yea his prices have jumped but good luck to him. His recent work is amazing and it seems to be a response to that. Its really captured peoples imagination. I find his old work very hit and miss and I've never bought anything of his, but he's been around for ages and no-one should begrudge him success.

kind of lacking in 'fact' though wasn't it?

Really? You've been a member here for 12 months and a rant based purely on personal opinion with not even the slightest hint of fact is the truest thing you ever read?

Fair play if you agree with him - you're both entitled to your opinions and I'm sure they're both valid - but what you just said strikes me as slightly ridiculous.

Fair play.
Were the words 'Nick Walker' actually needed in Jam's post? Nothing is lost by leaving them out.
I'd say they definitely weren't if you are just looking for a theory lesson.
So why did he feel the need to put them in? That was his mistake perhaps.
But by putting in the words 'Nick Walker' it stopped being a theory lesson and became an insinuation of fact.
Maybe Jam could leave out names in examples next time? (Unless they add something specific of course)

Agree with you Funyoung.

What is that supposed to mean? I'm only disagreeing with Jam so I can protect my "investment"

Get over yourself.

By that logic can we also assume then that anyone who agree with Jam is trying to drive down prices because they missed out on the primary?

Your snide little "by any chance..." comment.

What exactly do you mean by that and what has it got to do with anything anyway?

I don't want to get caught up in some petty tit-for-tat argument either, but if someone insinuates my opinion is presented in lieu of an ulterior motive then naturally I'm going to get pretty upset about it.

In response to further comments:

Nothing stated in my initial post was defamatory or libelous. At no point did I say anyone manipulated Nick Walker's auction prices, nor did I mention The Black Rat Press. What I did do was address the fact that art sales on the auction market are not always as transparent as they should be, or as many people believe them to be.

A reasonably accurate and reliable valuation of an artist's work requires a broad view of his or her career. This includes taking into consideration such factors as whether their work is found in any major collections, consistent sales from reliable galleries, and auction prices so long as a track record of multiple similar-priced pieces has been established over time. The problem is that many members of this forum constantly quote auction results (whether from eBay or auction houses such as Bonhams and Sotheby's) as their sole point of reference to estimate the "value" of artwork. In some cases, this is understandable given many street artists are new to the scene. However, even with artists that have more of a history, the auction results quoted are often cherry-picked to justify massive price increases for, and mass spending on, particular works. This method is flawed and potentially dangerous. It is unreliable as there are no regulations in place to effectively prevent the manipulation of perceived value at a number of different levels.

Art-el was kind enough to point out the Walker 'Ghetto Ghost' pieces, which perfectly illustrate my comments about what has spiraled into a completely mad market on the heels of one auction record. For this, I thank him. I bought the pieces in spring 2007 because they were quite inexpensive and I liked the idea of owning some cheap unique pieces. As I never warmed to them, I decided to sell them on that autumn. They were priced similar to others I had seen on the secondary market, and for months they just sat unwanted. Even after the price was dropped in December to £250 (less than cost after shipping), not a single person wished to purchase them or paid any interest whatsoever. Fast forward to the extraordinary auction result at Bonhams on 5 February 2008. All of the sudden, people were scrambling out of the woodwork to buy my 'Ghetto Ghosts'. This was a clear indication that far too much weight and importance was given to just one auction. The number of those willing to make rash and costly decisions based on insufficient comparable prices underscored the instability of this particular market and its lack of a solid foundation. Either that or, by some miracle (Praise the Lord!), everyone and his brother decided over the course of two days that those Walker canvases were artistic must-haves and surely worth a grand each minimum.

It should be stressed, however, that I am not having a go at Walker's work so much as using it as an example of how irrational this scene has become due to rampant speculation and a precarious secondary market that is easily subject to manipulation. I do not believe the hype that a switch went and, overnight, Walker's canvases and prints increased 20 times in value. While I do like some of Nick Walker's early work, and admit the TMA series is aesthetically pleasing, I would not rate him as being on par with artists whose price bracket he now shares. Although I have specific doubts personally as to the validity and genuineness of Walker's 'Moona Lisa' Bonhams result, I feel the problem is pandemic and should be in clear light to anyone wishing to invest in this market. That is especially the case for new collectors who are running up debt and banking on appreciation in order to justify their spending.

This is mind bottling...

Jam, this can be applied to almost everyone including Banksy. Here is the top 5 artists that the forum picked

1. Banksy - rocketed over night from the LA show, increased steadily from good auction results.
2. Neate - Prices have gone from 2-3k for an original to 8k plus vat to 35k plus vat in a year and a bit.
3. Faile - pick and choose your prints at no money jan 07. large canvas now, little change from £45,000
4. Nick Walker - rocketed after LA show/press and bonhams - all happened in one week - previous to this he was gaining momentum from the morning after series prints
5. Micallef - Eyestorm took a while to sell their prints. Laz couldn't sell his prints, Some big auction results and speculation of the LA show and they were selling large snooker trophies dripping in chrome for silly money and Laz could have sold his 5k prints 10 times over.

Parla watercolours just over a year ago I paid £500 for, now, £6500 plus VAT
Lister Canvases last sept, 6000 dollars for a large canvas, now selling for 15,000 dollars for the same size

.....

We could go on and on.


All said and done, I generally like your posts though

One more thing, I'll give you double your last offer on the ghetto ghosts. If thats not good enough, double it again, if thats not good enough ....

By my definition of suspect Jam's statement is spot on. It is a price never even dreamt of prior to it being acheived. In my opinion that is pretty suspect. SUE ME.

This work is at best for the college dorm wall. Maybe im nuts, but I know whose taste I trust, and thats my own.

Quotes highlighted from your initial post...

[/quote]People are hoovering up anything they can buy no matter how crap the image, just because the rest of the heard is doing the same thing. Has there been a time warp that distorted peoples memories of only three short months ago when the world was slightly more sane and you couldn't give any Walker away? There were loads of NW pieces on ebay at below cost, and many people trying to trade stacks of them on the forums for anything they could get that wasn't a Nick Walker. Throw in one apocalyptic auction record and Walker is all the rage. Same crap images, same worn out themes, same editioned canvases, and prices 20+ times what you could buy the same pieces for in January. Total madness.

I would have thought the ability to pay £2-20k and up for a piece of art would have indicated a certain level of mental ability on the part of the person with said cash; that they were likely to be fairly bright to be able to earn such amounts of disposable funds in the first place. It has become apparent that my assumptions are far from the mark, as there is a seemingly limitless group with large amounts of cash ready and willing to throw it into a market that is as easily manipulated as the current art market. How is it that these sub-par images are commanding these sudden insane prices? How is it that one auction has turned so much focus to art that could barely be given away only months ago? How is it that anyone can put so much credibility into one suspect auction record, that they are willing to pay virtually anything required to own a piece of Nick Walker? Why isn't anyone asking "what the f**k is going on?!"[/quote]

Jeez, I'd hate to read what you wrote if you really were having a go.

Some great posts in this thread, from different viewpoints.

A quick question though - if the auctions drag the prices of everything up, will a few non-selling or low-selling auctions pull the prices back down again? Or will that bear no relevance?