[Jimmy Oscar]

What does the forum think?

Would you sell two unsigned Banksy's to help fund one signed piece?

Have a Happy Choppers, Grannies and a CND - would probably have to let the HC plus one go to get up to around a signed piece price - may even need to add some cash after that, but not a problem, would only let 2 unsigned go max at this stage.

Worth it - or is it about the quantity over the single signed piece?


And yes I love the images (especially the HC) but something tells me to grab a signed print and with current prices it seems a sensible approach.


Appreciate balanced views!

[Unica]

I'd probably sell all three and get an awesome signed print. I'm not sure the going rate for all three of yours but I would think you would get a more sought after print than the 3 you already have.

[china man]

I would name the signed print your after and you might get some offers? Those three I reckon are 9 too 10k all in.

[foreman]

quality over quantity in my opinion...

[Edge]

Its all about the image mate, plenty Banksy pieces signed or unsigned I would not have on my wall. But in the same breath if I could get a signed version of one of my favorite images then game on.

[naughtyshorty]

I guess quite simply it depends on whether you are collecting for artistic appreciation or for value.

If the former stick with what you have got. If it's the latter trade to a signed.

[Howard Johnson]

Personally I'd only sacrifice the u/s ones for a iconic print that only came in a signed edition. I know there are rational arguments to both sides of the debate, but I think u/s pieces are a better investment. 10-20 years from now I just don't see the signature adding the value that it does in todays market. Plus, a lower price point means a bigger market of buyers, which provides a bit more expediency when it comes time to cash in on your investment. Just to be clear I've got no information to back this up, just my gut feeling and the fact that it seems silly the prices people pay for signed works when you can get the exact same piece for a fraction of the cost.

That being said, the iconic pieces like Nola, Kate Moss, CYW, or NBG that only came signed are a no brainer in terms of investment, just depends on your taste.

[Deleted]

Various unsigned iconic pieces are surpassing some signed pieces so yes it all depends on the image at hand good luck

[coller]

Jul 25, 2015 0:43:51 GMT 1 Howard Johnson said:

Personally I'd only sacrifice the u/s ones for a iconic print that only came in a signed edition. I know there are rational arguments to both sides of the debate, but I think u/s pieces are a better investment. 10-20 years from now I just don't see the signature adding the value that it does in todays market. Plus, a lower price point means a bigger market of buyers, which provides a bit more expediency when it comes time to cash in on your investment. Just to be clear I've got no information to back this up, just my gut feeling and the fact that it seems silly the prices people pay for signed works when you can get the exact same piece for a fraction of the cost.

That being said, the iconic pieces like Nola, Kate Moss, CYW, or NBG that only came signed are a no brainer in terms of investment, just depends on your taste.

Agree with this, aside from CYW and NBG. I still think most of those are in flatfiles or archivally framed somewhere and will have their crash moment. Older ones (pre-2005) that are recognizable have a better chance to spike since there are likely much fewer in good condition. Kate Moss will always be what it is b/c of the low edition size and the Kate Moss of it all.

Also I think the unsigned Banksy's that feature the logo on the bottom will fetch more than the blank unsigneds (like unsigned CND) since they look more complete. Same with red stamp vs. no red stamp for HMV or Golf Sale and the like.

[Jeezuz Jones Snr]

Good read here fellas


m.huffpost.com/us/entry/826711