All Poster Forum
Movie Posters => Wanted => Topic started by: Rage1073 on October 16, 2014, 01:44:31 AM
-
Hi everyone,
Was wondering if anyone had a Clerks poster for sale
-
I moved it to the right section for you, so you're good to go, Rage.
-
Thabks a lot, much appreciated
-
Here is a poster for CLERKS. This is the advance or teaser one sheet.
http://www.movieart.com/clerks-1994-19778/
inquire kirby@movieart.com
(http://www.movieart.com/product_images/s/140/full.clerks-19778__08107.jpg)
-
Kirby is everywhere! nice stuff man.
Rage here is something that you may or may not like.
Signed by Kevin Smith.
Mounted on foam core, single owner, new tires... runs like a champ lol
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/56630616/APF/forRUM%20pikts/Clerks%20%20%282%29.JPG)
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/56630616/APF/forRUM%20pikts/Clerks%20%20%283%29.JPG)
-
Kirby is everywhere! nice stuff man.
Rage here is something that you may or may not like.
Signed by Kevin Smith.
Mounted on foam core, single owner, new tires... runs like a champ lol
I own the same Clerks II poster, just wondering why it was mounted on foam core? Isn't that rather taboo amongst collectors? On another note, I'm thrilled my Clerks poster is retailing for $125 these days!
-
I actually have a clerks 2 poster that I got signed by Rosario Dawson at SXSW. We had to do a job with her on a project for Google and we went out for drinks and stuff, it was pretty fun. Hoping to get my poster signed by Kevin Smith at Comikaze in a couple weeks
-
I actually have a clerks 2 poster that I got signed by Rosario Dawson at SXSW. We had to do a job with her on a project for Google and we went out for drinks and stuff, it was pretty fun. Hoping to get my poster signed by Kevin Smith at Comikaze in a couple weeks
thumbsup.gif Kevin is easily approachable, so it shouldn't be too difficult. Is he doing any of his live podcasts during that weekend? If so, you may be able to get autographs from Jay Mewes and Scott Mosier as well. If you bring the original Clerks poster, I see Marilyn Ghigliotti will be signing too.
-
I own the same Clerks II poster, just wondering why it was mounted on foam core? Isn't that rather taboo amongst collectors? On another note, I'm thrilled my Clerks poster is retailing for $125 these days!
Or sometimes you can get them for this: ;)
Clerks US OS (http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/711-53200-19255-0/1?icep_ff3=2&pub=5574860769&toolid=10001&campid=5337459134&customid=&icep_item=151432180368&ipn=psmain&icep_vectorid=229466&kwid=902099&mtid=824&kw=lg)
-
Or sometimes you can get them for this: ;)
Clerks US OS (http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/711-53200-19255-0/1?icep_ff3=2&pub=5574860769&toolid=10001&campid=5337459134&customid=&icep_item=151432180368&ipn=psmain&icep_vectorid=229466&kwid=902099&mtid=824&kw=lg)
Yeah, that seems more likely ;)
-
I own the same Clerks II poster, just wondering why it was mounted on foam core? Isn't that rather taboo amongst collectors? On another note, I'm thrilled my Clerks poster is retailing for $125 these days!
It was mounted when I worked at a promotions firm that did advance screenings of movies and had a Q&A.
I wish it wasn't mounted too. If it wasn't signed I wouldn't have kept it. I have about 5 posters that are signed and mounted. I guess I should soak it for a day or two.
-
Jason.. any idea what what was used to mount them? Just guessing here but i wouldnt be surprised if some kind of 77 spray adhesive might have been used. Those would be a bugger to get unmounted, I have a feeling. :-\
-
Jason.. any idea what what was used to mount them? Just guessing here but i wouldnt be surprised if some kind of 77 spray adhesive might have been used. Those would be a bugger to get unmounted, I have a feeling. :-\
It is could be a spray adhesive because I have seen the printer we used mount some in his shop for us. It could also have been a adhesive that was rolled onto the foam, seen it done their that way too (probably equally as bad. Neither approach are meant to be reversible. so its not water soluble? guessing a heat gun may not help either once the glue sets. I never looked into it just read a couple posts on APF in the past. I have about 15 others that are mounted from the same shop to test on first. Ill soak one of those to see what happens and let you know. maybe benzine is worth a try? i dunno.... Charlie or Dario whats the approach?
