kuni
Junior Member
Posts • 1,153
Likes • 1,818
February 2018
|
Framer cut off artist's signature. Anyone ever seen this?, by kuni on Mar 12, 2018 13:49:14 GMT 1, 
I was hanging out with my fam this weekend and checking out the walls. My family has a couple of original Chagall lithographs, that they picked up in the 80's. These two were signed by Chagall, but when they were taken to the framer, he actually cut off the signature at the bottom and taped it to the back of the print. On one of them, he then wrote "orig Lithograph - Chagall" where the signature used to be. As the story's told, my family was aghast when they got them back from the framer, completely befuddled by a professional framer who would think it was a good idea to remove the signature.
Needless to say, the value of these was completely decimated, but that's neither here nor there. They're still family heirlooms, and enjoyable to look at.
I wanted to see if anyone's ever heard of anything like this, and if there's an inexplicable reason that the framer would have thought this was a smart idea? Am I missing something?
Also, I know Chagall isn't exactly "Urban Art" but this seemed like a good place to ask the question.
I was hanging out with my fam this weekend and checking out the walls. My family has a couple of original Chagall lithographs, that they picked up in the 80's. These two were signed by Chagall, but when they were taken to the framer, he actually cut off the signature at the bottom and taped it to the back of the print. On one of them, he then wrote "orig Lithograph - Chagall" where the signature used to be. As the story's told, my family was aghast when they got them back from the framer, completely befuddled by a professional framer who would think it was a good idea to remove the signature. Needless to say, the value of these was completely decimated, but that's neither here nor there. They're still family heirlooms, and enjoyable to look at. I wanted to see if anyone's ever heard of anything like this, and if there's an inexplicable reason that the framer would have thought this was a smart idea? Am I missing something? Also, I know Chagall isn't exactly "Urban Art" but this seemed like a good place to ask the question. |
|
NYart
Junior Member
Posts • 1,221
Likes • 843
January 2016
|
Framer cut off artist's signature. Anyone ever seen this?, by NYart on Mar 12, 2018 13:53:15 GMT 1, Jesus. I sure hope they were compensated, certainly no good reason for him to do that. Framer may have thought it would look better without the signature or it would be easier for him to mat/frame but that’s ridiculous.
Jesus. I sure hope they were compensated, certainly no good reason for him to do that. Framer may have thought it would look better without the signature or it would be easier for him to mat/frame but that’s ridiculous.
|
|
kuni
Junior Member
Posts • 1,153
Likes • 1,818
February 2018
|
Framer cut off artist's signature. Anyone ever seen this?, by kuni on Mar 12, 2018 14:06:27 GMT 1, Jesus. I sure hope they were compensated, certainly no good reason for him to do that. Framer may have thought it would look better without the signature or it would be easier for him to mat/frame but that’s ridiculous.
I was 99.9999% sure I wasn't missing anything here, and this wasn't some sort of en vogue framing method in 1985.
Jesus. I sure hope they were compensated, certainly no good reason for him to do that. Framer may have thought it would look better without the signature or it would be easier for him to mat/frame but that’s ridiculous. I'm pretty sure they were compensated for it, but this was ~30 years ago so the value of the lithographs was a fraction of what they'd be worth today if the sigs were still intact. I think you're right that the framer thought it would better without the signature, which is basically the most outrageous thing I've ever heard. Especially since he took the time to tape the removed signatures onto the back of the frame. I was 99.9999% sure I wasn't missing anything here, and this wasn't some sort of en vogue framing method in 1985. |
|
siveone
Artist
New Member
Posts • 201
Likes • 134
February 2014
|
Framer cut off artist's signature. Anyone ever seen this?, by siveone on Mar 12, 2018 15:00:40 GMT 1, Are you sure that you received the originals back? Or were they exchanged? Sometimes there were a lot of unsigned studio backdoor prints of french artists in French studios. Just a quick idea.
Are you sure that you received the originals back? Or were they exchanged? Sometimes there were a lot of unsigned studio backdoor prints of french artists in French studios. Just a quick idea.
|
|
kuni
Junior Member
Posts • 1,153
Likes • 1,818
February 2018
|
Framer cut off artist's signature. Anyone ever seen this?, by kuni on Mar 12, 2018 15:29:33 GMT 1, Are you sure that you received the originals back? Or were they exchanged? Sometimes there were a lot of unsigned studio backdoor prints of french artists in French studios. Just a quick idea.
Next time I go by there I'm going to take a closer look at the print. Anything I can look for that would help me determine whether or not it's an original lithograph or a cheaper print?
