8mm Forum: How would you define a "like new" print?

This is topic How would you define a "like new" print? in forum 16mm Forum at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=000815

Posted by Jonathan Trevithick (Member # 3066) on November 08, 2012, 12:48 AM:

I recently bought a Blackhawk 16mm short. The advertiser described it as "like new" with "zero splices". When it arrived, although it was in really nice clean condition, I really couldn't decsribe it 'as new'. There were 3 light lines on the print for the first half and one splice on the credits, leaving a loss of a frame or two.
It's not serious enough to return but the vendor seemed quite surprised I didn't agree with his "like new" description. Personally,I would call the print extremely good to excellent with light wear.
I was wondering how other forum members would define a "like new" print.

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on November 08, 2012, 03:36 AM:

Hi Jonathan,you're quite right in my opinion,a "like new" print
I would put on a par with "excellent condition", which is the best
you're going to get,unless it's an unused "mint condition" print.

Posted by Joerg Polzfusz (Member # 602) on November 08, 2012, 04:30 AM:

Don't forget that sometimes the lines are already on the negative and hence copied onto every print. So even brand new, unscratched prints can have lines.

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on November 08, 2012, 08:00 AM:

Hi Joerg,that is true,on the Columbia Digests this was made clear
on the reverse of the box that defects were incorporated into
some of the prints,thats something over which none of us has any control, but have to accept.

Posted by Matt McBride (Member # 3311) on November 08, 2012, 09:37 AM:

I would say "like new" would be a print that has minimal to zero wear to it, ie no sprocket damage, scratches, splices, essentially it doesn't look like it's ran through a projector; and the only possible splices being at the heads and tails for a long play system, such as a platter or large reel capacity. I agree with Hugh that in this type of market excellent condition is the best you are going to get unless you can the distributor to get you a newly struck print which even then like Joerg said, there could have been damage on the original negative so the positive answer print would "have the damage".

Posted by Jonathan Trevithick (Member # 3066) on November 08, 2012, 02:43 PM:

Thanks for your thoughts guys. I really wasn't expecting a "like new" print in this day and age (although I do have a few beautiful Laurel and Hardys which look like they've hardly ever see the light of day before). However,there were some light lines on half of the print(not the negative) and also one splice when he advertised "zero". I tried to discuss it with him but he wasn't very friendly, adding simply, "so you want a partial refund? how much?". I just left things at that as it was a really good print, just way off the "like new" description.

Posted by Tony Stucchio (Member # 519) on November 13, 2012, 07:16 PM:

You think it is hard to get an accurate description when buying films, then you should try buying vinyl records. I just picked up one on eBay listed as "excellent" that is filled with constant pops and crackles. This is the equivalent of a film with tons of scratches throughout. At least there were no skips or repeats.

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on November 14, 2012, 05:55 PM:

I agree with others; 'Like new' should have no splices and no visible wear (from the print itself). The seller's attitude was annoying - I'd have been tempted to go for a complete refund, as for me, no splices are a big incentive to bid.

I've noticed though that some collector's genuinely don't appear to see modest amounts of wear. It's not just when they sell - one chap I know has proudly said to me a few times that a certain feature of his is "mint". I wouldn't wish to argue, but as I've seen it projected, I know that it has signs of wear here and there.

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2