Urban Art Association

Banksy • Box Set, Walled Off Hotel, by met on Sept 11, 2024 6:13:26 GMT 1,

Sept 9, 2024 20:09:58 GMT 1 hnkpnk said:

Sept 9, 2024 15:43:28 GMT 1 met said:

Sept 9, 2024 8:36:24 GMT 1 hnkpnk said:

Sept 8, 2024 23:12:23 GMT 1 met said:

Sept 8, 2024 21:18:10 GMT 1 ryo said:

[...]



hello everyone,

a member of the forum sells these two pieces at a reasonable price, it's quite a nice lot I think but do I have reason to be wary of the authenticity even if everything looks clean however.
can someone help me please?

We help you. You help us. Quid pro quo.

Sound fair?



Which forum member is trying to sell you the counterfeit box set?


[...]

"Which forum member is trying to sell you the counterfeit box set?"

What makes you think the box set is counterfeit. It pretty much looks like mine and there are no clear signs it's fake as far as I can see.

[...]

The reduced detail in the Box Set that our mystery forum member is trying to dump onto ryo would be the most obvious tell.

There has also been a visible loss in the gradient tones of the image.

Both of these aspects are partly down to the fake being a higher‑contrast reproduction — meaning the more delicate features of the original, and some of the subtlety with its shading, have disappeared.



If the discrepancies had just been minor, they could have been attributed to different lighting, camera angles, image resolution, and possibly image focus. But I would instead describe the discrepancies as significant.



Below are four close‑ups from the image ryo posted (left side), juxtaposed with corresponding close‑ups from an authentic Box Set (right side).

Note in particular the hands/fingers and faces of the children, along with the shading of the tower.

It is relative coarseness on the left, versus greater fineness on the right.











__________


The counterfeit Box Set offered to ryo is actually very similar to:

(i)  the fake sold by @buckets101 / Mohammed123 (Paypal/email: nidal.nidal.issa@gmail.com; associated name: Nidal Alabab) in 2021**; and

(ii)  the two fakes that shamsa was selling on the forum in 2023***.


[...]

As I tend to do, I don't say anything with 100% certainty.

I'm not saying this is real or fake, but the "reduced detail" and "loss in the gradient tones" can equally be caused by an image not high enough in resolution.

What I see is an image that may lack detail because of low resolution and with serious jpeg artefacts.

I would say that it is impossible for anyone to be absolutely sure if this print is fake or not with the available pics.

The stone is harder to copy and from what I can see it looks pretty good. The colours are right, the topography looks right and the pattern on the front looks right.

Without better pictures I wouldn't buy this, but I wouldn't rule out it's real.

Sept 9, 2024 20:25:31 GMT 1 hnkpnk said:

Unfortunately I don't have Photoshop anymore. But if I had I would take your pics of the real print and reduce them to about 30-50% in size, which I think would bring them to the resolution of ryo's pics in your comparisons. I would also export them as jpg with optimization for web. I suspect your versions then would resemble ryo's.

We may have to agree to disagree about resolution, and how lowering it would likely affect the appearance of specific details within the image of the Box Set print.



But I appreciate the posts and the explanations of your reasoning.


__________


As a very long‑winded aside, I do also share your natural wariness (and likely weariness) of individuals who express their positions in a definitive manner, without nuance or caveats, in cases where the specific topics those positions relate to are ambiguous at best.



When reviewing drafts of posts before publishing, a fair amount of my time is spent thinking of exceptions, different interpretations, and alternative scenarios or viewpoints. In addition, I'll try to safeguard other members against my potential biases, and to identify and weed out stances I hold that could be deemed fallacious, uninformed or poorly considered.

Our respective approaches here are probably quite similar in rigour.



One of my exercises to remain sharp and ill‑at‑ease (with me favouring the discomfort of thought and doubt, over the comfort of a fixed opinion) is to actively seek out evidence and arguments that conflict with my own. That could contradict, undermine or otherwise expose my evidence and arguments as weak or flawed.

Quite often in parallel, I'll see if I can prove the very opposite of what I would normally claim to be fair, reasonable or accurate.

It amounts to arguing against oneself.

This, because our positions need to be regularly challenged and tested. They must be capable of withstanding scrutiny, especially in light of any new evidence or competing perspectives that may arise over time.



Cautiousness would therefore be my default position.



It certainly isn't my wish to be "that guy":

The irritant who presents opinions as if they're facts. Who confidently passes off mere speculation as absolute truth. Who claims that his standpoint is the only relevant, correct or righteous one. Who is more concerned about being seen to win arguments than about actual truthseeking and being fair.

I would say, "Fuck that guy."

