mat around print with signature at bottom

Create a Post
L

lastboat

CGF II, Certified Grumble Framer Level 2
Joined
Jan 8, 2009
Posts
324
Loc
Shelter Island, Long Island, NY
I have a 18x 22" print with A/P and signature at bottom. The print has nice white space all around but the customer wants a mat. I was going to just leave 1" of white space all around and use 2.5" mat border. But now I am looking at it and it isn't that appealing...
Any ideas how to make it pop a bit more? What about having the 1" only at the bottom and tight to the print on the other three sides?
thanks
 
Just enough at the bottom to show the handwriting and tight to the print on the other three sides is a fairly standard solution -because it works.
 
It depends on the art. If it is predominantly dark, then a white border, no matter how narrow will scream at the viewer "LOOKIE LOOKIE LOOKIE! If the art is predominantly light, then 1/4" to 1/2" top and sides, and barely enough to show the signature, or ths same as top and sides, whichever is more.

I tell customers with dark prints either "The signature is still there; it's just hidden" or "covering the white makes it look more like an original" depending on the customer...
 
What Ellen says!!!!!

You would be surprised how many customers don't care about showing the signature. I usually either take a photo, print and put on back, or just type the information onto a label and put that on the back. As long as it's still there, doesn't mean they really want to see it.


Years ago, before my framing career, I had a signed print framed. I was never shown any options, always hated that white space around it (yeah, I re-framed that and many others since)

Don't make decisions for your customer, let them decide.
 
I dislike the 'tight-on-three sides' design intensely. :mad:

It looks as though it's a shoe-horn job into a not-big-enough frame. Throws the whole thing out of wack. If you must show the sig panel, measure that first and then decide the side/top borders reveal to give a pleasing proportion. So if I needed 20mm to show the sig, 12mm for the sides/top. Or thereabouts.

That's my take on it anyway. Feel free to ignore it. :p
 
prospero said:
I dislike the 'tight-on-three sides' design intensely. :mad:

It looks as though it's a shoe-horn job into a not-big-enough frame. Throws the whole thing out of wack. If you must show the sig panel, measure that first and then decide the side/top borders reveal to give a pleasing proportion. So if I needed 20mm to show the sig, 12mm for the sides/top. Or thereabouts.

That's my take on it anyway. Feel free to ignore it. :p
Click to expand...


I second that emotion! Makes it look like a real hack job.:vomit:Definitely NOT a standard solution by any means.
 
I show them what it would look like without the border, sometimes it's not worth showing the signature to end up with something that looks more like a poster than a picture. I don't think 1/4 inch on the top and sides with an inch on the bottom looks good at all. I'd make the sides proportionate to how much room is needed at bottom to fit the signature comfortably. I kind of default to a 1:1.6 ratio or thereabouts.
 
I'm glad that the customer wants a mat. Not only does matting add a visual element,
but it serves as a spacer to hold the print away from the glazing. This is preferable
having it right up against the glass. One more option might be to mat hiding the white,
then add a brass or silver title plate with the title, number and artist's name on that.
These can be done without holes and applied directly to the mat, or they can be made
with holes and, provided the profile has a flat enough shape, nailed to the bottom
frame rail.
 
prospero said:
I dislike the 'tight-on-three sides' design intensely. :mad:

It looks as though it's a shoe-horn job into a not-big-enough frame. Throws the whole thing out of wack. If you must show the sig panel, measure that first and then decide the side/top borders reveal to give a pleasing proportion. So if I needed 20mm to show the sig, 12mm for the sides/top. Or thereabouts.

That's my take on it anyway. Feel free to ignore it. :p
Click to expand...

That's my take on it as well, though I'll be measuring in fractions of an inch :)

I, too, believe that going tight top and sides while showing whitespace at the bottom Just Looks Wrong. It really does look like a shoehorn job. Either whitespace all around, or no whitespace at all.

This is where the visualization system comes in very handy. First, we ask the customer if they care at all whether the signature shows. If they do, we then do up a couple of designs showing the various options (including tight all around covering the signature) and let them decide. A surprising number change their minds at this point, feeling that letting the art speak for itself is the better choice.
 
imaluma said:
I show them what it would look like without the border, sometimes it's not worth showing the signature to end up with something that looks more like a poster than a picture. I don't think 1/4 inch on the top and sides with an inch on the bottom looks good at all. I'd make the sides proportionate to how much room is needed at bottom to fit the signature comfortably. I kind of default to a 1:1.6 ratio or thereabouts.
Click to expand...