Are you sure that you received the originals back? Or were they exchanged? Sometimes there were a lot of unsigned studio backdoor prints of french artists in French studios. Just a quick idea. In hindsight, no, I'm not sure at all. It would have been my grandparents that took the prints in to have them framed, and I'm not sure that they even considered that maybe they hadn't received the originals back. That's an interesting thought. I don't know if the two images are obscure enough to the point where finding a cheap replacement to swap out would be doable, but really he could have just produced a cheap photocopy of the print on high quality paper. That's certainly the more nefarious alternative. Next time I go by there I'm going to take a closer look at the print. Anything I can look for that would help me determine whether or not it's an original lithograph or a cheaper print? |
|
siveone
Artist
New Member
Posts • 201
Likes • 134
February 2014
|
Framer cut off artist's signature. Anyone ever seen this?, by siveone on Mar 12, 2018 15:46:23 GMT 1, The backdoor prints are mostly excactly the same print and paper but without a signature. I have seen a house full of prints of Picasso, Monet and others. All unsigned and unnumbered. I asked the owner, if these were remakes. He said no. His family bought these direct from the printing studios in Paris via backdoor. These are from the original printing edition, but not via the regular signed market. Hope your stuff will turn out well.
The backdoor prints are mostly excactly the same print and paper but without a signature. I have seen a house full of prints of Picasso, Monet and others. All unsigned and unnumbered. I asked the owner, if these were remakes. He said no. His family bought these direct from the printing studios in Paris via backdoor. These are from the original printing edition, but not via the regular signed market. Hope your stuff will turn out well.
|
|
|
|
dani
New Member
Posts • 258
Likes • 134
March 2017
|
Framer cut off artist's signature. Anyone ever seen this?, by dani on Mar 12, 2018 16:25:32 GMT 1, Are you sure that you received the originals back? Or were they exchanged? Sometimes there were a lot of unsigned studio backdoor prints of french artists in French studios. Just a quick idea. In hindsight, no, I'm not sure at all. It would have been my grandparents that took the prints in to have them framed, and I'm not sure that they even considered that maybe they hadn't received the originals back. That's an interesting thought. I don't know if the two images are obscure enough to the point where finding a cheap replacement to swap out would be doable, but really he could have just produced a cheap photocopy of the print on high quality paper. That's certainly the more nefarious alternative. Next time I go by there I'm going to take a closer look at the print. Anything I can look for that would help me determine whether or not it's an original lithograph or a cheaper print?
Even if he thought this was somehow the "correct" way to frame a lithograph, it's outrageous that a framer would take that kind of irreversible step without consulting the client first.
You could try comparing the paper of the lithograph with the paper of the signature on the back. If they're the same, it would suggest to me that he really did cut it off the lithograph. People can correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems unlikely to me that a framer in the 80s would have access to a photocopier and printer of sufficient quality to basically counterfeit a high-quality lithograph. You could also try comparing the handwriting on the mat with the signature.
Are you sure that you received the originals back? Or were they exchanged? Sometimes there were a lot of unsigned studio backdoor prints of french artists in French studios. Just a quick idea. In hindsight, no, I'm not sure at all. It would have been my grandparents that took the prints in to have them framed, and I'm not sure that they even considered that maybe they hadn't received the originals back. That's an interesting thought. I don't know if the two images are obscure enough to the point where finding a cheap replacement to swap out would be doable, but really he could have just produced a cheap photocopy of the print on high quality paper. That's certainly the more nefarious alternative. Next time I go by there I'm going to take a closer look at the print. Anything I can look for that would help me determine whether or not it's an original lithograph or a cheaper print? Even if he thought this was somehow the "correct" way to frame a lithograph, it's outrageous that a framer would take that kind of irreversible step without consulting the client first. You could try comparing the paper of the lithograph with the paper of the signature on the back. If they're the same, it would suggest to me that he really did cut it off the lithograph. People can correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems unlikely to me that a framer in the 80s would have access to a photocopier and printer of sufficient quality to basically counterfeit a high-quality lithograph. You could also try comparing the handwriting on the mat with the signature. |
|
gd79
Junior Member
Posts • 1,129
Likes • 1,220
September 2015
|
Framer cut off artist's signature. Anyone ever seen this?, by gd79 on Mar 12, 2018 16:36:40 GMT 1, I think to source a backdoor print in the short amount of time a piece is with the framer is too tough. They look good. Even sourcing the correct paper would take time. There are many Chagall prints out there, and happening to find the right ones in time is a big ask. Unless the framer wound up keeping them for months for some reason.
More likely it is as you say. These were valuable and collectible in the eighties I imagine, but not the same level as now. Framer probably treated it as a poster and took some liberties.
On the plus side, the presence of a signature wouldn't change the way these great pieces look! I love his prints.
I think to source a backdoor print in the short amount of time a piece is with the framer is too tough. They look good. Even sourcing the correct paper would take time. There are many Chagall prints out there, and happening to find the right ones in time is a big ask. Unless the framer wound up keeping them for months for some reason.
More likely it is as you say. These were valuable and collectible in the eighties I imagine, but not the same level as now. Framer probably treated it as a poster and took some liberties.
