Whatever the rights and wrongs.... Its a shame The Outsiders issue's could not have been resolved in a private Email, or a discussion face to face....!

Bad Form on behalf of the gallery indeed..........

All else aside that is some nice bast

Wait a second. Let me get this straight. You people at "The Outsiders" i.e. Lazarides are upset because someone has a piece of art they're reselling at a price you aren't happy with?

Holy sh!t are you fu#king serious?

You people who make a living off of manipulating prices, desire and hype are upset at someone reselling a work of art? You people are so full sh!t it's unbelievable. I commend you for riding the gravy train while you can but you and your business ethics are a complete joke. You manipulate the market and spew out tons of overpriced art and now your upset because you've lost some control over the market!?

Absolutely mindblowing, the gaul you people have. You really need to take your attitude and shove it, shove it shove it up your...

Nice One johnny - great pick up.

(a little bit jealous )

Cheers esciff think it's more some tosser who joined them and as said earlier they obviously do not control the artist. Which I think is a good thing. As mentioned Neil told me the price of his new ones back in Jan.
So he was straight with me. Same way I never discussed those prices when I bought this piece.

But I am pretty sure that person does not reflect those galleries. I hope some one from there does respond. As very rude posts and not only on this occasion but do dislike very rude posts regardless of who by.

Eschiff whilst I cannot say with 100% accuracy that there is not something hidden about this work I can tell you that I spoke with the seller last night, he was the first owner and he bought it online from a BAST release last year. So I was the second owner through a trade as previously explained valued at £3000. I cannot imagine that there can be any other history to this piece.

I have contacted BAST and explain the situation in full.

I am not sure that this is the first and only outburst by this individual as dealing with an anonymous person has its restrictions, but maybe I need to grow thicker skin.

Fair enough, congrats on the sale! I do like the stinkfish as well, need to pick something up by him at some point.

Same goes for mod star jonny

^ Nope. I do not see a problem

johnnyh - I will buy you a beer! ;D

Deputydawg I tried to answer it in my last post but maybe I was drawn to the specifics of my thread rather than answering the generic question that you asked.

There are probably many aspects to consider but here are two that come to mind.

From the love of art aspect I guess the honest answer is you would hope that in every case each piece would stay forever with its original owner or the longer the better. I would add that this would also probably if not definitely lead to the commercial failure of said artist.

So to the second aspect. I believe that a healthy, growing secondary market is a 'necessary evil' for a gallery, artist and a collector. It underpins the primary market more often than it undermines it. That said, all must try to compliment each other.

Whether a sale that is made shortly after a purchase from primary and several times thereafter undermines the artist or a gallery purely depends on the circumstances. For instance in a rising market I think little harm is done but in a declining market this type of sale if not handled sensitively could have a detrimental effect on the longevity of an artists commercial success.

I would also add that too rapid a rise in an artists commercial value could also have a negative effect especially when their CV appears to be devoid from the usual boxes you would expect to see ticked.

Of course these are generic thoughts and there are as always exceptions to the rule.

Wow. Well I guess that it is good to know that threads like this can blow up in Britain just like they do over here in the U.S., only with a bit more civility.

That being said, I would appreciate a response to my prior question, which was whether posted prices on a gallery's web site, such as Laz, POW, etc. is either required to, or traditionally does, include VAT. Any replies would be most appreciated.

Carry on with the flaming.

From what Harveyn said it has moved twice, whether a piece move's several times in 6 weeks 6 months or 6years, what gives anybody the right to make moral judgments over somebody else's property.

I've bought numerous pieces through Laz over the years, VAT has always, always, been deducted.

So when an artist brings out multiple edition print's, that is like loads of extension's, got nothing to do with making a bit of money, also I would like to know what the "consequences" are we should worry about.