[Poster Bob]

I have a similar situation with a print. Bignell declined on fixing it and said it was better left as is. That said, it could be because the ink used was different or any number of factors beyond me

[Rubberneck]

Sept 8, 2020 16:32:14 GMT 1 avec art said:

sorry, but that's not damage. It's where the paint/ink hasn't mixed well enough with the printing medium. It really doesn't matter and you're very lucky to own such a great print. It is part of the prints life so I'd suggest learn to love and accept it. They're works of art and all screen prints on close examination have something unique about them.

really appreciate that, I really love the print, I’d mentioned to PoW that I was after it but it’d already sold out so obvs was over the moon to get this one at the time.   I guess owning prints which were from the official editions I’d always felt it wasn’t as good but still have had it up on the wall.  It’s now been unframed for a while and its needs a little plumping up before it’s reframed so whilst it’s at a restorers was wondering wether to tackle this as well.

[Deleted]

What a lovely thing to have. Agree with those who say you should leave it. Feels like part of its history. May not have the value of the 'official' ones but a great story attached to it. If it wasn't imperfect it would never have come into your possession, so I'd consider that imperfection part of its charm.

[Lazarus II]

Sept 8, 2020 16:40:30 GMT 1 Rubberneck said:

What do you all think Pest Control will say? Is it worth trying for a CoA, probably will have a double number.

you said it was a gift print so cant see why theyd ever consider giving it a COA or a duplicate number? Nice gift right enough😊

[Deleted]

Sept 8, 2020 16:54:05 GMT 1 Poster Bob said:

I have a similar situation with a print. Bignell declined on fixing it and said it was better left as is. That said, it could be because the ink used was different or any number of factors beyond me

Kate moss?

[avec art]

no matter how well you mix, eventually some prints will have areas like this where there is a split between the paint and the medium. The trouble is when it happens, you can't really include them in the edition because the recipient will be troubled. So they usually end up not being part of the numbered edition, but very nice all the same. The lines show the direction the background paint was pulled.

As far as I'm aware there is no 'fix' for this. If at the time you can see it happening, then you can do a couple of 'pulls' on top and that can fix it, but the process of printing is very dynamic with a lot of moving parts, and you normally don't notice until the paint for that layer is dry.

It's reassuring that the printer at the time didn't consider it serious enough to discard and continued to complete the print.

[scavos]

Sept 8, 2020 16:24:46 GMT 1 Rubberneck said:

Restoration advice needed.

I’ve got a signed and numbered CWSB that was rejected
from the final print run.   It never received a blind stamp.

This print was gifted to me by POW with some other Banksy prints I bought in 2005.

I’d like to get advice on how to restore the grey background so it looks mint.  Any ideas on the best approach?

Don't do anything with it, other than frame it to the highest spec and then enjoy it for what it is.

[ajr]

leave it as it is! keep it original and will fit with the story that it was rejected.

[coller]

Sept 8, 2020 16:40:30 GMT 1 Rubberneck said:

What do you all think Pest Control will say? Is it worth trying for a CoA, probably will have a double number.

odds aren't great, but it's worth a shot. no harm in trying, as far as i can tell.

[Coach]

Sept 8, 2020 18:07:25 GMT 1 scavos said:

Sept 8, 2020 16:24:46 GMT 1 Rubberneck said:

Restoration advice needed.

I’ve got a signed and numbered CWSB that was rejected
from the final print run.   It never received a blind stamp.

This print was gifted to me by POW with some other Banksy prints I bought in 2005.

I’d like to get advice on how to restore the grey background so it looks mint.  Any ideas on the best approach?

Don't do anything with it, other than frame it to the highest spec and then enjoy it for what it is.

Agree with my friend scavos. The defect is part of the print’s history. If it were mine, I’d leave it. It’s a fabulous gift. Congratulations.

[samo]

Wabi-sabi en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabi-sabi

Enjoy this beautiful print.

[gross]

Sept 8, 2020 16:24:46 GMT 1 Rubberneck said:

Restoration advice needed.

I’ve got a signed and numbered CWSB that was rejected
from the final print run.   It never received a blind stamp.

This print was gifted to me by POW with some other Banksy prints I bought in 2005.

I’d like to get advice on how to restore the grey background so it looks mint.  Any ideas on the best approach?

What is the value of one of those compared to the signed with COA ?

