thisisit
New Member
🗨️ 284
👍🏻 182
January 2016
|
Re-issuing a Damaged print., by thisisit on May 13, 2016 6:55:29 GMT 1, I recently purchased a print that arrived damaged due to the fact that the edge got caught in the tube edge.
After contacting the artist, he offered to re-issue the same number print for me.
I now own the same number print twice. One has some damage, but managed to make it look decent.
My questions are:
If I ever decide to sell one of the two, what am I obliged to mention?
My plan was never to sell this print. But i do have two of them now. and my thoughts are that i do have the possibility of selling one in the future?
or do i not?
is it wrong to sell one of the two? and which one is the correct one to sell?
both are exactly the same, signed and numbered. (same number)
any thoughts appreciated.
I recently purchased a print that arrived damaged due to the fact that the edge got caught in the tube edge.
After contacting the artist, he offered to re-issue the same number print for me.
I now own the same number print twice. One has some damage, but managed to make it look decent.
My questions are:
If I ever decide to sell one of the two, what am I obliged to mention?
My plan was never to sell this print. But i do have two of them now. and my thoughts are that i do have the possibility of selling one in the future?
or do i not?
is it wrong to sell one of the two? and which one is the correct one to sell?
both are exactly the same, signed and numbered. (same number)
any thoughts appreciated.
|
|
|
|
Re-issuing a Damaged print., by Schrödinger's Chat on May 13, 2016 7:34:06 GMT 1, I'm probably wrong but I thought I had read somewhere that you usually have to destroy the original print and show evidence as such or return the damaged print so that it can be taken out of circulation (vague memories of this happening with Eelus ATR prints). I guess it would only really become an issue if the print is worth a lot of cash now or in the future.
I'm probably wrong but I thought I had read somewhere that you usually have to destroy the original print and show evidence as such or return the damaged print so that it can be taken out of circulation (vague memories of this happening with Eelus ATR prints). I guess it would only really become an issue if the print is worth a lot of cash now or in the future.
|
|
rjf76
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,494
👍🏻 2,662
January 2015
|
Re-issuing a Damaged print., by rjf76 on May 13, 2016 7:40:43 GMT 1, I've always had to return any damaged print first. Not sure why the gallery/artist wouldn't push you too as it's the responsible thing to do. Regardless of the situation or history, you'll have 2 prints in circulation with the same number! Never meant to be and wil destroy credibility and value for both...id probably just keep as a 'spare'!
I've always had to return any damaged print first. Not sure why the gallery/artist wouldn't push you too as it's the responsible thing to do. Regardless of the situation or history, you'll have 2 prints in circulation with the same number! Never meant to be and wil destroy credibility and value for both...id probably just keep as a 'spare'!
|
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Re-issuing a Damaged print., by Deleted on May 13, 2016 7:43:50 GMT 1, Do not sell damaged print, keep it, although i dunno why youd want to do that if damaged, or destroy it.
My own experience, it happened twice, once with an Eine from Dubai and once with a Kanz from Print Them All, was that i received new prints once id returned the damaged prints to them at their postage cost.
Do not sell damaged print, keep it, although i dunno why youd want to do that if damaged, or destroy it.
My own experience, it happened twice, once with an Eine from Dubai and once with a Kanz from Print Them All, was that i received new prints once id returned the damaged prints to them at their postage cost.
|
|
|
|
Re-issuing a Damaged print., by securityman on May 13, 2016 8:58:05 GMT 1, Don't know how you could even thing about selling the damaged print. Should be destroyed or marked on it damaged so it never gets counted in the original run.
Don't know how you could even thing about selling the damaged print. Should be destroyed or marked on it damaged so it never gets counted in the original run.
|
|
Gunny
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,605
👍🏻 1,118
July 2012
|
Re-issuing a Damaged print., by Gunny on May 13, 2016 9:32:53 GMT 1, If you like the image, keep the damaged print, never to be re-sold on the market. Sell the new one.
If you like the image, keep the damaged print, never to be re-sold on the market. Sell the new one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re-issuing a Damaged print., by Lroy on May 13, 2016 9:48:07 GMT 1, Put it in a giveway and make me win...*
That's the solution.
