IDK. but having used Kodak films since the days of Kodacolor 32ASA, I'm totally convinced that 95% of the supposed "differences" in films are entirely down to the quality, or otherwise, of the processing and printing (or nowdays, scanning). Obviously there are grain and contrast differences in different speeds, but "consumer" film with proper processing can be amazing, while "pro" film with cheapo processing inevitably = crap.

In my recent experience, Kodak "Farbwelt 100" bought in Austria, Kodak Gold 100 from Italy, and Kodak Gold 200 and Kodak ColorPlus from the UK produce technically identical high-quality results, with quality processing. The respective cassettes are absolutely identical printed simple black on yellow "Kodak Color Negative film 100 (or 200) ASA", in English.

My point is, how much difference (if any) is there, and how much is marketing? Most marketing generally is hype, and it is naive to think that our hobby is exempt.

As you find same signiture at all Zeiss lenses or Leica Lenses spreads in 80 years , I believe Kodak have a signiture on all of its products. I think first non signiture product was Ektar. Everyone knows and expects the similar color pallette from Fuji or Kodak Products.

If you invest in quality , you get extremelly high quality Kodak pictures from Kodak film not anything else.

But you cant put Kodachrome and Protophoto in to same basket , if you could do that nobody posts thousands of posts to forum in 4 years for Kodachrome.