With regard to the current uproar about movie poster forgeries, I am surprised that there has been virtually no discussion of what to me is a very straightforward way for virtually anyone to personally evaluate a supposedly vintage poster or lobby card for authenticity.
Although modern printing techniques have indeed become so good that forgeries can often fool the naked eye, the same is not true when viewed under a microscope. Under even low power magnification, the differences between stone litho printing, offset printing, inkjet printing and other techniques become glaringly obvious, such that even an amateur (like myself) can discern them easily. Here are a couple of examples (photomicrographs) of stone litho printing: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v370/rkpetersen/poster%20analysis/DSCN4134.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v370/rkpetersen/poster%20analysis/DSCN4137.jpg Notice the variability in size and spacing of the individual 'greasy' marks created by the litho crayon. Stone litho printing is very distinctive under the scope. Here's an example of photogelatin printing, used for vintage lobby cards from the 30's onward: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v370/rkpetersen/poster%20analysis/DSCN6479.jpg This photo unfortunately doesn't show it overly well, but with photogelatin printing technique, under the scope you clearly see a pattern of fine reticulations, almost like a spider web or sponge, caused by the gelatin drying and cracking. Here are older and newer examples of color offset printing: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v370/rkpetersen/poster%20analysis/DSCN4138.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v370/rkpetersen/poster%20analysis/DSCN6467.jpg Note that the ink dots of three different colors are evenly spaced, although offset from each other. The dots vary in size depending on the amount of ink deposited. Although there are many different forms of offset printing, the nuances of which I don't pretend to understand, as far as I know, all of them involve evenly space ink dots. Here's an example of inkjet printing: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v370/rkpetersen/poster%20analysis/DSCN6472.jpg Notice how each 'dot' is actually elongated into a smear, due to the rapid back and forth movement of the print head, which also results in a definite 'grain' to the image. Ralph DeLuca had an even better example of this on his website, from one of the fake Black Cat lobby cards. He posted the link here awhile ago although the image doesn't seem to be there anymore. This is very easy stuff to learn, and all it requires is a small handheld scope, in the 50-100X range. You can get one with a built-in light off ebay for ten or twenty bucks. With it, you can inspect a poster properly. For example, under the scope, the printing on a forged lobby card (like that Black Cat) done on a high quality inkjet printer would look nothing like a lobby printed with photogelatin technique. I have a Creature From The Black Lagoon lobby that is almost too mint to be real; I became suspicious of it for other reasons as well. However, this card was clearly done with photogelatin technique. So I consider it to be authentic, unless someone provides verifiable evidence to the contrary. On the other hand, as Todd has mentioned, if all known authentic Dracula onesheets are stone lithos and yet the one Profiles in History is auctioning is color offset, I would consider that fairly damning evidence that this poster is not authentic (although perhaps not intentionally forged). Certainly it wouldn't hurt for anyone who is at all concerned about the authenticity of their collection (or of potential future acquisitions) to obtain and learn to use a small hand microscope. I've found it to be useful on many occasions. Randy Petersen 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.
