Well put. This is simply a new thing, almost, with 'genuine original works of art' by an artist, where everything is the same aside from the presence of the signature. Interesting to think about how it will play out in the future, since everyone right now is clearly in hype/culture shock.

It's really interesting to see the effect of the presence of a signature, especially in this context where you already have a print from the artist that is certified as genuine, and I want to see how it plays out as time goes on.

Don't forget that it's also a non-profit...

I have had far too much to drink on a School night. Good night.

I would imagine that the price of unsigned prints have gone up because a lot more people can afford a £4k print than a £15k print. I for one am in that category. Do I wish all my prints were the signed versions? Yes I do, but not really an option for me to have a signed LIITA but I can have a mint unframed version for £5k. At the end of the day its exactly the same print, with out the signature. So the art is the same, many artists choose to sign their art on the back so not to compromise the image, so I don't have a huge issue about buying unsigned prints. If the gap was less I'd probably go for signed but the difference is too much for me to have all my prints signed.

That being said I met a gallery owner the other day who has high end prints, Hirst, Warhol etc and he said he wouldn't put an unsigned Banksy on his wall or recommend to his clients. So I think most people would agree we'd all prefer to have signed prints but unsigned are more affordable and if you can live with it then its ok. the key component to me is the COA.

I know some people find it crass to discuss the value of art but I am not wealthy enough to be able to buy Banksy prints and not care about what they cost, so knowing if I ever need to divest they may have some value is reassuring. Plus as long as I own them, I can enjoy it. I can't say the same about stocks and shares.

Thats interesting, who was the gallery owner just so i know not to listen to anything he says if i come across him in the future, there are unsigned Warhols im 100% sure he would have on his wall and recommend to his clients.

There's a bit of a misconception in this whole thread that unsigned are rising at a different pace to signed.

Unfortunately it's not true. Their just having their rapid rise at a different time.

Canvases went up huge amounts and when price took them to a bracket above most peoples concept the focus was on signed prints.

Price did the samed to signed prints and now at the end of the chain it's happening to the unsigned.

It's just the order of things. Think the multiples on the original prices still favour canvasses then signed and then unsigned.

But it's normal and nothing strange.

I have 3 u/s Banksys.

And instead of buying another u/s I want to spend the cash upgrading one of my u/s to a signed.

It's a nice thing to have - not essential as the images are fantastic. But at this point I want the squiggle on at least 1 of them.

Anyone have a signed Applause....

What i'm saying is the market sets the price, and the gallery reacts. This is evident through how much unsigned prices are going up. So what happens when the prices near the signed level? Will there be a flattening point? Or how close will the two get before people consider the gap solid and "x-amount" is what everyone feels is the proper price difference for buying the signed vs. unsigned version (i.e. what the true value of simply having the signature is).

Because right now, the market (and buy the market, I mean people who want to own a Banksy print) has not been in agreement regarding the gap, and the gap has closed somewhat over the past few years; this is undeniable.

Basically, what is the value of a signature on a print as an abstract question? Not specifically applied to the art market at this very moment, but decades from now.

I suppose this would be much easier to gauge if Banksy had a print where the edition size of the signed and unsigned versions were the same.

Where can I buy a signed applause for 5500 ?  

I suppose this better addresses what I'm trying to ask. Is there ever a point where edition size and the fact that it's an AP become kind of moot, when everything else (the image, etc.) is the same? It's like when you see other artists selling APs of a print that look identical, aside from it being an AP (I remember the 'No Joke' AP by D*face being identical, and people couldn't sell it for 200p above the reg print price).

I haven't been in the art game long enough to know if this kind of thing dies away; it always just seemed kind of stupid to me to be purchasing things based on the edition size or things like that since it seems more about money/market than art itself.

That said, I completely understand why other APs are more valuable (like those Napalm APs, which are beautiful).

I think Replete's one is done with cling film.