|
|
Andy Warhol ๐บ๐ธ Real or Fake? โข Sunday B. Morning Print, by thehighlife on Aug 31, 2011 10:33:51 GMT 1, How much for the hirst spots? All of them? x2
2 of them are MINT and one has a small chip on it. The chip is about
the size of a penny. I will give a break on that one....
I don't know what these go for?
$500 a piece?
open to price suggestions from the experts around here! Thanks Guys
How much for the hirst spots? All of them? x2 2 of them are MINT and one has a small chip on it. The chip is about the size of a penny. I will give a break on that one.... I don't know what these go for? $500 a piece? open to price suggestions from the experts around here! Thanks Guys |
|
|
|
Andy Warhol ๐บ๐ธ Real or Fake? โข Sunday B. Morning Print, by thehighlife on Aug 31, 2011 11:14:18 GMT 1, 
|
|
|
|
Andy Warhol ๐บ๐ธ Real or Fake? โข Sunday B. Morning Print, by thehighlife on Aug 31, 2011 11:15:55 GMT 1, small chip happened during transit from NYC...
small chip happened during transit from NYC... |
|
achtungbono
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,093
๐๐ป 156
May 2008
|
Andy Warhol ๐บ๐ธ Real or Fake? โข Sunday B. Morning Print, by achtungbono on Sept 12, 2011 16:15:34 GMT 1, someone has asked me to track down one of these with a view to possible purchase for them as a favour ( no commission for me! )
without trawling the usual galleries etc - anyone got one they may be willing to part with and have an idea of price ?
thanks
someone has asked me to track down one of these with a view to possible purchase for them as a favour ( no commission for me! )
without trawling the usual galleries etc - anyone got one they may be willing to part with and have an idea of price ?
thanks
|
|
Sacked...
Full Member
๐จ๏ธ 7,978
๐๐ป 1,338
October 2007
|
Andy Warhol ๐บ๐ธ Real or Fake? โข Sunday B. Morning Print, by Sacked... on Oct 19, 2011 23:03:20 GMT 1, The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts announced today that it would "dissolve" the Andy Warhol Art Authentication Board, Inc. in early 2012. The 16-year-old board, which has been charged with reviewing and authenticating artworks by the Pop artist, has been subject to criticism โ and numerous lawsuits โ for its questionable and controversial authentication practices.
According to Warhol Foundation president Joel Wachs, the decision to do away with the board was informed by a "strategic review" of the foundation's core programs and reflects the foundation's "intent to maximize its grant-making and other charitable activities in support of the visual arts." The board will honor all requests for review received prior to October 19, but will no longer accept new submissions.
Wachs told ARTINFO that the foundation's decision was driven by the financial toll the board's operations have taken on the institution has a whole. Consisting of five scholars and curators who meet three times a year to consider submissions, the board costs approximately $500,000 a year to operate. But it was the legal fees from lawsuits over works rejected by the board that ultimately made it untenable, according to Wachs. "I don't want to spend $7 million a year on lawyers," he said, referring to the amount paid by the foundation last year toward defending itself.
Authenticating Andy Warhol has always been something of a tricky business, considering the sheer volume of the artist's production, his appropriation-based methods, and, frequently, his degree of remove from the finished product. In 2007, London-based American Joe Simon filed a complaint challenging the board's rejection of the authenticity of a 1964 Warhol self-portrait he owns; collector Susan Shaer filed a parallel lawsuit in 2009. (Other owners who believe their alleged Warhols were unfairly rejected by the board include London dealer Anthony d'Offay, whose portrait was returned to him by the Tate after he included it in a gift of more than 230 other contemporary works to the museum in 2008.) Last year, the foundation made waves when it re-authenticated 100 Brillo boxes that maverick curator Pontus Hulten made in Sweden three years after Warhol's death.
The Shaer and the Simon cases against the foundation were dropped in 2010 due to a lack of financial resources on the part of the plaintiffs. But the foundation is also currently locked in litigation with its D&O insurer, with whom it is seeking coverage of its legal fees. Wachs said the lawsuit will proceed despite the dissolution of the authentication board.
