Printing records....
-
- Art Connoisseur
- Posts: 207
- Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 1:00 am
- Location: San Francisco, CA
- Contact:
I've been talking with several people on EB concerning printing records. This afternoon, over a pint and a smoke, we decided we wanted to try showing you what we have to post and try to figure out with more clarity the best way to do this. For our trial run we have chosen BG103. The point here is to give as much access to information as possible on this rather arcane subject.
In the 60s there were multiple printings of many posters. The value between a first and second printing can sometimes be five or ten thousand or more. Because of this, and also the desire of serious collectors wanting to fully and accurately ascertain what it is they have, the subject of first and second printings becomes important. The most widely used "guide" for this is the Eric King book, of which there have been three or four editions, which have changed over time. On this particular poster, BG103, he has in each of his editions said that this poster was only printed once. However, in this case (as well as others), I do not believe this to be accurate. We are posting below both an image of a first printing and a second printing along with their corresponding printing documents. In my opinion, the designation of first, second, or other printings should be based, as much as possible, on contemporaneous recordings or notes, printing records, payments, dockets, printing plates, uncut sheets, and any other tangible evidence. I personally think that "eyewitness", i.e., "I remember," or "I talked with," should be given the least weight as far as reaching any conclusion.
As I mentioned above please see below the original printings dockets from Tea Lautrec. One docket, number 25247 is dated 1/5/1968 and is for the original printing for the posters, postcards, bulk mailers and tickets. (A printing docket, in this case, consists of a 9 X 12 envelope. On the outside of the envelope goes the information of the "who, what, when, where and why" of that particular printing job. In most cases there is a folded up sample of the printing job that is kept by the printer in case of problems with that job or in case of reprinting. The Tea Lautrec printing dockets that I have are not always complete). The second printing docket, number 25345, is dated 12/4/1968 and is for 1,000 posters of BG103. The folded poster shown above is taken from the second printing docket. In this case, there were no first printing posters inside the first printing docket. We compared our known second printing with another poster in my collection, which I believe is a first (the colors match the cards on the addressed bulk rate "mailer" which is always assumed to be the first because they had to be mailed out before the show).
We were unsure how or where to post this and have gotten suggestions back but still don't know how to do it, as we're unsure of the exact process. We've also been discussing what it will take to add additional printing documents but wanted to do a dry run here because we wanted to see what everyone thought of this. We can't say how quickly we can do it as we've got other things in the works but this was kind of fun. I am also interested in hearing anyone's reactions, suggestions, disagreements or whatever. I realize that many of you do not have the physical posters and also cannot hold the original docket but I still hope that this adds some clarity or will be of help.
In the 60s there were multiple printings of many posters. The value between a first and second printing can sometimes be five or ten thousand or more. Because of this, and also the desire of serious collectors wanting to fully and accurately ascertain what it is they have, the subject of first and second printings becomes important. The most widely used "guide" for this is the Eric King book, of which there have been three or four editions, which have changed over time. On this particular poster, BG103, he has in each of his editions said that this poster was only printed once. However, in this case (as well as others), I do not believe this to be accurate. We are posting below both an image of a first printing and a second printing along with their corresponding printing documents. In my opinion, the designation of first, second, or other printings should be based, as much as possible, on contemporaneous recordings or notes, printing records, payments, dockets, printing plates, uncut sheets, and any other tangible evidence. I personally think that "eyewitness", i.e., "I remember," or "I talked with," should be given the least weight as far as reaching any conclusion.
As I mentioned above please see below the original printings dockets from Tea Lautrec. One docket, number 25247 is dated 1/5/1968 and is for the original printing for the posters, postcards, bulk mailers and tickets. (A printing docket, in this case, consists of a 9 X 12 envelope. On the outside of the envelope goes the information of the "who, what, when, where and why" of that particular printing job. In most cases there is a folded up sample of the printing job that is kept by the printer in case of problems with that job or in case of reprinting. The Tea Lautrec printing dockets that I have are not always complete). The second printing docket, number 25345, is dated 12/4/1968 and is for 1,000 posters of BG103. The folded poster shown above is taken from the second printing docket. In this case, there were no first printing posters inside the first printing docket. We compared our known second printing with another poster in my collection, which I believe is a first (the colors match the cards on the addressed bulk rate "mailer" which is always assumed to be the first because they had to be mailed out before the show).
