RWels
Member
Posts: 2,862
|
Post by RWels on Oct 29, 2020 9:50:15 GMT
There's a Rupert Annual with a cover variance which is worth thousands of pounds. Only a dozen copies have the correct colouration out of the entire print run. I've bought the annual several times, thinking I'd gotten the rare 'un. (The colour-fault is counter-intuitive). I can never remember the particular point about the variation. If, next time I find that year's annual, I don't bother to check the reference books/internet, I could quite honestly say "May be rare varient worth megabucks. Similar copies of that year's annual have fetched thousands. Not sure if this one is rare, but Rupert's face on the cover is a different colour to the interior illos. Interesting book." I'm not saying anything untrue, mainly because I'm keeping myself in blissful ignorance; not doing the buyer's work for him. Ignorance can be bliss, provided you cultivate it. And if you were selling one? Would you deliberately NOT check? For me, it's 100 to 1 that it's a ploy.
|
|
|
Post by darrenlee on Oct 29, 2020 10:22:27 GMT
There appears to be nothing missing on there so there really not worth the price asked. It's an obvious scam. Shill bidder comes in at last minute to make purchases. The purpose of this is to dupe a genuine fan into buying because the last item went for £399, therefore installing the idea that there is something missing on it, the shill bidder knows something we don't. Ebay is full of these type of scammers. If this were a scam with shill buyers, and the buyers have posted feedback on the previous auctions (which they have) it would make sense for them to post feedback on the 399 quid auction before launching the final auction. No such feedback has appeared however. If these are not bogus auctions, then the positive feedback indicates that the buyers seem to be well satisfied, and it's not my intent to comment on their judgment. Also, running four bogus auctions, just to con someone on the fifth auction, and paying eBay the fees on the first four, would seem not to be a very profitable activity. My guess is that the seller is being honest (he's been on eBay for four years with 100% positive feedback). Would I bid? No way! A case of caveat emptor. For those who are unaware, if the bidder (shill or not) requests a cancellation, the seller gets his eBay fees back.
|
|
|
Post by John Green on Oct 29, 2020 11:24:41 GMT
There's a Rupert Annual with a cover variance which is worth thousands of pounds. Only a dozen copies have the correct colouration out of the entire print run. I've bought the annual several times, thinking I'd gotten the rare 'un. (The colour-fault is counter-intuitive). I can never remember the particular point about the variation. If, next time I find that year's annual, I don't bother to check the reference books/internet, I could quite honestly say "May be rare varient worth megabucks. Similar copies of that year's annual have fetched thousands. Not sure if this one is rare, but Rupert's face on the cover is a different colour to the interior illos. Interesting book." I'm not saying anything untrue, mainly because I'm keeping myself in blissful ignorance; not doing the buyer's work for him. Ignorance can be bliss, provided you cultivate it. And if you were selling one? Would you deliberately NOT check? For me, it's 100 to 1 that it's a ploy. Ah. I was playing Devil's Advocate there. And I still forgot to put the words 'I'm no expert on this'. Meanwhile, $375,000 First Edition Pokemon Card Set Revealed To Be Fake During Livestream The livestreamed sale of a rare Pokemon Trading Card Game set doesn't go quite as planned and nearly ends in disaster for the buyer. gamerant.com/pokemon-card-set-first-edition-fake-stream/
|
|
|
Post by andyeves on Nov 2, 2020 5:07:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by John Green on Nov 2, 2020 17:08:49 GMT
I thought you meant a starting price of £399.00, but nope... Where does it show the bidder's feedback rating?
|
|
|
Post by andyeves on Nov 2, 2020 17:38:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by John Green on Nov 2, 2020 18:36:09 GMT
Winning bidder a**l. I was never any good at crosswords...
|
|
|
Post by garyhibbs on Nov 3, 2020 13:32:16 GMT
Winning bidder a**l. I was never any good at crosswords... Azal... obvs.
|
|
|
Post by andyeves on Nov 3, 2020 15:24:46 GMT
Winning bidder a**l. I was never any good at crosswords... Azal... obvs. Actually the winning bidder was a***l
|
|
|
Post by garyhibbs on Nov 3, 2020 15:35:07 GMT
Azal... obvs. Actually the winning bidder was a***l Oh well, I tried...
|
|
|
Post by andyeves on Dec 5, 2020 10:25:28 GMT
The seller is back in business: www.ebay.co.uk/itm/16mm-Dr-Who-Daleks-Yeti-etc-1960s-Highly-Collectable/254798944045?hash=item3b5333572d:g:-UAAAOSwjfBfgKFU16mm Dr.Who 16mm negative film. Approx 300ft on 3 100ft reels originally. I gave put onto one bigger reel. Fan filmed off tv screen featuring Hartnell, Troughton Daleks Cybermen Yetis etc. Condition expected with age is good with slight vinegar smell on some footage. Quality varies from light to dark, scratches here and there. Collectors item.It's a relisting of the one that supposedly sold for £399 ... or maybe none of the his job lots sold in reality as the buyers never left feedback. This one has a greatly reduced starting price at £29.99.
|
|
|
Post by A Barron on Dec 12, 2020 23:37:11 GMT
If they were duplicates of existing episodes, how does that stand with copy right? Can you just duplicate old films and then sell them? (Does the seventy year rule of the artist's death apply?)