-
If it was a 77 Spray Adhesive made by 3M (or similar) i dont think these are water soluble.
Good luck with the soak test, in any case!
-
I ended up buying a legit one at Frank and sons for 40$ and it was nice and crisp so I'm going to take that one. He is doing a podcast the day im going which is saturday so I'm hoping to get it signed by as many of the cast members that are there as possible
-
I ended up buying a legit one at Frank and sons for 40$ and it was nice and crisp so I'm going to take that one. He is doing a podcast the day im going which is saturday so I'm hoping to get it signed by as many of the cast members that are there as possible
Which podcast? Ralph Garmin is also in town, so my guess is Hollywood BabbleOn will be recorded, but that's just those two.
Soaking the Clerks II poster - Please check with Dario or Charlie before doing that. I've asked about having autographed posters line backed in the past and was told the backer couldn't guarantee the signatures wouldn't be destroyed by the process. I think it was the deacidification process, but I'll let the experts chime in.
-
I ended up buying a legit one at Frank and sons for 40$ and it was nice and crisp so I'm going to take that one. He is doing a podcast the day im going which is saturday so I'm hoping to get it signed by as many of the cast members that are there as possible
This poster was reprinted like crazy at the time of release and they are all over the place. Just so you know...
-
Nice of you to chime in after Rage said he picked up a legit one, Jason. wynk You sound like Cinemasterpieces: "There are known reprints and/or reproductions of this poster."
-
The vast majority of these for sale are the reprints. He should still check it out regardless of where he is in the purchase cycle.
-
We could go to every thread, regarding numerous posters and say "there are known reprints..." That would be really silly, especially when most people here probably know how to tell if one is an original or not.
-
Rage, that signing sounds cool. I remember seeing Clerks when it was first released on video back in the day. It's a classic, and those guys seem like they're alright. cool1
-
We could go to every thread, regarding numerous posters and say "there are known reprints..." That would be really silly, especially when most people here probably know how to tell if one is an original or not.
Well, I didn't say that "there are know reprints", I said that it 'was reprinted like crazy', also, it (the commercial reprint) was sold some theaters at the time, which was highly unusual. All of which creates a higher than usual level of confusion regarding this poster...
I have no idea where Rage falls on the collector knowledge spectrum, so I just wanted to give him a heads up if he wasn't already aware. No harm, no foul if he's already up on this title and I'd rather err on the side of caution.
What business it is of yours is unclear...
-
Well, Jason, it's none of your business to tell a guy that "the vast majority of these for sale are the reprints," implying that his poster is probably a reprint, although he just said it's a legit one. The next time you make a claim like that, afterward just say "and I base that on absolutely nothing," or provide some statistical analysis that supports it.
-
It's ok guys, I'm 99% sure it's real, I haven't been doing it long but I have picked up a few "skillz" along these past couple years lol. Thanks for the concern though, if it turns out it isn't real then it's ok, it's not something I'm planning to ever sell or get rid of, love the movie and I'm looking forward to the experience of the con itself
-
Right on, Rage. cool1
-
Well, Jason, it's none of your business to tell a guy that "the vast majority of these for sale are the reprints," implying that his poster is probably a reprint, although he just said it's a legit one. The next time you make a claim like that, afterward just say "and I base that on absolutely nothing," or provide some statistical analysis that supports it.
rofl1 rofl1 rofl1 rofl1
This is the last comment that I'll make to you since you've decided to go full troll...
I don't have to justify jack shit to you. Go police someone else. Better yet, stay out unless you have something to actually ADD to the discussion. My comments were not to you or for you. You are carrying serious extra baggage into this thread (as you have in several other threads that I've posted) and I'm tired of your continued trolling.
I was 'implying' the need to double check this particular poster because it goes beyond the usual 'check for reprints' discussion. The reprint is very close to the original and since it was sold in theaters a number of people that have a poster that 'came from a theater', actually have a reprint, whether they know it or not. Even Kevin Smith himself was selling the reprints from his website - usually signed. The Stash only cared that they had something to sell. This was a poster that Dan R. checked into and Dave L. (Cinemasterpieces) bought his copies and wrote up the differences, but seems to have removed it from his website.
Sorry, but I'm going to have to keep the Clerks One Sheet regression analysis proprietary...
