whats a limited edition print?

[clueless]

Fine Art Guild definition as printed in 2006 directory.
"the print run is limited to the number stated on the print (usually bottom edge). The image should not be used in any other form. The prints may be produced as off-set lithos or Giclees; other types of numbered prints are likely to be artists prints. For historical reasons 850 has become a usual quantity of limited edition offset lithos. although this is at the publishers discretion and a smaller print run tends to be more desirable.

recent news from FATG:

Court of the Guild amends Print Policy

The Fine Art Trade Guild Court has made important changes to its print policy. While strongly recommended that all artists, fine art printers and publishers print to at least the Guild standards, and that galleries should trade in these, it recognizes that other legitimate practices can be accepted as ethical trading where full trading disclosure documentation is available with the print. Everyone agreed that transparency is the crucial thing. Full disclosure can leave customers in no doubt about what they are buying and whether a commitment has or has not been made to restrict use of the image. Amendments to the Guild Policy for Fine Art Prints will be explained fully to the trade in June Art Business Today and will also be on the Guild website. The change will enable strict adherents to the Guild Standards to market their compliance strongly for competitive edge and greater margins, whilst it opens up the opportunity to others to cross-market chosen images as cards, household goods and other items as well as producing a defined limited edition print range. The key to ensuring consumers are not being misled is crystal clear and comprehensive disclosure of all uses of the image that will be authorized on a certificate of authenticity available with the sale of each print.


So a limited edition print is no longer limited - that should reassure our customers that they are getting what they pay for - sounds like the big publishers have told the FATG exactly what they want. of course being such a strong trade organisation who stand up for all its smaller members - it did what it was told. - I go back to my first question on this forum - who is this fatg? - I seem to be getting my own answer - mouthpiece for publishers and moulding maufacturers.

[Keith Hewitt]

Dear Clueless

On May 21st you made your first post.....
_________________________________________________________

"Who is this fatg mentioned in so many postings and what does he do?"
_________________________________________________________

But 12 days later you are incredibly well informed as shown by the post above. The fact that you have a copy of the 2006 Guild's Directory suggests you are either a FATG member or on their mailing list.

Why the need for anonymity? Why the need to pretend to be clueless?
You're not clueless! You ask a valid question, demonstating considerable knowledge of this industry. Come out of hiding and put you true name on your profile. I personally believe all who post should have their contact details freely available for all to see. Just like it is on the USA and Australian forums.

Keith Hewitt

[Roboframer]

I agree Keith - but if the forum does not demand it, none of us registered have a right to either. Clueless has done as aked to be able to register, if some of us choose to give more information, that is up to us.

I've even got a photo in my profile on The Grumble - and only 3 others have gone that far, out of 3500 odd. But contact details and real names ARE NOT COMPULSORY people have their own reasons for anonymity, maybe if they were not anonymous, they would hold back for fear of retaliation. If they o anyone else causes offence, they can be moderated or even deleted.

Clueless' points are easily found, maybe he knows more about things than his screen name suggets, but who cares - I don't, he ain't upsetting anyone, even the guild, how can he, he's just quoting them.

So, one more reason not to join, one more reason not to keep limited editions.

If any more copies have been made than is stated in the print margin from now on - they can swivel!

[John]

The forum welcomes everyone with something to contribute whether registered anonymously or not.

However, anonymous members should remember the following: -

• We all feel more comfortable, whether in a social context or online, when we have a bit of background on those with whom we interact.
  
  An anonymous member whose posts are always provocative is more likely to be seen as a troll.
  
  To the forum administrator, no one is completely anonymous.

[Roboframer]

OK - regardless of anything else - I was not aware of this statement by the FATG - maybe it will be in the next ABT or I missed it in a previous one.

So - regardless of whether 'clueless' really is clueless and/or is a troll - what does anyone else think about all this?

[Roboframer]

No answer (in 24 hrs) was the stern reply!

My answer is this - "This SUCKS!"

So - OK - no-one respomds here - let's take it across the pond.