When asked who he thought would take charge of authenticating Warhols after the board's dissolution, Wachs said the same process "used for all artists" โ the vast majority of whom go without authentication boards โ would be applied to Warhol. The foundation will continue to bear some influence over the Pop artist's body of work with its catalogue raisonne. (Neil Printz and Sally King-Nero, the authors of the catalogue, were also on the authentication board.) Wachs had no comment when asked how the dissolution might influence the market for Warhols, which, according to an ArtTactic report, comprised 17 percent of the contemporary auction market in 2010.
Still, some who disagreed with the practices of the foundation feel vindicated by the news. Seth Redniss, the New York lawyer who represented both Simon and Shaer in court, told ARTINFO, "There's no need for a comment. The shutdown speaks for itself."
The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts announced today that it would "dissolve" the Andy Warhol Art Authentication Board, Inc. in early 2012. The 16-year-old board, which has been charged with reviewing and authenticating artworks by the Pop artist, has been subject to criticism โ and numerous lawsuits โ for its questionable and controversial authentication practices.
According to Warhol Foundation president Joel Wachs, the decision to do away with the board was informed by a "strategic review" of the foundation's core programs and reflects the foundation's "intent to maximize its grant-making and other charitable activities in support of the visual arts." The board will honor all requests for review received prior to October 19, but will no longer accept new submissions.
Wachs told ARTINFO that the foundation's decision was driven by the financial toll the board's operations have taken on the institution has a whole. Consisting of five scholars and curators who meet three times a year to consider submissions, the board costs approximately $500,000 a year to operate. But it was the legal fees from lawsuits over works rejected by the board that ultimately made it untenable, according to Wachs. "I don't want to spend $7 million a year on lawyers," he said, referring to the amount paid by the foundation last year toward defending itself.
Authenticating Andy Warhol has always been something of a tricky business, considering the sheer volume of the artist's production, his appropriation-based methods, and, frequently, his degree of remove from the finished product. In 2007, London-based American Joe Simon filed a complaint challenging the board's rejection of the authenticity of a 1964 Warhol self-portrait he owns; collector Susan Shaer filed a parallel lawsuit in 2009. (Other owners who believe their alleged Warhols were unfairly rejected by the board include London dealer Anthony d'Offay, whose portrait was returned to him by the Tate after he included it in a gift of more than 230 other contemporary works to the museum in 2008.) Last year, the foundation made waves when it re-authenticated 100 Brillo boxes that maverick curator Pontus Hulten made in Sweden three years after Warhol's death.
The Shaer and the Simon cases against the foundation were dropped in 2010 due to a lack of financial resources on the part of the plaintiffs. But the foundation is also currently locked in litigation with its D&O insurer, with whom it is seeking coverage of its legal fees. Wachs said the lawsuit will proceed despite the dissolution of the authentication board.
When asked who he thought would take charge of authenticating Warhols after the board's dissolution, Wachs said the same process "used for all artists" โ the vast majority of whom go without authentication boards โ would be applied to Warhol. The foundation will continue to bear some influence over the Pop artist's body of work with its catalogue raisonne. (Neil Printz and Sally King-Nero, the authors of the catalogue, were also on the authentication board.) Wachs had no comment when asked how the dissolution might influence the market for Warhols, which, according to an ArtTactic report, comprised 17 percent of the contemporary auction market in 2010.
Still, some who disagreed with the practices of the foundation feel vindicated by the news. Seth Redniss, the New York lawyer who represented both Simon and Shaer in court, told ARTINFO, "There's no need for a comment. The shutdown speaks for itself."
|
|
mmmike
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,421
๐๐ป 759
March 2010
|
Andy Warhol ๐บ๐ธ Real or Fake? โข Sunday B. Morning Print, by mmmike on Oct 20, 2011 2:50:20 GMT 1, Thanks for posting that.
It is bad news if you ask me.
Thanks for posting that.
It is bad news if you ask me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Andy Warhol ๐บ๐ธ Real or Fake? โข Sunday B. Morning Print, by Mister Whisper on Oct 20, 2011 4:36:29 GMT 1, It's great news if you ask me. The Warhol "Authentication" Board not only has way too much power and absolutely no transparency or liability, they have a horrible, horrible reputation for favoritism and dishonesty. What other art organization regularly defaces artwork that it claims to be inauthentic, but refuses to give the criteria for their reasoning? What other authentication board is sued with such regularity and vehemence, and always with the same accusations (from the Simon case: "The complaint alleges that the Warhol Foundationรขโฌโขs ongoing catalogue raisonnรยฉ project and Authentication Board have for two decades fraudulently rejected legitimate works to artificially limit supply and thereby increase the value of Warhol works held by the foundation.")? Look no further than the Brillo Box fiasco from a few of years back for an example of their ethics and motivations. I've never heard of a lawsuit against the Roy Lichtenstein Foundation, the Keith Haring Studio LLC, Pest Control, or any of the other dedicated authentication groups that I know of. Good riddance to 'em. The Warhol market will be better with them gone. My only regret is that the dozens -- perhaps hundreds -- of legitimate Warhols marred with board's "DENIED" stamp (and often in the case of works on paper, the subsequent bleed-through) can never be fixed.
