lv90210
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,030
👍🏻 1,926
January 2018
|
Banksy 'Glory' original alt version?, by lv90210 on Sept 14, 2020 7:21:24 GMT 1, Hi all, Thought I’d share a recent find with you and, as the most pedantic bunch of Banksy goons, get your opinion! So, for starters this came from ebay. Yes I know, groan, not another etc etc, but hear me out. I bought this for £200 just because it seemed interesting and slightly odd. The seller claimed it was ‘found’ by some bins in East London several years ago. So, many of you will know the original of this Banksy piece, Glory. Sold last by Christie’s in 2013 for a mere £70,875. Not his best work IMO, but hey, interesting nonetheless. So, the large size version is here (https://www.christies.com/img/LotImages/2013/CKS/2013_CKS_01135_0381_000(banksy_glory011356).jpg) if you care to compare, however I have done so below. Firstly, here’s the one I bought.  Ok, so the reason that this seemed interesting is, firstly, why someone would bother to fake it? Everyone with access to a computer and half a brain can figure out it was sold by a decent auction house, and is now either hanging on the wall of a lovely house or wrapped up and hidden in a bank vault somewhere. So, why bother? You’re never going to fool someone into spending a lot on it, because they’ll do some research (most likely). So, to go to all the trouble of copying it, finding exactly the same frame and faking it in general just seems a bit of a low value effort. Secondly, the version I have is different to the original, so again, if you were going to fake it, why make it different? Here are some comparison images between the original and mine. I guess one reason is that someone like me might buy it, think it was some kind of pre-production effort and write about it on an urban art forum, but again for £200 it seems an awful lot of work. There are plenty more differences if you look, well, not even that closely. Lots of bits on mine where it looks like the paint has been brushed and filled in on top.  You might think that the differences are just someone embellishing a print with extras, and it certainly looks like that in places, but my version actually has parts (such as the hook of the G and the intersection of the R) where you can see the print below, whereas on the original you cant. This would suggest that its not done over the top of a copy, as you wouldn’t be able to see those parts. It’s possible that someone found the original Spitfire print, not hard, and did it from scratch, but to get it so similar is pretty impressive, no? I’ve taken my version out of the frame to examine more closely, and it’s hard to tell whether it’s paint or print, but looks in places definitely like paint.  There are also some scratches bottom centre and right that appear on the original and not on mine, which would again suggest it’s not a copy, see below  The print itself is a fairly flimsy affair stuck onto some cardboard, which kind of suits Banksy’s style to my mind, but that’s just conjecture. The backing board is signed with what looks to me a pretty decent signature for the date, nice and fluid etc, plus the shadowed remnants of some other items having been sprayed on there. That’s nice, but if it’s just a pre-production version, or a test, or whatever, why sign it?   As we all know, without a COA it’s not a real piece, and even if this is real I doubt PC would certify it, so as not to detract from the original, but hey, seemed like an odd piece that didn’t have any immediate explanation as to its existence, so worth a punt for a few hundred £. Basically, it’s not as good as the original, but it’s both good enough to be maybe 95% similar yet different. Be interested to hear everyone else’s thoughts. Ta
Hi all, Thought I’d share a recent find with you and, as the most pedantic bunch of Banksy goons, get your opinion! So, for starters this came from ebay. Yes I know, groan, not another etc etc, but hear me out. I bought this for £200 just because it seemed interesting and slightly odd. The seller claimed it was ‘found’ by some bins in East London several years ago. So, many of you will know the original of this Banksy piece, Glory. Sold last by Christie’s in 2013 for a mere £70,875. Not his best work IMO, but hey, interesting nonetheless. So, the large size version is here (https://www.christies.com/img/LotImages/2013/CKS/2013_CKS_01135_0381_000(banksy_glory011356).jpg) if you care to compare, however I have done so below. Firstly, here’s the one I bought. Ok, so the reason that this seemed interesting is, firstly, why someone would bother to fake it? Everyone with access to a computer and half a brain can figure out it was sold by a decent auction house, and is now either hanging on the wall of a lovely house or wrapped up and hidden in a bank vault somewhere. So, why bother? You’re never going to fool someone into spending a lot on it, because they’ll do some research (most likely). So, to go to all the trouble of copying it, finding exactly the same frame and faking it in general just seems a bit of a low value effort. Secondly, the version I have is different to the original, so again, if you were going to fake it, why make it different? Here are some comparison images between the original and mine. I