BG100 Printing analysis

General art-related discussion.
therose7
Art Enthusiast
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 12:34 am

Fri Oct 26, 2007 11:25 am

rats, darn. i left one number off the list of posters i believe had only one lawful printing. please add bg-88 to that list.
therose7
Art Enthusiast
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 12:34 am

Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:21 pm

obviously the next list is the posters in the bill graham series from bg-66 to bg-114 where i believe there may be new information available if phil and i can collaborate and he is willing to answer very specific questions about what might or might not be in the reprinting records and samples he has.
these numbers are bg-78, bg-80, bg-82, bg-83, bg-86, bg-89, bg-90, bg-93, bg-95, bg-96, bg-97, bg-98, bg-99, bg-105, bg-106 and bg-113.
what i am going to do is write these questions in separate posts on this site. my next post will deal with bg-86.
norbyjake
Art Connoisseur
Posts: 397
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 12:00 am

Sat Oct 27, 2007 7:41 am

Eric,

You and I have discussed a few pieces that preceed BG 66, specifically BG 54, 56, 58, 60, 63 & 64. Were you able to get any new information on these at WV? Phil, if your tuned in to this channel, I would ask the same question...can you shed any light on these. I believe several (if not all) may have been reprinted. I also think BG 55 might have another reprint we are not currently aware of, but have no specific evidence. And lastly, and info concerning BG 76. I find it hard to believe it wasn;t reprinted. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
therose7
Art Enthusiast
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 12:34 am

Wed Nov 07, 2007 12:09 am

hi all,

i have some good news. after a day in wolfgangsvault working with grant, i can now say that the proposed designations i made for bg-86 turned out to be correct. they can be found in the earlier string which began with phil's post on bg-103. i was able to establish the relationship between the two i thought were originals by proving they were both on the same paper stock, and this paper stock matched the postcards and mailers. there are two originals, one reprint on index, which is a different index from that of the originals, and one reprint on glossy stock. they are all as defined in my previous post about bg-86. we used blacklight to distinguish the stocks.

until recently i had been unaware that there were two printings of bg-104. now we can tell them apart. on the reprint there is a faint yellow line through the word "tickets." this is not visible in a lot of types of light, but grant and i saw it clearly in natural sunlight. fortunately there is another mark, this one on the back. the reprint has a faint, pinkish vertical bar about 1/4" wide extending from the top of the back of the poster down about 12." this bar is just to the right of the center of the poster. the original has neither of these markings.

the way that we were able to establish that these were the original and reprint is that we sorted the posters by response to blacklight. the originals had no response (did not glow or floresce) and the reprints all had a mild glow or floresence under blacklight. the cards all did not glow and matched the backs of the originals. after separating the posters by paper stock, we found all the posters which matched the cards did not have the above described markings and all those which did not match the cards did have them. i believe this poster is now properly defined as to originals and reprints.

these will be posted on the corrections and additions pages of my site in the next day or two. http://home.earthlink.net/~therose7/

eric
User avatar
morst
EB Team
Posts: 3171
Joined: Thu May 29, 2003 12:00 am
Location: USA

Thu Nov 08, 2007 12:55 am

WOW, this is great! You are a regular Shemlock Jones!!!
Image
User avatar
MattStrine
Art Expert
Posts: 1014
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 12:00 am
Location: Colorado

Thu Nov 08, 2007 1:08 am

You guys are incredible! Nice work with all you do for the community.
therose7
Art Enthusiast
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 12:34 am

Fri Nov 09, 2007 4:35 pm

as i was rereading my post of 11/7/2007, i noticed i had written something incorrect about bg-86. the post was about bg-86 and bg-104. i said under bg-86 that we had used black light on the backs to establish the relationship between bg-86-op-1a and bg-86-op-1c and the cards. this is not correct. i had intended to say that about the cards and the originals of bg-104. the stocks of bg-86 vary on the originals and cards. obviously they printed on more than one stock that day. the factor that unifies 1a and 1c is the dot i described in the "o" in "cow" in my earlier post on bg-86. i apologize for this error.

this should be a lesson to me not to address more than one item in a post.
User avatar
MattStrine
Art Expert
Posts: 1014
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 12:00 am
Location: Colorado

Fri Nov 09, 2007 4:41 pm

Forget it. I take my compliment back. :wink:
Post Reply