Visual arts
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts

One of the Bartrums says 700, the other is more tentative, but includes the figure. Johnbod (talk) 01:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The paper by the American Institute for Conservation says c.700 sets within 2 years of completion (i.e. in the first edition), but then says 200 sets in the first edition, and another 300 in the second edition (plus extra sets to reimburse the printer).

Where does the 700 figure come from originally? It sounds rather high to me, for the first edition of a 192-block print. -- Theramin (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Bartrum,Giulia; German Renaissance Prints, 1490-1550; British Museum Press, 1995, ISBN 071412604, p.51 "according to a report ...by Stabius... 700 sets were produced [Hanover Archive, German ref], although it is likely that some of these were incomplete when they appeared, as the Archduke Ferdinand... requested that they should be finished when he commissioned the second edition of at least 300, in Vienna in 1526 [ref]..."
• Giulia Bartrum, Albrecht Dürer and his Legacy, British Museum Press, 2002, ISBN 0714126330, p.194 "first edition of 700 sets". 700 sets is still a lot cheaper than building the thing. 70 x 192 = 134,400 sheets, or the same as say 500 copies of a 538 page book, which one would imagine was about a minimum print run. Johnbod (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The correct title would be Triumphal Arch of Maximilian I or something similar: the present title suggests with "The" that's it's a book title and that there's but one. --Wetman (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, something else is better, per [[1]]. It is normally called just the "Triumphal Arch" so Triumphal Arch (Dürer) or Triumphal Arch (woodcut) would be best. Johnbod (talk) 21:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa. Triumphal Arch (Dürer) seems a bit misleading, as it is not just Dürer's work, and some sources do call it the Triumphal Arch of Maximilian I, which would also do; but Triumphal Arch (woodcut) would be best, I think. -- Theramin (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to that then. Johnbod (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]