We have been asked this question continuously for years, and now seems as good a time as any to answer it. In doing so, however, understand that we will give you a layman's description of the methods available and what we perceive are the good points and the bad of each. The main issue, we believe, is for each collector to decide (as we have) what he thinks about reproduc­tions versus recreations.

HALF-TONE LITHOGRAPHS

This is the most common and the cheapest form of printing and quality varies considerably, with printers usually using four colors to do the job: cyan, magenta, yellow and black (blue, red, yellow and black). The prints are screened and the printing is done with dots, sometimes so fine as to be virtually imperceptible to the naked eye. It's very difficult to capture the full range of colors in a painting, but if you want to get the cost down, this the only way to go. Most snobs in the fine art world are not willing to publicly admit how good half-tone lithography can often be. It is the most common form of reproduction, as the images are duplicated photographically (or, as is increasingly common these days, digitally). Inaccuracies are the result of limitations of the camera or the press. The better each is, the better the result. As a less-accepted "art form," though, it’s not for us.

THE COLLOTYPE

This is a very tricky form of continuous-tone printing - a method that reproduces colors without using a screen - and it's rapidly becoming a lost art form. The Black Box of Chicago was one of the last printers in the world to use the process. Its colors, laid down one at a time and left to dry, are built up - layer upon layer, resaturating full plates and adding touchplates to isolate areas that are weak. The final result is spectacular, but the collotype is inherently unstable. . . that is, it tends to break down as runs lengthen, so it's really best on very short runs. Too many variables for us.

STONE LITHOGRAPHS

Tradition! This is an arena designed to produce "original prints" where an artist creates a work out of his head without reference to existing art. In the old days an artist prepared his own "plates" on stone, printing the colors one at a time and building up a work of art. The finished piece was, then, an "original;' and usually put out in very, very limited quantities. The heavy, absorb­ent, arches paper had so much ink layered on it, the effect was breathtaking. Time corrupted the practice, however. Nowadays, metal has replaced stone and "chromists” - people who re-do an artist's work - reinterpret some other creator's efforts. To recreate art in this manner is not new. Specialists who perfected it reigned supreme from 1850 to 1920. In the industry the process became known as "fake color." Purists who didn't want to see an artist's work sullied began to disdain its collectibility. It is for this reason that you never see the old masters recreated as stone lithos (or serigraphs: see next paragraph). The serious marketplace would crucify or dismiss anyone who tried to do so. The Norman Rockwell stone lithographs - recreated from his oil paintings­ did not contain one stroke of the legend's own hand. But he signed them and, we assume, had some critical say in the final product before he died. Most artists today shun recreations because it's not their own work. (Sidenote: Carl Barks and Another Rainbow did produce one stone litho nine years ago, taken from a Barks painting, but it may be another nine years before it is releas­ed.) Barks, his wife Care, and our company decided in 1984 that none of his paintings would again be recreated.

THE SERIGRAPH

Most silkscreens (serigraphs) we've seen in the past have left us cold, despite the huge number of "colors" put on them (we've seen 150 and more). Somehow the colors often remind us of milk of magnesia. The tradition began, as with the stone litho, as a way for an artist to slowly, color by color, build up his own print and his own work in his own hand. This method, too, became corrupted. However, there is a major difference here between the stone litho and the serigraph. Serigraphers have developed the technique of beginning with photographically "cor­rect" images and then building them up with extra colors. This is very sophisticated stuff and the technicians who do it have become wizards. Two recent examples we've seen are classics. One is amazingly like the painting - or like one might think the painting should be (not always the same thing). The color saturation is amazing! The significance of the large number of "colors" is open to debate. The basic idea behind all these "colors" is to perfect recreating the look or enhancing the original, down to the tiniest detail in the background. Most artists today, despite the glorious final results, consider this "noodling" with their art. The second example we've recently seen is even more amazing: compare it to the original and it's completely different! Though some collectors strenuously object, the real question probably comes down to this: if the artist ap­proves, who's to say it's not right? The process also can price itself out of the market. So. . . despite the new technologies, we really have no interest in producing extra-pricey Carl Barks prints by this method.

CONTINUOUS-TONE or SCREENLESS LITHOGRAPHS

Several years ago The Black Box saw the need to develop a hybrid between the half-tone and the collotype, a method that would enable them to get all the color saturation of the collotype as well as the long-run capability of the half-tone and keep it affordable. So they actually invented their methd of screenless lithography, which we wholeheartedly have embraced. Just how it works is too technical for us to understand, much less try to describe here. But it works. The prints start out weak and then are layered one color at a time and built up finally with touchplates, usually requiring only a dozen or so colors to as closely match the original painting as possible without handwork by some technician. The important thing to remember is that we at Another Rainbow are much more interested in reproducing the Old Duck Master's art than recreating it. It also enables us to hold the line on prices. The success of resales in the secondary market and at auctions has supported the wisdom of this decision.

We don't want anyone to believe, however, that we're condemning methods that we don't use. We have a Norman Rockwell stone lithograph, for instance, proudly hanging in our executive offices. . . a print we bought because we liked it, despite the fact that it is a recreation.

Thank you for your interest.