Put it in a giveway and make me win...*
That's the solution.
|
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Re-issuing a Damaged print., by Deleted on May 13, 2016 9:57:57 GMT 1, If you like the image, keep the damaged print, never to be re-sold on the market. Sell the new one.
There is that i suppose but i would proffer that the artist gave him a replacement on the basis that the damaged print would never be sold otherwise it would have had a different number or marked as a duplicate.
Dont think it would be classed as fraud legally but certainly not right in my eyes altho plenty on here would already have done just as u described !
If you like the image, keep the damaged print, never to be re-sold on the market. Sell the new one. There is that i suppose but i would proffer that the artist gave him a replacement on the basis that the damaged print would never be sold otherwise it would have had a different number or marked as a duplicate. Dont think it would be classed as fraud legally but certainly not right in my eyes altho plenty on here would already have done just as u described ! |
|
|
|
Re-issuing a Damaged print., by Happy Shopper on May 13, 2016 10:22:23 GMT 1, What a ridiculous thread!
You destroy the damaged print... at the very least remove the number from the damaged one, and if you ever sell it tell the buyer it's a reject and not of the main edition.
What a ridiculous thread!
You destroy the damaged print... at the very least remove the number from the damaged one, and if you ever sell it tell the buyer it's a reject and not of the main edition.
|
|
mutatis
New Member
🗨️ 671
👍🏻 492
July 2013
|
Re-issuing a Damaged print., by mutatis on May 13, 2016 10:22:58 GMT 1, By offering the same number print to you, it is fairly explicit that there should only be one of them in circulation - otherwise it would have been marked differently. The edition size has just grown, not significantly you might think, but if there were 10 damaged prints and everybody kept the "damaged" copy, the edition size becomes +10. You can see where this could lead. Perhaps the artist simply assumed that you would destroy the damaged one.
As you are asking here it suggests you want to do the right thing - I suggest you ask/tell the artist.
By offering the same number print to you, it is fairly explicit that there should only be one of them in circulation - otherwise it would have been marked differently. The edition size has just grown, not significantly you might think, but if there were 10 damaged prints and everybody kept the "damaged" copy, the edition size becomes +10. You can see where this could lead. Perhaps the artist simply assumed that you would destroy the damaged one.
As you are asking here it suggests you want to do the right thing - I suggest you ask/tell the artist.
|
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Re-issuing a Damaged print., by Deleted on May 13, 2016 10:52:11 GMT 1, What a ridiculous thread! You destroy the damaged print... at the very least remove the number from the damaged one, and if you ever sell it tell the buyer it's a reject and not of the main edition.
What a ridiculous thread! You destroy the damaged print... at the very least remove the number from the damaged one, and if you ever sell it tell the buyer it's a reject and not of the main edition. Totally agree, but to be fair to the OP, seems he isn't sure about what the protocol is and is looking for advice and he has got some from a number of members. In doing so, it has unearthed that some folks on here would do drastically different things in possession of the two prints. |
|
Loobaz
New Member
🗨️ 321
👍🏻 170
July 2011
|
Re-issuing a Damaged print., by Loobaz on May 13, 2016 11:00:10 GMT 1, By offering the same number print to you, it is fairly explicit that there should only be one of them in circulation - otherwise it would have been marked differently. The edition size has just grown, not significantly you might think, but if there were 10 damaged prints and everybody kept the "damaged" copy, the edition size becomes +10. You can see where this could lead. Perhaps the artist simply assumed that you would destroy the damaged one. As you are asking here it suggests you want to do the right thing - I suggest you ask/tell the artist.
Contacting the artist would be a good place to start, but the print should be destroyed, or sent back to the artist, who would likely destroy it themselves.
I think the notion of selling either one of them on, and keeping the other, is very bad form - I'm quite surprised to see any forum members say otherwise. It would certainly be against the artist's wishes, and harms the integrity of the edition.
Good on you for seeking out advice. It seems like you want to do the right thing, and I guess the definitive answer should come from the Artist.
