Question about poster numbers

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.)