In need of Clerks Poster

[Neo]

As an edit to my last comment, to clarify and not add to the FUD here, I think it's safe to say that "many people who have knowledge with this stuff" could spot a Clerks reprint, meaning many people other than Dave or Dan, who own and/or have seen original posters from around that time.  If Cinemasterpieces is the only seller who can spot an original poster such as this, everyone would be spending $500 for a Pretty Woman one sheet, etc.

[archie leach]

Yes, if they had a 100% certain original, which Dan R. went to extreme measures to insure.  Which is why him or Dave are the best options.  Most people who have knowledge of these thing probably can't, unless they had multiple copies and/or got lucky... Most of the usual tell-tale signs do not apply with this poster/reprint.

[Neo]

Yes, if they had a 100% certain original, which Dan R. went to extreme measures to insure.  Which is why him or Dave are the best options.  Most people who have knowledge of these thing probably can't, unless they had multiple copies and/or got lucky... Most of the usual tell-tale signs do not apply with this poster/reprint.

I disagree with you.  We could carry on talking about scientific facts, methods, sales tactics, and various other things, but let's not. 

[Harry Caul]

I'm confused about the "disagree" part Neo... are you saying that a Clerks restrike might not exist?  Or are you saying you would be able to spot the restrike if you bought one? 

I know the PF regular has a VERY good restrike with no easy tells.  Definitely not something you could spot via shitty eBay sales photos.  Even if you had one in person you likely would never know it unless an original was side by side.  We discuss that poster here, where I posted two color-matched high resolution images for comparison: http://www.allposterforum.com/index.php/topic,3897.0.html  If the Clerks restrike is that good it would likely be even harder to spot given the sparse use of graphics/colors for comparison... 

I too have been a bit wary of Archie's confidence regarding potential bootlegs in the past -- but at the same time I do appreciate knowing they are out there. 

[Neo]

That is a very interesting and compelling look at those Pulp Fiction regular one sheets.  Good work from y'all. 

I could go into detail about scientific methods, statistical methods, and various other things, and how they relate to this thread and my viewpoint on everything here, but I've said enough here, and I really don't want to keep stirring the pot.

[archie leach]

I too have been a bit wary of Archie's confidence regarding potential bootlegs in the past -- but at the same time I do appreciate knowing they are out there. 

FYI, I am assuming that this is a reference to the Blade Runner thread of long ago.  Many of my thoughts on that poster were of a speculative nature (and I was clear to say so at the time), while Clerks is more direct, as I was working at a theater at the time and was on the lookout for a (real) poster for the film for quite some time afterwards... Many of my comments here about Clerks are based on first hand knowledge.

[Harry Caul]

Bingo. And no worries... It's all good

[Rage1073]

So the guy that got the poster for me told me he ordered it for me from eMovieposter.com

They're legit right? I've never purchased from there but I have used it for prices and such

[erik1925]

Yes, emovie is legit, but it all comes down to what the copies that were consigned and auctioned to them were. You could also email bruce and ask if he has any further info, as well.

emovie has sold 23 rolled (unfolded) copies of this and all are described to be first release advances. None are indicated as later reprints.

http://www.emovieposter.com/agallery/film_title/CLERKS/style/UF/sort/14/archive.html

[Crazy Vick]

So the guy that got the poster for me told me he ordered it for me from eMovieposter.com

They're legit right? I've never purchased from there but I have used it for prices and such

Ugh ya...stay away fron emovieposter...whatever you do don't put a credit card number on file... And if you do for the love of god run off into the woods on tues, thurs, and sundays...

[CSM]

Ugh ya...stay away fron emovieposter...whatever you do don't put a credit card number on file... And if you do for the love of god run off into the woods on tues, thurs, and sundays...

 

[erik1925]

 

[archie leach]

Yes, emovie is legit, but it all comes down to what the copies that were consigned and auctioned to them were. You could also email bruce and ask if he has any further info, as well.

emovie has sold 23 rolled (unfolded) copies of this and all are described to be first release advances. None are indicated as later reprints.

http://www.emovieposter.com/agallery/film_title/CLERKS/style/UF/sort/14/archive.html

The reprints were not later, they were at the same time as the original (they are all advances as there is only one poster for the release).  Unless Bruce got a special roll from somewhere, then I'd bet a good portion of these prove to be the reprints - Bruce's size measurements seem too vague to be of use.  I doubt that this title ever came to Bruce's attention. Would not be the first time this has happened.  At least, he stands by his service should any of these prove to be reprints, so no worries there.

Actually, it looks like he has sold 36 of them, assuming the not pictured ones were unfolded, which is highly likely...