guess one reason is that someone like me might buy it, think it was some kind of pre-production effort and write about it on an urban art forum, but again for £200 it seems an awful lot of work. There are plenty more differences if you look, well, not even that closely. Lots of bits on mine where it looks like the paint has been brushed and filled in on top. You might think that the differences are just someone embellishing a print with extras, and it certainly looks like that in places, but my version actually has parts (such as the hook of the G and the intersection of the R) where you can see the print below, whereas on the original you cant. This would suggest that its not done over the top of a copy, as you wouldn’t be able to see those parts. It’s possible that someone found the original Spitfire print, not hard, and did it from scratch, but to get it so similar is pretty impressive, no? I’ve taken my version out of the frame to examine more closely, and it’s hard to tell whether it’s paint or print, but looks in places definitely like paint. There are also some scratches bottom centre and right that appear on the original and not on mine, which would again suggest it’s not a copy, see below The print itself is a fairly flimsy affair stuck onto some cardboard, which kind of suits Banksy’s style to my mind, but that’s just conjecture. The backing board is signed with what looks to me a pretty decent signature for the date, nice and fluid etc, plus the shadowed remnants of some other items having been sprayed on there. That’s nice, but if it’s just a pre-production version, or a test, or whatever, why sign it? As we all know, without a COA it’s not a real piece, and even if this is real I doubt PC would certify it, so as not to detract from the original, but hey, seemed like an odd piece that didn’t have any immediate explanation as to its existence, so worth a punt for a few hundred £. Basically, it’s not as good as the original, but it’s both good enough to be maybe 95% similar yet different. Be interested to hear everyone else’s thoughts. Ta lol - nice try ! |
|
|
|
Banksy 'Glory' original alt version?, by flat_line on Sept 14, 2020 9:55:09 GMT 1, Hi all, Thought I’d share a recent find with you and, as the most pedantic bunch of Banksy goons, get your opinion! So, for starters this came from ebay. Yes I know, groan, not another etc etc, but hear me out. I bought this for £200 just because it seemed interesting and slightly odd. The seller claimed it was ‘found’ by some bins in East London several years ago. So, many of you will know the original of this Banksy piece, Glory. Sold last by Christie’s in 2013 for a mere £70,875. Not his best work IMO, but hey, interesting nonetheless. So, the large size version is here (https://www.christies.com/img/LotImages/2013/CKS/2013_CKS_01135_0381_000(banksy_glory011356).jpg) if you care to compare, however I have done so below. Firstly, here’s the one I bought. Ok, so the reason that this seemed interesting is, firstly, why someone would bother to fake it? Everyone with access to a computer and half a brain can figure out it was sold by a decent auction house, and is now either hanging on the wall of a lovely house or wrapped up and hidden in a bank vault somewhere. So, why bother? You’re never going to fool someone into spending a lot on it, because they’ll do some research (most likely). So, to go to all the trouble of copying it, finding exactly the same frame and faking it in general just seems a bit of a low value effort. Secondly, the version I have is different to the original, so again, if you were going to fake it, why make it different? Here are some comparison images between the original and mine. I guess one reason is that someone like me might buy it, think it was some kind of pre-production effort and write about it on an urban art forum, but again for £200 it seems an awful lot of work. There are plenty more differences if you look, well, not even that closely. Lots of bits on mine where it looks like the paint has been brushed and filled in on top. You might think that the differences are just someone embellishing a print with extras, and it certainly looks like that in places, but my version actually has parts (such as the hook of the G and the intersection of the R) where you can see the print below, whereas on the original you cant. This would suggest that its not done over the top of a copy, as you wouldn’t be able to see those parts. It’s possible that someone found the original Spitfire print, not hard, and did it from scratch, but to get it so similar is pretty impressive, no? I’ve taken my version out of the frame to examine more closely, and it’s hard to tell whether it’s paint or print, but looks in places definitely like paint. There are also some scratches bottom centre and right that appear on the original and not on mine, which would again suggest it’s not a copy, see below The print itself is a fairly flimsy affair stuck onto some cardboard, which kind of suits Banksy’s style to my mind, but that’s just conjecture. The backing board is signed with what looks to me a pretty decent signature for the date, nice and fluid etc, plus the shadowed remnants of some other items having been sprayed on there. That’s nice, but if it’s just a pre-production