Faulty 8mm Prints?

[Philip Hamilton]

I recently purchased via auction on eBay BORED OF EDUCATION - a Little Rascals short from 1936. To my surprise, I noticed that a portion of the image was missing from the print - see picture along right side of frame.

Is this a COMMON issue with vintage 8mm films or Blackhawk Films specifically? I have NEVER see this.

I ask because this was rated as a very good copy but I see it as 'defective'. I asked to return it and the buyer - in a very condescending fashion told me thet these are vintage films and that this type of problem is common and more specifically they owned 3 prints of this film and that all were printed this way. Further, that if I insisted on a refund he would BLOCK me from any further bids on his collection.

I am asking for the refund anyway but am curious how common this problem is in general across the collecting hobby...Thanks!

[Ken Souza]

Hello Philip,

I too have had those printing flaws on some Blackhawk prints. I had a L&H 'Way Out West" that was a tad like that. I remember contacting Blackhawk and they told me it was a flawed print from the optical printer. The negative was not lined up properly and Blackhawk didn't catch it. In those days they exchanged it for me. I do have one L&H in my collection that is like that for a few feet, then it clears up. But not a whole print.

In my view if that eBay Seller is going to be nasty about returning the print for a refund he obviously is not a collector and knows prints. I too would ask for a refund, unless that ad said "no refunds" then you might be stuck. If he is going to block you then you don't want to deal with him anyway. I had something like that happen to me on eBay not too long ago. I contact eBay and Paypal and explained and I got my money back the next day. I let them handle it since my seller got nasty too.

I hope my sharing helps.
Ken

[Brian Fretwell]

I would suppose it would depend on whether he posted screen shots with that white part in the initial sales posting. I assume he didn't or you wouldn't have been surprised.

[Philip Hamilton]

Thanks. All the seller said on the condition was VERY GOOD etc. Which threw me when I watched the film.

Thanks for the feedback. Not surprising that sometimes prints end up like this but to admonish me for not knowing better - well the was different. Haha!

He has agreed on the return and I will do so and YES I wouldn't buy from him in the future anyway given his attitude. It takes all kinds I suppose...

[Xander van der Merwe]

You could consider starting a trend where the value of this print is inflated due to the flaw… a bit like those valuable rare postage stamps with a printing flaw 😉

[Philip Hamilton]

You could consider starting a trend where the value of this print is inflated due to the flaw… a bit like those valuable rare postage stamps with a printing flaw 😉

Perhaps I should keep it and list it as "RARE - HARD TO FIND". haha....

[Adrian Winchester]

Although I think the numbers of 8mm prints in circulation with one fault or another - not even including those that have faded - is the major downside of the hobby, this problem is very rare in my experience. The few that I've owned make me wonder if it may have happened more often with Std 8 prints. It's far more common to see prints that are conspicuously printed off-centre, even though you're not seeing the edge of the image.

I'd agree that the seller's words are misleading in relation to "vintage" films, and if he's a genuine collector, he should have referred to the issue or provided a screen shot. But in view of his dubious claim about three copies all looking the same, if anyone has a copy that is NOT like Philip's, perhaps they could confirm that ones without the fault can be found.

[William Ferry]

This seller is a poor businessman. Caveat Emptor, and all that, but this defect should have been made clear in the listing. I've been selling old prints this year, and I'm upfront about things like splices, missing footage, reddish color fade, etc. We're talking about copies that are 40 years old, at the very least. Realistically, we're not dealing with prints fresh from the lab, but pointing out an issue like this in your listing is only basic decency. Good luck with your refund, you are perfectly justified!

[Osi Osgood]

I agree with all that has been stated. The only time I'd slightly disagree, is if the person has inherited the prints, with no projector to review said print, and so, just judging the print by visual inspection of it, not projected, they couldn't be held responsible for defects, in theory, but a good seller would certainly wish to do right by the seller. Anybody who has read my posts on seller "rocroller1" know that I have been stung by dishonesty, but I would also say that bad or flat out dishonest sellers are the exception and not the rule.

[Philip Hamilton]

Well in this case the seller put this in the description -- "Listing tonight a number of good films. This one is BORED OF EDUCATION with the Little Rascals.The film is mounted on 1-200ft reel. It is a sound film. All films have been screened on a Elmo ST 1200 to see condition."

Clearly, if the film was screened on an Elmo ST-1200 then the defect would have been seen - easily. So when I watched it the first thing I did was go back and read about the film's condition in the description- and the fact that he said he screened it made the issue even crazier!

Good news is I have packaged the item with a prepaid label to send back tomorrow. I appreciate everyone's input. Thanks!!