[iamzero]

727 appear to have one hell of a stash of Banksy prints.

[Jalouse Rosemont]

May 8, 2019 12:23:25 GMT 1 lv90210 said:

May 8, 2019 11:38:28 GMT 1 Jalouse Rosemont said:

... Wouldn't the PP's be the Stretched Pulp Fiction? (Just putting my two pence worth in, not gospel).

Nope.

Sorry, those were AP's.

hanguppictures.com/banksy/pulp-fiction-stretched-version

[lv90210]

May 8, 2019 12:58:12 GMT 1 Jalouse Rosemont said:

May 8, 2019 12:23:25 GMT 1 lv90210 said:

Nope.

Sorry, those were AP's.

hanguppictures.com/banksy/pulp-fiction-stretched-version

Correct.

[telecine]

;-)

[Deleted]

May 8, 2019 22:22:25 GMT 1 telecine said:

;-)

Not signed?!

[telecine]

Test run. Double pull as it fitted onto A0 snugly. Correct paper.  Like the Tesco prototype I showed you all months ago. The stretch has different level of detail to final main run. Non PC, but I know who I got it from and where it was made ... Finally getting it restored at the mo... It was in a bit of a state.

May 9, 2019 6:51:27 GMT 1 @michaelkenis said:

May 8, 2019 22:22:25 GMT 1 telecine said:

;-)

Not signed?!

[Sundowner]

Very nice telecine. I know there is an official AP edition (8) of this run - still regret not pulling the trigger on one at Laz a good few years ago.

[Dahmer]

Much prefer that crop of the pulp fiction image - really like that!

[printminx]

I am really puzzled about this"double pull" printers proof. I do not have the knowledge that many collectors do but I do have a background in printmaking and for the life of me I cannot understand why anyone would make two identical prints on a sheet of AO paper just because they "fit" and especially not screen print a double image. It would be a lot of unnecessary work - either you would have to work with two screens perfectly registered in relation to each other to enable the print  (or a massive silk screen) but why would a printer need this and secondly if as described it was a double pull print you would have to print the first colour for the first print, let it dry, move and re register for the second print making sure you do not catch or damage any of the first print before you print the second print before you start with the second colour. What a palaver . I am sorry it doesn't make sense to me. It would be great if someone could explain and apologies if I am being dense. Surely a printer would have the guillotine to cut the paper in half hence saving a lot of unnecessary work. 

[Happy Shopper]

May 9, 2019 16:22:33 GMT 1 printminx said:

I am really puzzled about this"double pull" printers proof. I do not have the knowledge that many collectors do but I do have a background in printmaking and for the life of me I cannot understand why anyone would make two identical prints on a sheet of AO paper just because they "fit" and especially not screen print a double image. It would be a lot of unnecessary work - either you would have to work with two screens perfectly registered in relation to each other to enable the print  (or a massive silk screen) but why would a printer need this and secondly if as described it was a double pull print you would have to print the first colour for the first print, let it dry, move and re register for the second print making sure you do not catch or damage any of the first print before you print the second print before you start with the second colour. What a palaver . I am sorry it doesn't make sense to me. It would be great if someone could explain and apologies if I am being dense. Surely a printer would have the guillotine to cut the paper in half hence saving a lot of unnecessary work. 

A0 Screen and A0 paper, so printed 2 at a time and cut after... I imagine.

[telecine]

May 9, 2019 16:25:45 GMT 1 Happy Shopper said:

May 9, 2019 16:22:33 GMT 1 printminx said:

I am really puzzled about this"double pull" printers proof. I do not have the knowledge that many collectors do but I do have a background in printmaking and for the life of me I cannot understand why anyone would make two identical prints on a sheet of AO paper just because they "fit" and especially not screen print a double image. It would be a lot of unnecessary work - either you would have to work with two screens perfectly registered in relation to each other to enable the print  (or a massive silk screen) but why would a printer need this and secondly if as described it was a double pull print you would have to print the first colour for the first print, let it dry, move and re register for the second print making sure you do not catch or damage any of the first print before you print the second print before you start with the second colour. What a palaver . I am sorry it doesn't make sense to me. It would be great if someone could explain and apologies if I am being dense. Surely a printer would have the guillotine to cut the paper in half hence saving a lot of unnecessary work. 

