Changing edition numbers

[QT Luong]

Once you have set edition limit numbers and started selling prints, clearly you cannot raise them, but is there any reason why it wouldn't be considered acceptable to lower them ? It wouldn't hurt a buyer that his 2/50 print becomes all a sudden a 2/15 print. By the way, no, I am not considering going down to 1 :-)

[Greg Lockrey]

I'm confused??? He has a print that you previously signed with a limit of 2/50 and now you wish to re-list it at an edition of 2/15? What happened to the other 35? You guys seem to like to bend the edition rules around here. When I went to school during the "Reniasiance" :rolleyes: all of the edition was made on one continious run and not spread over whenever the artist felt like making a new addition to the edition.

[paulr]

It can come up because sometimes people don't print the whole edition at once. It's one of the differences between photography (which makes this practical) and etching/lithography etc. (which doesn't)

I printed all my silver print editions in one session, because I knew I'd never be able to repeat the results exactly with the toning process I used. But with ink prints I print only a few at a time. When I first started printing in Ink, my plan was to make editions of 50. I knew the chances were slim that I'd ever sell that many, but it would let me feel good about keeping the price low. I wanted to be able to sell work for much less than I'd been doing it in the past, and a big edition seemed like the thing to do.

So I put 'editions of 50' on my website and some other materials, and gave a couple of prints as gifts that said x/50 on the back. But when I consulted with Mary Virginia Swanson a little while later, she whinced when I told her that. It just struck her as an unreasonably large number, and she felt that unless I really thought I could sell 50 of them, I was just shooting myself in the foot. She said a lot of dealers and collectors just don't like seeing a number that big. I realized she was right ... I was never going to sell 50, and an edition of 25 was still over twice as big as anything I've done. So I changed it to 25, everywhere but on the backs of the few prints I'd given away.

There's the small potential for some people getting confused, but none for anyone getting cheated.

[tim atherton]

I'm confused??? He has a print that you previously signed with a limit of 2/50 and now you wish to re-list it at an edition of 2/15? What happened to the other 35? You guys seem to like to bend the edition rules around here. When I went to school during the "Reniasiance" :rolleyes: all of the edition was made on one continious run and not spread over whenever the artist felt like making a new addition to the edition.

It's one of the great things about artificial editions. Apart from the one or two places where there are art laws, there are no rules... (and in many of those cases - which are usually only in the US - they don't always define "how" an edition is made)

It's always been the case in photography since editions arrived that some printed up a whole edition, while some printed on demand.

As Paul said, in the likes of etching/lithography it's a practical matter (though in other areas of art it isn't - bronze editions are also sometimes printed in batches and not all at once).

There are practices groups of people follow - but they are also often conflicting...

[Bill_1856]

We al know that it's basiclly a gimmick. How many successful photographers will sell out their 50 (or 100, or whatever) 8x10s, then announce another numbered batch of 11x14s. Etc?
Personally, I just number them when i print, sell, and sign them. #1, #2, #3, etc. So far I've never needed to go above ten. I don't believe that many photographers ever print the whole series. I wonder why Roman Loranc "retires" his best negatives?
If I have a special print that I've given to a friend, I label it "AP1, AP2, etc " and do not include it in the regular numbered sequence.

[naturephoto1]

Hi Bill,

I have gone well beyond 30-60 on a large number of prints. Some are into the early to mid 100+. In fact, one of my images sold 20 24" X 30" photos in a single year alone and I have many images that not uncommonly can sell about 8 to 15 copies in the 20" X 30" size or 24" X 30" per year alone. There is little question that some of my images will sell out their edition of 250 (in 1-5 sizes collectively) in framed and unframed copies and will generate sales over their lifetime of over $100,000.

Rich

[alanps]

Sorry but I disagree - in my book if you have an edition of 10 - 20 or 1000 it is an edition and cannot change.

You can start another edition - but not change the existing one - there may not be specific laws regarding this - but there are laws against misleading advertising and fraud......

