Were you there (@ stik q) or Boyce? Bitter that you sold before they reached 15k?

Forgot your medication again?

I live in the states and am interested. What is the asking price please? Also, what is that black dot in the lower left corner of the image? Thanks.

I'm sure everyone here has wondered the same thing at some point on their art collection journey.
For various reasons the seller has concealed the edition number of the print for sale, so that mark isn't actually on the print.

This is a good point. The cowardice on my part is undeniable. Although my previous forum account has been banned by the Gods, I could certainly have been more open about my former username. I'm not even much of a Stik fan, in truth, and don't hold any of his work in my collection with the exception of a signed book. So even the choice of username is possibly misleading on my part. 

To attempt to answer your query, purely from my perspective of course. The intention of a for sale thread would typically be to facilitate the sale of something at a price that the seller is happy with. The best sale threads include photographs of the artwork, information detailing the location of the artwork, a thorough condition report, postage or collection options, as well as a brief history of the piece. For example where it was purchased, whether it has been framed, how it has been stored. 

To intentionally misrepresent the item that is for sale in any way could affect the decision of a potential buyer - in this case, the decision to misrepresent the history of the item is somewhat baffling. I can't see that whether the seller had purchased the print at the primary source or on the secondary market would make a huge amount of difference to its current value. I have no reason to doubt the rest of the information in the thread, but if casually dishonest about one fact, why not others? And so I felt compelled to flag this in the hope that the 'mistake' could be corrected.

Had it not been a sale thread, I would not have felt strongly enough to post. If the original poster were to clarify this mistake, I would be more than happy to clarify my former username. As said, your accusation of cowardice is entirely fair but for me it's a lesser crime than deliberately misleading those who might be considering spending a significant amount of money based on incorrect information.

Finally, I feel the biggest crime in this thread is the greed shown in the asking price. Let us remember for a moment the history of this print release, and the cause that the proceeds went to support. While I don't deny that those who have profited from the increase in value of this print are certainly entitled to keep the profit that it has generated, it would be nice to see some recognition for the original cause. Even a token donation as a percentage of the considerable profit would be a nice gesture. 

This isn't a complaint that's unique to this thread, or even to this print, but I do find the quest to maximise personal profit from well intentioned artwork disappointingly vulgar. 

This is a good point. The cowardice on my part is undeniable. Although my previous forum account has been banned by the Gods, I could certainly have been more open about my former username. I'm not even much of a Stik fan, in truth, and don't hold any of his work in my collection with the exception of a signed book. So even the choice of username is possibly misleading on my part. 

To attempt to answer your query, purely from my perspective of course. The intention of a for sale thread would typically be to facilitate the sale of something at a price that the seller is happy with. The best sale threads include photographs of the artwork, information detailing the location of the artwork, a thorough condition report, postage or collection options, as well as a brief history of the piece. For example where it was purchased, whether it has been framed, how it has been stored. 

To intentionally misrepresent the item that is for sale in any way could affect the decision of a potential buyer - in this case, the decision to misrepresent the history of the item is somewhat baffling. I can't see that whether the seller had purchased the print at the primary source or on the secondary market would make a huge amount of difference to its current value. I have no reason to doubt the rest of the information in the thread, but if casually dishonest about one fact, why not others? And so I felt compelled to flag this in the hope that the 'mistake' could be corrected.

Had it not been a sale thread, I would not have felt strongly enough to post. If the original poster were to clarify this mistake, I would be more than happy to clarify my former username. As said, your accusation of cowardice is entirely fair but for me it's a lesser crime than deliberately misleading those who might be considering spending a significant amount of money based on incorrect information.

Finally, I feel the biggest crime in this thread is the greed shown in the asking price. Let us remember for a moment the history of this print release, and the cause that the proceeds went to support. While I don't deny that those who have profited from the increase in value of this print are certainly entitled to keep the profit that it has generated, it would be nice to see some recognition for the original cause. Even a token donation as a percentage of the considerable profit would be a nice gesture. 

This isn't a complaint that's unique to this thread, or even to this print, but I do find the quest to maximise personal profit from well intentioned artwork disappointingly vulgar.