And there you have it... £26,000. Discussion concluded.  I am not sure if fees are included in the price listed below.  

Not to add to this already crazy long thread, but I have to agree with what some folks have pointed out about signed vs unsigned. I remember a few years ago telling a local collector / gallery owner that unsigned Banksy prints would eventually start going for well over $7k. My logic was that signed works would eventually fall into the hands of collectors who have no interest in giving them up. Therefore, driving the price up. Anyone who wanted a Banksy would have to settle for unsigned. At the time, I was laughed at....

With that being said, I think the reason why we're seeing a spike in LP covers is because unsigned works have been getting a bit harder to find at decent prices. My thoughts are the gap between signed vs unsigned will continue getting smaller and smaller.

Depending on auction fees to seller (6%-10%) if it sold for £26k he would have netted less than what he was asking for on here. We all know auction settings are a different beast than pps.

They charge the seller nothing for items of this value. There is no listing fee nor is there a commission charged to the seller. The only money he'll lose out on is the bad exchange rate banks charge.

What kind of auction houses are we talking about here ?

Am genuinely interested to know who waives fees on a 20-30k piece ? Are we talking about the ones that auction mostly LPs and other posters, or high street names ?

Artnet isnt exactly an auction house. Items never actually leave the seller and provenance is done with pictures and sellers word. No overhead means no fees. With that said, there were no fees on sellers side.

The real question is why the originals he did paint rather than the posters are not going ballistic.

Either Prints are too high or probably more likely the originals are far too low.

As usual the same hype monkeys hype every print !
The fact is this print sold for $32,000?! That's around £24k to the seller
So thank you !!
Not even close to £30k!!

Going to have to respectfully disagree completely! (Emphasis added!) The signature is a YUGE part of the art imho. We are not talking about original paintings but prints. Therefore the actual signature is the only "stamp of approval" for lack of a better term to prove that this was in fact created and endorsed by the artist. Otherwise lets just call it a poster that perhaps the artist had nothing to do with at all and never even looked at. He could have easily just over the phone given the printer the "go ahead". I know that I am not alone in thinking this way as it is a proven fact that signed prints do and (imo always will) command a significant premium over the non signed prints (posters).

[

Respectfully disagree back banksy didn't even sign all the prints, he didn't actually put a lot of the street art on the walls in the early days. The pest control COA is all that matters. Would a Monet or a basquit that was 100% real but not signed by worth less? I doubt it very much

Better yes but basic economics tell us the more expensive something becomes the less people can afford it. In this case we have a plan B. If people can't afford signed but can afford unsigned then that market starts to grow much quicker. I genuinely believe the gap will close in 5 years. But hey just my thoughts. I get it wrong A LOT

Pointless, pedantic, irrelevant question

is it?

i am interested in the answer

i would have thought they should just by the nature of them being a smaller edition go up more

Take a Reaper, edition of 300 against a Flying copper, edition of 750. the reaper should be worth more than the signed Copper, shouldn't it?

Russ for once i wasnt being any of that, i was genuinely interested in your take on these prints ! The only signed prints i have are of this nature hence my question.