So if they were forced to use a secondary but "intact" source for a restoration (like say, a print in somehow miraculously good condition) I'd imagine you'd rather see the overall picture quality take a bit of a hit as a price that had to be paid for the actual "original" version that never had any recompositing or anything of that sort done to it, restored to a reasonable level of quality?

I know that 99% of people, even many OOT experts, might not even notice that a "fake original" wasn't really entirely the actual thing, but for you I can see its the principle that is more important. I think I'm beginning to understand (but not completely agree with) your point of view here.

Only thing is, how would *you* ever be convinced they weren't pulling a fast one?