We were unsure how or where to post this and have gotten suggestions back but still don't know how to do it, as we're unsure of the exact process. We've also been discussing what it will take to add additional printing documents but wanted to do a dry run here because we wanted to see what everyone thought of this. We can't say how quickly we can do it as we've got other things in the works but this was kind of fun. I am also interested in hearing anyone's reactions, suggestions, disagreements or whatever. I realize that many of you do not have the physical posters and also cannot hold the original docket but I still hope that this adds some clarity or will be of help.
AWESOME!!!
imho each of these images should be uploaded to the image gallery for this piece. in this case, although there is currently only an OP-1 entry for this poster on EB (use the pull-down menu upper-right to see all the listed editions), we would add a second edition of the poster and link it to your picture. we could also add a "Printing Docket 1" and "Printing Docket 2" edition, and link each of those to the appropriate picture. additionally, we would add the quantity of the posters to the OP-1 edition. it would be really cool if folks (Erik King, Paul Grushkin, anyone who has interest) would use the comments section to respond to your information!
so cool Phil, as always big thanks for your contributions to EB!
edit: i, or another EB team member can do all of the above to show you how that would look if you'd like!
imho each of these images should be uploaded to the image gallery for this piece. in this case, although there is currently only an OP-1 entry for this poster on EB (use the pull-down menu upper-right to see all the listed editions), we would add a second edition of the poster and link it to your picture. we could also add a "Printing Docket 1" and "Printing Docket 2" edition, and link each of those to the appropriate picture. additionally, we would add the quantity of the posters to the OP-1 edition. it would be really cool if folks (Erik King, Paul Grushkin, anyone who has interest) would use the comments section to respond to your information!
so cool Phil, as always big thanks for your contributions to EB!
edit: i, or another EB team member can do all of the above to show you how that would look if you'd like!
- billthebassist
- Art Expert
- Posts: 1645
- Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 12:00 am
- Location: 5 strings below
Thanks for the info!! Wow, the stories you must have from actually being involved in the biz during the good ol' days.
Great images to back up your history. Please (when time permits) keep em coming.
Bill
Great images to back up your history. Please (when time permits) keep em coming.
Bill
- phishbeatles
- Art Connoisseur
- Posts: 945
- Joined: Thu May 29, 2003 12:00 am
I thought this was about someone making there own vinyl records, lol boy was I wrong.
- posterevolution
- Art Connoisseur
- Posts: 146
- Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 2:00 am
- Contact:
Nice one Phil! So which is which? How do we tell them apart?:2thumb:
The "problem" with this example (as well as BG 96 and several others) is that you need to have two posters side by side (that have not been faded, by the way), and absolutely know for sure that one is from the "first docket", to attempt to determine that a poster is a reprint. A very silght discrepancy in the tone of the colors will likely create more confusion than clarity.
Simply having a BG 103/104 mailer won't do the trick either because the color differences are so subtle that any fading can throw you off of the track. That is why the BG 103 has always been a $50 poster...there are more still around than there should be if it was printed just once. Phil is absolutely spot-on (and very thorough) in his assessment of these posters, but (at least this example) there is no practical way to apply it...digital images can be misleading, and 40 year old inks can fade.
As an active buyer and seller of the Bill Graham posters, I would welcome a definitive guideline to determine the printing history of any given poster. However, a slight difference in the color tone of a 40 year old poster isn't going to give me, or any customer that buys from me, a high degree of confidence. The FD 45 is still a nightmare, and the color discrepancy there is vast...but a badly faded reprint comes close to the color of the original.
