Posted by John Fiorillo on August 09, 2000 at 20:31:18:
In Reply to: Re: Jacoulet fakes posted by Lester M. Levy on August 08, 2000 at 11:23:35:
Lester,
You raise some interesting points. Various Maeda impressions have recently appeared at an online auction site as well (where they have earned strong prices in some instances). They seem to be very fine impressions in beautiful condition. Here are my thoughts:
(1) As these come from Maeda (at least that’s how they’ve been advertised, so let’s assume they are), they would seem to be, at the very least, impressions off the original blocks, so we would not have recut reproductions. At worst they would be trial proofs or posthumous impressions, not "fakes." In other words, when I said I knew of no Jacoulet fakes, I was referring to recut copies made to deceive. Late impressions or impressions outside of the main editions, even if not "approved" (i.e., signed) by Jacoulet, would not be "fakes" but rather "restrikes."
(2) The paper watermarks would not, on their own, prove they were lifetime impressions because Maeda could have retained or had access to a stock of PJ watermarked paper. The watermarks could be used only as corroborating evidence to provide some measure of authenticity.
(3) It is possible that they were proof impressions that were not signed because some later changes were made before the final editions. Jacoulet would not necessarily have signed these nor destroyed them. Alternatively, they might simply have been final proofs that Maeda was able to keep without their being signed and offered for sale. This is possible because it appears Jacoulet typically printed some portion of the editions and then waited for more orders to come in before printing out the remainder. Perhaps a few impressions just never got signed and sold but remained in Maeda’s possession. Alternatively, these impressions might have been retained informally without Jacoulet’s direct approval, or printed after his death. We obviously need to know more.
(4) The "authenticity" of these Maeda impressions could be somewhat cloudy because without documentation one could argue that, to bring up your last point, Jacoulet did not sign them and thus did not approve them. Yet we also do not know whether these were impressions ready for signing that just never were signed.
I would suggest that the Maeda impressions certainly possess several key elements of fully genuine Jacoulet prints: they were made from the original blocks, probably with pigments and papers used by Jacoulet, and printed by one of Jacoulet’s original printers. This means that Maeda would have understood Jacoulet’s instructions and preferences, so that even if not done directly under Jacoulet’s supervision they would still be impressions of considerable consistency with signed impressions. What we haven’t yet confirmed is whether they were lifetimes impressions on watermarked papers, or impressions that received Jacoulet’s full approval. While not fakes, they do raise questions.
I wonder if any other readers have information on the "Maeda" impressions.
John
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
At last years Asian Art show in New York, a dealer
showed 3 or 4 Jacoulet prints without Jacoulet's signature
or the seal usually adjacent to the signature.
These very clean prints were said to have been put
up for sale by Jacoulet's printer (I think it was Maeda).
I did not have an opportunity to look for watermarks.
Whether they were actually printed at the time of the
original printing, or subsequently, I, of course, cannot say.
Nor is it clear whether these were printed with Jacoulet's
approval or without his knowledge. Permission to print these
extra copies could have been part of Maeda's payment, but why
would Jacoulet not have signed them?