|
Post by Robbie Jackson on Sept 30, 2005 21:39:35 GMT
*Link Removed to protect the innocent* This auction is for an original Dr Who TV film reel. There is a label on the reel which reads: T/A 9 October 1965, MISSION TO THE UNKNOWN (1 episode), Writer: Terry Nation, Director: Derek Martinus, Regular cast: None Cast: Edward de Souza (Marc Cory); Robert Cartland (Malpha); Jeremy Young (Gordon Lowery); Barry Jackson (Garvey); Ronald Rich (Trantis); Robert Jewell, Kevin Manser, Gerald Taylor, John Scott Martin (Daleks); Peter Hawkins, David Graham (Dalek voices). There are hand-written notes '1 OF 1' and "22. Film is not my thing at all - please email any questions. POST IS ALWAYS CHARGED AT ACTUAL COST TO AVOID OVER-CHARGING (estimate UK £3/£5, USA £10). THERE WILL BE NO CHARGE FOR PACKAGING. PLEASE ALLOW US TIME TO PARCEL YOUR ITEM AND OBTAIN ACCURATE POSTAL COSTS. WE WILL NORMALLY CONTACT YOU WITHIN THREE WORKING DAYS FROM THE END OF THE AUCTION. PLEASE, PLEASE DO NOT BID UNLESS YOU FULLY INTEND TO HONOUR THIS TRANSACTION AT AUCTION END.
|
|
|
Post by John Fox on Sept 30, 2005 21:52:33 GMT
This looks quite promising to me...
The seller has a 99% positive feedback.
|
|
|
Post by Jon Preddle on Sept 30, 2005 22:46:31 GMT
If it was genuine why has the seller not included screen grabs from the film as part of the sales plug? And besides, the label is just a photocopy from Jean Marc Lofficier's Programme guide, and is not an authentic label from 1965... Jon Preddle
|
|
|
Post by ethantyler on Sept 30, 2005 22:53:15 GMT
Interesting. Naturally, I'd be VERY happy if this does turn out to be genuine, but, for the moment, I think we should all take this with a pinch of salt. If it turns out to be a hoax, then no one is disappointed and, if it turns out to be real, we'll all need a change of underwear (or I will at least).
A question for Richard, Andrew or anyone else in the know: how authentic does the label on the can look? To me, it looks like someone's printed it off on the computer, aged it a bit and then stuck it on, but I have no experience in this area. (Though it may have been a previous owner if it is real.)
|
|
|
Post by John Fox on Oct 1, 2005 9:13:14 GMT
If it was genuine why has the seller not included screen grabs from the film as part of the sales plug? And besides, the label is just a photocopy from Jean Marc Lofficier's Programme guide, and is not an authentic label from 1965... Jon Preddle Well the seller states that film is 'not their thing', and I very much doubt he has a knowledge of the current state of the archives - most people don't! Why should he think that he needs to show screen grabs? Besides, he may not have the equipment. As for the programme guide label - it's not unthinkable that the person who owned it in 1989 did not know it was missing. It would be a poor choice of label to put on if you were to attempt a hoax. But I could be wrong!
|
|
|
Post by Richard Bignell on Oct 1, 2005 11:45:43 GMT
A question for Richard, Andrew or anyone else in the know: how authentic does the label on the can look? To me, it looks like someone's printed it off on the computer, aged it a bit and then stuck it on, but I have no experience in this area. (Though it may have been a previous owner if it is real.) Well the "label" as others have pointed out, undoubted is cut directly from the Doctor Who Programme Guide. In itself, that's irrelevant though. The BBC would not have originally dispatched a telerecording out on a reel like this anyway, so *assuming* that it is what it says it is, it's obviously been transferred onto a standard projector reel at some point in its history. In other words, the reel itself or anything stuck to the reel has very little importance. However, at this stage, there's no telling what the film loaded onto the reel may be. Richard
|
|
|
Post by ade gregg on Oct 1, 2005 12:33:16 GMT
no i think fake all the way.. and its an old fake.. someone made the prints YEARS ago then this guy gets em with NO idea of missing who etc and puts em up..
