Inception IMAX Fake/Reprint Post Sold By tloceposters

[Dread_Pirate_Mel]

Anthony/Disheveledamethyst passed this reprint Inception to me for comparison to my DS original.   (Tom Loce did refund him the full amount and claimed his supplier had given him a reprint without his knowledge.)

Any experienced collector would instantly recognize it as a reprint because the text is clearly very fuzzy and out-of-focus.  The Warner Logo is ridiculously fuzzy.  The title is red on the reprint but more orange on the original.  The photo/artwork on the reprint is of decent quality but slightly grainier than the original's.  The text on the original is intense blue but very light blue on the repro. The "Experience It In IMAX" is pure white on the original but light blue on the reprint.

The repro is slightly small - 26 7/8 x 39 7/8

My original DS is 26 15/16 x 39 15/16

The repro is just a tad cropped on the right.

[CJ138]

Well done Mel and Anthony.

[Disheveledamethyst]

Interestingly noted, he hasn't listed any more of his posters since I called him out on it. He had many of them listed as individual auctions, and in spite of the refund, he never admitted or agreed to the fact that they were reprints. He merely said that when people talk about him on message boards they always find something wrong with the poster so I might as well take my money back.



But now they were either all bought or he canceled all the auctions. I find it pretty dodgy that he touts his own success and efficacy as a seller and then claims ignorance over clearly reprinted posters.

PS. Thanks a lot for this Mel.

[CSM]

Some nice altruistic work here Mel.

Just need to adjust your second measurements to be clear...

[Dread_Pirate_Mel]

Interestingly noted, he hasn't listed any more of his posters since I called him out on it. He had many of them listed as individual auctions, and in spite of the refund, he never admitted or agreed to the fact that they were reprints. He merely said that when people talk about him on message boards they always find something wrong with the poster so I might as well take my money back.



But now they were either all bought or he canceled all the auctions. I find it pretty dodgy that he touts his own success and efficacy as a seller and then claims ignorance over clearly reprinted posters.

PS. Thanks a lot for this Mel.

"Appears to be legitimate to me... Repros have become so precise that it is almost impossible to discern the difference...."

That is nonsense - and I'm being very diplomatic with that term.  Every digital reprint I've seen has been easy to distinguish. They all have the fuzzy/out-of-focus text.  The reprinters are too lazy/cheap/inept to recreate the text in Photoshop, which would make it tougher to distinguish them.

I doubt this was ever printed single-sided either.

[archie leach]

How do you know your original is original?  Where did it come from?

It's important to note the source for the base material as well as the questionable material.

In this case, I don't really see this as an issue (being SS was all I needed to know it was a reprint), but it's something to think about when doing these evaluations...

[Disheveledamethyst]

How do you know your original is original?  Where did it come from?

It's important to note the source for the base material as well as the questionable material.

In this case, I don't really see this as an issue (being SS was all I needed to know it was a reprint), but it's something to think about when doing these evaluations...

To people like us, the difference is pretty clear. But when a long-timer eBayer of the highest ranking and flawless 100% feedback is peddling pieces of trash to the unsuspecting, it's rather infuriating. People have had trouble before - I've seen his name mentioned a number of times on this forum - and yet his feedback is still flawless and I'm sure he moves thousands of dollars of reprints to less educated collectors.

[Dread_Pirate_Mel]

I got mine in December off Ebay from a probable theater employee - that's an educated guess based on the stuff he's selling.

In any event, I'm certain it's an original, since it's "theater used" with significant dinging/crinkling on the sides, the reverse is lighter/whiter, the text is razor sharp, and the paper is relatively lightweight.  The very few DS reprints out there have exact mirror images on the reverse.

[Zorba]

and yet his feedback is still flawless and I'm sure he moves thousands of dollars of reprints to less educated collectors.

This is far more common than you would think.....

You need to do a search through this forum http://stylec.yuku.com/forums/63/t/Movie-Poster-Discussion.html ...and just surf the net in general.
Every one needs to. 


Thanks Mel yet once again for all the excellent work you do. 

[eatbrie]

Tom Loce did refund him the full amount and claimed his supplier had given him a reprint without his knowledge.

