Re: takashi image

Comments:
: : Richard, : : I'm convinced that your print came from a different set of blocks. In my print, there are 14 dark trees in the foreground. Your print has 10. : : Here is a picture of the lower left and upper right corners of my print: : : <img src="http://shotei.com/images/yamanaka.jpg"> : : <br clear=all> : : I can't clearly make out the writing in the margins of your image, but I am certain that it is different from mine. The first 4 characters of the date on mine (in the lower left margin) say 1 9 5 2. Yours looks like it might be 1 9 5 5 or perhaps 1 9 5 9. The titles (in the upper right margin) look to different as well. : : Since margin writing is typically on the keyblock, this points to a different set of blocks having been used for our 2 prints. I've never seen yours before. : : There are 2 possible explanations: : : 1. The print was very successful and went through many printings. When the blocks gave out, Watanabe had them re-carved. This is not unprecedented, although the practice has been denied by Watanabe. : : 2. Your print, lacking a publisher seal and an artist's seal, may have been plagiarized by another publisher. However, it's hard to imagine that a knock-off would retain Takashi's signature. : : I have been studying the subject of recut prints and plagiarized knock-offs, and have written an article about it on my new website, shotei.com. Click <a href="http://shotei.com/artists/shotei/copies/copies.htm">here</a> to check out what I have found about variant Shotei prints. : : Hope this helps. : : Marc Kahn : Marc: : I see that these prints are actually dated by writing out the western date in kanji, so mine is dated 1959. Why change the date though if it's a knockoff? and why make the print look different if Watanabe was reprinting it unless Takashi wanted to make changes to the original?