Certificates of Authencity

[Big Fish]

I know there are a few Certificates of Authencity(COA)available but are there templates for fine art photography specifically, possible in Word. Being fine art is archival rated, what paper should certificates use, what ink, type set, etc. If you need to (wet)sign, date,etc. but type of pen, pencil is best to use. Also, how and where do you attach the COA to the back of print. What type of archival adhesive? Is it coated?

Thanks.

Big Fish

[Martin Miller]

Try www.universityproducts.com and search on labels, laser to get archival quality self-adhesive label paper. You can easily custom design your own COA in any word processing program.

[Bob Salomon]

But use a spell checker!

[David A. Goldfarb]

I've never seen a certificate of authenticity attached to the print itself. It might be supplied with the print or attached to a mount, but it would be a bad idea to attach anything directly to a print, and most of the conservation literature is doubtful about self-adhesive products for photographs, and that includes "archival" self-adhesive linen tape. Here is one article on the topic--

http://cool-palimpsest.stanford.edu/.../an23-409.html

[Big Fish]

Martin and David....

Many thanks for input. I am going to research further and will post results.

Big Fish

[Tim Hyde]

There is a certain "Franklin Mint" quality to COAs, more a clue to the piece's lack of authenticity. I would be afraid it might scare off more serious buyers than it attracts.

[Big Fish]

Hi Tim...

Thanks for input and you bring up a good point. The artist signature or mark has always been verification of authenticity and obviously created financial value to the work. Descriptions of the date, process, materials, etc. used, including any verifiable story behind it, during the creation of the work adds much more value to the work, if it's historic in nature or, the artist has achieved some level of recognition. I have seen COA's from well known contemporary photograpgher/master printer attached to the back of their work. I am trying to understand if this a standard practice or practice on the rise.

I have no dog in the hunt, but going back to your point. If a photographer captures a image, let's say a wild ocean wave, on a digitial camera (memory card) and that scans the image, and maniputales with imaging software and, then further manipulates in PS, to include all sorts of plug-ins and, creates a master file to look very dramatic concluding with a beautiful print. Which is authentic, the grey and bit dreary original image or the master file(print). I think the basis of my question is, to be credible and have intregrity, how much does the buyer need to know about the work of art.

I have seen prints signed by the artist which were fradulent. I have also seen beautiful printed images, mostly pre-1900, with absolutely no information at all.

Just a question with no dog in the hunt.

Best Regards,

Big Fish

[David A. Goldfarb]

I think the issue is that certain states actually require such a certificate, and while not every visual artist in such locations actually provides one, it does seem more prevalent in some areas. I think Robert Teague mentioned that there is such a law in Hawai'i, perhaps because there are many tourist galleries where visitors make impulse purchases, and there are lots of digital reproductions sold in the same galleries that offer originals for sale.

[walter23]

There is a certain "Franklin Mint" quality to COAs, more a clue to the piece's lack of authenticity. I would be afraid it might scare off more serious buyers than it attracts.

Yeah, I'd find it pretty corny.

[Big Fish]

Gentlemen...

Thanks for input on this discussion. For clarity, I am unconcerned about a "Franklin Mint" quality or the "Hawaii" tourist street marketplace selling photographs "on the spot" with a glorious flyer about the senstive photographer getting his/her camera at age 6. So on and so on.

Nor am I concerned about state laws which, usually is a minimum requirement, regulating the sale of "fine art photographs" to unwary consumers. I am interesting in establishing credibility and intregrity in selling a fine arts product, in this case, a digitized reproduction from an original photographic negative. I am assuming posters to this discussion thread are large format (30 x 40) fine art photographers that routinely offer and have sold their copyrighted images and or have ownership rights to reproductions are selling north of $1500 minimum purchase price.

To extend my point about how much information and, how it is conveyed to the purchaser should the seller/artist adequately provide to demonstrate authencitity. In a broad sense, authencitity meaning, I am saying who I am and this is what you are truly purchasing. If providing "authentic" information about a work of art(photograph) or the quality and ownership of a reproduction is considered "corny" I may be in the wrong forum and will gladly move on.

Again, many appreciations for intelligent and insightful discussion on the topic.

Best Regards,

Big Fish