A lot of the films we see for sale now from the likes of Paul, Barry or Phil are often listed with the filmstock a title may be on, LPP poly or Eastman etc. These dealers are experienced and get the information off the film so when i buy, i am happy that is is what is listed.
A lot of money is being spent on new/newer products from the lab in Germany, Andec, bearing in mind its unlikely to still be around for 8 and 16mm in ten years time, about the same time it took for the crappy cheap fast fade Eastman stock companies use to use, to fade.
So this new stuff we are told is kodak low fade, hands up if anyone knows this for certain, and how do we prove it? Is it marked on the film or are we just told this and in for a shock ten years down the road. Some collectors may not give a monkey's, but i for one do.

If they were told they never let on when printing the wide selection for sale at the time Tom. I suspect our naivety got the better of us, we were happy to part with our cash at the time for that title new /old for a price. I hope this time around they have been honest and upfront, but a waiting game will only tell us at the end if that's true. Its perhaps the reason i have bought more black and white films recently, mainly 16 mm now i find, but even some dodgy copies of these are around, ask the questions as always, plus i find myself asking are they dupes, in the case of many 16 mm popular titles, i 'm still learning about these , as some are better than others, i have two that i know of , both 16 mm and black and white, so these could be a double whammy in the long term.

Tom has made a good point.
I recently got a new copy of "Jurassic Park" from David Baker. It has no edge marking whatsoever to indicate its stock.
However, it appears to be polyester as I can see my hand though it if held against the light.

I think thats wrong, i would have thought that a company like kodak would have their brand name on it, this is what i was wondering. I get we will have to trust the company.