meaning of "1st ed." on a woodcut

Hoping the group can elucidate meaning of "1st ed." on a signed woodcut that I've found in an on-line auction. It is signed in pencil by the artist with the year (1968), has a title written in pencil, and, also written in pencil is "1st ed." I don't know what to make of the term "1st ed." as I am more accustomed to markings like 5/200 (i.e., no. 5 of 200); or A.P. (artist's proof).

TIA

 

It's not possible to know what the artist means, as like you suggest, it's unusual.

It may be the artists way of saying this print is a....
Trial proof
with no numbering scheme....it may have been a one off....

but I'm speculating here.........

 

Thank you, @komokwa and @daveydempsey. I think that it does mean first edition, and that is an unusual way of expressing it. I appreciate the comments.

 

It could indicate that the artist intended to do further work on the wood matrix to produce further impressions which would be different from those in the "first edition". Correct terminology would have been "1st state" rather than 1st edition though...

 

Makes no sense to me.
I suppose it might have been made for large scale mechanical printing, but first pulled by hand in a smaller edition. In a situation like that, "deluxe" is frequently the descriptor and the prints are numbered.

Prints like that are sometimes called Artist's Proof, but it's an abuse of the term.

 

Wood blocks do not lend themselves to large scale mechanical printing. I agree the prints should be numbered. There have been art publishers who try to inflate revenues by pulling two editions off the same matrix, one on paper "a" numbered in Roman numerals, and another on paper "b" numbered in Arabic... However, in this scenario, all prints would be numbered.

It is hard to know what the OP has but it could simply be a trial proof or test print

 

Strange, I would expect to see "artist proof", maybe it means the same thing?

 

Sadly people often tend to confuse the terminology. In recent years an artists proof is the exactly the same as the regular edition. Prints which were made prior to "getting it right" are trial proofs, etc.

In many cases the publisher pays the artist in part with artists proofs which he/she can either sell or give to friends. This is also the case for "printers' proofs."

The notion that an artists' proof is somehow more valuable than a print from the regular edition is not supported by sales data on the secondary market.

 

Show us the print. Is it professional or amateur? In all probability, whoever signed it was simply unaware of the conventions.

 

Decided to pass on bidding, after all.
Artist is Byron Randall. Professional.
https://eastwingestates.hibid.com/l...&utm_content=v1&utm_campaign=AuctionReminders

It's an interesting piece, but I'll let someone else enjoy or, probably, profit.

 

You could look up other Byron Randall prints to see how they're labeled. If you have the interest

 

@moreotherstuff - Thank you. I did, which is why I think if it goes for less the 80-100, there is lots of room for profit. His later works go for more, seems his earlier hover under 400/500.

 

Not familiar with his work. I was thinking more in terms of how he labeled things. Probably just idiosyncratic.