-
It's ok guys, I'm 99% sure it's real, I haven't been doing it long but I have picked up a few "skillz" along these past couple years lol. Thanks for the concern though, if it turns out it isn't real then it's ok, it's not something I'm planning to ever sell or get rid of, love the movie and I'm looking forward to the experience of the con itself
Very glad to hear. I love the movie also and saw it twice opening week - I had to bring a bunch of friends the second time... The con sounds like a good time...
-
Jason, you go into threads, and say how there are all these reprints for certain posters, and claim that the ones people have or are selling "may be reprints," yet you have done no authentications specifying the differences, and how to spot an original from the ones you claim to be reprints. Your regular jumping in on threads and saying "there are so many reprints of this poster and this one may be one of them," without actually explaining anything, is certainly not adding anything to the discussion. It would be a lot better if you start authentication threads, and actually provide something positive. When you mentioned the Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction 40x60s (39x55s) that were verified by several people as commercial posters, that was good info. http://stylec.yuku.com/topic/5750/Real-Fake-or-Real-Fake-Bruce-Posteritati#.VEWDf8ntiMU (http://stylec.yuku.com/topic/5750/Real-Fake-or-Real-Fake-Bruce-Posteritati#.VEWDf8ntiMU)
-
.
-
I'm curious as to wether or not there is a website where they show the slight differences between authentic and fake movie posters. That would be something cool to have as a tool
-
There have been a number of attempts and a ton of discussion on all of the forums, past & present...
http://movieposterauthenticating.com/wordpress/ (http://movieposterauthenticating.com/wordpress/)
http://moviepostercollectors.com/Authentications.html (http://moviepostercollectors.com/Authentications.html)
Dave L has some info buried on his site (cinemasterpieces.com) as well.
-
Wow I almost bid on a copy of this on the bay a few weeks ago. My spidey sense prevented me from doing so, for the reasons outlined in this thread (unilingual french, with english printing info at the bottom)
Could have used this to stick it to the seller. Would ebay/paypal have "protected me" if I had asked for a refund? What if the seller sells "as is"?
http://moviepostercollectors.com/MPC_Authentication_Belgian_Forbidden_Planet.html
-
Yeah, the moviepostercollectors website Jason mentioned is good, as it shows the subtle differences between easily recognizable reprints, such as the Inception Imax one sheet, and originals. Some posters are much less easily recognized as being reprints or originals, and there are several examples of those also, at both websites Jason mentioned.
For this Clerks one sheet, Jason claims there are reprints that are “very close to the originals,” “the vast majority of these for sale are the reprints,” and “a number of people that have a poster that 'came from a theater', actually have a reprint.” That is spreading FUD - fear, uncertainty, and doubt, especially since Jason has not specified any of the differences between originals and the reprints that he claims are “very close to the originals.” That is the most blatant FUD I've seen on any poster, anywhere, and that’s including all the FUD lines from the Cinemasterpieces listings.
-
Wow I almost bid on a copy of this on the bay a few weeks ago. My spidey sense prevented me from doing so, for the reasons outlined in this thread (unilingual french, with english printing info at the bottom)
Could have used this to stick it to the seller. Would ebay/paypal have "protected me" if I had asked for a refund? What if the seller sells "as is"?
http://moviepostercollectors.com/MPC_Authentication_Belgian_Forbidden_Planet.html
Paypal, probably, if it was listed in the original category. If it was listed the reproductions section you'd be screwed.
-
Yeah, the moviepostercollectors website Jason mentioned is good, as it shows the subtle differences between easily recognizable reprints, such as the Inception Imax one sheet, and originals. Some posters are much less easily recognized as being reprints or originals, and there are several examples of those also, at both websites Jason mentioned.
For this Clerks one sheet, Jason claims there are reprints that are “very close to the originals,” “the vast majority of these for sale are the reprints,” and “a number of people that have a poster that 'came from a theater', actually have a reprint.” That is spreading FUD - fear, uncertainty, and doubt, especially since Jason has not specified any of the differences between originals and the reprints that he claims are “very close to the originals.” That is the most blatant FUD I've seen on any poster, anywhere, and that’s including all the FUD lines from the Cinemasterpieces listings.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v637/archieleach/clerksatcinemasterpieces_zpse7513b5a.jpg)
I only post this as an example since he had a write up on the differences on his website. If you have questions about them then go ask him yourself you lazy douchebag troll...
