This is topic Looking for James Bond 007 on super 8 in forum 8mm films for sale/trade/wanted at 8mm Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=006647

Posted by Chip Gelmini (Member # 44) on May 24, 2017, 11:58 AM:
 
full length mint condition

flat/scope/mono/stereo/mag/optical all acceptable

Please contact if you have a print you wish to sell with details

Prefer full length no cut downs or extract versions.

Chip Gelmini
 
Posted by Mark L Barton (Member # 1512) on May 25, 2017, 04:44 PM:
 
Hi, I have an Italian language print of Live and Let Die, heavily red on 5x600, have been meaning to rerecord just never got around to it.
 
Posted by Chip Gelmini (Member # 44) on May 28, 2017, 12:02 PM:
 
Mint condition means not red
 
Posted by Brian Hendel (Member # 61) on May 28, 2017, 12:12 PM:
 
Hi Chip - I just ordered a feature scope print of The Spy Who Loved Me from Steve O. at The Reel Image. The price might knock you off your chair but the screen grabs I've seen of the print are stunning.
 
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on May 28, 2017, 12:45 PM:
 
What price is it Brian?
( I promise I won't fall off my chair!) [Big Grin]

Also is it on Acetate or Polyester?
Main or twin track stripe?
 
Posted by Brian Hendel (Member # 61) on May 30, 2017, 10:25 AM:
 
Just main stripe... so only mono. Price is somewhere in the range of $1,100. Could be worse I guess..
 
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on May 30, 2017, 10:43 AM:
 
Thanks Brian, I am guessing they are printed on Polyester then. [Smile]

That's around £855 for us Uk collectors then.
Expensive, but then we see second hand prints changing hands for more at times these days! [Wink]
 
Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on May 30, 2017, 11:40 AM:
 
ive just fallen off my chair [Big Grin] [Big Grin]
Be a great title to own but strictly for the well off.
Im sure a projected DVD/Blu ray will be more than suffice for £5 [Wink]
 
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on May 30, 2017, 12:53 PM:
 
For fear of repeating myself though Tom, couldn't that be said for any full length film?

£25 is a ridiculous amount to spend on one film for many, collectors included.

As I pointed out, if people are prepared to part with large sums for used prints, then I suppose it makes sense to consider new ones, even at this present day price point.
 
Posted by Mike Newell (Member # 23) on May 30, 2017, 02:52 PM:
 
I suppose if Derann were still still around a full feature would be around £400-£450 mark now with inflation. You would have also got a balance stripe as well. Actually stripe that won't rub off at a awkward moment unless they have resolved that problem. They also made a fair profit at their prices so £1000 for a feature is a bit greedy and really sticking it to the collector to be honest.
 
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on May 30, 2017, 03:17 PM:
 
I think they'd be far higher than that price now Mike, if Derann were still trading.

At least £150 /600ft I'd say.

They could hit £90/ 600ft twenty years ago!

A 4x 600ft feature in 1992 typically cost £320 at standard retail price.
 
Posted by Mark L Barton (Member # 1512) on May 30, 2017, 03:40 PM:
 
Thanks Chip for your definition of 'mint', my point obviously was to state that potentially any affordable 007 print for sale will not be mint, hence heavily red. Im not that obtuse when it comes to condition.
 
Posted by Mike Newell (Member # 23) on May 30, 2017, 06:07 PM:
 
Andrew they were commercially produced by Derann in substantial numbers professionally striped and recorded. Today it would be the equivalent of dealing with the Hobbit on the Dark Web. Pay your money take your chance. No financial redress and if the releases were reviewed like they were in Film for Collector a lot would be found wanting. In the good old days you could have phoned US and ordered or requested any film full length for a price even then it was £300-£500 depending on the title but you could have had ET Jaws Star Wars Close Encounters The Searchers etc. German market supplied all modern science fiction and horror films you could imagine. You might not have got a pristine print because the negative sourced amongst other niggling problems. 💩💩💩💩

Let's be honest these new boys 😈 are acquiring or borrowing a print likely nil cost to them minimal or nil. Their costs are producing a negative arranging printing main striping without a convential commercial striping machine and recording each print on a one by one basis. Depending on the size of the market their profit margin must be at least 100%. If it wasn't they wouldn't be getting out of bed to be involved. 😴😴😴

To be honest if DVD or Blu Ray hadn't been invented I still would not be able to justify spending £1000 on one feature and most collectors would likely say the same.

