Diane,
You should consider legal action against John Davis -- or at least
demand a public apology. Instead of standing up like a man and admitting
that "Hey folks, I simply didn't realize S2art.com was using 100-year
old French presses to exactly duplicate stone litho printing that looks
just like the real deal under my microscope" he just ignores that
negligent gaffe and tries to blame an "unknown restorer" for "great
attention paid restoratively to make this poster appear authentic".
Wait... isn't that exactly what his COA was supposed to do: Peer beyond
any air-brushing that might make the poster "appear authentic"? And he,
and everyone else, knows who the restorer was because you came forward
and identified yourself early on.
I was willing to cut him some slack until he pulled this cowardly stunt
of trying to shift the blame onto everyone but himself for completely
missing the true nature of this poster. Hey, the fact that both bottom
corners of it were the only paper which had replaced should have been
his first Big Clue that something was not kosher. What? It didn't ring
any bells that a previously unknown example of an ultra-valuable 60-year
old only-2-others-known-in-existence authentic Dracula poster suddenly
turns up with no paper loss *other* than the two bottom corners which
just happen to contain all the original authenticating hand-written
info? Sure... happens all the time, nothing to be concerned about...
some "expert" he turns out to be.
Besides, you publicly wrote to MOPO immediately when people started
questioning the authenticity and revealed exactly what you knew, what
the client had asked for, what you had done and why -- going public to
help with the investigation. And I believe you also called and spoke
with Davis personally at that same time and gave him the same details.
For him to now act like he didn't just drop the ball completely on this
one is criminal cowardice. But for him to claim that you knowingly and
deliberately created a fake poster from an S2 reproduction, that's libel.
That aside, there's no denying the truth that, going forward from this
sad example, you and every other restorer in the business now simply
must take a second, third and fourth look at what a client is asking you
to do. And if the paper does not seem "right", you probably need to take
a pass on the job. I know that hurts because you and the others are in
the business of giving the clients what they want -- but if the paper
just does not seem right (too thick, too slick, too "new", seems
artifically "aged") then that's got to be a deal breaker for the
restorer to proceed with the job.
Bottom line: you restorers are going to be the last people to see the
paper alive before it is glued onto linen and becomes very hard to
check, you are now the first line of defense when it comes to preventing
people from backing a modern fake to disguise what kind of paper it is
on. It is the "look and feel" of genuine 40 or 70-year old Virginians
cheap-ass print-it, display-it and throw-it-away movie poster paper that
is going to be the only thing which cannot be easily faked these days.
Air-bushing new paper to look tan or brown should not fool any competent
restorer.
I wish the best to everyone in the business who will now be facing this
new challenge. It's sad, but the inevitable result of all the very high
prices that started being paid for this material in the last 10 to 15
years. It has attracted the sharks to our waters.
-- JR
Diane Jeffrey wrote:
OK people, I am really confused here, to see John's updated status on
the poster today.
I called Brian at Profiles today, and he did not take my call, or did
he return the call. So mid day, I called John. John told me that he
had the poster and was going to un-mount it, in the presence of Ron
Borts,(good friend), Ken Schacter, and Joe Madalena, in order to get
to the bottom of the poster. He still, at this point, did not say it
believed it was fake. He said it would take a week for this to
happen, and he would let me know. I offered the info that I did not
remember us being completely successful in removing the layer on the
back, that we may have sanded it some, trying to give him as much info
as possible , to help him get to the truth about the poster, since he
was about to un-mount it.. I called him back, because I realized I
forgot to ask him an important question, concerning the "Morgan Litho
Co" writing at the bottom. I told him that we did not add that text,
did he know where that came from?? He offered no info on that. I
also indicated to him during one of my phone calls, that I had
"before" and "after" pics of the poster.
I am shocked to see his update, in view of my two phone conversations
today, makes no sense. I was even more shocked when I read the following:
"This once legitimate S2 reproduction one sheet was sanded thin by the
"restorer" then lined with canvas and paper ("linen backed") with
airbrush restoration throughout the border and title. The two bottom
corners which would have had vital reproduction information printed as
identification were removed and replaced in a restorative fashion and
the fine print from an original Dracula poster was then added by hand"
"This reproduction poster has been "linen backed" and restored by an
unknown restorer with great attention paid restoratively to make this
poster appear authentic"
Is John Davis accusing Studio C of producing a fake poster?
Help!! Any thoughts or insight will be greatly appreciated.
Diane
Studio C
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.