On the plus side, the presence of a signature wouldn't change the way these great pieces look! I love his prints.
|
|
kuni
Junior Member
Posts • 1,153
Likes • 1,818
February 2018
|
Framer cut off artist's signature. Anyone ever seen this?, by kuni on Mar 12, 2018 16:56:30 GMT 1, I think to source a backdoor print in the short amount of time a piece is with the framer is too tough. They look good. Even sourcing the correct paper would take time. There are many Chagall prints out there, and happening to find the right ones in time is a big ask. Unless the framer wound up keeping them for months for some reason. More likely it is as you say. These were valuable and collectible in the eighties I imagine, but not the same level as now. Framer probably treated it as a poster and took some liberties. On the plus side, the presence of a signature wouldn't change the way these great pieces look! I love his prints.
I think this is the correct answer. For a minute there I got wrapped up in the idea that the framer pulled a swap or did something shady, but I think it's just incompetence. Seriously though, the idea that a framer would pull something like this without asking the client is just mind boggling. Needless to say, he didn't get any additional business from us after this move.
Also, to your point, it's not like these are pieces that are being resold...they'll probably just stay in the family indefinitely, so while the signature would be nice to have it doesn't really take away from the image. Call me crazy, but I can see the influence that Chagall's style had reflected in today's urban art.
I think to source a backdoor print in the short amount of time a piece is with the framer is too tough. They look good. Even sourcing the correct paper would take time. There are many Chagall prints out there, and happening to find the right ones in time is a big ask. Unless the framer wound up keeping them for months for some reason. More likely it is as you say. These were valuable and collectible in the eighties I imagine, but not the same level as now. Framer probably treated it as a poster and took some liberties. On the plus side, the presence of a signature wouldn't change the way these great pieces look! I love his prints. I think this is the correct answer. For a minute there I got wrapped up in the idea that the framer pulled a swap or did something shady, but I think it's just incompetence. Seriously though, the idea that a framer would pull something like this without asking the client is just mind boggling. Needless to say, he didn't get any additional business from us after this move. Also, to your point, it's not like these are pieces that are being resold...they'll probably just stay in the family indefinitely, so while the signature would be nice to have it doesn't really take away from the image. Call me crazy, but I can see the influence that Chagall's style had reflected in today's urban art. |
|
KGR
New Member
Posts • 126
Likes • 106
November 2017
|
Framer cut off artist's signature. Anyone ever seen this?, by KGR on Mar 13, 2018 0:35:08 GMT 1, As a framer for close to 30 years My two cents is either they had a trainee there that accidently trimmed off the signature when preparing the print for framing or the bottom of the print got damaged in the prep work and they decided to trim off the bottom.
Since it was only on one print and not the other then I don’t think he did it to make the print look better.
Either way its not acceptable but you do have to remember what framing was like back in the 80’s.
There wasn’t much access to conservation materials and a lot of framing was done with card based mounts, cardboard and brown tape.
No accessible printers, photocopiers and Im sure a few here will remember…… no computers.
As a framer for close to 30 years My two cents is either they had a trainee there that accidently trimmed off the signature when preparing the print for framing or the bottom of the print got damaged in the prep work and they decided to trim off the bottom.
Since it was only on one print and not the other then I don’t think he did it to make the print look better.
Either way its not acceptable but you do have to remember what framing was like back in the 80’s.
There wasn’t much access to conservation materials and a lot of framing was done with card based mounts, cardboard and brown tape.
No accessible printers, photocopiers and Im sure a few here will remember…… no computers.
|
|
Deleted
Posts • 0
Likes •
January 1970
|
Framer cut off artist's signature. Anyone ever seen this?, by Deleted on Mar 13, 2018 10:04:14 GMT 1, Friend of mine bought a laugh now about 5 years ago for £750 that had the signature and stamp cut off. I did advise against.
Friend of mine bought a laugh now about 5 years ago for £750 that had the signature and stamp cut off. I did advise against.
|
|
kuni
Junior Member
Posts • 1,153
Likes • 1,818
February 2018
|
Framer cut off artist's signature. Anyone ever seen this?, by kuni on Mar 13, 2018 13:49:50 GMT 1, As a framer for close to 30 years My two cents is either they had a trainee there that accidently trimmed off the signature when preparing the print for framing or the bottom of the print got damaged in the prep work and they decided to trim off the bottom. Since it was only on one print and not the other then I don’t think he did it to make the print look better. Either way its not acceptable but you do have to remember what framing was like back in the 80’s. There wasn’t much access to conservation materials and a lot of framing was done with card based mounts, cardboard and brown tape. No accessible printers, photocopiers and Im sure a few here will remember…… no computers.
Yeah, I suppose when you step back from it and keep in mind that this was the 80's, with one of the many Chagall prints out there, it's likely that the simplest answer is probably the right one. Thanks for your perspective, it's allowed me to step away from all of the nefarious motives I'd built up in my head and realize it was most likely just a major screw up.
