News from Kal.

[John Green]

DISCOVERY 109: Jango – Treacle on Three Fingers tx: 15.3.1961 Associated Rediffusion
Written by Mike Watts, directed by Cyril Coke
with Robert Urquhart as Jango Smith, Moira Redmond as Bee Smith and Peter Sallis, Harold Goodwin, Robert Raglan, Brian Wilde and Lawrence James.

This title was first advertised to be screened at a Kaleidoscope event in 1995, but the print proved damaged and its owner – a private collector – chose to withdraw the print.

The damage to the print has now been repaired. Kaleidoscope is delighted that it was recovered last year and will be shown on 11th March.

16mm telerecording.

DISCOVERY 110: The Peggy Lee Show - tx: 26.8.1961 ABC
Produced by Philip Jones.
with Peggy Lee, Bing Crosby, Sammy Cahn and Jimmy Van Heusen.

This variety show made at Teddington (not Didsbury, Brian Tesler informs me) was recovered in 2016 from a private collector. Whilst some people knew of its existence, the vast majority of people (including the copyright holder) could not access the print before.

The print suffers from some vinegar syndrome, but it is now safely transferred to a modern file format.

16mm telerecording.

With thanks to Steve Birt for his help recovering this print.

Kaleidoscope is delighted that it was recovered last year and will be shown on 11th March.

Thanks to Steve Davis at Roobarb for the above news.

[adamjordan]

As it is a new year, shouldn't we be going back to #001 rather than #109?

[Paul Vanezis]

Jan 20, 2017 19:06:10 GMT John Green said:

DISCOVERY 109: Jango – Treacle on Three Fingers tx: 15.3.1961 Associated Rediffusion
Written by Mike Watts, directed by Cyril Coke
with Robert Urquhart as Jango Smith, Moira Redmond as Bee Smith and Peter Sallis, Harold Goodwin, Robert Raglan, Brian Wilde and Lawrence James.

This title was first advertised to be screened at a Kaleidoscope event in 1995, but the print proved damaged and its owner – a private collector – chose to withdraw the print.

The damage to the print has now been repaired. Kaleidoscope is delighted that it was recovered last year and will be shown on 11th March.

16mm telerecording.

DISCOVERY 110: The Peggy Lee Show - tx: 26.8.1961 ABC
Produced by Philip Jones.
with Peggy Lee, Bing Crosby, Sammy Cahn and Jimmy Van Heusen.

This variety show made at Teddington (not Didsbury, Brian Tesler informs me) was recovered in 2016 from a private collector. Whilst some people knew of its existence, the vast majority of people (including the copyright holder) could not access the print before.

The print suffers from some vinegar syndrome, but it is now safely transferred to a modern file format.

16mm telerecording.

With thanks to Steve Birt for his help recovering this print.

Kaleidoscope is delighted that it was recovered last year and will be shown on 11th March.

Thanks to Steve Davis at Roobarb for the above news.

It's worth pointing out that this isn't really a recovery and most certainly not a discovery, but an acquisition. It was no secret where these films were.

Paul

[SimonWinters]

You are quite incorrect.

This most certainly is a recovery, in any definition of the word 'recovery'.

This programme is now freely available - without payment or conditions of any kind - to the copyright holder and to the BFI. It is will in due course be shown to an audience of the general public for free, in aid of charity. It is available for legitimate tv researchers to use immediately. It has been digitised for the first time. The print has been graded for the first time. It's existence has been properly publicised and officially logged for the first time.

Previously, it was held by a private individual with no guarantee that any of the above would ever happen.

People used their own money to make all this possible, for no reward other than to see it recovered. Yes, recovered.

It constantly amazes me that people post all sorts of irrelevant stuff on here (and good luck to them) and you say nothing. Someone posts this recovery - yes, recovery - and you want to put a downer on it again.

Is this a cunning plan by moderators to make this increasingly obscure forum more popular and encourage more recoveries? If so, I suggest you stop going to Baldrick for the suggestions.

Try to let go of whatever is buzzing round your head that makes you want to say the things you say on here.

[RWels]

Jan 25, 2017 11:07:40 GMT SimonWinters said:

You are quite incorrect.

This most certainly is a recovery, in any definition of the word 'recovery'.

This programme is now freely available - without payment or conditions of any kind - to the copyright holder and to the BFI. It is will in due course be shown to an audience of the general public for free, in aid of charity. It is available for legitimate tv researchers to use immediately. It has been digitised for the first time. The print has been graded for the first time. It's existence has been properly publicised and officially logged for the first time.

