Just contact Invader and ask him if these prints are authorised by him, if they are fake or not. If Invader refuses to reply and they do turn out to be fake, make a claim against Invader and the seller. If thats not possible then if Invader refuse to confirm or deny or answer it just ruins Invaders credibility.

Abort, Abort, Delete, Delete - apologies, as I was reading the last page first.

you can't make a claim against Invader, it would be laughed at and thrown out if it's a fake.

It's like me buying a fake Rolex, emailing customer support with a picture, if they don't reply me claiming it's their fault I bought a fake, the artist (or in my example company) that has had their work faked would not be culpable, they have a claim against the seller if anything

I didn't even get 1 but still want me fucking money back 😤

I have deal with Andy few times and never had any problem!
If he sold those for sure was with out know it!

Those was offered to all the gallery and dealers in UK and USA!

This is what is very odd.

Cheers for posting your email exchange.

As with the posts by pascal1 and djtoine (assuming they're genuine), it's very helpful to have these communications that come directly from Orbi.

Because, in the end, what the publisher has to say about the unsigned print release is completely secondary to what Invader or his representative has to say. Moreover, that publisher's viewpoint arguably becomes irrelevant to the extent it is contradicted by the artist. No due diligence is therefore complete if the determination by the most critical figure — Invader himself — has been left out of the equation.

__________


What's interesting yet confusing with Orbi's reply to you is that it's contradicted by the response to pascal1. And to djtoine (in French). Regarding the latter, here's an English translation:

"Hello,

It depends on what you mean by legitimate, but on the whole I would say no.
It's the same publisher (State of Play) as the original print, the same design but this print run was produced and sold without the authorisation of Invader.
In any event these are not signed. It's a bit like if you were to buy an IKEA type of copy, but a bit better since it comes from the same publisher.
Afterwards, everything depends on the price you're being asked to pay."

__________


There's a notable difference as well in tone and substance when considering the email you received. As previously referred to by woodman, Orbi comes across as almost uncertain, as if responding off-the-cuff: "[...] so I guess it is legit." It could also be a language-barrier issue.

The replies to pascal1 and djtoine are far more definitive, categoric — and far more detailed.



Separately, it's worth considering the chronology. Your email came through on 27 November 2017. djtoine received their communication at some point the following month, in December 2017. [It's unclear when pascal1 received their message.]

Could it be that, during this time interval, Orbi sought additional clarification from Invader about the unsigned release? Or that Invader gave the matter further thought (perhaps trawling through records and memories) and subsequently revised his position?

__________


The crucial element is where the artist stands today in relation to these 250 unsigned copies of Prisoners:

1. If Invader has chosen to embrace the edition as legitimate, as part of his body of work, recent buyers need to hear this news — as confirmation that what they ended up with corresponds to what they believed they were purchasing.

2. If Invader or his representative continues to state the edition was produced and sold without consent, then it is officially unauthorised. We are then talking about backdoor prints and copyright infringement.


Has anyone received an update from Orbi in the last 48 hours?

wonder if he would get his retrospective cut of 50% + on sales on the 250 prints

 Interested to see how it plays out

not sure he loses necessarily he can release a new print, or a print of an old work and sell out instantly, in fact I'd argue he possibly loses if he agrees after this farce

The original story was that most of the unsigned run were given away free at a launch event or with a magazine or something.
So his cut of nothing would be fairly small

Due to the ambiguous nature of this print release/Sale, CAT shall be offering a full refund of the purchase price of the Invader print to all that purchased ..
Please email me for details of refund
Third party sales shall not be considered for refund I’m afraid .,
I will not be responding to PMs .. please email at info@contemporaryarttrader.com ..
Sincere apologies to all for the confusion
CAT

Through me yes

CAT - as I assume these will not be fully verified hence the refund offer what will actually happen to the prints when you receive them back? I have spent a chunk on getting mine framed so wouldn't mind keeping it and paying the perceived value they are? Is this possible?

 I agree with you on that. But one can contact Invader and ask him if these prints are fake or not. If he gave his permission.

 If he refuses to reply a simple yes or no and the prints turn out to be fake then Invader loses credibility for refusing to clarify.