A0 Screen and A0 paper, so printed 2 at a time and cut after... I imagine.

correct!!

[avec art]

You don't need to register it twice, you just treat it as if it was a single print (not massive by many standards). Due to the long thin shape of this print it also makes practical sense to put two of them on a single screen. This way is very efficient as you get twice as many made in the same time.

[printminx]

Thanks for the reply. 

[Blissy]

Hi guys
Looking for a un- signed pulp fiction
Please Dm if looking to sell
top price paid cash waiting
Thanks 🙏

[jonog]

Please PM if you have this piece and are looking to sell. If you could advise of the price you seek I would be grateful? Many thanks.

[singerstu]

Jul 19, 2020 20:25:06 GMT 1 jonog said:

Please PM if you have this piece and are looking to sell. If you could advise of the price you seek I would be grateful? Many thanks.

I am guessing it’s going to be close to 30 big ones to prize one of these from someone. Never really understood why this print is so expensive.

[needfoolthings]

Hang up pictures is selling one for £36.5k.
And the prices still haven’t hit a ceiling. 🎯
Damn..

[acaipride]

Jul 19, 2020 20:32:34 GMT 1 singerstu said:

Jul 19, 2020 20:25:06 GMT 1 jonog said:

Please PM if you have this piece and are looking to sell. If you could advise of the price you seek I would be grateful? Many thanks.

I am guessing it’s going to be close to 30 big ones to prize one of these from someone. Never really understood why this print is so expensive.

it is a classic cult film from a highly successfull director, classic Banksy(all success implied in the name) image / parody.

[House of Arts]

I have one of these. Not looking to sell though. It does have a fun/sad story, depending on how you look at it. I bought it from an expensive gallery like 6 years ago, back when it was still sub 4k. Now, back then I didn't know shit about art of Banksy, just had some cash lying around, and I liked the image because a former roommate had a tshirt with the image on it.

The sad part of the story is that I have no idea of it's condition. I bought it framed. From the front it looks excellent, but I fear it's glued to the backboard as there seems to be no space between the print and the backboard. Never had the balls to take it to a framer to have it inspected haha.

[Terry Fuckwitt]

Jul 20, 2020 4:47:05 GMT 1 House of Arts said:

I have one of these. Not looking to sell though. It does have a fun/sad story, depending on how you look at it. I bought it from an expensive gallery like 6 years ago, back when it was still sub 4k. Now, back then I didn't knows**t about art of Banksy, just had some cash lying around, and I liked the image because a former roommate had a tshirt with the image on it.

The sad part of the story is that I have no idea of it's condition. I bought it framed. From the front it looks excellent, but I fear it's glued to the backboard as there seems to be no space between the print and the backboard. Never had the balls to take it to a framer to have it inspected haha.

Just because there is no space between print and backing board, doesn't mean it's dry mounted.
If hinges or tape has been used then it will look like that anyway. It doesn't have to be a raised float if that's what your concern is.

[billybob1969]

Hi All

I am putting this up for sale to fund a couple of other acquisitions I am making. The print is approximately 70cm x 50cm and from the unsigned edition of 600 (150 additional prints were signed). The print is currently framed by a conservation framer behind museum glass and can be sold either framed or unframed. I have detailed images taken outside of the frame and will provide a condition summary below. I am asking for Sold or nearest offer; I am based in London and am happy for buyers to inspect the print prior to purchase. I will ship internationally at buyers’ expense and risk. Payment is by bank transfer only on collection or prior to shipping. References available. I will require references for any buyers who want to meet me to inspect.

