At 17:09 3/2/03, Bill Pearce wrote:
[snip]
The B&W article repeats the claim that the term was invented by certain
sales galleries to allow them to charge more for certain prints.
Of this I have no doubt! Anything to beat the drum, toot the horns and
pump up perception of value. On the extreme end of attempts to pump up
perceived value are some of the eB*y auctions I've seen belittled on this
list. The "Secret Wyoming Factory" one comes to mind immediately!
Snipped off the beginning, but there is some truth to initial prints being
better than ones made much later. However, it is applicable only on a
case-by-case basis for specific prints and cannot be applied to everything
done by everyone as a generality. On that I think we can agree.
Ansel Adams made prints "to order" during a good portion of his career. If
you wanted a print, you would order it, and he would print it after
receiving the order for it. There is one photograph in particular
("Moonrise over Hernandez" ??) that eventually became the overwhelmingly
most requested photograph . . . to the point Adams hated printing it. I
have no doubt he didn't get sloppy with it, but it's hard to imagine that
he was reflecting on it and reevaluating it after he got to the point of
hating to print it. I don't even know if it made any difference in what
the early versus late prints look like. Value is perception in the eyes of
the buyer. A knowledgeable seller of an early version of this print who
wants to maximize its value at sale would likely make this argument to
claim it is somehow "better" compared to later ones. All it requires at
auction is two prospective buyers to believe it.
-- John
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|