[CSM]

Supplier aka printer?

[archie leach]

I got mine in December off Ebay from a probable theater employee - that's an educated guess based on the stuff he's selling.

In any event, I'm certain it's an original, since it's "theater used" with significant dinging/crinkling on the sides, the reverse is lighter/whiter, the text is razor sharp, and the paper is relatively lightweight.  The very few DS reprints out there have exact mirror images on the reverse.

Once again, I am not talking about this case in particular - simply using it as an example...

The reasons you give all increase your level of certainty, sure, but they can't take you all the way to 100% certain.  Short of walking it out of the printers or the theater as it arrives, you simply can't reach 100% 'certain'.  One of the oldest poster acquisition tricks for a theater employee was to swap out an original with a reprint - obviously this was much easier back in the SS days.  This is one of the reasons Dan went to extreme lengths to source originals for comparison purposes.


By the way, I have a DS reprint that I am pretty sure is lighter on the back.  It's in storage at the moment or else I would pull it out to check.

[Disheveledamethyst]

By the way, I have a DS reprint that I am pretty sure is lighter on the back.  It's in storage at the moment or else I would pull it out to check.

Where did you find a DS reprint? I just spent a few minutes Googling and none turned up. If there was a DS reprint of this poster, it should be easy to find, no?

I recently purchased this poster through some eBay networking. The backside is lighter (every DS poster I see has a lighter backside - I work at a theatre) and the paper feels correct. I haven't measured it yet but I am a pretty firm believer that if your poster is DS with clear text you really aren't be ripped. Especially if you can't find a reprinted version of your poster.

[archie leach]

Where did you find a DS reprint? I just spent a few minutes Googling and none turned up. If there was a DS reprint of this poster, it should be easy to find, no?

I recently purchased this poster through some eBay networking. The backside is lighter (every DS poster I see has a lighter backside - I work at a theatre) and the paper feels correct. I haven't measured it yet but I am a pretty firm believer that if your poster is DS with clear text you really aren't be ripped. Especially if you can't find a reprinted version of your poster.

I was talking about reprints in general, not for this particular title.

[Disheveledamethyst]

I was talking about reprints in general, not for this particular title.

Oh. Well in that case, I can say with pretty solid certainty that if his poster is DS and measures correctly it's real. I learned on this forum that the first step to determining if your poster is a reprint is to find the reprint in suspect online. If you're worried your Inception poster is a reprint, the first thing to do is find a double sided reprint. If you can't, there isn't one, and you have nothing to worry about.

That said, I don't think Mel nor I have anything to worry about.

In the case of the Dark Knight advance, that's a different story.

[archie leach]

That said, I don't think Mel nor I have anything to worry about.

In the case of the Dark Knight advance, that's a different story.

I'm not suggesting that you or Mel should.  In a general sense, I'm suggesting that when Mel (or anyone else) is doing authentications, he/they should be very careful when making comparisons from indirectly sourced posters and then drawing conclusions that are 'certain'.


As for TDK... check out the photocredits...http://movieposterauthenticating.com/wordpress/the-dark-knight/the-dark-knight-style-b/

[eatbrie]

Wow, Jeannie really lets all kind of charlatans post on her site!

 

I need to have a word with her.

T

[Zorba]

Wow, Jeannie really lets all kind of charlatans post on her site!

 

  .....Very true this!

Take look at who did this authentication on a DS of The Passion.

http://movieposterauthenticating.com/wordpress/the-passion-of-the-christ/the-passion-of-the-christ/

Im glad she does/did as when I was starting out I used those authentications  

[Dread_Pirate_Mel]

I have 350+ double-sided posters. The chance of my Inception DS original being a fake are about the same as Godzilla arising from the Potomac tomorrow and destroying DC.

Even if someone could create a technically perfect DS repro - and I've yet to see any DS digital repro that comes close to the quality of an original - no one in this universe would take the time, effort, and added expense of creating and printing an absolutely perfect DS repro of this particular poster, which auctions for around $50.

A rational reproducer would do what MovieGoods and Loce do: make a reasonably decent SS repro that can be printed cheaply for non-collectors and sell it for $20.  Those repros are not aimed at hard-core collectors, who will instantly spot the fuzzy text/logos.  