By offering the same number print to you, it is fairly explicit that there should only be one of them in circulation - otherwise it would have been marked differently. The edition size has just grown, not significantly you might think, but if there were 10 damaged prints and everybody kept the "damaged" copy, the edition size becomes +10. You can see where this could lead. Perhaps the artist simply assumed that you would destroy the damaged one. As you are asking here it suggests you want to do the right thing - I suggest you ask/tell the artist. Very well put. The artist sent another print to replace the damaged one in the edition, not to add to the edition. Contacting the artist would be a good place to start, but the print should be destroyed, or sent back to the artist, who would likely destroy it themselves. I think the notion of selling either one of them on, and keeping the other, is very bad form - I'm quite surprised to see any forum members say otherwise. It would certainly be against the artist's wishes, and harms the integrity of the edition. Good on you for seeking out advice. It seems like you want to do the right thing, and I guess the definitive answer should come from the Artist. |
|
Ottomatik
Junior Member
🗨️ 4,233
👍🏻 2,471
March 2009
|
Re-issuing a Damaged print., by Ottomatik on May 13, 2016 13:21:06 GMT 1, I'm probably wrong but I thought I had read somewhere that you usually have to destroy the original print and show evidence as such or return the damaged print so that it can be taken out of circulation (vague memories of this happening with Eelus ATR prints). I guess it would only really become an issue if the print is worth a lot of cash now or in the future.
Doing this hurt my soul:
But It had to happen.
I'm probably wrong but I thought I had read somewhere that you usually have to destroy the original print and show evidence as such or return the damaged print so that it can be taken out of circulation (vague memories of this happening with Eelus ATR prints). I guess it would only really become an issue if the print is worth a lot of cash now or in the future. Doing this hurt my soul: But It had to happen. |
|
tartarus
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,628
👍🏻 2,169
February 2013
|
Re-issuing a Damaged print., by tartarus on May 13, 2016 13:24:50 GMT 1, I'm probably wrong but I thought I had read somewhere that you usually have to destroy the original print and show evidence as such or return the damaged print so that it can be taken out of circulation (vague memories of this happening with Eelus ATR prints). I guess it would only really become an issue if the print is worth a lot of cash now or in the future. Doing this hurt my soul: But It had to happen.
I'm probably wrong but I thought I had read somewhere that you usually have to destroy the original print and show evidence as such or return the damaged print so that it can be taken out of circulation (vague memories of this happening with Eelus ATR prints). I guess it would only really become an issue if the print is worth a lot of cash now or in the future. Doing this hurt my soul: But It had to happen. i can see how that would not feel good! |
|
|
|
darkcity
New Member
🗨️ 123
👍🏻 58
February 2016
|
Re-issuing a Damaged print., by darkcity on May 13, 2016 14:40:57 GMT 1, The print is not meant to be sold or traded for any reason, hence the same edition number being issued to avoid the other print making out into the market place, if there is a coa im. Sure a second one was not sent with the replacement print Seeing as how only one is needed, this takes to the equivilant of a backdoor print or unauthorized print and technically should loose all monetary value as it is a dupkicate print replaced to offset a damaged print not to add another to the edition. This would be considered unethical on all fronts even if you cantact the artist.
What ive done in the past in situations like this is either destroy the print and send a photo or video of print being destroyed to artist or ive asked the artist if they are willing for a small fee to embellish the damaged print or add something to it making it unique and a one off in its own right, ive onky done that twice but its been positive both times.
But when all is said and done i woukd not consider it to be a print that has value or could be sold or traded.
The print is not meant to be sold or traded for any reason, hence the same edition number being issued to avoid the other print making out into the market place, if there is a coa im. Sure a second one was not sent with the replacement print Seeing as how only one is needed, this takes to the equivilant of a backdoor print or unauthorized print and technically should loose all monetary value as it is a dupkicate print replaced to offset a damaged print not to add another to the edition. This would be considered unethical on all fronts even if you cantact the artist.
What ive done in the past in situations like this is either destroy the print and send a photo or video of print being destroyed to artist or ive asked the artist if they are willing for a small fee to embellish the damaged print or add something to it making it unique and a one off in its own right, ive onky done that twice but its been positive both times.
But when all is said and done i woukd not consider it to be a print that has value or could be sold or traded.
|
|
bonesy
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,387
👍🏻 264
July 2006
|
Re-issuing a Damaged print., by bonesy on May 13, 2016 15:57:44 GMT 1, I don't even like the same number print replacing a destroyed and damaged print. After a limited edition run is numbered that should be the end of it. The artist should decide whether they set aside a few prints to replace damages or offer their customers a refund. The integrity of the print run should come before anything.
