1. The origin of the project

This project began from a straightforward observation about the field of Old Master prints: an immense body of scholarship exists, yet truly accessible, verifiable material examination is often absent from public discussion.

Until recently, it was difficult or impractical—especially outside major institutions—to document the physical relief of printed lines, the microscopic structure of incised grooves, the behavior of ink, the effects of press pressure, or the paper’s internal structure.

The Álvarez Collection Print Verification Project begins precisely there: with a decision to return to the works as physical objects.

2. A foundational principle: material evidence governs

• If a watermark or countermark is not legible, it is not invented.
• If a measurement cannot be taken reliably, it is not estimated.
• If a plate-state difference cannot be demonstrated structurally, it is not proclaimed.
• If the evidence does not permit a firm conclusion, the uncertainty is stated explicitly.

Paper, ink, and plate evidence take precedence over any secondary authority.

3. What problem the project addresses

3.1 Confusion between early and late printing stages

Differences caused by plate wear, cleaning, fatigue of the metal, or print-to-print variation are sometimes misread as state differences, particularly when analysis relies on flat reproductions or general visual impression.

3.2 Loss of contact with the physical reality of the print

• the real ink relief
• the physical edge of the incised groove
• the paper’s compression under pressure
• the three-dimensional structure of line and surface

A print becomes a picture. But an intaglio print is not merely a picture—it is a mechanically produced object.

3.3 Reliance on catalogues built under earlier technical limits

Major catalogues remain essential. Yet many were compiled without routine access to high-resolution macro imaging, practical microscopy, controlled raking light documentation, or digital structural overlays.

4. What this project is—and what it is not

• A program of systematic material examination
• A visual and physical documentation system
• A reproducible methodological framework
• A basis for discussing plate state, printing stage, and paper evidence through visible, testable material data

This project is not a machine that “certifies authenticity.” It places material evidence at the center of analysis.

5. The general architecture of the method

1. Direct material examination and visual documentation
2. Plate and line evidence analysis
3. Paper evidence analysis
4. Plate mark and pressure assessment
5. Structural comparison with institutional references (when available)
6. A critical evaluation of what can be stated and what cannot

6. Why repetition is a virtue

The same structure is deliberately applied across artists and works because consistency is what makes differences meaningful.

7. An important consequence

Working in this way sometimes produces not an immediate answer but a better question.

8. Direct material examination: seeing the print as an object

• High-resolution macro photography
• Microscopy
• Controlled raking light
• Transmitted light
• Direct observation of paper and ink relief

The goal is not spectacle. It is to make structure visible: compression, ink relief, and mechanical continuity.

9. Plate evidence: line as a physical trace

Line is treated as the physical trace of an incised groove. The project examines channel shape, edge integrity, ink behavior, and burr characteristics.

10. Relief, ink, and pressure: the three-dimensional logic of intaglio

Authentic intaglio printing preserves a physical relationship between groove, ink, and compressed paper.

11. Paper as a historical object

Paper is treated as historical evidence: chain lines, type, watermarks/countermarks, fiber orientation, thickness, and transmitted-light behavior.

12. Chain lines, structure, and scale discipline

Chain lines are measured only when scale is reliable. Where scale is not reliable, measurements are not claimed.

13. The plate mark: a mechanical trace of the printing process

The plate mark is treated as mechanical evidence, not decoration. Integrity, depth, continuity, and relation to pressure are recorded.

14. Structural comparison and overlays

Overlay is used to test structural plate identity, not visual similarity. It can reveal state changes, confirm identity, or expose non-identity.

15. Negative evidence: the discipline of stating limits

The method explicitly allows saying: we do not know. Unreadable watermarks are not invented, unreliable measurements are not estimated.

16. A broader result: a material language for prints

This approach produces a vocabulary based on groove, relief, pressure, paper structure, and demonstrable comparison.

17. The role of artificial intelligence

• Structures the analytical workflow
• Maintains internal coherence across works
• Prevents logical leaps and unsupported conclusions
• Enforces separation between observation and interpretation
• Never “decides” authenticity, state, or chronology

18. Authorship, responsibility, and boundaries

All works examined belong to The Álvarez Collection. Documentation is produced directly from the physical objects. Responsibility for conclusions rests with the project and the collection.

19. Why the project is public

Transparency is part of the method: evidence is shown and organized so that meaningful discussion can be grounded in visible material facts.

20. Priority, chronology, and continuity

Each PVR and published page forms part of a dated public record of the project’s development.

21. What kind of project this is, ultimately

The project adds a layer of direct material examination to the study of Old Master prints. It does not ask for trust. It asks that one look.

22. A final note