[kr555]

Сообщение от Tjutchev

Still with dating all is not so, as you write. Hokusai began work on the series in late 1820 and intended to make a hundred engravings. However, only 36 were issued sheets, which later added ten more. For example, in the collection of the Pushkin Museum are 19 prints in this series - 14 of them were published between 1829 - 1892 years, various publishers, and 5 - peregravirovki 1948. As you can see, there are engravings published already in the 29 th year. They were published throughout the XIX century with the very boards that were cut initially. Ie used the same boards that are cut first engraver. And only a change in printers. Naturally, the published proofs can be classified by the quality of print, which affects the state board (which, by itself, of course, will wear out over time). In other words, from a qualitative impression of a less quality. If you classify impressions by the result of the printer, then the collector must have, and it will be important, these prints were printed in the printer, receiving counseling or a Hokusai prints, printed when it was impossible for natural reasons. It is known that the artist followed the process of making prints, and therefore, he could do it in the late 20's - 30's. Although probably a major role in determining the value of engravings for the collector of Japanese prints of the 19 th century is the quality of print and rare. What was once it is printed so it is more qualitative.
 
Apparently there was some possibility of more or less accurate dating, if kept in the Pushkin Museum reprint of this series, dated 29 th year. But be aware that the sequence of creation of prints is not installed. Hokusai applied in a series of three different signatures: "Hokusai kai Iitsu hitsu", "Hokusai Iitsu" and "Zen Hokusai Iitsu hitsu". Perhaps the earliest are nine prints, signed Hokusai kai Iitsu hitsu "(Hokusai, changed his name to Iitsu"), which include such well-known engravings as Red Fuji, The Great Wave, and Mount Fuji during a thunderstorm. This means that it is possible to date the prints on some other grounds. And, most likely, that in some cases dating can be accurate to indicate the year of publication, and some only with the relevant time frame in which the prints could be issued (as in the case imprint, which was sold at auction for $ 1,340,000 and referred to above).

Читать дальше... 

I do not think that the engravings, sold for an impressive sum, it is "the devil knows what kind of impression." I think experts managed to establish exactly what impression it was published between 1830 and 1835 years. Reprints late 20's and early 30's. Probably in the market there is not much that makes this an extremely valuable impression.
 
The print, which was sold at Christie's (the one that you have shown above), was classified by experts to print made later. No other reasonable explanation for this difference in price I do not see. Why are you so sure this impression belong to the same period (30-35-ies.)? Do you have a good reason? I think if the experts Christie would your confidence, then they certainly would indicate the most accurate date. And it would be logical, because it would increase the cost of the lot and would allow the auction house to earn more money. This is the meaning auction. Perhaps this confidence was a collector. And if he was right then it turns out that he bought this lot as erroneously undervalued. From what we can congratulate him.
 
The auction house had set the date as accurately as possible. This is necessary in order to determine estimeyt for this lot and bring it to the attention of potential buyers. You understand, this is also dictated by the logic of the auction. A guided buyer dating auction house or not, we do not know. Also, for us it remains a mystery, he determined the value of that impression or have consulted with experts, but you must admit it is not so important.

Discussion with an interesting conversationalist - a pleasure. The main provisions, I absolutely agree with you. And thanks for the excuse to get deeper into this interesting topic.

I am sure that most (perhaps all) of the facts and the provisions cited by me in this and other messages were you aware of before me. But for the orderliness of presentation without them was hard.

I'm sorry, did not answer the items and perhaps a little messed up.
Let's start with the fact that the exact date of release of these prints is not known, while it is generally accepted that a series of Hokusai created in 1820, and published it was estimated in 1830-1831, certainly not later than 1832. For Red Fuji British Museum gives dating 1830, Boston 1830-1831. Take, for convenience, dating 1831.
Come on. The limit to which the original board you can get some impression how acceptable quality - from 8000 to 10000 fingerprints, after which the boards are a wreck. Organicheniya in circulation was not, engraving published continuously up until engraving bought. This series of Hokusai dismantled like hotcakes. Printing speed engraving - dozens of prints a week, we take for convenience 50. We get 200 a month, and 2500 year. That is, if the average speed printing boards worn for 4 years, to 1835.
Everything! No more prints from the original plates can not be, any printed from the original plates impression made from 1830 to 1835. Then only restrayki which there are several hundred variations.
Thus, dating 1830-1835 is amusing, for people who do not understand what it was about. Christie is no general way of dating for a single etching does not, even on a rare early version with a pink, not red Fuji, which they also sell. This variant retained only 5 pieces, it is known that this was a trial version, printed before the main circulation, and something just might be dated to 1830, but they do not make the approximate dates of principle.

Posted 50 minutes
P.S. But the sale of this print for more than 200 thousand cu I would in any case did not call an underestimate. On the contrary, it is just a very adequate, even the high price, the price it should not cost you. But the sale of 1 million - is not entirely clear fluctuation, probably several times higher estimeyta apparently encountered two stubborn, and nobody wanted to concede.