Actually, I can't say that I really hate linen-backing. If you want to see a
poster as the artist intended it, then you really have no choice. Well, I
guess there are a couple of other choices, but they're just as damaging as
linen-backing.
I always laugh when I hear about linen-backing being 'totally reversible!'
Sure, they may use archival materials and water-soluable pigments (not all that
say they do actually do) - but linen-backing is about as reversible as losing
your virginity. Here's a fun test: Take a brand new sheet of paper, dunk it
in water, cover one entire side of it in paste and stick it to a rough surface
and let it dry. Then, scribble over it with pencil-crayons. Now, try and
remove it and erase everything (so, back into the water it goes). Once it's
dried again, just how close do you think it's going to be to the crisp, new
sheet of paper you started with?!? Reversible my ass... I've seen tons of
de-slabbed coins, comics and cards - I've never seen a de-linen-backed poster
(that wasn't re-backed immediately). And, for very good reason...
Nappy Yew Hear!
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Halegua Comic Art
To: mop...@sol03.american.edu
Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 1:19 PM
Subject: Re: [MOPO] Condition...
Bob
there are a few things to point out
yes, starting from really the 1960s, comics & baseball cards were
"collected", but they were not published to be collected in the way we think.
That is, they weren't collected for value until a little later, and with real
collectors, we never really thought of value until the 1970s. previous to that
time period, they were seriously only collected for fun to be read. Virtually
all comics were used for their intended purpose until the late 1960s which was
to read and re-read them which is a very damaging pursuit to the comic book.
Comics as published for collecting began with Conan #1. It was the first
comic I remember with the snipe "First Issue Collector's Item" or something to
that effect. This takes into account the previously published comic title
Marvel Collector's Item Classics, which was never called a collectible title by
us.
Comics, with rare exception (and we're talking post-WW2) had print runs of
usually less than 200,000 copies (Walt Disney's Comics & Stories peaked at
4million during the 40s and wound down to 500,000 or so in the 50s). Except for
a spike in the 1960s, comics have had a steady decline in publication numbers
since the 1940s and today, fewer comics are produced of all titles combined by
all publishers than any single issue of Walt Disney's Comics & Stories from the
1940s. Less than 1.5million comics are produced every month now. Of the post
WW2 era, only the 1980s X-Men #1 with art by Rob Leifeld was printed in a
million copy run. The average print run of any comic this month is about
20-50,000 copies and very few go over that number. I don't think any titles
reach 100,000 copies anymore.
that said, the comic investor is as anal as anyone could be. A comic with a
1/16th inch crease that is otherwise virtually mint is reduced in value by
8/10th's going from a 10.0 to a 9.8 (slabbed). Maybe even 95/100th's in some
cases. It is what has made the comic hobby a joke to guys like myself who cut
our teeth on comics starting in 1962.
However, in general, I do agree with the gist of your post and I almost 100%
agree that linenbacking is really a damage to the poster as you do. A Star Wars
poster that is mint & unbacked should be worth 2-5 times what a linenbacked
copy is, but obviously a Frankenstein 1sh is a different story, though I would
prefer one that is not backed myself. (Hey Todd.. I have a few thousand handy..
will ya sell me yours pretty please?)
Now where comes the Heart of a Lion poster that began this:
when I saw the photo I said to myself "Cool.. I'll put in my bid and that
poster - though it has some visible tears - is in good enough condition that
all I have to do is frame it. It will look just fine"
When the poster got here - crappy packaging and all (and that sellers negs
are all for crappy packaging - you'd think she'd get it by now), it was very
clear that not only would the poster NOT look good just framed, but that to
make it displayable would require $300+ in restoration fees. That in addition
to the fact that by the time it arrived, due to it's crummy packaging, that it
was very simply NOT THE ITEM I BID ON ANY LONGER.
well.... not interested folks. My intent was to frame up a $250 item, not a
$600 aggravation and also because I am no longer the "manic" collector that I
was 20 years ago, I don't care if I have it or not. Interestingly I had this
conversation with one of my good buddies a couple weeks ago. If my choice for
something I want is either:
A) a poster in nice condition that could be framed and look fine
or
B) a poster that I would see restoration when I looked at rather than the "Oh
cool.. I like this poster" is useless to me.
Marilyn never wore panties. She said "It ruined the line of vision". She felt
when a guy was looking at her ass, she didn't want him to see her pantyline
because it was a distraction. I agree with her. Anything that supplants your
intended thought or view is a no-no. A distraction.
