|
|
Backdoor Banksy Prints, by Happy Shopper on May 6, 2022 14:12:23 GMT 1, Does he know for sure it's a backdoor print and not a fake or WCP version ?
No idea of value though I'm afraid !
Does he know for sure it's a backdoor print and not a fake or WCP version ?
No idea of value though I'm afraid !
|
|
u%hdjfka c
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,005
👍🏻 1,132
January 2021
|
Backdoor Banksy Prints, by u%hdjfka c on May 6, 2022 16:10:05 GMT 1, Handling stolen goods.
(1)A person handles stolen goods if (otherwise than in the course of the stealing) knowing or believing them to be stolen goods he dishonestly receives the goods, or dishonestly undertakes or assists in their retention, removal, disposal or realisation by or for the benefit of another person, or if he arranges to do so.
(2)A person guilty of handling stolen goods shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
Handling stolen goods.
(1)A person handles stolen goods if (otherwise than in the course of the stealing) knowing or believing them to be stolen goods he dishonestly receives the goods, or dishonestly undertakes or assists in their retention, removal, disposal or realisation by or for the benefit of another person, or if he arranges to do so.
(2)A person guilty of handling stolen goods shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
|
|
irl1
Full Member
🗨️ 9,274
👍🏻 9,381
December 2017
|
Backdoor Banksy Prints, by irl1 on May 6, 2022 16:24:03 GMT 1, Handling stolen goods. (1)A person handles stolen goods if (otherwise than in the course of the stealing) knowing or believing them to be stolen goods he dishonestly receives the goods, or dishonestly undertakes or assists in their retention, removal, disposal or realisation by or for the benefit of another person, or if he arranges to do so. (2)A person guilty of handling stolen goods shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.  
Handling stolen goods. (1)A person handles stolen goods if (otherwise than in the course of the stealing) knowing or believing them to be stolen goods he dishonestly receives the goods, or dishonestly undertakes or assists in their retention, removal, disposal or realisation by or for the benefit of another person, or if he arranges to do so. (2)A person guilty of handling stolen goods shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years. Says Fred West |
|
met
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,797
👍🏻 6,771
June 2009
|
Backdoor Banksy Prints, by met on May 6, 2022 16:55:36 GMT 1, A friend of mine has just rediscovered a Banksy GWRB backdoor print (at his parents house) that he has owned for many years. PC not available. The print has some issues from previous damaged framing. I understand it is only worth what someone is prepared to pay, but does anyone have a ballpark figure please?
I would love one of these!!
Does he know for sure it's a backdoor print and not a fake or WCP version ?No idea of value though I'm afraid !
As I've yet to come across a backdoor Girl with Balloon, and had not previously heard of their existence, it would be interesting to see in-focus photos of the print — both full shots (front and back) and close-ups.
Handling stolen goods. (1)A person handles stolen goods if (otherwise than in the course of the stealing) knowing or believing them to be stolen goods he dishonestly receives the goods, or dishonestly undertakes or assists in their retention, removal, disposal or realisation by or for the benefit of another person, or if he arranges to do so. (2)A person guilty of handling stolen goods shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
The insinuation here is accurate.
If the Girl with Balloon really is an authentic backdoor print, then by very definition it would be stolen property.
And anyone in possession of or acquiring it would consequently be a handler of stolen goods.
A friend of mine has just rediscovered a Banksy GWRB backdoor print (at his parents house) that he has owned for many years. PC not available. The print has some issues from previous damaged framing. I understand it is only worth what someone is prepared to pay, but does anyone have a ballpark figure please?
I would love one of these!!
Does he know for sure it's a backdoor print and not a fake or WCP version ?No idea of value though I'm afraid !
As I've yet to come across a backdoor Girl with Balloon, and had not previously heard of their existence, it would be interesting to see in-focus photos of the print — both full shots (front and back) and close-ups.
Handling stolen goods. (1)A person handles stolen goods if (otherwise than in the course of the stealing) knowing or believing them to be stolen goods he dishonestly receives the goods, or dishonestly undertakes or assists in their retention, removal, disposal or realisation by or for the benefit of another person, or if he arranges to do so. (2)A person guilty of handling stolen goods shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
The insinuation here is accurate.
If the Girl with Balloon really is an authentic backdoor print, then by very definition it would be stolen property.
And anyone in possession of or acquiring it would consequently be a handler of stolen goods.
|
|
met
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,797
👍🏻 6,771
June 2009
|
Backdoor Banksy Prints, by met on May 6, 2022 17:20:02 GMT 1,
Below is an April 2017 post from a separate thread, Love rat on the bay*.
