Printing records....

General art-related discussion.
cushway
Art Connoisseur
Posts: 207
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 1:00 am
Location: San Francisco, CA
Contact:

Thu Oct 04, 2007 1:52 pm

I think what I'm going to do is this: We have someone coming up that says they can scan the dockets, etc., and once that is done we can get them online. I am going to try and make some kind of arrangement to get the proof sheets photographed so they can also be placed online. My point here is to put up information that would hopefully be useful. The reason I started this discussion in the first place was to try and get all of these things out in the open so they didn't have to go through one specific route to get to the masses.

And in regards to motives - As I've said, I want to do this for the posters and have no stake in any outcomes as I no longer traffic in FD or BG posters.
therose7
Art Enthusiast
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 12:34 am

Thu Oct 04, 2007 3:15 pm

hi phil,
while i am disappointed by your decision, i am more confused than anything else. you say you want information to be out there and available, but you know that while scans of printing dockets may be useful, scans of proofsheets are useless, and i can't imagine that you do not know this. colors do not reproduce accurately, and much more importantly a scan can not be examined with a magnifier, micrometer, steel ruler or blacklight. it can not be studied for printing plate flaws which are how both jacaeber kastor and i distinguish most printings. all the scans will do is prove that there are previously unknown reprints. no one will have the slightest idea how to distinguish them from originals. this will add an immense amount of confusion to the collecting of bill graham posters.
would you consider this possibility? you are going to have a professional scan the material prior to posting it. would you allow me to be present when this scanning is done? i will show up at a place and time of your chosing.
i urge you not to confuse the people who collect this material by demonstrating that there are numerous reprints but then preventing anyone from knowing how to distinguish them.
this is not about me or about going through one avenue to present this material to the public. you could do both, place the scans on the internet and allow me to examine the printer's proofs.
i will be gone for the weekend, but you have my phone number. please call me and set up the times when you are going to make this material available to the scholar who is scanning it for you an allow me to be there as well.
to the other readers of this forum: i ask you to please email phil or post on this forum your belief that only publishing this material online without allowing someone of professional training and long experience with the material to examine it in person is not a good course of action and will only add confusion to the matter.
eric king
User avatar
posterevolution
Art Connoisseur
Posts: 146
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 2:00 am
Contact:

Thu Oct 04, 2007 4:36 pm

I agree with Eric. Come on, Phil, either fudge or get off the pot. Time to put your personal feelings aside. If you want to be recognized for making a contribution, then you need to actually contribute to the already-established study rather than confuse it with your own personal agenda. -Brad Kelly, Concertposterauction.com (formerly of Psychedelic Solution NYC, in case anyone is wondering or cares...)

And if someone could please answer my question on the 2 versions of BG 103 (borders/no borders), I would really appreciate it. Jacaeber and I were working on that number right at the time our inventory was sold, and while I think I have it figured out for myself, I would like to hear other opinions. Thanks.
User avatar
triporfreak
Art Expert
Posts: 2289
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 12:29 pm
Location: NorCal

Thu Oct 04, 2007 5:31 pm

here, here!!! agreed, brad. nobody that i know of personally or that i have dealt with on ebay or in private transactions, disputes eric, jacaeber & brad's contribution to the interpretation & explanation of the various print histories. as far as i'm concerned & most of those in the poster collecting community as well, this new approach is a dead issue. & so is this thread!
wolfgangsvault
New User
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2007 12:35 pm
Location: San Francisco

Thu Oct 04, 2007 6:32 pm

If WV can be of any help with this project, we would be happy to comply. We respect the knowledge of Eric, Phil, Jacaeber, and Dennis immensely and are always willing to work with them in defining poster printings accurately.

Grant
norbyjake
Art Connoisseur
Posts: 397
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 12:00 am

Thu Oct 04, 2007 6:58 pm

Nobody can be of more help in this endeavor than WV, and the fact that they are willing to help is an outstanding gesture. If you truly care, Phil, then you will take Grant up on his offer to share WV assets in helping to get this right. If you don't head in that direction, then this is obviously a personal score you are looking to settle.
thill
New User
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2007 1:52 pm

