NitrateVille.com

I'm interested in starting a collection. Any hints on where to start? Where to buy? Available books, catalogues, etc.?
Any input would be greatly appreciated.

Well, ebay alsways has loads. Originals and dupes.

As always, buyer beware and if you are looking for originals on stars like Louise Brooks, Valentino and Clara Bow, be prepared to go to the mat if it's a rarity. Others can be had for small change, nice stills, too.

Keep your mitts off Dorothy Gish, though.

Michael,

Where to start depends on what you want. I purchase all my stills (and negatives) from ebay but the prices vary wildly. In the old days, anything less than an original photo looked crummy. Today with high quality scanning and printers, I have been impressed with the quality of copies of rare photos that would cost a fortune if I insisted on acquiring an original. Also, original stills can turn brown with age or have other issues. Beware of sellers offering "Sepiatone" when the paper is really brown with age. I invested in an Epson 700 scanner and it works wonders with refreshing brown and faded photos. Even photos that look fine can be made to look even better with a good scanner. It scans negatives too, even 8x10s.

If you want to just collect and not adjust, you can find some great bargains with reprints, that is, stills that are made from the original negatives but made years later usually in conjunction with a re-release of the film itself. For some reason, these reissues don't command the same prices as a similar photo that dates from the film's original release.

My "right price" for one still is 10 bucks but I'll pay 15 if I'm really blown away by something. Some sellers offer stills in lots that can save you $$. High quality copies can be had for $5 or so. You didn't mention lobby cards but the same approach applies: originals can be pricey but hi-tech copies can look as good, maybe better. Recently, I purchased six lobby card copies of Marx Bros films, they were on heavy stock in an 8x10 format rather than the usual 11x14 for LCs, but very attractively priced. The seller did a nice job and any defects such as faded colors could have been carried over from the originals. So I was pleased but I decided to see what I could get with my Epson 700. My copies looked better, crisper, sharper, more colorful than the copies I bought. My sons are big Marx Bros fans so I made sets for them and the LCs look great framed. I guess the point is that it helps if you can be creative. Good luck with your acquisitions!

Michael O'Regan wrote:I'm interested in starting a collection. Any hints on where to start? Where to buy? Available books, catalogues, etc.?
Any input would be greatly appreciated.

We had a discussion on this subject a bit ago, here's the link:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=12593" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank

Were you looking to start a collection on a particular person or film? Or just general "ooh, that's neat, I wants it" collecting?

bobfells wrote:
Also, original stills can turn brown with age or have other issues...
My "right price" for one still is 10 bucks but I'll pay 15 if I'm really blown away by something.

1) There's some bad things that can go wrong with original stills, most notably degradation of the image due to improper fixing. It usually shows as brown patches, and sometimes other colors like blue. Watch out for those, the image is deteriorating. They can be saved, but I'd only bother on rarities. Sepia toning is a different process from tinting, so there should be no darkening of the base. If someone calls their image a sepia toned original, it should still be on a white background.

2) Thanks, Bob! I'm using this as a guideline for my purchases on individual stills. I've found that sometimes lot auctions for certain actors or films will be quite a bit cheaper per still, but only if the wheat is more abundant than chaff is it worth bidding.

Thanks for the replies and the advice all.

Fred,

Probably a bit of everything. No particular films. However, 1925-35 ish would be my area of interest.

What's the average price that one should be paying for 8x10 stills?

I typically pay $8-12 for vintage stills, slightly less for a copy. Of course, if you collect stills of Theda Bara, Clara Bow, Rudolph Valentino, Louise Brooks or a few other very famous people, you will have to pay a lot more. There are dozens of people who just have to have as many photos of these screen icons that they can find, and will pay a high price to obtain them. Although I love Theda Bara, I have kids and a mortgage and I can't justify paying $200 for a photo of her. Besides, you could buy a nice 16mm feature or 20 photos of less popular stars for that price!

That doesn't mean that you should never pay more for a photo. Some sellers list photos at $15 to $25, and won't take less, so if it is a sharp, vintage photo and you know it is a rare image, there is nothing wrong with paying that much for it.

Is the $8-12 price rage the same for silent film comedians as dramatics actors and actresses?

Vintage Harold Lloyd photos from his sound films and copy photos of most silent comedians can be found in that range. Vintage photos of Harold Lloyd, Roscoe Arbuckle and Buster Keaton short comedies are expensive, as are photos of the solo comedy appearances of Laurel and Hardy.

