U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | Re: Steichen image in April's 'Vanity Fair'

Re: Steichen image in April's 'Vanity Fair'

Katharine said:

Well, okay, since no one would answer my question I spent the
afternoon out in a roaring sleetstorm looking for a copy of the April
Vanity Fair to answer the question for myself.

You poor thing, but thanks for the sleuth work.

Katharine said:
I was curious which print of Steichen's was reproduced, in an effort
to make sense of the statement made earlier in this thread: ""There
was a good article on this image in Photo On Campus about the one
that sold for 3 million. That was a gum print, but it says there
were three prints of this negative made so I wonder how the third one
was made."

What's to "make sense??"

Katherine said:
For the record, the print that sold for $2.9 million was not a gum
print, but gum over platinum.

By whose assertion is this?

Katharine said:
There were two other prints made from
the same negative; one of them, which Stieglitz gave to the
Metropolitan in 1933 and is still in the Met's collection AFAIK, has
been analyzed and is believed to be hand-applied colori over
platinum. The third, which is owned by MOMA, is platinum and

Well, to further complicate your trek, the ArtNews says it was a hand colored BW print that went up for the $2.9 auction. So maybe you should do some more trekking--right to the Getty Conservation Dept. where they can scan it with electron microscopy and REALLY prove what's underneath that luscious print or all three. Obviously all the auctioneers should be more aware of what they are selling since there is so much conflicting information.