-
I'm curious as to wether or not there is a website where they show the slight differences between authentic and fake movie posters. That would be something cool to have as a tool
I should mention that part of the problem with having these sites, is that the bootleggers/reprinters were using them to make better fakes - it was part of the reason that Dan R. shut down his site, which was the grandfather of the current authentication sites.
-
Paypal, probably, if it was listed in the original category. If it was listed the reproductions section you'd be screwed.
Despite the endless trolling of a blathering idiot,
Jason, the claims you made that I quoted above, as well as your personal attacks on me, are the biggest troll comments one could make on a poster forum.
Why would you say all that about the Clerks poster here, and not do any authentications, to make a positive contribution? It's clear why Cinemasterpieces says things like "there are known reprints...," and various other FUD statements in their listings.
Why you would make all those claims here, and in such a way, is unclear, unless those are your one sheets on consignment at Cinemasterpieces, or you are unwilling to do the write up yourself.
Are you saying that because "bootleggers/reprinters" can make better fakes if one were to specifically detail how to spot an original from a reprint, that's why you're not sharing that info.? If that's the case, why are you posting links to authentication sites?
Would you tell people through private messages how to spot a reprint or original Clerks one sheet, or any other that you allegedly know about? Cinemasterpieces actually has a big section about how they don't authenticate posters for people by phone or email, and the only time they authenticate posters is when people are sending them in to sell or put on consignment.
-
Jason, the claims you made that I quoted above, as well as your personal attacks on me, are the biggest troll comments one could make on a poster forum.
Why would you say all that about the Clerks poster here, and not do any authentications, to make a positive contribution? It's clear why Cinemasterpieces says things like "there are known reprints...," and various other FUD statements in their listings.
Why you would make all those claims here, and in such a way, is unclear, unless those are your one sheets on consignment at Cinemasterpieces, or you are unwilling to do the write up yourself.
Are you saying that because "bootleggers/reprinters" can make better fakes if one were to specifically detail how to spot an original from a reprint, that's why you're not sharing that info.? If that's the case, why are you posting links to authentication sites?
Would you tell people through private messages how to spot a reprint or original Clerks one sheet, or any other that you allegedly know about? Cinemasterpieces actually has a big section about how they don't authenticate posters for people.
Because I do not own both an original and a reprint of Clerks. You know, the two things necessary to make such a comparison. I never needed to because both Dan and Dave did go through the process (these discussions are now lost with the disappearance of the Movie Poster Talk forum history). If I knew, offhand, the specific differences then I would have mentioned them at the beginning. Sorry, if I forgot to memorize every little thing they ever did, you pedantic ass.
I'm sure if you or some other newbie sent Dave a PM that he'd be able to help you out. He may have some questionable sales tactics, but he's not a dick.
I am conveying the general history of this poster that has been discussed on these forums, in detail, since their inception. It is up the INDIVIDUAL to do THEIR own work or make THEIR own choice as to how beneficial this history is and decide how THEY want to proceed.
Who the fuck are YOU to decide what is and what is and what isn't a positive contribution to this forum?...
BTW, anyone who continually uses the personal name of someone on these boards who doesn't publicly go by that name is passive-aggressively broaching standard netiquette and, as such, constitues a personal attack and is acting in a douchebag fashion. But you know this, which is why you are doing it on purpose. So go fuck yourself...
-
Like I said, you're just spreading FUD, and launching personal attacks. The biggest troll things one can do. Great contribution! thumbsup.gif
-
Like I thought, you have nothing... What a sad joke...
Seriously, who the fuck are YOU to decide what is and what is and what isn't a positive contribution to this forum?...
-
BTW, anyone who continually uses the personal name of someone on these boards who doesn't publicly go by that name is passive-aggressively broaching standard netiquette and, as such, is acting in a douchebag fashion. But you know this, which is why you are doing it on purpose. So go fuck yourself...
Isn't Jason your name in real life? If it really bothers you that much that I call you that, why didn't you say something?
Thanks for the lesson on "netiquette." I appreciate the advice from someone who is so polite and friendly online. thumbup
-
eyeroll
-
Woah! Don't worry guys it's all good. I appreciate the effort of both of you guys. We should be calm though and discuss this like the gentlemanly poster collectors we are. I may not have that many posters but I feel welcome in this forum and hopefully we can keep it classy. I was just curious about the info on the poster because I wanted to show you guys a picture of what I got and see what you guys think.
-
I hear ya, Rage, and you're welcome.