As a framer for close to 30 years My two cents is either they had a trainee there that accidently trimmed off the signature when preparing the print for framing or the bottom of the print got damaged in the prep work and they decided to trim off the bottom. Since it was only on one print and not the other then I don’t think he did it to make the print look better. Either way its not acceptable but you do have to remember what framing was like back in the 80’s. There wasn’t much access to conservation materials and a lot of framing was done with card based mounts, cardboard and brown tape. No accessible printers, photocopiers and Im sure a few here will remember…… no computers. Yeah, I suppose when you step back from it and keep in mind that this was the 80's, with one of the many Chagall prints out there, it's likely that the simplest answer is probably the right one. Thanks for your perspective, it's allowed me to step away from all of the nefarious motives I'd built up in my head and realize it was most likely just a major screw up. |
|
met
Junior Member
Posts • 2,674
Likes • 6,274
June 2009
|
Framer cut off artist's signature. Anyone ever seen this?, by met on May 9, 2018 4:38:44 GMT 1,    I was hanging out with my fam this weekend and checking out the walls. My family has a couple of original Chagall lithographs, that they picked up in the 80's. These two were signed by Chagall, but when they were taken to the framer, he actually cut off the signature at the bottom and taped it to the back of the print. On one of them, he then wrote "orig Lithograph - Chagall" where the signature used to be. As the story's told, my family was aghast when they got them back from the framer, completely befuddled by a professional framer who would think it was a good idea to remove the signature. Needless to say, the value of these was completely decimated, but that's neither here nor there. They're still family heirlooms, and enjoyable to look at. I wanted to see if anyone's ever heard of anything like this, and if there's an inexplicable reason that the framer would have thought this was a smart idea? Am I missing something? Also, I know Chagall isn't exactly "Urban Art" but this seemed like a good place to ask the question.
Marc Chagall happens to be one of the artists I actively dislike.
Nevertheless, I'm pleased to have clicked on this thread because yours is such a curious tale.
Is my understanding correct — that the framer cut the signatures off both lithographs, taping each signature to the back of its corresponding print?
If so, what was the explanation given? Presumably, the framer indicated at the time the reasons for his choice.
Perhaps more puzzling to me is the inconsistency: Why write "orig. Lithograph - Chagall -" on the mount of a single lithograph only, but not the other?
_________
About a decade ago, a gallerist told me a story involving a very reputable framing business — illustrating how, eventually, things will always go wrong when there's scope for human error. Regardless of whom you're dealing with. And regardless of their expertise or meticulousness. It simply comes down to probabilities. [That's another reason why it's always crucial to get everything in writing, including basic, self-evident instructions.]
The framer in question was cutting a mount for a print. Whether through absent-mindedness or distraction, he forgot that print had been placed just underneath. As a result, Andy Warhol's signature was completely sliced off. You can imagine the awkwardness of the chat with the owner afterwards.
What they ended up doing was creating a mount with two separate openings: a large one bordering the print's image, and a small one allowing Warhol's signature to be visible. It was an unusual presentation, but effective at hiding the cock-up.
Apparently, the piece was subsequently sent off like that to auction, with the damage (rather naughtily) left undisclosed.
Remember this story the next time you receive an auction-house condition report which states, "Not examined outside of frame."
I was hanging out with my fam this weekend and checking out the walls. My family has a couple of original Chagall lithographs, that they picked up in the 80's. These two were signed by Chagall, but when they were taken to the framer, he actually cut off the signature at the bottom and taped it to the back of the print. On one of them, he then wrote "orig Lithograph - Chagall" where the signature used to be. As the story's told, my family was aghast when they got them back from the framer, completely befuddled by a professional framer who would think it was a good idea to remove the signature. Needless to say, the value of these was completely decimated, but that's neither here nor there. They're still family heirlooms, and enjoyable to look at. I wanted to see if anyone's ever heard of anything like this, and if there's an inexplicable reason that the framer would have thought this was a smart idea? Am I missing something? Also, I know Chagall isn't exactly "Urban Art" but this seemed like a good place to ask the question. happens to be one of the artists I actively dislike. Nevertheless, I'm pleased to have clicked on this thread because yours is such a curious tale. Is my understanding correct — that the framer cut the signatures off both lithographs, taping each signature to the back of its corresponding print? If so, what was the explanation given? Presumably, the framer indicated at the time the reasons for his choice. Perhaps more puzzling to me is the inconsistency: Why write "orig. Lithograph - Chagall -" on the mount of a single lithograph only, but not the other? _________ About a decade ago, a gallerist told me a story involving a very reputable framing business — illustrating how, eventually, things will always go wrong when there's scope for human error. Regardless of whom you're dealing with. And regardless of their expertise or