[spirit]

I have the following 3 framed prints for sale.

I will listen to sensible offers as would like to get these sold as just sitting in spare room at the moment.
Not interested in any swaps/trades though.

Please PM if interested.

Blek le Rat: Last Tango in Paris
ArtistScreenprint Edition: 145.
Size: 14" x 19" Year: 2006.
Signed & Numbered
Framed in dark wood ornate frame by Mister Frame Man
Price:£650





Eine: Elton Dark
2007. Edition of 150
27” x 27” (69 x 69cm)
7-color screen-print on black art paper
Signed, numbered, and blind stamped
Framed in black box frame by Mr Frame man
Price:£450



Logan Hicks : Sunset Apartment Complex
Signed edition of 150
Medium : 7 colour screenprint on 300gsm blindstamped somerset satin white paper
Image size: 60cm x 60cm
Sheet Size: 74cm x 76cm
Price : £250.00
Framed in grey frame with triple mount by Mr Frame Man









[/a]

[rebelate]

PM Sent for Blek!

[Wilson]

Some crackin' frame jobs there. Love the Eine

[spirit]

Prints are located in Hampton, SW London (Middlesex) btw.

[ABC]

I have the logan Hicks hanging. It's a cracking print and a bargain for someone.

[spirit]

The Blek is now sold.

Eine Elton price reduced to £450.

[South Bound]

The Eine Eltons look so good in person. Would buy it myself but cost of shipping on a framed print is a killer for me.

GLWS..

[spirit]

Aug 31, 2015 21:30:31 GMT 1 South Bound said:

The Eine Eltons look so good in person. Would buy it myself but cost of shipping on a framed print is a killer for me.

GLWS..

I agree. They've always been underrated I reckon. I've got an Elton Light which is on the wall and I'm keeping. 

[cmodart]

that blek looks great!

[spirit]

Any last minute offers on the Hicks or Elton before I stick them on the bay?

I'm keen to sell so don't be shy...

cheers

[spirit]

Hicks and Elton now on the bay...

I won't update this thread anymore but you can still message me if interested. thanks.

[spirit]

I know I said I wouldn't update this thread anymore, and the Eine and Hicks are on the bay, but I thought I would offer a special deal to forumites...

I think the Eine my original eine price was too high (don't keep up with prices much these days) and recently discovered that a load of Eltons were sold off by POW not so long ago which has made the price a fair bit lower than I thought.

I would let the Eine go for £350 which I think is much more reasonable and the Hicks for £200 which is an absolute bargain I reckon. Both look great on the wall. Let me know if interested. Thanks.

[artea]

Whats the meaning of the missing "W" in the Elton Dark print? Theres got to be a talking point in there right? I like pieces with a story.

[Pipes]

Sept 4, 2015 19:07:12 GMT 1 artea said:

Whats the meaning of the missing "W" in the Elton Dark print? Theres got to be a talking point in there right? I like pieces with a story.

The W is on the COA (or is on shutterfont prints)

The 25 letters form a square, where as his previous circus font print had the Z all on its own, on another line.

[South Bound]

Eine has said in interviews that his alphabets are a study of form and color. Losing the W allows for it to be more uniform... Not sure why he chooses the W.

[Coach]

Sept 4, 2015 20:04:44 GMT 1 South Bound said:

Eine has said in interviews that his alphabets are a study of form and color. Losing the W allows for it to be more uniform... Not sure why he chooses the W.

It's been mentioned before that W is left out as it's W for writer. No idea if that's right or wrong and no idea why that would mean it gets left out.
Not much help, I know.

[brut]

I think there was a lot of rumours at the time that the W was left out because of George W Bush who was President at that time. This could be absolute bollo*ks though.

[spirit]

After agreeing a deal on the Blek Tango with a well known gallery, the gallery decided to stop responding to my messages before we could complete... Didn't say that they changed their mind or wanted to back out, just went silent... Par for the course with some members on here I know but honestly I expected better from a gallery. Silly me.

So... the Blek is for sale again! I had a lot of interest from the US first time round but would prefer a UK deal if possible due to it being framed.

The Eine and the Hicks are also still available.

If interested, please send me a PM. thanks.

[rebelate]

Pm sent

[spirit]

The Blek is now sold pending payment

[met]

Oct 9, 2015 15:09:22 GMT 1 spirit said:

After agreeing a deal on the Blek Tango with a well known gallery, the gallery decided to stop responding to my messages before we could complete... Didn't say that they changed their mind or wanted to back out, just went silent... Par for the course with some members on here I know but honestly I expected better from a gallery. Silly me.

So... the Blek is for sale again! I had a lot of interest from the US first time round but would prefer a UK deal if possible due to it being framed.