If so, does that mean that collectors who having missing episodes could duplicate them and then trade the duplicate prints for other missing episodes with other collectors? It would certainly help to build up a collection of missing episodes and increase the number of copies of missing episodes in existence. If it is breaking copy right would the British Broadcasting Corporation mind as it potentially increased the chances of the missing episodes being returned and making them a lot of money?
|
|
|
Post by brianfretwell on Dec 19, 2020 9:31:05 GMT
It has never been legal to copy like that, though it was done. Also now the lab facilities to do so are much reduced - even for developing the film.
|
|
|
Post by Ed Brown on Dec 19, 2020 22:12:54 GMT
The eBay seller has advertised this as a 16mm negative.
Does this not seem odd to anyone? No genuine film collector is likely to be unable to differentiate between a positive print and a camera negative. And if this is indeed a film negative, how does the seller come to be posting positive prints (single frames) from it?
Is it likely that a buyer would post positive feedback, if sold a camera negative which couldn't be projected? More probably, the buyer would immediately post strongly negative feedback. Yet these buyers don't do that, suggesting either that they were satisfied with the film, or that they were not genuine buyers.
In the latter case no money will change hands, so what is the point of the scam?
But if they are genuine buyers, implying that the film is in fact a projection print, why is the seller misleadingly advertising it as a film negative?
If this is indeed a scam, it's a pretty shoddy one, since the scammer self evidently does not even know the difference between a positive print and a camera negative. If this is indeed a scam, the implication is that the film must be a film print, not a negative. In which case, because the single frames used as advertising have been identified as originating from known sources, such as the Walls "Sky Ray" ice cream commercial, it is still pretty poor as a hoax, as clearly none of the images originate from missing episodes.
Does not the image quality of the single frames argue against this being a cine film shot by a fan off the television screen? Granted, the copy on sale seems to be on 1990s film stock, but that only proves it's a copy, not the original. However other cine films, known to be genuine, look very different -- the image quality on a real 8mm conversion to 16mm will show up as being obviously from an amateur source (disjointed, poorly composed, showing the frame of the tv cabinet), whereas the images in question have quite a professional appearance.
Does the fact that this is advertised as a 300 foot spool not raise further question marks?
Clearly it cannot be more than a few minutes in running time, not nearly long enough to be a single episode. Would anyone who knows enough about 16mm film to have his own equipment be likely to believe that a 300 foot spool could run for 25 minutes?
And it is said to be, in actuality, three 100-foot spools spliced together: perhaps someone knowledgeable about the 8mm cine film hobby can suggest whether that length was ever a common spool length for the 8mm or Super8 formats in the 1960s? That could offer an insight into whether this might be an 8mm to 16mm conversion -- unlikely as that possibility does seem.
Presumably, these are such obvious points that those in the know - anyone genuinely interested in 16mm film of the period - will just laugh at such an advert on eBay, and pass quickly on! Even we, who know only a little about the subject, are highly sceptical.
Would anyone care to have a bash at discrediting my arguments? I would be happy to think that this eBay item might not be as dubious as I am assuming. But the facts, such as they are, do not seem promising.
|
|
|
Post by A Barron on Dec 19, 2020 22:40:12 GMT
The eBay seller has advertised this as a 16mm negative. Does this not seem odd to anyone? No genuine film collector is likely to be unable to differentiate between a positive print and a camera negative. And if this is indeed a film negative, how does the seller come to be posting positive prints (single frames) from it? Is it likely that a buyer would post positive feedback, if sold a camera negative which couldn't be projected? More probably, the buyer would immediately post strongly negative feedback. Yet these buyers don't do that, suggesting either that they were satisfied with the film, or that they were not genuine buyers. In the latter case no money will change hands, so what is the point of the scam? But if they are genuine buyers, implying that the film is in fact a projection print, why is the seller misleadingly advertising it as a film negative? If this is indeed a scam, it's a pretty shoddy one, since the scammer self evidently does not even know the difference between a positive print and a camera negative. If this is indeed a scam, the implication is that the film must be a film print, not a negative. In which case, because the single frames used as advertising have been identified as originating from known sources, such as the Walls "Sky Ray" ice cream commercial, it is still pretty poor as a hoax, as clearly none of the images originate from missing episodes. Does not the image quality of the single frames argue against this being a cine film shot by a fan off the television screen? Granted, the copy on sale seems to be on 1990s film stock, but that only proves it's a copy, not the original. However other cine films, known to be genuine, look very different -- the image quality on a real 8mm conversion to 16mm will show up as being obviously from an amateur source (disjointed, poorly composed, showing the frame of the tv cabinet), whereas the images in question have quite a professional appearance. Does the fact that this is advertised as a 300 foot spool not raise further question marks? Clearly it cannot be more than a few minutes in running time, not nearly long enough to be a single episode. Would anyone who knows enough about 16mm film to have his own equipment be likely to believe that a 300 foot spool could run for 25 minutes? And it is said to be, in actuality, three 100-foot spools spliced together: perhaps someone knowledgeable about the 8mm cine film hobby can suggest whether that length was ever a common spool length for the 8mm or Super8 formats in the 1960s? That could offer an insight into whether this might be an 8mm to 16mm conversion -- unlikely as that possibility does seem. Presumably, these are such obvious points that those in the know - anyone genuinely interested in 16mm film of the period - will just laugh at such an advert on eBay, and pass quickly on! Even we, who know only a little about the subject, are highly sceptical. Would anyone care to have a bash at discrediting my arguments? I would be happy to think that this eBay item might not be as dubious as I am assuming. But the facts, such as they are, do not seem promising. If I remember correctly from one of the previous sales, the sells claimed to have used an editing software to invert the negatives so they display as positives for the EBay photographs.
|
|