He's hubristic, thoughtless, probably a fool. And perhaps worst of all, irresponsible. At times, maybe even dangerous.



[In this respect, I've generally become rather adept at hedging — when appropriate (at least when I'm in the healthy state of being uncertain), incorporating suitable qualifying language into my posts to avoid being absolute:

•  may; might
•  could; would perhaps
•  occasionally; sometimes; not infrequently; quite often
•  generally; usually; normally; more often than not
•  quite / fairly / reasonably likely; not unlikely
•  relatively
•  on balance; reasonably; not unreasonably; without unfairness
•  could be seen / viewed / interpreted as
•  seems like; feels as if; appear to be
•  potentially; possibly; perhaps
•  arguably; apparently; seemingly
•  if so; if that is correct; provided this is accurate
•  etc.]


__________


Nothwithstanding the above, and while always remaining open to the possibility of being wrong, I am confident the Box Set offered to ryo is a counterfeit.



It is worth revisiting the posts dated 29 and 30 June 2023* and 26 November 2023* by shamsa (apt username).

The accompanying photographs, of the two fake Box Sets they were offloading on this forum, are well‑lit, in‑focus, and of a decent size — each being 4032 x 3024 pixels, and around 2 MB:


Fake numbered 2639

Jun 29, 2023 12:43:41 GMT 1 shamsa said:

Looking to sell this box set for 750 usd ,located in Bethlehem and free shipping is included.

Fake numbered 2532

Nov 26, 2023 11:19:17 GMT 1 shamsa said:

To my eyes, both the print images and the shape of the concrete slabs from the shamsa fakes look pretty much the same as those in the Box Set that somebody here is trying to sell to ryo:





__________


While there may still be a divergence in our views, a point on which we might agree is that it would be helpful for the relevant Box Set seller to step up and offer some input on this thread — including about the provenance of their Box Set.

After all, there may be a good explanation for the present confusion.

Perhaps the above photo was indeed just too low in its resolution. Or the seller made an innocent mistake regarding the authenticity of their item.



However, if the seller were to:

(a)  fail to join this forum discussion within a reasonable timeframe; and also

(b)  ignore any request by ryo for additional, close‑up photos of their Box Set,

then it would not be unreasonable to presume bad faith on their part.



In which case, it would seem fair for ryo to disclose the username of the seller.

This, in the higher, collective interest of other forum members, to allow everyone to better protect themselves from a possible scammer hiding in our midst.

Sept 9, 2024 20:09:58 GMT 1 hnkpnk said:

Sept 9, 2024 15:43:28 GMT 1 met said:

Sept 9, 2024 8:36:24 GMT 1 hnkpnk said:

Sept 8, 2024 23:12:23 GMT 1 met said:

Sept 8, 2024 21:18:10 GMT 1 ryo said:

[...]



hello everyone,

a member of the forum sells these two pieces at a reasonable price, it's quite a nice lot I think but do I have reason to be wary of the authenticity even if everything looks clean however.
can someone help me please?

We help you. You help us. Quid pro quo.

Sound fair?



Which forum member is trying to sell you the counterfeit box set?


[...]

"Which forum member is trying to sell you the counterfeit box set?"

What makes you think the box set is counterfeit. It pretty much looks like mine and there are no clear signs it's fake as far as I can see.

[...]

The reduced detail in the Box Set that our mystery forum member is trying to dump onto ryo would be the most obvious tell.

There has also been a visible loss in the gradient tones of the image.

Both of these aspects are partly down to the fake being a higher‑contrast reproduction — meaning the more delicate features of the original, and some of the subtlety with its shading, have disappeared.



If the discrepancies had just been minor, they could have been attributed to different lighting, camera angles, image resolution, and possibly image focus. But I would instead describe the discrepancies as significant.



Below are four close‑ups from the image ryo posted (left side), juxtaposed with corresponding close‑ups from an authentic Box Set (right side).

Note in particular the hands/fingers and faces of the children, along with the shading of the tower.

It is relative coarseness on the left, versus greater fineness on the right.











__________


The counterfeit Box Set offered to ryo is actually very similar to:

(i)  the fake sold by @buckets101 / Mohammed123 (Paypal/email: nidal.nidal.issa@gmail.com; associated name: Nidal Alabab) in 2021**; and

(ii)  the two fakes that shamsa was selling on the forum in 2023***.


[...]

As I tend to do, I don't say anything with 100% certainty.

I'm not saying this is real or fake, but the "reduced detail" and "loss in the gradient tones" can equally be caused by an image not high enough in resolution.

What I see is an image that may lack detail because of low resolution and with serious jpeg artefacts.

I would say that it is impossible for anyone to be absolutely sure if this print is fake or not with the available pics.