meticulousness. It simply comes down to probabilities. [That's another reason why it's always crucial to get everything in writing, including basic, self-evident instructions.]The framer in question was cutting a mount for a print. Whether through absent-mindedness or distraction, he forgot that print had been placed just underneath. As a result, Andy War hol's signature was completely sliced off. You can imagine the awkwardness of the chat with the owner afterwards. What they ended up doing was creating a mount with two separate openings: a large one bordering the print's image, and a small one allowing War hol's signature to be visible. It was an unusual presentation, but effective at hiding the cock-up. Apparently, the piece was subsequently sent off like that to auction, with the damage (rather naughtily) left undisclosed. Remember this story the next time you receive an auction-house condition report which states, "Not examined outside of frame." |
|
kuni
Junior Member
Posts • 1,153
Likes • 1,818
February 2018
|
Framer cut off artist's signature. Anyone ever seen this?, by kuni on May 9, 2018 13:53:56 GMT 1, I was hanging out with my fam this weekend and checking out the walls. My family has a couple of original Chagall lithographs, that they picked up in the 80's. These two were signed by Chagall, but when they were taken to the framer, he actually cut off the signature at the bottom and taped it to the back of the print. On one of them, he then wrote "orig Lithograph - Chagall" where the signature used to be. As the story's told, my family was aghast when they got them back from the framer, completely befuddled by a professional framer who would think it was a good idea to remove the signature. Needless to say, the value of these was completely decimated, but that's neither here nor there. They're still family heirlooms, and enjoyable to look at. I wanted to see if anyone's ever heard of anything like this, and if there's an inexplicable reason that the framer would have thought this was a smart idea? Am I missing something? Also, I know Chagall isn't exactly "Urban Art" but this seemed like a good place to ask the question. happens to be one of the artists I actively dislike. Nevertheless, I'm pleased to have clicked on this thread because yours is such a curious tale. Is my understanding correct — that the framer cut the signatures off both lithographs, taping each signature to the back of its corresponding print? If so, what was the explanation given? Presumably, the framer indicated at the time the reasons for his choice. Perhaps more puzzling to me is the inconsistency: Why write "orig. Lithograph - Chagall -" on the mount of a single lithograph only, but not the other? _________ About a decade ago, a gallerist told me a story involving a very reputable framing business — illustrating how, eventually, things will always go wrong when there's scope for human error. Regardless of whom you're dealing with. And regardless of their expertise or meticulousness. It simply comes down to probabilities. [That's another reason why it's always crucial to get everything in writing, including basic, self-evident instructions.]The framer in question was cutting a mount for a print. Whether through absent-mindedness or distraction, he forgot that print had been placed just underneath. As a result, Andy War hol's signature was completely sliced off. You can imagine the awkwardness of the chat with the owner afterwards. What they ended up doing was creating a mount with two separate openings: a large one bordering the print's image, and a small one allowing War hol's signature to be visible. It was an unusual presentation, but effective at hiding the cock-up. Apparently, the piece was subsequently sent off like that to auction, with the damage (rather naughtily) left undisclosed. Remember this story the next time you receive an auction-house condition report which states, "Not examined outside of frame."
The Chagalls in question belongs to my grandmother, and was given to her by a mutual friend who had been friends with Chagall in the 1940's (the lithograph wasn't given to my grandmother until much later, probably sometime in the 1980's but that's sort of iffy and my grandmother isn't really able to talk or remember things these days). This is my mom's best recollection of the lithograph's provenance. Both of the lithographs are missing their signatures, but only one of them has the framer's handwriting where the signature should be. We're confident that the lithographs did have an authentic signature prior to being framed, and that the framer removed the signature.
What's curious is that this happened to two separate prints - had it just happened to one, I would think that it was just a one time mistake along the lines of what you'd mentioned. For it to happen to two separate prints is just strange, but as one poster pointed out, "These were valuable and collectible in the eighties I imagine, but not the same level as now. Framer probably treated it as a poster and took some liberties." So maybe the framer just thought they'd look better without the signatures on them and took some liberties? I really have no clue what happened, and nobody can remember for sure what the exact story was that was given when they were picked up from the framer. Also odd is that only one of the prints (the one with the handwriting) has the signature taped to the back. The signature is missing entirely from the other print. Could it possibly be that the mat is covering up the signature, and that it's still on there? Seems like a long shot.
The fact that the signature was taped to the back of one of them helps to rule out anything nefarious, and lends more credibility to the idea that it was just a moronic framer or someone taking artistic license, but I'm at a loss. Unfortunately, my grandfather is gone and my grandmother doesn't really know what's going on these days.
