Surely seeing the original brush strokes is a positive not a negative. Isn't that at least part of the appeal when buying original works of art rather than signed posters?  

I have a Heni print of another artist’s painting (bought via Leviathan) and thought there was a scuff on it. Checked out the original painting at high res and realised Heni had captured the exact same mark in the print. Makes it more authentic. Although I remember Joe Hage saying they once noticed a fly in a Richter painting when taking high res images to make a print - can’t remember what they decided to do but it raises interesting questions about art reproduction/facsimile.

I think most are big bedroom dealers.

Tax free profit available on the sale of chattels under £6k, so not unique to posters of this nature.

Why do you think you’ll make a profit off of these and that they’ll be desirable when the previous show posters have not appreciated and HENI and Hirst seem fixated on pumping out giclees at all price points? Surely there’s another Fruitful and Forever around the corner.

They look decorative and « serious », almost intelectual. Not too much text, just a mystérious title very discret. If you add à nice signature at the right place (main criteria for choosing them for me), how could it not cost 300/400 € per unit? I often see Hirst series of posters on Catawiki making nice prices. It has to be cleverly put into simple frames, ready to hung for the buyers. I would say 1500 euros for a nice série of 3 with Nice black frame in 2 years. Anyway, if I am wrong, nothing to lose. But not so much to earn on the other side if I am right

Yeah after much humming and harring i went for Blizzard too, a punt really having not seen it.

Got to the show this morning however and must say I am delighted with it. Absolutely love the originals, 'Seascapes' were always my favourite but in the flesh they're stunning. Would have like an original but i reakon saving over half mill is something I'll just have to live with.

With regards to the gloss finish, I've never been that concerned with it, you're not buying a print at the end of the day, and I have plenty of prints. And in the case of Blizzard, its a dynamic piece that is supposed to capture the energy of a huge wave crashing, I see no need for it to be matt to match the Farrow and Ball walls!

Took my daughter to the show and she loved the Seascapes which is always a good sign. She also loved the huge 'Coast Paintings' and was delighted to find what looked like a cigarette butt in one of them?!

Anyway, hopefully it's just an edition of 2 

Originals and Composites below:

The purple poster was sold out this morning. The other two were still available.

Prob 2k total now. 1/3 splits

Blizzard was my favourite but lacking wall space and storage space for boxes!

A family member bought a set of the square Coast Paintings. We both liked how they are 1:1 with the original canvases so you have a section of Hirst’s studio floor on your wall to scale. Seeing canvas grain and paint as it would have been is a nice touch. Also noticed a footprint in corner of H13-8.

Regarding comments on the ‘glossy finish’ Heni have been producing prints like this for years… Veils, Elements and so on. Every release people post the same comments!

Hirst would agree it's ridiculous. That's part of the point.

Hearing all the mentions of Blizzard makes me thing that’s going to be the largest edition piece.

How many of Picasso's prints do you think were created by taking a photo of an original and then printing it? 

It was a other time when there were no printers. Digital printing offers new capabilities but it is considered, as of today, as less noble. Main part of the artworks I own are lithographs from the 20th century. I like them but you cannot do the same thing with it. Perhaps these things will be a new paradigm for a long time, perhaps not. 

to answer your question, there were some like André Villers portfolio.

What style is that? You mean less gloss?