Lots of good advice and definitely looks like poster with white space and can't seem to get around it with just a little and/or to 3 sides, etc. I am going to add a 2ply mat of solid black under the DT. After all the customer ordered museum glass for this job
 
If I have the luxury of building the frame around the mat, I generally try to keep about the same proportions of 5:6 of white space around the art as is the mat i.e. bottom white (or mat) 20% larger than the sides. The amount of white space at the bottom is determined by the size of the signature; the top and sides calculated from that.

If the orientation is vertical, I may build the “white” or mat bottom 30% larger.
 
I used to frame lots of wildlife prints in the 90's. One thing I liked about prints of U.S. origin was that they tended to be signed/numberd on the image area rather than underneath. Made framing design a lot simpler. :smiley: You had the choice of showing an equal border or close-matting according to taste. I did an edition of my own work, which I signed/numbered both on the image and on the border. All the ones I framed I matted them close. the sigs were not intrusive as I tended to sign them in a dark corner. (most of my paintings have dark corners....:icon11:)
Using the same basic design for the mats and frames as I would on an original.

But even if they are signed on the border I often wonder just what is the point of showing the signature. it introduces an extra element that can confuse a good design. It doesn't make the picture look better. And you know the sig is present under the mat. Write the number on the back of the frame and you can always check it. :popc:

There are always artists who get very flamboyant with the sigs and go all over the place. Especially if they have signed another few thousand that day.... Sigs can look very scribbly. Some artists just can't write. :icon11:

Co-signatures by associated worthies are different. They have more meaning and should be shown. Same with remarques.
 
I'd rather the edition details (25/125 etc/whatever) and the artist's signature were on the image and not the paper margin .... as long as it's written in pencil and not a white/silver/gold ..whatever pen that will fade faster than a pair of Levis after a few washes. Graphite won't fade.

But I don't have a problem with margin-signed and numbered prints, it just affects the choice of mat color/balance and to many customers those numbers and that signature are of equal importance, if not even higher importance, than the image itself!

I treat them the same as I would an etching/engraving where the plate mark should be shown and that is either an equal border of exposed paper or advantage taken to bottom weight with more paper margin shown at the bottom ... but never up to/just over the image top and sides leaving paper margin only at the bottom.
 
Most times I am able to steer my customer away from the white border - personally, I hate that white square donut look!!! I always tell them that they know the signature and number is there so why do they have to reveal it - it doesn't make the art worth more just because you can see the signature. I explain that I can take a digital picture of the signature and number and put it in a envelope on the dust cover so if they want to show it off they can. 90% of my customers go for that.

Then again there is the prestige of having a signed and numbered print with the signature that is visible and where the LE number is 23,214 of 25,740...yea right!!

IMO, the art is just as valuable with or without the signature and LE, Printers Proof, or Artist Proof number exposed and I haven't had a single appraiser tell me differently. If it is a valuable piece of art a good buyer/good collector/good auction house will take the frame package apart and inspect the print for defects and for the signature and number.

Just my $0.02 joe b
 
Yes. Some prints just don't look right with a blinding white border exposed. Especially repro's of oil paintings which are generally stronger in terms of tones and colors. Those with an overall dark aspect look bad with a white border. Some publishers tend not to put too much thought into the layout. in particular prints where they insist on adding lots of extraneous clutter - copyright details, huge titles in awkward fonts and bold black letters. Makes the framer's job difficult sometimes.
 
I like to carry the size of the window margin all the way around, so if you need 1" for the signature to show, I carry 1" around the bottom, top and sides. I think when you go in tighter around the top and sides it becomes a unnecessary distraction against the art. That said, for the size print you have 2 1/2" of matting seems small to me I would do 3 to 4" on the top and sides and and an extra 1/2 to 3/8" on the bottom.
 
You all think a signed white border is bad. Consider a series of "Titanic" LEs signed by the artist and the last living survivors of the sinking on a very strong yellow border.
 
If it is a print, frame it as a print. I framed a Picasso today ( I did). Should I have covered the signature?
 
Pat Murphey said:
You all think a signed white border is bad. Consider a series of "Titanic" LEs signed by the artist and the last living survivors of the sinking on a very strong yellow border.
Click to expand...