Previously, it was held by a private individual with no guarantee that any of the above would ever happen.

People used their own money to make all this possible, for no reward other than to see it recovered. Yes, recovered.

It constantly amazes me that people post all sorts of irrelevant stuff on here (and good luck to them) and you say nothing. Someone posts this recovery - yes, recovery - and you want to put a downer on it again.

Is this a cunning plan by moderators to make this increasingly obscure forum more popular and encourage more recoveries? If so, I suggest you stop going to Baldrick for the suggestions.

Try to let go of whatever is buzzing round your head that makes you want to say the things you say on here.

The epithet "newly discovered" is overused; be glad some at least is still trying to be accurate. You have a total of 3 posts, 2 of which complain about the staff. Just saying.
Also, for most people the big difference is not who is taking care of a print and if that's the rights holder, but if THEY can see it or not.

[Paul Vanezis]

Jan 25, 2017 11:07:40 GMT SimonWinters said:

You are quite incorrect.

This most certainly is a recovery, in any definition of the word 'recovery'.

This programme is now freely available - without payment or conditions of any kind - to the copyright holder and to the BFI. It is will in due course be shown to an audience of the general public for free, in aid of charity. It is available for legitimate tv researchers to use immediately. It has been digitised for the first time. The print has been graded for the first time. It's existence has been properly publicised and officially logged for the first time.

Previously, it was held by a private individual with no guarantee that any of the above would ever happen.

People used their own money to make all this possible, for no reward other than to see it recovered. Yes, recovered.

It constantly amazes me that people post all sorts of irrelevant stuff on here (and good luck to them) and you say nothing. Someone posts this recovery - yes, recovery - and you want to put a downer on it again.

Is this a cunning plan by moderators to make this increasingly obscure forum more popular and encourage more recoveries? If so, I suggest you stop going to Baldrick for the suggestions.

Try to let go of whatever is buzzing round your head that makes you want to say the things you say on here.

Hi Simon,

I have the greatest respect for you. However, when something inaccurate is posted and I know it's inaccurate, I'll point it out. I guess though that we could put this one down to the new fad of 'alternative facts' if you like!

So, let's be clear. This isn't a recovery, by the definitions you state. All the films acquired by Kaleidoscope (yes, an acquisition) from this film collector were known about and available to the copyright holders should they wish access. It's unfair to say that there was no guarantee of that before they ended up with Kal. In fact, films from this collector have been loaned to the BFI, the BBC and other rights holders in the past and at his own expense.

As you know, I have pointed out many times in the past where recoveries aren't really recoveries and I will continue to do so, so that the members of this board are fully informed about what a genuine recovery is.

To reiterate, I have the greatest of respect for you and for members of Kaleidoscope, many of whom I count as close friends. I hope that whoever writes these "Discovery" notices might in future phrase them more accurately to reflect fact, rather than a fiction. Clarity is all I am interested in.

Regards,

Paul

[George D]

Im not really sure what kaleidoscope is.

Are the prints/shows acquired by kaleidoscope owned by an individual or are they owned by a group of people (meaning all equally own the same assets) or are they owned by a non profit organization.

[Paul Vanezis]

Jan 26, 2017 0:45:51 GMT George D said:

Im not really sure what kaleidoscope is.

Are the prints/shows acquired by kaleidoscope owned by an individual or are they owned by a group of people (meaning all equally own the same assets) or are they owned by a non profit organization.

I think a member of Kaleidoscope can clarify. My understanding is that Kaleidoscope as a loose group of like minded individuals was formed after an event Chris Perry organised in 1988. They certainly weren't calling themselves Kaleidoscope prior to that. Kaleidoscope Publishing was formed, but that is no longer a functioning business. Now Kaleidoscope is a commercial archive run by Chris Perry. I'm sure that someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

As to physical ownership of films etc..., I have no idea.

Paul

[SimonWinters]

You are once again quite incorrect, Mr Vanesis.

I will not go into details, but I can repeat with certainty that there was absolutely no 'guarantee' that this print would be immediately and freely available to the copyright holder and to the BFI as and when requested, or to broadcasters, as it is now, or that it was freely available for a public viewing.

You are correct that the previous owner of this and other prints had in the fairly distant past been of some help to the BFI. In recent years, this collector was more reclusive, shall I say, which is his right of course.