I was hanging out with my fam this weekend and checking out the walls. My family has a couple of original Chagall lithographs, that they picked up in the 80's. These two were signed by Chagall, but when they were taken to the framer, he actually cut off the signature at the bottom and taped it to the back of the print. On one of them, he then wrote "orig Lithograph - Chagall" where the signature used to be. As the story's told, my family was aghast when they got them back from the framer, completely befuddled by a professional framer who would think it was a good idea to remove the signature. Needless to say, the value of these was completely decimated, but that's neither here nor there. They're still family heirlooms, and enjoyable to look at. I wanted to see if anyone's ever heard of anything like this, and if there's an inexplicable reason that the framer would have thought this was a smart idea? Am I missing something? Also, I know Chagall isn't exactly "Urban Art" but this seemed like a good place to ask the question. happens to be one of the artists I actively dislike. Nevertheless, I'm pleased to have clicked on this thread because yours is such a curious tale. Is my understanding correct — that the framer cut the signatures off both lithographs, taping each signature to the back of its corresponding print? If so, what was the explanation given? Presumably, the framer indicated at the time the reasons for his choice. Perhaps more puzzling to me is the inconsistency: Why write "orig. Lithograph - Chagall -" on the mount of a single lithograph only, but not the other? _________ About a decade ago, a gallerist told me a story involving a very reputable framing business — illustrating how, eventually, things will always go wrong when there's scope for human error. Regardless of whom you're dealing with. And regardless of their expertise or meticulousness. It simply comes down to probabilities. [That's another reason why it's always crucial to get everything in writing, including basic, self-evident instructions.]The framer in question was cutting a mount for a print. Whether through absent-mindedness or distraction, he forgot that print had been placed just underneath. As a result, Andy War hol's signature was completely sliced off. You can imagine the awkwardness of the chat with the owner afterwards. What they ended up doing was creating a mount with two separate openings: a large one bordering the print's image, and a small one allowing War hol's signature to be visible. It was an unusual presentation, but effective at hiding the cock-up. Apparently, the piece was subsequently sent off like that to auction, with the damage (rather naughtily) left undisclosed. Remember this story the next time you receive an auction-house condition report which states, "Not examined outside of frame."Wow really interesting story, and totally shady behavior on the part of the framer. Thanks for sharing it. The Chagalls in question belongs to my grandmother, and was given to her by a mutual friend who had been friends with Chagall in the 1940's (the lithograph wasn't given to my grandmother until much later, probably sometime in the 1980's but that's sort of iffy and my grandmother isn't really able to talk or remember things these days). This is my mom's best recollection of the lithograph's provenance. Both of the lithographs are missing their signatures, but only one of them has the framer's handwriting where the signature should be. We're confident that the lithographs did have an authentic signature prior to being framed, and that the framer removed the signature. What's curious is that this happened to two separate prints - had it just happened to one, I would think that it was just a one time mistake along the lines of what you'd mentioned. For it to happen to two separate prints is just strange, but as one poster pointed out, "These were valuable and collectible in the eighties I imagine, but not the same level as now. Framer probably treated it as a poster and took some liberties." So maybe the framer just thought they'd look better without the signatures on them and took some liberties? I really have no clue what happened, and nobody can remember for sure what the exact story was that was given when they were picked up from the framer. Also odd is that only one of the prints (the one with the handwriting) has the signature taped to the back. The signature is missing entirely from the other print. Could it possibly be that the mat is covering up the signature, and that it's still on there? Seems like a long shot. The fact that the signature was taped to the back of one of them helps to rule out anything nefarious, and lends more credibility to the idea that it was just a moronic framer or someone taking artistic license, but I'm at a loss. Unfortunately, my grandfather is gone and my grandmother doesn't really know what's going on these days. |
|
|
|
balibob
Junior Member
Posts • 1,782
Likes • 326
November 2010
|
Framer cut off artist's signature. Anyone ever seen this?, by balibob on May 9, 2018 16:09:09 GMT 1, I almost spat my tea all over my laptop when I read the banner. Jesus!!!
I almost spat my tea all over my laptop when I read the banner. Jesus!!!
