Same difference, lets be honest though, what can you get for 43k nowadays?.

1.        i could get a couple more months in holland
2.        A home
3.        Wayne Rooney for a day

This is a list that could run and run…                

Well knowing Laz's reputation I reckon you will have to pay pal !!! Or he'll tell you to

.

5000 

I hope Laz managed to sell all the art in this retrospective.

Sothebys is great for selling art someone said.

Me too.. I tried...

Jesus that piece was almost as incoherent as your usual rants

fuck me 'Mickey mouse' ...I'd at least learn a little about the artist I'm going to spunk 10k prior to looking like an utter p*ick in the gallery with jumped up little shits trying to look down at me - sigh

Ugh fuck that lady. Tweeting about investing. I'm glad she walked away unhappy

What was £4k at the show? Silver flags maybe?

The writer has a chip on their shoulder the size of a small building.  Whether she will admit it or not the piece she enquired about was more than she could afford and she was clueless about its title, meaning or pretty much anything other than one of the characters depicted (I guess she knew the one on the other side was Ronald McDonald, whether she recognised the middle image who knows).  She didn't even get the point it was an unauthorised retrospective so nothing to do with Banksy other than his art was on show.

When I went there was a lady there who all she wanted was an original to put on the wall.  She pointed to one of the canvases and asked how much, the sotheby's assistant politely indicated the amount and edition size to which the lady enquiring said "it can't be an original as it's not a 1/1".  More money than sense

Based on your description above, the "More money than sense" evaluation seems overly harsh to me.

Editioned works are by definition unoriginal. That woman's position is consistent with how the art world generally considers originals.

It was with Banksy's stencil-based, editioned canvases (and only a few years ago, not necessarily when released) that I first noticed some sellers attempting to alter the meaning of "original". Others, especially new collectors, followed suit without question. The term was thus broadened and arguably corrupted in the context of Banksy, no longer strictly referring to one-of-a-kind pieces.

Instead of the distinguishing factor being uniqueness, as it is in the wider art market, what constitutes an original with the Banksy market is now determined by medium. And so, for example, any one of 25 identical Banksy paintings is an original if it's a hand-sprayed stencil — whether on canvas, board, paper, or other surface. The silly result (at least to my mind) is that an editioned work, a multiple and one of many, can simultaneously be deemed "original".

This shift is market-driven. Those with vested financial interests care less about terminology. They're happy for definitions to change, to become less strict, provided they also benefit. That's the case with private collectors, gallerists, other dealers, and auction houses looking or potentially looking to sell. From a business perspective this makes complete sense. A painting is easier to offload, it's sexier, and the price it can command is higher when marketed as an "original" rather than simply a "multiple".

Referring to editioned work as originals has since become more common, though it's still largely confined to the street art / urban art ghetto-niche market.​

Property developers and estate agents behave in a similar manner. They'll try their best to rebrand areas to make them more attractive to buyers. For the Londoners here, remember when London Fields was called West Hackney, or when South Clapham was just known as Streatham?