The print is now recovered, because it's immediate availability is guaranteed, and put beyond any doubt, however small that doubt may have been.

You cannot say that it's availability was guaranteed before Kaleidoscope recovered it.

When a film is in the private hands of any individual collector, it remains in virtually all cases in a rather precarious position. Circumstances for that individual can change overnight. This can be the case for any individual. They could drop dead overnight, for example, and a relative immediately take a different view of the print.

A film can develop vinegar syndrome. In private hands, funds may not be available to immediately digitise it if this happens.

Therefore, when any print goes from any private collector into the hands of a known preservation group, be that the BFI, a regional archive, Kaleidoscope, the legitimate copyright holder, or a similar bone fide organisation, it is 'recovered'.

I remind you of my other point. You tolerate any old thread on this forum, but when someone mentions Kaleidoscope you seem to feel the need to try to suddenly appear and put some sort of dampener on it. You really do, it's absolutely obvious.

And I find this quite childish to be honest.

[SimonWinters]

And one final thing I forgot to mention, Mr Vanesis, which entirely blows your comments out of the water.

The person who previously owned this print and others, who you consider to have been a really reliable steward of the material, was actually repeatedly selling the prints on Ebay to anyone in the world who wanted them. Kaleidoscope bought them and then made a case to the seller to stop selling others on Ebay and to sell them instead to Kaleidoscope.

One print got away - nobody knows who bought that, so it's now missing AGAIN.

So, you still think these prints were not recovered for the nation?

Acquired, in this context, would be an appropriate term if one legitimate archive organisation acquired a print from another, and where the existence and integrity of the print was unaffected. eg a print was found to be at SWFTA and taken or sold to Archbuild Ltd.

Saving a print from going from a reclusive owner to any anonymous buyer anywhere on the planet is indeed a recovery, and a bloomin' good recovery at that rate.

A recovery worthy of your praise indeed.

[Peter Stirling]

Jan 26, 2017 0:45:51 GMT George D said:

Im not really sure what kaleidoscope is.

Are the prints/shows acquired by kaleidoscope owned by an individual or are they owned by a group of people (meaning all equally own the same assets) or are they owned by a non profit organization.

Whatever Kaleidoscope is, it (along with TDA later) has been single handedly looking out for the ITV/independents archive and inspiring others to do so. Had Kal founders (like the late Richard Down) had not had the tenacity to start the project to research and list every programme made with no incline of whether it would ever be appreciated or be useful to anybody- then the history of TV would have been in the hands of the luvvies and TV channel snobs who thought anything of any importance came out of the BBC while ITV just produced ephemeral, florid tat .

[Paul Vanezis]

Jan 26, 2017 15:33:21 GMT SimonWinters said:

You are once again quite incorrect, Mr Vanesis.

OK. I'll stop you there. It's usual, if you are going to engage in a meaningful debate, to correctly spell the name of the person that you are debating with. Now we have that over, let's see what you have.

I will not go into details, but I can repeat with certainty that there was absolutely no 'guarantee' that this print would be immediately and freely available to the copyright holder and to the BFI as and when requested, or to broadcasters, as it is now, or that it was freely available for a public viewing.

You are correct that the previous owner of this and other prints had in the fairly distant past been of some help to the BFI. In recent years, this collector was more reclusive, shall I say, which is his right of course.

The print is now recovered, because it's immediate availability is guaranteed, and put beyond any doubt, however small that doubt may have been.

You cannot say that it's availability was guaranteed before Kaleidoscope recovered it.

When a film is in the private hands of any individual collector, it remains in virtually all cases in a rather precarious position. Circumstances for that individual can change overnight. This can be the case for any individual. They could drop dead overnight, for example, and a relative immediately take a different view of the print.

A film can develop vinegar syndrome. In private hands, funds may not be available to immediately digitise it if this happens.

Therefore, when any print goes from any private collector into the hands of a known preservation group, be that the BFI, a regional archive, Kaleidoscope, the legitimate copyright holder, or a similar bone fide organisation, it is 'recovered'.

So much rich material here, I'm not sure that I know where to start. But in the words of that great film actor Barry Fitzgerald, let's “begin at the beginning...”

