Urban Art Association

Is the paper “ yellow “
I have Hypnosis.
Here it seems a bit “ white “
apart this all seems ok 

I found that on streetart news
streetartnews.net/2011/12/invader-invaded-scream-invaded.html

Check out this thread here urbanartassociation.com/thread/181514/charitystars-genuine-fake

Hmmm, cheers guys for the advice and think I’ll steer clear on this one.

All the best

looks fake

Although I don't own one of these prints myself, I am familiar with it and have noticed a few counterfeits in circulation at some point or another.

Five years ago, Artnet was auctioning what looks to be an obvious fake*, which any attentive professional should really have spotted.

The Artnet counterfeit was probably a screenprint or giclée reproduction, and it also came with a fake Lazarides blindstamp.


[NB: This would be another reminder of the potential dangers whenever we as collectors fail to carry out our own due diligence, and simply assume:

(a)  all auction houses are reliable and have integrity;

(b)  all auction houses have suitably-rigorous authentication-verification protocols in place, which are consistently applied for each and every proposed consignment (even when having to deal with dozens or hundreds of different consignments for a single sale); and/or

(c)  the very fact they were hired by an auction house with name recognition must mean that all of the specialists who work there truly know what they're doing with respect to every artwork they accept on consignment.]


__________


Most longer‑term Invader collectors will already be aware that Invaded Scream is a woodcut.

An authentic print should therefore have identifiers consistent with a woodcut, like a slight texture in the printing and, at least with this specific multiple, a bit of textured roughness along the edges of the printed areas.

But such level of detail appears to be missing from the piece you were considering. It is especially noticeable when that print is compared side‑by‑side with some of the other online images of Invaded Scream.

Zoom in, for example, on the high‑res image of edition number 6/50*, which sold at a Christie's online sale in September 2023.



In fairness, certainty can be a little difficult to achieve from a single image shot in context, rather than multiple images including detailed close‑ups. And even more difficult when that one photo is slightly blurred (perhaps a deliberate, cynical choice by the seller).

The fact this photo was taken at an angle, instead of straight‑on, also makes it trickier to assess the correctness of the proportions of the printed areas versus those of the paper substrate, dated signature, and blindstamp.



All that said, and despite it being out of focus, I am confident the Lazarides blindstamp (and thus the print itself) is fake:

(i)  the embossing of the letters looks more rounded than it should;

(ii)  the letter 'L' seems to be missing the old Lazarides logo paint splash; and

(iii)  most damningly, the overall width of the blindstamp (in relation to the diagonal pattern/linework at the bottom‑left corner of the print image) is too large.





__________


In my view, steering well clear of this print would be the wisest move to make.

If you know the relevant seller's name, or just their username, please do share it here as well — along with the sale platform from which the print will most likely be offloaded onto some poor dupe of an Invader fan.

I take it you’re trying to buy the one on artsy 

Seen too many fakes to even bother with these anymore 

There is this one here.. tbh I don't trust any of these unless from a large auction house now.

www.artsy.net/artwork/invader-invaded-scream-14

Buy the seller. With proof of purchase and in general good provenance these are the very peak of Invader prints.

Looks like its all sorted now; Met highlighted the fact that the "L" of Lazarides doesn't have the diagonal slash mark and that nails it.

Anyhow when i looked at a pic of mines to see if it had said slash mark on the L (thankfully it does ) I noted that bottom left corner of the outline of the image is a bit wavy, the outline on the one on this listing is very straight in comparison. Parts of the pattern of the footbridge look very different between both prints as well.

As Invader may say, Game Over.

A small update from my side.
I was also interested and curious about this ebay listing.
for me too it was suspicious about it's originality, i asked for the receipt and a coa if available.
After no answer for the first time, i asked a second time and got this answer:

"The proof of purchase will be shown to the auction winner prior to payment."

Well, this comes unexpected… 

Just for the record I don’t remember having any COA for mine and mine was bought directly from Laz at the show?

Many thanks for the link and confirmation.

I really should have checked eBay myself before even asking where the print was being sold.

For some reason, I just wrongly assumed it was offered to you directly in a non‑public sale.



The extra photos in that eBay listing, especially the close‑ups, are very helpful.

With this new information, I feel the first two of my previous three arguments* questioning the Lazarides blindstamp are weakened.

But the third argument, regarding the discrepancies in size/width proportions of the blindstamp in relation to the printed image, remains just as strong.



Will try to follow up with a more detailed explanation before the auction ends on Sunday.

But in brief — even if we ignore the dishonest history and previous form of the seller, Charity Stars* — I remain convinced the print is a counterfeit Invaded Scream. Albeit a counterfeit that is admittedly rather well executed.





Cheers for this.

Just so I am clear on the point you're making, what is it about the answer from Charity Stars that is unexpected?

For me, the lack of specificity and apparent evasiveness with that reply are what I would expect from a scammer.

Always enjoy these posts.... mus be a lawyer or some related field IRL or a detective!