Fri Oct 05, 2007 2:13 pm

Time to chime in on a couple of points:
1. since most printings are distinguished by small differences, including color, it's important to standardize (calibrate if you will) the equipment used for assessment. This is SOP everywhere in industry and why not use it here as well.
2. proofsheets, even those scanned, are critical to understanding different printings. Most proofsheets (at least those I've seen, and I've seen many) show distrinct differences in the layout and configuration between printings, and are not as valuable for subtle color differences.
3. poster scholarship is also much more than contemporaneous notes and interviews. It absolutely requires a deep technical knowledge of printing, printing processess and just what plain makes sense in a printing business. I site the "Friday-Monday" printing scenario as what just doesn't make sense to me from a business and logistics standpoint.
Maybe I'm wrong on all of these points, but 27 years in the printing industry tells me we need to understand and use many different types of data points to arrive at the truth. Somethings it's very simple by examining the printing itself, understanding what truly differentiates a distinct printing and discounting the memories, often blurred, of those involved in the printing.
Tom
User avatar
morst
EB Team
Posts: 3171
Joined: Thu May 29, 2003 12:00 am
Location: USA

Sat Oct 06, 2007 4:01 am

therose7 wrote:i urge you not to confuse the people who collect this material by demonstrating that there are numerous reprints but then preventing anyone from knowing how to distinguish them.
this is not about me or about going through one avenue to present this material to the public. you could do both, place the scans on the internet and allow me to examine the printer's proofs.
i will be gone for the weekend, but you have my phone number. please call me and set up the times when you are going to make this material available to the scholar who is scanning it for you an allow me to be there as well.
to the other readers of this forum: i ask you to please email phil or post on this forum your belief that only publishing this material online without allowing someone of professional training and long experience with the material to examine it in person is not a good course of action and will only add confusion to the matter.
eric king
Phil, please allow Eric to examine the materials you have available! What could be the downside of that?!
wolfgangsvault wrote:If WV can be of any help with this project, we would be happy to comply. We respect the knowledge of Eric, Phil, Jacaeber, and Dennis immensely and are always willing to work with them in defining poster printings accurately.

Grant
Welcome to EB, Grant! Thanks for chiming in and offering to help! I am sure you and the WGV staff will be able to answer some important questions about this (and other!) material! If I can help you with our site, just let me know!

Tom Scharff
Madison WI
"morst"
curator/art manager of Expressobeans.com
piemel
Art Connoisseur
Posts: 802
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 1:00 am

Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:33 am

Wolfgangs Vault can suck my ass ... Treathening to sue artists, actually sueing artists, blocking the use of fillmore posters to be in cluded in the AOMR, shutting down dealers.... and at the same time you have the balls to sell on your own website posters of which you do not own the copyrights... (like some of the Kozik posters you had online there)

It ain't illegal to be an asshole but you sure are as hell annoy the drymount out of me
cushway
Art Connoisseur
Posts: 207
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 1:00 am
Location: San Francisco, CA
Contact:

Mon Oct 08, 2007 5:24 pm

My my my...haven't we been busy.

How many people did you call with the news that the sky is falling? I only got calls from a few of them and some were urging me to post what I have and others adamantly opposed.

However, all of this misses the point. The point of this thread was to talk about different printings and any methodologies/proof/support for any determinations. But congratulations with your display of smoke and mirrors on reframing the question. Change the subject by attacking the messenger? I was the one who wanted to bring this information into the open and now I'm the one hiding it? Very Bushian.

I am the one who dug through the dumpsters and trash etc. retrieving them. Further, in your "ongoing research" you could have reviewed all of this information before it was thrown out.

You mentioned previously that you went through all of the material at Bindweed Press and I accept that. Ben (Friedman) told me that you went through his entire inventory looking for any oddities, variants, etc. What I am concerned about is methodology on the "why" and not just an opinion. As I said I would even accept contemporaneous notes (thrown out? Dog ate them? I just don't remember what you said on this point.).

I also remember when I had you evaluate my handbill collection and I showed you some that were not referenced in your book. You dismissed them as I recall. There were no notes taken, no measurements, and no other sort of instruments used to consider my findings.

On your point where you stated "without allowing someone of professional training and long experience with the material to examine it in person is not a good course of action and will only add confusion to the matter."... I disagree that it will add confusion. I think the information should be revealed, and not only to those who claim expertise. I don't think that this information should be filtered.
cushway
Art Connoisseur
Posts: 207
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 1:00 am
Location: San Francisco, CA
Contact:

Tue Oct 09, 2007 12:10 pm

I would again like to reiterate that my primary interests are methodology, the "why" and the "how". And hopefully after this, to draw conclusions based on the findings.

