Question about poster numbers

Jimmydean55

First off, I hope I’m posting in the right place. Since there’s a ton of poster talk here, I thought it would fit.

Of posters that are AP’s which are numbered, are the first and last numbers any more collectible than the other numbers?

Example with random numbers - would prints 1/50 & 50/50 be more collectible than say 13/50 or 34/50? 

Theres a print on ebay now and the guy is saying because it’s #400/400, it’s more collectible. Just wondering what you guys think. 

Thanks. 

drakeheuer14

Depends on the person. I wouldn’t pay more for 1/x or 100/100, but that doesn’t mean I don’t get excited when it does happen randomly from a sale. People like unique items. The idea of “proofs” means a lot more in the “real” art world than in the poster/art print realm. AE = Artist Edition is a much more appropriate way to mark it imo. A number now is just to express to the owner that it is in fact limited edition. 

Jimmydean55

Gotcha. Thanks for the reply

KS80184

Some people also get excited for matching numbers if you've got the same number out of whatever for both a show edition and variant that was signed by the artist so they're like a pair.

tempo_n_groove

I think it's ludicrous to pay a premium for a number.

This past comicon a few artists were asking a premium for certain numbers of their prints/comics and they didn't sell.  I was so happy about that!

Loujoe

I got a les claypool poster that is #26 for a show on feb 26. I should dig that one out.
I used to think lower numbers were better cleaner prints but I dont think that matters.
Was a sweet show too at an old hotel turned into a venue. Like watching les & kehoe in someone's living room Mackittrick hotel or something like that.

Jimmydean55

Thanks for the replies! One of the main reasons I was asking is because there was a Zeppelin print I was interested in on eBay. The person wanted waaaay too much for it, but one of the reasons listed for that price in their auction was that it was #400/400 and “typically the artist will keep the first and last numbers of their runs for themselves making them more valuable.” I didn’t really know what to make of it so I thought I’d post here and see what everyone had to say. 

jjflash

Baseball cards sales used to do the same thing. They may still do (haven't dabbled in a long time w/ cards). Say for example 1/??, or the player's number/?? would demand more dollars. Back in Pujol's rookie season I paid more for a signed card #/d 5/??. Still have it somewhere:)

I'd say, yes, 1/?? is more collectible. However, in this case more collectible may not translate to more valuable. Prob one of those things where "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". There's gotta be a market out there of people who'll pay more for these kinda things. You gotta ask yourself if you're one of them...ha!

Say, for example, whoever owns the Benny vinyl #1/2000...that's gotta fetch a more hefty price tag than higher numbered copies. BUT, there's the nice backstory that goes along with it where, I think, the low numbers for it were originally given to the band and close friends/fam/colleagues.

HollisBrown

jjflash said:

Say, for example, whoever owns the Benny vinyl #1/2000...that's gotta fetch a more hefty price tag than higher numbered copies. BUT, there's the nice backstory that goes along with it where, I think, the low numbers for it were originally given to the band and close friends/fam/colleagues.

Unless that Benny is the first vinyl stamped, then yes. But I doubt it. They were all pressed and boxed, probably numbered afterwards without any concern for the order it was pressed.(Though I could be wrong)
On the other hand, with limited edition posters, it’s different, at least theoretically. Lower numbers in editions were always considered higher value due to screens being less used. As editions get printed, the screens aren’t as crisp. In the past, when prints were manually pulled, buildup of inks were prevalent. Today, not as much. And with giclees, well that’s a different story.

100 Pacer

There’s certainly a psychological aspect to it. People used to assume AP runs were different but it’s all the same - just random posters from the pile pulled for the artist to sign. 

otter

I have 2 Raleigh 1998 both with the same number.  Is that anything special?

tempo_n_groove

HollisBrown said:

jjflash said:

Say, for example, whoever owns the Benny vinyl #1/2000...that's gotta fetch a more hefty price tag than higher numbered copies. BUT, there's the nice backstory that goes along with it where, I think, the low numbers for it were originally given to the band and close friends/fam/colleagues.

Unless that Benny is the first vinyl stamped, then yes. But I doubt it. They were all pressed and boxed, probably numbered afterwards without any concern for the order it was pressed.(Though I could be wrong)
On the other hand, with limited edition posters, it’s different, at least theoretically. Lower numbers in editions were always considered higher value due to screens being less used. As editions get printed, the screens aren’t as crisp. In the past, when prints were manually pulled, buildup of inks were prevalent. Today, not as much. And with giclees, well that’s a different story.

