Nice pics? ... for sale?

v nice ... but it would probably help your sale if you put your location ... £ or $ ... framing particulars ... sell framed or unframed ... original owner with receipt/COA ... etc etc

... and I have not even mentioned putting a suggested price/offer+

Thanks guys for the replies and advice. I had included more info in the subject line, but I should've put in the body of the message...

Selling framed behind UV glass. With COA. I am the second owner. Bought from original owner as is - framed behind UV glass. Offering £4,000. Located in London

I used to own #6/8 of that one and can only agree how good it looks in the flesh ! I sold mine for £1,100 back in 2012 but not sure that is of any help for current pricing ;-)

Looks like a bit of the sand background has chipped.
Were these sent in a tube or flat?

As the new owner can’t say it bothers me too much 😀

That was a finster. Different image, different medium, different size. Mostly, different.

Yeah, just looked. Not even close except, maybe, pig based. I like these (both). Given my amazing powers of perception and observation I’ll just stick some sand on a picture of a pig, eh.

I don't think they're downplaying, but rather, not hyping.

Here's the most recent Bast auction results... Not exactly earth shattering.

 

Look, I don't own any bast so I don't have any invested interest in keeping the price up or down. But the fact is, that auction house listed that particular mickey as a "rare one-off," which many people, myself included, felt bordered on deceptive listing practices. Had it been listed properly, who knows where it would have hammered.

And you're right, for all we know "this guy bought this print for that price framed and all." But for all we know, he also bought it for a whole lot less. And if we can't assume it's one way, then we can't assume it's the other.

A post-sale discovery of having been given (and having partly relied upon) false information would be a source of annoyance for me. The issues are separate to the actual damage — which is slightly distracting but nevertheless minor.

If we assume jswo's comments are accurate, then you were misled on two fronts:


1. Original condition

The seller's assertion in the thread subtitle of "Condition as original buyer received from BAST." is directly contradicted by jswo's post. Leaving aside physical differences, for many collectors there may be a notable psychological distinction between acquiring:

(i) an artwork in artist's condition, i.e. as the artist intended; and

(ii) an artwork that was in some way damaged after it left the studio.


2. Provenance

The seller confirmed, "I am the second owner. Bought from original owner as is". That claim regarding the ownership chain also appears contradicted by jswo's post. On the basis of details available in this thread, it's no longer even clear how many times the artwork has traded hands since it was first purchased. Depending on the individual collector, here too there may be a psychological distinction between acquiring:

(i) an artwork that has had very few previous owners; and

(ii) an artwork that's been passed around multiple times in quick succession like a two-bit whore.



Again, not all collectors care about such matters. But some really do care. Damage to an artwork and the manner in which it was viewed and "respected" by former owners can influence the feelings of its current owner. This may be in terms of their emotional attachment to the piece — and, ultimately, its significance and financial value to them.

Likewise, the memory of an entire buying experience can enhance or taint a collector's perception of the art they own.

____________


It's worth emphasising that I'm not accusing icucme of having lied. I've no idea if they're honest or not. They could easily have been duped themselves, simply relaying the lies fed to them by the person they bought the piece from.

And so, icucme could well have been acting in good faith — albeit irresponsibly, given their failure to qualify (by referring to their limited knowledge) their factual claims about the artwork's original condition and provenance. [I will add that, impression-wise, their forum account coming across to my eyes as a burner / secondary account is also less than ideal.]

____________


In this instance, all the above is probably a question of principle more than anything else. Based on your post, even if you'd been aware of the full truth at the time, it doesn't look like your decision to buy the artwork would have been affected. At most, I suspect such knowledge might have influenced the agreed sale price.


On a completely different note, in my opinion the Bäst image is a very strong one.

I was very comfortable with the price I paid and the condition. I don’t think many Bast collectors expect mint examples.
Due to the thick paint and sand background it’s not surprising there is a little edge damage.

How refreshing from the buyer. It's paper, it gets dinged and slightly creased from time to time, hardly means a print is ruined or excessively damaged. The same goes for a bit of tape or ink on the back, no one's ever going to see it so who cares! Lovey Pig BTW.

legend