[ May 31, 2017, 07:47 AM: Message edited by: Mike Newell ]
 
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on May 30, 2017, 11:55 PM:
 
My only point Mike was that irrespective of HOW they were produced, they would be costing more than £400/450 now, if Derann were still producing Super 8mm feature films.
 
Posted by Chip Gelmini (Member # 44) on May 31, 2017, 11:34 AM:
 
My apologies to Mark for my comment, "mint means not red." After review yeah maybe it was harsh. I am going through a stressful period with my aging parents. I'm home alot, dealing with them both 90.

I know I'll be OK. It's just very tough right now.

All my best to Mark.
 
Posted by David Hardy (Member # 4628) on May 31, 2017, 04:05 PM:
 
Mint condition means not having been projected at all and possibly still sealed in its package box.

Therefore if it has been ran even only once it is no longer
mint condition.
[Wink]
 
Posted by Mark L Barton (Member # 1512) on May 31, 2017, 04:07 PM:
 
Hi Chip, there was absolutely no need to apologise for any thing. Yes mint means mint, I was suggesting that the probabo;ity of getting a Bond title on 8mm may mean compromising (especially price wise) and going for any condition, but just so to have a title on celluloid.
Chip, we are brothers in celluloid and I trust that you and yours are well, with all and every problem resolved etc. Best wishes from Bristol, England (birth place of Cary Grant)
 
Posted by Alan Rik (Member # 73) on June 01, 2017, 01:28 AM:
 
For me I would consider "Mint" as being used but in very good condition. If it was never run I would consider that "New". I think the word is used differently in different hobbies.
as per Wikipedia: "For instance, when describing trading cards, "perfect" condition is used to describe the condition as it is when pulled from a pack, while "mint" would be new but opened. Similar graduations of mint condition exist for other collectibles based on their specific characteristics. For example, a postage stamp may be mint or mint never hinged."
 
Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on June 01, 2017, 01:57 AM:
 
Alan, I would say you stated condition as near mint, not mint.

As we are in the vinyl collection world, mint (M) must be unplayed (sealed or open sealed) but once it is played then it is NM (Near mint).

cheers
 
Posted by Alan Rik (Member # 73) on June 01, 2017, 02:08 AM:
 
Yes I just read that now about "Mint" concerning vinyl. That is very interesting! I always thought of "Mint" as being used but for Vinyl the word "Mint" is very sparingly used.
 
Posted by Brian Fretwell (Member # 4302) on June 01, 2017, 02:50 AM:
 
I would suspect that the term "Mint" comes from coin collecting and is one up from "Un-circulated" meaning it is in the condition straight from the coin stampers and not touched by un-gloved hand.

Taken too far for a film it might not be "Mint" after it had been recorded and split :-)
 
Posted by Douglas Meltzer (Member # 28) on June 01, 2017, 02:04 PM:
 
This is off topic, however I need to get back to what Mike Newell said earlier:

"They also made a fair profit at their prices so £1000 for a feature is a bit greedy and really sticking it to the collector to be honest. "

Then Mike follows it up with:

"Let's be honest these new boys are acquiring or borrowing a print likely nil cost to them minimal or nil. Their costs are producing a negative arranging printing main striping without a convential commercial striping machine and recording each print on a one by one basis. Depending on the size of the market their profit margin must be at least 100%. If it wasn't they wouldn't be getting out of bed to be involved."

Mike, I know the facts here and you are 100% mistaken. I can't even begin to understand how you can make these assumptions, and then disparage the motivations and reputations of the people involved.

Not paying for source prints? Borrowing? Complete and total nonsense.

The cost of having a negative made from basically the only lab who does this is prohibitive. The cost of prints is enormous.

Non-Commercial striper? As if a home Bolex machine is being used? What rot!

What gets me the most upset here is your complete fabrication that their "profit margin must be at least 100%". The expenses involved here are so great that even the most successful releases return a minimal profit. Just figure out the shipping costs alone! From lab to dealer to sound recordist (another expense) back to dealer to customer...many times involving numerous overseas mailings. What profit there is in this business comes from the purchase of used prints, equipment and supplies, not from new releases. You may not choose to believe it, but the folks involved do this because they truly love the hobby and want to see it continue. Many Forum members throughout the world know them personally and would not doubt their commitment for a second.