version, or a test, or whatever, why sign it? As we all know, without a COA it’s not a real piece, and even if this is real I doubt PC would certify it, so as not to detract from the original, but hey, seemed like an odd piece that didn’t have any immediate explanation as to its existence, so worth a punt for a few hundred £. Basically, it’s not as good as the original, but it’s both good enough to be maybe 95% similar yet different. Be interested to hear everyone else’s thoughts. Ta Among the different possibilities in this instance, one of two scenarios appears most likely: 1. You are a fraudster playing the faux-earnest card — hoping that some dupe will reach out and offer you a sum that will make the theatre of your con worthwhile. I seem to recall another "Banksy discovery" story having previously been described in a similar writing style by a different member with a low post count. Do you have, or have you ever had, another username on this forum? Would a dated screenshot be available of the eB ay listing you refer to? If I myself spotted a potentially authentic Ban ksy original for £200, I would take multiple screenshots of the listing after my purchase, if only for provenance. [The likelihood of this first scenario being correct stops me from describing the multiple elements in your posts that look and sound completely off. I have no interest in helping fraudsters become more persuasive with their future scams.]2. You are a genuine dupe — insufficiently informed, naive, having regrettably fallen prey to confirmation bias and wishful thinking. Fortunately, however, the financial loss you incurred was nominal. Your story may also serve as a helpful warning to other members here, so thank you for sharing it.
I didnt screenshot the listing, not really sure why, guess I didnt think it would really help any cause of getting certified. If anything, PC knowing it was bought for £200 from ebay would detract surely? I do have a screenshot of the purchase in my ebay account though, and whilst I cant find the original listing, if you google the title you'll see it was picked up by those aggregators, but I cant find it on there either. If i do manage to find it, i'll update.
Hi all, Thought I’d share a recent find with you and, as the most pedantic bunch of Banksy goons, get your opinion! So, for starters this came from ebay. Yes I know, groan, not another etc etc, but hear me out. I bought this for £200 just because it seemed interesting and slightly odd. The seller claimed it was ‘found’ by some bins in East London several years ago. So, many of you will know the original of this Banksy piece, Glory. Sold last by Christie’s in 2013 for a mere £70,875. Not his best work IMO, but hey, interesting nonetheless. So, the large size version is here (https://www.christies.com/img/LotImages/2013/CKS/2013_CKS_01135_0381_000(banksy_glory011356).jpg) if you care to compare, however I have done so below. Firstly, here’s the one I bought. Ok, so the reason that this seemed interesting is, firstly, why someone would bother to fake it? Everyone with access to a computer and half a brain can figure out it was sold by a decent auction house, and is now either hanging on the wall of a lovely house or wrapped up and hidden in a bank vault somewhere. So, why bother? You’re never going to fool someone into spending a lot on it, because they’ll do some research (most likely). So, to go to all the trouble of copying it, finding exactly the same frame and faking it in general just seems a bit of a low value effort. Secondly, the version I have is different to the original, so again, if you were going to fake it, why make it different? Here are some comparison images between the original and mine. I guess one reason is that someone like me might buy it, think it was some kind of pre-production effort and write about it on an urban art forum, but again for £200 it seems an awful lot of work. There are plenty more differences if you look, well, not even that closely. Lots of bits on mine where it looks like the paint has been brushed and filled in on top. You might think that the differences are just someone embellishing a print with extras, and it certainly looks like that in places, but my version actually has parts (such as the hook of the G and the intersection of the R) where you can see the print below, whereas on the original you cant. This would suggest that its not done over the top of a copy, as you wouldn’t be able to see those parts. It’s possible that someone found the original Spitfire print, not hard, and did it from scratch, but to get it so similar is pretty impressive, no? I’ve taken my version out of the frame to examine more closely, and it’s hard to tell whether it’s paint or print, but looks in places definitely like paint. There are also some scratches bottom centre and right that appear on the original and not on mine, which would again suggest it’s not a copy, see below The print itself is a fairly flimsy affair stuck onto some cardboard, which kind of suits Banksy’s style to my mind, but that’s just conjecture. The backing board is signed with what looks to me a pretty decent signature for the date, nice and fluid etc, plus the shadowed remnants of some other items having been sprayed on there. That’s nice, but if it’s just a