Two copies of the Takeji Asano Spring in Daigoji Temple woodblock print have been added to the gallery. Both prints had creasing to them when I received them. I knew Spring in Daigoji Temple (B) was lightly creased when I purchased it and factored that into the purchase price. Spring in Daigoji Temple (A) however, was in good condition but was damaged in transit due to very inadequate packing (ie. none!). The creases on that print match exactly those of the very very thin cardboard envelope it was placed in. I sent both prints off to a paper conservator and after being attended to they are both now in uncreased and cleaned condition – $75 dollars well spent.
The thumbnails below now link to updated copies of the two prints. These new images show the prints after they had been decreased and cleaned. If you compare these new images with the two ‘margin’ only images below which are pre-cleaning you’ll see what a difference having a conservator work on them has made.
|Spring in Daigoji Temple (A)||Spring in Daigoji Temple (B)|
I’ve listed both copies of this Takeji Asano woodblock print as First Editions based on the fact that both contain the date in the lower left margin which does not appear on later editions. The dates on the prints are different and I’ll try to get those translated. Also interesting is the fact that the Unsodo publisher seals and the Printer seals are different. The Unsodo publisher seal on Spring in Daigoji Temple (A) is the longer circa 1947 style seal while copy (B) has the shorter more common 1950-2000′s seal. While the printer seals are different they both appear to be Shinmi Saburo. If time permits I’ll try to do more research on this. The carver for both prints was Nagashima Michio.
After talking with Ross Walker from Ohmi Gallery it appears that Spring in Daigoji Temple – Copy A is dated 1951 and is a first edition where-as Spring in Daigoji Temple – Copy B is dated 1953 and is a second (likely) edition. A number of woodblock websites state that Unsodo published prints with margin dating present are first editions but these two prints show that’s not always the case. It’s also the date of the print that matters, not the mere presence of a date.