/linked/2017/05/26/newson-edition-number

Comments

really:
https://esington.com/products/esington-glass-medium

$80, not $12,000. And he's obsessing over the numbering?
10:46 pm — Friday, 26 May 2017
To Be Fair:
>Edition Number: A fraction found on the bottom left hand corner of a print.

It's not a fraction!

It means "1 out of 100 copies." If it were a fraction, then 25/100 would represent one quarter of all the copies. But it's still just one copy.
10:46 pm — Friday, 26 May 2017
Gruber the Booger:
Is Gruber becoming more obnoxious by the day or what?
12:45 am — Saturday, 27 May 2017
To Be Fair:
>Is Gruber becoming more obnoxious by the day or what?

No, this is about normal.
2:02 am — Saturday, 27 May 2017
anonymous:
@To Be Fair, 25/100 is still a fraction.
3:27 am — Saturday, 27 May 2017
Trumplethinskin:
If these are produced sequentially, then yeah, they should be numbered sequentially (1/100, 2/100, etc). If they are produced concurrently, then labelling each of them 1/100 is correct because each is one out of a hundred but you can't point your finger at any of them and say "That one! That one was the first of them all, and that other one is the last of them all" when 3 or 4 of them were being made at a time at the same time. Also of note, 1/100 is a fraction in this case because each is one hundredth of the total production.
12:24 pm — Saturday, 27 May 2017
Trumplethinskin:
>https://esington.com/products/esington-glass-copper-plated-silica-nanospheres

Now THESE fuckers know how to not call their product what it is not, which is NOT an hourglass because it only does 25 minutes.
12:31 pm — Saturday, 27 May 2017
anonymous:
@Trumplethinskin

I hope for your mental stability that your wife doesn't have a hourglass figure
8:53 pm — Saturday, 27 May 2017
anonymous:
@Trumpleskin re/ numbering

The semblance of strictness of your argument fails to cloak your complete disconnection from centuries of usage and practice in numbering produced items, whether artworks or mass-produced.
8:58 pm — Saturday, 27 May 2017
anonymous:
"I’m just (...)"

= red flag for underperformant argument
9:00 pm — Saturday, 27 May 2017
Trumplethinskin:
>I hope for your mental stability that your wife doesn't have a hourglass figure

Ditto for yours and that of your husband.

>The semblance of strictness of your argument fails to cloak your complete disconnection from centuries of usage and practice in numbering produced items, whether artworks or mass-produced.

Actually I've seen this before. I figured it was a scam at the time, but now I wonder if there's a rule on how this is done. Look up the "Talos" vinyl figure from "Jason and the Argonauts". Every box says "1 of 5000". I very much doubt this is the only example.
10:36 pm — Saturday, 27 May 2017
anonymous:
@trump


The Talos box didn't say anything. The "1 of 5000" was a mass printed sticker applied to it, not unlike those "you won the lottery" spams.

some history on numbering :
http://monoprints.com/numbering_prints.php

This 1/100 is just a mediocre move.

3:58 am — Sunday, 28 May 2017
Trumplethinskin:
>he Talos box didn't say anything. The "1 of 5000" was a mass printed sticker applied to it, not unlike those "you won the lottery" spams.

Not seeing the distinction here. They (presumably) only made 5000 of these. Obviously using a sticker and the same sticker was cheaper, but this wasn't a particularly expensive "collectible" either. Yes, I realize that this so-called "hourglass" is particularly expensive, but my point is there is precedence for the way they are numbering it.

>some history on numbering : http://monoprints.com/numbering_prints.php

>This 1/100 is just a mediocre move.

I had already read that. Eh, you know what? I was trying to play devil's advocate, but fuck that. it is a mediocre move. For a $12k item that is hand-signed individually, the least they could do is uniquely number each one as it's signed. Honestly it feels like a ploy to avoid bruising the egos of filthy-rich assholes who wouldn't want to show off something numbered greater than "1". And they could easily get away with producing well over 100 units of these because you couldn't easily prove they did by duplicate numbers popping up, if they were numbered the normal way.
6:47 am — Sunday, 28 May 2017
anonymous:
also technically there is no excuse

http://www.glassetchingsecrets.com/blog/tempered-glass-be-etched/
7:45 am — Sunday, 28 May 2017
Leave a Comment
To leave a comment, install the Safari extension!