The Eine and the Hicks are also still available.

If interested, please send me a PM. thanks.

Are you comfortable disclosing which well-known gallery treated you in this manner? 

I'd be interested to know, whether via this thread, the Not So Good Dealings With: thread, or private message — to make a note for future reference of whom to be wary or avoid entirely.

Private individuals form a heterogenous group of buyers and sellers, but it is reasonable to expect a higher standard of professionalism (including basic courtesy) from businesses. And when the latter are found wanting in this regard, it seems fair they be called out for it. However, I appreciate that publicly naming the gallery is potentially a bridge-burning exercise you may prefer to sidestep.

[wacky]

Sept 1, 2015 4:05:11 GMT 1 cmodart said:

that blek looks great!

agreed, great framing job

[rebelate]

Send you a PM...again lol

[spirit]

Nov 27, 2015 1:37:44 GMT 1 met said:

Oct 9, 2015 15:09:22 GMT 1 spirit said:

After agreeing a deal on the Blek Tango with a well known gallery, the gallery decided to stop responding to my messages before we could complete... Didn't say that they changed their mind or wanted to back out, just went silent... Par for the course with some members on here I know but honestly I expected better from a gallery. Silly me.

So... the Blek is for sale again! I had a lot of interest from the US first time round but would prefer a UK deal if possible due to it being framed.

The Eine and the Hicks are also still available.

If interested, please send me a PM. thanks.

Are you comfortable disclosing which well-known gallery treated you in this manner? 

I'd be interested to know, whether via this thread, the Not So Good Dealings With: thread, or private message — to make a note for future reference of whom to be wary or avoid entirely.

Private individuals form a heterogenous group of buyers and sellers, but it is reasonable to expect a higher standard of professionalism (including basic courtesy) from businesses. And when the latter are found wanting in this regard, it seems fair they be called out for it. However, I appreciate that publicly naming the gallery is potentially a bridge-burning exercise you may prefer to sidestep.

I'm not going to disclose which gallery it was. While it was frustrating and I expected better, no real damage was done and if I call them out publicly I think it would be doing them much more harm than they did me. However I do hope they read my post and behave a bit more professionally in future. As you say - basic courtesy really shouldn't be too much to expect from a business.

I sold the Blek to someone else on the day I made that post about the gallery so all's well that end's well.

[spirit]

Nov 27, 2015 2:59:49 GMT 1 rebelate said:

Send you a PM...again lol

Sorry Rebelate, it sold back in October.

[ABC]

Can't believe that Hicks is there ripe for picking at £200. It's a cracking print and the frame would cost that alone.

[spirit]

Nov 27, 2015 23:30:50 GMT 1 ABC said:

Can't believe that Hicks is there ripe for picking at £200. It's a cracking print and the frame would cost that alone.

I know mate - surprised it hasn't gone at that price - it looks great on the wall.

Maybe I should advertise it as a smart grey frame with triple mount that comes with a free Logan Hicks print?

[Coach]

Nov 27, 2015 2:59:49 GMT 1 rebelate said:

Send you a PM...again lol

I have been around for a while, and I still don't understand why people post "I've sent you a pm".
It seems to serve no purpose other than to tell other potential buyers to hurry up and make an offer, which is contrary to the interests of the person posting "I've sent you a pm". Am I missing something?

[met]

Nov 27, 2015 19:02:48 GMT 1 spirit said:

Nov 27, 2015 1:37:44 GMT 1 met said:

Are you comfortable disclosing which well-known gallery treated you in this manner? 

I'd be interested to know, whether via this thread, the Not So Good Dealings With: thread, or private message — to make a note for future reference of whom to be wary or avoid entirely.

Private individuals form a heterogenous group of buyers and sellers, but it is reasonable to expect a higher standard of professionalism (including basic courtesy) from businesses. And when the latter are found wanting in this regard, it seems fair they be called out for it. However, I appreciate that publicly naming the gallery is potentially a bridge-burning exercise you may prefer to sidestep.

I'm not going to disclose which gallery it was. While it was frustrating and I expected better, no real damage was done and if I call them out publicly I think it would be doing them much more harm than they did me. However I do hope they read my post and behave a bit more professionally in future. As you say - basic courtesy really shouldn't be too much to expect from a business.

I sold the Blek to someone else on the day I made that post about the gallery so all's well that end's well.

That is a fair enough stance to take.

Just for the purpose of conversation, I think the reason we hold separate opinions here is largely because we're looking at the situation from different angles:

1.  Your emphasis on the actual or possible harm to each party perhaps suggests that you see disclosing the gallery's identity as an act of retribution, or as having the same effect. Hence the honourable concern regarding proportionality, that the "punishment" should fit the so-called crime.

