On Scarcity and Rarity

One more thing to mention about limited editions is a consideration we haven't talked about yet, which is that, in order to make a picture valuable on the art market, scarcity alone won't do the trick. It's a truism in book collecting that most books are first editions, because most books never reach a second. Similarly, most photographic pictures have great scarcity—these days, most pictures exist in print editions of zero, and a great many more exist in a print run of one. That doesn't help their value. It doesn't matter how limited your print edition is if no one wants your picture.

The first task is to publicize and earn an audience for yourself and your photographs.

And, of course, to some extent the goals of adding value by enforcing scarcity, and making a picture well known to begin with, oppose each other. The more prints there are out there in the world, the more places the picture's exhibited, the more people see it, the more people you can find who might want it. I'm not saying that's necessary to make a picture well known—traditionally, publication in magazines and books and in other forms of reproduction helped greatly, and now, notoriety on the internet and in other electronic forms could help the cause—but some pictures communicate much better in the original than in reproduction, so having more prints out there in the right places could help, not hinder, their worth.

My brother, a medical doctor by profession, has been an avocational gemologist since he was 14. He points out that to be valuable, a gemstone has to be rare, but it can't be too rare—because then there's not enough supply to satisfy and sustain a market. Diamonds aren't particularly rare. They're rare enough, and they have scarcity vectors (the larger or the more perfect, or both, the more scarce they become—there's only one Hope diamond)—some of which are artificial (diamond production is largely controlled). But if scarcity and rarity were what mattered most, many other kinds of stone would be much more valuable than diamonds. (I'll ask Charlie if he'll comment on this post and amplify the point from a position of better gemological knowledge.)

Of course, the picture is not all that people are buying when they buy a print—they're buying the artist. One print is in a sense a "sampling" of an artist's entire body of work, and implies the rest of that body of work. Or they might be buying a particular provenance, or something else intrinsic to the object. You might remember an article I wrote about Diane Arbus—certainly the print that Arbus gave to Colleen and Cathleen Wade with a note of thanks scribbled on it is worth more than a similar print without that provenance, and an Edward Weston print made by Edward himself is more valuable than a print made later by his son Cole, even if Cole's is the better print.

Lewis Hine, Powerhouse Mechanic (a.k.a. The Steamfitter), c. 1920s

There was a case detailed in The Atlantic Monthly a while back* of a photography expert, Walter Rosenblum, who was accused of forging a particular famous Lewis Hine print, "Powerhouse Mechanic." Rosenblum was an acknowledged expert on Hine to whom galleries took their prints for authentication—and he also (probably—I'm not sure this was verified) owned a negative of the Hine picture (there were several); and he was also an accomplished photographer and printer in his own right. Trouble was, a modern (or "posthumous," meaning not made in Hine's lifetime) print by Rosenblum was worth about $2,000, and a vintage print made by Hine was worth about $20,000. So one thing led to another, apparently temptation proved too much, and he allegedly began producing counterfeits which he himself would then authenticate as vintage prints! He was eventually exposed both because of the suspiciously expanding supply of supposedly vintage originals, and because experts detected the telltales of his own distinctive printing style in the questionable "Hines." Now, obviously, professionals were being fooled by the counterfeits, at least for a while (although it was alleged that some might have suspected what was going on but turned a blind eye because they, too, were profiting from it). My point is, the fact that a vintage print can be ten times more valuable than a modern print good enough to fool experts demonstrates that there is value inherent in objects that has nothing to do with the picture itself or how famous it is.

Still, one can at least propose, if not prove, that maybe Ansel Adams's "Moonrise" is worth so much not despite existing in an 800+ print unlimited edition, but in part because he made so many prints for so many people over the course of 43 years.

This argument doesn't preempt the desirability of limited editions, but it might temper it somewhat.

Mike

*Well worth a read.

P.S. I'll be off tomorrow. See you on Sunday!

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2011 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by Charlie Johnston (Mike's bro): "Classic economic theory. Price is a function of supply and demand, but both can be manipulated—demand by advertising, and supply by manipulation of a market. Diamonds and DeBeers illustrate both. Using aggressive advertising, they have created a perception of rarity that boosts demand, and they have in the past supported prices by withholding material from the market.

"The supply and demand equation also breaks down at both ends. Demand for air is infinite—but so is the supply, so the price is essentially zero. When supply is near zero (as in your Hope Diamond or single print examples), price is no longer set by a market, but by an individual transaction.

