Advice required for numbered prints with existing unnumbered prints

[David Campbell]

Previously I had some prints made to give away to friends as presents and also sold a couple with 100% profit being donated to the Japanese disaster relief. These prints were neither signed or numbered.

Now I am in the process of setting up to do fine art prints and would like some advice on how I should handle those existing prints.
Whether I choose to have numbered open editions or limited editions, these initial prints are difficult to decide what to do with.

I know exactly which prints they were and how many were printed.
Should I number prints starting from, for example #3?
If unsigned, should they be included in any numbering, limited or open?

Thanks for your advice
Cheers

David

[ckimmerle]

If editioning or numbering, the right thing to do would be to act as though the previous signed prints were appropriately labeled. Thus you might, as you thought, start with #3 if you had already done two of that same print size.

If the prints were not signed, though, that is a different issue. I would argue that unsigned prints are not, by definition, endorsed by the artist and so would not count towards any edition or numbering. Others, I am sure, will disagree. Both sides will have valid points.

It's important to remember that very few editions ever really sell out, so erring on the side of caution and including the previously made prints will probably not effect your pocket book.

[David Campbell]

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

Pretty much the conclusion I had came to myself but keen to hear others opinions.

Anybody else have other ideas to consider?

[Craig Murphy]

Not exactly your issue but an interesting development.  http://www.pdnonline.com/features/What-Does-Limited-Ed-5916.shtml

[David Campbell]

Thanks, interesting read.

I was already favouring numbered but not limited prints.
I personally don't agree with limiting seeing software and printing quality will only improve so to me, it does not make sense to value the original prints.

[louoates]

Thanks, interesting read.

I was already favouring numbered but not limited prints.
I personally don't agree with limiting seeing software and printing quality will only improve so to me, it does not make sense to value the original prints.

I think that numbering prints without a limit might be misleading. How do you number them? 1/0      or 1/1,000,00   or simply the number 1?

I think you are wise not to limit yourself in any way with your own work.

[David Campbell]

If the edition is open, I don't see why having the number of the print is misleading.

Basically I agree with Alan Briot
http://www.beautiful-landscape.com/Thoughts88-Numbering%20prints.html

[marfa.tx]

refrigerators are numbered.

[louoates]

If the edition is open, I don't see why having the number of the print is misleading.

Basically I agree with Alan Briot
http://www.beautiful-landscape.com/Thoughts88-Numbering%20prints.html

I mostly agree with Alan's thinking on the topic also. His numbering is fairly clear as the labeling he affixes to the back of his prints show. I was referring mainly to the numbering on the front of the print or mat where some artists show as 1/25.

[leeonmaui]

Aloha,

Signing and numbering prints is a very good way to go.

If you have previously sold nu-numbered prints in an edition which you then want to sell as a limited edition;

you should in your disclosure indicate that, there exists "X" number of prints that were produced in/as a "open" edition, call it "state one"
many states require that you include with the sale or prior to the sale a "disclosure." when selling limited editions where a list of production, among other things is given. This would be a good place to list what the edition entails, and tell your clients/collectors about the un-numbered prints/edition. legally you are bound to in many cases.

Do not give prints already sold or given away a number.
List your open edition in your disclosure, it is completely legal and consistent with normal publishing protocol.

numbering prints after the fact is inconsistent with any standard publishing metric.
You are creating two very distinct things.