[Rubberneck]

signed unique 1/1 RP  ....

...Rejected print 😂 

[Rubberneck]

Sept 8, 2020 20:47:40 GMT 1 samo said:

Wabi-sabi en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabi-sabi

Enjoy this beautiful print.

 I’ll have to hang it a bit off centre

[avec art]

to the people saying 'leave it as it is' like there is some sort of alternative. Can any of these people please explain how you think you can resolve this !?!

Do you not realise ... you can't 'restore it', because this is how it was first created. What are you going to do, repaint the entire background? Perhaps you think you can repaint just that patch and that somehow it won't show?

I'm all ears

[iamzero]

Sept 8, 2020 21:34:06 GMT 1 Rubberneck said:

signed unique 1/1 RP  ....

...Rejected print 😂 

I’ll offer cost for it and save you the pain of looking at it. Doing you a favour... honest. 🤣🤣🤣

[Coach]

Sept 8, 2020 21:40:05 GMT 1 avec art said:

to the people saying 'leave it as it is' like there is some sort of alternative. Can any of these people please explain how you think you can resolve this !?!

Do you not realise ... you can't 'restore it', because this is how it was first created. What are you going to do, repaint the entire background? Perhaps you think you can repaint just that patch and that somehow it won't show?

I'm all ears

Surely that is a question that should be asked if those suggesting restoration?
We all know that restoration can be attempted on anything, often with appalling results.
I remain of the view leave it as it is.

[Rubberneck]

Sept 8, 2020 21:56:57 GMT 1 god’s ultimate noise said:

Sept 8, 2020 21:18:09 GMT 1 gross said:

What is the value of one of those compared to the signed with COA ?

That all depends on the evidence Rubberneck has to prove his/her story.

 I’m not sure how to do this without Steph saying she remembered giving it to me.  I could establish I was a collector of his prints at that time with PoW receipts

I’m going to contact PC and see what they say, I’ll have to update you in a few months when they get back to me 

[FЯ]

Sept 8, 2020 22:32:19 GMT 1 Rubberneck said:

Sept 8, 2020 21:56:57 GMT 1 god’s ultimate noise said:

That all depends on the evidence Rubberneck has to prove his/her story.

 I’m not sure how to do this without Steph saying she remembered giving it to me.  I could establish I was a collector of his prints at that time with PoW receipts

I’m going to contact PC and see what they say, I’ll have to update you in a few months when they get back to me 

so its a backdoor.

should get your answer on that swiftly.

[Rubberneck]

Sept 8, 2020 22:31:20 GMT 1 Coach said:

Sept 8, 2020 21:40:05 GMT 1 avec art said:

to the people saying 'leave it as it is' like there is some sort of alternative. Can any of these people please explain how you think you can resolve this !?!

Do you not realise ... you can't 'restore it', because this is how it was first created. What are you going to do, repaint the entire background? Perhaps you think you can repaint just that patch and that somehow it won't show?

I'm all ears

Surely that is a question that should be asked if those suggesting restoration?
We all know that restoration can be attempted on anything, often with appalling results.
I remain of the view leave it as it is.

I took it as most were agreeing with your solid advice.  

[Rubberneck]

Sept 8, 2020 22:33:57 GMT 1 FЯ said:

Sept 8, 2020 22:32:19 GMT 1 Rubberneck said:

 I’m not sure how to do this without Steph saying she remembered giving it to me.  I could establish I was a collector of his prints at that time with PoW receipts

I’m going to contact PC and see what they say, I’ll have to update you in a few months when they get back to me 

so its a backdoor.

should get your answer on that swiftly.

I think these are different as these were paid for and were much later, mine was a gift.

[rbrt]

Sept 8, 2020 22:32:19 GMT 1 Rubberneck said:

Sept 8, 2020 21:56:57 GMT 1 god’s ultimate noise said:

That all depends on the evidence Rubberneck has to prove his/her story.

 I’m not sure how to do this without Steph saying she remembered giving it to me.  I could establish I was a collector of his prints at that time with PoW receipts

I’m going to contact PC and see what they say, I’ll have to update you in a few months when they get back to me 

I have a Test print with solid provenance and applied to PC. They wrote back saying it was not eligible for a COA. From what I understand PC will say if it is a fake. But as Yours was a “gift” they may not give a COA.