It's great news if you ask me. The Warhol "Authentication" Board not only has way too much power and absolutely no transparency or liability, they have a horrible, horrible reputation for favoritism and dishonesty. What other art organization regularly defaces artwork that it claims to be inauthentic, but refuses to give the criteria for their reasoning? What other authentication board is sued with such regularity and vehemence, and always with the same accusations (from the Simon case: "The complaint alleges that the Warhol Foundationรขโฌโขs ongoing catalogue raisonnรยฉ project and Authentication Board have for two decades fraudulently rejected legitimate works to artificially limit supply and thereby increase the value of Warhol works held by the foundation.")? Look no further than the Brillo Box fiasco from a few of years back for an example of their ethics and motivations. I've never heard of a lawsuit against the Roy Lichtenstein Foundation, the Keith Haring Studio LLC, Pest Control, or any of the other dedicated authentication groups that I know of. Good riddance to 'em. The Warhol market will be better with them gone. My only regret is that the dozens -- perhaps hundreds -- of legitimate Warhols marred with board's "DENIED" stamp (and often in the case of works on paper, the subsequent bleed-through) can never be fixed.
|
|
|
|
Andy Warhol ๐บ๐ธ Real or Fake? โข Sunday B. Morning Print, by Brushstrokes 75 on Oct 20, 2011 5:47:22 GMT 1, It's great news if you ask me. The Warhol "Authentication" Board not only has way too much power and absolutely no transparency or liability, they have a horrible, horrible reputation for favoritism and dishonesty. What other art organization regularly defaces artwork that it claims to be inauthentic, but refuses to give the criteria for their reasoning? What other authentication board is sued with such regularity and vehemence, and always with the same accusations (from the Simon case: "The complaint alleges that the Warhol Foundationรขโฌโขs ongoing catalogue raisonnรยฉ project and Authentication Board have for two decades fraudulently rejected legitimate works to artificially limit supply and thereby increase the value of Warhol works held by the foundation.")? Look no further than the Brillo Box fiasco from a few of years back for an example of their ethics and motivations. I've never heard of a lawsuit against the Roy Lichtenstein Foundation, the Keith Haring Studio LLC, Pest Control, or any of the other dedicated authentication groups that I know of. Good riddance to 'em. The Warhol market will be better with them gone. My only regret is that the dozens -- perhaps hundreds -- of legitimate Warhols marred with board's "DENIED" stamp (and often in the case of works on paper, the subsequent bleed-through) can never be fixed.
I agree that the WAB has been a failure with too many scandals. However, to be fair to them, they're definately not the worst authentication board but rather the more mediatic exposed one.
It was handled badly after Fred Hughes (Warhol's manager) handed over the authentication process. The main problem was IMO the composition of the board that did not include and disregards opinions from top Warhol experts.
If you dealt with any authentication board other than PC (but to be honest it's really not at the same level), you'll see that you always sign a weaver not to sue and not to ask any question if your work gets rejected.
Basquiat's father is as bad as the Warhol board. Lichtenstein is not far from there. The Chagall committee destroys the artwork if found inauthentic. Claude Picasso check every auctions where there is proper lot by Picasso and give his comments when smething is bothering him (even if he has not legitimacy as an expert)......
Strategically it's a terrible move from the Warhol Foundation. Let alone prints (who usually don't get authenticated anyway). It may rise problems regarding paintings, drawings... Even though, auction houses don't always consult with authentication boards. It's gonna be tough for owners of real work without proper documentation and will push forgeries upward.
