The Impressed Image
Old Blah ! .....1/98
Archived demented ramblings - for previous
outbursts click here
I wonder if those of you out there who collect prints, particularly from the beginning of this century, ponder like I do on just where they have all gone to. It is illuminating to leaf through copies of Fine Prints of the Year and similar catalogues, looking at contemporary prices and edition sizes. Just how many of these were actually sold? In some cases it is fairly obvious that the total edition would have been sold and the majority would still be in circulation. Artists such as Brockhurst were very popular and assiduously collected at the time, and his Prints have still retained much of their desirability. By contrast, someone like Orovida, although very distinctive and well-known today seems to have left little in circulation for the current collector.
Fine Prints of the Year is frequently full of illustrations of work by artists that have names that are a complete mystery and examples of their prints appear to have vanished without trace. It makes any assessment of just how rare a particular one is extremely difficult. I often visit Dickins and Sons, the print dealers from London who are now based in the provinces. They originally published many well-known printmakers in the 1920's, such as Briscoe. Remarkably, they have retained unsold work by Frank Gillet still in the original paper packets that it was sent in from the Printers. Just how many other prints languished unsold until finally consigned to the dustbin? Almost everything from the 1930's from what one is told.
Tales are legion, particularly from collectors of the previous generation, of prints being in such abundance that they could pick and choose almost at will. If true, this does not completely explain where all these prints have gone to. Are there really that many collectors? Although institutions such as the major museums and galleries have extensive collections, these are primarily as result of bequests, so not many will have followed that route.
Few if any people these days have the inclination or the wealth to accumulate collections of the size that were common in the last century that ran into the tens of thousands. One occasionally meets characters who allude cryptically to personal collections of considerable size, and I suppose it is possible that many thousands of prints have been hoovered up at low cost during the years when there was little interest, and that these will not resurface until their current owners disperse them in their dotage or on their death.
An 'edition of 75' means little if half were unsold and disposed of, a dozen or so end up in museums, another dozen are consigned to the attic as unpopular relics of ones relatives obsessions, a dozen are damaged through neglect and rough handling. What does that leave? A handful in circulation for the casual buyer?
It is often cited that print collecting has the great advantage of multiple copies being available whereas 'real art' is bespoke and unique. The price differentials reflect this. I have my suspicions that we are getting a much better deal than we realise and that many items are considerably rarer than the documentation would lead us to believe...
Photo credits:
Top: 'Home on the Range', an Irish rural idyll
Bottom: 'Starsky & Hutch - where are you?', a lament for flares
(Courtesy of Anthony Hughes and 'Sam' Coster)
Drop me a line if there is anything here that you profoundly disagree with, or maybe you would just like to point out my extreme ignorance and inadequate grasp of the subject.... I am not easily offended, so feel free to say what you like... if you once looked like weird bearded gent in the picture above, you too would have to be pretty thick skinned....
Gallery