Does anyone on here know Simon Durban and still in contact with him (That's the signature real or otherwise)? He could clear this up pretty quickly I'd imagine, probably quicker than PC.

Some more close ups of the signature and the Di-Faced tenner.

It looks to me like this COA has been signed using a thin-mobbed Sharpie, and not a ball point pen.
You can see in the image of the tenner that it is stapled on and that the tenner is torn. I hope this clarifies some of the doubts being casts here.

For anyone interested, here’s the bio of this print. A friend of a friend called Jim purchased it in 2003 (at Santa’s Grotto I believe, but I’m not 100% sure about that). He then sold gave it to my friend Ollie Learmonth who was opening a vintage furniture store in Brighton called In My Room. I went to the opening of Ollie’s shop in Summer 2004 where I saw the print and bought it for £80. It then stayed on the back wall of the shop for over a year because I forgot that I’d bought it. Ollie reminded me and so I picked it up a few weeks later. It hung in the hall of my flat in Hackney until 2008, when I took it to Pest Control because Ollie told me that it was now worth some money. Once the print was authenticated I had it framed in Hackney by Pendragon Framers just off Hackney Road. It then went back in the wall in its brand new museum grade frame in my flat where it stayed until 2015.
Since then it has been stored securely in North London as I now live in Spain and didn’t want to bring it with me.
I considered selling it in 2018 and it was consigned to Graffik Gallery in Westbourne Grove. No concerns were raised by anyone at the gallery about its authenticity. In the end I decided not to sell because I love it.
However, now is the right moment for me to sell. I have my reasons, which are personal and not to be shared here.

I have to confess that it didn’t occur to me for a moment that I couldn’t / shouldn’t trust the people at PC when I took my print down to their offices in 2008.

If there is no trust in the institution that is authenticating these prints, where does that leave us - buyers and sellers? What difference will another (potentially fake) form of authentication make? Regardless I wrote to PC this morning to ask them what the protocol is to authenticate my authentication. Hopefully they will at least respond. I will update when I can.

I was blissfully unaware of any fraud perpetrated by staff at PC.
When did this happen? What happened to those responsible?

And this insanity is completely unrelated.

Funny how this "insanity" coincides with the start of the massive drop of the market. This is no coincidence 

FOR SALE

Happy Choppers (unsigned) edition in the 400’s
COA from Pest Control (signed 2008)
The print is in near perfect condition.
Currently framed behind Museum-grade glass, by Pendragon Framers of Hackney in 2008

I have owned this print since Summer 2004.
It has only ever been hung in my dimly lit hallway, never in direct sunlight.

It's currently stored in North London.
It is for collection only.

c£18,000

If you have any questions please don't hesitate to ask.









[...]

Sorry to come across a bit naive, but i have never seen a C.O.A like this before , with the lines , circling, and the signature or seem off, normally the signature is a bit thicker as if been done by a sharpie .

Hopefully you didn’t pay a lot for this one because this is not legit.

This is a 2003 print and not a 2004 print.

I have one - and this is clear on the COA.

And all my COAs have H: & W: (H: 70cm x W: 50cm) in the size section, but not sure how consistent it is across all COAs.

To the seller - I would contact PC and get them to certify this was a mistake on the COA. Hopefully all is good and you have an authentic print but I would double check.

Does your COA read 'Happy Chopper' or 'Happy Choppers'? I swear one I used to have read 'Happy Chopper' but maybe it's another inconsistency of Pest Control.

Isn't August 2008 very early for a PC COA and that explains ballpoint (or thin marker) instead of broad marker?

Some more close ups of the signature and the Di-Faced tenner.

It looks to me like this COA has been signed using a thin-mobbed Sharpie, and not a ball point pen.
You can see in the image of the tenner that it is stapled on and that the tenner is torn. I hope this clarifies some of the doubts being casts here.