[Rage1073]

Damn really? That sucks. Seems like it's damn near impossible to get a legit one then

[archie leach]

Damn really? That sucks. Seems like it's damn near impossible to get a legit one then

Just to clarify, with the emovie we just don't know.  Bruce usually catches most of the standard reprints, but he doesn't include any extra info in these descriptions that he usually would if that was the case (like precise measurements or mentioning the reprint and saying why these are the real deal as he usually does).  Until you can get some more precise info, then you just won't know.

[Neo]

Unless Bruce got a special roll from somewhere, then I'd bet a good portion of these prove to be the reprints

 

[Rage1073]

^^^^^^ word ^^^^^^^

[Ari]

Maybe he will rejoin now.

[archie leach]

Other things like this have happened in the past.  Bruce found out years after the fact that he sold a whole bunch of re-release French 1 panel as original release over the course of many years.  He stepped up and took care of every issue since he started selling (he went back 10 years or so)...

As for 'the special roll theory' (which can and does happen), I'd say it's a rather small chance that that is the case.  Otherwise, if these came from a bunch of different consigners, then it's just a matter of how many of the 36 are reprints.  

And the answer ain't gonna be zero unless Bruce was watching for the reprint since the beginning and his auction listings do not suggest that he was.  It will be lucky to be less than 10 reprints and my money would be on the majority being reprints...

[Rage1073]

So now what do I do? Can I email him to ask? Now I want to know lol.

[Neo]

If you want the info. from Dan's study, it would be best to get as much info. about the study, including how it was conducted, etc., directly from Dan.  Personally, if I wanted to know how much weight it holds, I would determine how accurate it is, based on various factors.  One would also need that info. to determine how many (if any) of the Clerks one sheets that eMovie sold were the alleged repros.  In this case, I doubt that eMovie took highly detailed photos, measurements, and everything that would differentiate the alleged original from the alleged repro., if they are that close.

You also have to wonder how important it is to have an alleged original alleged versus one of the alleged "very good" repros.  If they're that close to the same, is it that important to you?  In 50 or 100 years or whatever, are people really going to look at the work that Dan allegedly did to determine which is the alleged original and which is the alleged repro., and are they going to put a significant premium on one or the other?

In this case, getting signatures on it might make it less desirable for people who prefer mint originals, and if you decide to sell it at some point in the future, it may not matter to a lot of people whether it's an original or a repro.  A lot of people who are into autographs get items based on the autograph and not whether the item that the autograph is on is an authentic original or not.

Like I said before, personally, I wouldn't worry about it.  I also wouldn't spend 10+ times more for something, from Cinemasterpieces or anyone else, for the sake of buying it from someone who supposedly has information that is not readily available to the public, but that's another topic.

[Rage1073]

No I'm not selling and no I'm not going to die if I can't find out if it's legit or not. But you guys have indeed piqued my interest and what is and isn't repro. It's more in the education aspect more than anything. I can take high def pictures and can get measurements and stuff.

[erik1925]

The question I have in all of this discussion that was had between Neo and Archie is this: were these later copies actually additional reprints run off to satisfy the demand? Arch, you mentioned that these reprints were available at theaters. Or were the actual reproductions produced by someone else, not associated with the film?

To me, a reproduction would be something done later, well after the fact? Made often to deceive, unless printed undersize. Or maybe im wrong here.

Cheers, guys.

[jayn_j]

No I'm not selling and no I'm not going to die if I can't find out if it's legit or not. But you guys have indeed piqued my interest and what is and isn't repro. It's more in the education aspect more than anything. I can take high def pictures and can get measurements and stuff.

This has reached the slippery slope in my mind.  A poster distributed during the original release from a theater showing the poster that has exactly the same image as a legitimate one and may or may not have distinguishing features (nobody is sure), and we have spent multiple pages discussing whether it might be a reprint, or something else illegitimate.

Yet we accept fan club editions of films like BTTF or Star Wars as 'legitimate' and assign values close to those given for theatrically shown items.

We are splitting some very fine hairs here.

[archie leach]

and may or may not have distinguishing features (nobody is sure)

This is not correct.  There absolutely are differences.  I believe that it's a size/cropping difference, at a minimum.  Dan R. had a full write up about them. Dave L. did them same. (For those that do not know - pretty much everything on Mel's site regarding Authentication, as helpful as it is, is a pale imitation of what Dan did and Dan was FAR more careful about sourcing his originals.  That there is confusion on this point is exactly why Neo's endless trolling in thread has been detrimental.

It's a commercial reprint that happened at the time of opening, to be sold to the public via in theater and other channels.  The original one sheets were sent to theaters and for theatrical use a bit before opening, so, yes, there is a very slight and relatively meaningless time difference. 

At the time (1994), Miramax was testing out different way to make cash via posters.  They sold a ton of 'original' posters for The Crow directly to comic shops to the point that they were having difficulty getting them to theaters.

I've never considered Fan club issues or Killian's as anything other than commercial prints, which are relatively  worthless (to me).

The difference is whether or not these things were intended to be used in a theater and in some form of advertising context.