New to this site but am familiar with Discogs. Should adding variants be done the same as when adding a master release in Discogs?
I'd vavor the discogs system of master releases.
I just noticed that for weeks duplicate and triplicates of Posters are added, with just minor Details.
To me as an Artist, as well as a Printer it basically goes without saying that there are several Artist-Proofs and Printer-Proofs of Posters.
In the nine years since I've started printing posters (be it gig-poster, or artprints) it occured only once that we were obligated to confirm very exact numbers of proofs and even destroy wastepaper.
I'd not say that differnently marked Prints (regular Edition, AP and PP) of one and the same print-run are completely different Entries. Its something for the notes-section.
Only if there are AP's and PP's in a significant number I'd consider it a variant.
To name an example: Django Unchained Editions
On this I'd only see 3 actual Variants: The regular Edition, the Variant Edition and the Wood Edition.
I'd expect that the Artist as well as the Printer/Printshop has several copies of each Edition.
If the details on how much of those are available I'd personally add them to the notes and not as a special Variant.
But I don't know? How does Discogs handle the copies for Labels ot the Artist if there is a numbered Special Edition of an release? That should be at least an orientation...
Regarding this whole topic:
For someone that collects Stout's work, I value editions that have been signed by him more than the only numbered editions. That said, I know its impossible to know how many have been signed. So, I see your point. However, I also submitted these listings with the ExpressoBeans listings in mind. On that site, they also mirror the listings I submitted and, on many of them, the price history can be significantly different even if the only difference is a signature. Maybe that's unique to Stout and may not apply to many collectors of different artists' work.
Thats just my opinion at least but like you said, I'm not sure how discogs handles these things either. I'm still relatively new here.
I see your point too. There are certainly prints where an actual Artist signature would add value. I don't know what the ratio between signed and non-signed Posters is, out there in the wild.
Posters issued by a Merch Agency often only bear the signature when they are printed by the artists themselfs.
Every Simon Marchner National Poster bears his Signature - was printed by Simon himself
None (or if you are lucky a very few) of the Madrid National Poster have Signature or numbering - was printed at DieSiebdrucker
But, argued from a perspective of value or price I'd say AP's are always worth more than regular prints. But within the range of regular prints some are worth more than others (Repdigits for example. Lets say there is a Metallica-Poster with a run of 700 - the poster with number "666" certainly 'd be the most valueable).
I personally would not know where to put Printer Proofs in a value scale. But from a printers/production perspective all posters of the standard run, as well as the printer proofs and the artist proofs are created equal, respectively in one continuous printing-session. Variants on the other hand have some significant deviation from the main run (different paperstock, color change or additional colors) or are produced in a different run (wich is not very common but could happen like on this poster).
I wasn't aware of another database/trading platform until your post. I the last place where everything was under one hood was gigposters.com – at least to me – but that site has been dead foryears now.
If there already is a consensus about how to order things I'd certainly submit to that.
I only know Discogs from a very narrow Vinyl-owner (certainly not collector) view, but always considered the ordering there pretty good. Posterogs imho should be similar.
Think you're making some VERY generalized statements there, Drake...
A print being signed by the artist has more to do (in my experiences) with a variety of points:
-who the artist is (such as, Jay Ryan signs nearly ALL of his prints, regardless of who sells them. Other artists sign almost none of theirs except if you come for a signing in person and/or pay for it - most 60s and 70s prints fall in this category)
-size of the run
-the contract with the band, promoter, and/or merch company
-who did the printing (designs in one country when the artist in the other may result in artist signings being impractical)
AP values also vary widely. Some times it increases price, some times values are about the same, in some cases, they can even be cheaper than show editions. Specific numbers may be desired by some collectors, but that's a unique case and definitely not worthy of it's own edition.
In any case, separating editions on Posterogs is not about value. It's more about establishing how many editions/versions exist. In the case of the Tyler Stout Django Unchained posters (to use the example above), it's pretty logical to have 8 different versions out there:
-The first on sale of the Standard, Variant, and Wood editions were via Mondo for their 2013 Oscar Night releases.
-Tyler Stout was then allowed to sell a small number of the Standard and Variant prints from these original print run sets, although the onsale price was different and these copies were sold direct by Tyler.
-Some time after that, Tyler was allowed to sell his AP copies of the Regular, Variant, and Wood editions.
It doesn't really matter that most of the Artist signed Variant copies are currently sold/traded at the same price as the Variant APs - the point is to provide as much information and data points to the user community (via the database) so that they can be aware and informed.
I can understand where you come from as a printer, but the point is that if an edition is known to exist (such as APs) even without a print run/edition size known, they are reasonable to add separately so that it's known they exist/circulate. Example: Many Dave Matthews Band prints by Methane Studios have a Show edition (sold at the concert), some portion of that show run which is some times artist signed (and some times not) but sold via their website, and then APs which are artist signed and labeled "AP" but in unknown quantity. All of these are notable "editions" as they draw different attention by collectors.
If Printer Proofs exist/circulate for a piece in a known edition size (greater than 1 or 2 copies for the printer only) then they are reasonable to add as another edition for this reason.