For anyone interested, here’s the bio of this print. A friend of a friend called Jim purchased it in 2003 (at Santa’s Grotto I believe, but I’m not 100% sure about that). He then sold gave it to my friend Ollie Learmonth who was opening a vintage furniture store in Brighton called In My Room. I went to the opening of Ollie’s shop in Summer 2004 where I saw the print and bought it for £80. It then stayed on the back wall of the shop for over a year because I forgot that I’d bought it. Ollie reminded me and so I picked it up a few weeks later. It hung in the hall of my flat in Hackney until 2008, when I took it to Pest Control because Ollie told me that it was now worth some money. Once the print was authenticated I had it framed in Hackney by Pendragon Framers just off Hackney Road. It then went back in the wall in its brand new museum grade frame in my flat where it stayed until 2015.
Since then it has been stored securely in North London as I now live in Spain and didn’t want to bring it with me.
I considered selling it in 2018 and it was consigned to Graffik Gallery in Westbourne Grove. No concerns were raised by anyone at the gallery about its authenticity. In the end I decided not to sell because I love it.
However, now is the right moment for me to sell. I have my reasons, which are personal and not to be shared here.

I have to confess that it didn’t occur to me for a moment that I couldn’t / shouldn’t trust the people at PC when I took my print down to their offices in 2008.

If there is no trust in the institution that is authenticating these prints, where does that leave us - buyers and sellers? What difference will another (potentially fake) form of authentication make? Regardless I wrote to PC this morning to ask them what the protocol is to authenticate my authentication. Hopefully they will at least respond. I will update when I can.

I was blissfully unaware of any fraud perpetrated by staff at PC.
When did this happen? What happened to those responsible?

Its coincidence. It would be a massive stretch to think anything JPS said in that article would have any effect on the Banksy market, at all tbh and I'd be surprised if PC did any more than glance at it. I didn't hear any collectors mention it as a concern. 
 It was an orchestrated stunt, maybe they bent some info into shape to suit the narrative/impact, nobody cares.  
There's plenty of factors for the price readjustment, mostly major things like the world economic situation/wars etc mixed in with poor market management, not so much a JPS article. This market was correcting regardless, it was time.

All excuses from people who are worried about their investments / earnings don't justify or remove the fact it was brazen fraud. 
What a silly schoolboy error , but one that can't be undone, it changed everything and revealed the truth. 

The "stunt" didn't work for people who know Banksy's work , obviously better than they knew it themselves. 

As referred to by hnkpnk below, this certificate of authenticity was issued in August 2008, around eight months after Pest Control Office was established.

It can often take some time for new institutions and their personnel to settle in; for preferred templates, standardised policies and procedures to be agreed upon; and for relative consistency to emerge.



Consistency in signature style can take some time as well, especially when we aren't dealing with a normal signature, but rather one that is scaled up in size on a COA, presumably for reasons of aesthetics and gravitas.



Side note: Sharpies are available with differently-sized points. And even with a regular fine-point Sharpie, the thickness of the ink on paper can vary dramatically, depending on a variety of factors, including how often that Sharpie has previously been used.



You have formulated your comment, not as an opinion or as just a possibility, but instead as an unqualified assertion of fact — when no irrefutable evidence exists to support such an assertion.

That is irresponsible and arguably foolish. Moreover, it is unfair to the seller.

For the wider benefit of this message board, please consider paying closer attention to the wording of your posts, especially when claiming particular items to be fake.



In the past, I've commented about your limited knowledge having seemingly given you a misplaced confidence in your own opinions:

A little learning is a dang'rous thing.

I recall you have also been prone to buying first, and only afterwards asking this forum for its views about the authenticity of your purchase.



But what is most grating to me are your attempts to offload some of the fakes you've purchased onto less-informed buyers.

In this respect, you are the occasional scam victim who, in turn, has chosen to take on the role of occasional scammer (while of course ensuring that you retain deniability).



The issue of uncertainty about the consistency of Pest Control Office is a good point.

That may also be relevant to the Year section in Pest Control Office COAs.

