/ Ansel Adams - Moon Over Half Dome

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Enty - on 21 Jan 2013
two things really.

I just got an alert from an art website to say that the original, signed, 1960 Moon Over Half Dome print is coming up for auction on the 1st Feb.

The other thing - I'm not a premium member to this website so there's no details of where the auction is or the reserve price (unless I pay). my guess is 2-3k

Any ideas on how to find where the auction might be?

E
Tom Last - on 21 Jan 2013
In reply to Enty:

Sorry, can't help with your question but how many of these prints exist, just the one?
I'm no expert on photography sales, but I reckon you'd be very lucky to get it for that price. Hell, I'd buy it for that and I don't really have a disposable income.

Ten times that maybe?

Robert Durran - on 21 Jan 2013
In reply to Southern Man:
> (In reply to Enty)
>
> Hell, I'd buy it for that and I don't really have a disposable income.

But I would outbid you.
Tom Last - on 21 Jan 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:

Exactly and you'd still get a bargain! :)
Enty - on 21 Jan 2013
In reply to Southern Man:
> (In reply to Enty)
>
> Sorry, can't help with your question but how many of these prints exist, just the one?
> I'm no expert on photography sales, but I reckon you'd be very lucky to get it for that price. Hell, I'd buy it for that and I don't really have a disposable income.
>
> Ten times that maybe?

Dunno - I did a bit of googling and I think it sold for about 2000$ in 2006.

E

Tom Last - on 21 Jan 2013
In reply to Enty:
> (In reply to Southern Man)
> [...]
>
> Dunno - I did a bit of googling and I think it sold for about 2000$ in 2006.
>
> E


Blimey, fair enough. Good luck with the bidding. Don't create too much interest here though! ;)
Enty - on 21 Jan 2013
In reply to Southern Man:

Don't think I'll be bidding - as much as I'd like it 3k would easily finance my next trip to climb the bloody thing!

E
Tom Last - on 21 Jan 2013
In reply to Enty:

Ha, true that.
Enty - on 21 Jan 2013
In reply to Southern Man:

I'll make do with the basic print - 20 quid :-)

E
tk421 on 21 Jan 2013
Tom Last - on 21 Jan 2013
In reply to tk421:

Amazing really how cheap (relatively speaking) photographs are. I wonder how many prints of this exist? In iconic terms, it kind of seems like paying that sort of price for a Lowry or something.
Enty - on 21 Jan 2013
ablackett - on 21 Jan 2013
In reply to tk421: What makes this one worth nearly 20x as much?

http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/lot/ansel-adams-clearing-winter-storm-yosemite-valley-4350533-det...

Is it because halfdome is initialed and winter storm is signed?

Barking mad that anyone would pay $45k for a photo.
ablackett - on 21 Jan 2013
In reply to Southern Man:
> (In reply to tk421)
> [...]
>
> it kind of seems like paying that sort of price for a Lowry or something.

But there is only one original of each Lowry. You aren't paying for the negative of the print, you are just paying for a signed copy of a print.

Robert Durran - on 21 Jan 2013
In reply to Southern Man:
> Amazing really how cheap (relatively speaking) photographs are.

Presumably because multiples prints are made.
I'm sure that if, like a painting, there was only one print in excistence of an iconic Ansel Adams photo, trhen it might be worth a million or so.

Tom Last - on 21 Jan 2013
In reply to ablackett:

Yes of course, but that's why I wondered how many prints there were in the run. If there's only ten say, it's still a fairly exclusive object. Given that that sort of price will barely buy you a decent second hand car for example, it still seems relatively cheap - to me at least. Of course, he might have printed and stamped thousands of the buggers...

Armadillo on 21 Jan 2013
In reply to ablackett:

There was a BBC series on photography a few years ago, and one programme looked at the commercial side of photography. Apparently with Adams, his early prints are much more highly valued than later interpretations. The number of editions and who actually printed them also makes a huge difference to value.
Tom Last - on 21 Jan 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to Southern Man)
> [...]
>
> Presumably because multiples prints are made.
> I'm sure that if, like a painting, there was only one print in excistence of an iconic Ansel Adams photo, trhen it might be worth a million or so.

Yeah that sounds about right doesn't it.

On a slightly related not. When I worked s an odd job person at the Royal Geographical Society, I 'discovered' some original prints by Carlton Watkins.

Carlton Watkins was in some respects the forerunner to Ansel Adams, being the photographer who's pics of Yosemite Valley had some time earlier provided some of the impetus for the establishment of Yosemite as a national park.

Unfortunately, there was a fire in his Studio which destroyed his original plates and prints which weren't already in collections.

I wrote my dissertation on Carlton Watkins whilst at university, so I knew what I was looking at and it was something of a shock to find them sitting neglected in a drawer at the RGS.

Nobody knew anything about them and the collections staff's response was a shrug when I mentioned it to them, the things must be worth hundreds of thousands of pounds. I suppose when you've got a bunch of Mercators knocking around, the odd Watkins goes largely unnoticed!

I found some Hokkusai prints in a drawer there too similarly uncatalogued and received a similar response. Crazy.
ads.ukclimbing.com
AlanLittle - on 21 Jan 2013
In reply to Armadillo:
> Apparently with Adams, his early prints are much more highly valued than later interpretations.

I saw why when I went to the Adams centenary exhbition ten years ago. Adams' printing style in the 60s and 70s was much more dramatic and contrasty than his early work from the 30s and 40s. But to my eye - and apparently I'm not alone in this - the later prints look harsh and heavy-handed if you view them directly side by side with earlier ones.

Reproductions in books are a completely different story. Here the later contrasty prints, that look so much worse "in the flesh", reproduce much better than the earlier prints whose subtleties are lost in the book printing process.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.