One thing is certain and that is that you do not personally know the film collector who sold these films to Kaleidoscope and I suspect you don't know many, if any serious film collectors. I know a lot of film collectors, people who have material that would make your eyes bleed. Most film collectors I know have a great deal of interest in the material they hold and want to see it preserved. However, they will not give the material to the BFI (for reasons I won't go into here but should be obvious) and they do not trust other organisations. What I try and do, not always successfully mind, is to offer an alternative which also provides an affordable path to preservation.

There is nothing wrong with the Kaleidoscope approach. You know, buying film up at auction for inflated prices. Nothing wrong with that at all. It's Kaleidoscope's money after all...

So you don't need to try and justify the reasoning behind why Kaleidoscope do what they do. I understand and respect that.

You say that “In recent years, this collector was more reclusive...” Oh dear. Well I'm sorry, but he really was not. It's more likely that he didn't want to deal directly with Kaleidoscope. But I and others have had a perfectly good relationship with him and we talk about film all the time. He is anything but reclusive. What he is is a film collector. Which brings me onto your next point, film collectors dropping dead and their relatives selling their stuff. Let's have a history lesson here.

Let us remind ourselves why we are in this very position. It's because the copyright holders, those who you want to make the material available to, threw it all away in the first place. Suddenly, film collectors, people such as the collector we are talking about are the villains are they? Villains for daring to have in their possession these precious time capsules of archive TV that they should not be keeping because they should instead be in the possession of Kaleidoscope so that the organisations that threw them away can benefit?

In the meantime, the people who have done the difficult job of preserving this material for years, such as the collector in question, get no acknowledgement for this. Their only benefit, having paid good money for what has essentially been thrown away is that they can watch these old programmes in the privacy of their own homes.

So, let's examine “DISCOVERY 110: The Peggy Lee Show - tx: 26.8.1961 ABC”. How wonderful that Kaleidoscope have single handedly recovered this from the “reclusive” and unreliable film collector who previously returned it to the BFI in 1998.

Let's just let that one sink in.

That was 19 years ago. It cost the BFI nothing apart from the technical costs to make their print and despite your claim of it never having been digitsied before, it can be viewed on VHS at the BFI. Here's the link to their holding:

collections-search.bfi.org.uk/web/Details/ChoiceFilmWorks/154567036

Guess what, the BFI have even allowed clips to be used from this show in a documentary and shock of shocks, another print does actually survive elsewhere.

And one final thing I forgot to mention, Mr Vanesis, which entirely blows your comments out of the water. 

The person who previously owned this print and others, who you consider to have been a really reliable steward of the material, was actually repeatedly selling the prints on Ebay to anyone in the world who wanted them. Kaleidoscope bought them and then made a case to the seller to stop selling others on Ebay and to sell them instead to Kaleidoscope. 

One print got away - nobody knows who bought that, so it's now missing AGAIN.

I draw to the attention of my honourable friend the comment I made earlier regarding what a film collector is and why they collect film. Actually, let's not, let's just point out another example of his unreliability. Let's talk about one of Kaleidoscope's unannounced 'Discoveries' shall we? How about 'Richard Whittington Esquire'. A fairly run of the mill panto if you ask me, but it has merit and certainly deserves to be preserved. If you were the owner, what would you do with it? Would you preserve it in your own collection having paid good money for it, allowing no-one else to see it or would you do as the original collector and saviour of the material did and offer it to the BFI?

Yes, it was offered to the BFI by the person who saved it from being destroyed and who preserved it for all these years. The very person you are villifying in public simply because he is selling his property.

I think all of us who know how the BFI work know what's coming next don't we. That's right, they rejected the offer of the free donation of the actual film. This is the National Film Archive we're talking about here. The organisation tasked with preserving our nations film and television heritage.

So, there we have it in a nutshell. Why many film collectors don't deal with the BFI. Others who have dealt with Kaleidoscope in the past certainly won't do so in the future and I personally wouldn't recommend returning a unique film to either organisation.

I remind you of my other point. You tolerate any old thread on this forum, but when someone mentions Kaleidoscope you seem to feel the need to try to suddenly appear and put some sort of dampener on it. You really do, it's absolutely obvious.

And I find this quite childish to be honest.

Really? I think you may have, bearing my comments above, answered the point yourself, but let me remind you that I only comment to correct inaccuracies and I try not to take a heavy handed approach to moderation. I don't run this forum, it isn't owned by me. I am a moderator. I just want clarity for forum members as I keep pointing out. So as I have previously mentioned, whoever writes these “Discovery” reports needs to be honest about what it is they are claiming Kaleidoscope has done. Much of the time, Kal is just announcing that they have added a film to their collection which exists elsewhere. If we all made announcements like that, the forum would be full of such posts day in day out.