"Examples abound in the world of gems. Benitoite (the State Gem of California) has all the attributes a gem needs. It is durable, beautiful, and rare. Thousands of times rarer than diamonds, in fact—but the price is not commensurate with the rarity, because so few people outside of California are familiar with it. At one point, the rarest gem on earth was Painite, limited to a single crystal and a single faceted specimen. Kind of hard for that to be a "must" for a complete collection. The source was eventually (recently) found, and a cut stone can now be procured for less than a hundred bucks. Vanishingly rare, to be sure, but only of interest to collectors.

"Your print forger was essentially creating a synthetic. Synthetic ruby, for example, is arguably more beautiful than a natural stone, and shares the exact same chemical composition, hardness, crystal structure, and color. It's also manufactured by the hundreds of tons, and is widely available for pennies a carat. A comparable natural ruby set the record for the highest price ever paid for a colored stone: $425,000 per carat.

"A collector of rare photographic prints does have one distinct advantage over a gem collector. There will never be any more prints made by Ansel Adams, because he's in no position to make any and will never be again. On the other paw, there is a gem named for the type locality of Danbury, Connecticut, called Danburite. Found in small crystals with even smaller cuttable areas, it was once a very scarce and fairly high priced collectors' stone. Then someone found a huge deposit in Mexico which produced large, flawless crystals, and the price dropped like a rock!

"So, despite being your little brother, I entirely agree with you. While collectors are by nature an odd breed, it is clear that there must be some critical mass of both demand and supply to be able to gauge the market worth of any collectible."

Comments

[Don Bryant]

It's my understanding that Walter Rosenblum's "forgeries" of Hine's prints were discovered as a result of the detection of OBA in the modern paper the modern fakes were printed on.

[Mike Johnston]

Don,
You can find the whole story at the Atlantic Monthly link. It really is worth a read.

Mike

[Ken Tanaka]

Paul Messier was here, in Chicago, last fall and gave a presentation about his investigation to a small group at the Art Institute of Chicago. The Atlantic article covers the overall story nicely but necessarily thinly. The technical analyses required to make the ultimate determination was a story right out of PBS's Nova series. Really a fabulous story to a geek like me.

[Ross Chambers]

I forget the writer and his works, but some English author did say that the rare editions of his books were the second ones.

[John Roberts]

Not having the staff of an Avedon, I'll have to have my second assistant forward a comment for this article.

[MJFerron]

Folks talk about limited editions, who printed the photo and when it was printed etc. I've been wondering what photography would be worth if the artist made just one print? You know one Whistlers Mother = one Migrant Mother?

Sure I know it's apples and oranges but once the final print (I'm thinking silver print) is perfected the artist could stop there. Sure make scans and sell commercial rights to the image if you wish but there would still be just one print. (thinking out loud) Imagine owning the only copy of Weston's Pepper #30.

[daugav369pils]

"For 99% of us, limiting editions of photographs is, sorry to say it, stupid."

"This argument doesn't preempt the desirability of limited editions, but it might temper it somewhat."

So, am I right in assuming 'desirability'
is strictly to make a profit?

[Mike Johnston]

"So, am I right in assuming 'desirability' is strictly to make a profit?"

The evolution of the discussion was 1. I said limiting was stupid, 2. a number of people countered that galleries and fine art buyers often insist on limiting, and here 3. I'm saying that it might even be counterproductive even though it's required for gallery representation.

Mike

[Bahi]

There's a more readable version of that article here. You've linked to it before (here) but the piece made a stronger impact on me today than last time, perhaps because it's part of such a strong series. I wonder about the effect the case has had on Walter Rosenblum's career. The various bios I just read online don't even mention it (no surprise) but it would be interesting to know. Rosenblum appears to have made some astonishing decisions, given his background and standing.

[Don Bryant]

Mike,

If you have watched the "Genius of Photography" series this forgery incident by Rosenblum is covered in a segment of one of the 6 part videos. Their report was that the fake prints were at least confirmed by the detection of OBAs.

Don

[David Paterson]

" . . . an Edward Weston print made by Edward himself is more valuable than a print made later by his son Cole, even if Cole's is the better print."

No doubt true, but isn't there something faintly ridiculous about this when we are talking about reproductions within a purely visual medium?

[Mike Johnston]

David,
Well, that's another thing Vestal used to complain about--that collectors preferred his older "vintage" prints to his newer prints that he felt were better. I don't know if he still feels the same way now that he's getting lots of money for his prints finally.

Mike

[James]

Having not seen it before yesterday on TOP, I've been looking at that "Powerhouse Mechanic" photo off and on over the last day. Something doesn't seem right about it. I think it is too posed. If the man had really been straining, there'd be muscles showing in the upper shoulder/top of back for a clockwise wrench, or muscles showing in the lower shoulder/lower back for a counter-clockwise wrench.

