| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| frank_black_francis |
Posted - 07/13/2004 : 09:32:51
I know things are worth something if it is LTD Ed, except I dont understand what the fuss is for some people about what number out of the Limited Number it is...lower numbers being considered worth more. Can someone explain this? |
| 8 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| kingphilbert |
Posted - 07/14/2004 : 07:57:24
quote:
Originally posted by TarTar
Ploys, I tell you! Ploys!
I remember the first 500,000 copies of Maladroit were numbered... on the back! So you could see before you bought it. I thought that was kind of odd. It took a long time for those firs 500,000 to sell, too.
And they still have that CD on shelves without numbers now. Even the EP Weezer had released was numbered out of what 10,000? I heard the numbers went well over that though and it is still on some shelves by me. It's like they weren't really limited editions.
"I mix twinkie's and ding-dong's all the time. In Europe, they call it a Dinkie!" |
| TarTar |
Posted - 07/14/2004 : 02:51:35
Ploys, I tell you! Ploys!
I remember the first 500,000 copies of Maladroit were numbered... on the back! So you could see before you bought it. I thought that was kind of odd. It took a long time for those firs 500,000 to sell, too.
My copy of Two Virgins by John and Yoko was numbered. Can't remember what number I had. But I'll bet you that whatever number they went up to, the album has been listened to from beginning to end less times than that, since it was released in the late 60's.
"You can FUCK OFF!!! Cuz I'm workin' sixty a week"
|
| jo |
Posted - 07/14/2004 : 02:39:27
I have all my Salad singles and albums in limited edition as number 1. Pretty useless too. And I only got those cause I persuaded the warehouse boys to bring me that number any time anything came in stock. Wonder how much I'd get on ebay :)
I don't think the numbering really matters. In the end, how do we know that number 1 was the first one to be printed? Maybe if something was limited to 2000 copies, they started at 2000 and went backwards, to avoid doing too many (cause when anything is made, you either get slightly more or slightly less, but never 2000)... |
| The Calistanian |
Posted - 07/13/2004 : 11:01:45
Oh no...not disagreeing with you at all. You had great insight into the art production world.
I'm not into it at all, but I know that humans buy limited edition stuff for reasons that are illogical, as logical as they may seem. Logically, getting the #1 print is good, because it would have the least amount of defect, no matter how little the defects would be anyway. But many people would want to get their hands on the #1 copy just because it says 1/2500 or whatever, giving no thought to the fact it would actually have less defect. It's just #1, better than the #2. Anything from #2 to #2500 is not as good, even though #2 would basically be the same as #1.
Generally speaking, is the drop-off in worth greater from #1 to #2 than it is from #2 to #100? Just curious.
1. I am a fsh with no i's.
2. You must be wearing Zubaz, 'cause you're daring to be different.
3. I am a man with 3 fingers...but that doesn't count my index finger nor my thumb. |
| apl4eris |
Posted - 07/13/2004 : 10:25:43
I don't really see a great difference in our arguments - my explanation still accounts for your desire of the copy closest to the beginning. This could get very metaphysical, but I'll leave it alone. heheehheh
 RIP Little Bucharest: Yuppies. They don't eat goulash. |
| The Calistanian |
Posted - 07/13/2004 : 10:05:01
Interesting...
To me, if you're going to have a limited edition copy, the only number that would matter at all is if you got number 1, from a novelty standpoint. Because that would supposedly be the first one, and after that, to me, everything would seem to lose its specialness. Let's say I got #2 of something, to me, that would be no different than getting #503 or #1235. From my perception of limited editions. I guess I never would have worried about the highest number being more defective than lower numbers...but that's interesting to know more about that.
1. I am a fsh with no i's.
2. You must be wearing Zubaz, 'cause you're daring to be different.
3. I am a man with 3 fingers...but that doesn't count my index finger nor my thumb. |
| apl4eris |
Posted - 07/13/2004 : 10:01:49
I haven't ever researched it, but my experience as an artist and printmaker might give a little relevant insight. The origin of numbering editions is in the art world. It's an interesting psychological quirk of human "thinking", much like our innate inability to grasp the strange working of probability. Prints and sculptures are made from a "static" matrix for production of more than one of something, with supposedly no discernable distinction between each copy, which protects the value of the piece in the market. A stone lithograph can last (depending on the type of image) for hundreds of prints before the matrix begins to break down -the chemistry and physical underlying structure of the stone will no longer produce a predictable and valid outcome, so the edition is limited. Once the final acceptable print has been determined, the chemical matrix of the stone is destroyed beyond doubt -the printmaker digs a large "X' through the surface.
The quirk of human thought is that people still cannot believe in the infallibility of the matrix, and so they inherently need the most "pristine" copy - the one closest to the beginning. That in turn drives demand and market value.
Bet you didn't expect that little rant, did ya?
hehehe
RIP Little Bucharest: Yuppies. They don't eat goulash. |
| misleadtheworld |
Posted - 07/13/2004 : 09:41:28
As far as I know, there is any relevance of number at all. I suppose it's just nice to have a lower number.
Sometimes they give the artist the first ones, I've heard.
I think the original limited white albums were funny. How many was there, like a million or something?
 |
|
|