Rumor is that the first 10 Bennys were stamped for the remaining 10 first members.

I've only seen one of them so I'm not sure about the other nine?

They were written on so not really stamped but they are different in what is written on them.

tempo_n_groove

otter said:

I have 2 Raleigh 1998 both with the same number.  Is that anything special?

One is fake?

HollisBrown

tempo_n_groove said:

HollisBrown said:

jjflash said:

Say, for example, whoever owns the Benny vinyl #1/2000...that's gotta fetch a more hefty price tag than higher numbered copies. BUT, there's the nice backstory that goes along with it where, I think, the low numbers for it were originally given to the band and close friends/fam/colleagues.

Unless that Benny is the first vinyl stamped, then yes. But I doubt it. They were all pressed and boxed, probably numbered afterwards without any concern for the order it was pressed.(Though I could be wrong)
On the other hand, with limited edition posters, it’s different, at least theoretically. Lower numbers in editions were always considered higher value due to screens being less used. As editions get printed, the screens aren’t as crisp. In the past, when prints were manually pulled, buildup of inks were prevalent. Today, not as much. And with giclees, well that’s a different story.

Rumor is that the first 10 Bennys were stamped for the remaining 10 first members.

I've only seen one of them so I'm not sure about the other nine?

They were written on so not really stamped but they are different in what is written on them.

Good to know. Tankyou.

drakeheuer14

tempo_n_groove said:

HollisBrown said:

jjflash said:

Say, for example, whoever owns the Benny vinyl #1/2000...that's gotta fetch a more hefty price tag than higher numbered copies. BUT, there's the nice backstory that goes along with it where, I think, the low numbers for it were originally given to the band and close friends/fam/colleagues.

Unless that Benny is the first vinyl stamped, then yes. But I doubt it. They were all pressed and boxed, probably numbered afterwards without any concern for the order it was pressed.(Though I could be wrong)
On the other hand, with limited edition posters, it’s different, at least theoretically. Lower numbers in editions were always considered higher value due to screens being less used. As editions get printed, the screens aren’t as crisp. In the past, when prints were manually pulled, buildup of inks were prevalent. Today, not as much. And with giclees, well that’s a different story.

Rumor is that the first 10 Bennys were stamped for the remaining 10 first members.

I've only seen one of them so I'm not sure about the other nine?

They were written on so not really stamped but they are different in what is written on them.

Pretty cool rumor if true

tempo_n_groove

drakeheuer14 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

HollisBrown said:

jjflash said:

Say, for example, whoever owns the Benny vinyl #1/2000...that's gotta fetch a more hefty price tag than higher numbered copies. BUT, there's the nice backstory that goes along with it where, I think, the low numbers for it were originally given to the band and close friends/fam/colleagues.

Unless that Benny is the first vinyl stamped, then yes. But I doubt it. They were all pressed and boxed, probably numbered afterwards without any concern for the order it was pressed.(Though I could be wrong)
On the other hand, with limited edition posters, it’s different, at least theoretically. Lower numbers in editions were always considered higher value due to screens being less used. As editions get printed, the screens aren’t as crisp. In the past, when prints were manually pulled, buildup of inks were prevalent. Today, not as much. And with giclees, well that’s a different story.

Rumor is that the first 10 Bennys were stamped for the remaining 10 first members.

I've only seen one of them so I'm not sure about the other nine?

They were written on so not really stamped but they are different in what is written on them.

Pretty cool rumor if true

I've seen one so it's not a rumor, what I meant was the rumor was 10 made like that when it could have been 20.

deadendp

As an artist with a degree in printmaking, I can tell you that plates, screens, collagraphs, woodcuts... degrade as you use them. Screens may be replaced after so many prints are pulled, but the more crisp image of a traditional print run would be your earlier numbers. 

Jimmydean55

deadendp said:

As an artist with a degree in printmaking, I can tell you that plates, screens, collagraphs, woodcuts... degrade as you use them. Screens may be replaced after so many prints are pulled, but the more crisp image of a traditional print run would be your earlier numbers. 

Interesting. Thanks!

CopperTom

deadendp said:

As an artist with a degree in printmaking, I can tell you that plates, screens, collagraphs, woodcuts... degrade as you use them. Screens may be replaced after so many prints are pulled, but the more crisp image of a traditional print run would be your earlier numbers. 

Just because it's numbered #1 doesn't mean it was actually printed first.

deadendp

CopperTom said:

deadendp said:

As an artist with a degree in printmaking, I can tell you that plates, screens, collagraphs, woodcuts... degrade as you use them. Screens may be replaced after so many prints are pulled, but the more crisp image of a traditional print run would be your earlier numbers. 