Dave said:
If it is a print, frame it as a print. I framed a Picasso today. Should I have covered the signature?
Click to expand...


You do have to consider the significance of the signature.

I did a Tracey Emin print where the sig was bigger than the image. :p And more interesting..... ;)
 
When I frame a print I celebrate the fact that it is a print. Prints are a very valid art medium. If a print has deckled edges, I love the look of doing an elevated float. Sometimes my customer doesn't like that look. Okay... Overmat it. Not nearly as interesting, IMO, but customer is right.

I do cringe when someone says they leave no white space top, left, right and show a huge panel on the bottom with the L/E number and sig... Yikes!

Cover the signature and leave no white space if you want to try to make it look like an original... Fool only fools.

A print is something to celebrate. Embrace what it is for what it is.

If it is a poster repro then do whatever.
 
This is really a good thread.

Dave said:
.............Cover the signature and leave no white space if you want to try to make it look like an original... Fool only fools.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what your saying.

I often cover the signature and leave no white space but not because I'm trying to fool anyone. It just looks better that way.

Doug
 
I 100% agree with Dave. The artist signed, numbered, left their mark for all to see, it was their intent, to cover it is disregard the artist intention.
 
Dave said:
When I frame a print I celebrate the fact that it is a print. Prints are a very valid art medium. If a print has deckled edges, I love the look of doing an elevated float. Sometimes my customer doesn't like that look. Okay... Overmat it. Not nearly as interesting, IMO, but customer is right.

I do cringe when someone says they leave no white space top, left, right and show a huge panel on the bottom with the L/E number and sig... Yikes!

Cover the signature and leave no white space if you want to try to make it look like an original... Fool only fools.

A print is something to celebrate. Embrace what it is for what it is.

If it is a poster repro then do whatever.
Click to expand...

I hate the look of the white on any print and will show the customer the difference using mat corners. The white always takes away from the art......IMHO. What I have done in the past is to make a photo copy of the signature and put it in a document pocket on the back and then put an engraved plate with the name of the print, the artist, and if it is a numbered print, or AP I will put that info on the plate as well. The other thing that will often move the customer to not having the white show is that it will take a couple of united nches off the bottom line. They generally love that.
 
So many of you are saying you would actually cover up the provenance, the history, the artist's intent and institute your own aesthetic?

For example on an etching you would hide the signature and plate marks?

il_570xN.329384098.jpg
 
prospero said:
Yes. Some prints just don't look right with a blinding white border exposed. Especially repro's of oil paintings which are generally stronger in terms of tones and colors. Those with an overall dark aspect look bad with a white border. Some publishers tend not to put too much thought into the layout. in particular prints where they insist on adding lots of extraneous clutter - copyright details, huge titles in awkward fonts and bold black letters. Makes the framer's job difficult sometimes.
Click to expand...

It's especially fun when the customer insists that the copyright information printed at the very edge of the paper MUST be shown to avoid issues of copyright infringement. Yes, that actually happened, and with an otherwise intelligent person.
 
RParrish said:
So many of you are saying you would actually cover up the provenance, the history, the artist's intent and institute your own aesthetic?

For example on an etching you would hide the signature and plate marks?

il_570xN.329384098.jpg
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is saying that an etching with plate marks is the same as print. Of course you would leave the white showing on the type of artwork shown above. But when I frame something for a customer, I want the artwork to be the first thing thier eyes will draw to. All you have to do is take a print and put some mat corners and moulding sample on it with the white boarder and without to see which way draws the eyes to the art better. When I show a customer what I mean it is very rare that they will choose to leave a white boarder. There will always be exceptions, but for the most part one dimentional prints look better and the art will stand out more when framed without a white boarder. For what it is worth it is just my 2 cents.
 
RParrish said:
So many of you are saying you would actually cover up the provenance, the history, the artist's intent and institute your own aesthetic?

For example on an etching you would hide the signature and plate marks?

il_570xN.329384098.jpg
Click to expand...


Randy, you need to give us all a little more credit than that. What you show is a print with plenty of negative space around the subject, a border the same color as what's in the image, and a very small and discreet signature/title/number done by an artist who considers the image more important than his or her ego. As compared to

Terry Redlin
Yet Another Cabin in the Woods
28,465/75,000
Cornfed Publishing
​

And I think we can also make an intelligent decision regarding an authenticated Picasso signature and this sort of thing.
 