Mike, it's one thing to have an opinion. It's another thing to attempt to justify it with out and out fiction. Feel free to check it out. Do your own release. In the meantime I can think of some "new boys" that you owe an apology to.

Doug
 
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on June 01, 2017, 02:53 PM:
 
Very well said Doug. This for all of us active remaining collectors, is very much a Labour of Love as has been said many many times.

The irony is I find, the ones that poo poo all the activities that keep this hobby buoyant still in 2017, don't typically participate in any of it anyway!
 
Posted by Mike Newell (Member # 23) on June 01, 2017, 03:54 PM:
 
Doug

The Spy who loved me James Bond owned by Eon Productions and copyrights are negotiated by licence by the holding company Danjaq based in California.

So someone has negotiated distribution rights for super 8 release and is paying
them royalties. Great achievement not even Derann or any other Super 8 company managed to that in golden era of Super 8. Now that would be a story and a half!!!

Striping acetate stock how is that being achieved? It couldn't be mastered after the death of Derek Simmonds by Derann staff with years of experience again another tremendous achievement. The boys should tell their story 📽📽

What is reasoning for not including a balance stripe? Please enlighten us?

You talk about multi shipping of goods to many locations to carry out different functions. Sounds complicated and pretty inefficient. It would be more cost effective to centralise functions.

Refunds defective prints and return policy. What is the policy for customers who are not happy are have a problem with their print or develop a problem.

Spreading the word The Hobbit in the Dark Web aka The Boys what is their advertising policy. Is there a secret handshake or is invitation to buy or strictly by rolled up trouser leg

Anyway so so sorry for annoying the boys take it all back love and kisses to all 😘😘😘😘

Can't wait for the next episode. Covfefe

Mike
 
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on June 01, 2017, 04:09 PM:
 
I think you will find it was polyester stock that caused all the problems with paste striping Mike, not acetate.
 
Posted by Mike Newell (Member # 23) on June 01, 2017, 04:14 PM:
 
So sorry Andrew Polyester Covfete Covfete etc
 
Posted by Jason Smith (Member # 5055) on June 01, 2017, 08:53 PM:
 
As an attempt to steer this thread back on topic, Chip I saw this print on eBay.

Sadly it is not Super 8 and it is not mint. It has no screenshots and the fact that it is described as an IB TECH when the film came out in the early eighties is somewhat odd.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/JAMES-BOND-007-NEVER-SAY-NEVER-AGAIN-Sean-Connery-16mm-IB-Tech-Color-Feature-/302331491537?hash=item46645c74d1:g:8JoAAOSwZ4dZK0uJ
 
Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on June 01, 2017, 10:04 PM:
 
I am using https://www.measuringworth.com/ukcompare/relativevalue.php to find what is 1989 money is 2017.

If for a F/L in 1989 was £175 in 2017 it is now £550sh.

But using several variables:

- shrinking market
- higher shipping cost
- copyright fees
- scarce of material (negative stocl, positive stock, lab, stripes, etc)
- tax (import, duty, custom)
- labour cost
- margin
- etc

I think £850sh does still make a sense.

If you cannot afford to buy brand new print, just stick with the second hand ones.

If you cannot affor to buy second hand F/L prints, just stick with Mini feature (3 x 400').

If you cannot affor to buy mini feature, just buy digest.

If you cannot buy digest, just buy short (200').

There are a lot of choices here as long as you screen films.

cheers,
 
Posted by Douglas Meltzer (Member # 28) on June 01, 2017, 10:09 PM:
 
I must apologize to Chip for allowing (and abetting) the off-topicaciousness (I am awaiting a patent on that one) to continue. If anyone would like to continue on a non-Bond discussion, please start a new topic. All Bond from now on, please.

Doug
 
Posted by Chip Gelmini (Member # 44) on June 01, 2017, 11:02 PM:
 
Yeah this made my night
 


Visit www.film-tech.com for free equipment manual downloads. Copyright 2003-2019 Film-Tech Cinema Systems LLC

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2