|
Post by Leighton Haberfield on Mar 1, 2018 20:17:24 GMT
I may have got that wrong or the place I read it may have had it wrong Or I may be right The auction didn't say where the seller obtained it from
|
|
|
Post by Richard Bignell on Mar 2, 2018 12:55:48 GMT
"16/TU/20685" Based on Wiped!, I assume "16" to mean 16mm and "20685" to be the specific programme number ("Daleks 7"). What exactly does "TU" mean? Thanks! WilliamB The "TU" coding strands for Transcription Unit. It was later superseded by 'Ent' for Enterprises, but both mean the same thing - a recording made for overseas sale.
|
|
|
Post by Michael D. Kimpton on Mar 17, 2018 8:07:54 GMT
Was this the one from the book shop in York? Book shop? I thought it was somewhere else. It was an antique shop. It doesn't look like the one I saw, but if I knew I could get that much money for it I'd NEVER have left it behind. I was new to Who at the time and was very stupid cause I didn't understand or realize the value of what already existed. These days I'm much wiser, so I won't be making that mistake again!
|
|
|
Post by Dylan Heath on Mar 17, 2018 11:26:43 GMT
Book shop? I thought it was somewhere else. It was an antique shop. It doesn't look like the one I saw, but if I knew I could get that much money for it I'd NEVER have left it behind. I was new to Who at the time and was very stupid cause I didn't understand or realize the value of what already existed. These days I'm much wiser, so I won't be making that mistake again! I'm sorry to say you're unlikely to get another chance!
|
|
|
Post by davidstead on Mar 17, 2018 17:46:00 GMT
What I'm suprised nobody has commented about, is if it is an original print, then it's the only undamaged copy of part 7. If you recall when it was originally checked, there was no neg just a sound neg for part 7, and the print had damage! ( DVD restoration removed most of the problem)
Maybe Paul can clarify if that's is still the case?
|
|
|
Post by Michael D. Kimpton on Mar 18, 2018 1:24:09 GMT
It was an antique shop. It doesn't look like the one I saw, but if I knew I could get that much money for it I'd NEVER have left it behind. I was new to Who at the time and was very stupid cause I didn't understand or realize the value of what already existed. These days I'm much wiser, so I won't be making that mistake again! I'm sorry to say you're unlikely to get another chance! Believe me, I know. Not a day goes by when I don't kick myself about it!
|
|
|
Post by Charles Daniels on Mar 21, 2018 7:41:20 GMT
What on earth are you going on about? Are you putting yourseslf forward as an expert? Absolutely not! But there are folks around who might be able to establish whether it’s an 80s dupe or from the 60s. It would be very easy to tell the difference. I own both dupes from the 80s and original 60s and 70s era prints of various programmes. It is not at all difficult to see the difference.
|
|
|
Post by Dylan Heath on Mar 22, 2018 15:05:28 GMT
I'm sorry to say you're unlikely to get another chance! Believe me, I know. Not a day goes by when I don't kick myself about it! I feel sorry for you man, every time I watch The Daleks if that happened to me would involve intense self loathing while watching I've made mistakes like that before though but never on that scale!
|
|