Amazing they gave you the CWSB. It was selling for £500 as I recall at the time, which was a lot back then for a Banksy. Agree with others here that the mistake on the print is part of the story. I own a Laugh Now with staple marks around it and feel getting it “fixed” would take away the true history of the print. The person I bought it from got it as present and just stapled it direct to his wall, as this was back in the days when it was bought for around £35 when not many people really knew about Banksy.

[concrete jungle]

Sept 8, 2020 22:36:54 GMT 1 Rubberneck said:

Sept 8, 2020 22:33:57 GMT 1 FЯ said:

so its a backdoor.

should get your answer on that swiftly.

I think these are different as these were paid for and were much later, mine was a gift.

You may be right. The key to me would be proving it was given to you by POW. Problem is I think most if not all original POW staff are no longer involved? Could be wrong on that point but I do recollect a bit of a clear out.
I own a back door Flying Copper bought directly from one of the guys @ Mission in Bham. Longer standing members with probably remember Backdoor Brummie. It's the right paper (although very slightly mis-sized due to poor trimming) - the ink/ print detailing compares favourably with Legit versions - however I know there's no chance of a COA or any major £££ uplift in value. Didn't buy it for that reason - just because I loved the image and would never have been able to afford the going rate on a COA one at the time of purchase.....

[Rubberneck]

Sept 8, 2020 23:16:13 GMT 1 rbrt said:

Sept 8, 2020 22:32:19 GMT 1 Rubberneck said:

 I’m not sure how to do this without Steph saying she remembered giving it to me.  I could establish I was a collector of his prints at that time with PoW receipts

I’m going to contact PC and see what they say, I’ll have to update you in a few months when they get back to me 

I have a Test print with solid provenance and applied to PC. They wrote back saying it was not eligible for a COA. From what I understand PC will say if it is a fake. But as Yours was a “gift” they may not give a COA.

Amazing they gave you the CWSB. It was selling for £500 as I recall at the time, which was a lot back then for a Banksy. Agree with others here that the mistake on the print is part of the story. I own a Laugh Now with staple marks around it and feel getting it “fixed” would take away the true history of the print. The person I bought it from got it as present and just stapled it direct to his wall, as this was back in the days when it was bought for around £35 when not many people really knew about Banksy.

I did buy quite a few prints at the time and always in person so got to know them.

[Dice]

Pow gave out a lot of prints from outside the edition unnumbered and unsigned, some stamped some not. Friends, good customers etc. I don’t think they will ever give a coa for one though.

I have friend who worked with Backdoor brummie and he has one of each print made by them including AP versions. But all backdoor and there won’t be any COA’s. However their values will are probably rising too.

[Rubberneck]

Sept 8, 2020 23:37:33 GMT 1 concrete jungle said:

Sept 8, 2020 22:36:54 GMT 1 Rubberneck said:

I think these are different as these were paid for and were much later, mine was a gift.

You may be right. The key to me would be proving it was given to you by POW. Problem is I think most if not all original POW staff are no longer involved? Could be wrong on that point but I do recollect a bit of a clear out.
I own a back door Flying Copper bought directly from one of the guys @ Mission in Bham. Longer standing members with probably remember Backdoor Brummie. It's the right paper (although very slightly mis-sized due to poor trimming) - the ink/ print detailing compares favourably with Legit versions - however I know there's no chance of a COA or any major £££ uplift in value. Didn't buy it for that reason - just because I loved the image and would never have been able to afford the going rate on a COA one at the time of purchase.....

Mission were the screen printers in bham before pow started doing them in house weren’t they?

[Deleted]

I think there is only one solution really, you should sell it to me. I dont need a COA, its for my house. many thanks

[lv90210]

What we talking for a real one with COA, 100 bags ? 

[tab1]

Extremely small edition but was in the same boat as toxic Mary. Few years back , was never really popular and price lagged behind other signed prints but with all the latest frenzy in the market all has probably changed

[Lazarus II]

Sept 9, 2020 9:17:28 GMT 1 tab1 said:

Extremely small edition but was in the same boat as toxic Mary. Few years back , was never really popular and price lagged behind other signed prints but with all the latest frenzy in the market all has probably changed

Robin Williams (or his wifes) CWSB realised a much higher price than most previous sales did. How much of that was because it was from his estate who knows, but it was a higher sale price and mibbe a sign that it was playing catch up with other prints. I think there is one for sale in one of the auctions this month.