The sketch certainly looks like it's done in Banksy's hand, so rather than a pretty much worthless "test" print. You have an original sketch. Though sorry to say, but chances of ever selling it as either, are slim to none.

I've seen the TV show 'hustle' and the film 'American hustle' and as a recognised authoritative medium it leads me to believe that some gritters do play the long game...

It's quite brusque, isn't it, this culture? I mean, I've seen, 'Exit Through The Gift Shop,' but still.

The reason I am here is to ascertain what my Banksy might be worth and to alert potential buyers that it will be coming up for sale in a month or so, when I've got some good pics and hopefully contacted the man who gave it to me to establish its provenance, somewhat, irrespective of Pest Control.

I had thought it was an unverified print with some scribble on the back, but now it's been pointed out that I probably have an original sketch of the famous Pulp Fiction piece, so its backside, which has not been seen for some years, may be more valuable than the image itself. So, we are in uncharted territory.

(Uncharted by me, that is. Or is it? Am I really a very sophisticated hustler playing a long con game? That might make a great sequel to 'Exit,' no?)

What I've told people privately is that I plan to put it on eBay with a starting price of under a grand, no reserve, and hope it gets to £3-5K. Now that it seems I am in possession of the Holy Grail of street art, it could be a lot more! I'm facing an extraordinary service charge of £12,842-odd, so that is how much I want, but I will take whatever I can get, innit.

I think he was being sarcastic lol

It was easy enough to contact the man who gave me this print in the Hakkasan office. Haruo 'Mog' Morishima writes:

'I can certainly shed some light: some years ago, I read an article about Banksy's agent who made it big in NYC and I recognised the guy in the photo as Steve, who organised the show and came to our offices afterwards to give us the prints.

It seems he's now back in London, so I would suggest that you get him to authenticate as I've heard this is now essential in order to get a proper valuation (presumably loads of fakes doing the rounds). But be aware that he seems to have fallen out with Banksy which may or may not help you...!'

What do you reckon, folks? It seems unlikely that I'm going to get a COA from Pest Control, so should I approach Lazarides? If I can get him to sign a statement saying, 'I remember delivering this print to the Hakkasan office. I recognise this one because of the drawing on its reverse, where Banksy sketched out for me what he was planning to do next,' that has got to be pretty compelling, provenance-wise?

Also, might it fuel a feud that I understand has been brewing for nigh on a decade, since Banksy jilted Lazarides? Pardon my naivety and all, y'all, but I see that your man already curated an Unauthorised Retrospective at Sotheby's in 2014; does that imply Lazarides is a parallel authority to Pest Control?

... this Haruo 'Mog' Morishima seems to be a banksy expert himself ... not sure why you need us

"It seems he's now back in London, so I would suggest that you get him to authenticate as I've heard this is now essential in order to get a proper valuation (presumably loads of fakes doing the rounds). But be aware that he seems to have fallen out with Banksy..."

GLWTS







*I do know who 'Mog' is

try contacting those guys on that programme Fake or Fortune! I think they're due a new series. They'll carbon analyse or infared laser it or something.

I have to say this has been a fantastic marketing exercise. Look at where it started - I have a print that could possibly be an AP it's not signed, not numbered there's no coa, and it has a pencil sketch on the back of two characters sitting down to this is the Holly Grail. He's got everyone salivating. He's even let you guys come up with PULP FICTION! Wow!!!!!

A master-class in how to promote a sale - well done OP. 

I can't believe we have all been so stupid!!!!!! lol



Op you have said this is a banksy, I'm afraid it's not until you have concrete evidence that says otherwise.

This is no different to a cone or a road sign on eBay with a stencil sprayed onto it (stencils also available on eBay).



It will be interesting to see the description of your ad, as unfortunately it will look like all the other stories that feed the gullible/newbie ebayers.


Good luck raising your needed funds

Hi, cjp. I'm enjoying your typo: 'queening' for 'queueing' summons images of gay hairdressers anxious to be in the audience for a reality show (possibly because I have a friend who has been tweeting bitchy remarks about the audience for The Voice.)

I see two issues:

1. Date. When astroboy identified it as a sketch for Pulp Fiction, I asked about the date of that work and elicited a quip from trapnel1 about April First (I originally planned to put this up for sale on eBay starting on April Fools' day, for added irony, but now I'm looking at May Day bank holiday w/e.) The internet tells me that the Old Street Pulp Fiction piece went up in 2002 and, presumably, not in the depths of winter, so that was well over a year before Santa's Ghetto.
As mojo says, this 'was certainly not the preliminary sketch for Pulp Fiction,' but he then says, 'that edition had already been printed way before then and was sold at the same Ghetto show.' I can't find any evidence for that (and I didn't actually visit the show). The best date I've come up with is 2004: www.hanguppictures.com/_catalog_45642/Banksy
So, this rough sketch wasn't a preliminary drawing, but it might have been drawn by Banksy to illustrate how he imagined a print edition might appear - compare the sketch, with it's border drawn in, to the print at that link.