Here we are, a great example of what most of us are talking about when we want to cover up the title, edition number etc.

8080395_1_l.jpg
(click to embiggen)

You have all those nice deep blues of a still night, providing a beautiful contrast so the twilight glows softly in the snow-covered woods. Lovely. And the rich suede mat allows those highlights to gleam, drawing the eye to the cozy cabin. All surrounded by

A GLARING WHITE BORDER BUT OMG LOOK! IT'S A REDLIN! NUMBER 56,985 OF 125,000!! WOW!
 
I would distinguish then the difference between a print and glorified poster, a print can be many things.
 
RParrish said:
So many of you are saying you would actually cover up the provenance, the history, the artist's intent and institute your own aesthetic?

For example on an etching you would hide the signature and plate marks?

il_570xN.329384098.jpg
Click to expand...

Of course not!!

But it's not an example of what we are talking about now is it.

I think most on here are talking about LE reproductions of original art. I don't consider this to be a reproduction but the original art in an edition as it had to be printed from the plate that was made and the art is only finished when it is struck.

A giclee from an original painting that is then signed/numbered is different. In that case, if the OWNER of the print doesn't want to see the white paper or the signature, then by all means cover it up. It doesn't change the artists original intent as we didn't REMOVE the info, we just covered it. It is still there, so no change in to intent.
 
Good point. What is called 'a print' in arty terms covers a lot of ambiguous ground.

A print done from a plate is a print but it's not a reproduction. A 'proper' print (I avoid the term "original print") is struck from a metal plate/woodblock/silkscreen/whatever. The artist may make the plate and print the prints himself. Or he may get a skilled engraver to do the plate and then print them. Or he may not have any hand in the process except providing the original image. There may not be an original image though. The work could be conceived and executed directly to the media (plate.woodblock....etc). This is where it gets confusing and considering a lot of people don't even grasp the difference between an original and a repro it can be difficult at times to explain things to the layman.

An artist's signature on a 'print' is more than just an affectation. It is (or should be) a validation by the artist that the print has been inspected and approved by them.
 
framah said:
Of course not!!

But it's not an example of what we are talking about now is it.

I think most on here are talking about LE reproductions of original art. I don't consider this to be a reproduction but the original art in an edition as it had to be printed from the plate that was made and the art is only finished when it is struck.

A giclee from an original painting that is then signed/numbered is different. In that case, if the OWNER of the print doesn't want to see the white paper or the signature, then by all means cover it up. It doesn't change the artists original intent as we didn't REMOVE the info, we just covered it. It is still there, so no change in to intent.
Click to expand...

The OP mentions artist proof which to me implies a real print, a art technique. A reproduction, off set litho or ink jet print is not a technique used to create art only a means of reproducing. I just wanted to clarify for the sake of discussion. Apples to Oranges.
 
lastboat said:
I have a 18x 22" print with A/P and signature at bottom. The print has nice white space all around but the customer wants a mat. I was going to just leave 1" of white space all around and use 2.5" mat border. But now I am looking at it and it isn't that appealing...
Any ideas how to make it pop a bit more? What about having the 1" only at the bottom and tight to the print on the other three sides?
thanks
Click to expand...

RParrish said:
The OP mentions artist proof which to me implies a real print, a art technique. A reproduction, off set litho or ink jet print is not a technique used to create art only a means of reproducing. I just wanted to clarify for the sake of discussion. Apples to Oranges.
Click to expand...

I would say that the vast majority of things coming into the average frame shop today are indeed just prints, even though they are signed and numbered and some even are designated as A/P. We do need to know the difference but I think that all who responded that they cover the number/signature or sometimes do, know what they are looking at.

As a side note I had a customer bring in three signed/numbered prints by 2 different artists yesterday. We are matting without showing any white space - Both of these artists had the good sense to sign and number right on the image.
 
RParrish said:
The OP mentions artist proof which to me implies a real print, a art technique. A reproduction, off set litho or ink jet print is not a technique used to create art only a means of reproducing. I just wanted to clarify for the sake of discussion. Apples to Oranges.
Click to expand...


Artist proof only means they are supposedly the first prints of the edition. It is not an "art technique" or a "real print". It is still a reproduction of the original art.

Of course, nowadays, with modern inkjet printing, there is no difference in quality from the first to the last print in an edition... which makes an AP nothing more than an additional money maker.