It's great news if you ask me. The Warhol "Authentication" Board not only has way too much power and absolutely no transparency or liability, they have a horrible, horrible reputation for favoritism and dishonesty. What other art organization regularly defaces artwork that it claims to be inauthentic, but refuses to give the criteria for their reasoning? What other authentication board is sued with such regularity and vehemence, and always with the same accusations (from the Simon case: "The complaint alleges that the Warhol Foundationรขโฌโขs ongoing catalogue raisonnรยฉ project and Authentication Board have for two decades fraudulently rejected legitimate works to artificially limit supply and thereby increase the value of Warhol works held by the foundation.")? Look no further than the Brillo Box fiasco from a few of years back for an example of their ethics and motivations. I've never heard of a lawsuit against the Roy Lichtenstein Foundation, the Keith Haring Studio LLC, Pest Control, or any of the other dedicated authentication groups that I know of. Good riddance to 'em. The Warhol market will be better with them gone. My only regret is that the dozens -- perhaps hundreds -- of legitimate Warhols marred with board's "DENIED" stamp (and often in the case of works on paper, the subsequent bleed-through) can never be fixed. I agree that the WAB has been a failure with too many scandals. However, to be fair to them, they're definately not the worst authentication board but rather the more mediatic exposed one. It was handled badly after Fred Hughes (Warhol's manager) handed over the authentication process. The main problem was IMO the composition of the board that did not include and disregards opinions from top Warhol experts. If you dealt with any authentication board other than PC (but to be honest it's really not at the same level), you'll see that you always sign a weaver not to sue and not to ask any question if your work gets rejected. Basquiat's father is as bad as the Warhol board. Lichtenstein is not far from there. The Chagall committee destroys the artwork if found inauthentic. Claude Picasso check every auctions where there is proper lot by Picasso and give his comments when smething is bothering him (even if he has not legitimacy as an expert)...... Strategically it's a terrible move from the Warhol Foundation. Let alone prints (who usually don't get authenticated anyway). It may rise problems regarding paintings, drawings... Even though, auction houses don't always consult with authentication boards. It's gonna be tough for owners of real work without proper documentation and will push forgeries upward. |
|
tobaum
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,077
๐๐ป 7
November 2009
|
Andy Warhol ๐บ๐ธ Real or Fake? โข Sunday B. Morning Print, by tobaum on Oct 20, 2011 6:32:10 GMT 1, What is the source of the article?
Any link?
Thanks.
What is the source of the article?
Any link?
Thanks.
|
|
Sacked...
Full Member
๐จ๏ธ 7,978
๐๐ป 1,338
October 2007
|
|
|
tobaum
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,077
๐๐ป 7
November 2009
|
Thank you  |
|
|
|
Andy Warhol ๐บ๐ธ Real or Fake? โข Sunday B. Morning Print, by Mister Whisper on Oct 20, 2011 9:35:01 GMT 1, Basquiat's father is as bad as the Warhol board. Lichtenstein is not far from there. The Chagall committee destroys the artwork if found inauthentic. Claude Picasso check every auctions where there is proper lot by Picasso and give his comments when smething is bothering him (even if he has not legitimacy as an expert)...... Strategically it's a terrible move from the Warhol Foundation. Let alone prints (who usually don't get authenticated anyway). It may rise problems regarding paintings, drawings... Even though, auction houses don't always consult with authentication boards. It's gonna be tough for owners of real work without proper documentation and will push forgeries upward.
I didn't know how strict the modernists are! (Well, okay, Picasso authentication is notorious) The Chagall committee actually destroys stuff they're unsure of? I hope they haven't made any mistakes...
The reason I'm glad that the Warhol foundation is going is because so many auction houses require their approval, but their reputation for turning away authentic pieces is equally matched by their reputation for giving their friends a "pass" -- again, the Brillo situation comes to mind, and here's another suspicious indicator of favoritism and an attempt to control the market from the Wall Street Journal -- out of the 175 Warhols the board has left to authenticate, 100, well over half of them, belong to one single dealer. And this same dealer apparently has relied on them to authenticate at least 800 previous Warhols.
As for fakes -- hopefully it won't be worse than it already is. The same article quotes Christie's as saying, "...any fakes that roll onto the marketplace in coming months "will be easy to spot.""
