Fake stills

[Tang Lung in Rome]

Sometimes I wonder.....bought a Monroe SYI still and it smelled more like 70s vintage than 55 vintage , even a Batman 66 still smelled more vintage. Unless theres markings on the back it can be difficult to determine legitness.

[Moviemonstermuseum]

Try gently rubbing your fingers on the back of a known reprint still and a known vintage still. The reprint still will feel much more smooth. Then compare the feel of the back of your questionable still. Also, a 1950's still may have silvering around the edges
Dennis

[erik1925]

Sometimes I wonder.....bought a Monroe SYI still and it smelled more like 70s vintage than 55 vintage , even a Batman 66 still smelled more vintage. Unless theres markings on the back it can be difficult to determine legitness.

Tang, what does 70s vintage smell like, compared to 1955 vintage, when it comes to stills? Is one more acidic smelling? Or something else?

[jayn_j]

I have posted this several times now.

Kodak went from a paper based photo paper to a poly based RC paper in 1978.  That is the telling point.

There are some minor differences in how the paper base was constructed after WW2, and definitely differences before 1920.

Original prints will have a glossy surface.  This is because the newspapers and lithographers required a glossy original in order to make printing plates.

But, when you get right down to it on stills, the only 'original' is the negative.  All the prints are derived from that negative.

[erik1925]

Yes, but Tang was talking about a difference in the smell, with some being more "vintage" smelling than others.

I was curious what he meant by 'smell' when it comes to stills, and not photo paper's appearance (glossy, matte etc), since many of us know and can relate to that vintage smell of older movie poster paper.

[jayn_j]

Yes, but Tang was talking about a difference in the smell, with some being more "vintage" smelling than others.

I was curious what he meant by 'smell' when it comes to stills, and not photo paper's appearance (glossy, matte etc), since many of us know and can relate to that vintage smell of older movie poster paper.

OK, but stills are always going to smell different.  It is a photographic process instead of litho.  The chemicals have a distinctive smell and often depend on the thoroughness of the rinse bath.  The smell of the hypo fixing bath can linger for years.  Being the son of a photographer, I have many old prints lying around.  Each has a slightly different odor.

Going back to the RC paper that started being used in 1978, that base is not absorbent, so the only lingering odor comes from what is trapped in the emulsion layer.  Hopefully that was washed clean, so there should be less odor from later paper.  At any rate, the look and feel of the newer stock is immediately obvious, and that is what I would use to distinguish.  And that is what Tang was really asking.

[erik1925]

Thanks for the info, Jay.

Yes, photographic prints will smell different than paper, and, yes, the 2 print processes are very different.

I was more making the point that those of us that collect older posters are familiar with that vintage paper smell and was wanting Tang's observation on how his older photographic prints smelled differently (more vintage) than newer ones.

Maybe he will come back soon and fill us all in.

[Tang Lung in Rome]

Some 007 AVTAK stills (photo based paper) I bought had stronger odour than usual but then I bought from another dealer and those had same smell so I guess they're legit.