Did you meet a lot of the guys from the movie at the signing?
-
Not yet, it's this Saturday and hopefully I can get at least Kevin Smiths autograph on it.
Here's what it looks like
(http://i1291.photobucket.com/albums/b555/g_1073/0BFF2FD0-7C28-4EA6-90B3-9AC0C6F48540_zps4gnsghrt.jpg) (http://s1291.photobucket.com/user/g_1073/media/0BFF2FD0-7C28-4EA6-90B3-9AC0C6F48540_zps4gnsghrt.jpg.html)
(http://i1291.photobucket.com/albums/b555/g_1073/BCD5836E-CBEE-459A-BEFB-39FEBB3E1A98_zpsr7rkgjt0.jpg) (http://s1291.photobucket.com/user/g_1073/media/BCD5836E-CBEE-459A-BEFB-39FEBB3E1A98_zpsr7rkgjt0.jpg.html)
(http://i1291.photobucket.com/albums/b555/g_1073/6C256276-E9AF-4BFE-AAC9-017C8EDDE807_zpspuempdgn.jpg) (http://s1291.photobucket.com/user/g_1073/media/6C256276-E9AF-4BFE-AAC9-017C8EDDE807_zpspuempdgn.jpg.html)
(http://i1291.photobucket.com/albums/b555/g_1073/6813A925-FB04-42B7-8945-D66A2DE0B27A_zpsfjsrtox0.jpg) (http://s1291.photobucket.com/user/g_1073/media/6813A925-FB04-42B7-8945-D66A2DE0B27A_zpsfjsrtox0.jpg.html)
(http://i1291.photobucket.com/albums/b555/g_1073/1C59403D-5CEF-46A9-85AA-D23D0DA07A9D_zps8a1fkfff.jpg) (http://s1291.photobucket.com/user/g_1073/media/1C59403D-5CEF-46A9-85AA-D23D0DA07A9D_zps8a1fkfff.jpg.html)
-
Woah! Don't worry guys it's all good. I appreciate the effort of both of you guys. We should be calm though and discuss this like the gentlemanly poster collectors we are. I may not have that many posters but I feel welcome in this forum and hopefully we can keep it classy. I was just curious about the info on the poster because I wanted to show you guys a picture of what I got and see what you guys think.
This is a continuation from other threads and just happens to have blossomed here and is not really related to you or your poster. Although, I don't see what 'efforts' Neo has contributed other than his persistent and continued trolling, disingenuousness, and insistence that the APF conform to his myopic world view. He has no information about this poster whatsoever...
As for your poster, I believe that the size of the poster is the touch point, with originals just a smidge bigger. What those measurement actually are I don't recall. Maybe, if I'd known that there would be a test... eyeroll
Since you're getting it signed anyway, I would try to get them to place their autographs in spots that don't take way from the image... Also, I would PM Dave (he's listed on here) if you want to be sure. Best of luck and enjoy the show...
-
He has no information about this poster whatsoever...
The information you have is:
1. "there are VERY GOOD reproductions/reprints" of it. thumbsup.gif
2. "if you want to know how to spot one, ask Dave at Cinemasterpieces," although his website specifically says he doesn't authenticate posters for people unless people are selling them or consigning them there. thumbsup.gif
3. A statistic - "the vast majority of these for sale are the reprints," which is most likely based on absolutely nothing. thumbsup.gif
Dave's stock in his Clerks one sheets probably just skyrocketed thanks to the FUD you've spread here. Good work! thumbsup.gif
-
Regarding your one sheet, Rage.
Although I don't know the specifics of the alleged "very good" repros of this one, with most repros, the few things you want to look for are:
1. The size - if it's off by more than about 1/16" or so, that may raise a red flag.
2. The sharpness of the images and especially the text - if they're extremely fuzzy, like the Inception IMAX one sheet on MPC, that may raise a red flag. It looks like you even have a magnifying glass to check that, so that's cool.
3. The double-sided posters are generally easier to spot whether they're repros or not, for reasons mentioned on MPC and elsewhere, but this one was only made single-sided, so that doesn't apply to this one, of course.
4. The cropping, which on this one would be very difficult to tell since the white extends far in from the borders.
5. The colors - which can be very difficult to distinguish an original from a repro, unless they're side by side.
6. The paper - if it feels and smells right for the age of it - something you just know after seeing a lot of originals.
Frankly, I wouldn't worry about it. If most of the above look pretty good, then there's likely a high probability that it's an original.