I don't even like the same number print replacing a destroyed and damaged print. After a limited edition run is numbered that should be the end of it. The artist should decide whether they set aside a few prints to replace damages or offer their customers a refund. The integrity of the print run should come before anything.
|
|
|
|
Re-issuing a Damaged print., by Howard Johnson on May 13, 2016 16:40:41 GMT 1, Save it and give it as a gift to a family member or friend. Before framing it for them, write on the back, "duplicate copy, not for resale." You'll come off as a very generous friend/brother/son and they won't know the difference or care that the prints been written on.
Save it and give it as a gift to a family member or friend. Before framing it for them, write on the back, "duplicate copy, not for resale." You'll come off as a very generous friend/brother/son and they won't know the difference or care that the prints been written on.
|
|
thisisit
New Member
🗨️ 284
👍🏻 182
January 2016
|
Re-issuing a Damaged print., by thisisit on May 13, 2016 17:36:12 GMT 1, Thank you very much to everyone that gave me their opinion. Im new to collecting.
Just to let you know i bought the print a few months back.
The print is edition of 4 and the artists did not give me any instructions of what to do with the damaged print.
The last thing i would want to do is contact the artist and bother him again, to ask: what should i do with it?
And yes, my thoughts are that i will keep one and give one to my brother.
Just wanted to know what you guys thought of selling one of these. (that is not my intention, but its just confusing to me that i have TWO same numbered prints of an edition of 4, that is a pretty decent value print.
Sorry for the people who think this thread is ridiculous. Some of the opinions shared here where helpful.
Thank you very much to everyone that gave me their opinion. Im new to collecting.
Just to let you know i bought the print a few months back.
The print is edition of 4 and the artists did not give me any instructions of what to do with the damaged print.
The last thing i would want to do is contact the artist and bother him again, to ask: what should i do with it?
And yes, my thoughts are that i will keep one and give one to my brother.
Just wanted to know what you guys thought of selling one of these. (that is not my intention, but its just confusing to me that i have TWO same numbered prints of an edition of 4, that is a pretty decent value print.
Sorry for the people who think this thread is ridiculous. Some of the opinions shared here where helpful.
|
|
|
|
Re-issuing a Damaged print., by Happy Shopper on May 13, 2016 17:55:21 GMT 1, The print is edition of 4 ... The last thing i would want to do is contact the artist and bother him again...
An edition of just 4! You should.
The print is edition of 4 ... The last thing i would want to do is contact the artist and bother him again... An edition of just 4! You should. |
|
loother
New Member
🗨️ 471
👍🏻 602
October 2014
|
Re-issuing a Damaged print., by loother on May 13, 2016 18:21:30 GMT 1, Interesting dilemma, and really the artist should have taken it out of your hands by making you return or destroy the original. I still feel that for a totally clear conscience you should return or destroy the original. It's certainly your responsibility to make sure there aren't two identically-numbered prints in circulation, and you should at the very least remove the signature and number from the original damaged print, making it essentially valueless but probably still leaving something that could be framed, hung and enjoyed. I think writing something on the back is insufficient, as someone could conceivably buy it in the future, without removing it from its frame, in the belief that it is a signed, numbered print.
Interesting dilemma, and really the artist should have taken it out of your hands by making you return or destroy the original. I still feel that for a totally clear conscience you should return or destroy the original. It's certainly your responsibility to make sure there aren't two identically-numbered prints in circulation, and you should at the very least remove the signature and number from the original damaged print, making it essentially valueless but probably still leaving something that could be framed, hung and enjoyed. I think writing something on the back is insufficient, as someone could conceivably buy it in the future, without removing it from its frame, in the belief that it is a signed, numbered print.
|
|
|
|
Re-issuing a Damaged print., by Howard Johnson on May 13, 2016 18:31:45 GMT 1, Interesting dilemma, and really the artist should have taken it out of your hands by making you return or destroy the original. I still feel that for a totally clear conscience you should return or destroy the original. It's certainly your responsibility to make sure there aren't two identically-numbered prints in circulation, and you should at the very least remove the signature and number from the original damaged print, making it essentially valueless but probably still leaving something that could be framed, hung and enjoyed. I think writing something on the back is insufficient, as someone could conceivably buy it in the future, without removing it from its frame, in the belief that it is a signed, numbered print.