I purchased the print from a well-known and long-established online gallery/dealer who sold the print without a Pest Control COA. Pest Control have authenticated the print and I have emails from them confirming that, buyers can contact Pest Control to confirm authenticity and I am happy to provide addition number and photos to verified buyers to allow this to happen. Pest Control will be issuing newly designed COAs to authenticated prints in the coming months and upon receipt I will send this on to the buyer. I will also personally guarantee the prints authenticity and provide the buyer with photo ID and my home address. I will also provide the buyer with the invoices from the gallery I purchased from for further provenance.

With regards to condition the print is in generally good condition, the image is perfect, and the colours are bright and crisp. There is a slight undulation/cockling between the paper and the mount which is of course reversible and 3 very small tape hinges on the verso which are conservation materials so again reversible. There are two areas of light shadowing approx 6mm from the edge of the right and bottom margin about 10-30cm in length, these are only visible under certain light and on close inspection. Further photos showing the print outside of the frame available upon request.

Please message me with any questions and thank you for your time.

[Deleted]

It looks quite wavy on the borders or is that just the light?

Thanks

[LJCal]

Jul 26, 2020 23:00:50 GMT 1 yellow said:

It looks quite wavy on the borders or is that just the light?

Thanks

That looks like cockling, it’s caused by changes in temperature and or humidity. It’s very common with paper and is easily fixed with humidification and pressing (don’t try this at home. Use a paper restorer). Just check it hasn’t caused cracking in the print media as that is much more problematic.

[Deleted]

Jul 26, 2020 23:28:24 GMT 1 LJCal said:

Jul 26, 2020 23:00:50 GMT 1 yellow said:

It looks quite wavy on the borders or is that just the light?

Thanks

That looks like cockling, it’s caused by changes in temperature and or humidity. It’s very common with paper and is an easily fixed with humidification and pressing (don’t try this at home. Use a paper restorer). Just check it hasn’t caused cracking in the print media as that is much more problematic.

Excellent thank you

[House of Arts]

I sometimes wonder about these topics, how do you have a 35k print you want to sell but not have the COA sorted out..and who in their right mind would buy a 35k print without a COA..

[billybob1969]

Jul 26, 2020 23:54:00 GMT 1 House of Arts said:

I sometimes wonder about these topics, how do you have a 35k print you want to sell but not have the COA sorted out..and who in their right mind would buy a 35k print without a COA..

Given what’s going on at Pest Control quite a few people, myself included especially given you can email pest control to confirm authenticity of a particular print. Good news for you is that you don’t have to buy if you’re not comfortable but thanks for your input. 

[LJCal]

Jul 26, 2020 23:54:00 GMT 1 House of Arts said:

I sometimes wonder about these topics, how do you have a 35k print you want to sell but not have the COA sorted out..and who in their right mind would buy a 35k print without a COA..

I own high value works by Warhol, Hirst, Nara, Lichtenstein, Hockney, Haring, Riley, Richter and so on, none have COAs and I have bought a few Banksy prints without COAs. 

[That Print Guy]

Jul 27, 2020 0:11:39 GMT 1 LJCal said:

Jul 26, 2020 23:54:00 GMT 1 House of Arts said:

I sometimes wonder about these topics, how do you have a 35k print you want to sell but not have the COA sorted out..and who in their right mind would buy a 35k print without a COA..

I own high value works by Warhol, Hirst, Nara, Lichtenstein, Hockney, Haring, Riley, Richter and so on, none have COAs and I have bought a few Banksy prints without COAs. 

I have a whole folder full of COAs from prints I've bought in the last 13 or so years. Almost every one of them is for a print I sold off a long time ago. Honestly the only time I bother to look for and send it is if someone specifically asks for it. And that happens like once a year, tops.

[mint]

COA’s are for nerds who don’t know what’s up.

GLWTS

[billybob1969]

Framed picture added.