RE: Editioning

From: Gerry Giliberti ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 07/06/04-07:46:12 AM Z
Message-id: <91614AC5612CD611BDC500062970ACDF01A934B2@EXCHANGE_SERV>

In B/W and color photography a unique print, as told to me by Janet Lehr of
the Vered Art Gallery in East Hampton, NY, is a print that has no existing
negative, is the only surviving print of its kind, it's signed by the
photographer and should have been printed by the photographer (this may not
always be the case. In terms of colleting I'm sure this relates to
alternative process prints. (Note: I found this info out when I asked her
about a Many Ray print that they had for sale and they labeled it "Unique.")

-----Original Message-----
From: Loris Medici []
Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 6:09 PM
Subject: Re: Editioning

I follow that custom too. I sell unique prints (BTW, what is the difference
between a unique print and a monoprint?), but I warning the purchaser that
the prints are unique only for the medium/color + size combination, in other
words: I can print the same image in another medium/color and/or size. I
don't think it's wrong to call this "unique" as soon as the purchaser is
informed correctly. What do you think?


----- Original Message -----
From: "Judy Seigel" <>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 6:05 AM
Subject: RE: Editioning

> There's something else should be mentioned: It's customary to start
> numbering over with a different size or a different medium. For instance,
> if an edition of 8 in, say, cyanotype, is sold, you can do another edition
> of any number you choose in, say, platinum. Or if the first edition was
> 8x10, you can do a new one in 11x14. Etc. And so forth.
> Judy
Received on Tue Jul 6 07:32:38 2004

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