If you're interested, the WSJ article is here: online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204618704576641623099797998.html
Basquiat's father is as bad as the Warhol board. Lichtenstein is not far from there. The Chagall committee destroys the artwork if found inauthentic. Claude Picasso check every auctions where there is proper lot by Picasso and give his comments when smething is bothering him (even if he has not legitimacy as an expert)...... Strategically it's a terrible move from the Warhol Foundation. Let alone prints (who usually don't get authenticated anyway). It may rise problems regarding paintings, drawings... Even though, auction houses don't always consult with authentication boards. It's gonna be tough for owners of real work without proper documentation and will push forgeries upward. I didn't know how strict the modernists are! (Well, okay, Picasso authentication is notorious) The Chagall committee actually destroys stuff they're unsure of? I hope they haven't made any mistakes... The reason I'm glad that the Warhol foundation is going is because so many auction houses require their approval, but their reputation for turning away authentic pieces is equally matched by their reputation for giving their friends a "pass" -- again, the Brillo situation comes to mind, and here's another suspicious indicator of favoritism and an attempt to control the market from the Wall Street Journal -- out of the 175 Warhols the board has left to authenticate, 100, well over half of them, belong to one single dealer. And this same dealer apparently has relied on them to authenticate at least 800 previous Warhols. As for fakes -- hopefully it won't be worse than it already is. The same article quotes Christie's as saying, "...any fakes that roll onto the marketplace in coming months "will be easy to spot."" If you're interested, the WSJ article is here: online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204618704576641623099797998.html |
|
Deux Spin
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 588
๐๐ป 0
March 2011
|
Andy Warhol ๐บ๐ธ Real or Fake? โข Sunday B. Morning Print, by Deux Spin on Nov 16, 2011 8:43:48 GMT 1, Not much publicised but I'm told some of the most important pieces in their collection will be on display!
The exhibit opens to the public on the 18th and should run for a few weeks, more details to follow.
Not much publicised but I'm told some of the most important pieces in their collection will be on display!
The exhibit opens to the public on the 18th and should run for a few weeks, more details to follow.
|
|
pezlow
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 5,388
๐๐ป 254
January 2007
|
Andy Warhol ๐บ๐ธ Real or Fake? โข Sunday B. Morning Print, by pezlow on Dec 30, 2011 12:02:47 GMT 1, From the french mint,
I love these, the silver painted coin would look great in a little frame!
www.monnaiedeparis.fr/collection-andy-warhol-2011.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
Andy Warhol ๐บ๐ธ Real or Fake? โข Sunday B. Morning Print, by Brushstrokes 75 on Dec 30, 2011 12:10:05 GMT 1, sure will! So is the 5000 euros one lol
sure will! So is the 5000 euros one lol
|
|
pezlow
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 5,388
๐๐ป 254
January 2007
|
Andy Warhol ๐บ๐ธ Real or Fake? โข Sunday B. Morning Print, by pezlow on Dec 30, 2011 12:11:40 GMT 1, Lol, not sure I could stretch to the 5000 euros one. Such is the appeal of warhol though I'm sure they will sell out.
Lol, not sure I could stretch to the 5000 euros one. Such is the appeal of warhol though I'm sure they will sell out.
|
|
pezlow
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 5,388
๐๐ป 254
January 2007
|
Andy Warhol ๐บ๐ธ Real or Fake? โข Sunday B. Morning Print, by pezlow on Dec 30, 2011 12:13:35 GMT 1, Oops just noticed the title of this thread says billion not bullion. Then again maybe that isn't too far off the mark!
Oops just noticed the title of this thread says billion not bullion. Then again maybe that isn't too far off the mark!
|
|
letiss
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,658
๐๐ป 689
August 2011
|
Andy Warhol ๐บ๐ธ Real or Fake? โข Sunday B. Morning Print, by letiss on Dec 30, 2011 12:16:58 GMT 1, Perhaps by picking Warhol it is a wry social commentary by the French on the state and future of the Euro?
Perhaps by picking Warhol it is a wry social commentary by the French on the state and future of the Euro?
|
|
pezlow
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 5,388
๐๐ป 254
January 2007
|
Andy Warhol ๐บ๐ธ Real or Fake? โข Sunday B. Morning Print, by pezlow on Dec 30, 2011 12:19:33 GMT 1, Perhaps by picking Warhol it is a wry social commentary by the French on the state and future of the Euro?
Very possible. Could certainly be interpreted as that....
Perhaps by picking Warhol it is a wry social commentary by the French on the state and future of the Euro? Very possible. Could certainly be interpreted as that.... |
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Andy Warhol ๐บ๐ธ Real or Fake? โข Sunday B. Morning Print, by Deleted on Dec 30, 2011 12:27:48 GMT 1, I'm gonna make some Waffles or toast in the shape of Warhols face and charge shed loads. The price of the gold coins is unbelievable. Although the Silver coin is reasonably priced.
