|
|
Post by silvermyn on Apr 26, 2012 14:35:32 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by johnnyh on Apr 26, 2012 14:47:25 GMT 1
£46k that's a bit hopeful me thinks. Nice piece though
|
|
|
|
Post by otto71 on Apr 26, 2012 15:17:12 GMT 1
I find it funny that they are charging shipping.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnnyh on Apr 26, 2012 15:20:58 GMT 1
Fair play to you Otto considering whether you should or should not pay for shipping!!!!!
Never even bothered to read that bit. All over long before then
|
|
|
|
Post by otto71 on Apr 26, 2012 15:26:12 GMT 1
Not considering. Considering that I do not have funds like that in my bank account.
However, if I did, I would rather spend it on a Conor Harrington OG, than the Kate print.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Apr 26, 2012 15:46:23 GMT 1
Would love one of these
|
|
confused2
2 Star Member
We are the music makers and we are the dreamers of dreams
Posts: 429
|
Post by confused2 on Apr 26, 2012 15:50:44 GMT 1
A touch pricey, but a beauty all the same. Come on Lotto, it's surely me?
|
|
fredquimbyfan
1 Star Member
still seeking Banksy originals - discretion guaranteed
Posts: 228
|
Post by fredquimbyfan on Apr 26, 2012 16:09:02 GMT 1
What do people think a realistic price is for this piece? I know Kates haven't been the strongest Banksy image of late...
|
|
|
|
Post by redfred on Apr 26, 2012 16:13:29 GMT 1
£25k-£30k
|
|
fredquimbyfan
1 Star Member
still seeking Banksy originals - discretion guaranteed
Posts: 228
|
Post by fredquimbyfan on Apr 26, 2012 16:19:08 GMT 1
Yeah - I thought about 20-25k sterling based on recent non-sales
|
|
|
|
Post by johnnyh on Apr 26, 2012 16:20:16 GMT 1
Again fair play to you Otto good choice mate
Redfred think your about on the button but he/she is sort of charging an auction house price including the fee's
|
|
|
|
Post by mariusz119 on Apr 26, 2012 16:22:12 GMT 1
wow
|
|
|
|
Post by hubblebubble on Apr 26, 2012 16:58:44 GMT 1
Don't get the furore over Kate. IMHO possibly the most derivative piece in B's cannon and not at all typical of his oeuvre.
I think it looks great and is extremely striking. But isn't it - essentially - Banksy does Warhol?
HB
|
|
|
|
Post by johnnyh on Apr 26, 2012 17:16:06 GMT 1
It Is Hubble but he did do it well!!!! As always he tweaked and hit nail om head
Lovely piece
|
|
|
|
Post by eschiff on Apr 26, 2012 17:20:30 GMT 1
how did he tweak it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Apr 26, 2012 17:22:49 GMT 1
well Warhol never done a KAte Moss print a? |
|
|
|
Post by johnnyh on Apr 26, 2012 17:26:40 GMT 1
Well he used Kate moss rather than Marilyn. K Moss was our great girl. Super model , wild down to earth and if your English and around at that time we all loved her and still do
Classic.
Banksy is a social comentator to a certain extent. Its not his fine art skills
|
|
|
|
Post by Veralynn on Apr 26, 2012 18:37:59 GMT 1
Don't get the furore over Kate. IMHO possibly the most derivative piece in B's cannon and not at all typical of his oeuvre. I think it looks great and is extremely striking. But isn't it - essentially - Banksy does Warhol? HB I went into office which had six Kate's on the wall once and it looked stunning. I regret not buying more when I had the chance but they seemed like such a lot of money back then.... |
|
|
|
Post by AFR1KA on Apr 26, 2012 18:55:38 GMT 1
Dam I love that image.
|
|
|
|
Post by mmmike on Apr 26, 2012 20:14:00 GMT 1
Are these then now more expensive than the Warhol Marilyns?
Kind of strange if that is the case. Personally I'd rather have the Kate, however it does say something about future values. Banksy is the man at the moment. I can't see Banksy never mind Kate Moss being as being as popular as Warhol and Marilyn 30 years from now.