I have made this suggestion directly to Phil, and will now do so in this forum...for the "greater good", if you will. There are a handful of people with extensive knowledge of these posters, Phil, Eric King, Jacaeber Kastor & Dennis King, and then there is Wolfgang's Vault with the original proofs (Phil, of course, has the Tea Lautrec printing records). Why doesn't everybody get together and hammer this out, instead of saying "He's wrong, I'm right". It is my understanding the Eric's 8th edition Guide & Jacaeber are now esentially "on the same page", so any fresh info that Phil, Dennis or WV can add (I would think) would be enthusiastically welcomed. In other words, Phil, go ahead and write your book, make it painfully accurate, and let it be your legacy to poster art.
Jim
Simply having a BG 103/104 mailer won't do the trick either because the color differences are so subtle that any fading can throw you off of the track. That is why the BG 103 has always been a $50 poster...there are more still around than there should be if it was printed just once. Phil is absolutely spot-on (and very thorough) in his assessment of these posters, but (at least this example) there is no practical way to apply it...digital images can be misleading, and 40 year old inks can fade.
As an active buyer and seller of the Bill Graham posters, I would welcome a definitive guideline to determine the printing history of any given poster. However, a slight difference in the color tone of a 40 year old poster isn't going to give me, or any customer that buys from me, a high degree of confidence. The FD 45 is still a nightmare, and the color discrepancy there is vast...but a badly faded reprint comes close to the color of the original.
I have made this suggestion directly to Phil, and will now do so in this forum...for the "greater good", if you will. There are a handful of people with extensive knowledge of these posters, Phil, Eric King, Jacaeber Kastor & Dennis King, and then there is Wolfgang's Vault with the original proofs (Phil, of course, has the Tea Lautrec printing records). Why doesn't everybody get together and hammer this out, instead of saying "He's wrong, I'm right". It is my understanding the Eric's 8th edition Guide & Jacaeber are now esentially "on the same page", so any fresh info that Phil, Dennis or WV can add (I would think) would be enthusiastically welcomed. In other words, Phil, go ahead and write your book, make it painfully accurate, and let it be your legacy to poster art.
Jim
-
- Art Connoisseur
- Posts: 207
- Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 1:00 am
- Location: San Francisco, CA
- Contact:
Jim, first, thanks for your comments.
What I would want is for evey posters' printing difference between first, second, uncertain, etc. is to be supportable by some kind of eveidence---preferable hard evidence. "I remember" is just not supportable, particualarly in the future when we're all taking our dirt nap....
That, and clear, understandable English would be great.
I was surprised to feid that there was not much responce to this topic. Among the older collectors of the 60's stuff this stuff is very important as it tesselates in tandem with price.
Phil
What I would want is for evey posters' printing difference between first, second, uncertain, etc. is to be supportable by some kind of eveidence---preferable hard evidence. "I remember" is just not supportable, particualarly in the future when we're all taking our dirt nap....
That, and clear, understandable English would be great.
I was surprised to feid that there was not much responce to this topic. Among the older collectors of the 60's stuff this stuff is very important as it tesselates in tandem with price.
Phil
wow... I like where this is going. This all hammered out, as tedious and painful as it might be would be great for the 60's pieces.
http://www.MoonSetGallery.com - the bestest silkscreen, gig poster and fine art work..
https://www.facebook.com/RockandRollPosterBowl
http://www.BrooklynBowl.com
https://www.facebook.com/RockandRollPosterBowl
http://www.BrooklynBowl.com
"Tesselates"? You are showing off again (or you need spell check)...
Phil, how are you going to describe your findings on the BG 103 poster so that somebody can see one on ebay (or a website) and determine if it is a first printing or second printing? What exact terminology would you use to assimilate your hard evidence into something practical and (more importantly) useable? I am serious, post your findings here as you would write them in a reference guide, because matcing the SLIGHTLY different color tone of a bulk rate card (assuming it isn't faded), or the jpeg of a folded poster you own, is not going to be helpful (although it might be 100% accurate).
My guess is that we end up in the same dilemma we have with the early FD posters. We know there are two early printings, and we can distinguish between the two (on some), but the evidence does not exist to accurately to determine which was the first off of the press. This was also the case for years on the BG 205, 210, 211 & 214.
I agree 100% that "I remember" is worthless, because if you could (really) remember, you were definitely not part of the 60's scene.
