This is topic Help needed from ALL forum members in forum 8mm Forum at 8mm Forum.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
Posted by Del Phillipson (Member # 513) on January 16, 2017, 10:14 AM:
Right guys, this is the question.
What would you film collectors say is an acceptable amount of splices for a supposedly "Excellent" condition modern Derann print, 4 x 600' mounted on two 1200' spools, let's say at a cost to you of £260.00.
I would like as much feedback as possible with this please.
Posted by Joe Caruso (Member # 11) on January 16, 2017, 10:22 AM:
No more than 2, to splice endtails together - All else should be intact I think - Cheers, Shorty - If this is a rarae or wanted feature, then by all means
Posted by Del Phillipson (Member # 513) on January 16, 2017, 10:26 AM:
Thanks Shorty, I will reveal more at a later time, keep the input coming guys please.
Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on January 16, 2017, 10:35 AM:
Well, depends on the type of splice, but I'm being Devil's Advocate.
Brand new Derann prints were sold as potentially containing lab slices.
As the lab stock used was unpredictable, a lab slice could occur once or even twice in just a single 200ft.
Sorry, but fact.
As we know, Derann would always exchange if the customer was unhappy.
Del, what type of splice are you seeing? Some of the lab slices could be pretty darn messy.
Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on January 16, 2017, 10:38 AM:
Yes, my Derann print of the trailer to Saving Private Ryan has a lab splice about 1 minute into the trailer! I don't see splices as objectionable as long as they are infrequent.
Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on January 16, 2017, 10:46 AM:
Yes, Paul, I remember my brand new trailer of "Evita" having such a bad lab splice that it lost gate.
Return, or simply cut out the 2 frames of mess?
Also, my original "Lion King" print part 1; two lab splices...I returned and received a new print with apologies. Even though the original ran sort of
Del, could you describe or photo the splices?
May not be the seller's fault?
Posted by Bill Phelps (Member # 1431) on January 16, 2017, 11:00 AM:
I would say one per 600' in the content I could live with. I have some prints with lab splices that are hardly noticable when screening. But if some content is missing then I would be leary.
Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on January 16, 2017, 11:45 AM:
i would agree with that, one per 600ft anything else is what has been done by the previous collector, other than leaders and tails re-spliced if it was on large reels and put back to originals.
Posted by Stuart Reid (Member # 1460) on January 16, 2017, 12:02 PM:
Yep, 1 per 600ft would sound acceptable. Are there any other print issues? Scratches, wear?
Posted by Mark Mander (Member # 340) on January 16, 2017, 01:27 PM:
I'd say no splices if it was in excellent condition and £260, where the film's joined is fine though.Mark
Posted by Del Phillipson (Member # 513) on January 16, 2017, 02:51 PM:
Well guys I've watched the print in question and lost count of the number of splices to both 1200' spools, I will make a detailed inspection tomorrow but if I was hazarding a guess I would say around 10 per 1200' spool and none of those were lab splices (I can accept those). It's clear the guy has cut the film into sections to re record it into Spanish and then spliced it back together again. There was also a lot of I would call it speckled dust and I mean a lot, not in the EXCELLENT condition the seller has stated and no there was NO mention of any splices in his description whatsoever, it's now in the hands of ebay, has anyone else had a similar experience and what was the outcome?
P.S. fantastic feedback, much appreciated
Posted by Mike Newell (Member # 23) on January 16, 2017, 04:32 PM:
He's about 16 splices too high. Obviously, due to his re recording antics he or somebody must have been doing it in 10 minute segments.
Other people's splicing skills or lack of them used to irk me too
Use the right splicer have decent eyesight and use the right tape (yes I did say tape not GLUE ) and you shouldn't technically see the join especially as he is re joining without removing frames.
On Ebay front if you are unhappy or can't live with it press for full refund. Photograph a few splices doubt ebay staff would know what a splice was, He will have to pay for return shipping of his masterpiece .
Slap it into him for doing a sloppy DIY job.
Posted by Terry Sills (Member # 3309) on January 16, 2017, 04:55 PM:
Obviously far too many splices for a film described in excellent condition, but although you paid £260 you dont give the title. This of course can make a big difference value wise but does not excuse the poor description.