(Oh - just incase - I know it is possible to register under different names on any forum - NO - I am not 'clueless' - the administrator could se that from IP addresses anyway)

[John]

Why would anyone would think that you are clueless John?

[Framing Norah]

So you are not happy, Robo, with the answer you got here, and are off to the land of the 15.000 "limited edition" to get a better result??

If you are "clueless" then I'm "bewildered".

When mechanical reproductions start to regularly appear at non-specialist auctions fetching much more than the value of their frame then it might be time to take this nonsense as seriously as you seem to be.

[markw]

Mill Pond - american publishers came over here with some very good prints - I think they called them time limited editions - it didnt work and they gave up and went home. The trend seems to be for many publishers to be reducing the number of prints in the edition - Personally I shall stick to publishers who are selling something I regard as limited - if I suspect anything else they wont get any more orders - thats my choice.

It seems to me relevant that many artists are self publishing - I am getting some realy good work - small runs that are well printed and look great - maybe the big boys are in for a hard time as we redefine where we buy.

[Roboframer]

So you are not happy, Robo, with the answer you got here, and are off to the land of the 15.000 "limited edition" to get a better result??

When mechanical reproductions start to regularly appear at non-specialist auctions fetching much more than the value of their frame then it might be time to take this nonsense as seriously as you seem to be.

I'm just interested to know if others have a problem with limited editions appearing in other formats, whether the publisher/artist is open about it or not.

I do have a problem with it - do you? I also have a problem with the guild doing what seems to be a 'U' turn - do you? Is all I'm asking.

[Framing Norah]

Don't understand why anyone would get their panties all bunched up over this.

Surely it's a good thing, since many publishers were not following the original guidelines too strictly anyway, that we are now going to have openness and transparency, and we all (publisher, retailer, and customer) know exactly where we stand.

The customers will vote with their money, end of story. If they like the image on offer they will buy it regardless. Why not have a chat with your American friends about the Thomas Kinkade phenomenon? In spite of all their breast beating, and to the anguish of the purists, TK continues to go from strength to strength. The people who like his work don't give a hoot for the opinions of the snooty art establishment, and care not a jot whether a print is also available as a plate, jigsaw, tea towel, place-mat, or tattoo!

In my experience Mark, it is the small independent artist-publishers who are the worst offenders in this regard, for example, having had a LE that sold like hot cakes they are then quick to reproduce it in a different format as an open edition. Or worse, they will dump a slow, but steady seller at cost (or less) to the competition after having sold you the first 20 at a premium.

[Roboframer]

That's absolutely fine Norah and I agree that it is good to know where you stand with publishers.

I won't deal with a publisher that reproduces LEs in any other format - you will, many many others will. Your customers will know you do, mine will know I don't. Some of both our customers won't care either way. We'll appeal to different types of customers/collectors and that is good.

I don't like to see, for example, "10/195" in the print margin and then on the Cert of Authenticity "Oh, by the way........." If I want mass reproduction I have thousands of open editions to choose from, and I don't have a problem with open editions. I believe limited editions reproduced in any other format ARE NOT LIMITED at all. But that's just me.

It seems a case, with the FATG of 'if you can't beat 'em - join 'em. That's fine too - I know where I stand with the FATG as well.

Kinkade is very successful - so is Budweiser beer so is The Sun newspaper - & good luck to all of them.

I think it is also a case of changing times - the limited edition market has had the pants kicked out of it - publishers need to survive, so they milk as much from each original as they can, they also try and sell me their mounts - I don't want them and have dropped at least two publishers who will not sell unmounted work - and their prints were good too.

I'm here because I'm interested in others' opinions and am more than willing to share my own, however contraversial.

I wear boxers BTW - and they aren't a bit bunched up - smooth as silk, just like me!

(Quick check) Oh yes - Versace, limited edition - they actually ARE silk!

[markw]

FN - dont totally agree that the new format will be strictly followed - on the other hand it seems to be fairly open so it shouldnt be difficult to follow.

