Welcome to the Invelos forums. Please read the forum rules before posting.

Read access to our public forums is open to everyone. To post messages, a free registration is required.

If you have an Invelos account, sign in to post.

    Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion Page: 1  Previous   Next
MGM Vintage Classics (?)
Author Message
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorGSyren
Profiling since 2001
Registered: March 14, 2007
Reputation: Highest Rating
Sweden Posts: 4,563
Posted:
PM this userVisit this user's homepageView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
There is a contribution up that changes "Vintage Classics" to "MGM Vintage Classics" for this title:



I have two concerns about this; one general and one specific.

First of all, the contribution notes say "to match approved profiles for other titles in this series." I always get concerned when someone says "to match" something. As we all know, something being approved doesn't necessarily mean that it's correct (sadly). So changing something to match something else may possibly mean that we are actually just propagating a previous error. I believe that each contribution must stand on its own.

Secondly, nowhere on the cover does it actually say "MGM Vintage Classics". There is a Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer logo but it doesn't actually say "MGM" and it's clearly separated from "Vintage Classics".

So, what do you guys think? Is this an acceptable contribution?
My freeware tools for DVD Profiler users.
Gunnar
 Last edited: by GSyren
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorThe_Fox
A fan of physical media
Registered: May 12, 2007
Reputation: High Rating
Germany Posts: 42
Posted:
PM this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
if it is not mentioned somewhere, e.g. in a text or legal info on the cover that it is indeed the MGM vintage classic series, I would consider "Vintage Classics" the correct edition.
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorGSyren
Profiling since 2001
Registered: March 14, 2007
Reputation: Highest Rating
Sweden Posts: 4,563
Posted:
PM this userVisit this user's homepageView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting The_Fox:
Quote:
if it is not mentioned somewhere, e.g. in a text or legal info on the cover that it is indeed the MGM vintage classic series, I would consider "Vintage Classics" the correct edition.

No mention of "MGM Vintage Classics" anywhere.
My freeware tools for DVD Profiler users.
Gunnar
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorAddicted2DVD
Registered: March 13, 2007
Reputation: Highest Rating
United States Posts: 17,329
Posted:
PM this userEmail this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
I agree with you on both... nd personally would say no to that one.
Pete
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar Contributorzappman
Registered: September 6, 2008
Reputation: High Rating
Posts: 120
Posted:
PM this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
To me, it is neither "Vintage Classics" nor "MGM Vintage Classics". There is the "Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer logo" on the cover. There are the words "Vintage Classics" or the cover, but neither of those is an edition. "Vintage Classics" is just some text they put on the cover (not an actual edition).

I checked several MGM DVDs in my collection with similar covers and nowhere on the actual DVD disc label does it say "Vintage Classics".

I actually have a couple of doubled dipped DVDs, and the cover on one copy says "Vintage Classics" and the cover on other DVD cover does not, but both have the exact same DVD with the exact same label inside.

If the cover actually said "Vintage Classics Edition" or "MGM Vintage Classics Edition", I would accept that in the profile.

If the cover actually said "Vintage Classics Collection" or "MGM Vintage Classics Collection", I would accept that in the profile.
 Last edited: by zappman
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar Contributorscotthm
Registered: March 20, 2007
Reputation: Great Rating
United States Posts: 2,848
Posted:
PM this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting GSyren:
Quote:
So, what do you guys think? Is this an acceptable contribution?

No. Where does the contributor suppose the "MGM" has manifested itself? I don't see it anywhere on the cover.

---------------
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorObiKen
Registered: October 22, 2015
Reputation: Highest Rating
Australia Posts: 264
Posted:
PM this userDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting GSyren:
Quote:
...
Secondly, nowhere on the cover does it actually say "MGM Vintage Classics". There is a Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer logo but it doesn't actually say "MGM" and it's clearly separated from "Vintage Classics".
...

The logo should not be considered as part of the edition.

Some of the earlier VHS tapes that used the same "VINTAGE CLASSICS" title had a MGM/UA logo, for example, "The Apartment":
DVD ==> https://www.amazon.com/Apartment-Jack-Lemmon/dp/B00003CX8V
VHS ==> https://www.amazon.com/Apartment-VHS-Jack-Lemmon/dp/6304308396

Interpreting Metro's "VINTAGE CLASSICS" range is similar to the way we treat STUDIOCANAL's range of "VINTAGE CLASSICS" films: https://vintageclassicsfilm.co.uk/

The only instance I've found where the edition is the logo and text is "20th Century Fox Cinema Archives", not "Cinema Archives". It is actually a registered trademark name: https://uspto.report/TM/85979859
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorNosferatu
Registered: March 24, 2007
Reputation: Highest Rating
United Kingdom Posts: 1,213
Posted:
PM this userView this user's DVD collectionDirect link to this postReply with quote
Quoting zappman:
Quote:
To me, it is neither "Vintage Classics" nor "MGM Vintage Classics". There is the "Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer logo" on the cover. There are the words "Vintage Classics" or the cover, but neither of those is an edition. "Vintage Classics" is just some text they put on the cover (not an actual edition).

I checked several MGM DVDs in my collection with similar covers and nowhere on the actual DVD disc label does it say "Vintage Classics".

I actually have a couple of doubled dipped DVDs, and the cover on one copy says "Vintage Classics" and the cover on other DVD cover does not, but both have the exact same DVD with the exact same label inside.

If the cover actually said "Vintage Classics Edition" or "MGM Vintage Classics Edition", I would accept that in the profile.

If the cover actually said "Vintage Classics Collection" or "MGM Vintage Classics Collection", I would accept that in the profile.

I agree with this. The rules state that "the Edition field is for distinguishing between DVDs, and for indicating special versions and collections"; Vintage Classics is neither a special version nor a collection.
DVD Profiler Unlimited RegistrantStar ContributorObiKen
Registered: October 22, 2015
Reputation: Highest Rating
Australia Posts: 264
Posted:
PM this userDirect link to this postReply with quote
My understanding is MGM's "VINTAGE CLASSICS" was a collection of classic films from the (1930s-60s), which was used to differentiate it from MGM's "CONTEMPORARY CLASSICS" collection of classic films from the (1960s-90s): https://dvd.fandom.com/wiki/MGM_Contemporary_Classics

• Here is a MGM VHS promo highlighting the two collections for sale (refer 1:22 mark):
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=st6NUj3AsCQ&ab_channel=VHSTRADERS

• Here is a MGM "Contemporary Classics" VHS promo (refer 0.55 - 1:02 mark):
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Mhpb4MpIrU&ab_channel=retroVHStrailers

  The voiceover stated: "MGM Contemporary Classics. What great movies are all about. Collect them all"

Both VINTAGE CLASSICS and CONTEMPORARY CLASSICS were different collections of classic films from MGM's library, and the rules state collections can be considered for the edition field.

The rules do not state the word "Collection" must be part of the edition name.
 Last edited: by ObiKen
    Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion Page: 1  Previous   Next