|
|
|
Post by Robbo13 on Oct 1, 2005 13:17:29 GMT
The auction has been withdrawn. The seller was asked to confirm if it was genuine by winding out some film and it turns out that it isnt Mission to the Unknown.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Stone on Oct 1, 2005 13:22:06 GMT
This situation is very puzzling. For two reasons, to my mind. One relating to it being a hoax, one to it being genuine. IT'S A HOAX - Alright, it's not Mission To The Unknown. What possible motive could someone have for pretending they DO have it, and soliciting bids at an auction? "Ha ha! I'll fool 'em! I'll claim I have a priceless missing DW episode and get bids for it! To aid my fiendish cause, I'll photocopy a descriptor out of a DW guide book and crudely slap it on a film reel of ducks in a pond I have in my cupboard...that'll make my deception plausible! Muahahaha! And then, when someone gets top bid and claims the film, I'll...er, be in trouble with the law for false pretences and fraud, cos it's not what I claim it is!! YAY!!!!!" You see? What's the point? IT'S REAL - Alright, it's real. If so, why has this guy not provided any proof that it is? How hard would it be to spool the film onto a projector, play the film and take a video clip of, say, Marc Cory (no footage of him is known to exist) with a cellphone camera? Surely someone who knows this guy will have told him: "Hey, mate, you've got the only copy of it in the world" by now? It's bizarre. The Restoration Team poobahs seem to be certain it's a hoax, based on some bloke playing the first dozen or so feet of the film and saying 'It's not Doctor Who at all'. If that's true, why no official statement to that effect, if only to stop people bidding for it under false pretences? If you're gonna play a few dozen feet, why not watch...I dunno...a few HUNDRED feet? Just to make sure? If it's not DW, what is the hell is it?! Why doesn't this guy say what's on it? Is it blank? If so, why not say it's blank?! Something screwy's going on here, folks.
|
|
|
Post by Richard Bignell on Oct 1, 2005 13:25:58 GMT
Something screwy's going on here, folks. Only in your mind! They say that patience is a virtue. Richard
|
|
|
Post by Scott J. on Oct 1, 2005 13:43:45 GMT
Richard, what are you trying to tell us, what do you know that we don't?
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Stone on Oct 1, 2005 14:36:47 GMT
Something screwy's going on here, folks. [/quote] Only in your mind! Oh, hello Richard. (sigh) Your inexplicable vendetta against me continues, I see. Show me ONE thing in what I said that is in any way irrational, and I might believe you. Come on. I double dare ya, mate. Show me where my reasoning is flawed. Oh wait, you can't, cos it isn't. Whoops. They say that patience is a virtue. Who the hell are 'they', and what the hell does that have to do with this? Either it's fake or real, and either way the current story we've been told doesn't make a lick of sense. Patience be damned. It should be immediately obvious if it's fake or not. Unless you believe that whoever sold this thing just put it up on Ebay without checking that it's the right item or not. Richard[/quote]
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Stone on Oct 1, 2005 14:38:39 GMT
Richard, what are you trying to tell us, what do you know that we don't? I think he was just getting in another dig at me. For reasons known only to Richard, he goes out of his way to patronise me every time I say anything. It's childish, undeserved and ultimately only shows him up rather than his intended target.
|
|
|
Post by Scott J. on Oct 1, 2005 14:44:36 GMT
Richard, what are you trying to tell us, what do you know that we don't? I think he was just getting in another dig at me. For reasons known only to Richard, he goes out of his way to patronise me every time I say anything. It's childish, undeserved and ultimately only shows him up rather than his intended target. From your earlier post why doesn't the RT just tell us what was on the reel in question, was it blank or something non-Who? It is like there is a conspiracy to hush everything up.
|
|
|
Post by Richard Bignell on Oct 1, 2005 14:50:54 GMT
Oh, hello Richard. (sigh) Your inexplicable vendetta against me continues, I see. I don't have a vendetta against you, Jeff. That's another thing that's only in your mind. I've contacted the seller, provided Paul Venezis with their telephone number and he's spoken directly with the people concerned. The seller has openly provided details of the background to the material she has and arrangements are being made to double check the footage in the next few days. As a result more detail is known than the information given on eBay. Patience is a virtue as with time you end up getting the full information about a situation on which you can base an opinion. That's rather different to firing off broadsides that are baseless and innacurate. Richard
|
|