2.  To my mind, such disclosure would simply be of a fact that completes a truthful, non-misleading account of one man's experience with a gallery during the course of a single transaction. Nothing more. In this respect, it would be comparable to a private individual's review of their recent experience at a restaurant.

For example, I might be pleasantly greeted and sat by a hostess, have my order promptly taken by a friendly waiter, and then subsequently (for reasons unknown) be repeatedly ignored by staff members when my food fails to arrive — until I finally decide to stop wasting my time, leave in frustration, and make myself a sandwich at home.

Any review written by me would however be less motivated by vengeance than by the stronger desire to give other potential diners a heads-up.

Who knows? The chef may have collapsed, the ovens may have broken down, or other blameless and one-off causes could at least partly explain what happened. The staff may have been in a panic. It wouldn't necessarily mean they were bad people, or that future diners would face similar ordeals. But if the above scenario had occurred, I'd consider it legitimate (and perhaps a duty) to share — to give an honest and evenhanded description of my personal experience at the restaurant on that particular day. In isolation, a poor write-up would of course be damaging. However, when combined with other existing reviews (positive, neutral and negative) and considered as a whole, it would hopefully offer a relatively accurate picture of what diners could expect there.

The more details publicly available about dealings with establishments, and the greater the number of sources, the stronger a position people are in to make informed decisions on whether or not to give those establishments their business.

-----------------

This was a long-winded way of trying to show how our priorities differ: Not unreasonably, yours seem more focused on the reputational and commercial interests of your counterparty, the gallery — whereas I, as a third-party outsider, naturally give greater precedence to open information exchange between collectors.

I believe both our positions have potential benefits and drawbacks.

[Deleted]

Nov 28, 2015 3:43:35 GMT 1 met said:

Nov 27, 2015 19:02:48 GMT 1 spirit said:

I'm not going to disclose which gallery it was. While it was frustrating and I expected better, no real damage was done and if I call them out publicly I think it would be doing them much more harm than they did me. However I do hope they read my post and behave a bit more professionally in future. As you say - basic courtesy really shouldn't be too much to expect from a business.

I sold the Blek to someone else on the day I made that post about the gallery so all's well that end's well.

That is a fair enough stance to take.

Just for the purpose of conversation, I think the reason we hold separate opinions here is largely because we're looking at the situation from different angles:

1.  Your emphasis on the actual or possible harm to each party perhaps suggests that you see disclosing the gallery's identity as an act of retribution, or as having the same effect. Hence the honourable concern regarding proportionality, that the "punishment" should fit the so-called crime.

2.  To my mind, such disclosure would simply be of a fact that completes a truthful, non-misleading account of one man's experience with a gallery during the course of a single transaction. Nothing more. In this respect, it would be comparable to a private individual's review of their recent experience at a restaurant.

For example, I might be pleasantly greeted and sat by a hostess, have my order promptly taken by a friendly waiter, and then subsequently (for reasons unknown) be repeatedly ignored by staff members when my food fails to arrive — until I finally decide to stop wasting my time, leave in frustration, and make myself a sandwich at home.

Any review written by me would however be less motivated by vengeance than by the stronger desire to give other potential diners a heads-up.

Who knows? The chef may have collapsed, the ovens may have broken down, or other blameless and one-off causes could at least partly explain what happened. The staff may have been in a panic. It wouldn't necessarily mean they were bad people, or that future diners would face similar ordeals. But if the above scenario had occurred, I'd consider it legitimate (and perhaps a duty) to share — to give an honest and evenhanded description of my personal experience at the restaurant on that particular day. In isolation, a poor write-up would of course be damaging. However, when combined with other existing reviews (positive, neutral and negative) and considered as a whole, it would hopefully offer a relatively accurate picture of what diners could expect there.

The more details publicly available about dealings with establishments, and the greater the number of sources, the stronger a position people are in to make informed decisions on whether or not to give those establishments their business.

-----------------

This was a long-winded way of trying to show how our priorities differ: Not unreasonably, yours seem more focused on the reputational and commercial interests of your counterparty, the gallery — whereas I, as a third-party outsider, naturally give greater precedence to open information exchange between collectors.

I believe both our positions have potential benefits and drawbacks.

You seem to strip out the humanity of these small businesses we call galleries, they're generally not some corporate entity with the moral code of a right wing christian thinking of nothing other than their own self interest and profit.

As Mr David Foster Wallace. You have a choice what to believe. Personally, I think the chef collapsed after working a triple shift to earn enough to pay for his sick moms medicine.