8mm Forum: film grading

»	8mm Forum » 8mm Forum » film grading

UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!

Author

Topic: film grading

Dan Mollise
Junior
Posts: 29
From: Mobile, AL USA
Registered: Dec 2009

posted January 03, 2010 07:04 PM

I have a number of L&H prints I am about to sell and want to be honest about them - but I am not sure how to grade them.For instance, I have a feature - not mint has a few light scratches - just bought from Phil Johnson of PARDON US and it is in really good shape. Most of my films fit into this category - i rarely see a really "mint" print - but maybe I am a little to fanatical about this. What do you guys consider an excellent print - no splices at all? - no even hairline scratches? I guess even one splice to me moves it into the very good category at best - what do you think?

| IP: Logged

Dino Everette
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1535
From: Long Beach, CA USA
Registered: Dec 2008

posted January 03, 2010 07:24 PM

probably the most subjective part of any hobby....

I say just be accurate about what you see on the film and worry less about the category...I think you are safe to use very good on the ebay choice..using mint or like new I think makes people suspicious......but yes it is a very hard thing to do. there is another forum for film where all they really do is argue about this very topic...

--------------------
"You're too Far Out Miss Lawrence"

| IP: Logged

Gian Luca Mario Loncrini
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1948
From: Verona (Italy)
Registered: Jan 2009

posted January 04, 2010 05:00 AM

Dan, Dino is totally right.

My opinion is to give as much details as possible about the real condition of the movie/s. Supplying pictures is even better (when possible, of course).

Some wears? Well, state it. Poor sound? Say that. Excellent print? Be happy to describe it.
The potential customers for every kind of auction are absolutely wide-ranging. You can always find someone interested in what you have for sale.

This is only my opinion, of course [Wink]

.
Ciao.

GL

--------------------
I remember when I was (super) 8 years old...

| IP: Logged

Joe Caruso
Film God

Posts: 4105
From: USA
Registered: Jun 2003

posted January 04, 2010 05:31 AM

Some of the later prints (I'm speaking of Blackhawk) contained a much sharper image due to new negs struck and these can be categorized as darn-near mint (to coin my own expression) - Above all, screen any prints you are ready to sell and make notes accordingly. You'll find many appreciate that extra effort. A splice or two is okay if a feature is put together, usually this is at the reel-change section, but if it's within the action, that's different - Stay in touch and good success

| IP: Logged

Christian Bjorgen
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 996
From: Kvinnherad, Norway
Registered: Oct 2009

posted January 04, 2010 05:54 AM

I have sold very few reels so far, but my rating system is pretty much like this:

MINT - Reel is free of splices and damage, has minimal to no visual wear, except for maybe a small stripe or two. Colour is nearly perfect with good contrast and no fade. Sound is very good.

VERY GOOD - Reel has no damage, but may have one or two splices. Small stripes, albeit not many. Colour and sound is very good.

GOOD/AVERAGE - Reel has wear damage, splices and lines. Sound is a little worn but still decent. Colour is beginning to fade, but still decent.

FAIR - Reel has some damage but still very playable. No sprocket damage, but lines and splices occur several times. Sound is fair but could be better, and the colour is faded.

POOR - Reel is badly damaged but still playable to a certain level. Damaged/missing sprockets and many splices and stripes. Colour is badly faded and the sound is poor. Reels of this grade is only sold if very rare or for specially interested.

This is quite similar to the system I use for vinyl records when grading them.

--------------------
Well who’s on first? Yeah. Go ahead and tell me. Who. The guy on first. Who. The guy playin’ first base. Who. The guy on first. Who is on first! What are you askin’ me for? I’m askin’ you!

| IP: Logged

Michael O'Regan
Film God

Posts: 3085
From: Essex, UK
Registered: Oct 2007

posted January 04, 2010 06:32 AM

The thing is, Christian, that if a print has even minimal wear it cannot be considered as being in "mint" condition.
I like your grading system but would substitute "excellent condition" for "mint".

| IP: Logged

Christian Bjorgen
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 996
From: Kvinnherad, Norway
Registered: Oct 2009

posted January 04, 2010 06:43 AM

Yes, you're probably right on that, but I usually leave comments aswell as the grade. I sold a Chaplin short recently, and graded it like this:

"Very good / mint - has no splices or damage, comes with the original factory leaders and the standard EuroFilm 200' box featuring Chaplin on the cover. Has a few lines in the beginning, but barely noticeable."

--------------------
Well who’s on first? Yeah. Go ahead and tell me. Who. The guy on first. Who. The guy playin’ first base. Who. The guy on first. Who is on first! What are you askin’ me for? I’m askin’ you!

| IP: Logged

Bill Brandenstein
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1632
From: California
Registered: Aug 2007

posted January 04, 2010 01:59 PM

To me the most lacking area of film grading are considerations of the source material. A mint print of a fuzzy or worn source just isn't the same. Or a grainy mint print (not grainy from the source but the duping process) is only a little better.

If it has few scratches, looks sharp, and has gorgeous color, a splice is irrelevant to me unless footage is missing. Then again, it seems seldom that prints in otherwise decent shape are splicey.

| IP: Logged

Michael O'Regan
Film God

Posts: 3085
From: Essex, UK
Registered: Oct 2007

posted January 04, 2010 02:09 PM

Yes, as Bill says there's a difference between print condition and print content.
As I've said in the past, a print can be in excellent physical condition yet contain a horrible dupe or a film which has faded badly.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central

Printer-friendly view of this topic

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2