Re: Editioning

From: Loris Medici ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 07/06/04-11:49:25 AM Z
Message-id: <001e01c46381$955b34d0$bd02500a@Loris>

Thanks for the info Gerry. I think that description is a little bir
compulsive / overkill (especially section about the negative)...


----- Original Message -----
From: "Gerry Giliberti" <>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 4:46 PM
Subject: RE: Editioning

> In B/W and color photography a unique print, as told to me by Janet Lehr
> 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
> 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
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Loris Medici []
> Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 6:09 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Editioning
> I follow that custom too. I sell unique prints (BTW, what is the
> 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
> 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?
> Regards,
> Loris.
Received on Tue Jul 6 11:52:49 2004

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