I showed the fake poster to two of my colleagues today.  Neither had a clue that the poster was fake.  Even after I told them it was fake, they were unable to figure out why.  Even after I showed them the fuzzy printing, they said they really didn't care.  

That's the audience these repro sellers are aiming for - non-collectors with a casual interest in a particular movie.  

So in the end there's nothing that notable about this particular fake. It's just a typical example of a medium quality repro - exactly like the MovieGoods posters I've seen.  The real "tragedy" is not that hard-core collectors like us are being ripped off.  It's that casual collectors are being ripped-off.

[Ari]

Ask Dave L for a double sided Spiderman.
He sent me one to Australia (Free) as he copped so much flack for it fooling him and offered to post a few out to show HOW GOOD IT IS. And I'll be damned its freakin' perfect (nearly).

[Dread_Pirate_Mel]

Ask Dave L for a double sided Spiderman.
He sent me one to Australia (Free) as he copped so much flack for it fooling him and offered to post a few out to show HOW GOOD IT IS. And I'll be damned its freakin' perfect (nearly).

Yeah, but the back is a mirror image rather than lighter/whiter, so it wouldn't fool anybody following these forums or who checks the authentication sites.

[Zorba]

Yeah, but the back is a mirror image rather than lighter/whiter, so it wouldn't fool anybody following these forums or who checks the authentication sites.

ya but it fooled Dave 

[archie leach]

I have 350+ double-sided posters. The chance of my Inception DS original being a fake are about the same as Godzilla arising from the Potomac tomorrow and destroying DC.

Even if someone could create a technically perfect DS repro - and I've yet to see any DS digital repro that comes close to the quality of an original - no one in this universe would take the time, effort, and added expense of creating and printing an absolutely perfect DS repro of this particular poster, which auctions for around $50.

A rational reproducer would do what MovieGoods and Loce do: make a reasonably decent SS repro that can be printed cheaply for non-collectors and sell it for $20.  Those repros are not aimed at hard-core collectors, who will instantly spot the fuzzy text/logos.  

I showed the fake poster to two of my colleagues today.  Neither had a clue that the poster was fake.  Even after I told them it was fake, they were unable to figure out why.  Even after I showed them the fuzzy printing, they said they really didn't care.  

That's the audience these repro sellers are aiming for - non-collectors with a casual interest in a particular movie.  

So in the end there's nothing that notable about this particular fake. It's just a typical example of a medium quality repro - exactly like the MovieGoods posters I've seen.  The real "tragedy" is not that hard-core collectors like us are being ripped off.  It's that casual collectors are being ripped-off.

I'm not questioning your credentials (I own 3-4x more DS and have handled at least 20x, neither of which mean anything except that usually all I need is smell and paper quality to spot reprints - reprints, like a lot of wilding posters, are 'spongier') and I agree with the majority of your post, but none of it has anything to do with my point. 

Authenticating is about reducing error and uncertainty.  By starting with non-sourced posters as your base you introduce unnecessary error into the equation.  In most cases, like Inception, that changes it from 'I'm certain' to 'I'm nearly as certain as I can be'.

I'm lucky in that 99% of my modern posters were personally theater sourced, but I did purchase a poster with a known DS reprint from ebay, under similar circumstances as your Inception.  It passes all of the tests, but I still would say 'I'm reasonably certain' that it's an original.

[AdamCarterJones]

I'm not questioning your credentials (I own 3-4x more DS and have handled at least 20x, neither of which mean anything except that usually all I need is smell and paper quality to spot reprints - reprints, like a lot of wilding posters, are 'spongier') and I agree with the majority of your post, but none of it has anything to do with my point. 

Authenticating is about reducing error and uncertainty.  By starting with non-sourced posters as your base you introduce unnecessary error into the equation.  In most cases, like Inception, that changes it from 'I'm certain' to 'I'm nearly as certain as I can be'.

I'm lucky in that 99% of my modern posters were personally theater sourced, but I did purchase a poster with a known DS reprint from ebay, under similar circumstances as your Inception.  It passes all of the tests, but I still would say 'I'm reasonably certain' that it's an original.

+1