Phil, how are you going to describe your findings on the BG 103 poster so that somebody can see one on ebay (or a website) and determine if it is a first printing or second printing? What exact terminology would you use to assimilate your hard evidence into something practical and (more importantly) useable? I am serious, post your findings here as you would write them in a reference guide, because matcing the SLIGHTLY different color tone of a bulk rate card (assuming it isn't faded), or the jpeg of a folded poster you own, is not going to be helpful (although it might be 100% accurate).
My guess is that we end up in the same dilemma we have with the early FD posters. We know there are two early printings, and we can distinguish between the two (on some), but the evidence does not exist to accurately to determine which was the first off of the press. This was also the case for years on the BG 205, 210, 211 & 214.
I agree 100% that "I remember" is worthless, because if you could (really) remember, you were definitely not part of the 60's scene.
- posterevolution
- Art Connoisseur
- Posts: 146
- Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 2:00 am
- Contact:
Phil/Jim- Do either of you have any copies with the vertical line in the top left corner? Look at the close-up of the folded one. I'm assuming the big light blue mark in the lower left center is a printing inconsistency, but that line in the top left looks more like a guideline/cut mark to me. Were there copies without white borders on the side? I vaguely remember ones without side margins...
dear phil,
i was delighted to see that you had posted on eb your information about bg-103. many of us involved with psychedelic posters long have known that you possess substantial quantities of information like this regarding the printing history of the material in my guide. on several occasions i have asked you to share this information with me so that i could enter it in my guide and make it available to collectors. unfortunately until now you always have told me that you were too busy running your business and taking care of your family to devote serious time to historical research on posters. i am happy to see you have more time on your hands and wish to take part in the ongoing search for the technical facts about this artistic movement.
you should make careful note of jim northrup's astute comments. slight shifts in color are not reliable distinctions between printings. as he points out, a variety of things like exposure to light can alter the values of color sufficiently to render color virtually useless except in cases like fd-37 where the reprint was done in entirely different colors. furthermore, jacaeber kastor set the standard for distinguishing variants and reprints when he said you have to find some characteristic which can be described in such a way that a person with only one item in his hand can look at it carefully and know quickly what it is. we no longer live in a world of serious collectors who can pull out all of their copies of a specific item and check which is the darker or the lighter. the semantics of color render subtle shade differences nearly impossible to describe verbally in any meaningful way, and video screens just can not capture those subtle differences reliably. that is why plate scratches etc. become so important as does access to large quantities of an item in order to establish the likelihood of whether or not the scratch is likely to be on all of a variant or printing.
i hope for the sake of your sanity that you are not considering spending the next two or three years of your life trying to write still another guide to the printing history of this material just to add a dozen or two pieces of arcane information like the reprinting of bg-103. jacaeber and i beat that poor horse to death, began as you would with agreement on 98% of the facts, and then spent several hundred hours figuring out who was right and who was wrong on the remaining 2%. it is doubtful that you would find that we were both wrong on, for example, what was the original printing of bg-39. what you can do is add things we were unaware of, and an entirely new book to add a few or even a few dozen items would be a great waste of your considerable talents and wit. what you ought to look into is writing about areas you are uniquely qualified to discuss, not dry, tedious commentaries on printing plate scratches. leave that bailiwick to obsessive compulsives like me. your imagination is a lot more fertile than that.
by the way, did you ever read the five page section of my guide which is a response to several objections you raised to the guide in 2000? it is in all the later editions and can be found on my website at
<http://home.earthlink.net/~therose7/>
scroll down the home page to "corrections to the guide." the link to the response is the second item under that heading. anyone else interested in this ongoing public conversation between phil and myself also might want to check it out.
for the record: i do not sort of maybe remember stuff from the 60s. as you note, memory is unreliable. i knew i might forget what people told me or what i saw, so i took notes. that is what i based the original guide on, that and extensive conversations with the dozen or so serious collectors who had complete or near complete sets back in the mid 70s. i took this very seriously even back then. i loved the material right away. i interviewed almost everyone repeatedly. for example, i interviewed frank westlake (dba the bindweed press) back in 1967 and at least four times after that. in 1968 he let me go through his entire storage, two full size garages under his apartment. i poked around there for three hours, went through everything. i asked levon mosgofian numerous questions beginning in 1969. i bothered the artists endlessly about various printings. wes wilson in particular put up with my almost interminable inquiries, and, i am grateful to say, still does once or twice a year. i did this because i wanted to be sure my own set was complete. i had no idea that i would ever do a guide.