Posted by Del Phillipson (Member # 513) on January 17, 2017, 03:55 AM:
Great point Mike, I will reveal the exact print and more details later when I sort this out with ebay as the seller has point blank refused me a return saying the film had an acceptable amount of splices. Hence the asking you good people your valuable opinions on what is actually acceptable.
My take is this, excellent means no excess splices, meaning I would expect 1 for the two 600' spools to be spliced together and that is it, as mentioned I would expect a near perfect film, I could live with the odd 1 more in case of damage or whatever but that would be it. More than that, it is not excellent and yes it devalues the film in my opinion.
Posted by Alan Rik (Member # 73) on January 17, 2017, 04:26 AM:
If I am purchasing a print I expect maybe 2 or 3 splices on a 1200ft reel. Head leader, tail, and one in the middle. Anything more than that should be noted in the auction. Many splices is not a fun find. Even if the splice is good you can always hear it when it goes pass the gate.
Posted by Dave Groves (Member # 4685) on January 17, 2017, 04:42 AM:
I'd expect an excellent print to be just that. Splices mean the film has been broken or cut and that's not acceptable on an asking price of £260.00. Most of us would find odd splices unwanted but acceptable, especially if it's a must have title that's scarce. Problem now is that as prints change hands from people in the know with well maintained machines to beginners/careless people who don't even clean their gates regularly, the excellent will, over time become downgraded. In this instance I'd be asking for your money back.
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on January 17, 2017, 04:57 AM:
As I've already said to Del and in slight opposition to what Alan says above, I'd be happy to accept a splice from re spooling from 800ft reels down to 600ft ones again also.
I would notify the potential buyer of this however.
I find its only realistic nowadays to expect some re spooling to have taken place over the years to accommodate the various capacities of the various machines these films have most likely been used upon over the years, by this late stage of the game
Posted by Mike Newell (Member # 23) on January 17, 2017, 05:43 AM:
The number of splices being talked about is way above acceptable. Ask for a full refund and push with either eBay or Paypal. It is like pink prints don't accept or buying a collector cd with smudge marks or marmalade on it.
No matter what the title is its not worth £260 for somebody's botch job.
Posted by Brian Fretwell (Member # 4302) on January 17, 2017, 07:38 AM:
That number is only acceptable on a re-edited Derann UA composite of digests of a film that couldn't be sold as concurrent parts, as far as I am concerned.
Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on January 17, 2017, 10:46 AM:
I would certainly have expected that amount of splices to have been mentioned in the discription.
I think the sale is unfair otherwise.
Posted by Del Phillipson (Member # 513) on January 17, 2017, 10:59 AM:
Well guys, I've gone through the print again and there is a total of 21 splices over the two reels, 13 on reel 1 and 8 on reel 2. The seller refused me a return stating it was an acceptable amount of splices (not that he actually mentioned any at all), just waiting for my day in ebay's court now.
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on January 17, 2017, 11:26 AM:
I entirely agree with Rob and I wish you luck with your appeal.
I'd be very very surprised if it wasn't found in your favour Del.
Posted by Terry Sills (Member # 3309) on January 17, 2017, 11:59 AM:
Well Mike I would take issue with you on that point. I would pay a LOT more than
£260 for a very splicey print of 'Hats Off'😉
Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on January 17, 2017, 12:08 PM:
I tell you what, if that guy says its an acceptable amount of splices theirs only one word i would use to describe the rest of his collection if thats typical of a film from it,
That is not acceptable for £260 when its described as excellent condition, its been cut up how is that excellent?
Surely ebay must agree that "it is not as described", had that have been one of my listings i would say if it had splices, even if just the leader & tail. This is the sort of listing that makes people lose any faith they have left in ebay. The administrators have a lot to answer for.(of ebay i mean )
Posted by Del Phillipson (Member # 513) on January 17, 2017, 12:34 PM:
will post the outcome next week, then reveal all, film, seller etc. He has sold others, would love to know if they arrived in the same state, I would have thought so with them also being re recorded into Spanish.
Posted by Mike Newell (Member # 23) on January 17, 2017, 12:59 PM:
Del take photographs of all the splices send them to eBay. That should make the decision in your favour.