Have fun at the party. cool1
-
Frankly, I wouldn't worry about it. If most of the above look pretty good, then there's likely a high probability that it's an original.
This is a horrible conclusion for this poster. In general, those are the things to look, but this is not a normal case.
These were commercial reprints sold at the time of the original release and were even available for purchase in some theaters (kind of like the 50th Anniversary Casablanca, except in that case the commercial posters had a different image than the theatrical one sheet - so there is no confusion).
The reprint for this flooded the market to fill the gap left because, at the time, Miramax was still printing very tight runs (compared with the much larger studio runs). This changed with Pulp Fiction and the Disney takeover...
Dave, when asked on these forums, usually steps up and helps out. Heck try and find Dan R. he might still have his notes on it.
-
I see what you mean, and despite all the stuff you've said about the alleged "very good" repros, I still think that a commercial reprint would be distinguishable from an original, by many people who have knowledge with this stuff. It might not be the most easily spotted, but we have to look at potential repros for all posters, and differentiate between them based on facts and/or certain methods.
The scientific part of me looks at some of these statements in this thread, and I weigh them based on their validity. I have reviewed and done several studies, and each one has some level of reliability, validity, etc. With that said, I appreciate the history of this stuff, and in this case, you sharing some of the history here.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. deadhorse
-
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.
-
That is a very interesting and compelling look at those Pulp Fiction regular one sheets. Good work from y'all. sm1
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.
-
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.
-
Bingo. And no worries... It's all good thumbup
-
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
-
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
-
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...
-
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...
;D
-
;D ;D >:D
-
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...
-
Damn really? That sucks. Seems like it's damn near impossible to get a legit one then
-
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.
-
Unless Bruce got a special roll from somewhere, then I'd bet a good portion of these prove to be the reprints
uhno
-
^^^^^^ word ^^^^^^^
-
Maybe he will rejoin now. ;)
-
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...
-
So now what do I do? Can I email him to ask? Now I want to know lol.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Do you have an original for comparison? I thought I remember reading earlier in the thread that you did, but that you didn't have both...
-
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.
...
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.
eMovie would do what they've done in the past. Contact anyone who bought one and ask them to check their poster and then find a way to 'make it right' if there ends up being a problem. It is one of Bruce's best customer service tactics.
No one went to further lengths to check out posters than Dan. He is the reason that the term 'minty white' has meaning in the hobby and that Luke's hairy belt became a bad thing. The silliness above is better suited to Fox News and Rasmussen polls...
I, also, would never spend money on any poster from Dave's site, but only because his prices are 'advanced'... but, I also like to know what I have if only purely from a knowledge standpoint.
-
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.
Archie Leach, you can say I'm trolling you, but the fact is, you didn't provide any kind of potentially useful info. until I questioned your claims here. Frankly, your claims without any kind of evidence behind them are clearly FUD statements. Furthermore, all the scientific analysis info. you've mentioned here is from someone else, making your claims hearsay. Your statistical conclusions are laughable at best. The fact that you're calling anyone a troll, given your way of presenting this info. and how you deal with someone who is questioning you, is absurd. If you want to make FUD claims, that's your prerogative, and it's my prerogative from someone with a science background to question them. If you can't handle that, that's your problem.
-
Do you have an original for comparison? I thought I remember reading earlier in the thread that you did, but that you didn't have both...
I have one that I paid so little for that I'm 99% sure is a reprint (the story from the seller, which matched my personal knowledge and her sales history was that she had a bunch left over from the attempted in theater sales). I was super busy at the time and didn't have time to compare versions. It's been in storage, 3,000 miles away since. I'm actually empting the storage unit in the next couple of weeks and shipping most of the stuff back to Seattle, reuniting my collection for the first time in ten years.
Heck, I would much rather that these are all original because then that would mean that mine was too.
-
eMovie would do what they've done in the past. Contact anyone who bought one and ask them to check their poster and then find a way to 'make it right' if there ends up being a problem. It is one of Bruce's best customer service tactics.
No one went to further lengths to check out posters than Dan. He is the reason that the term 'minty white' has meaning in the hobby and that Luke's hairy belt became a bad thing. The silliness above is better suited to Fox News and Rasmussen polls...