I'll amend my recommendation as you bring up a very good point. Maybe writing "duplicate copy, not for resale" on the front in pen is the way to go. As for destroying the print, it's clearly the ethical thing to do. That being said the artist didn't demand it or ask for it to be returned, so that could be interpreted to mean that he was fine with you keeping it. You asked for help so your likely not a scammer, just be forthright in your disclosures regarding a sale and make sure the piece is clearly marked so other buyers down the line arnt deceived.
Interesting dilemma, and really the artist should have taken it out of your hands by making you return or destroy the original. I still feel that for a totally clear conscience you should return or destroy the original. It's certainly your responsibility to make sure there aren't two identically-numbered prints in circulation, and you should at the very least remove the signature and number from the original damaged print, making it essentially valueless but probably still leaving something that could be framed, hung and enjoyed. I think writing something on the back is insufficient, as someone could conceivably buy it in the future, without removing it from its frame, in the belief that it is a signed, numbered print. I'll amend my recommendation as you bring up a very good point. Maybe writing "duplicate copy, not for resale" on the front in pen is the way to go. As for destroying the print, it's clearly the ethical thing to do. That being said the artist didn't demand it or ask for it to be returned, so that could be interpreted to mean that he was fine with you keeping it. You asked for help so your likely not a scammer, just be forthright in your disclosures regarding a sale and make sure the piece is clearly marked so other buyers down the line arnt deceived. |
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Re-issuing a Damaged print., by Deleted on May 13, 2016 18:50:34 GMT 1, Thank you very much to everyone that gave me their opinion. Im new to collecting. Just to let you know i bought the print a few months back. The print is edition of 4 and the artists did not give me any instructions of what to do with the damaged print. The last thing i would want to do is contact the artist and bother him again, to ask: what should i do with it? And yes, my thoughts are that i will keep one and give one to my brother. Just wanted to know what you guys thought of selling one of these. (that is not my intention, but its just confusing to me that i have TWO same numbered prints of an edition of 4, that is a pretty decent value print. Sorry for the people who think this thread is ridiculous. Some of the opinions shared here where helpful.
I dont think anyone thought that this was a ridiculous original post, dont know if the same would be said for some of the replies you received.
Thank you very much to everyone that gave me their opinion. Im new to collecting. Just to let you know i bought the print a few months back. The print is edition of 4 and the artists did not give me any instructions of what to do with the damaged print. The last thing i would want to do is contact the artist and bother him again, to ask: what should i do with it? And yes, my thoughts are that i will keep one and give one to my brother. Just wanted to know what you guys thought of selling one of these. (that is not my intention, but its just confusing to me that i have TWO same numbered prints of an edition of 4, that is a pretty decent value print. Sorry for the people who think this thread is ridiculous. Some of the opinions shared here where helpful. I dont think anyone thought that this was a ridiculous original post, dont know if the same would be said for some of the replies you received. |
|
|
|
|
|
Re-issuing a Damaged print., by Peter Bengtsen on May 13, 2016 19:46:01 GMT 1, I recently purchased a print that arrived damaged due to the fact that the edge got caught in the tube edge. After contacting the artist, he offered to re-issue the same number print for me. I now own the same number print twice. One has some damage, but managed to make it look decent. My questions are: If I ever decide to sell one of the two, what am I obliged to mention? My plan was never to sell this print. But i do have two of them now. and my thoughts are that i do have the possibility of selling one in the future? or do i not? is it wrong to sell one of the two? and which one is the correct one to sell? both are exactly the same, signed and numbered. (same number) any thoughts appreciated.
Your questions are based on the premise that it is fine for you to keep both the damaged print and the replacement.
However, the artist provided you with a second print with the same number as the damaged one. Since there should not be two prints with identical numbers in an edition, I would say it is implied that the artist expects the damaged print to be destroyed once the replacement is received. Regardless of whether this has been made explicit in the artist's communication.
Keeping both prints intact (whether you later gift or sell one) is an opportunist action which compromises the integrity of the edition. It also sets a bad precedent that might dissuade other artists from issuing replacements in the future.
