Howard Fogg Prints

[Anonymous]

I have several Howard Fogg prints, of different sizes. Some of the 8x10 works have a second print on the rear. These prints have been framed at least 40-50 years and needless to say the prints on the back are like new. Also, I have some of his larger prints which seem to be on Wallpaper or textured material, anyone familiar with any of these? --George - [e-mail]

[bowlerp]

Are they "prints", that is, one dimensional lithographed copies, or are they original paintings? If they are truly "prints", then they have little or no value and it doesn't matter about their strange characteristics. You can certainly tell by looking at a glance, especially if oils.

As you know, originals of Fogg or Ted Rose sell for thousands of dollars. Lithographs sell for poster prices.

[Anonymous]

I have a lithograph of a Fogg painting of the SF PAs and it is on a canvas like material. This was a not uncommon method used for making prints look more like paintings. A similar process (Ibelieve) is currently advertised as Glycee (sp?) prints.

CJ Riley

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by wildmary

I have a lithograph of a Fogg painting of the SF PAs and it is on a canvas like material. This was a not uncommon method used for making prints look more like paintings. A similar process (Ibelieve) is currently advertised as Glycee (sp?) prints.

CJ Riley

This process, fairly new, is known as "giclee." I run all of my limited editions now in this process. The original work is photographed digitaly. The image is then cheked on-screen. The works are run one at a time in a huge ink-jet type printer. The inks are pigmented and will not fade. The printer uses up to 8 different colors. The result is a print that is as good a the original. However you can run the print either on archival watercolor paper or canvas. For years some fine art reproduction firms would run a 4 color litho series on canvas to give the p[rint a more painterly look. A print on canvas is not a giclee unless it's been run fully by that process.
Mitch