Band signed posters can - at times - warrant their own editions as well. Bands like 311 and Primus are known for signing a portion of their show runs and randomly inserting them in poster stacks so you have a chance at a band signed print. These (understandably) sell for more than unsigned copies. In any case, they are done in a known quantity. However, a copy of the poster that you waited and had signed by the band after the show outside their tour bus is not part of an edition - simply a "one off" unique piece. Similar to if any artist does additional "one off" doodling on your poster at a Flatstock or gallery show - it is not comparable to other posters of the run.
The hard thing is that across the last 15-20 years of gig posters, there are exceptions to almost everything above. Doodled prints are unique. But Jermaine Rogers' David Bowie print from 2003 was made with the main run of 30 posters all having a unique doodle of a Bowie song on it, each one different. Jam bands (like Phish, Widespread Panic, Umphrey's McGee, etc.) are known for signing an quantity of posters to sell for charity auctions or sales at concerts. I've seen printer's proof editions as high as 50 copies. Ames Bros. had the infamous "AP1" and "AP2" editions of their Pearl Jam 2000 era posters. It all varies...
Making generalized statements was actually my intention here. I may have overemphasized the value argument which came up because of the price history, tho.
But that's part of my understanding of Databases: Top from more generalized taxonomies down to the finer granular Details.
Because of all the different kinds of signing habits and quirks, actual variants may be created, that is not the point that's bugging me here. (Last week I was asked to put my printer's signature on. Sure. A lot happening in the wild out there.)
In the case of the Django Poster, the Signed Regular Edition was the point that bugged me. But if that was available exclusively on other distribution means I guess It might be an actual Variant. Depending upon the circumstances.
I might have to illustrate how (made up numbers follow ;-) ):
To make it easier just look at the regular edition.
Let's say they printed 100 numbered copies for sale and 20 AP's. At the Oscar Night, they sold 75 (Number 1-75). 10 more in the following months (76-85).
Even later Tyler is allowed to sell the rest (86-100) and puts his Signature on.
In this scenario, the signed posters are no extra Variant to me because they are part of the main run. I'd add a note on the regular edition that posters 86-100 are signed by the artist and sold elsewhere.
I guess, after proofreading this, I figured what my actual problem here is:
Right now there is no difference between an actual Variant (which has at least one distinctive difference in the production process) and the Edition (For example: 1st Edition: 1-100 and 20 APs)
How about this?
To clarify (again, using the Stout Django example), I want to first make sure that you see there are 3 different material editions. The wood panel printed one is pretty obviously different, but the color schemes on the "Regular" and "Variant" editions are decidedly different from each other. Some of the wording, I'm getting a bit confused on that front...
It may not be a difference to you, but after spending the last 15+ years watching and cataloging gigposters made in the last 50 years, I can tell you with certainty that a piece being artist signed (or not) can make quite the difference in price and/or collectibility. I'm sure you know this already. But that (to me) is why your example that the "86-100" should NOT be classified with the rest of the 100 copies of the Regular run. They will tend to bring a different price and draw different collectors. If/when we get to the point of developing a sales history, it will make a difference (or else every sale which if of one of the artist signed copies will need notation that it was one of those 15 and users may want to consider this in trying to reason out the going rate for it). So why not split that to it's own "edition", even if the numbering has it as part of the standard run? The numbering may be a bit confusing, but imagine something like trying to track down one via a marketplace and having to write each seller to figure if it's one of the 15 signed copies? Wouldn't it be simpler to have separate editions in order to allow sellers to designate that it's either one of the 85 (sold by Mondo and thus not artist signed) or one of the 15 (sold by the artist and thus signed)?
I was wondering if it's the term "edition" which is complicating this? I know it's not correct... In that the run of 100 (from our example) is all really the same printed edition (technically all the APs are as well) - I get that. But for lack of a better term, breaking it to sub-"editions" allows us to see the differences between each portion of those prints in the run.
For a separate example, I know that Todd Slater has issued some posters where he signed and numbered the entire run (of something like 150-200 prints), then a portion of the run was sold at the show, the rest by him. These are all from a single edition as there is no difference between them and they are all from a single numbered run and if you have a copy purchased at the show there is no difference between that and a copy purchased from the artist. As such, those would be a single listing/edition.
I totally get your points. I guess the area of conflict is using the term variant for editions and vice versa.
To me, seeing a lot of the same posters with no clearly visible difference is kind of visual spam.
But it may be possible to get along with both. I made a little mockup for this.
Under "Editions" one would find all the different and important variations/versions of a Variant. Might it be the different Signing Quirks or stuff like second or third runs.
Think we may be resigned to seeing this differently then. In your mockup, I feel that it's even more confusing to the new collector and more frustrating to the established collector.
You're also talking about creating a tree of entries under each master version - this may seem/feel clearer to you, but is much more confusing to me as compared to being able to openly see all the various versions at once.
I'm sorry that you see it as a "visual spam" if you can't see the difference from the displayed image, but at this point we don't intend to change from the current layout. Being able to see each individual edition is how we want to lay things out. The terms "variant" and "edition" are quite embedded and are used as how artists and collectors use them as part of the hobby, even if the terms are less than accurate in their true sense.