Gosh, I'm picky, but "posed" photos never do much for me, particularly if then contaminated with the opinion of art experts.

[Pak-Ming Wan]

Well worth a read indeed! That's a terrible story that definitely throws some light onto not only the dodgy dealings of the Rosenblums, but just the dynamics of the business / market.

The million dollar I-defrauded-you-but-I-can-buy-you-back fund was particularly unsettling. Who do these guys think they are?

Pak

[MHMG]

Does anyone have a more definitive value for the total number of prints made by Adams of "Moonrise". I've heard three numbers over the years, i.e. a very definitive-sounding 476, Mike's comment of 800+, and the Wikipedia listing of 1300. Adams probably didn't have a definitive count himself, but there does seem to be a large discrepancy in values I've seen reported. Is there a more authoritative guess, and if so, by whom?

[Robert Howell]

For those of you eager to follow the conversation, bright enough to contribute, but unfortunate to never have run across the abbreviation before... OBA is a stand in for Optical Brightening Agents.
Just, coff, sayin'.

[Roger Bradbury]

James, I believe you are right. The clue for me is the way the spanner (wrench) is not square to the nut as it should be, but at about a 40 degree angle to it, angled towards us. The spanner would slip off the nut as soon as the mechanic pulled on it. Skinned knuckles if he was lucky, and a spanner in the mouth if he wasn't. However, I do like the shot.*

*Disclaimer: I am not an art expert** : )

**Expert: Ex as in 'has been', spurt as in 'a drip under pressure'.

[Stan B.]

A fascinating read- and a very sad one...

[MM]

Thanks for the input from Charlie. At one point he even answered the question, "Isn't there something faintly ridiculous about [paying more for a print by Edward Weston than one made by his son] when we are talking about reproductions within a purely visual medium?"

As Charlie said, "There will never be any more prints made by Ansel Adams, because he's in no position to make any and will never be again." Exactly. With any physical memento--FDR's cigarette case, Jackie Kennedy's clutch purse, Churchill's ashtray--the fact that an item was handled by a now-deceased Famous Person makes it more valuable than an absolutely identical item that was not touched by famous hands. Photographic prints are no different; if anything, their value-discrepancy compared to copies is even greater than with ashtrays and handbags, because a signed vintage print means The Great One actually spent some moments of his or her storied life making it.

P.S. From the first time I saw it I've always assumed that "Steamfitter" was posed. It's a superbly composed photo to me, but the awkward angle of the wrench, the perfect angle of his arms, the fact that all of the other nuts are in position and fastened, and most of all the several-second exposure it probably required make its "posed" nature a given in my mind.

But is that a surprise? I don't think that it was ever presented as being any less posed than any other indoor people-photos were in the 1920s. Indoor unposed photos are so common nowadays that modern eyes assume such photos were always possible, but because of technical limitations, until after mid-century indoor photos that were not posed were actually quite rare.

I would guess that everyone who saw "Steamfitter" for the first 20-30 years after it was made would have known instantly that it was posed, because they knew that virtually every other indoor people-photo of the era was posed.

[Mike Johnston]

"a signed vintage print means The Great One actually spent some moments of his or her storied life making it."

Well, that, but not JUST that. It also means the "Great Ones" also *approved* it--that is, got it just the way they presumably wanted it to be. It's not so much that Adams touched something that makes it valuable, but that he SAW it, meaning it more reliably embodies his intentions than a "synthetic" later print by someone else can.

Mike

[Joe Lipka]

But if you really want a nice picture of "Powerhouse", toodle on over to Shorpy ( http://www.shorpy.com/) and he will sell you a nice reproduction at a very reasonable price.

I have no iron in that fire, just posting as a public service.

[Gordon Lewis]

>>It's not so much that Adams touched something that makes it valuable, but that he SAW it, meaning it more reliably embodies his intentions than a "synthetic" later print by someone else can.<<

Okay, that makes sense for Adams' work, but what about Cartier-Bresson? As I understand it, he didn't print his own photographs but rather preferred to have them done by a trusted lab. If the same printer at the same lab were to make one of C-B's prints the same way today would it still be "synthetic?"

My guess is that the answer would be yes, which means that the value is derived less from the photographer "seeing" or printing it than "approving" it by signing it. As further evidence, it's a common practice for many lesser-known photographers to charge more for a signed print than for one that is otherwise identical but unsigned.

[Dennis]

A late comment: I just received in the mail a print from a known nature photographer (a gift fom my wife). It's a small print and it's numbered - a low double digit number out of roughly 1000. It's been available for a few years. So rather than feel I got something "limited" I feel I bought something very few people want ! Not that it bothers me, but it doesn't accomplish anything positive in this case.