[paulr]

We al know that it's basiclly a gimmick. How many successful photographers will sell out their 50 (or 100, or whatever) 8x10s, then announce another numbered batch of 11x14s. Etc?

in the high end art market, none that I'm aware of.
No idea what goes on at local art fairs.

[naturephoto1]

in the high end art market, none that I'm aware of.
No idea what goes on at local art fairs.

Paul,

I have not been nearly as successful at Art Shows as many of my peers, but I have known many to sell out entire editions in 1 or 2 years of editions of 250 and then debate to offer them in a new edition or an open ended edition.

At this point, I will continue to participate in some Art Shows, find gallery representation, and directly market my work. But, in so doing I must maintain the promised edition size as well as adjust the pricing to all so that the Galleries can collect half of the sale price.

Rich

[paulr]

I have known many to sell out entire editions in 1 or 2 years of editions of 250 and then debate to offer them in a new edition or an open ended edition.

Could you describe the market in which these people are selling? Is it local art fairs selling decorative work to, AIPAD galleries selling to collectors, or something in between?

[naturephoto1]

Hi Paul,

These are what you may consider as local Art Fairs. But there are many of these Art Shows, Art and Craft Fairs that may be of some prestige due to the difficulty of acceptance and large sales throughout the US. Many of such shows are highly ranked through different sources and draw artists and exhibitors from all over the US and Canada. In fact, I have seen exhibitors in some of the East Coast shows from California, Utah, Montana, and even Alaska. These shows would not be considered high end Art Galleries, but through such experience, recognition, and performance, many of these artists have gone on to open their own galleries and find Gallery Representation. I can not confirm this but I believe the most successful and best known of such artists is Thomas Kinkade :( (and let's not go there- that is a sore point for many of us as you know).

Rich

[QT Luong]

Rich, if you operate your own gallery it doesn't count as a gallery, it's just a store :-)

So Paul, did MVS had anything to say about your modification to the edition number ?

[Peter Mounier]

...Apart from the one or two places where there are art laws, there are no rules...

This is a popular misconception, unless, by "one or two places" you mean continents.
In the U.S. there are at least 13 states that regulate by law (rules?) the business of making and selling fine art prints, including California, and New York.

"Legal Guide For The Visual Artist"
by Tad Crawford
Allworth Press
ISBM 1-58115-003-2

The only allusion of "reducing" the size of editions is in the statement that "This numbering (traditional method of stating the edition numbers, ie:1/50), in legal terms, is a warranty. In any sale, a warranty is an express or implied fact on which a purchaser can rely."

Peter

[paulr]

Richard, I ask because in certain sections of the gallery world there are strong conventions, many of which are there to maintain trust between dealers and collectors. My sense is that in the higher end galleries (which I would define loosely as ones that sell primarily to an existing base of serious collectors, rather than to retail-type walk-in customers) it would be seriously frowned on for an artist to mess with the spirit of the agreement by releasing new editions in slightly different sizes.

I've heard of artists issuing new editions ... but I believe there's a general understanding that any new one needs to be substantially different from the old one. Like mural prints vs. small prints, or ink prints vs. silver prints--so they would be seen as significantly different works based on the same image.

[paulr]

So Paul, did MVS had anything to say about your modification to the edition number ?

She didn't, but at the time it really wasn't an issue ... I hadn't sold any of the prints; just given a few away.

[tim atherton]

This is a popular misconception, unless, by "one or two places" you mean continents.
In the U.S. there are at least 13 states that regulate by law (rules?) the business of making and selling fine art prints, including California, and New York.

"Legal Guide For The Visual Artist"
by Tad Crawford
Allworth Press
ISBM 1-58115-003-2

The only allusion of "reducing" the size of editions is in the statement that "This numbering (traditional method of stating the edition numbers, ie:1/50), in legal terms, is a warranty. In any sale, a warranty is an express or implied fact on which a purchaser can rely."

Peter

Certainly there's basic common law - which is sually about as felxible as your lawyer can make it :D

Note, however, that if you read through most of those actual State laws and regualtions on selling art and editions, most vary widely on their definitions and requirements. Some very lose and vague, some very clearly defined and strict. (for example, many only apply to actual Galleries, not artists selling their work directly)

Aside for other places... The US isn't a Continent... It's a smaller partner on the North American Continent. As far as I'm aware the other two countries on that Continent don't have similar laws.... :) (okay I'm not so sure about Mexico).