I, also, would never spend money on any poster from Dave's site, but only because his prices are 'advanced'... but, I also like to know what I have if only purely from a knowledge standpoint.
I know who Dan is and I've heard about all the studies he did, and I appreciate his efforts. Frankly, without reviewing his work, I'm not one to just go along with all the info. you've presented here about these Clerks one sheets, for various reasons.
-
Archie Leach, you can say I'm trolling you, but the fact is, you didn't provide any kind of potentially useful info. until I questioned your claims here. Frankly, your claims without any kind of evidence behind them are clearly FUD statements. Furthermore, all the scientific analysis info. you've mentioned here is from someone else, making your claims hearsay. Your statistical conclusions are laughable at best. The fact that you're calling anyone a troll, given your way of presenting this info. and how you deal with someone who is questioning you, is absurd. If you want to make FUD claims, that's your prerogative, and it's my prerogative from someone with a science background to question them. If you can't handle that, that's your problem.
Dude, go do you own research. For all of his bluster, at least Mel went out an educated himself on the general history of the hobby. You don't know Jack. Most all of the things that I mentioned here have been mentioned and discussed, multiple times on these boards. I'm sorry that I didn't hand hold you through a cluster analysis of every Clerk poster ever made... feel free to do one yourself.
Your definition of what is and what is not relevant information is utterly laughable. What we are actually talking about, instead of statistics, is confidence - and estimated confidence at that.
When you become grand ruler of the world, then we will have to give a shit about your incredibly and universally uniformed opinion...
Seriously, get lost, you are only unnecessarily muddying the topic with your spewed idiocy of ludicrous expectation presented under a quise of 'science'.
BTW, unless you have a PhD in statistics, then I am supremely confident that I have more experience in the field than you...
Now, go FUD yourself...
-
I know who Dan is and I've heard about all the studies he did, and I appreciate his efforts. Frankly, without reviewing his work, I'm not one to just go along with all the info. you've presented here about these Clerks one sheets, for various reasons.
This says everything about you and your failings...
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v637/archieleach/LocoNeo_zps13fdea74.jpg)
-
Dude, go do you own research. For all of his bluster, at least Mel went out an educated himself on the general history of the hobby. You don't know Jack. Most all of the things that I mentioned here have been mentioned and discussed, multiple times on these boards. I'm sorry that I didn't hand hold you through a cluster analysis of every Clerk poster ever made... feel free to do one yourself.
Your definition of what is and what is not relevant information is utterly laughable. What we are actually talking about, instead of statistics, is confidence - and estimated confidence at that.
When you become grand ruler of the world, then we will have to give a shit about your incredibly and universally uniformed opinion...
Seriously, get lost, you are only unnecessarily muddying the topic with your spewed idiocy of ludicrous expectation presented under a quise of 'science'.
BTW, unless you have a PhD in statistics, then I am supremely confident that I have more experience in the field than you...
Now, go FUD yourself...
Make me.
Your FUD and your personal attacks define you, Jason.
No more food for you.
(http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx303/NeoLoco80/Posters/dontfeedtroll_zps63095262.jpg) (http://s766.photobucket.com/user/NeoLoco80/media/Posters/dontfeedtroll_zps63095262.jpg.html)
-
yup... just being a dick to be a dick... one might say that is the definition of being a troll.
To bad that you can't see some gray in your black and white world.
I'm done...
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v637/archieleach/loconeo2_zpse05aa726.jpg)
-
To bad that you can't see some gray in your black and white world.
I'm done...
People like you really bring places like this down a few notches, and are one of the main reasons why so many folks don't participate online.
Getting back to posters, movies, and the spirit of the day, happy Halloween!
-
had to search what "FUD" meant.
I live with it.
-
Are you guys calling each other Elmer Fud" lol
I did some tease tach on it and I did find different versions of the same poster. The thing was that the others were -x36"
Other than that I could not find anything on reprints
-
Yeah, the size difference we are talking about are down to less than an inch, in all likelihood. Slight color difference in the printing might be another sign. I have a vague recollection that there were two 'indicators' to check...
Here's one listed at full size. No idea if these are from the same printing or later...https://www.movieposter.com/poster/A70-9043/Clerks.html
-
had to search what "FUD" meant.
I live with it.
Sorry to hear that, Ari. I hope everything goes well for you.
Yeah, the size difference we are talking about are down to less than an inch, in all likelihood. Slight color difference in the printing might be another sign. I have a vague recollection that there were two 'indicators' to check...