I was flipping through the latest version of Eric's book that I have and randomly stopped on page 98. I then just compared FD069, FD070 and FD071 in the latest book and in an earlier version. For FD070, for example, it states that: "Printing records indicate that this was printed twice as a poster. Both printings are labeled NO.70-1, and they are indistinguishable." In the most recent version it says the following, "At this point in 1994 only one variant of this poster is known to exist. Both the poster and postcard that match show slight variations in lavender running from lighter to darker." Next I went and checked the printing records that I have and I could only find a single printing record (California Litho Plate Company invoice number 9818, dated 6-30-67. Will try to photograph and post). So my question becomes this - are my printing records incomplete? What does "variant" mean in the most recent version of the book? How can there be a variant when there is only one printing, variant suggests different versions? What information was found between the editions to warrant the changes?

The next poster was FD071. In the very first version of the book it states that "Both the postcard and the poster were only printed once." In the latest version of the book it lists two printings. My question is this - what caused this change? Did someone notice a strong difference and called you with it? Is this something you found out a bit later on yourself? Again, what I'm interested here is the process, the "why".

We feel it's important to list the reasons for the changes in this book. People should know the who, how and why of the new "discoveries". This has been my point the whole time, not to say he's right or he's wrong, just to make sure whatever new information is found is documented.

I am not trying to attack or discredit anyone here. I am trying to articulate/demonstrate the validity or non-validity of any accessions that future generations can read and hopefully draw their own conclusions or feel comfortable with the ones that we have already established.

One last point here. We are looking at xerox copies of the Family Dog printing records. Does anyone know where the originals are? We have also have not done a spreadsheet of the records we do have. My initial sense just glancing through them is that there are incomplete. They are also only invoices and not the original printing docket, which might reveal more. Also some of the dockets list a re-run but do not state which poster(s).
norbyjake
Art Connoisseur
Posts: 397
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 12:00 am

Tue Oct 09, 2007 1:27 pm

Phil, I think you will greatly increase your credibility in this matter if you will EXACTLY answer two questions,

Why is it that you now feel a compelling need to disclose this information after sitting on it for twenty years, and after you have completely divested yourself of these posters (and therefore can derive no financial hardship from potential reprinting disclosures)?

Why is it you are so critical of the existing work that has been done in this area, when it is obvious that it could not be complete without the information that you have, but have been unwilling to share for 20 years?
cushway
Art Connoisseur
Posts: 207
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 1:00 am
Location: San Francisco, CA
Contact:

Tue Oct 09, 2007 2:11 pm

First I don't care if my "credibility" is increased or not.

I do not feel a "compelling need" to disclose this information.

Up until relatively recently I have always had a person who was a "poster specialist" that I relied on to deal with this area. In fact, we did rely upon Eric's book and I had never thought to question whether or not everything in it was correct or not for whatever reason. Over the years and more so over the last several years I have been focusing more on this material when I get the chance. I even have been trying to compare the early editions of the printing book with the later versions to try and see the evolution of what has happened. That is why I asked those questions so I can, and we all can, better understand what changes have come and why. If you feel its improper to ask any of these questions as to the "how" and "why" just say so. I am merely asking questions here not casting aspersions. To me, even knowing the why and how of why things change sheds light.

Also for many years no one really cared about the proof sheets or other materials. When I retrieved various Tea Lautrec printing dockets I really had no clear reason to do so, I just thought that I should (I've always kept everything). For example, when I was in Ann Arbor, MI., I carted home, by hand, boxes and boxes of files, etc., from the SDS office that we had taken over after they had left, without a premeditated reason. And in fact, I ended up donating most of this material, which filled the back of a van mind you, to the Labadie collection which is located in the graduate library of the University of Michigan. I feel that a lot of information is part of our cultural history. Also, I feel it's important to try and support whatever assertions are being made. A point should be made; evidence laid out and then questioned and attacked by anyone who cares to with the end result (hopefully) being a more accurate conclusion. I realize that there seems to be resistance to this for whatever reason. Perhaps I am wrong in my approach and/or desire to understand the "process". With the advent of the internet it is also much easier to communicate this information. At least with digital cameras photos are easier to take, at least for some people.

Perhaps my approach here could be different. Perhaps I should just start posting material and lay out my methodology, the materials, and my conclusions and ask for anyone's comments, corrections or whatever.