i was a text scholar in medieval studies at uc berkeley. for fun i applied the same techniques of inquiry to the posters. by the spring of 1966 is saw that there were ongoing series of posters, not just occasional isolated posters, and i began collecting them systematically. i was the first person who began trying to fill in the gaps in my pile of posters from earlier weeks i had missed. i even used to say, "these posters may be a dollar now, but someday they will be worth ten bucks apiece." i had no idea how far they would go. i just loved them, but i could not imagine that hippie rock'n'roll memorabilia ever would become recognized as the most important graphic art movement in the twentieth century. i bought my tribal stomp in the fall of 1966 from a boalt hall law student who had been at the concert. i paid her $6.00. i thought it was a great investment. i was sure that by the time i was an old man like i am now that it would be worth at least $25.00, maybe even $50.00. it was, after all, number one.
only victor moscoso recognized what was going on. in 1967 he said to me,
"we're doing the same thing as toulouse-lautrec, dance hall posters on the cutting edge of printing technique." he did not give a rat's ass that people thought he was crazy. he knew he was right.
whatever you think of memory, mine or anyone else's, if i say this or that was the case in poster collecting in 1969, it is not my memory or what someone said to me last week. it is what i wrote down back then. that does not mean it is right, but recent evidence has proved it right better than 98% of the time. memory may fail, but to quote the great elmer keith's comment about the vanishing frontier, "hell, i was there." i was there throughout the 60s. that has to count for something.
one last thing, phil, please especially look in my answer to your 2000 objections at what i have to say about family dog reprints from 43 to 86. it will go a long way to addressing your concerns. i was sloppy in my 1979 guide. i have apologized for this repeatedly, but the posters were still mostly $3.00 to $5.00, and i just did not believe they ever would be where they are now. a tribal stomp might have been $250.00 then, and i never thought it would go up much from that. if i had known then what i know now, i would have been much more rigorous and precise. i knew the facts then. i just did not realize they were going to be this important. mea culpa.
an old guy named eric king who still loves this stuff.
i was delighted to see that you had posted on eb your information about bg-103. many of us involved with psychedelic posters long have known that you possess substantial quantities of information like this regarding the printing history of the material in my guide. on several occasions i have asked you to share this information with me so that i could enter it in my guide and make it available to collectors. unfortunately until now you always have told me that you were too busy running your business and taking care of your family to devote serious time to historical research on posters. i am happy to see you have more time on your hands and wish to take part in the ongoing search for the technical facts about this artistic movement.
you should make careful note of jim northrup's astute comments. slight shifts in color are not reliable distinctions between printings. as he points out, a variety of things like exposure to light can alter the values of color sufficiently to render color virtually useless except in cases like fd-37 where the reprint was done in entirely different colors. furthermore, jacaeber kastor set the standard for distinguishing variants and reprints when he said you have to find some characteristic which can be described in such a way that a person with only one item in his hand can look at it carefully and know quickly what it is. we no longer live in a world of serious collectors who can pull out all of their copies of a specific item and check which is the darker or the lighter. the semantics of color render subtle shade differences nearly impossible to describe verbally in any meaningful way, and video screens just can not capture those subtle differences reliably. that is why plate scratches etc. become so important as does access to large quantities of an item in order to establish the likelihood of whether or not the scratch is likely to be on all of a variant or printing.