The discussion is relevant to any of us who sell prints - regardless of what you see as "art" we sell an image and we have to be accurate in the way we describe that image. the old addage -if it aint broke, dont fix it! applies well here - limited edition - limited to the number indicated + 10% artists proofs - plates or means of reproduction destroyed after the image has been run. It matters not a jot if you think its art or not - what matters is that I sell it to my customer as described - limited edition of xxx - it can be 1500 if you like - i personally dont care. I care that my customer likes what he/she buys - I like it more if she feels that I am a good source for good pictures. Dont confuse this with what i feel is good art or lasting art -We had that discussion some time ago. Changing the rules, in my personal opinion, panders to the major players and takes little account of the small galleries who sell the work. I wont get any of my undergarments knotted over how the FATG choose to set out thier guidlines - for thats all they are, and sadly all the FATG proved by changing the rules was that they are a toothless tiger with little influence in the UK market.

where I am sure we will agree is that this may well prove to be a turning point were many galleries choose to take on the independent artist and sell their work - as long as I (and the artist) make a living from it, I shall be happy.

[markw]

Roboframer posted as I was tapping away on the kboard - glad I hadnt read about silk Versace pants - we need some of the Grumbles puking emoticons here.

[Framing Norah]

(Quick check) Oh yes - Versace, limited edition - they actually ARE silk!

But the burning question is, are they really limited edition? How are they limited?

Just to clarify, it's years since I treated the scribblings at the bottom of these prints as anything other than obscure hieroglyphics, and would never dream of trying to convince my customers that the numbers that they manage to decipher there might have a meaning in any real sense.

[Roboframer]

But the burning question is, are they really limited edition? How are they limited?

Just to clarify, it's years since I treated the scribblings at the bottom of these prints as anything other than obscure hieroglyphics, and would never dream of trying to convince my customers that the numbers that they manage to decipher there might have a meaning in any real sense.

They are not really limited at all Norah - just that the men cool enough to wear them are!

And so you buy things with meaningless scribble on them? Why show this meaningless scribble - why not mount up to the image - cover it?

I don't want to frame anything with anything 'meaningless' on it.

But then, I can fit into Versace boxers!

[Framing Norah]

They are not really limited at all Norah - just that the men cool enough to wear them are!

Full marks Robo. It takes real cojones to publicly admit to being limited in the Y-front department.

I sincerely hope that these limited edition Versace garments are not embracing this new notion of openness and transparency. On the other hand, in case you were wondering, that might explain why you feel "cool enough" when you wear them.

And so you buy things with meaningless scribble on them? Why show this meaningless scribble - why not mount up to the image - cover it?

Yes, we have often done this at the request of our customers, even after we give them the patter about possible future value, ... might be a collectible item, ... etc. But just in case, we usually hide this nonsense behind the mount, if big enough, rather than trimming it off completely.

[Roboframer]

FUNNY BIT....

I ain't gonna win this one am I?

Look, basically I am God's gift to women - OK?

(Now you say "Oh Yeah? - well I sure as hell hope he kept the receipt")



SERIOUS BIT..

I have covered numbers/signatures off my own back - not customers' stuff in for framing - would not do that without their consent. No - stuff for sale in the shop.

I've only done it a couple of times and the reason was that the prints looked all the world like originals, bar those numbers and the signature, and, seeing as those numbers and the signature was on the cert of authenticity I framed them as I would the original.

I don't like having to leave a white border around the image, with it's perfect, clinical edge - it affects the mount/frame choice - I'd much prefer the artist signed/numbered ON the image - and some do too.

I only like margins if the print is 'autographed' and/or there is information there such as sporting/historical prints etc.

[osgood]

But just in case, we usually hide this nonsense behind the mount, if big enough, rather than trimming it off completely.

I hope no-one really cuts off those bits. It wouldn't do the value any good!

There seems to be a difference of tastes and attitudes in this area in different countries. Down here sometimes people do have the white panel and signatures covered, but it would be extremely rare. The vast majority are framed with that area shown and it seems that in North America they also show the signatures in most cases.

[sarah]

FUNNY BIT....
Look, basically I am God's gift to women - OK?

Bless - you keep telling yourself that.