The stone is harder to copy and from what I can see it looks pretty good. The colours are right, the topography looks right and the pattern on the front looks right.

Without better pictures I wouldn't buy this, but I wouldn't rule out it's real.

Sept 9, 2024 20:25:31 GMT 1 hnkpnk said:

Unfortunately I don't have Photoshop anymore. But if I had I would take your pics of the real print and reduce them to about 30-50% in size, which I think would bring them to the resolution of ryo's pics in your comparisons. I would also export them as jpg with optimization for web. I suspect your versions then would resemble ryo's.

We may have to agree to disagree about resolution, and how lowering it would likely affect the appearance of specific details within the image of the Box Set print.



But I appreciate the posts and the explanations of your reasoning.


__________


As a very long‑winded aside, I do also share your natural wariness (and likely weariness) of individuals who express their positions in a definitive manner, without nuance or caveats, in cases where the specific topics those positions relate to are ambiguous at best.



When reviewing drafts of posts before publishing, a fair amount of my time is spent thinking of exceptions, different interpretations, and alternative scenarios or viewpoints. In addition, I'll try to safeguard other members against my potential biases, and to identify and weed out stances I hold that could be deemed fallacious, uninformed or poorly considered.

Our respective approaches here are probably quite similar in rigour.



One of my exercises to remain sharp and ill‑at‑ease (with me favouring the discomfort of thought and doubt, over the comfort of a fixed opinion) is to actively seek out evidence and arguments that conflict with my own. That could contradict, undermine or otherwise expose my evidence and arguments as weak or flawed.

Quite often in parallel, I'll see if I can prove the very opposite of what I would normally claim to be fair, reasonable or accurate.

It amounts to arguing against oneself.

This, because our positions need to be regularly challenged and tested. They must be capable of withstanding scrutiny, especially in light of any new evidence or competing perspectives that may arise over time.



Cautiousness would therefore be my default position.



It certainly isn't my wish to be "that guy":

The irritant who presents opinions as if they're facts. Who confidently passes off mere speculation as absolute truth. Who claims that his standpoint is the only relevant, correct or righteous one. Who is more concerned about being seen to win arguments than about actual truthseeking and being fair.

I would say, "Fuck that guy."

He's hubristic, thoughtless, probably a fool. And perhaps worst of all, irresponsible. At times, maybe even dangerous.



[In this respect, I've generally become rather adept at hedging — when appropriate (at least when I'm in the healthy state of being uncertain), incorporating suitable qualifying language into my posts to avoid being absolute:

•  may; might
•  could; would perhaps
•  occasionally; sometimes; not infrequently; quite often
•  generally; usually; normally; more often than not
•  quite / fairly / reasonably likely; not unlikely
•  relatively
•  on balance; reasonably; not unreasonably; without unfairness
•  could be seen / viewed / interpreted as
•  seems like; feels as if; appear to be
•  potentially; possibly; perhaps
•  arguably; apparently; seemingly
•  if so; if that is correct; provided this is accurate
•  etc.]


__________


Nothwithstanding the above, and while always remaining open to the possibility of being wrong, I am confident the Box Set offered to ryo is a counterfeit.



It is worth revisiting the posts dated 29 and 30 June 2023* and 26 November 2023* by shamsa (apt username).

The accompanying photographs, of the two fake Box Sets they were offloading on this forum, are well‑lit, in‑focus, and of a decent size — each being 4032 x 3024 pixels, and around 2 MB:


Fake numbered 2639

Jun 29, 2023 12:43:41 GMT 1 shamsa said:

Looking to sell this box set for 750 usd ,located in Bethlehem and free shipping is included.

Fake numbered 2532

Nov 26, 2023 11:19:17 GMT 1 shamsa said:

To my eyes, both the print images and the shape of the concrete slabs from the shamsa fakes look pretty much the same as those in the Box Set that somebody here is trying to sell to ryo:





__________


While there may still be a divergence in our views, a point on which we might agree is that it would be helpful for the relevant Box Set seller to step up and offer some input on this thread — including about the provenance of their Box Set.

After all, there may be a good explanation for the present confusion.

Perhaps the above photo was indeed just too low in its resolution. Or the seller made an innocent mistake regarding the authenticity of their item.



However, if the seller were to:

(a)  fail to join this forum discussion within a reasonable timeframe; and also

(b)  ignore any request by ryo for additional, close‑up photos of their Box Set,

then it would not be unreasonable to presume bad faith on their part.



In which case, it would seem fair for ryo to disclose the username of the seller.

This, in the higher, collective interest of other forum members, to allow everyone to better protect themselves from a possible scammer hiding in our midst.