Why would they not list provenance as La
z? Thatโs where I bought mine from and the receipt etc from La
z. Maybe thatโs what they are referencing
Me too for Hypnosis
I refer to our discussion from page 18-20 - it's obviously the same print.
i got a reply from the auction house.
"We have noted your comments, but in our opinion, the discrepancies mentioned on the website are not evident when compared with the original work. Specifically, we do not find the Lazarides embossed stamp to be of a non-compliant size, and I would like to point out that the "color splatter" on the mark is also present on the embossed stamp. Additionally, we do not believe the embossed stamp has any differing characteristics from those seen in works that are deemed authentic within the forum.
Furthermore, please note that the artwork is accompanied by proof of purchase from the Lazarides Gallery in London."they sent me some pics ans a receipt.
i'm still not convinced, what do you think?
(from the composing - the top one is the one from the auction, the two lower ones are original photographs from invader exhibitions)
Thank you for the helpful warning and follow‑up information,
gripin.
I had never previously heard of
Gregory's Auction House Bologna.
aste-gregorys.bidinside.com/it/lot/19846/invader-francia-1969-invaded-/1. Like you've mentioned, this print numbered
26/50 is the same
counterfeit Invaded Scream that was listed on eB
ay in February 2024
* by the scammer entity,
CharityStars*.
It is worth adding that CharityStars used to be a member of this message board. But they deleted all of their posts after their dodgy actions were challenged by others here.
2. The eB
ay sale by CharityStars in February either:
(a)
completed, and the new owner (perhaps after realising they foolishly bought a counterfeit In
vader) decided to quickly resell by consigning with Gregory's; or
(b)
failed to complete, and the original seller found replacement dupes (or co‑conspirators) at Gregory's.
3. Somewhat trivial, but it seems as if the Gregory's consignor may have failed to disclose to them the full provenance of their print โ focusing solely on the La
zarides Gallery name/reputation, and omitting any reference to the apparent eB
ay sale just nine months ago.
At the very least, that would be highly misleading.
One would think such a lack of transparency would raise a few eyebrows at Gregory's, calling into question the honesty and integrity of their consignor.
4. Inherent to the nature of
woodcut printmaking is that each print from the same edition will have minor differences.
However, when closely examined, the eB
ay CharityStars / Gregory's fake In
vader has implausibly-too-numerous similarities in detail with a print that was resold by
Christie's on 28 September 2023.
To produce their fake print numbered 26/50, I suspect the counterfeiter used as their
source image the Ch
ristie's high‑res jpg of the authentic print numbered
6/50:
onlineonly.christies.com/s/contemporary-edition/invader-b-1969-102/1910435. Although reasonably well‑executed, the Gregory's fake print is also an
obvious counterfeit for those who know what to look for.
6. The most glaring tell (and the simplest one to illustrate) is the
incorrectly‑sized Lazarides blindstamp.
This was highlighted very effectively by the attachment in your last post. As also referred to by you, the issue was discussed in some detail back in February, including by
cemltz* and myself
*.
7. Besides the blindstamp, there are
multiple other tells that point to the Gregory's print being a counterfeit.
I'll refrain from highlighting each one, because this would only serve to better educate the fraudsters who access the fo
rum.
Still,
the blindstamp alone is already our smoking gun.
It is, in and of itself, all the evidence we need of fakery. As soon as we spotted that blindstamp was the wrong size, it was,
"Case closed". There ceased to be any need for us to further investigate the matter.
8. Notwithstanding point 7 above and purely for argument's sake, let's consider the comments raised by Gregory's:
8.1 "Specifically, we do not find the Lazarides embossed stamp to be of a non‑compliant size,"I am unaware of what exactly Gregory's was looking at. But if they did see your attachment (comparing their fake print numbered 26/50 with the two genuine prints just underneath โ numbered 43/50 and artist's proof X), then Gregory's are simply being
ridiculous and disingenuous.
Since the fake blindstamp is about 20% wider than it should be (most noticeable when the proportions are compared to reference points on the printed image), the size discrepancy is significant. This would be evident to any layperson with a working pair of eyes, let alone to an art professional:
Fake Gregory's print 26/50 (top) vs Genuine print 43/50 and Genuine A/P X (below)8.2 "and I would like to point out that the "color splatter" on the mark is also present on the embossed stamp. Additionally, we do not believe the embossed stamp has any differing characteristics from those seen in works that are deemed authentic within the forum."Given point 8.1 (and point 6) above, the presence of a paint‑splatter design on the blindstamp of Gregory's fake print, along with any other similarities to a genuine blindstamp, are
irrelevant.