Paul

[SimonWinters]

Excuse me, I have not vilified anybody. You have spelt the word wrong, but I think you mean vilify?

I have simply described an actual event. A film collector, who - granted - has been of help in the past, has decided to sell a large number of prints on Ebay, possibly selling his entire collection over a period of time.

The prints could have gone anywhere in the world. They could have become missing. Very easily, and immediately.

You have established that he had offered a couple of them to the BFI in the past, and I thank you for that information. It is good to hear that some prints were offered. I agree the BFI has not been perfect in the past when offered prints. My experience is that it is different in 2017.

You have not established that he offered all of them to the BFI in the past. Indeed, he was listing each and every print as 'missing television'.

Hardly helpful, when the seller (who you have so much faith in), tried to sell them all on Ebay as 'missing television'?

Therefore, the prints were saved from an extremely precarious position. This is why they were recovered.

Programmes can be recovered from a variety of places and in a variety of ways. Saving potentially missing and missing programmes from an unknown worldwide Ebay auction, and then making the prints fully available is a recovery.

Dictionary meaning of recover:

1. return to a normal state of health, mind, or strength.

2. find or regain possession of (something stolen or lost).

As these prints were all up for immediate sale worldwide, and with no knowledge of the former owner having properly digitised the lot prior to sale, I think 'recovery' is indeed the correct word here. More so when you know that at least one had vinegar syndrome. The films were about to become potentially all lost, to whoever in the world wanted to buy them on Ebay.

These films were not acquired, or added to the Kaleidoscope collection from being safely in existence elsewhere, they were recovered from a live worldwide auction of items described as all 'missing television'.

[Paul Vanezis]

Simon,

Just a point of order; The Peggy Lee Show film was not sold as a missing or lost film. That's not how it was described. And yes, if you follow the link in my post you'll see that there is a perfectly good 16mm preservation print at the BFI.

Regardless, you seem to want to push the direction of this debate towards what Kaleidoscope does, rather than focus on the comment you took exception to, which is that these announcements which are called "DISCOVERY" are not in fact discoveries. They are not. Kaleidoscope are just adding things to their collection. It's a trade from one collector to another. The films are no safer in the hands of Kaleidoscope than the collector who sold them and you seem to be ignoring the fact that the collector in question has been very open about what was in his collection.

So, what have we learned from this?

The Peggy Lee Show is not a discovery.
The collector who you described as a recluse is in fact not a recluse and has returned material to various archives in the past and I'm sure he will do so in the future.
Collectors are entitled to own and sell on their film if they wish.
The BFI are selective about what they preserve, just like all media organisations.
Some film collectors do not trust any media organisations.
Film collectors know how to look after film.

Kaleidoscope, whose aims I respect (a point I keep making) has to work in an environment which is not ideal because they have to deal in a meaningful way with many different personalities. That extends to how they acquire material and deal with that personality. How they then announce these 'acquisitions' without it sounding like some sort of spin is clearly something Kaleidoscope hasn't got right. Seriously, don't waste your time trying to save face by arguing black is white again Simon. Really, don't.

Some advice then, because as the Peggy Lee example proves, some basic research was not done. Don't mislead people, be honest about what it is that you've bought and its significance. But don't claim every purchase or donation is some great new discovery, saved for the Nation, when that is in fact untrue, as has been shown.

Regards,

Paul

[Paul Rumbol]

May i break up this spat briefly to make an impartial comment that it saddens me deeply to see two of this community's most prominent and respected members embroiled in such acrimony. The simple point i want to make is this. Our community is getting smaller year on year, and that decline will accelerate given the nation's fast changing demographic. It won't be long before future generations dismiss 50's,60's and 70s TV as an irrelevance consigned again to the basement as ancient history. For that reason we should all be striving to unite our shrinking community instead of dividing it.

I have felt that change more keenly than most recently. I made three good friends on joining this and two other forums in 2003. They have all died in the last few years and were no great age. My best friend an avid Australian collector died aged just 58 a few months ago. I revisited the once bustling 1950's themed Whirligig website recently to give them an update on my 'Oh Boy!' documentary only to find it almost deserted. The most active thread is the RIP section and was saddened to see many members who i chatted with just 6-7 years ago have all passed on.
Let's all focus on the bigger picture and work together!