Re: Editioning and trying to make identical prints

From: steves ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 07/02/04-03:06:21 PM Z
Message-id: <001701c46078$a2747660$>

Less than trying to make prints identical, I'm so damn happy that I got one
the way I wanted, I simply make more.

With a successful mother as an artist, printmaker, I learned to number my
prints. If I go back and make more once the first edition sells out, I put
a decimal after the lower number to mark the edition, i.e. 1/5 and 1/5.2

Ansel editioned his prints according to the lower numbers being his choice
as the 'best' quality; and larger numbers that followed.

I number my prints, mostly based on the chronological order they were made.
Just for sentiment. If I loose track over the order they were made, I
choose the best and number them first. Sometimes, I group them in
portfolios in an order of consistency. I found my number four of five to be
the best, and put a higher price, graduting according to editions. In that
way, the less amount of portfolios available, the more valuable the once
sold would become. That was merely an incentive to the collector to make
their decision if they were hesitant. One more bauble to influence a buyers

S. Shapiro
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill William" <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 11:56 PM
Subject: RE: Editioning

> --- Judy Seigel <> :
> > (As far as I know, painters do not find it necessary
> > to make their
> > paintings identical -- or not on purpose anyway.)
> >
> > Judy
> True.
> Still, I have know painters who paint the same subject in
> the same way (not identical but close) when they find an
> image that sells.
> That doesn't seem much dif. from what photographers do,
> except Photographers too often TRY HARD to MAKE them
> exactly identical... perhaphs due to the very nature of
> the medium.
> Ray
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
Received on Fri Jul 2 15:05:27 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 08/13/04-09:01:10 AM Z CST