I am also trying not to defend myself here; I don't think I should have to. I am merely trying to say what I think. I know I have been repetitive and I apologize but I almost feel like I have to be. Is examining and questioning incorrect here? Or am I to assume that we should just accept whatever is in the guide as absolutely true and correct, that it is not important to show the why or the how but only the conclusion. I am not trying to say everything is wrong - what more concerns me is how we assumed everything is right.
therose7
Art Enthusiast
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 12:34 am

Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:26 pm

dear phil,
the following was written after your post of 10/8 and before your post of 10/9. it deals only with issues raised in the earlier post and not the later one. i will respond to the later ones within a couple of days. these responses take hours and hours to compose, and like yourself, i try to have a life outside posters.
i am very confused by the apparently angry tone of your earlier post of 10/8 in response to my post about your decision not to let me or anyone else with substantial experience with this material examine the printer’s proofs in person as part of your placing them on this site. you had told me that you yourself, who do have that experience, did not have the time to do so. all i asked was that you reconsider that decision. there was no smoke and mirrors and certainly no accusations from me that there was any malice or deception on your part, no attack on you as the messenger. i simply believe that this decision is a mistake on your part, nothing more, certainly not something nefarious. in my post i asked the readers of this forum to contact you and express their opinions of whether or not this was a mistake. off site i contacted three people whom i understand that you trust in hopes they would express to you their concerns which are similar to mine. this concern is that partial information in the form of printing dockets and printer’s proofs demonstrating incontrovertibly that there are previously unknown reprints of bill graham posters without any explanation of how to distinguish these reprints from originals would cause confusion in the world of psychedelic poster collecting. this was not intended as any kind of attack on you personally. i am sure you are grown up enough to accept the notion that someone can disagree with you intellectually without it being an attack on you personally.

let me give you a clear example of how this could effect the sale of posters in general and you in particular. you own a set of bill graham original posters. these newly discovered reprints could include (based on things jacaeber kastor has said to me about printing records he has seen, it is possible they do.) a reprint of bg-105, the eyeball, done after the concert but before december 1968 when tea lautrec litho shifted to glossy stock. that could mean there is a previously unknown reprint of bg-105 on index just like the original. do you think a serious collector is going to spend $6,000.00 on an index copy of the eyeball if he/she is afraid it is a reprint? of course they will not. that substantially depreciates the value of everyone’s copies including your own, and if you ever want to sell your set, it will make it much more difficult for you to do so. no one, not me and not anyone else, will be able to authenticate your set or anyone else’s as all originals. i believe that creates a disruption of the collecting of psychedelic posters. i do not believe the sky is falling, and i did not tell anyone it was. what i said was more along the lines of we might be in for some bad weather.

i am not ego involved in this, and i would trust you to do this research and study yourself if you still will not allow anyone else to examine the proof sheets with an eye trained in psychedelic posters. i did not say i have to see the proof sheets. i said someone with extensive knowledge of this material has to do it. if you want to spend several weeks studying each of these printer’s proofs and comparing them to known originals, i would be happy to read on this site the distinctions you find between known originals and these reprints. just remember the standard jacaeber set for all of us. you have to be able to describe a series of printings of a poster so that someone with only one item can figure out what they have. you have told me that you are busy. i do not question the truth of this or anything else you have said, and i hope you will continue to return this courtesy to me. i simply suggest that if you are too busy to devote yourself to this research and study, why not let me do it? if you want to do it yourself, just do it now. please do not delay a few weeks at a time until several years have gone by. people need to know how to distinguish these reprints now when they learn that they exist, not months or years later.

i cannot understand why you would denigrate the sincere attempt i make in my work when you know that over the years i repeatedly have defended you against all kinds of attacks. when you were widely accused of printing pirate versions of family dog posters using the film you acquired from california litho plate, i put my own reputation and integrity on the line to convince dozens of people including the late chet helms that you had not done so. when you needed an outside expert to speak to the media during the lawsuit against mark arminski, i was glad to help you and mark, and the publication of the things i said helped convince the lawyers suing mark to back off and settle. this helped you a lot. on two separate occasions i came to your gallery to help you establish whether items you had bought in quantity were genuine or pirates. the assistance i gave you without any charge saved you from selling material that was pirated. the fact that i knew you did not sell copies of either of those items enabled me to convince chet not to pursue you legally which he had told me he wanted to do. he trusted my word that you were not selling pirated material. you trusted my expertise then and benefited from it when you used my guide to sell original posters to customers. why would you now question my devotion to accuracy and truth. of course there are mistakes and changes in the guide. this is a fluid scholarship with constant new discoveries, but my attempt has been and continues to be to provide the most accurate information available. why do you think i am so interested in these new printing dockets and printer’s proofs?

