> But when you buy a print from the artist, you're paying for that signature that says "#3 of 100." There's nothing stopping the artist from printing more, and

> But when you buy a print from the artist, you're paying for that signature that says "#3 of 100." There's nothing stopping the artist from printing more, and there's nothing stopping random people from duplicating the print, but we're comfortable with the idea that a signature confers a "uniqueness" to the print that makes it valuable. I'll bite: I also find 'limited editions' with no unique characteristic to be idiotic. If they have some unique characteristics, whether it's a LE book with a different cover illustration and fancy binding or a LE Ferrari with a specially-tuned V12, then they're actually rare objects and it's fine. But if your artist's print is 100% identical except for that "#3 of 100" signature, I wouldn't pay one more cent for the privilege of owning that signature. Same with autographs on books or CD/vinyl covers. Picasso and Hendrix were interesting people and artists, but there is nothing particularly interesting about their signatures and they don't improve the painting or CD in any way *. Paying hundreds of dollars for a perfectly ordinary book that some sweaty fan brought to an exhausted author at an event to have him quickly scribble "John Q. Author" on it is, in my opinion, exactly as pointless as paying hundreds of dollars for a NFT of that book. * Some trivial exceptions: if a painting's author is disputed, the signature can help solve the dispute. And some artists do have interesting signatures (e.g. Dali). For the vast majority of 'limited prints' neither consideration applies.