You shouldn't be so lazy. You should get the Pest Control sorted

You shouldn't be so lazy. You should get the Pest Control sorted

While championing free speech, I also believe self-censorship and restraint are at times a social responsibility. Especially when one is unsure of the facts.

Questioning the authenticity of a print is fair enough when done in good faith. But it's a giant leap and another thing entirely to make what comes across as assertions about genuineness. In the absence of certainty, that's just unhelpful and reckless.

Of interest here is how this thread developed after only a few posts:

It starts with you voicing a strong suspicion. But by your second post, you've already changed gears. The problem is that the change wasn't based on receipt of any new, reliable information. All it took was similar expressions of doubt from two other members (who are not certain of the facts themselves). That group dynamic, as opposed to evidence, was enough for you to make the switch — from simply asking questions on a public forum, to feeling sufficiently confident to pretty much declare the print a fake.

------

Condition issues aside, and for what it's worth, I see nothing suspect about the Golf Sale depicted in the photographs of the eBay listing. Separately, I imagine Pest Control would be in a position to promptly confirm to any buyer whether it issued a COA on 13 December to the seller in relation to the print and specific edition number.

Suspect someone on here or a gallery bought it. If it is real, no doubt it will reappear a few months down the line after a trip to Bignell's and sold as mint for four times the price.