Urban Art Association

Yes lots of questions little info...I did find an old thread mentioning something similiar will try to dig it up.


While we are on the subject how about the Choppers Placard? The stencil looks a little 'thick' especially around the circular nose peice of the chopper.

I'm not so sure, apparantly the POW stamp was introduced mid run on these prints - this is quite early run at 114 but still has the stamp.

urbanartassociation.com/thread/122184/pow-blindstamp-banksy-love-prints

Does anyone have an idea when the stamp was introduced?

So you are sure this is legit? on what grounds?

Or you mean you are sure it won't get a coa? I think that goes without saying though doesn't it.

Thats interesting, from the information I have found it says that the print was stamped on the left for the unsigned version but on the right (or just numbered) for the signed versions. Are there some copies that don't follow that system?

ok thanks for the info

Thanks so much Met, clears it all up.

Any opinions on this ebay print?

That print wasn't in great condition...

I haven't seen the eBay listing you're referring to.

But I would also argue it doesn't matter.

Based on your description alone, the Love Rat print will be one of two things:


1. Counterfeit

For what it's worth, over the years I've personally examined a number of counterfeit Banksy prints, some more convincing than others, including with fake blind stamps.

Almost inevitably, counterfeits are accompanied by plausible-sounding, fabricated back stories (and perhaps an email trail, which may or may not be genuine, but could easily have been widely circulated, printed off in the hundreds, and used by anyone to prop up any forgery). One or two specific names will generally be thrown into the mix — like that of a printer or an ex-Pictures on Walls employee — to lend credence to a made-up story.

[Crossing out the edition number can serve a similar purpose and, opportunely for a fraudster, it takes the print outside the parameters for opining which Pest Control has set for itself.]

This plays as well into the desperation or greed of potential buyers, who are looking for every excuse to believe the story being peddled. They very much want to believe, which of course can cloud their judgement and lead them to disregard basic due-diligence red flags. A capable con artist will be fully aware of this and exploiting it. They'll be pushing the right psychological buttons of potential buyers, the inexperienced buyers tending to be the easiest marks.


2. Genuine, and therefore stolen

If genuine, then clearly the print should never have left POW's premises. It is highly unlikely the rightful owner of the work (whether Banksy or POW as a company) would have sanctioned this, since its presence on the open market compromises the integrity of the authorised edition.

So if this scenario is correct, it seems fair to assume a theft took place at some point — and that the eBay seller is consequently dealing in stolen goods.

Here we can rely on first principles: Is knowingly trading in, handling, or buying stolen goods acceptable? Would a decent person answer "Yes", if considering the issue honestly? I believe most people would find it morally objectionable. And perhaps even more so given it relates to property belonging to an artist whom the seller and potential buyers presumably admire.

What you'll often find among dealers and collectors who choose to partake in sleaziness involving so-called backdoor prints are attempts to excuse their behaviour — mental contortions allowing them to trick their own conscience and sleep at night. They justify themselves in different ways. For example, by the fact the initial theft took place many years ago. Or that the stolen goods have exchanged hands on numerous occasions, the multiple links in the chain making the connection to the theft less direct.

No doubt individuals and institutions dealing in artworks looted during wartime also make generous use of these self-serving rationalisations. But here again, first principles allow us to see through the disingenuousness, obfuscation attempts, and convenient self-delusion.

____________


Here's an analogy which may better illustrate the principle:

(i) If I knowingly bought artwork that was stolen from your home, that would make me vile.

(ii) The fact the theft may have taken place over a decade ago is irrelevant. It wouldn't make me any less vile, because the artwork rightfully still belongs to you.

(iii) The fact your artwork may have traded hands a few times over the years (allowing the initial theft to seem more remote to people handling the stolen property) is irrelevant. It wouldn't make me any less vile, because the artwork rightfully still belongs to you.

(iv) The fact you may have a successful career and be financially well off is irrelevant. It wouldn't make me any less vile, because the artwork rightfully still belongs to you.



Now, a couple of questions using the same analogy (which could equally apply to so-called backdoor prints):

Should this forum be used as a platform to sell or advertise the sale of artwork that was stolen from your home? Would this be ethically defensible?

For both questions, I would say "No".

____________


As a rule of thumb, I'd advise anyone against purchasing a Banksy original or limited edition print unless it is accompanied by a Pest Control certificate of authenticity.

Thank you Met for taking the time to write that.

I think at times like this it's always important to remember that if it sounds too good to be true then it probably is.

Thanks met

..

Spoken like a copper. You would not go to the filth for legal advice. The analogy does not stand up.

How can it be assessed as Stolen in the first place

Does it pass the basic test for dishonesty

you can make up the rest yourselves. never trust a copper

Hi all, I'm the guy selling the Love Rat print. Since this thread was brought to my attention I've added this update to the eBay listing: 

UPDATE: This print seems to have stirred up quite a debate on the forums, so I'd like to be clear that this print is not counterfeit or stolen, but rather was given to me personally when I was working with some of the POW team around the time the print was made. My reason for selling is a hugely expensive case (now won) to get my autistic son in to a specialist school, which has left me with hefty outstanding legal fees. I gave this print to my sister years ago and she donated it back to me so I could try selling it. I am happy to talk to genuine buyers, and meet in person (in London) if necessary. I will provide a signed letter with the print, in my name, describing the above to serve as provenance.



It also says in the listing to contact me for further details, and I have responded to everyone who has bothered to ask. 

I don't think the seller is trying to 'hoodwink' anyone with this print and feel uncomfortable that it is implied that it was 'stolen'. There are a quite a few genuine signed prints out there that were given as freebies/gifts to people working at the shows back in the days when they were valued at £150. Since the increase in value Pest Control have had to reign in the edition to ensure only genuine prints that were intended for sale are given authenticity. Just because this print wasn't intended for sale, which is the reason PC will give for not issuing a PC Cert doesn't necessarily mean it was 'stolen' in some kind of 150 quid art heist.
Obviously it is absolutely recommended to only ever buy Banksy prints with PC COA however this print is what it is and implying the seller is a thief is unfair.
Good to hear the sellers autistic son is now in an appropriate school and more the pity that he has had to go to court and incur huge legal fees to make it happen.

Worth a punt for somebody - I think the provenance side of things is irrelevant really. It's a chance to own a bit of history with a story to tell. For the right price obviously given the lack of COA.