2. Provenance. mojo reckons, 'The sketch on the back could of been doodled by anybody working at the show,' which is true, but surely the fluidity that cjp remarks upon indicates that it was more likely executed by someone who was already intimately familiar with the image, having drawn it before and made a big stencil out of it? Maybe.
The other thing is the absence of number or signature. From what I've gathered, every other copy of Laugh Now, including 69 Artist's Proofs, were signed and/or numbered, but not this one. There were no unsigned/numbered copies for sale. And, aside from its sexual connotations, 69 is an odd number. mojo reckons, 'they weren't particularly expensive in them days so using a 'write off' as scrap drawing paper wasn't such a big deal' but this is not a write-off, it is a perfect copy, and fifty quid may not mean much now, but in 2003 it was likely as much as anyone working the sale would be paid for the day. So, I reckon that the only person with the authority to desecrate Banksy's print was the man himself.
I imagine a scenario in which Banksy turned up for the signing and got into a conversation. about a planned print edition of Pulp Fiction - which is the same size, 50x70cm - and made this quick sketch, which rendered that particular copy unsaleable.

Who knows? Only Steve Lazarides and Banksy his bad self. I've e-mailed Laz and see from an article Mog referred me to that his gallery is closed on Mondays, when I guess they do admin. I've told him I can be at Rathbone Place in under an hour, so it's not impossible that his interest might be sufficiently piqued to summon me tomorrow...

From which post lol

Hey, man, no offence taken and thanks for your input.
I have now found another post on these boards from someone else who bought Pulp Fiction from Santa's Ghetto in December 2003 and www.schudio.co.uk take credit for printing it for that show, so I believe you, but the UAA page dedicated to that print confusingly dates it as 2004. Still, a week ago I was under the impression that the scribble on the back of my Laugh Now print was a floorplan!

I do take the point about provenance. Indeed, there is an auction running on eBay right now: 'Banksy "Laugh Now...." Unique work - HUGE - Pest Control - yes Banksy did this,' which is larger prototype of the monkey with antennae and feet, for which they are asking a mere $400K. The blurb says that it's previous owners were told by Pest Control in 2008: ”this is by the artist we have shown it to the artist and the artist confirms. It was done as a test stencil before the artist hit the streets…it was not intended as a work of art…!!!!....therefore the traditional certificate of authentication can´t be issued…” We don’t really care because we love Banksy and that's why we bought it, but we do think it´s odd to say that some of my art isn´t art…If we had got the authentication our stencil would be worth 300.000 USD and not 100.000.'

I guess a similar response is the best I can hope for from Pest Control, though Lazarides may (or may not) be a better bet.

I would like to offer an alternative £0.02.

Let’s not worry about how much it is worth and if someone I do not know is/is not going to make a windfall. Let’s consider its interest as art. i.e what it is and what it shows us about the way the artist works.

If it is an early sketch of Pulp Fiction, THAT’S JUST INTERESTING! As someone who collects Banksy for his art rather than the future value, I would love to see part of the formation process such a brilliant piece or just an artist’s freehand doodle.

Why will PC not authenticate? I understand that, by refusing to authenticate work they do not want to see sold, Pest Control, prevents forgeries,theft and discourages people removing street art from the street. This is a useful to banksy/art lovers and buyers - it stops us being ripped off - and helps preserve the “works in the wild” for all to enjoy. For this, we thank you.
In this specific case, I’m not sure what a refusal to authenticate is doing for anyone.

Assuming piece was legitimately acquired, i.e. it was leftover after Santa’s Grotto and that ninorc was given the piece/asked permission to remove it from a relevant person, at the time. If so, he broke no laws and did not remove work from the street. You could argue that as a sample it was intended to drive sales, if not be sold itself and therefore was a piece with commercial intent. Why should the fact that it was a sample vs. print vs a proof (many of which are sold), and many years later might be valuable, be held against him? It’s not like he stole the screens and is producing knock offs, or ripped down a wall to get it. Nor we can go back and raid the bins for more pieces. In fact, he may have done us all a favour, by looking and preserving a small part of the back story to an awesome piece.

So my suggestions:
Let’s not worry for if not ninorc is “s**t outta luck” or “rolling in clover” either way it’s his future, good luck to him. Many people make much more money, doing perfectly legal but totally evil things - every day.
As members or the UAA let’s collectively ask PC to consider authenticating this piece of history so it is not lost or falsely revered.
Finally we could come up with a way to break the deadlock. And constructive ways with which this can happen. If authenticated:
No-one is hurt
Banksy would be due his artist’s rights on any sale - not that he wants/needs them
Ninorc could agree to give anything over the £15k service charge bill he faces to a charity and upload decent hi-res pics to the forum
We all get to know/ see if this is a little bit of history

Ninorc / PC / UUA want do you say? We could light a small candle of interest in a dull s**tty world of bombs and Trump hate politics/ and make some-ones day that's got to be a better ending surely.


That said, Ninorc if you took it without consent...