i hope for the sake of your sanity that you are not considering spending the next two or three years of your life trying to write still another guide to the printing history of this material just to add a dozen or two pieces of arcane information like the reprinting of bg-103. jacaeber and i beat that poor horse to death, began as you would with agreement on 98% of the facts, and then spent several hundred hours figuring out who was right and who was wrong on the remaining 2%. it is doubtful that you would find that we were both wrong on, for example, what was the original printing of bg-39. what you can do is add things we were unaware of, and an entirely new book to add a few or even a few dozen items would be a great waste of your considerable talents and wit. what you ought to look into is writing about areas you are uniquely qualified to discuss, not dry, tedious commentaries on printing plate scratches. leave that bailiwick to obsessive compulsives like me. your imagination is a lot more fertile than that.
by the way, did you ever read the five page section of my guide which is a response to several objections you raised to the guide in 2000? it is in all the later editions and can be found on my website at
<http://home.earthlink.net/~therose7/>
scroll down the home page to "corrections to the guide." the link to the response is the second item under that heading. anyone else interested in this ongoing public conversation between phil and myself also might want to check it out.
for the record: i do not sort of maybe remember stuff from the 60s. as you note, memory is unreliable. i knew i might forget what people told me or what i saw, so i took notes. that is what i based the original guide on, that and extensive conversations with the dozen or so serious collectors who had complete or near complete sets back in the mid 70s. i took this very seriously even back then. i loved the material right away. i interviewed almost everyone repeatedly. for example, i interviewed frank westlake (dba the bindweed press) back in 1967 and at least four times after that. in 1968 he let me go through his entire storage, two full size garages under his apartment. i poked around there for three hours, went through everything. i asked levon mosgofian numerous questions beginning in 1969. i bothered the artists endlessly about various printings. wes wilson in particular put up with my almost interminable inquiries, and, i am grateful to say, still does once or twice a year. i did this because i wanted to be sure my own set was complete. i had no idea that i would ever do a guide.
i was a text scholar in medieval studies at uc berkeley. for fun i applied the same techniques of inquiry to the posters. by the spring of 1966 is saw that there were ongoing series of posters, not just occasional isolated posters, and i began collecting them systematically. i was the first person who began trying to fill in the gaps in my pile of posters from earlier weeks i had missed. i even used to say, "these posters may be a dollar now, but someday they will be worth ten bucks apiece." i had no idea how far they would go. i just loved them, but i could not imagine that hippie rock'n'roll memorabilia ever would become recognized as the most important graphic art movement in the twentieth century. i bought my tribal stomp in the fall of 1966 from a boalt hall law student who had been at the concert. i paid her $6.00. i thought it was a great investment. i was sure that by the time i was an old man like i am now that it would be worth at least $25.00, maybe even $50.00. it was, after all, number one.
only victor moscoso recognized what was going on. in 1967 he said to me,
"we're doing the same thing as toulouse-lautrec, dance hall posters on the cutting edge of printing technique." he did not give a rat's ass that people thought he was crazy. he knew he was right.
whatever you think of memory, mine or anyone else's, if i say this or that was the case in poster collecting in 1969, it is not my memory or what someone said to me last week. it is what i wrote down back then. that does not mean it is right, but recent evidence has proved it right better than 98% of the time. memory may fail, but to quote the great elmer keith's comment about the vanishing frontier, "hell, i was there." i was there throughout the 60s. that has to count for something.
one last thing, phil, please especially look in my answer to your 2000 objections at what i have to say about family dog reprints from 43 to 86. it will go a long way to addressing your concerns. i was sloppy in my 1979 guide. i have apologized for this repeatedly, but the posters were still mostly $3.00 to $5.00, and i just did not believe they ever would be where they are now. a tribal stomp might have been $250.00 then, and i never thought it would go up much from that. if i had known then what i know now, i would have been much more rigorous and precise. i knew the facts then. i just did not realize they were going to be this important. mea culpa.
an old guy named eric king who still loves this stuff.
Eric has dedicated much of the last 25 years of his life to publishing his Guide to psychedelic posters, because they are his passion, and not because he makes a buck doing it. I know of nobody who is quicker to recognize his own mistakes if it improves the scholarship of his area of expertise. He genuinely gets excited if he finds that he has been corrected on an error he may have previously made. Phil shares that passion, but until a month ago, he had not shared the printing records from tea lautrec. If Phil would continue to supply this information to Eric and others, it would greatly enhance the collectability of these posters.