I have a Tarzan sunday original by Hal Foster from 1934. It's a kick-ass
page that Al Williamson once offered me 3 pages for. I said no and Al never
talked to me the same way again.. It is a sweet piece. The page (and we're
talking about original art folks, not a newspaper sheet) was framed in
antiquity and in someone's basement for 45 years with a piece of the glass
broken out. Where the glass was missing the paper toned to tan in that area. I
have it proudly framed - in that condition - and I look at it frequently. When
I view it, all I see is this wonderful, incredible piece of art.
My friends always ask why I "don't get it bleached out"
It's simple.. It would ruin it for me. I would no longer see "this wonderful,
incredible piece of art" immediately when I look at it. I would see that it was
bleached - which is the distraction. I don't want that. I want what I have.
I'll let some asshole who gets it after I die bleach it.
So once this poster arrived in a condition that was no longer favorable to
me, gone it is. I don't want it. If I never find another, so be it. At least I
took a photo so when I do my book, I can still picture it
Rich
At 11:41 PM 12/30/2008, Robert D. Brooks wrote:
OK, I'm going to go off on a rant here... Been meaning to write this post
for years, but never got around to it...
Over the last 5 years, movie poster collectors have gotten a lot more
condition-conscious. No offense, but those people just don't understand the
first thing about movie poster collecting, and haven't bothered to think about
it in the slightest. They just look at coin and stamp collecting, comic books,
sportscards, etc... and (wrongly) assume that the same issues transfer over to
poster collecting. They don't. Not in the slightest.
Let me explain...
Collecting is ALL about rarity. But, sportscards and coins and stamps
AREN'T rare... Movie posters are... It's NOT the same thing.
Let's break down the important factors...
Sportscards:
quantity - millions of each card
issued - mint
meant to be collected
slight damage with use
available to the general public
typical display method - protects and does no damage
Stamps:
quantity - up to tens or hundreds of millions of each stamp
issued - mint
(somewhat) meant to be collected
damaged with use
available to the general public
typical display method - protects and does no damage
Coins:
quantity - up to tens or hundreds of millions of each coin
issued - mint
(somewhat) meant to be collected
slight damage with use
available to the general public
typical display method - protects and does no damage
Comics:
quantity - up to hundreds of thousands or millions of each comic
issued - mint
meant to be collected
minimal damage with use
available to the general public
typical display method - protects and does no damage
Paper Money:
quantity - up to tens of millions of each bill
issued - mint
(somewhat) meant to be collected
slight damage with use
available to the general public
typical display method - protects and does no damage
Notice how there were huge amounts of each produced, and each was saved in
massive quantities (with insane amounts of mintstate or near-mintstate examples
of each item).
Now, here is where we see some important differences.
Movie Posters:
quantity - only THOUSANDS of each poster
issued - DAMAGED (folded)
NOT meant to be collected
destroyed after use
NOT available to the general public
NOT saved in massive quantities
typical display method (linenbacking) - COMPLETELY DESTROYS POSTER
Comics, coins, stamps, paper money and sportscards ALL need to create
artificial scarcity, since each is available in such massive quantities, in
decent condition. That's why there's been such an explosion of 3rd party
grading services recently. They need a way to separate these huge quantities
and make some identical items more desirable than others, otherwise, none of
them would be worth anything. That's why you have such ridiculous condition
premiums. There's probably twenty Barry Bonds rookie cards for every
sportscard collector out there. So, they shouldn't be worth that much at all.
They only are because of the artificial scarcity of condition that's been
imposed on the market.
Now, I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a premium for mint posters -
but it should be nowhere near the premium in other hobbies. Nowhere even
remotely close (despite what some poster collectors seem to think)... There's
only a few known copies of many of the top movie posters. Do you really think
the one in the worst condition is worth a fraction of 1 percent of the one in
the best condition??? Of course not. The premium is miniscule in our hobby.
There's tons of reasons why condition is important in those other hobbies -
there's virtually NO reason why condition is important in movie poster
collecting.
If comics, sportscards, coins, etc... were issued DAMAGED, in miniscule
quantities, to insiders only, and were irreparably damaged in the slabbing
process, then the condition-conscious amongst us MIGHT have a point. But, they
weren't... You can easily compare collecting coins to comics. You can compare
sportscards to stamps. Paper money to comics. YOU CANNOT compare any of those
to movie posters. It's a completely different hobby - with completely
different issues, despite the fact that, at first glance, they appear to be
very similar hobbies with very similar issues.
