Certificate of Authenticity

[tim atherton]

This may have been the booklet:

"Fine Art Limited Edition Print Disclosure Laws" 2002 by Joshua J. Kaufman, Esq., published by APA (Art Publishers Association). published in association with PMAI Business Resources

Only about $10.00 - good luck in tracking down a copy though....

[Michael Gordon]

Here's information regarding California law: http://www.tfaoi.com/articles/andres/aa4.htm

[Michael Graves]

It sounds like something you'd get with a collectible porcelain unicorn from the franklin mint. i doubt a serious photo collector would ever ask for such a thing, or take it seriously. anyway, who's to say your certificate of authenticity is authentic?

That's simple. Your certificate of authenticity authenticating the original COA is countersigned by the bank president, who then is witnessed by Bill Gates.

[Mike Boden]

So...this puts a whole new spin on things, but it actually makes a little sense. Basically, if one is selling Limited Edition prints, then they're legally required to include a Certificate of Authenticity. This is for specific states that currently require it, but I now think it should be recommended in general. You just never really know where a print will end up. On the other hand, if it's an open ended edition, then it's not required to include a Certificate.

[paulr]

The great Bruce McCall on certificates of authenticity:

http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/humo...var/new_yorker

[chris jordan]

This is bizarre. I have been selling limited editions of my work in LA and NY galleries for several years, and no one in the process--either buyers or sellers--has ever mentioned any certificate of authenticity.

The purpose of these laws appears to be to provide potential buyers with a way to avoid purchasing a print they have otherwise agreed to purchase. In other words, the only effect of the law for us, is to lose a potential sale to someone who objects to the lack of the certificate. There aren't any penalties or fines for not providing a certificate; it's just a thing to protect buyers from potential limited-edition-fraud. Reputable galleries don't need to worry about the issue in the first place, so my guess is that it's a law that few people pay attention to in the fine-art world.

And anyway, good photographic prints would be far harder to fake than a certificate of authenticity. I could trump up a pretty convincing certificate for "Moonrise" in about five minutes; coming up with a faked print of Moonrise that would convince a knowledgable collector would be another thing...

~cj

[Paul Coppin]

There are some other reasons why someone may ask for one - insurance and tax reasons (and particularly if there are legal requirements - it validates the artist's claim of edition restrictions). If the print is being purchased as an investment vehicle (like, I suspect, most AA's today) more than their aesthetics, it is something the purchaser may want to help secure their investment.

I provide a "certificate", not because I feel the need to validate my own work, but mostly because I haven't come up with a satisfactory (to me) means by which to identify the print as a) my work, and b) one of an edition (if that is the case).
I really don't like signing the face, especially on smaller prints, and honestly, IMO I've never seen a signature on a photo print that didn't detract from the print. I sign the back of the print and edition it, and usually sign and edition the matt. The "certificate" gets mounted on the back of the matt, and generally gives a little info about the subject, maybe techniques, and a copyright.