« Sunday Open Mike: Dogs | Main | Outage »

Monday, 19 May 2014


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I find it fascinating that the dealer's opinion seems to be opposite the other two when it comes to recto signatures being visible.

Here's my conclusion reached by extrapolation based on incomplete data: Museum curators give long answers, collector/investers give very brief answers (usually two words), and photography dealers fall somewhere in between. But collector/investors inevitably regret their brevity and make up for it in follow-up emails.

Thanks a lot for all the great info you've gathered regarding signatures on prints, Mike! And since I'd been wondering about this very subject recently, the timing is great too ;)

For those starting out you might clarify the language of the collector. Recto and similar have no meaning to those not familiar with collecting art.

I'm a bit late to the party but just wanted to comment that the late Per Volquartz used a verso stamp on his silver gelatin prints, which included, the image title, date, print # if series and his signature.

In essence, it was a rubber stamp template applied to the mount board -- he just filled in the necessary info and then signed the print in the space provided. Actually, I have one of his signed prints but I've never really looked at the back -- maybe because I was in his presence when he mounted and signed the print.

It's obvious the dealer relies heavily on a obviously visible signature to sell prints, while the others see a signature as a one-time "validation" at purchasing time.


The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007