Terry, Hats Off absolute bargain at £260.00 hope it not on super 8 nitrate stock. One splice and it might go 📽💥💥💥💥💥 Super 8 nitrate stock introduced unsuccessful for home movies in early 1960s but was too explosive now sold in Ann Summers for S&M any queries ask Terry 👩❤️👩
Posted by Terry Sills (Member # 3309) on January 17, 2017, 01:30 PM:
I must have hit a nerve there Mike. Ann Summers? S&M? Seems like you know more about that than ever I would. I am of an age where the only sex I have is oral. We just talk about it.
Posted by Mike Newell (Member # 23) on January 17, 2017, 01:39 PM:
Terry LOL I wish 😂 can't imagine how our international viewers will understand no doubt they will be googling Ann Summers a well known UK cine outfit to find out the details we may never see them on this forum again 😍
Can't wait for the first post about nitrate super 8. Give it time someone is bound to ask !
Posted by Del Phillipson (Member # 513) on January 17, 2017, 02:13 PM:
Mike, already done it, all 21 of them, just got to wait till next week now.
Posted by Mike Newell (Member # 23) on January 17, 2017, 02:24 PM:
It's in the bag Del just sit back and wait.
Posted by Barry Fritz (Member # 1865) on January 17, 2017, 02:27 PM:
Del, before you bid on the film, by any chance did you ask him if there were any splices, and if so how many? If you did and he gave you an inaccurate answer, your case with Ebay is a slam dunk.
Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 892) on January 17, 2017, 02:38 PM:
But even to say the film is in excellent condition, we'd all agree, assumes few or no splices. And not full of speckles, though with a good soak that might improve.
Re-recording in shortened intervals is inexplicably lame. Why would someone think that was necessary for getting the job done?
Posted by Joe Caruso (Member # 11) on January 17, 2017, 02:41 PM:
My goodness, of course you deserve a refund at minimum - I'd never stand for anything like that - Cheers, Shorty
Posted by Will Trenfield (Member # 5321) on January 17, 2017, 07:03 PM:
Sadly, "Excellent" and "Very Good Condition" are often misused on eBay for offerings which are anything but. The first projector I bought on eBay was said to be in very good, working condition. When I got it, there was no drive belt. Anyway, regarding your case, to my mind, the seller should have mentioned all those extra splices in their listing and so you were misled when you made your bid.
Posted by Joe Balitzki (Member # 438) on January 17, 2017, 07:54 PM:
Since the seller never mentioned in his description that there were splices its not as described and you absolutely deserve a refund. As for acceptable splice count one lab splice and 2 where the head and tail leaders were reattached is what I would consider acceptable. But any splices should have been mentioned in the auction regardless.
Posted by Del Phillipson (Member # 513) on January 18, 2017, 03:35 AM:
again, fantastic comments guys, really appreciate the contributions. I have heard back from the seller today, virtually blaming me for not asking him how many splices it had got, he also in a veiled fashion accused me of being unscrupulous, I'm just waiting for my day with ebay. I did say that in my view the reason he didn't list the amount of splices was due to the fact the print would be significantly devalued with that amount of splices, which I'm sure 100% of us would agree is true.
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on January 18, 2017, 04:37 AM:
Ebay typically know nothing at all regarding specialized goods such as films and other collectables.
By raising this subject here Del, it invites other collectors to give their opinions on what they themselves deem as acceptable for an amount of splices on an excellent print at 1200ft intervals.
Hopefully, you will be able to point the ebay arbitration team towards this thread via a link now if there are any problems whatsoever in receiving back the full amount you paid for the prints.
This confirms wholeheartedly, as expected, that nigh on everyone would agree that 20 splices plus over 2 x 1200ft reels of Super 8mm film is both excessive and unacceptable when describing as film as in excellent condition.
Posted by Del Phillipson (Member # 513) on January 18, 2017, 04:51 AM:
Thanks Andrew, that was my idea, this is a great hobby and I'd like to think that we would when push comes to shove all look out for a fellow collectors back with honest personal opinions.
Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on January 18, 2017, 11:25 AM:
I agree with Shorty! The more you had to pay, the more you demand to have as great of condition as possible ...
... especially if the film was marketed on 4X600ft, which would mean that there were breaks in the film, and no one likes loosing footage!
Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 892) on January 18, 2017, 11:35 AM:
Compare Derann's Fantasia 2000, for example. Splice it together onto a 1200' reel (well, 1350', actually), and you have THREE splices. All at fadeouts where they can't be seen.