|
|
met
Junior Member
Posts • 2,674
Likes • 6,274
June 2009
|
Framer cut off artist's signature. Anyone ever seen this?, by met on May 9, 2018 16:54:25 GMT 1, Marc Chagall happens to be one of the artists I actively dislike. Nevertheless, I'm pleased to have clicked on this thread because yours is such a curious tale. Is my understanding correct — that the framer cut the signatures off both lithographs, taping each signature to the back of its corresponding print? If so, what was the explanation given? Presumably, the framer indicated at the time the reasons for his choice. Perhaps more puzzling to me is the inconsistency: Why write "orig. Lithograph - Chagall -" on the mount of a single lithograph only, but not the other? _________ About a decade ago, a gallerist told me a story involving a very reputable framing business — illustrating how, eventually, things will always go wrong when there's scope for human error. Regardless of whom you're dealing with. And regardless of their expertise or meticulousness. It simply comes down to probabilities. [That's another reason why it's always crucial to get everything in writing, including basic, self-evident instructions.]The framer in question was cutting a mount for a print. Whether through absent-mindedness or distraction, he forgot that print had been placed just underneath. As a result, Andy War hol's signature was completely sliced off. You can imagine the awkwardness of the chat with the owner afterwards. What they ended up doing was creating a mount with two separate openings: a large one bordering the print's image, and a small one allowing War hol's signature to be visible. It was an unusual presentation, but effective at hiding the cock-up. Apparently, the piece was subsequently sent off like that to auction, with the damage (rather naughtily) left undisclosed. Remember this story the next time you receive an auction-house condition report which states, "Not examined outside of frame." Wow really interesting story, and totally shady behavior on the part of the framer. Thanks for sharing it. The Chagalls in question belongs to my grandmother, and was given to her by a mutual friend who had been friends with Chagall in the 1940's (the lithograph wasn't given to my grandmother until much later, probably sometime in the 1980's but that's sort of iffy and my grandmother isn't really able to talk or remember things these days). This is my mom's best recollection of the lithograph's provenance. Both of the lithographs are missing their signatures, but only one of them has the framer's handwriting where the signature should be. We're confident that the lithographs did have an authentic signature prior to being framed, and that the framer removed the signature. What's curious is that this happened to two separate prints - had it just happened to one, I would think that it was just a one time mistake along the lines of what you'd mentioned. For it to happen to two separate prints is just strange, but as one poster pointed out, "These were valuable and collectible in the eighties I imagine, but not the same level as now. Framer probably treated it as a poster and took some liberties." So maybe the framer just thought they'd look better without the signatures on them and took some liberties? I really have no clue what happened, and nobody can remember for sure what the exact story was that was given when they were picked up from the framer. Also odd is that only one of the prints (the one with the handwriting) has the signature taped to the back. The signature is missing entirely from the other print. Could it possibly be that the mat is covering up the signature, and that it's still on there? Seems like a long shot.The fact that the signature was taped to the back of one of them helps to rule out anything nefarious, and lends more credibility to the idea that it was just a moronic framer or someone taking artistic license, but I'm at a loss. Unfortunately, my grandfather is gone and my grandmother doesn't really know what's going on these days.
Just to clarify regarding the first point highlighted above in red:
On the framer's side, it was simply an unfortunate, preventable accident. [Such accidents almost being inevitable over time. Even with the best framers, if they're in the business long enough, it becomes a numbers game.] However, the mistake was fully disclosed to the owner of the Warhol print. And the mount with two openings was chosen for appearances, to make the best of a bad situation.
The actual shady behaviour (failing to mention the cut-off signature) was purely down to owner / auction consignor. Sadly, it isn't uncommon for a victim to become the transgressor. [One sees this pretty regularly with people who are duped into buying a counterfeit, realise their mistake, and then quickly try to offload.]
Of course, the relevant auction house was also partly responsible, at the very least for its neglect in failing to discover the damage. But then, auction houses are quite often seen by dealers as dumping grounds for works on paper that have "condition issues". This is unsurprising, bearing in mind the number of bidders who don't even request condition reports, let alone examine in person the works they're interested in buying.
_________
As for the second point, it would be a good idea to check whether Chagall's signature may indeed be hidden underneath the mount. What is there to lose?
Either way, if your family has the disposable funds, consider taking the first lithograph to a reputable paper restorer — who may be able to reattach the signature. It would be an expensive exercise, put perhaps worthwhile given the print's status as an heirloom.
Separately, you may wish to reframe both prints. It's probably safe to say the current framing wasn't done with preservation being a priority.
I suspect that Conservation Level or Museum Level framing (including non-reflective acrylic or glass) could make all the difference in the world — both visually and for your family's long-term peace of mind.
Good luck.