Now... a Remarque is something else entirely!! THAT is an art technique in that the artist goes back into the REPRODUCTION and adds to it.

i only wanted to clarify for the sake of reality.

Iguanas to Aardvarks.
 
Artist's Proofs are another complication. Supposedly they are copies run off as 'try-outs'. In the case of an artist-made print, they could be fine tuning the plates or coloring prior to doing the edition proper. Same thing with offset-litho mass printings. A printer would do a few copies and send them to the artist for approval prior to doing the rest of the 999999 limited edition. :p

But APs have become a sneaky way to squeeze a bit more revenue into an edition. What are sold today as APs are exactly the same as the numbered copies. Sometimes the artist is given a certain number of copies by a publisher to sell himself, as part of the deal and these sometimes attract a premium price. There's always an angle.
 
I can't decide whether Remarques Unlimited should have the tagline:

"Where all our doodles are useless."

....................~ or ~

"We've never met a useless doodle we didn't like."


decisions decisions...


"Where every doodle is a useful doodle?"

"We shall sell no useful doodle before it's time?"

"We have nothing to fear but useless doodles themselves?"

Something I've been thinking about is how, when an artist
leaves a vast, unsailed sea of white paper around their itty
bitty, teeny tiny print and the framer is careful to make a
window that shows their signature and ebryfing, and even
careful enough to make a super wide mat lest any paper
be trimmed (as I am doing this very day in my shop...the
wide mat thing, not the trimming thing), even after all that
carefulness, even with good glass, sixty years from now,
there's going to be such a difference in the fade of the paper
showing versus that hidden that it's changed the print anyway.

I suppose at least with that, though, someone could send it
off to a conservator who could bleach it to match again?
Maybe? In my imagination, at least.
 
shayla said:
Something I've been thinking about is how, when an artist
leaves a vast, unsailed sea of white paper around their itty
bitty, teeny tiny print and the framer is careful to make a
window that shows their signature and ebryfing, and even
careful enough to make a super wide mat lest any paper
be trimmed (as I am doing this very day in my shop...the
wide mat thing, not the trimming thing), even after all that
carefulness, even with good glass, sixty years from now,
there's going to be such a difference in the fade of the paper
showing versus that hidden that it's changed the print anyway.

I suppose at least with that, though, someone could send it
off to a conservator who could bleach it to match again?
Maybe? In my imagination, at least.
Click to expand...

Don't fret to much over it Shayla, in sixty years, you and I and the majority of this art won't be here anyway. Sixty years should begin to sort out a lot of the rabble from the true artists.
 
shayla said:
I can't decide whether Remarques Unlimited should have the tagline:

"Where all our doodles are useless."

....................~ or ~

"We've never met a useless doodle we didn't like."


decisions decisions...


"Where every doodle is a useful doodle?"

"We shall sell no useful doodle before it's time?"

"We have nothing to fear but useless doodles themselves?"
Click to expand...


GREAT!!! NOW I WANT CHEESE DOODLES!!!
 
framah said:
Artist proof only means they are supposedly the first prints of the edition. It is not an "art technique" or a "real print". It is still a reproduction of the original art.

Of course, nowadays, with modern inkjet printing, there is no difference in quality from the first to the last print in an edition... which makes an AP nothing more than an additional money maker.

Now... a Remarque is something else entirely!! THAT is an art technique in that the artist goes back into the REPRODUCTION and adds to it.

i only wanted to clarify for the sake of reality.

Iguanas to Aardvarks.
Click to expand...


Etching is a technique, wood cut is a technique and a method of reproducing an edition, the artist's proof was done for the artist by the printmaker and the standard to which all prints in the edition were done. A giclee is or offset litho is reproduction not a means of crating the art...... geezzz

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etching

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodcut

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giclée
 
Pat Murphey said:
You all think a signed white border is bad. Consider a series of "Titanic" LEs signed by the artist and the last living survivors of the sinking on a very strong yellow border.
Click to expand...