Del, thank you for not naming names YET but we will all appreciate details when the time is right so we can avoid this seller in the future.
Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on January 18, 2017, 01:48 PM:
Dell, what a nerve, the guy is actually saying YOU should have asked how many splices Unreal, the whole point of a description is that the seller, (honest ones), actually do there best to say what is wrong. Films come on 4x600ft then the seller should have stated that the film had been re-cut and also warned that there are no less than ten splices. In most cases, including mine, it would have been taken off my watch list & indeed i would not be interested in bidding unless the start price was perhaps starting at either 49.99 or even 99.99, then, if it goes up to high prices fair enough but only if the abnormal amount of splices were mentioned.
Anyway Dell, lets hope ebay see sense and all ends OK.
Posted by Del Phillipson (Member # 513) on January 19, 2017, 03:59 AM:
thanks again guys, all very valuable input, it's getting like a soap opera.
Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on January 19, 2017, 07:01 AM:
Some questions to you.
Do you intend to ask for your money back after a return, or do you intend to keep the print (splices and all) and ask for a part refund?
Have you projected the print? Are the splice positions very obvious if perhaps only a couple of frames at each join are missing?
If you do return the print, do you hope to replace it with a further print of the same title at a later date?
Posted by Del Phillipson (Member # 513) on January 19, 2017, 11:02 AM:
Hi Maurice, at this moment in time, as it stands the seller is refusing point blank to let me return the print as he is saying they are an acceptable amount of splices. Yes I would like my money back, yes I have projected the print and the splices are noticeable. Yes I would like to replace the print if possible.
Posted by Paul Browning (Member # 2715) on January 19, 2017, 02:26 PM:
You are still covered by distance selling regulation Del, and can return an item that you are not satisfied with or not as described, even on ebay. I had a similar incident with some shoes, when the selling refused to accept them back even though ebay ruled in my favour, so they came back to me, I had a full refund and his shoes, bloody idiot. Good luck Del.
Posted by Del Phillipson (Member # 513) on January 19, 2017, 04:32 PM:
Thanks Paul, fingers and toes crossed on this one.
Posted by Will Trenfield (Member # 5321) on January 19, 2017, 06:19 PM:
Del, as you are UK based, have you thought about asking Trading Standards at your local Council for advice? Nothing to lose.
Posted by Del Phillipson (Member # 513) on January 20, 2017, 03:41 AM:
Thanks Will, but as it's an overseas item they won't touch it, hopefully ebay will look at it and do the right thing.
Posted by Del Phillipson (Member # 513) on January 23, 2017, 03:27 AM:
Right guys, a conclusion has occurred today, the seller offer me a 50% refund so I accepted it, I do know that I could have escalated the case to ebay today but the offer was fair, time to dig out the old CIR splicer and re do 21 splices.
A BIG BIG thank you to all who participated in this topic and all the very good advice and support that was offered, Del.
Posted by Mark Mander (Member # 340) on January 23, 2017, 04:52 AM:
Well that's something Del, maybe he'll think twice about his description on other sales so other collectors might not go through the same experience you went through, Mark
Posted by Del Phillipson (Member # 513) on January 23, 2017, 05:26 AM:
I do hope so Mark.
Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on January 23, 2017, 07:56 AM:
Good to hear of a positive result. If you make the splices practically invisible, you'll hopefully end up with a good value buy that's some compensation for the needless stress.
Posted by Del Phillipson (Member # 513) on January 23, 2017, 10:02 AM:
Thanks Adrian, I have a CIR so will get to work at some point this week, probably needs another clean so will do that before resplicing as they don't like Filmguard. My only wish would have been the seller could have done this last week and put me out of my misery with it, instead he dragged it on and on hoping I would just go away and drop the case, but I'm sure I'll do something with it.
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on January 23, 2017, 10:13 AM:
Personally Del, I'd filmguard the print after resplicing it all again.
C.I.R. tape, as you know, is far stronger than the old 4 frame Agfa tapes etc.
I have never had an issue with Jackro tape coming apart even after using filmguard now several times over a join.
Posted by Evan Samaras (Member # 5070) on January 23, 2017, 10:21 AM:
Del, I think I know the seller you speak of. I had an issue with him selling me a Marketing Warriors that he stated had excellent color. It was TOTALLY faded. He promised to find me a replacement. Day 29 came and I had to file a claim. He kept trying to hold me off, or telling me to close the case so we could resolve the matter. Tricky, tricky person.