Marc Chagall happens to be one of the artists I actively dislike. Nevertheless, I'm pleased to have clicked on this thread because yours is such a curious tale. Is my understanding correct — that the framer cut the signatures off both lithographs, taping each signature to the back of its corresponding print? If so, what was the explanation given? Presumably, the framer indicated at the time the reasons for his choice. Perhaps more puzzling to me is the inconsistency: Why write "orig. Lithograph - Chagall -" on the mount of a single lithograph only, but not the other? _________ About a decade ago, a gallerist told me a story involving a very reputable framing business — illustrating how, eventually, things will always go wrong when there's scope for human error. Regardless of whom you're dealing with. And regardless of their expertise or meticulousness. It simply comes down to probabilities. [That's another reason why it's always crucial to get everything in writing, including basic, self-evident instructions.]The framer in question was cutting a mount for a print. Whether through absent-mindedness or distraction, he forgot that print had been placed just underneath. As a result, Andy War hol's signature was completely sliced off. You can imagine the awkwardness of the chat with the owner afterwards. What they ended up doing was creating a mount with two separate openings: a large one bordering the print's image, and a small one allowing War hol's signature to be visible. It was an unusual presentation, but effective at hiding the cock-up. Apparently, the piece was subsequently sent off like that to auction, with the damage (rather naughtily) left undisclosed. Remember this story the next time you receive an auction-house condition report which states, "Not examined outside of frame." Wow really interesting story, and totally shady behavior on the part of the framer. Thanks for sharing it. The Chagalls in question belongs to my grandmother, and was given to her by a mutual friend who had been friends with Chagall in the 1940's (the lithograph wasn't given to my grandmother until much later, probably sometime in the 1980's but that's sort of iffy and my grandmother isn't really able to talk or remember things these days). This is my mom's best recollection of the lithograph's provenance. Both of the lithographs are missing their signatures, but only one of them has the framer's handwriting where the signature should be. We're confident that the lithographs did have an authentic signature prior to being framed, and that the framer removed the signature. What's curious is that this happened to two separate prints - had it just happened to one, I would think that it was just a one time mistake along the lines of what you'd mentioned. For it to happen to two separate prints is just strange, but as one poster pointed out, "These were valuable and collectible in the eighties I imagine, but not the same level as now. Framer probably treated it as a poster and took some liberties." So maybe the framer just thought they'd look better without the signatures on them and took some liberties? I really have no clue what happened, and nobody can remember for sure what the exact story was that was given when they were picked up from the framer. Also odd is that only one of the prints (the one with the handwriting) has the signature taped to the back. The signature is missing entirely from the other print. Could it possibly be that the mat is covering up the signature, and that it's still on there? Seems like a long shot.The fact that the signature was taped to the back of one of them helps to rule out anything nefarious, and lends more credibility to the idea that it was just a moronic framer or someone taking artistic license, but I'm at a loss. Unfortunately, my grandfather is gone and my grandmother doesn't really know what's going on these days. Just to clarify regarding the first point highlighted above in red: On the framer's side, it was simply an unfortunate, preventable accident. [Such accidents almost being inevitable over time. Even with the best framers, if they're in the business long enough, it becomes a numbers game.] However, the mistake was fully disclosed to the owner of the War hol print. And the mount with two openings was chosen for appearances, to make the best of a bad situation. The actual shady behaviour (failing to mention the cut-off signature) was purely down to owner / auction consignor. Sadly, it isn't uncommon for a victim to become the transgressor. [One sees this pretty regularly with people who are duped into buying a counterfeit, realise their mistake, and then quickly try to offload.]Of course, the relevant auction house was also partly responsible, at the very least for its neglect in failing to discover the damage. But then, auction houses are quite often seen by dealers as dumping grounds for works on paper that have "condition issues". This is unsurprising, bearing in mind the number of bidders who don't even request condition reports, let alone examine in person the works they're interested in buying. _________ As for the second point, it would be a good idea to check whether Chagall's signature may indeed be hidden underneath the mount. What is there to lose? Either way, if your family has the disposable funds, consider taking the first lithograph to a reputable paper restorer — who may be able to reattach the signature. It would be an expensive exercise, put perhaps worthwhile given the print's status as an heirloom. Separately, you may wish to reframe both prints. It's probably safe to say the current framing wasn't done with preservation being a priority. I suspect that Conservation Level or Museum Level framing (including non-reflective acrylic or glass) could make all the difference in the world — both visually and for your family's long-term peace of mind. Good luck. |
|
|
|
Framer cut off artist's signature. Anyone ever seen this?, by Cookiemonster on May 9, 2018 17:12:55 GMT 1, Didn't Lenny Villas some years ago erase an edition number from a Banksy print, and moved it up the print so that he didnt have to redo the mount?
Didn't Lenny Villas some years ago erase an edition number from a Banksy print, and moved it up the print so that he didnt have to redo the mount?
|
|
daveart
New Member
Posts • 940
Likes • 879
February 2008
|
Framer cut off artist's signature. Anyone ever seen this?, by daveart on May 9, 2018 17:21:59 GMT 1, its not so unheard of for old prints to say ... 'trimmed' or other similar word.. or specifically if one is not trimmed the description might emphasize full sheet - un trimmed. specifically becuase so many were trimmed.. prints were considered a small step above a poster prior to 1980 or so .. i could see how framers - and or customers would say - well you could trim an inch .. or pay $300 for a custom frame for a print you paid $15 for. ok trim it. I know people on here made similar mistakes with cheap banksy/faile/fairey/ prints back when they were significantly less to buy the print than to have a proper frame made.. just stick it in that old frame and tape it up to fit. easy decision at the time and a real head slapper when pristine prints are suddenly 40K.
its not so unheard of for old prints to say ... 'trimmed' or other similar word.. or specifically if one is not trimmed the description might emphasize full sheet - un trimmed. specifically becuase so many were trimmed.. prints were considered a small step above a poster prior to 1980 or so .. i could see how framers - and or customers would say - well you could trim an inch .. or pay $300 for a custom frame for a print you paid $15 for. ok trim it. I know people on here made similar mistakes with cheap banksy/faile/fairey/ prints back when they were significantly less to buy the print than to have a proper frame made.. just stick it in that old frame and tape it up to fit. easy decision at the time and a real head slapper when pristine prints are suddenly 40K.
|
|
