Re: Re: Editioning and trying to make identical prints

PC 487 (Grand Theft). If you make a representation that you know to be false (Only edition of 5 when knowing you will make more when the first edition sells out), the buyer relies on this representation (Only edition of 5), parts with his/her money and then finds edition is actually 10-15, etc. you have grand theft (assuming the cost is over $400.00.
>
> From: steves <sgshiya@redshift.com>
> Date: 2004/07/03 Sat PM 11:00:17 GMT
> To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> Subject: Re: Re: Editioning and trying to make identical prints
>
> Please! Do us all a favor and quote the penal code, if you would be so
> kind.
>
> S. Shapiro
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <res1dvao@verizon.net>
> To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
> Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 4:01 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Editioning and trying to make identical prints
>
>
> > That numbering system is really a misrepresentation to the original 5
> buyers. You are representing to them there will only be 5 prints made then
> you turn around and print and offer 5 more for sale. In California thats a
> violation of the penal code. You should reconsider that practice.
> >
> > George
> > >
> > > From: steves <sgshiya@redshift.com>
> > > Date: 2004/07/02 Fri PM 09:06:21 GMT
> > > To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> > > Subject: Re: Editioning and trying to make identical prints
> > >
> > > Less than trying to make prints identical, I'm so damn happy that I got
> one
> > > the way I wanted, I simply make more.
> > >
> > > With a successful mother as an artist, printmaker, I learned to number
> my
> > > prints. If I go back and make more once the first edition sells out, I
> put
> > > a decimal after the lower number to mark the edition, i.e. 1/5 and 1/5.2
> > > etc.
> > >
> > > Ansel editioned his prints according to the lower numbers being his
> choice
> > > as the 'best' quality; and larger numbers that followed.
> > >
> > > I number my prints, mostly based on the chronological order they were
> made.
> > > Just for sentiment. If I loose track over the order they were made, I
> > > choose the best and number them first. Sometimes, I group them in
> > > portfolios in an order of consistency. I found my number four of five
> to be
> > > the best, and put a higher price, graduting according to editions. In
> that
> > > way, the less amount of portfolios available, the more valuable the once
> > > sold would become. That was merely an incentive to the collector to
> make
> > > their decision if they were hesitant. One more bauble to influence a
> buyers
> > > choice.
> > >
> > > S. Shapiro
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Bill William" <iodideshi@yahoo.co.jp>
> > > To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 11:56 PM
> > > Subject: RE: Editioning
> > >
> > >
> > > > --- Judy Seigel <jseigel@panix.com> ?
> > > >
> > > > > (As far as I know, painters do not find it necessary
> > > > > to make their
> > > > > paintings identical -- or not on purpose anyway.)
> > > > >
> > > > > Judy
> > > >
> > > > True.
> > > >
> > > > Still, I have know painters who paint the same subject in
> > > > the same way (not identical but close) when they find an
> > > > image that sells.
> > > >
> > > > That doesn't seem much dif. from what photographers do,
> > > > except Photographers too often TRY HARD to MAKE them
> > > > exactly identical... perhaphs due to the very nature of
> > > > the medium.
> > > >
> > > > Ray
> > > >
> > > > __________________________________________________
> > > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > > http://bb.yahoo.co.jp/
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Sun Jul 4 10:46:28 2004