[QT Luong]

A while ago, I remember reading that when you issue limited edition prints, you must disclose all the edition numbers of the image in all sizes/variations, not just the one that applies to the print purchased. This would prevent you from starting a 16x24 edition after selling out your 12x18 if your 16x24 edition wasn't listed from the beginning.

I assume all of this will remain in a legal limbo until there is a lawsuit to establish a legal precedent. I don't really see any buyer suing over his edition being reduced from 50 to 15 (what cause would he have ?). What I was wondering was if this practice would be frown upon in the gallery world.

[Vaughn]

Once you have set edition limit numbers and started selling prints, clearly you cannot raise them, but is there any reason why it wouldn't be considered acceptable to lower them ? It wouldn't hurt a buyer that his 2/50 print becomes all a sudden a 2/15 print. By the way, no, I am not considering going down to 1 :-)

I do not make the entire edition at one time. With the process I use (carbon printing) there is a chance (much higher than silver printing) that I will accidently destroy the negative. I have not yet had to shorten an edition after-the-fact, but if I do, I plan on sending the owners of prints a notice that the edition has been reduced in size. The documentation would be well printed on good paper so that it can stay with the print and las as long as it does.

I can't really imagine anyone getting upset that their #1 of 5 is now #1 of 3.

I also do not expect that all the prints of an edition will be identical -- since I might print another of an edition months if not years after the first print of the edition, the later prints could easily be better printed the first (one is always learning...so why ignore new knowledge and experience in one's printing). None of the changes would be very radical (size, color, etc).

Vaughn

[paulr]

I also do not expect that all the prints of an edition will be identical ...

that's become standard practice ... no one insists that prints in an edition be identical anymore. but it always struck me as strange, so i personally decided to do all my silver prints at once. this is one of those areas where you have to be guided by your own feelings about the work. as long as you're not deceiving anyone, i think there's room for a lot of flexibility.

[gregstidham]

QT,
I would check the California laws regarding artists. I seem to remember areas that detail editions and how to handle them. I think it would be best to stick to your number of an edition once you commit to it. I don't have a link to help you. If I come across a reference I'll pass it along

[tim atherton]

QT,
I would check the California laws regarding artists. I seem to remember areas that detail editions and how to handle them. I think it would be best to stick to your number of an edition once you commit to it. I don't have a link to help you. If I come across a reference I'll pass it along

there was a booklet you could get with all the various States laws on selling art - I have one around here somewhere but have no idea which box it's in...

[tim atherton]

not sure if these links will work, but:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=62826029556+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=62826029556+1+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

among others

[Vaughn]

that's become standard practice ... snip... as long as you're not deceiving anyone, i think there's room for a lot of flexibility.

It also helps that carbon printing is a hand-made process. I know too many photographers that have had to scramble to find the last of a discontinued silver gelatin paper in order to finish an edition or as in one case, finish limited editions of a book of tipped-in photographs. At least I have a better chance of having the same material to work with.

And of course the reason for editioning in the first place was that the first litho/etching was different than the last one -- along with variations in inking, etc that could cause slight differences from print to print.

Then there is a question on how identical even silver gelatin prints can be -- even if printed all at one time. I have no doubt that it can be done to the point where an untrained eye would see zero difference, but one has so many variables -- slight differences in batches of manufactored paper, exhaustion of developers and fixers (affects how a print tones), voltage fluxuations effecting exposure...along with human factors.

Vaughn

[Eric James]

I'm not clear on your motivation Tuan, but what would be wrong with maintaining the original edition limit and simply raising the price for subsequent prints to either 1) make it worth your trouble or 2) discourage subsequent purchases?

[Greg Lockrey]

Then there is a question on how identical even silver gelatin prints can be -- even if printed all at one time. I have no doubt that it can be done to the point where an untrained eye would see zero difference, but one has so many variables -- slight differences in batches of manufactored paper, exhaustion of developers and fixers (affects how a print tones), voltage fluxuations effecting exposure...along with human factors.