I'm gonna make some Waffles or toast in the shape of Warhols face and charge shed loads. The price of the gold coins is unbelievable. Although the Silver coin is reasonably priced.
|
|
pezlow
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 5,388
๐๐ป 254
January 2007
|
Andy Warhol ๐บ๐ธ Real or Fake? โข Sunday B. Morning Print, by pezlow on Dec 30, 2011 12:31:02 GMT 1, Lol, Warhol waffles.
Lol, Warhol waffles.
|
|
ncewnimw
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 568
๐๐ป 419
November 2011
|
Andy Warhol ๐บ๐ธ Real or Fake? โข Sunday B. Morning Print, by ncewnimw on Dec 30, 2011 12:37:00 GMT 1, I totally agree with you Pezlow, I thinking I'll have to order two thou. Nice to have bott sides displayed side by side.
I totally agree with you Pezlow, I thinking I'll have to order two thou. Nice to have bott sides displayed side by side.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Andy Warhol ๐บ๐ธ Real or Fake? โข Sunday B. Morning Print, by Happy Shopper on Dec 30, 2011 13:29:20 GMT 1, The expression "throwing good money after bad" comes to mind! 
The expression "throwing good money after bad" comes to mind! |
|
|
|
Shoot Again
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 5,594
๐๐ป 2,815
April 2011
|
Did you buy the Warhol then Zim ? |
|
seqret
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,133
๐๐ป 1,135
October 2011
|
Andy Warhol ๐บ๐ธ Real or Fake? โข Sunday B. Morning Print, by seqret on Dec 30, 2011 14:54:30 GMT 1, 100 euro coin costs now 1100 on their site
100 euro coin costs now 1100 on their site
|
|
johnnyh
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 4,492
๐๐ป 2,102
March 2011
|
Andy Warhol ๐บ๐ธ Real or Fake? โข Sunday B. Morning Print, by johnnyh on Dec 30, 2011 16:05:44 GMT 1, Seqret 100โฌ normally paper not gold. So aside from the warhol bit and the special edition blah blah you have to work the gold price times the weight for a true base value of the coin not use the 100 โฌ face value.
The gold value as a guide price is between 650 - 700โฌ I think. That's on the 100 coin never even looked the other value
I think the silvers are quite cool as decent price and quite funky
Seqret 100โฌ normally paper not gold. So aside from the warhol bit and the special edition blah blah you have to work the gold price times the weight for a true base value of the coin not use the 100 โฌ face value.
The gold value as a guide price is between 650 - 700โฌ I think. That's on the 100 coin never even looked the other value
I think the silvers are quite cool as decent price and quite funky
|
|
|
|
Andy Warhol ๐บ๐ธ Real or Fake? โข Sunday B. Morning Print, by bernard on Dec 30, 2011 16:31:01 GMT 1, The expression "throwing good money after bad" comes to mind!
It does .
The expression "throwing good money after bad" comes to mind! It does . |
|
greeneny
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 118
๐๐ป 1
October 2007
|
Andy Warhol ๐บ๐ธ Real or Fake? โข Sunday B. Morning Print, by greeneny on Dec 30, 2011 21:44:47 GMT 1, For Sale
Andy Warhol
Merce Cunningham I
Screenprint on Japanese gift wrapping paper.
1974
30" x 20"
Signed and numbered #11 / 100 in pencil on verso
Museum Quality Framed
Acquired directly from Warhol Foundation For The Arts
Currently at framer in Manhattan
$20,000
For Sale Andy Warhol Merce Cunningham I Screenprint on Japanese gift wrapping paper. 1974 30" x 20" Signed and numbered #11 / 100 in pencil on verso Museum Quality Framed Acquired directly from Warhol Foundation For The Arts Currently at framer in Manhattan $20,000 |
|
ABC
Artist
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 5,533
๐๐ป 1,923
August 2006
|
Andy Warhol ๐บ๐ธ Real or Fake? โข Sunday B. Morning Print, by ABC on Dec 30, 2011 22:54:17 GMT 1, BLOODY FANTASTIC, Good luck in sale
BLOODY FANTASTIC, Good luck in sale
|
|