Thank you very much to everyone that gave me their opinion. Im new to collecting. Just to let you know i bought the print a few months back. The print is edition of 4 and the artists did not give me any instructions of what to do with the damaged print. The last thing i would want to do is contact the artist and bother him again, to ask: what should i do with it? And yes, my thoughts are that i will keep one and give one to my brother.
This comes across as a convenient excuse to avoid receiving a response from the artist you might not want to hear.
As I mentioned above, I would take it as implicit that issuing a replacement print (which is clearly what the artist has done here) means that the damaged print should be returned or destroyed. If you think there is a chance that the artist would see things differently, the very least you can do is to get in touch again to clarify their position on the matter.
I recently purchased a print that arrived damaged due to the fact that the edge got caught in the tube edge. After contacting the artist, he offered to re-issue the same number print for me. I now own the same number print twice. One has some damage, but managed to make it look decent. My questions are: If I ever decide to sell one of the two, what am I obliged to mention? My plan was never to sell this print. But i do have two of them now. and my thoughts are that i do have the possibility of selling one in the future? or do i not? is it wrong to sell one of the two? and which one is the correct one to sell? both are exactly the same, signed and numbered. (same number) any thoughts appreciated. Your questions are based on the premise that it is fine for you to keep both the damaged print and the replacement. However, the artist provided you with a second print with the same number as the damaged one. Since there should not be two prints with identical numbers in an edition, I would say it is implied that the artist expects the damaged print to be destroyed once the replacement is received. Regardless of whether this has been made explicit in the artist's communication. Keeping both prints intact (whether you later gift or sell one) is an opportunist action which compromises the integrity of the edition. It also sets a bad precedent that might dissuade other artists from issuing replacements in the future. Thank you very much to everyone that gave me their opinion. Im new to collecting. Just to let you know i bought the print a few months back. The print is edition of 4 and the artists did not give me any instructions of what to do with the damaged print. The last thing i would want to do is contact the artist and bother him again, to ask: what should i do with it? And yes, my thoughts are that i will keep one and give one to my brother. This comes across as a convenient excuse to avoid receiving a response from the artist you might not want to hear. As I mentioned above, I would take it as implicit that issuing a replacement print (which is clearly what the artist has done here) means that the damaged print should be returned or destroyed. If you think there is a chance that the artist would see things differently, the very least you can do is to get in touch again to clarify their position on the matter. |
|
|
|
Re-issuing a Damaged print., by Coach on May 13, 2016 19:52:30 GMT 1, I recently purchased a print that arrived damaged due to the fact that the edge got caught in the tube edge. After contacting the artist, he offered to re-issue the same number print for me. I now own the same number print twice. One has some damage, but managed to make it look decent. My questions are: If I ever decide to sell one of the two, what am I obliged to mention? My plan was never to sell this print. But i do have two of them now. and my thoughts are that i do have the possibility of selling one in the future? or do i not? is it wrong to sell one of the two? and which one is the correct one to sell? both are exactly the same, signed and numbered. (same number) any thoughts appreciated. Your questions are based on the premise that it is fine for you to keep both the damaged print and the replacement. However, the artist provided you with a second print with the same number as the damaged one. Since there should not be two prints with identical numbers in an edition, I would say it is implied that the artist expects the damaged print to be destroyed once the replacement is received. Regardless of whether this has been made explicit in the artist's communcation. Keeping both prints intact (whether you later gift or sell one) is an opportunist action which compromises the integrity of the edition. It also sets a bad precedent that might dissuade other artists from issuing replacements in the future. Thank you very much to everyone that gave me their opinion. Im new to collecting. Just to let you know i bought the print a few months back. The print is edition of 4 and the artists did not give me any instructions of what to do with the damaged print. The last thing i would want to do is contact the artist and bother him again, to ask: what should i do with it? And yes, my thoughts are that i will keep one and give one to my brother. This comes across as a convenient excuse to avoid receiving a response from the artist you might not want to hear. As I mentioned above, I would take it as implicit that issuing a replacement print (which is clearly what the artist has done here) means that the damaged print should be returned or destroyed. If you think there is a chance that the artist would see things differently, the very least you can do is to get in touch again to clarify their position on the matter.
This post just about hits every nail on the head.