Vaughn

Really that's the bane of photography having limited editions no matter which method of counting is used. Photography is a very mechanical process and by it's design very repeatable. This is why edition numbers can never be trusted. With the onset of digital printing and that the printers that have a statistical error of delta 12, prints made today or a year from now will look the same. Personnaly when I make a print, of any kind whether photo or art reproduction, I sign the print with the date made. Then the collector, if that is truly the reason for the purchase, has a reference to my history in art making as to when the print was made. Influences of advancement in technology, better papers, ink, etc can then be considered. Not so much if they have 1/50. Besides I'm so much of a non-conformist that I won't let a gallery or "collector" decide as to how many prints I'm allowed to make and therefore the money I will eventually make off of my efforts.

[Brian K]

You can lower an edition. Who is going to complain that you made the print they already bought from you even more scarce and more valuable? Also many times artists either stop printing an image, well before the edition is sold out, or they die before printing the whole edition.

It is common for the limited edition to be based on a specific print type. Like you can sell out a silver edition, and then print a new edition on platinum. I have seen this happen many times.

[billschwab]

AIPAD (http://www.aipad.com) puts out an informative booklet (http://www.aipad.com/publications/)called "On Collecting Photography" that has very useful information about accepted practices of limiting photographic editions. In most cases an edition stamp will state that the quantity "will not exceed" a certain number, implying that there may be less than this number in existence. I would see no problem with making an edition smaller than originally stated. I keep an edition book with names of buyers and if possible might notify anyone who possesses a print of the change so that it can be noted in the provenance.

http://www.aipad.com/publications/

[Vaughn]

It is common for the limited edition to be based on a specific print type. Like you can sell out a silver edition, and then print a new edition on platinum. I have seen this happen many times.

I do state that the negative of a 5 print edition of carbon prints might be used to make a 10 print edition of platinum/palladium prints. But I rarely do so, as the my negs for carbon printing are too contrasty for pt/pd most of the time. I do see a carbon print and a pt/pd from the same negative as being two very different works of art -- different feel, look and impact...and the carbon print is even a reversed (mirror) image. But that is because I see the print, as an object, being equally important as the image itself.

Greg,

I will have to disagree -- photography did not necessarily start out with an emphisis as a repeatable process, and not all photo processes are repeatable. I think that the ability to capture light has had a much more lasting influence on the art than its repeatability. True, cyanotypes were invented to make copies of astronomical notes, but the first use of them in book form were not replicated images -- but each print unique in that the plants were laid down on the paper and exposed for each print (as I understand it, anyway).

Even most painting can be made in identical multiples -- if the artist (or forger) wants to take the time to paint the exact painting again and again.

"With the onset of digital printing and that the printers that have a statistical error of delta 12, prints made today or a year from now will look the same."

Maybe -- if the same ink, printer, software and paper (if all are still available) are used. (but I think you covered that in your post)

Well...I was going to delete all of my reply to you after re-reading your post 4 or 5 more times, but I'll leave it anyway. I am not so sure now that we are on the same wavelength in what we are discussing. I am having trouble following your logic (not necessarily your fault).

Vaughn

[tim atherton]

I will have to disagree -- photography did not necessarily start out with an emphisis as a repeatable process, and not all photo processes are repeatable. I think that the ability to capture light has had a much more lasting influence on the art than its repeatability. True, cyanotypes were invented to make copies of astronomical notes, but the first use of them in book form were not replicated images -- but each print unique in that the plants were laid down on the paper and exposed for each print (as I understand it, anyway).


Essentially, a major aspect of the invention of photography was the the culmination of numerous efforts in different places to produce a cheap mechanical means for exact and repeatable mechanical duplication (this was, for example, one of Fox Talbot's main state aims of his experiments).

And the first recorded use of the word photography (well "photographie") was in association with being able make exactly reproducible labels for botanical specimens and repeatable decorative patterns.

There were other strands, but this one was a major impetus driving the invention of photography