Year can refer to the year of a print's release. And it can just as equally correspond to the year in which a specific print in the overall edition was sold to its original buyer.



Take the example of a Virgin Mary (a.k.a. Toxic Mary), released by Pictures On Walls in 2003. It was one of Banksy's least popular screenprints at the time, with copies languishing for ages on a shelf at POW.

Now, any signed copies sold in 2004 would be signed and dated that year by the artist.

Presumably, the Year sections of the corresponding COAs for these prints also refer to 2004.



I've seen both singular and plural.

Query: If only one of the three Apaches has a visible pink bow, can all three of them still be described as "happy"?

Below is an example of a Pest Control Office COA referencing the title, Happy Chopper, singular:






That seems a very plausible explanation.

And to me, it looks like a marker signature by Simon Durban, perhaps just done with a new (i.e. relatively still-pointy) Sharpie.



For what it's worth, neither your screenprint nor its accompanying COA caused any alarm bell to ring in my ear.



That said, the sensible default precaution for anyone who's considering a private purchase of a Banksy print or original — or a public purchase from one of the less-reputable auction houses — is to email Pest Control Office and await its hopefully-prompt "okay" before any money changes hands.

As referred to by hnkpnk below, this certificate of authenticity was issued in August 2008, around eight months after Pest Control Office was established.

It can often take some time for new institutions and their personnel to settle in; for preferred templates, standardised policies and procedures to be agreed upon; and for relative consistency to emerge.



Consistency in signature style can take some time as well, especially when we aren't dealing with a normal signature, but rather one that is scaled up in size on a COA, presumably for reasons of aesthetics and gravitas.



Side note: Sharpies are available with differently-sized points. And even with a regular fine-point Sharpie, the thickness of the ink on paper can vary dramatically, depending on a variety of factors, including how often that Sharpie has previously been used.



You have formulated your comment, not as an opinion or as just a possibility, but instead as an unqualified assertion of fact — when no irrefutable evidence exists to support such an assertion.

That is irresponsible and arguably foolish. Moreover, it is unfair to the seller.

For the wider benefit of this message board, please consider paying closer attention to the wording of your posts, especially when claiming particular items to be fake.



In the past, I've commented about your limited knowledge having seemingly given you a misplaced confidence in your own opinions:

A little learning is a dang'rous thing.

I recall you have also been prone to buying first, and only afterwards asking this forum for its views about the authenticity of your purchase.



But what is most grating to me are your attempts to offload some of the fakes you've purchased onto less-informed buyers.

In this respect, you are the occasional scam victim who, in turn, has chosen to take on the role of occasional scammer (while of course ensuring that you retain deniability).



The issue of uncertainty about the consistency of Pest Control Office is a good point.

That may also be relevant to the Year section in Pest Control Office COAs.

Year can refer to the year of a print's release. And it can just as equally correspond to the year in which a specific print in the overall edition was sold to its original buyer.



Take the example of a Virgin Mary (a.k.a. Toxic Mary), released by Pictures On Walls in 2003. It was one of Banksy's least popular screenprints at the time, with copies languishing for ages on a shelf at POW.

Now, any signed copies sold in 2004 would be signed and dated that year by the artist.

Presumably, the Year sections of the corresponding COAs for these prints also refer to 2004.



I've seen both singular and plural.

Query: If only one of the three Apaches has a visible pink bow, can all three of them still be described as "happy"?

Below is an example of a Pest Control Office COA referencing the title, Happy Chopper, singular:






That seems a very plausible explanation.

And to me, it looks like a marker signature by Simon Durban, perhaps just done with a new (i.e. relatively still-pointy) Sharpie.



For what it's worth, neither your screenprint nor its accompanying COA caused any alarm bell to ring in my ear.



That said, the sensible default precaution for anyone who's considering a private purchase of a Banksy print or original — or a public purchase from one of the less-reputable auction houses — is to email Pest Control Office and await its hopefully-prompt "okay" before any money changes hands.