Just because it's numbered #1 doesn't mean it was actually printed first.

True. That is the beginning of the true edition for sales, but APs are pulled to work out the kinks. Artist proofs were our working pieces in art school and you ran the edition after that. 

tempo_n_groove

deadendp said:

CopperTom said:

deadendp said:

As an artist with a degree in printmaking, I can tell you that plates, screens, collagraphs, woodcuts... degrade as you use them. Screens may be replaced after so many prints are pulled, but the more crisp image of a traditional print run would be your earlier numbers. 

Just because it's numbered #1 doesn't mean it was actually printed first.

True. That is the beginning of the true edition for sales, but APs are pulled to work out the kinks. Artist proofs were our working pieces in art school and you ran the edition after that. 

They call those "test prints" now.  Anything different from the OG run is a test.  Then the AP's are what the artist sells themselves.

Then there are HC or "House Copies" and possibly an AP2 which may be an extension of the AP's or just overstock for damaged ones.

deadendp

I'm old school.

otter

tempo_n_groove said:

otter said:

I have 2 Raleigh 1998 both with the same number.  Is that anything special?

One is fake?

I think the artist just accidentally wrote the same number twice 

tempo_n_groove

otter said:

tempo_n_groove said:

otter said:

I have 2 Raleigh 1998 both with the same number.  Is that anything special?

One is fake?

I think the artist just accidentally wrote the same number twice 

If you got them at the show you should be fine but it's nothing special.  If anything that's a hindrance if you go to sell it.  People are going to wonder why you have two of the same number print.

DarthMaeglin

Sorry to (hopefully) briefly sidetrack things, but this seems an appropriate spot to ask this question, lol.

Does anyone know if there’s any significance to the numbering of the anti-flipper stickers on the backs of posters?

tempo_n_groove

DarthMaeglin said:

Sorry to (hopefully) briefly sidetrack things, but this seems an appropriate spot to ask this question, lol.

Does anyone know if there’s any significance to the numbering of the anti-flipper stickers on the backs of posters?

I tried cataloging numbers at one time to see what size print runs are but it needs a lot of participation...

DarthMaeglin

tempo_n_groove said:

DarthMaeglin said:

Sorry to (hopefully) briefly sidetrack things, but this seems an appropriate spot to ask this question, lol.

Does anyone know if there’s any significance to the numbering of the anti-flipper stickers on the backs of posters?

I tried cataloging numbers at one time to see what size print runs are but it needs a lot of participation...

This is from a Toronto 2 2016 poster (the blue jay), bought through the shop, if that helps any, lol. Quite the task to undertake!

Get_Right

deadendp said:

As an artist with a degree in printmaking, I can tell you that plates, screens, collagraphs, woodcuts... degrade as you use them. Screens may be replaced after so many prints are pulled, but the more crisp image of a traditional print run would be your earlier numbers. 

What is the useful life of a screen used to make the posters?

tempo_n_groove

Get_Right said:

deadendp said:

As an artist with a degree in printmaking, I can tell you that plates, screens, collagraphs, woodcuts... degrade as you use them. Screens may be replaced after so many prints are pulled, but the more crisp image of a traditional print run would be your earlier numbers. 

What is the useful life of a screen used to make the posters?

With technology now it wouldn't take much to make another one.  

deadendp

Get_Right said:

deadendp said:

As an artist with a degree in printmaking, I can tell you that plates, screens, collagraphs, woodcuts... degrade as you use them. Screens may be replaced after so many prints are pulled, but the more crisp image of a traditional print run would be your earlier numbers. 

What is the useful life of a screen used to make the posters?

I did look that up. A properly cared for screen was estimated to be 10K prints. I would have thought breakdown would have been sooner. I did some screen printing, but they were very limited runs. 

I mostly studied etching (zinc plates), woodcuts, linoleum blocks, collagraphs (basically a collage of items you glue down to a surface, seal, ink and print), monoprints (basically drawing in ink on a flat surface such as acrylic or glass, printing until the ink is gone to ghost), photo plates, lithography and embossing. Each print matrix has a limited lifespan. Metal plates lose the burr/edge that grabs ink, monoprints are a one ink run, litho is a pain in the ass (I had a stone break on the press and since etching takes a week, I threw it into a bucket and just turned that in), but in my experience, wood and lino cuts last longer since those are not generally subjected to the pressure of a press. 

(More than you want to know.)