|
Author
|
Topic: Master and Commander Price?
|
|
|
Hugh Thompson Scott
Film God
Posts: 3063
From: Gt. Clifton,Cumbria,England
Registered: Jan 2012
|
posted July 05, 2012 06:58 PM
I'm not so sure on that one Akshay,as ebay seem to have their
own set of rules.Sold as seen,is usually the road to go down but
it would start alarm bells ringing with me if I was offered a film
under those circumstances.The sensible obvious choice is to
open the film,run it and sell the bloody thing,telling the buyer
it was shown once to check the film and I want "X" amount
for it.Personally I would not be parting with my"beer tokens"
on an unknown quantity.To sell something that you have no knowledge of is stupid and asking for trouble,as someone can
say there was no sound at all on the stripe,the seller can't argue
because he doesn't know,result; the seller looks stupid,which
he is, if he sells something not checked.As for checking, as John has suggested, the first few minutes,the box is open,check all
of it,there could be a picture fault.Listen, Derann once tried
to sell me a print that was a solid mass on the spools,caused
by being wound while the stripe was wet,imagine if it's one like that!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Thompson Scott
Film God
Posts: 3063
From: Gt. Clifton,Cumbria,England
Registered: Jan 2012
|
posted July 05, 2012 07:45 PM
Bill,no offence intended,but would you take a chance on all the spools in that film being perfect,and paying a lot of money,purely
on the "mint cond.",I certainly would not.Considering that certain collectors have sellers performing "post mortems" on films reg.
splices,scratches what stock number etc.It's asking for trouble.
Another way is to sell it,with the offer of a refund if all is not as it
should be,of course that makes the "mint cond." redundant and
the seller out of pocket.Anyway that's up to Mike,it ain't our
problem.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Hugh Thompson Scott
Film God
Posts: 3063
From: Gt. Clifton,Cumbria,England
Registered: Jan 2012
|
posted July 06, 2012 05:02 AM
Yes that's one scenario Adrian,but suppose it isn't,what then,and
I know for a fact that the odd faulty print was re wrapped and
sent out again as new from Derann,because I've had them.A new
print of "Flash Gordon" had a scratch right through spool two,
it was replaced,but my shipping costs weren't.
I can't understand why someone would keep a print this length
of time without viewing it,it just strikes me as odd.Like I said earlier,I'm glad it isn't my problem,because I would have checked the film and there wouldn't be one.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Akshay Nanjangud
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 637
From: Dallas, TX
Registered: Nov 2011
|
posted July 06, 2012 03:00 PM
Most members have been collecting for several decades. Am just a kid in comparison. Yet I feel compelled to add a few words here.
Let me put Hugh's argument in perspective. He asks the seller to open and test the film. If the film is not perfect, the seller stands to lose. If the film was unopened, the seller loses money just for breaking the seal. Hugh asks the seller to take responsibility for what he is selling. This in fact is the trait of a good honest seller. If Hugh does this with every film he sells, we forum members have nothing to fear when making purchases from him. Despite his harsh words, Hugh may have a point.
The problem is the price of unopened features vs. that of used features. If the buyer isn't a movie studio or an archiving establishment, I don't understand the logic behind the purchase of a sealed print. Can someone please explain? Mind you, I don't question the logic of higher price for new prints, but the logic of purchasing higher priced new prints for private screenings (confusingly long sentence?).
What is the buyer's perspective? Since am just starting out in the hobby, I want to watch all the films I purchase. Then why buy a sealed print at the higher price? But .... would I ever buy a sealed print? If I had the money, maybe just once to see ... to see what it feels like.
Oh dear, the conclusions of paragraphs 3 and 4 contradict each other. ![[Frown]](frown.gif) Shows this is a hard case to resolve, arguments can be easily made from both sides.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hugh Thompson Scott
Film God
Posts: 3063
From: Gt. Clifton,Cumbria,England
Registered: Jan 2012
|
posted July 06, 2012 03:02 PM
That sounds a lot like "passing the buck" Adrian,how anyone can
buy these films,and especially from Derann and expect them to
be without any problems amazes me.I apologise if I have offended
but to hoard away unwatched prints isn't to me a wise act.How
are you going to rectify any faults like duplicate reels,no stripe,
low sound,synchronisation being out,this takes being "laid back"
to the ultimate 180 degrees! I know from experience that in all
the years I have dealt with Derann,and had a good relationship
with them,the quality of care wasn't always there,but the
sideways weave always was.It seems that some poor soul will
take all the risk,with little or no chance of sorting any faults.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Peckham
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1461
From: West Sussex, UK.