Charlie Chaplin Essanay photocards/postcards are very inexpensive and easy to find. I don't know if I've ever seen a vintage Chaplin 8x10 still photo from before the 1920s, so they must be rare.

Gloria Rampage wrote:Is the $8-12 price rage the same for silent film comedians as dramatics actors and actresses?

Gloria,

Mercifully, the price ranges don't seem to work that way. The price, whether reasonable or not, is based on the perceived fame of the subject, the rarity of the particular pose, whether it is autographed, and the condition of the photo, usually in that order of importance. Whether the subject is a comedian or dramatic actor, silent or talkie star, is not directly factored in as far as I can tell. The easiest way to learn the ropes is to go to ebay and search for a favorite star. No doubt you'll immediately type in "George Arliss photo." You then see several pages of photos with many duplicate ones in a variety of conditions and prices.

Enjoy window shopping!

Do catalogues exist, or is the situation much the same as for 16mm film collecting, in that regard?

How about books such as:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/HOLLYWOOD-MOV ... 332wt_1197" target="_blank

Thank you silentfilm and bobfels for the useful information. I've always collected silent comedy lobby cards (and motion picture trade ads) in the past and have noticed Larry Semon lobbies with price ranges of $45-60. If Oliver Hardy is pictured with Semon the price hikes up considerable. So I see it's the same with stills.

I do have a selection of stills I purchased many years ago but always preferred lobby cards. I haven't been actively collecting or looking in a while and was curious. When going to Cinecon's dealers rooms this year I know what to expect now.

bobfells wrote:

Gloria Rampage wrote:Is the $8-12 price rage the same for silent film comedians as dramatics actors and actresses?

Gloria,

Mercifully, the price ranges don't seem to work that way. The price, whether reasonable or not, is based on the perceived fame of the subject, the rarity of the particular pose, whether it is autographed, and the condition of the photo, usually in that order of importance. Whether the subject is a comedian or dramatic actor, silent or talkie star, is not directly factored in as far as I can tell. The easiest way to learn the ropes is to go to ebay and search for a favorite star. No doubt you'll immediately type in "George Arliss photo." You then see several pages of photos with many duplicate ones in a variety of conditions and prices.

Enjoy window shopping!

The most I've paid for a shot of Virginia Rappe is $200.00, but I paid that because it was an original and it had the photographer's slug on it. (This should be fair warning, I am willing to go to the mat.) Most of the shots I've bought have been in the $25-$50 range; they are usually news copies of originals. I have several film stills for which I paid similar prices.

You always, always want to watch out for forged signatures, we've seen those on Nita's photos; it's a cottage industry where Valentino is concerned. In Virginia's case you want to watch out for people identifying other women as Virginia, especially if it's someone pictured with Arbuckle. As far as I know, Arbuckle and Virginia were never photographed together and they never did a film together, so no stills exist. When in doubt ask me. And then remember that "mat" thing if it's something I don't already have.

Michael O'Regan wrote:Thanks for the replies and the advice all.

Fred,

Probably a bit of everything. No particular films. However, 1925-35 ish would be my area of interest.

That should keep you insolvent.

Frederica wrote:

Michael O'Regan wrote:Thanks for the replies and the advice all.

Fred,

Probably a bit of everything. No particular films. However, 1925-35 ish would be my area of interest.

That should keep you insolvent.

Yeah, I'm beginning to see that.

Michael O'Regan wrote:

Frederica wrote:

Michael O'Regan wrote:Thanks for the replies and the advice all.

Fred,

Probably a bit of everything. No particular films. However, 1925-35 ish would be my area of interest.

That should keep you insolvent.

Yeah, I'm beginning to see that.

You could limit your collecting to a person or film. Tala Birrell, for instance.

[quote="Frederica
You could limit your collecting to a person or film. Tala Birrell, for instance.[/quote]

The list is endless

Olive Borden
Jetta Goudal
Carmel Myers (though Ben Hur shots will be expensive, she's wearing Erte costumes and the portrait photographer was Ruth Harriet Louise and they often feature Ramon Novarro in less clothing than she has)

My advice, go with what you like, set a budget and keep your eye peeled for mis-identified images. I've bought some great deals because of typos or plain lack of knowledge in what the seller has.

