Urban Art Association

indeed. i cant understand that somebody is paying more for #3 than for #33...
i could understand #1 - but personally i would not pay a premium !

I can understand a seller trying to add a bit on for a "desirable" number, but for me, unless the number is coincidentally relevant to me or the subject matter, I really don't care about the number.

Having said that, I would rather have #25 than #27 or #88 over #72. Prettier numbers, but it doesn't really matter.

I don't know about serious printers, but the shop I used to work for would commission comic art prints from time to time, and when it came to numbering and signing, it was random. Just whichever the artist grabbed and signed next.

Absolutely agree.....

I would add that its always nice to have '1 of xxx' it just feels nice - would I pay more for it? Well thats the million dollar question...

The question of a limited edition vs A/P - lets say both are of the same size (5 limited editions and 5 A/Ps) - generally the A/P is sold at a higher amount... but is this right?

Yorkie

no

I might be inclined to pay a few bucks extra for a #0.

Let's give it up for dexterbulldog for starting this "thread"; I absolutely agree; Serialized prints, irrespective of numbers, have all the same value (otherwise they wouldn't be serialized); you know what? I also abhor those who hide the number of their print as if buying that specific number would add value to my purchase, as if I should thank them for selling me a low number, please go home

I agree coach - they do decrease the risk of fraud. Sometimes it also removes the identity of someone who is selling on eBay and details the number that they have for sale so the don't get burned on here when they sell it for more / less!

Then there is the postebob method of putting 'poster bob' all over the image - I always smile at that!

Yorkie

Hiding numbers is so that people don't alert the gallery and get blacklisted as a flipper. Galleries and print studios have a record of who gets what number. Well some of them do anyway

I'm not disagreeing with you.

As a print run becomes sold out in most cases their prices appreciate because they are already rarer to find and there is the appreciated price that would encompass the same value of each print in that run no matter the number.
If lets say their was a run of 50 sold out prints made and these prints were to be valued 20 years later. It would be very difficult to create an appraisal price for each individual print that time out of that 50. What would #2 be worth 25% more than #10 which is 35% more than #15 and so on... So this is a very subjective matter.
I think what is more important in valuing prints is if the artist or publisher created an artist proof edition of the same print which are always smaller numbers and/or even embellished. And then of course their is the Original which is used as a standard in judging the value of the limited edition prints or vice versa.

I believe this notion is derived from two factors spawned long ago.

#1)  The fact that most signing any long number of items tend to have their best signatures in the beginning of the run ( given that they are signed in order) and often turn to scribbles and less recognizable at the end of a run. This is very prominent in many other collectibles that many not be numbered but judged on the quality of the signature aside from provenance of course.

#2) Purely the fact that the #1 and subsequent lower numbers have usually gone to friends or special people of the artist, giving it some mystical quality that it was intended for "someone special". I think it is pretty undeniable that when receiving a #1 in a series of pretty much anything of value, we automatically give it a higher value than the others in the series regardless of the logic against it. Rare anyone would get a #1 by chance as they are almost always pulled aside for someone or retained by the artist. Of course meaningless to some but definitely has value for many others in the same respect someone may give a higher value to a non variant  "AP". Also very similar to the halo effect that a famous prior owner might give a car or work of art. JFK's golf clubs sold for $1.6M back in 1996 which could have been had for a few hundred new. An extreme case but the psychology is the same in the perceived higher value and desirability.  

I thought I didn't care about print numbers, but I sure jumped at the chance to get matching numbers for my Harrington prints.

So, think we can all agree - Low/Visually pleasing numbers are desirable if you have the option but you're not gonna pay more unless it's #1 or #AP/PP

Fully agree!!

"Also! One more big factor here is this. Many prints aren't numbered in the order they were made. Buying print #1 of 100 does not guarantee that you literally have the first print that was pulled."

I was about to make this point as well. Be surprised if any really were.

This is true for many numbered items.
Fender Stratocaster SN 0001 (David Gilmour!) not the first one ever assembled, etc.

It does matter however in runs in which the same print block/plate was used for repeated pressings to issue new series.  The above-referenced Old Master prints, scads of Picassos made till the plate is worn smooth, ukiyo-e woodblock prints, etc. First runs, later runs, posthumous runs all decrease in quality, prestige and value.