pre-production version, or a test, or whatever, why sign it? As we all know, without a COA it’s not a real piece, and even if this is real I doubt PC would certify it, so as not to detract from the original, but hey, seemed like an odd piece that didn’t have any immediate explanation as to its existence, so worth a punt for a few hundred £. Basically, it’s not as good as the original, but it’s both good enough to be maybe 95% similar yet different. Be interested to hear everyone else’s thoughts. Ta Among the different possibilities in this instance, one of two scenarios appears most likely: 1. You are a fraudster playing the faux-earnest card — hoping that some dupe will reach out and offer you a sum that will make the theatre of your con worthwhile. I seem to recall another "Banksy discovery" story having previously been described in a similar writing style by a different member with a low post count. Do you have, or have you ever had, another username on this forum? Would a dated screenshot be available of the eB ay listing you refer to? If I myself spotted a potentially authentic Ban ksy original for £200, I would take multiple screenshots of the listing after my purchase, if only for provenance. [The likelihood of this first scenario being correct stops me from describing the multiple elements in your posts that look and sound completely off. I have no interest in helping fraudsters become more persuasive with their future scams.]2. You are a genuine dupe — insufficiently informed, naive, having regrettably fallen prey to confirmation bias and wishful thinking. Fortunately, however, the financial loss you incurred was nominal. Your story may also serve as a helpful warning to other members here, so thank you for sharing it. I didnt screenshot the listing, not really sure why, guess I didnt think it would really help any cause of getting certified. If anything, PC knowing it was bought for £200 from ebay would detract surely? I do have a screenshot of the purchase in my ebay account though, and whilst I cant find the original listing, if you google the title you'll see it was picked up by those aggregators, but I cant find it on there either. If i do manage to find it, i'll update. |
|
|
|
Banksy 'Glory' original alt version?, by flat_line on Sept 14, 2020 9:58:42 GMT 1, Thanks for all the replies, even the ones from the grumpier members of the forum, all appreciated (possibly apart from the one outright telling me to fuck off, but hey, there has to be some bellends out there). I'll apply for PC and let you know what they say
Thanks for all the replies, even the ones from the grumpier members of the forum, all appreciated (possibly apart from the one outright telling me to fuck off, but hey, there has to be some bellends out there). I'll apply for PC and let you know what they say
|
|
|
|
Banksy 'Glory' original alt version?, by flat_line on Sept 14, 2020 11:20:05 GMT 1, seems like you can see the fakeness here; the webbing on the bottom version makes OP's look like a lower-resolution digital scan that someone worked on top of. 
I know what you mean, but i think that's from when I bumped up the brightness a bit from the photo I took. If you look at the overall image it's much closer to the top version without that weird hazing effect
seems like you can see the fakeness here; the webbing on the bottom version makes OP's look like a lower-resolution digital scan that someone worked on top of. I know what you mean, but i think that's from when I bumped up the brightness a bit from the photo I took. If you look at the overall image it's much closer to the top version without that weird hazing effect |
|
|
|
Banksy 'Glory' original alt version?, by sleazus1slord on Sept 14, 2020 11:53:33 GMT 1, The paint is a different pigment, and likely a different brand. They found the same painting but not the matching can of paint. The OG paint you can see the thinner wash in the letters and it has a berry hue. There's more over spray fade on the OG, but the fakes lines are clean cut and wavy from a cut stencil. The paint collects in the middle of the letters on the fake consistent with a stencil. Bottom left of the O you can see a finger drag, he bottom of the R has a blowout. Looks like it could be water based with much chalkier and flat pigment. The story is classic fake banksy on ebay. If it were real they would have waited for PC and made a down payment on a decent house or whatever. I think it's a cool reproduction and well worth the price for the effort they put in.
The paint is a different pigment, and likely a different brand. They found the same painting but not the matching can of paint. The OG paint you can see the thinner wash in the letters and it has a berry hue. There's more over spray fade on the OG, but the fakes lines are clean cut and wavy from a cut stencil. The paint collects in the middle of the letters on the fake consistent with a stencil. Bottom left of the O you can see a finger drag, he bottom of the R has a blowout. Looks like it could be water based with much chalkier and flat pigment. The story is classic fake banksy on ebay. If it were real they would have waited for PC and made a down payment on a decent house or whatever. I think it's a cool reproduction and well worth the price for the effort they put in.
|
|
