My post was in reply to why the prints aren't full bleed. Also probably to keep them looking like prints. They wouldn't want to piss off those who have paid £10k now would they

i went down to multiplied yesterday to have a look at the print and to be honest, seeing it in person really put me off. the composition and concept behind the images are great imo but i can't get past the fact that it's really just a signed poster. last week i managed to get one of the Lyken x Moneyless colab ap's and the level of hand finishing and original touches is vast, so i couldn't justify the lack of the artist's hand in this series.
still a nice image though....

Fair point but giclee is the most accurate way of reproducing this series. If there was another way, production costs would be a hell of a lot more. Saying that, giclee at this size is not cheap and when you take into consideration the cost of paper, labour and arranging to have the prints signed, £175 really isn't a bad deal. (I bought the Lyken x Moneyless print too. £100 was beyond a bargain for what it is!)

Looks great mreeves
Need to get my hands on one of these!

I told myself that I should stop buying prints, but I love these Borfs, couldn't resist.

Ah, then well. Thanks for the info! Do you know who I should contact enquiring if there are any unsold? Outsiders? 

edit: Nevermind, read the whole thread again and got the info I was out after!

Damn shame, it'd be nice to meet in person one day after the many PM's and emails. Catch you soon, hopefully!

O, and thanks to @delloy for posting the pics

Cheaper maybe but not more accurate. If you're using professionals to screen the print for you as most artists do these days then accuracy isn't the reason they chose to use this way of producing the image. A way to save money probably, but it isn't to do with quality whatever people tell you.  Giclees are flat, doesn't matter that these days the choice of colours that can be printed are amazing, they're still lifeless. The sheen will make it pop, make it feel as though it has some depth to it.

So the glaze or whatever they do to add that sheen by using a traditional printing process will probably help that flatness of colour as well as (I believe) to state that it has been 'screened' or hand embellished which somehow is supposed to give it more relevance as a piece of art and not a poster.  I think those Borfs are amazing, but It is a cheap trick.

There are many other traditional ways to produce prints like that, not only giclee.  It's a shame that this way of producing art is so freely used now and for such hiked up prices.  I would have purchased one if it had been created using a traditional printing method because they could have been mind blowing - thinking of how RAE uses screen printing process - his work looks and feels like each print is an original because of his technique used.  Please don't be fooled into thinking that this process is an art process, it is not.  It's a real bug bear of mine.  Go to a print studio and try screen printing from start to fin and then print from a computer screen you will see what that difference it.

I don't see the point of giclees, over priced, over rated and they belong in Ikea and I think any artist or gallery using this process should hang their heads in shame - or call it what it is, a poster signed. But each to their own, just surprised people keep on falling for it.

I have some great Adam Neate giclees
Never understood the snobbery to be honest

Please.
Nothing to do with snobbery. It's about the actual process and production of art using traditional method/processes that produce the best result of the image being created for the artist and ultimately the collector/customer.



Each to there own ducky.

dang.. the more i look at these the more i like them. if anyone has one of the Rothko series and is regretting the purchase or dreading the framing cost... drop me a message..

This one?

This one is amazing!

I should have my BORF before too long...