Almost NO comics, coins, stamps, etc... are the only known copy. Virtually
none. Whereas, there are literally hundreds or even thousands of posters that
are one of one. When you are talking about THAT kind of rarity - condition is
NOT an issue. Heck, even the most abundant movie poster is exceedingly rare
when compared to the numbers in all those other hobbies. There's not a hundred
thousand Lawrence of Arabia roadshow one sheets out there - so there's
absolutely NO need to separate the best from the worst, like there is in all
those other hobbies.
A penny in G condition might be worth less than a dollar. That same penny
in MS-69 might be worth ten thousand. The MS-69 is worth so much more, because
it's literally one in a million. One in a hundred million. That sort of thing
DOES NOT translate to the movie poster hobby in the slightest. Movie posters
WERE NOT created in quantity. And, they were not distributed to the general
public. So there's no need to separate the chaff from the gems. They are far
too rare to bother with that. There might be a hundred thousand Mickey Mantle
rookie cards out there (or Spiderman number 1's), so of course the best copies
will be worth a fortune more than the worst copies. But, there's not a hundred
thousand Citizen Kane one sheets out there! Are there even more than 50?
In those other hobbies, the average spread might be 10,000% (probably a lot
more). The condition-conscious collectors look at that, and assume it should
be the same in the poster hobby. But, they aren't looking at it critically.
The spread in the poster hobby shouldn't be the same as the average spread in
those other hobbies - it should be about the same as the spread in those other
hobbies FOR THE RAREST OF THE RARE ONLY. You don't compare apples to oranges,
you compare apples to apples... It should be the same as the spread between a
Honus Wagner rookie in poor and mint, not a Michael Jordan rookie in poor and
mint... If you don't believe me, check out the spreads on the common and the
rare (comics/coins/stamps/cards/etc...). You'll easily see that the spreads on
the widely available items are unbelievably larger than they are on the rarest
items. There's practically no spread on the rare items (just like most movie
posters).
And, again, it's worth pointing out that (probably) 80 or 90% of the most
important movie posters out there have all been completely destroyed by
linen-backing (and 99.9% of them were irreparably damaged on issuance by being
folded). Virtually EVERY major poster has been destroyed this way (it's funny
to note that the condition-conscious amongst us are completely and absolutely
ignorant of this fact, or simply choose to ignore it). That's not the same in
those other hobbies.
When there's a million identical items (like in coin, comic or sportscard
collecting), you NEED to distinguish the best items from the rest. When
there's only a handful (like in movie-poster collecting), it's nowhere near as
important.
Certain poster collectors look at the other hobbies, and assume that the
poster hobby should be exactly the same - without taking time to see WHY those
other hobbies have to be so condition-conscious - they don't take the time to
think critically. They don't understand that the issues in those hobbies ARE
NOT the same as the issues in the poster hobby. Not even remotely close.
That's why it seems like the only people who complain about condition are
the newer collectors, who don't understand the hobby (and the older collectors
who have been swayed by their faulty reasoning). Those people need to start
thinking about WHY condition is such an issue in those other hobbies, and
whether or not it should be the same in the poster hobby. If a Metropolis one
sheet surfaced, it would still sell for 6 or 7 figures, whether it was mint -
or torn to shreds. It wouldn't matter (sure, if it was mint, it might sell for
10% more). In this hobby, condition is not that big an issue.
The dollar-spread between poor and mint in all those other hobbies might be
100,000% or more (and for very good reason). In the movie poster hobby, it's
only (perhaps) 50-100% at best. Not the same league. Not even the same
sport...
There's absolutely no need to create artificial scarcity in the movie
poster hobby. Posters are already scarce to begin with.
Of course, I didn't do a very good job explaining all of this, but you get
my point (I hope)...
Do you think condition would be an issue if comic books (or sportscards)
were issued folded in eighths? Stamps already cancelled and stuck to
envelopes? Coins already worn down?...
Of course not...
Cheers,
Bob
PS. This is not to say that you shouldn't be pissed when someone sells you
a poster claiming it to be in much better condition than it really is...
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: lists...@listserv.american.edu
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: lists...@listserv.american.edu
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: lists...@listserv.american.edu
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
