There are a number of other block prints besides this set. Originally I made them one at a time and simply matted and sold them as reproductions, all signed but for the most not a numbered edition. The paper, made especially for block prints, measures 9" X 12" and is generally visible around the image as presented here. These were shot with a digital camera.
These ten pieces I offered as a set, although a few were sold individually as artist's proofs or from broken sets. At present I have sets 31 and 32. The blocks still exists, and it may be possible to complete the remaining edition, or most of it, if the blocks hold up for printing. If not, the edition would be more limited, thus, presumably, of more value, although it would be possible to carve new blocks with little or no significant difference than the original blocks. If so, I would feel obliged to indicate the remaking in some manner on the remaining printing.
Signing includes the artist's signature, the number (31/350), and may also include the inscription "Imp." an abbreviation for a Latin term literally meaning "Printed by myself," which means the prints were printed by the artist. Mine, thus far, bear that inscription.
The term "original graphic" has an important but nearly forgotten significance, including a legal definition. A signed and numbered, four-color-separation photographically reproduced copy of an oil painting, for instance, is not an original graphic. It's only assumed value beyond just being another lithographic photo reproduction, the same process for quality magazine photos, such as Playboy or even Arizona Highways, lies only in the fact that it is signed and numbered by the artist. Such photographically reproduced lithographs are the lifeblood of art publishers, but they are not in any sense, including legally, original graphics. A true lithograph, by the way, is artwork done by the artist on a special stone (hence the name "litho"), and is a one-at-a-time laborious printing process, unlike those signed and numbered "lithographs," photographically reproduced and turned out on a high-speed printing press.
Contrary
to a mention of etchings in the review at the end of the text introducing this
artwork, I did not make etchings. There
were, however, a small number of engravings of my pen and ink drawings, done by
a very talented artist doing twenty years at the time for counterfeiting (even
the judge who sentenced him said he could not tell the difference between his
bills and the official government script/Federal Reserve markers we call
money…that was, in part, political commentary). Unfortunately, for reasons I can't explain, they never did sell,
possibly because I had just started doing hand-colored prints of my work. Up to that point I only had black and white
reproductions, but they too stopped selling when I started coloring some of
them, then eventually all of them. For
that reason I decided to keep the engravings and not offer them for sale. I still have a few that survived the fire.
I have also done one very limited edition in silkscreen, which sold out a long time ago. It was a standing nude of one of my wives, which I screened with the help of my following wife. I did retain number one of the edition of 68, but it was lost in the fire, which should make number two (whoever owns it) considerably more valuable. There are also a couple of artist's proofs, bearing "A/P" instead of a number. I also reproduced it as a print along with the pen and inks, gave it a slight watercolor wash, and sold those unsigned and unnumbered at the same price as the other hand-colored prints that size. All I have to represent it now is a small catalogue image of it. I mention it here because there are sixty-some people who own a copy of a very limited edition of my only silkscreen.