It's fun, I try to stick with vintage, but if it's a good clear dupe as Bruce said, I'm not adverse to it because sometimes I'm buying just to illustrate part of my website or a blog.

Have fun with it.

And one more tip, if it is a production still from a major studio like Paramount or M-G-M or Fox, there are likely vintage duplicates of the photo out there somewhere. So if it is $50 you may be able to be patient and wait for another to surface. However, if it is a photo from an independent studio, especially from the 1910s, it is unlikely that another will pop up soon on eBay.

Unidentified stills are another great way to save you money, but it can work both ways. There are a lot of eBay photos of "Olive Thomas" or "Mary Pickford" that are mis-identified. If I recognize the actor, but don't know the film, I'll buy it anyway, even if it takes me months to identify the film it was taken from.

I don't live in California, but I occasionally run across photos and postcards at antique malls, and they are usually priced cheaply. A few months ago I found two vintage stills of Laurel & Hardy and Charley Chase from Sons of the Desert at an antique mall for $15 total. They would have been much more expensive from an eBay dealer.

Has anyone come across stills with linen backing? I have a few stills from KEYSTONE HOTEL with linen backing. Movie posters are commonly linen backed, but is it unusual for stills?

Gloria Rampage wrote:Has anyone come across stills with linen backing? I have a few stills from KEYSTONE HOTEL with linen backing. Movie posters are commonly linen backed, but is it unusual for stills?

I have a few but I don't seek them out. If the paper isn't thick enough the fabric impression comes through giving the image a canvas-like quality. That's good if you want that effect.

Thanks. Had them for almost twenty years and no fabric impression has seeped through so far, the paper it is pretty thick stock.

Actually, linen backing is just about the gold standard, as that means it is high quality, double-weight paper very less likely to bleed images as it is made from natural fibers and virtually no chemicals, as most paper is. Linen backed also means it is very probably a studio's keybook still, as they usually employed the best for that. Always try to go for double-weight or linen backed, they're the highest quality, then it depends on single-weight paper, some studios are better than others. It is the single-weight paper that easily tears, creases, and breaks.

quick question from a newbie to still collection: what is the best way to store them? i've been using one-sheet plastic sleeves (like the Avery brand available at an office supply store) housed in a three-ring binder. it's economically sound, but is that the best way to preserve them?

pwl wrote:quick question from a newbie to still collection: what is the best way to store them? i've been using one-sheet plastic sleeves (like the Avery brand available at an office supply store) housed in a three-ring binder. it's economically sound, but is that the best way to preserve them?

pwl, I don't know if that's the "best" way to store your stills, but what you've described is what I do. Just make sure the sleeves you use are non-stick. If it won't stick to a printed page, then it should be fine.

Actually the best way to store them is in acid free sleeves preferably in acid free folders inside acid free manuscript boxes from the like of University Products or Light Impressions. Multiple images can be stored together if they are image to image, that is the way the Rochester Permanence Institute recommends. Storing them in sleeves means that every time you pull them out, the image and emulsion can be scratched and damaged, as well as having dust accumulate. Most of those sleeves are nowhere near acid free to the quality that an archive or museum would use.

Oops, meant Rochester's Image Permanence Institute, which has won several Sci/Tech Academy Awards for its work in the science of preserving film, both still and motion picture.

One issue has come up a couple of times in stills I've seen for sale - they aren't the standard 8x10 size but slightly smaller, which leads me to believe the borders have been trimmed away. Would that be considered enough to downgrade the still?

With the borders trimmed, it is a little harder to determine if the still is from the original release, because some information may be missing. I'd say that trimmed stills are less desirable, but that doesn't mean that I would necessarily pay less for a trimmed still. If the photo is of a particular title or actor that you need/want, you don't really have a choice to find a vintage still of the same photo with the borders intact.

silentfilm wrote:With the borders trimmed, it is a little harder to determine if the still is from the original release, because some information may be missing. I'd say that trimmed stills are less desirable, but that doesn't mean that I would necessarily pay less for a trimmed still. If the photo is of a particular title or actor that you need/want, you don't really have a choice to find a vintage still of the same photo with the borders intact.

True dat. One is a still I haven't ever seen before and doesn't come up on any searches. I may jump on it and if it's a mistake and turns out to be not so unusual, eat the loss.