Pat, that is totally a different story. I wouldn't mat over those Titanic signatures anymore than I would mat over a pilots signature on a WWII military aircraft print. What I'm talking about is the artist signature and number that is in the white border of a print. The artist 1st off should learn how to sign the image, by signing the border they aren't signing the art they are signing the paper the art is on. Second off, that white border isn't part of the art - the art is the image only. I like to frame to show the image not the border - I never saw a white border with a single artist signature and a set of numbers that have interested me. Whatever, I may just be weird:icon9:

Anyway, anytime I can I will talk my customers out of leaving a white border - I just think it looks bad and it cheapens the overall look. Granted, there may be 1 piece of art out of 1000 that will look presentable with the white border but IMO the majority of the time it doesn't look good. IMO, leaving a white border make a nice piece of art look like something I would buy at the Home Décor section of Walmart (if there is such a section, I don't know because I don't shop at Wally World). Just my $0.02 Joe B
 
Well, geez, Randy... YOU were the one who called the AP an "art technique". I didn't.


Giclees are most definitely a method of creating the art when the original is a digital process in a computer

ALL of them are methods of reproducing art. Some happen to be the art itself.

What it comes down to is your example and subsequent argument is pretty much irrelevant to the discussion, so let's just agree to drop it.:icon11:
 
I don't think it's irrelevant to the discussion. Rather, it speaks to one end of the
spectrum in art, where everything about the piece points to the wisdom of keeping
a border out past the plate mark, signature, etc... On the other end would be mass
produced posters, with no signatures, numbers, anything, & which often have borders
trimmed. In between is the middle ground that is the main topic of discussion for
this thread, and somewhere in there is a dividing line that most framers walk when
deciding what to show. The value and appearance of the art, the artist's original
intent, framing tradition, and the customer's preferences might all be factors in
determining this. As is obvious from this thread, there's a broad range in how those
factors are translated into frame design.

P.S. Here you go. :icon21:

4f54cb8b7200b.image.jpg
 
We are not comparing apples to apples in this discussion. Prints produced be traditional non-digital methods are considered to be multiple originals and should be framed as such. Signatures, edition numbers, remarques, etc are part and parcel to the print and should be shown.

Cheap lithos, though signed and numbered should be handled however the customer deems fit. Thomas Kinkade's should be adultulated before framing and then rubber cemented down with great care to show the signature and where they fall in the edition of 25,000.

Where's the green type button?
 
Dave said:
Prints produced be traditional non-digital methods are considered to be multiple originals and should be framed as such. Signatures, edition numbers, remarques, etc are part and parcel to the print and should be shown.

Cheap lithos, though signed and numbered should be handled however the customer deems fit. Thomas Kinkade's should be adultulated before framing and then rubber cemented down with great care to show the signature and where they fall in the edition of 25,000.

Where's the green type button?
Click to expand...

Ha! I couldn't agree more. :thumbsup:

Here's a novel idea.
Instead of arguing about it, those of you who think that you should cover the signature and number, do it.
Those of you who don't think that you should cover it, don't. :cool:
If you show the white with the signature, show some white on the top and sides.
I will always show it unless the customer requests otherwise (they don't).
 
Dave said:
We are not comparing apples to apples in this discussion. Prints produced be traditional non-digital methods are considered to be multiple originals and should be framed as such. Signatures, edition numbers, remarques, etc are part and parcel to the print and should be shown.
Click to expand...

Dave, sorry but IMHO I must disagree. Prints are just prints, putting an original signature on the print doesn't make it an original, the signature is original but the print is still just a print. A print w/original signature is more valuable than open edition print but by no means is it as valuable as the original piece of art.

I also agree with Neil, put the mat on the way you want as long as it is ok with the customer. We all have our ways of matting LE prints and I don't think it is either wrong or right to cover the signature and number - it is just a matter of taste. I just wish all artist would sign on the image so we wouldn't have to have a discussion like this.
 
Joe... Traditional non-digital prints ARE the original piece of art. That's why they are considered multiple originals. Each one is unique, unlike digitally reproduced artwork.
 
At times, confusion arises between the use of the terms 'print' and 'original'.
Some framers use the term 'print' in reference to a wide variety of works on
paper, while others would exclude items such as monotypes, hand-pulled
lithographs and etchings from the category. I get confused on this, too. When
our Island International guy was here awhile back, I kept referring to things
as prints and he'd say, 'No, this one isn't a print. It's a hand-colored etching.'
I've been thinking that it would be helpful in our shop to have something out
that explains a bit about the difference. Otherwise, customers can be confused
as to why this image on paper only costs $50.00, while that one costs $500.00.
 
Create a Post
Back
Top