Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/07/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Well, collectors wouldn't be interest in buying these prints since they aren't editioned. The prints are basically posters. Unlimited supply of an unsigned print doesn't increase the value, which is what a collector wants. Another example is Magnum. You can buy prints from them, unsigned or go to a gallery and buy a signed print of the same image. A contemporary unsigned print from a dead photog costs a lot less than a signed one. One has collector value, one doesn't. Leo On Jul 28, 2010, at 9:12 AM, Geoff Hopkinson <hopsternew at gmail.com> wrote: > Hmmmm. I have no idea on the provenance of these of course. > Disregarding that, I looked at the web previews of the prints that they > have > now advertised for sale following this publicity. > USD 7,500 for a silver gelatin print made by I have no idea who from these > negatives. That is the starting range of some authenticated original prints > made and signed by the great man himself. Go to the Ansel Adams Gallery in > Yosemite and you can purchase a selection of very well known work printed > on > silver gelatin by one of Ansel's assistants. USD 225 for the wonderful > 'Thunderstorm, Yosemite Valley' that I fell in love with and look at every > single day. > > Who else thinks this is about money and rarity and collectors over content > and artisan excellence in the print making? Yes I'm sure that collectors > will vehemently disagree with me. They're welcome to do that of course. > > Cheers > Geoff > http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman > > > On 28 July 2010 23:40, leo wesson <leowesson at gmail.com> wrote: > >> sorry, not near the printer Ansel was... >> >> Leo Wesson >> Photographer/Videographer >> 817.733.9157 >> www.leowesson.com >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 8:26 AM, LeoWesson <leowesson at gmail.com> wrote: >>> Considering that this guy wouldn't be near the printer answer was, it >> looks pretty plausible to me. >>> >>> http://ricknorsigian.com/ >>> >>> Leo >>> >>> On Jul 28, 2010, at 7:12 AM, John Edwin Mason <profmason at yahoo.com> >> wrote: >>> >>>> Richard's right. Ansel's grandson does dispute the authenticity of the >> photos. His argument doesn't seem particularly strong to me. My guess is >> that it's about protecting the brand -- and the profits. >>>> >>>> Here's a story from the Telegraph: >>>> >>>> >> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/art-news/7913901/Ansel-Adams-discovery-sparks-row-as-family-say-negatives-are-fakes.html >>>> >>>> --John >>>> >>>> ****************************** >>>> John Edwin Mason, Photography: >>>> http://www.JohnEdwinMason.com <http://www.johnedwinmason.com/> >>>> Charlottesville and Cape Town >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Leica Users Group. >>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information