Registered: Jun 2003
|
posted July 06, 2012 03:24 PM
quote:
I apologise if I have offended
but to hoard away unwatched prints isn't to me a wise act.
Hugh, I shall explain again. I ordered this print because Derann were lookng for 30 pre-orders in order to make it worth while to do a print run. At the time, I found it interesting to be part of a project to get a feature released on Super 8 when it looked like it might be the last one.
By the time the print run eventually went through and the prints were distributed, I had sold my house and was travelling the world, the print was delivered to my parents address in the UK.
When we returned to the UK, it was a while before we moved into another house of our own and it just happened that when we did, it was one with a double garage and that gave me the opportunity to get back into my first love of old VWs.
Consequently, I have never quite got round to setting up a screening room, and all my features, Master and Commander included, have remained in storage.
When I first mooted the possibility of selling it and mentioned that it was unopened and unscreened, one collector in particular found that quite appealling. Hence my starting this thread.
It was quite innocent really and I'm sorry you find it so disturbing.
Mike
--------------------
Auntie Em must have stopped wondering where I am by now...
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adrian Winchester
Film God
Posts: 2941
From: Croydon, London, UK
Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted July 07, 2012 12:35 PM
Hugh - I certainly would not be "passing the buck" if I sold a never-projected film of mine, I would come to an arrangement with the seller that took into account potential problems just as Mike has. In the case of the Derann prints I have that I haven't viewed, I'm certainly not implying there's any merit in not viewing them; it's simply 'one of those things' that I never have. A couple are 'scope and I only set up a scope screen occasionally. One was bought at the end of Derann's trading, when we were all taking a chance as nothing could be returned. Not sure why you feel so strongly about this as no one has advocated anything improper. I've tended to be jobs involving long hours and I've simply had a shortage of spare time for years on end!
Akshay - If you're new to the hobby, you may not yet know that a high proportion of used films in circulation have visible wear of varying degreees that may be distracting and will certainly make the film less valuable. You are of course more likely to find wear on older releases than relatively recent ones, but there's still an element of doubt with more modern releases, unless you are buying from a thorough and reputable seller who can assure you that this doesn't apply. Not everyone has good or well-maintained projectors, so with a sealed print, you at least know that the owner hasn't caused any wear. I've known collectors to claim that a projected print can never be mint (although I disagree) and I expect those taking this view feel would always expect to pay less for a print that has been screened.
Incidentally, don't forget that you can easily have the experience of buying a new print as there are still new releases. It's recommended as it helps to keep the hobby going! But I don't think any of them are sealed nowadays!
--------------------
Adrian Winchester
| IP: Logged
|
|
Osi Osgood
Film God
Posts: 10204
From: Mountian Home, ID.
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted July 07, 2012 12:48 PM
It's all about demand for the title, of course.
Take Peckam's "Close Encounters" print that sold for a very high price but then, it's a very desireable print. "STAR WARS", though many prints were made, is however, very desireable and as of late, (as I well know), it can go for a lot. One forum member here got 1,800 for his print, and that one wasn't in pristine condition. I got 1,000 dollars for my extra print, and that one was pristine. My rare 1980's printing of "Empire Strikes Back" (in cineavision), just sold weeks ago for 1,200 dollars.
... so, were in a period where, naturally, everyone who owns a print of the above titles wants top dollar as well, and it would be grand if every print did go for a lot, (though it does price out those who don't have a lot of bucks) ...
"Master" has far fewer people clamoring for it, so it will bring in far less. I'm betting that it will do far better overseas, (such as the UK) when it comes to bringing in top dollar.
--------------------
"All these moments will be lost in time, just like ... tears, in the rain. "
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
