I'm thinking 500K is a particularly overly optimistic estimate. While true the guy was ripped off, and it is more than likely a real Banksy there is no way Laz will say for sure whether it is real or not.

I guess the fact that it is in a gallery as opposed to ebay will fool some people into thinking it is more legit than it really is.

I liked the part at the end of the article were he asks Banksy to come and spray another stencil on his stall for him. I wonder if it'll ever happen?

pastiepie,

Why would you say this piece lacks legitimacy? Is there any doubt in your mind that it is a Banksy? This story was referred to in the letters section of Banksy's own website.

Fair enough with Laz not authenticating street pieces; he doesn't want to encourage theft of public property and art that was meant to be enjoyed by everyone. As the 'What?' image was done on private property, the owner could rightly do as he pleased with it. In this case, he unwittingly sold it for far less than it was worth.

However, Laz does not have the monopoly when it comes to provenance. Given his history and the fact that he is Banksy's manager, his input is critical when it comes to the authenticity of older pieces. As these were created when Banksy was less well known, there is greater scope for uncertainty as to their genuineness. On these occasions, prices fluctuate according to whether Laz says 'yay' or 'nay'.

The 'What?' painting and at least two similar boy images painted on walls in London fall into a very different category. Just like the painting on the side of the sexual health clinic in Bristol, they were done when everyone and their dog had heard of Banksy. They were also well documented at the time. In this case, while a sign-off by Laz may be nice to have, it is also completely unnecessary because there is no serious doubt that they are works by Banksy.