So sorry to hear you were a victim of an online scam, hope you get your money back.
Since you are being so honest and much as I respect and like Bridget Riley's work if I were you I'd go for one of her older prints as to me the latest release looks like a logo for an organic yoghurt pot.

could make a nice fathers day present for someone?

YOGHURT to be kidding be! How you can be so unCULTURED is GREEK to me.

I don't disagree but I've sent my wife to have a look as I'm pretty sure they'll look great in person.

It's ok, she knows that Riley has really fruit cornered the market for youghurty prints.

Was new on here at the time. Had recently had a bit of luck with the Banksy GDP sale (the cushions) so had a bit of hypothetical cash to throw at things.

There was a lot of chat around MS (Mason Storm, not multiple sclerosis - I don't want to be in receipt of either) and on the day of sale these flew off the shelves. I missed out on a cheap one. I should have left it there but instead I opted for one of the more limited (expensive) ones.

Whether or not he painted the Banksy originals, I really don't care. I genuinely find the whole thing (the art, the character of 'Mason Storm' and, as I say, the coattail-riding means of marketing embarrassing.

Warhol said, "Good business is the best art" and I'm sure Mason and Stowe have made good money over the years.

Warhol took what was mundane and made it art, MS takes art and makes it mundane.

In short, I din't do my due diligence.

I’m sort of intrigued to know what the best offer is that you’ve received is? Would be interesting to see just how bad all of it imploded once Stowe and Mason milked ever last drop out of a dry tittie..

Lol so easy, and yet so good! Did you steal that? 

If you lie, the real mason storm, government agent will turn up at your house. 

Mason storm will go down in the pointless postit notes of history as a name used by bad actors. 

I shamelessly agree with EVERY SINGLE WORD (not reserved to this post) Met types except for his position on Gaza which he reserves for a separate UAA account, Brilliant people have blind spots too!

As an idea (not a joke)… how about setting up crowdfunding to ask us do pay £5/£10 each (for a £400 target?) for it to be permanently destroyed 🔥🔥🔥 and then video/share it.

I will happily pay £10 as long as we can make Mason aware what we think of it.

It’s the type of content that could go viral and I’m sure a platform like Ladbible (14 million followers) would use.

At least he’s honest.

I was thinking the exact same thing after reading Met's post. Maybe the highest funder gets to choose the method of demise for the print 

Many thanks for the reply.



Regarding there having once been chat around Mason Storm, that's fair enough. People will naturally be drawn to what others are discussing and doing.

We are to a large extent herd animals. And, like lemmings jumping (or being pushed/thrown by Disney filmmakers) off a seaside cliff to their eventual demise, there can be a misplaced sense of security in numbers. In being part of a group.

If I see two or three commuters running towards a train on a platform, my reaction is to speed up my own pace — even if I know the train isn't scheduled to leave for another 10 minutes. Now, that is messed up. It's an instinct I keep needing to fight against.



However, no chat on this message board about Mason Storm has ever been one‑sided, as far as I'm aware.

Plenty of members, myself included, have called out Storm and Stowe Gallery (in particular Jamie Marchant from the gallery) for their lies and deceptive marketing. They take people for fools. And this attitude of contempt is unfortunate, especially when directed towards their own customers.

But perhaps the voices of criticism here just weren't loud enough during the release of Toxic Beach.


__________


For the purpose of this exchange, I'll sidestep the excellent last point you referred to:

The onus we all have to carry out our due diligence.

That is about agency, independence, holding ourselves accountable for our actions. And with the vast majority of collectors, I suspect such an onus is uncontroversial. Even as children, each of us knew we were responsible for doing our own homework.


__________


A separate issue I am more curious about is the influence and benefit (if any) of posts that criticise artwork.



When presented with art or artists that can, without unfairness, be deemed "bad", by reference to objective or semi‑objective criteria (e.g. works that are derivative, trite, mawkish, conceptually incoherent or vacuous, technically poor, etc.), I feel almost dutybound to my fellow collectors to take a public swipe. And even more so if a majority of other comments in the relevant thread is expressing praise.

I've done this rather frequently with the likes of Mason Storm, The Connor Brothers, Martin Whatson, Bambi, JJ Adams, Mr Brainwash, Alec Monopoly, and a handful of others I consider to be impostor artists and charlatans.

The financial value of their work will, in my amateur view, eventually self‑correct and align itself much more closely to that work's artistic value.

[I sense one possible exception could be Mr Brainwash, on the basis of his persona and charisma, but especially due to his connection with Banksy and starring role in Exit Through the Gift Shop. This is where the historical/cultural significance and associations of the artist may continue to be more consequential than the actual strength of his art. At least from a monetary perspective and in terms of ongoing collector interest.]



Quite often, I find myself repeating the same criticisms.

Although that is embarrassing to me, I am also conscious of the power of repetition, the fact some members only access this forum irregularly, and the stream of fresh members who are constantly joining (and for whom everything is still new).

But to the old guard and frequent visitors here, some of my posts will sound like a broken record. That has potential to become grating and unproductive. Or worse, counterproductive.

Given the above risks, and since the general idea is to be pursuasive, there is a degree of balance I try to keep in mind when thinking about knocking bad art:

   •   Remain silent for an easier life, or upset the apple cart, annoy fans and be vocal, in the hope that a dissenting comment might discourage somebody from making a purchase mistake?

   •   Simply share a negative opinion, or engage with the enthusiasts, perhaps by challenging them and asking what they find innovative or appealing about the work they intend to buy?

   •   When expressing a viewpoint, doing so in an earnest tone, or with humour (possibly including sarcasm or ridicule)?

   •   If looking to push others to think twice or thrice about the calibre of an artist, which tactic is more effective: (a) a one‑off, full‑on frontal assault, or (b) flanking, with occasional light jabs at the target over a prolonged period of time?

   •   Et cetera.


Thus far, what I've done over the years is take different approaches. Among the options available, inconsistency and variety seem the least boring to me. [That, and also taking regular breaks from the Urban Art Association, since I believe this forum can only ever be healthy when experienced in relatively small doses.]



At the same time, people often need to make their our own mistakes. We tend to learn faster that way.

One can't tell everyone, "Please go easy with the drinking; moderation is key."

Some of us just have to stumble over and break an elbow before we finally learn. Or have our wallet stolen during an alcohol-induced blackout. Or wake up one afternoon in a strange location, with an ass that now looks like the Japanese flag.



And so, if you've made it this far, King and a Duck, here is a follow‑up question relating to critical posts — and their helpfulness, or futility, to potential buyers:

Notwithstanding the due diligence failure you mentioned, do you believe you might at the time have chosen to not purchase the Mason Storm print, if more forum members had openly mocked that release?