Alan Zinn wrote:
> At 03:19 AM 2/11/2002 -0500, you wrote:
> >Daniel Perez wrote:
> >
> >> Hello list,
> >> I have a matted, framed, dry mounted print that is
> >> going to be auctioned off by a gallery in NYC. Since
> >> the print was a mono-print the gallery said it must be
> >> signed to be auctioned at the reserve price they set.
> >>
> >> Here's the thing.. They already have the framed
> >> print. They got it from another gallery that was
> >> showing it. I'm in Dallas. I suggested that I open it
> >> up and sign it when I go up to NYC for the opening
> >> reception.
> >> My question is, where can I sign it? There is some
> >> white space around the image on the paper, but the mat
> >> board covers it. Anyone sign prints, then cover the
> >> signature with a mat? What about signing the back of
> >> the board? (I usually leave space for this when
> >> matting, but I didn't think this one would end up
> >> getting auctioned!)
> >>
> >> Your help and suggestions are greatly appreciated!
> >> Thanks,
> >> Daniel Perez
> >> Dallas, TX
> >
> >Daniel,
> >You should sign the print itself, whether it shows or not. The point of
> signing
> >the print vs. the mat is that in the future, the mat might be changed and no
> >longer be part of the image.
> >
> >By signing the image itself you are 'authenticating' it.
> >
> >Harvey Ferdschneider
> >partner, SKID Photography, NYC
> >
> >
> Guys,
> That depends on how the print is mounted. I would never sign the face of a
> mounted print. Worse-case I might relent and sign the rebate with a pen. I
> speak from long experience having known people who make a living selling
> editions of mounted prints. You will see few photographs in museums, I
> believe, with writing on the front. Most photogs have a rubber stamp for the
> back of the mat. You could just sign the back or make a label to glue to the
> back. On the other hand, I have seen editions signed with, would you
> believe, metallic ink on the face of the print! But YOU would't do that,
> would you?
>
> AZ
My point about signing the print itself (front or back), but actually 'signing'
it, is purely a 'marketing' concept.
There has been a *huge* scandal in the fine art photo world recently over Lewis
Hine photos. Someone who had access to Hine's negative made a bunch of prints
that were sold as authentic (as in 'made under Hine's direct supervision') when
in fact they were not.
The only difference between the two is price. The 'authentic' Hine images sell
for thousands of dollars each, and mere 'copies' sell for hundreds of dollars.
In my opinion, it is a marketing 'thing', and you are being asked by a 'gallery'
to authenticate your own print by signing it, so that they can sell it for more
money (remember the 'reserve' they mentioned?).
And while eyes, signatures can be faked, it's harder to to do then fake a
'stamp' or no mark at all.
Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]