The art market has always been affected by fashion trends, and i do beleive that some stuff really is over priced ie guy trying to sell gold soup cans for £27000. However now Banksy is being purchased by main stream collectors and shifting originals for hundreds of thousands i do not beleive these guys would spend that sort of cash if the bubble was going to burst.

Corblimey

My sentiments exactly, I'm just trying to draw people into the debate on where we will be in a few years time. Lots more prints hopefully.

All good points on this thread, but fundamentally all that really matters is whether or not the thing you have hanging on your wall pleases your eye. Those who keep them in the cardboard tube ready to sell on as an investment can keep the worry of devaluation to themselves.

I agree and i am in the same position as you i a have never paid much more than gallery list price for a print so if the market goes belly i would still have prints that i love and would not be out of pocket.

My problem is as the value of these prints continue to rocket, i think we are all investors. With signed prints going for so much it gets to the stage when you cant afford to go out on a Saturday night but there is alot of money just hanging on the walls.

I am not interested in selling however you think that thousands of pounds worth of art is a huge luxury. You think there would be a level that everyone can be bought, and thus everything! When it is nearly at the stage that i could sell a signed piece and buy the classic porsche i have always wanted, i have to think long and hard

Well put Mr blimey!!,
Art is worth the enjoyment it brings you unless your a fat wallet or looking to make a buck on the arse end of a phenomena..and that is what Banksy may well be!!??...they said the same for the early Graff writers who turned to canvas..didn't pay much for my Seen but it's worth a bit more now..whoopee doo!..the point is buy what you like and hopefully what's going to go on your wall!! why do people buy all those prints and then stick them under the bed!..because trends and tastes change too...you'll prefer one bansky to another and then as the man Mr Silky said..the tough decisions on keeping or selling will come into play..and some will be selling at a loss if they continue to jump on make a buck quick bandwagons instead of digging the work.

I reckon Banksy prints will probably worth around the same and prints by people like eelus, insect, d*face, eine etc will probably worth half what they are now.

It's pretty clear that Banksy is now a bonafide Contemporary artist and will without a doubt stand the test of time. at some point the prices have to level out, but at the same time people will pay what they will for a piece of art, I mean, its the age old debate isn't it? -- what is the value of such and such piece of art? it's unanswerable, art is priceless.

So 5 years from now, I think we'll find that Banksy is still a major player, but the newer generation will have come and gone (Eelus, Walker, etc.) aside from a few genuine artists like Conor Harrington and Micallef. not to say that people like Eelus, Walker, Invader and others won't enjoy some sort of mild success and cult following as they have for a while now and only just recently hit it big, but I just can't see that starpower lasting or propelling them to the level of Warhol, Banksy or Goldstein.

But compare with Hirst's Ink Jets at tens of thousands of pounds.

Not by Banksy's hands. And that is my point. Beyond being an image the artist created and authorized, they have no connection to Banksy as a person. Ultimately, they are VERY NICE posters that somebody else made for Banksy. At least the signed ones actually came into contact with the guy/gal, so I could understand the additional interest in those. In general, prints are collectibles like comic books or baseball cards. Yes, they are images of art work, but they are not art work proper. I, personally, feel that is going to ultimately be an insurmountable hurdle. Prints for Banksy will be viewed as neat curiosities, but not taken as seriously as they currently are.

Ultimately, because there are so few reference points regarding the long-term value of prints, we're all speculating. I just don't see the PRINTS as continuing to go up in value. Seems to be no question the originals will.

Tell that to people who own $100 000 warhol prints

That's the point though isn't it.. there really isn't any comparison. Banksy kicked the door in and has turned things in their head. This market of 20-40 year olds buying affordable contemoporay art simply didn't exist before. There really isn't anything to measure this movement in street/urban art against. Which is why the secondary marjet is going mad. In the 80's it was still mainly fat idiot city boys and traditional art buyers switching to graffiti for a while whilst it was "hot".. thats not the case here.. this is literally thousands and thousands of new buyers coming in.. it has very little to do with traditional models of the "art market".. yes, it'll be co-opted by second hand car salesm.. ooppss , I mean "secondary art market dealers"...

People were saying the same as you when prints rose from 50 to 200 quid, then another wave when they hit 300, 600, 900, 1k...etc etc.. now you're looking at 5k for a normal signed and 35k for a kate moss.. go figure.

This is a classic!
"prints by people like eelus, insect, d*face, eine etc will probably worth half what they are now"
Im gonna remember this one and quote it back to you ;D

Most 20-40 year olds can justify buying *affordable contemporary art* (your words, right?!) when it still qualifies under a nominal definition of affordable. I'd say the vast majority COULD afford 5k for a print if they really wanted to. Not many could afford the 35k if their life depended on it. And that's not likely to change.

What IS likely to change is those same 20-40 year olds who are otherwise nothing special (i.e., millionaire playboys), are going to have big changes in their lives. Wives, families, kids going to Uni, etc. They simply won't be buying prints like this any more. And the new generation of 20-40 year olds may or may not give a s**t about this art when they come around.

The thrust of my argument is thre fold:

1) The appeal of Banksy prints right now is massive to a specific demographic that currently has reasonable discretionary funds available (and little insight or experience in investments, let alone investment grade art).

2) That group is going to have a significant change of priorities in the future. These changes will mean less purchases of this sort of item, and more sales forced by god-knows what (firing, new hobbies, orthodontist work for their kids messed up faces, . . . ).

3) The folks who presumably are going to be there to buy these prints at even *higher* prices (as most Banksy print owners would like to believe) are not typically interested in owning PRINTS. Plus, they also ordinarily have the means to buy originals if so desired. If you've got the moxie to buy a 35k print, surely you've got 100k for the original.

I think this is a very poignant and timely period for the art, and Banksy has obviously struck a chord with a very particular demographic. And that, I think, is perhaps the greatest reason why the PRINTS will simply not remain where they are currently (of course, adjusted for inflation)--the demographic that this art appeals to primarily is not well heeled playboys.