my dog did not eat my notes on the bindweed material. as you read, i threw them out after i transferred the information to my guide. besides much of the most important material in my guide about the bindweed posters is based on photocopies of bindweed printing dockets that are in my possession. i assume you accept these because i assume you have similar copies, and i know that you would question what i have said on this site if it did not agree with the copies of the bindweed printing dockets you have.

i am not sure to what you are referring when you say you showed me copies of handbills which were not in my guide but which i did not take notes about when i saw them. i know i looked through your collection in the very early 1990s, but that was long before i started following jacaeber’s lead and, where it was appropriate, measuring items with a steel rule and a micrometer and subjecting them to black light. if you have anything which is not in my guide that belongs in it, please show it to me. i will have it one my site within a few days.

you were very helpful, and i appreciate it greatly that you allowed me to look through your detroit collection, and here is where i think you may have gotten the notion that i saw handbills you had and did not take note of things i had not seen. your collection includes a substantial amount of michigan material which is not from the grande/russ gibb series, and this material is outside my area of interest and expertise. that is why is did not take notes about it.

i am not sure if you are being critical of my two visits to ben friedman’s warehouse to look for variants and oddities. that is what i do, look for variants and oddities. as i have said, i did go through frank westlake’s basement/garages, but that was done with eyes that had no idea that forty years later an fd-26 original would be a thousand times more valuable than it was then. i have apologized repeatedly in public and in private for the sloppiness of the guide i published in 1979 and continued to sell until 1994. you know that. i think you also know i am careful now and seek to atone for my earlier inadequacies by doing right now. i can’t undo the past, only do better now. you acknowledged earlier in this series of posts that you did not plan to do your own guide to this material. if you truly believed that my guide now was poorly done, you would be working on your own guide today. you love this material and would not allow it to be poorly documented. keep in mind that there are almost no differences between my guide and the documentation on the wolfgangsvault site most of which was created by jacaeber kastor. he and i came to 98% of our conclusions independently. if you imply that my guide is poorly done, you imply the same about his scholarship, and i really do not think you believe his is poorly done anymore than i think you believe mine is poorly done now despite its earlier sloppiness.

as for my having had some opportunity to examine the records of tea lautrec litho now in your possession at any time during the period during which they were in the actual filing cabinets of tea lautrec litho, the notion that the late levon mosgofian would have let me or anyone else go through all the business records of one of his main clients, a man well known for keeping his business private, is something you know never would have been possible. the best i could do in that regard was a few things like having him go through his files from shortly before bg-234 to shortly after bg-234 to see if there was some poster or postcard with that number on it because at the time i first was there, the week bg-270 was printed, no one had been able to find a poster or postcard with that number. the reason you were able to go through the dumpster and salvage all this material is that you had the good luck to have located artrock at 45 sheridan street in san francisco at the same address as tea lautrec litho. do you think i would not have driven there immediately if i had known there was a dumpster full of tea lautrec litho printing dockets and printer’s proofs? of course i would have.

i very much do not wish to antagonize you or cause the good relationship we have had for eighteen years to deteriorate. i merely am seeking by intellectual argument to convince you to do something which apparently you strongly do not wish to do. please do not attribute some evil intent to my trying to change your mind. i certainly do not attribute evil intent to you. i just believe differently than you do about what will serve the best interests of collectors. i definitely want all the available information to come out by all the routes possible so as many people as possible can benefit from it. i believe you want this too. let us work together on this. most of the readers of this forum seem to want us to collaborate. i hope you will.

how about this as a possibility? grant of wolfgangsvault has offered to help us sort out these printer’s proofs and other material with the substantial inventory they have as well as the collection assembled by jacaeber kastor, almost certainly the best collection in existence. in recent years grant has developed great expertise with this material. he recently worked with me to solve the mystery of fd-49 and fd-59 reprints, and he knows how to do this research. you know and respect bill sagan, the owner of wolfgangsvault. why not put all of the printing dockets online first. wait a week or two for everyone to study them, and then bring all the printer’s proofs to wolfgangsvault so you, grant and i can go through them one at a time and compare them to the originals and reprints in the wolfgangsvault inventory, the vast array of specimens in jacaeber’s old collection and any samples i might bring. that way collectors would have the benefit of three sets of trained eyes, not one. please consider this possibility.

you say you want this discussion to be about the methodology of examining and documenting the printing history of these posters. how can i discuss with you my ideas about the specific methodology to be used on each poster if you will not let me see them?
norbyjake
Art Connoisseur
Posts: 397
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 12:00 am

Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:12 pm

AAARRGGHHH!!!!!

I can't take it any more. Have your fun, Phil. Good luck, Eric.
Post Reply