Posts: 679
From: Derbyshire, England
Registered: Dec 2005
posted 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 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 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.
-------------------- The best of all worlds- 8mm, super 8mm, 9.5mm, and HD Digital Projection, Elmo GS1200 f1.0 2-blade Eumig S938 Stereo f1.0 Ektar Panasonic PT-AE4000U digital pj
Posts: 1633
From: Cheshire, U.K.
Registered: Dec 2003
posted 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 OK.
posted 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.
Posts: 4837
From: Plymouth U.K
Registered: Dec 2003
posted 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.
Posts: 679
From: Derbyshire, England
Registered: Dec 2005
posted 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?
Posts: 826
From: United Kingdom
Registered: Jun 2003
posted 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 .
Posts: 1423
From: Weymouth,Dorset,England
Registered: Oct 2012
posted 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.
Posts: 679
From: Derbyshire, England
Registered: Dec 2005
posted 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.
Posts: 2211
From: New York City, NY, USA
Registered: Jun 2003
posted 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.
Posts: 508
From: Southend on Sea, Essex, UK
Registered: Feb 2015
posted 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.
Posts: 7477
From: Manchester Uk
Registered: Aug 2012
posted 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
-------------------- "C'mon Baggy..Get with the beat"
Posts: 826
From: United Kingdom
Registered: Jun 2003
posted 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 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.
Posts: 679
From: Derbyshire, England
Registered: Dec 2005
posted 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.
Posts: 1423
From: Weymouth,Dorset,England
Registered: Oct 2012
posted 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'😉
Posts: 4837
From: Plymouth U.K
Registered: Dec 2003
posted 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, poo!! 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 )
Posts: 679
From: Derbyshire, England
Registered: Dec 2005
posted 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.