It finally ended with me getting my money back and keeping the print. He didn't want to pay for its return, as he knew it wasn't worth it.
I hope you are happy with your result! Do you mind sharing the seller's information? Maybe it is someone we need to keep in mind before purchasing from in the future.
Posted by Del Phillipson (Member # 513) on January 23, 2017, 03:25 PM:
Have sent you a PM Evan.
Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on January 23, 2017, 03:46 PM:
Dell that is great news. Glad the seller came to his senses. That makes the price a fair one for that title and with very good splices it should be fine.
Posted by Del Phillipson (Member # 513) on January 23, 2017, 03:49 PM:
Thanks Tom, it's been a very trying week, don't think I want to do it again.
It seems others on the forum have also been stung by the same seller, maybe it's time to out him once and for all.
Posted by Terry Sills (Member # 3309) on January 23, 2017, 04:00 PM:
I go back to my point about the title. If Del has settled on a 50% refund I would guess that it is a title that he was keen to get (He still hasn't mentioned it). Of course the title is important. If it is rare then most collectors will settle for less than best condition and while the number of splices mentioned is unacceptable and does not conform to the description it is obviously acceptable at a reduced price.
So despite your little rant - point proved methinks.
Posted by Del Phillipson (Member # 513) on January 23, 2017, 04:05 PM:
Terry the seller is from Argentina so it's easy enough to work out who he is, Evan has also had a run in with this guy. I recently sold my other copy when I decided to buy this one, but it's better than not having a copy and I'm sure I can do something with it.
[ January 24, 2017, 10:52 AM: Message edited by: Del Phillipson ]
Posted by Terry Sills (Member # 3309) on January 23, 2017, 04:30 PM:
Thanks for that info Del but I do not understand the reticence of naming the seller. If it was me I would put it on here in capital letters. What is there to be afraid of? We need to know these bad sellers.
Posted by Mike Newell (Member # 23) on January 23, 2017, 05:26 PM:
If Del is content with the deal I am happy for him. Personally, I would have held out for full refund and I think a lot of collectors would have done the same. Depending on the film and the extent of the problem will decide whether you can live with the problem.
I think it is unfair that the seller advertised it as excellent when it was obviously a botched diy recording job by someone and it is unfortunate that there are other similar films doing the rounds.
Posted by Evan Samaras (Member # 5070) on January 23, 2017, 06:00 PM:
He did something similar to me with the Warriors print I described. Only, mine didn't have splices. He advertised, and confirmed through message, that the color was excellent. It was totally faded. When I sent screen shots back to him, he had nothing to say, except that he would find me a replacement print. Minimal response on his end, so on Day 29 I filed a claim. Only then did I get his attention, and all of my money back. I held out for the full refund, but a faded print vs a Derann print are different leagues.
Posted by Del Phillipson (Member # 513) on January 24, 2017, 04:17 AM:
Hi Terry, Mike, this is my take on this. I was absolutely gutted when I first cleaned the print getting it ready for viewing and at that point just wanted to send it back, however the seller was adamant I couldn't send it back, so the clock ticked with my claim with ebay, this guy knows exactly what he was doing and after speaking to Evan via PM I now now he definitely has done this before. I knew the guy couldn't be trusted and was now fearful of actually sending it back to him, I was expecting the old "I hadn't sent him the same print, or I sent him a completely different film back" and then having to deal with the grief from all that and that was at the back of my mind. When he offered me a partial refund on the last day, I didn't deem this acceptable and so countered with what I thought reasonable, when he accepted this I was more relieved that it was finally over and at the end of the day I got a fair print at a fair price, I could have held out and took it to ebay but that could have been a lottery, sometimes you just have to be grateful for small mercies.
The seller is dany11881 and I would avoid him like the plague.
Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on January 24, 2017, 04:37 AM:
Here are the current listings from danny11881. Buy at your peril.
Posted by Del Phillipson (Member # 513) on January 24, 2017, 05:28 AM:
He's a seasoned seller I'll say that, would love to know if anyone else other than me and Evan have had any contact with the guy.
Visit www.film-tech.com for free equipment manual downloads. Copyright 2003-2019 Film-Tech Cinema Systems LLC