Print with reversed signature

I only saw one that listed the size in the paper and the frame. The paper was 16x22. if i remember correct.
I may just list it on ebay and see what happens. might be interesting.
Mikey

 

The liveauctioneers one is listed as 18x22. The matting precludes seeing the actual border size.

http://www.williamweston.co.uk/item/artist_previous/306/44
"Full margins. Sheet: 19 5/8 x 25 3/4ins. Image overall: 16 x 23 1/4ins"

 

Good luck, Mikey... hope it does well.

 

The example at liveauctioneers is also a reproduction--in a cheap cardboard mat and metal section frame to add insult to jnjury!

There is no question yours is a reproduction.

What is the instant giveaway, you may ask? The printed greyish tonal border surrounding the image. Everything within that tonal border, including the signature, is a reproduction. The originals have no such tonal border. Just pure ivory wove paper.

Here's what a real one looks like:
http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/83649

 

People should forget the internet myth that "dots" or a lack of them have any real significance.

There are several ways that reproductions are made without dots.

 

I thank you again Alec. I am just going to list it for sale for what it is. A picasso print. I am not going to try and fool anyone into thinking it is an original
There is no need for that. the print original or reproduction is still a hard to find print. and will sell on that and that alone. Not making any suggestion to it being original or reproduction and let the buyers choose what the final bid will be.

 

Hmmm, interesting comments.

Your item is a reproduction made AFTER an original......there's no ifs, ands or buts about it. Listing the item as anything other than a reproduction within the title and/or description is, well.....

Also, just because you can't find numerous examples of this reproduction using your internet search skills, doesn't make it rare nor hard to find.

 

I can understand not wanting to say whether a print is original or a reproduction when you're not 100% sure. But it's risky... and can be misleading... if you don't say anything.

If I were in your shoes, I think I'd say that based on my research I believe it's a reproduction. That way I'd be covered and my buyer won't be disappointed if it isn't original.

If a buyer is looking for an original and has their own reasons to believe the print is original, they'll buy it even if I said I thought it was a reproduction and would be happy with their great find.

My $.02, anyway....

 

I meant to add, that the word "print" has different meanings in different contexts and can be misunderstood.

An original etching, engraving, lithograph, etc. is called a "print" and a reproduction of the same work is also called a "print." So saying something is a print without clarifying whether it's an original or reproduction, or what printing method was used, can be misleading.

I've seen other sellers get far more $$ for reproduction prints that are similar to ones I have listed because their descriptions made it sound like their 1940s repro was an original 1800s print. Sometimes the seller may not know what they have, and sometimes they may be intentionally misleading... it's hard to tell.

Personally, I make a conscious effort to avoid doing that.

 

Thank you Pat.
i will take your advice and add the information to my listing.
I am not going to do anything that may harm my ebay reputation or standing after all these years just to make a good sale on one print.

Mikey

 

Exactly, Mikey.

Even though I would never intentionally mislead anyone, I don't want buyers (or eBay) thinking I did, especially in the current eBay "defect" world.

 

For a reproduction. it sure sold fast.
I think I priced it too low....