Multiple Additions.

General art-related discussion.
Post Reply
User avatar
chrislgo
Art Connoisseur
Posts: 722
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:00 am
Location: Brick Twp, NJ
Contact:

Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:47 pm

whats the collector standpoint on this?

say something sells out...a few years down the road people are asking for it... thoughts of a reprint/ new edition thats not exactly the same as the old one...

help me out here.

if you bought the original one do you feel slighted?
-lands
surrenderart.com
design.print.destroy!
User avatar
BlakeAronson
Flipper
Posts: 8579
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 12:00 am
Location: Long Beach, CA
Contact:

Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:50 pm

are we talking basic mathematics or print runs and sizes?

im gonna say i'm cool with multiple editions as long as the later ones are not better than the first, or if it was originally noted that the print was open to future reprints.

like i would hate to buy a print i loved and its say 11x17, then it gets reprinted bigger at 18x24 or something bigger and better.

its unfair to release something better later on, unfair to those who originially supported you.

i also don think the practice should be repeated much. maybe theres a huge audience for one print and it had a special meaning to it or was a fundraiser sort of prints. then do it.

but if you're reprinting most of your work, thats lame, start advertising stuff as open editions or making note that their will be future editions.
Last edited by BlakeAronson on Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
8=====D~~~~
User avatar
coxgt
Art Expert
Posts: 2479
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 12:00 am
Location: Land of Milk and Honey

Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:52 pm

As a collector, Im sure this is not a popular idea. Yes, they would likely feel slighted.
As an artist, if you need to eat, and no one is buying your new work, this seems like a good way to make sure you'll be fed.

(edit: this should probably be moved to the Ethics section, so this discussion becomes part of the record and isn't purged after a year)
Last edited by coxgt on Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
NEVER DEAL WITH TOM MINARCHICK!(aka, fuedalist_tart on EBAY. HE IS A SCAM ARTIST.PM IF YOU NEED DETAILS.
Codeblue wrote:Taper has finally jumped the shark.
User avatar
chrislgo
Art Connoisseur
Posts: 722
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:00 am
Location: Brick Twp, NJ
Contact:

Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:53 pm

gotcha.
-lands
surrenderart.com
design.print.destroy!
User avatar
Codeblue
Yaks 2 Much
Posts: 56011
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 1:00 am
Location: Expresso Beans

Mon Apr 07, 2008 4:00 pm

As a rule I think reprints are lame. The only reprint I've ever purchased or thought was warranted was the Queens Vegas Hampton poster. It was originally intended to be a silkscreen, but due to time constraints didn't come out properly and had to be done as a litho. It was later reprinted properly as a silkscreen. I think reprints for reprints sake are lame.
User avatar
jojobadass
Art God
Posts: 20436
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 12:00 am
Location: chick-fila-of-da-sea
Contact:

Mon Apr 07, 2008 4:04 pm

reprints are for hosers
For the best concert and movie posters available, check out: http://www.jojosposters.com

For other art crap....be sure to check out: http://www.jojosfineart.com

And for the kinkiest records in the world......check out the newest website in the Jojo Empire: http://www.jojosrecords.com
User avatar
electrachrome
Site Admin
Posts: 18199
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 12:00 am
Location: Boston

Mon Apr 07, 2008 4:26 pm

coxgt wrote:(edit: this should probably be moved to the Ethics section, so this discussion becomes part of the record and isn't purged after a year)
moved. 8)
User avatar
morst
EB Team
Posts: 3171
Joined: Thu May 29, 2003 12:00 am
Location: USA

Mon Apr 07, 2008 5:01 pm

BlakeAronson wrote:im gonna say i'm cool with multiple editions as long as the later ones are not better than the first
So you're only ok with reprints if they are WORSE than the original? What artists in their right minds would do something like that?

Personally, I don't really think it's a great thing for the buyers of the original edition when the artist reprints work, but business is business. As long as the editions can be distinguished by size, color scheme, or some notation, I don't have an ethical issue with it.
The information contained in this post does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Expressobeans.com (EB) and shall not be held to limit the rights of EB under the Fair Use Doctrine or any other federal, state, or local law which may be applicable.
User avatar
dirkstainly
EB Team
Posts: 38943
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:55 pm
Location: United States

Mon Apr 07, 2008 5:43 pm

What I've noticed with vintage stuff is that first prints always command a higher price than a second print.

For more modern stuff, look at Kozik's Pearl Jam/Soundgarden poster which has been printed twice. The first commands much more than the second print.

I agree with something stated earlier in this thread, which is that I don't have qualms about a second printing so long as it's easily distinguishable from the first printing.

Granted, the majority of my experience is with sixties/vintage stuff, but to date I have never seen a second printing become more valuable than the first print. Even when the editions have been nicer, like the huge, gorgeous silkscreen that was made of the BG-105. That print is worth some major coin, but still isn't worth what a first print BG-105 is worth.

With that said, one could argue that the first print of the Kozik poster (or the BG-105 for that matter) would be worth even more than it is today if subsequent printings didn't exist. I don't know if that would be true or not, but I could see a case made for that argument.

Thanks for bringing up this subject. I'm enjoying the discussion.
User avatar
BlakeAronson
Flipper
Posts: 8579
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 12:00 am
Location: Long Beach, CA
Contact:

Mon Apr 07, 2008 5:46 pm

morst wrote:
BlakeAronson wrote:im gonna say i'm cool with multiple editions as long as the later ones are not better than the first
So you're only ok with reprints if they are WORSE than the original? What artists in their right minds would do something like that?

Personally, I don't really think it's a great thing for the buyers of the original edition when the artist reprints work, but business is business. As long as the editions can be distinguished by size, color scheme, or some notation, I don't have an ethical issue with it.
you missed my point. im not talking about them purposely making it shitty. but there has to be something that makes the first edition special, whether it be larger size, extra colors whatever. if you print a second edition thats way better than the first, well that really sucks for whoever bought the first.

as much as i dont like reprints, they still do help me time to time. i had been looking for a baizley print for a long time, almost a year. it never pops up for sale, there were hardly any of them made and they were all sold at shows where guys probably took them home and tacked them to their walls. this tour baizley decided to release a reprint. theyre both pretty much the same, just different trim dimensions. now i was finally able to obtain a print i've been looking for forever, i could careless what edition it is. im just happy to have it.
8=====D~~~~
Post Reply