I recently purchased a print that arrived damaged due to the fact that the edge got caught in the tube edge. After contacting the artist, he offered to re-issue the same number print for me. I now own the same number print twice. One has some damage, but managed to make it look decent. My questions are: If I ever decide to sell one of the two, what am I obliged to mention? My plan was never to sell this print. But i do have two of them now. and my thoughts are that i do have the possibility of selling one in the future? or do i not? is it wrong to sell one of the two? and which one is the correct one to sell? both are exactly the same, signed and numbered. (same number) any thoughts appreciated. Your questions are based on the premise that it is fine for you to keep both the damaged print and the replacement. However, the artist provided you with a second print with the same number as the damaged one. Since there should not be two prints with identical numbers in an edition, I would say it is implied that the artist expects the damaged print to be destroyed once the replacement is received. Regardless of whether this has been made explicit in the artist's communcation. Keeping both prints intact (whether you later gift or sell one) is an opportunist action which compromises the integrity of the edition. It also sets a bad precedent that might dissuade other artists from issuing replacements in the future. Thank you very much to everyone that gave me their opinion. Im new to collecting. Just to let you know i bought the print a few months back. The print is edition of 4 and the artists did not give me any instructions of what to do with the damaged print. The last thing i would want to do is contact the artist and bother him again, to ask: what should i do with it? And yes, my thoughts are that i will keep one and give one to my brother. This comes across as a convenient excuse to avoid receiving a response from the artist you might not want to hear. As I mentioned above, I would take it as implicit that issuing a replacement print (which is clearly what the artist has done here) means that the damaged print should be returned or destroyed. If you think there is a chance that the artist would see things differently, the very least you can do is to get in touch again to clarify their position on the matter. This post just about hits every nail on the head. |
|
Cocteau 101
Junior Member
🗨️ 3,508
👍🏻 1,227
January 2007
|
Re-issuing a Damaged print., by Cocteau 101 on May 13, 2016 22:27:02 GMT 1, Thank you very much to everyone that gave me their opinion. Im new to collecting. Just to let you know i bought the print a few months back. The print is edition of 4 and the artists did not give me any instructions of what to do with the damaged print. The last thing i would want to do is contact the artist and bother him again, to ask: what should i do with it? And yes, my thoughts are that i will keep one and give one to my brother. Just wanted to know what you guys thought of selling one of these. (that is not my intention, but its just confusing to me that i have TWO same numbered prints of an edition of 4, that is a pretty decent value print. Sorry for the people who think this thread is ridiculous. Some of the opinions shared here where helpful.
Thank you very much to everyone that gave me their opinion. Im new to collecting. Just to let you know i bought the print a few months back. The print is edition of 4 and the artists did not give me any instructions of what to do with the damaged print. The last thing i would want to do is contact the artist and bother him again, to ask: what should i do with it? And yes, my thoughts are that i will keep one and give one to my brother. Just wanted to know what you guys thought of selling one of these. (that is not my intention, but its just confusing to me that i have TWO same numbered prints of an edition of 4, that is a pretty decent value print. Sorry for the people who think this thread is ridiculous. Some of the opinions shared here where helpful. |
|
Cocteau 101
Junior Member
🗨️ 3,508
👍🏻 1,227
January 2007
|
Re-issuing a Damaged print., by Cocteau 101 on May 13, 2016 22:34:13 GMT 1,
The mere question while dressed up as advice seeking seems to me to have the air of opportunism about it. I apologise if this causes offence but for your own integrity as a collector you need to either keep the
damaged print as an unnumbered copy for your own collection if you choose to sell the replacement or destroy the damaged print. If they have been numbered the same have you considered that if you sell either, both become virtually worthless as by having two prints from the edition with the same number ultimately you are self defeating the edition size.
The mere question while dressed up as advice seeking seems to me to have the air of opportunism about it. I apologise if this causes offence but for your own integrity as a collector you need to either keep the
damaged print as an unnumbered copy for your own collection if you choose to sell the replacement or destroy the damaged print. If they have been numbered the same have you considered that if you sell either, both become virtually worthless as by having two prints from the edition with the same number ultimately you are self defeating the edition size.
|
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Re-issuing a Damaged print., by Deleted on May 13, 2016 22:40:37 GMT 1, Destroy the damaged print then fuck off.