Nevertheless, I would still suggest that Gregory's
check once again the blindstamp on its fake print. Especially the shape and length of the paint‑splatter design at the base of the letter
'L'. They should then compare that shape and length to an authentic blindstamp, like the one for A/P X.
In the side-by-side comparison below, note that the blindstamp on the Gregory's print (left) was applied with force, resulting in a very clean and well‑defined embossing. Yet
despite this, much of the paint‑splatter design is still missing to the left of the letter
'L'. Whereas it is clearly visible on the genuine blindstamp for A/P X (right):
Fake Gregory's print 26/50 (left) vs Genuine A/P X (right)8.3 "Furthermore, please note that the artwork is accompanied by proof of purchase from the Lazarides Gallery in London."Out of curiosity, do we know whether the
"proof of purchase" mentioned is just an image of the receipt, or if it is a hardcopy receipt?
If merely a
jpg or pdf, that is hardly reassuring. A photo or scan of a genuine receipt could still be reproduced countless times, and misused to offer an air of legitimacy to an equally countless number of fakes.
In case Gregory's actually has a
hardcopy receipt, this too could be forged (we have, for example, seen all‑too‑many fake receipts for purported "Ban
ksy" items claimed to have been acquired from the Walled Off Hotel).
And even if the hardcopy receipt were genuine, a scammer could easily separate it from its corresponding authentic print, to misuse the receipt as false provenance for a fake print instead.
Whatever the situation may be, Gregory's proof of purchase argument is inconclusive, thus
unpersuasive. And (once again for emphasis)
irrelevant, given the issue with the blindstamp.
9. The key
unanswered question for me is whether
Gregory's Auction House Bologna is acting in:
(a) good faith or
(b) bad faith.
In other words, is Gregory's just a bit clueless, at least when it comes to In
vader prints and the prevalance of counterfeits that exist in the In
vader market? They may be honest, yet too credulous, with their collective judgement perhaps also impaired by wishful thinking, greed, confirmation bias, and/or self‑delusion.
Or, alternatively, query whether Gregory's might be dishonest, cavalier when it comes to authenticity, and willing to turn a blind eye every now and then,
provided:
(i) they can rely on plausible deniability (
"Trust us, guv. We didn't know it was fake. The consignor showed us a receipt!"); and
(ii) the relevant consignment is by an important‑enough client, who may bring in attractive commissions on a regular basis.
10. A
best‑case scenario would be that the staff at Gregory's is
innocent, but ignorant and possibly incompetent.
In fairness, it is not their fault if they've had little or no experience with prints by In
vader.
That said, any reputable auction house should know how a woodcut is made, and the fact it is a
relief printmaking technique. The process results in a textured print, an uneven surface (with areas that are embossed or debossed), visible particularly in raking light.
If Gregory's can be bothered to re‑examine Lot 35 more carefully, what they will probably discover is that their print's surface is flat, i.e.
not a woodcut.
Moreover, any auction house should have access to a regular magnifying glass.
Zooming in on the images of Lot 35 from Gregory's own website, I see no evidence of actual relief printing inks having been used โ including the texture of the ink‑dispersion (within the printed areas) that one could reasonably expect from a woodcut.
When looking at the Gregory's images up‑close, all I see is what appears to be an
inkjet/digital print:
Fake Gregory's print 26/50 (left) vs Genuine Christie's print 6/50 (right)11. My general takeaway:
If, despite the clear warnings expressly provided to them,
Gregory's Auction House Bologna chooses to double down by continuing with the sale of their fake In
vader print, then from hereon they can be dismissed as a Mickey Mouse operation.
12. As a tangental aside, I have in my time come across a fair number of art‑world professionals โ holding titles like "specialist" or "director", getting paid to do their jobs, having worked full‑time at those jobs for years.
And it never ceases to surprise me when I sense that some of these individuals are corrupt, or even less informed than a hobby enthusiast like myself.
One day, when I'm old enough to no longer have any qualms about being gratuitously offensive, I might just say to them:
"You know the impostor syndrome we sometimes feel while lying in bed at night. Well, in your case, I believe that feeling is completely justified."
- any thoughts?
