How to determine an A/B neg version?

We've discussed so much about all those variants of the First Nationals, but
is there a quick way (other than A-B [sic]comparison with the Estate
versions and subjective 'quality' guessing) to get a grasp on when a
particular video or film print is from the 20s prints at all? E.g., the
original title design -- if my understanding is correct (the titles were
replaced by Rollie when assembling the fresh versions), I should only be
able to find it in either original versions or David Shepard's restored
versions (which of course do not circulate on film, and on video are easy to
recognize as the bootlegs they are due to their unusually non-bootleg image
quality!), correct? Of course, if they have the Pathé sign, that would make
it really easy to pinpoint what version they are....

Or... as far as I know, there was a *50s* German theatrical release of THE
KID, and a *pre-revue* German compilation of (I believe) PILGRIM / DOG'SA
LIFE / PAY DAY, both in the 50s. They may have been 'pirated' anyways,
unless the German distributors got a license from CC, so what would be the
likeliness of those being A or B versions? They may very well still exist.
Also, the French DVD of the Revue claims the French version contained PAY
DAY rather than DOG'S LIFE, however the DVD's PAY DAY version is clearly
that (copyright and all) from the 70s release. Maybe that statement is just
a mistake? Or maybe interesting 35mm material might not just be slumbering
in *Danish* archives....

Uli

>From: "Ulrich Ruedel" uruedel.RemoveThis@t-online.de

>as far as I know, there was a *50s* German theatrical release of THE
>KID, and a *pre-revue* German compilation of (I believe) PILGRIM / DOG'SA
>LIFE / PAY DAY, both in the 50s. They may have been 'pirated' anyways

Here's a post of mine from 1997:
I was rummaging throught some old newspaper articles I've saved about
Chaplin over the years and came across the following. It was written by
Omer Anderson and carried in the Los Angeles Times (8-18-63) from the
North American Newspaper Alliance under the headline:
CHAPLIN CHAFING OVER FILM REVIVAL
BONN--Charlie Chaplin's films are having an astonishing world-wide
revival, but the Swiss-domiciled comedian is outraged rather than
delighted.
For the Chaplin revival involves pirated--or so he claimes--versions of
his silent-era comic masterpieces.
Chaplin has no fewer than 20 lawsuits pending in courts around the world
to enjoin the showing of various of his silent-film epics. When he sold
his studios in the United States, according to his suit filed with the
court in Frankfurt, it was with the understanding that his surplus
material was to be destroyed, and was sold a firm for burning.
Instead, some copies of the silent-era Chaplin classics were bootlegged.
These have since been duplicated and prints are being distributed
illegally around the world.
Chaplin, meanwhile, has been re-issuing some of his old films, updating
them with new dialogue where feasible and adding technical embellishments.
Chaplin complains, however, that the re-issued Chaplins are forced to
compete against the bootlegged Chaplins, some of the bootleggers having
the effrontery to bill their illicit wares as "the real Chaplin".
Pure gold among the bootleg films is Chaplin's 1925 silent film "Gold
Rush". Atlas film distributors of West Germany bought a copy of this film
from Beta films, a German film brokerage company, for $12,500 last year.
Atlas has been distributing "Gold Rush" with just that
result--box-office grosses estimated at $250,000--high for any film shown
in Germany today.