I'm sure there will be a new crop of hot artists. Not sure if these will have the same legs as Warhol prints.
|
|
|
|
Post by silvermyn on Apr 26, 2012 20:50:27 GMT 1
Are these then now more expensive than the Warhol Marilyns? Kind of strange if that is the case. Personally I'd rather have the Kate, however it does say something about future values. Banksy is the man at the moment. I can't see Banksy never mind Kate Moss being as being as popular as Warhol and Marilyn 30 years from now. I'm sure there will be a new crop of hot artists. Not sure if these will have the same legs as Warhol prints. Kate Moss has nice legs IMHO  |
|
|
|
Post by Leftery on Apr 26, 2012 21:12:38 GMT 1
As the original super waif who changed how models looked, I think it is safe to say Kate will be remembered in 30 years time. Increasingly banksy is heading into that mantle too as he is so super svelt and covers so many billboards!
|
|
kjzimm
2 Star Member
Posts: 256
|
Post by kjzimm on Apr 26, 2012 21:19:18 GMT 1
Are these then now more expensive than the Warhol Marilyns? Kind of strange if that is the case. Personally I'd rather have the Kate, however it does say something about future values. Banksy is the man at the moment. I can't see Banksy never mind Kate Moss being as being as popular as Warhol and Marilyn 30 years from now. I'm sure there will be a new crop of hot artists. Not sure if these will have the same legs as Warhol prints. Good point with the lont-term perspective. I've only seen Warhol Marilyns in the flesh. The Banksy versions appear to be well done--on par with Warhol. It will be interesting to follow if I'm around that long. |
|
linter
1 Star Member
Posts: 124
|
Post by linter on Apr 26, 2012 21:54:09 GMT 1
Are these then now more expensive than the Warhol Marilyns? Kind of strange if that is the case. Personally I'd rather have the Kate, however it does say something about future values. Banksy is the man at the moment. I can't see Banksy never mind Kate Moss being as being as popular as Warhol and Marilyn 30 years from now. I'm sure there will be a new crop of hot artists. Not sure if these will have the same legs as Warhol prints. One of my pet theories is that in 30 years banksy will be very much in demand -- the demand being driven by nostalgia, by the very people that love and buy him right now. Doesn't mean in the intervening decades prices couldn't drop into the drink. But yeah, long, long term, things could be rosey. Not that it'll do me any good. I'll be long gone by then .... |
|
lee3
2 Star Member
Posts: 312
|
Post by lee3 on Apr 26, 2012 22:29:53 GMT 1
>>>Are these then now more expensive than the Warhol Marilyns? Kind of strange if that is the case.<<<
I believe it depends on how you look at it. The most desirable of the 10 Warhol Marilyn's (grey/silver) regularly command $200k whereas the "less" expensive of the 10 command about $75k in good condition. Volume plays a big role in the print market which explains a large part of the similar pricing with that image. There are over 100k signed Warhol prints including 2,500 Marilyn's; that's a lot of art. Conversely, I'm guessing there are maybe 5k signed Banksy's including ~250 Kate's?
250 Kate's vs. 2,500 Marilyn's will explain some of the pricing similarities as will the 95%+ differential in volume between the two artists in the wider print market.
|
|
|
|
Post by mmmike on Apr 27, 2012 3:04:52 GMT 1
>>>Are these then now more expensive than the Warhol Marilyns? Kind of strange if that is the case.<<< I believe it depends on how you look at it. The most desirable of the 10 Warhol Marilyn's (grey/silver) regularly command $200k whereas the "less" expensive of the 10 command about $75k in good condition. Volume plays a big role in the print market which explains a large part of the similar pricing with that image. There are over 100k signed Warhol prints including 2,500 Marilyn's; that's a lot of art. Conversely, I'm guessing there are maybe 5k signed Banksy's including ~250 Kate's? 250 Kate's vs. 2,500 Marilyn's will explain some of the pricing similarities as will the 95%+ differential in volume between the two artists in the wider print market. good info. thanks for posting. |
|
|
|
Post by johnnyh on Apr 27, 2012 4:29:50 GMT 1
There is also a point that (Not sure this is true so please comment) I think that like for like the Banksy's are more exspensive than the Marilyn's.
By like for like I mean in the time line of the valuation. eg Kate Moss released in 2006 (not sure of price ) for say 300 quid and 6 years later worth say X 100 at 30K. No idea of the Warhol price or tracking but did his warhol prints grow by the same multiple of the same period . I am pretty sure they did not. So what will the kate be worth in 30 years time? and after his death etc if his art career and position continue to grow as warhols did.
So in a like for like type scenario it is very interesting.
|
|
deputydawg
3 Star Member
Amazing quality/price ratio
Posts: 993
|
Post by deputydawg on Apr 27, 2012 6:11:29 GMT 1
Kate's were originally 2k and a set was 10k if memory serves me correctly?
|
|
klyde
3 Star Member
Posts: 772
|
Post by klyde on Apr 27, 2012 7:02:23 GMT 1
Come on West Country Prince, time to start banging these out!
|
|
|
|
Post by johnnyh on Apr 27, 2012 7:52:06 GMT 1
Kate's were originally 2k and a set was 10k if memory serves me correctly? Thx. Still x 15 in 6 years so would be interesting on the Warhol front how his prices changed in such a short period |
|