Here's one listed at full size. No idea if these are from the same printing or later...https://www.movieposter.com/poster/A70-9043/Clerks.html
(http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx303/NeoLoco80/Posters/clapping_zpsbkqteo02.gif) (http://s766.photobucket.com/user/NeoLoco80/media/Posters/clapping_zpsbkqteo02.gif.html)
-
Yes and it took 5 seconds to type 'clerks reprint movie poster' in google... use it, it's your friend.
-
Yes and it took 5 seconds to type 'clerks reprint movie poster' in google... use it, it's your friend.
(http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx303/NeoLoco80/Posters/brilliantc_zps428ac647.jpg) (http://s766.photobucket.com/user/NeoLoco80/media/Posters/brilliantc_zps428ac647.jpg.html)
-
Woo! got it signed by smith and
Wasn't easy but I got it done
(http://i1291.photobucket.com/albums/b555/g_1073/7139F46D-F019-4EEC-9BDF-356501D626B3_zpssiew2cpf.jpg) (http://s1291.photobucket.com/user/g_1073/media/7139F46D-F019-4EEC-9BDF-356501D626B3_zpssiew2cpf.jpg.html)
-
Congrats!
And what is the stuffed, blue thing with yellow eyes, sitting right above said poster? ;D
-
Cool, rage. cool1 Whose auto is that next to Mr. Smith's?
-
Haha the stuffed thing is a Snorlax I bought. It's a pokemon.
The other autograph is Marilyn Ghigliotti who played Veronica in the movie aka the Girl at the bottom center of the poster
-
Nice sigs and Snorlax... thumbsup.gif
Does Smith just sign with just his initials? It almost looks like 3 letters... is that right?
-
Right on. cool1
-
Yea he just wrote a K with a dash and then his last name with an S and another continuing dash to a T. I dont know if it makes sense but yea. He signed only a few things because his panel went past the time it was supposed to. I had to wait for him at the exit to get it. His panel was pretty fun, Burt Ward showed up and told everyone stories about his time as Robin.
-
Sounds like a good time....and you got what you went for. That's all that matters. ;)
-
Haha the stuffed thing is a Snorlax I bought. It's a pokemon.
The other autograph is Marilyn Ghigliotti who played Veronica in the movie aka the Girl at the bottom center of the poster
37...
In a row?
-
At least I wasnt 38
-
Glad you got it Rage! Best of luck on the quest to get the other sigs. I met a guy at one of Kevin's shows who had ALL the signatures of the cast on a VHS of Clerks. That includes peripheral people like Kevin's mom (The Milkmaid) and Ernie O'Donnell (Rick Derris). Quite awesome to behold.
For those asking about Kevins signature, yes, that is what it looks like. I have a few things signed by him, both in person and from the Stash and they are all very similar.
-
Ditto. The poster I had him sign (posted earlier in the thread) as well is just initials.
-
Here are a few other original Clerks posters.
The video release:
(http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx303/NeoLoco80/Posters/clerksvideo_zpsbe376d32.jpg) (http://s766.photobucket.com/user/NeoLoco80/media/Posters/clerksvideo_zpsbe376d32.jpg.html)
The video release of the animated series: (there's one on eBay now)
(http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx303/NeoLoco80/Posters/clerksanimated_zpsa3b2762a.jpg) (http://s766.photobucket.com/user/NeoLoco80/media/Posters/clerksanimated_zpsa3b2762a.jpg.html)
From Germany:
(http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx303/NeoLoco80/Posters/clerksgerman_zps876be2c7.jpg) (http://s766.photobucket.com/user/NeoLoco80/media/Posters/clerksgerman_zps876be2c7.jpg.html)
They are originals...
(http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx303/NeoLoco80/Posters/83344465_zpswk6cnzpt.gif) (http://s766.photobucket.com/user/NeoLoco80/media/Posters/83344465_zpswk6cnzpt.gif.html)
-
May not be the best place for this, but since this is the only thread for Clerks ...
Here's another original Clerks poster. This one is for the soundtrack release.
(http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx303/NeoLoco80/Posters/clerkssoundtrack_zpsxwavqx1r.jpg) (http://s766.photobucket.com/user/NeoLoco80/media/Posters/clerkssoundtrack_zpsxwavqx1r.jpg.html)
Interesting that they cropped Kevin Smith from the image.