Destroy the damaged print then fuck off.
|
|
thisisit
New Member
🗨️ 284
👍🏻 182
January 2016
|
Re-issuing a Damaged print., by thisisit on May 13, 2016 23:18:35 GMT 1, Destroy the damaged print then f**k off.
Just to make things clear. I have never sold any of my art in the past two years collecting.
And I was never re-issued a print in the past, and didn't even know thats a thing.
If you guys think I'm opportunistic, feel free to think so. I just wanted to see what the advice would be.
At the end of the day i can do whatever i want.
It had not passed my mind that i could rub off the edition number and make a note at the back which is what I am now intending to do.
I am not planning on selling. Just wanted to know the implications of that.
But i can admit it looks good having 2 prints edition of 4 side by side.  And I'm happy i own the image twice. I think I might have come out opportunistic because of that. And no I'm not going to rip it all up.
My question was not: should i rip it up?
And since the artist didn't tell me to rip it i will not message him: please can I rip it?...
I really feel quite sensible and I understand that a low edition like that does not need another print circulating! i just wanted to see what the implications are.
I wish people where kinder... its the first thread i made because i thought I've never seen any information about this subject...
Destroy the damaged print then f**k off. Just to make things clear. I have never sold any of my art in the past two years collecting. And I was never re-issued a print in the past, and didn't even know thats a thing. If you guys think I'm opportunistic, feel free to think so. I just wanted to see what the advice would be. At the end of the day i can do whatever i want. It had not passed my mind that i could rub off the edition number and make a note at the back which is what I am now intending to do. I am not planning on selling. Just wanted to know the implications of that. But i can admit it looks good having 2 prints edition of 4 side by side. And I'm happy i own the image twice. I think I might have come out opportunistic because of that. And no I'm not going to rip it all up. My question was not: should i rip it up? And since the artist didn't tell me to rip it i will not message him: please can I rip it?... I really feel quite sensible and I understand that a low edition like that does not need another print circulating! i just wanted to see what the implications are. I wish people where kinder... its the first thread i made because i thought I've never seen any information about this subject... |
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Re-issuing a Damaged print., by Deleted on May 13, 2016 23:20:57 GMT 1, Oh dear....
Oh dear....
|
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Re-issuing a Damaged print., by Deleted on May 13, 2016 23:23:24 GMT 1, Destroy the damaged print then f**k off. Just to make things clear. I have never sold any of my art in the past two years collecting. And I was never re-issued a print in the past, and didn't even know thats a thing. If you guys think I'm opportunistic, feel free to think so. I just wanted to see what the advice would be. At the end of the day i can do whatever i want. It had not passed my mind that i could rub off the edition number and make a note at the back which is what I am now intending to do. I am not planning on selling. Just wanted to know the implications of that. But i can admit it looks good having 2 prints edition of 4 side by side. And I'm happy i own the image twice. I think I might have come out opportunistic because of that. And no I'm not going to rip it all up. My question was not: should i rip it up? And since the artist didn't tell me to rip it i will not message him: please can I rip it?... I really feel quite sensible and I understand that a low edition like that does not need another print circulating! i just wanted to see what the implications are. I wish people where kinder... its the first thread i made because i thought I've never seen any information about this subject...
Destroy the damaged print then f**k off. Just to make things clear. I have never sold any of my art in the past two years collecting. And I was never re-issued a print in the past, and didn't even know thats a thing. If you guys think I'm opportunistic, feel free to think so. I just wanted to see what the advice would be. At the end of the day i can do whatever i want. It had not passed my mind that i could rub off the edition number and make a note at the back which is what I am now intending to do. I am not planning on selling. Just wanted to know the implications of that. But i can admit it looks good having 2 prints edition of 4 side by side. And I'm happy i own the image twice. I think I might have come out opportunistic because of that. And no I'm not going to rip it all up. My question was not: should i rip it up? And since the artist didn't tell me to rip it i will not message him: please can I rip it?... I really feel quite sensible and I understand that a low edition like that does not need another print circulating! i just wanted to see what the implications are. I wish people where kinder... its the first thread i made because i thought I've never seen any information about this subject... Proper response: um...ok. |
|
And I'm happy i own the image twice. I think I might have come out opportunistic because of that. And no I'm not going to rip it all up.