It features some considered arguments that are relevant, and may be of interest to newer members of this forum:
Thanks so much Met, clears it all up. Any opinions on this ebay print? I haven't seen the eB ay listing you're referring to. But I would also argue it doesn't matter. Based on your description alone, the Love Rat print will be one of two things: 1. CounterfeitFor what it's worth, over the years I've personally examined a number of counterfeit Ban ksy prints, some more convincing than others, including with fake blind stamps. Almost inevitably, counterfeits are accompanied by plausible-sounding, fabricated back stories (and perhaps an email trail, which may or may not be genuine, but could easily have been widely circulated, printed off in the hundreds, and used by anyone to prop up any forgery). One or two specific names will generally be thrown into the mix — like that of a printer or an ex-Pictures on Walls employee — to lend credence to a made-up story. [Crossing out the edition number can serve a similar purpose and, opportunely for a fraudster, it takes the print outside the parameters for opining which Pest Control has set for itself.] This plays as well into the desperation or greed of potential buyers, who are looking for every excuse to believe the story being peddled. They very much want to believe, which of course can cloud their judgement and lead them to disregard basic due-diligence red flags. A capable con artist will be fully aware of this and exploiting it. They'll be pushing the right psychological buttons of potential buyers, the inexperienced buyers tending to be the easiest marks. 2. Genuine, and therefore stolenIf genuine, then clearly the print should never have left POW's premises. It is highly unlikely the rightful owner of the work (whether Ban ksy or POW as a company) would have sanctioned this, since its presence on the open market compromises the integrity of the authorised edition. So if this scenario is correct, it seems fair to assume a theft took place at some point — and that the eB ay seller is consequently dealing in stolen goods. Here we can rely on first principles: Is knowingly trading in, handling, or buying stolen goods acceptable? Would a decent person answer "Yes", if considering the issue honestly? I believe most people would find it morally objectionable. And perhaps even more so given it relates to property belonging to an artist whom the seller and potential buyers presumably admire. What you'll often find among dealers and collectors who choose to partake in sleaziness involving so-called backdoor prints are attempts to excuse their behaviour — mental contortions allowing them to trick their own conscience and sleep at night. They justify themselves in different ways. For example, by the fact the initial theft took place many years ago. Or that the stolen goods have exchanged hands on numerous occasions, the multiple links in the chain making the connection to the theft less direct. No doubt individuals and institutions dealing in artworks looted during wartime also make generous use of these self-serving rationalisations. But here again, first principles allow us to see through the disingenuousness, obfuscation attempts, and convenient self-delusion. ____________ Here's an analogy which may better illustrate the principle: (i) If I knowingly bought artwork that was stolen from your home, that would make me vile. (ii) The fact the theft may have taken place over a decade ago is irrelevant. It wouldn't make me any less vile, because the artwork rightfully still belongs to you. (iii) The fact your artwork may have traded hands a few times over the years (allowing the initial theft to seem more remote to people handling the stolen property) is irrelevant. It wouldn't make me any less vile, because the artwork rightfully still belongs to you. (iv) The fact you may have a successful career and be financially well off is irrelevant. It wouldn't make me any less vile, because the artwork rightfully still belongs to you. Now, a couple of questions using the same analogy (which could equally apply to so-called backdoor prints): Should this forum be used as a platform to sell or advertise the sale of artwork that was stolen from your home? Would this be ethically defensible? For both questions, I would say "No". ____________ As a rule of thumb, I'd advise anyone against purchasing a Ban ksy original or limited edition print unless it is accompanied by a Pest Control certificate of authenticity.
Below is an April 2017 post from a separate thread, Love rat on the bay*.
It features some considered arguments that are relevant, and may be of interest to newer members of this forum:
Thanks so much Met, clears it all up. Any opinions on this ebay print? I haven't seen the eB ay listing you're referring to. But I would also argue it doesn't matter. Based on your description alone, the Love Rat print will be one of two things: 1. CounterfeitFor what it's worth, over the years I've personally examined a number of counterfeit Ban ksy prints, some more convincing than others, including with fake blind stamps. Almost inevitably, counterfeits are accompanied by plausible-sounding, fabricated back stories (and perhaps an email trail, which may or may not be genuine, but could easily have been widely circulated, printed off in the hundreds, and used by anyone to prop up any forgery). One or two specific names will generally be thrown into the mix — like that of a printer or an ex-Pictures on Walls employee — to lend credence to a made-up story. [Crossing out the edition number can serve a similar purpose and, opportunely for a fraudster, it takes the print outside the parameters for opining which Pest Control has set for itself.] This plays as well into the desperation or greed of potential buyers, who are looking for every excuse to believe the story being peddled. They very much want to believe, which of course can cloud their judgement and lead them to disregard basic due-diligence red flags. A capable con artist will be fully aware of this and exploiting it. They'll be pushing the right psychological buttons of potential buyers, the inexperienced buyers tending to be the easiest marks. 2. Genuine, and therefore stolenIf genuine, then clearly the print should never have left POW's premises. It is highly unlikely the rightful owner of the work (whether Ban ksy or POW as a company) would have sanctioned this, since its presence on the open market compromises the integrity of the authorised edition. So if this scenario is correct, it seems fair to assume a theft took place at some point — and that the eB ay seller is consequently dealing in stolen goods. Here we can rely on first principles: Is knowingly trading in, handling, or buying stolen goods acceptable? Would a decent person answer "Yes", if considering the issue honestly? I believe most people would find it morally objectionable. And perhaps even more so given it relates to property belonging to an artist whom the seller and potential buyers presumably admire. What you'll often find among dealers and collectors who choose to partake in sleaziness involving so-called backdoor prints are attempts to excuse their behaviour — mental contortions allowing them to trick their own conscience and sleep at night. They justify themselves in different ways. For example, by the fact the initial theft took place many years ago. Or that the stolen goods have exchanged hands on numerous occasions, the multiple links in the chain making the connection to the theft less direct. No doubt individuals and institutions dealing in artworks looted during wartime also make generous use of these self-serving rationalisations. But here again, first principles allow us to see through the disingenuousness, obfuscation attempts, and convenient self-delusion. ____________ Here's an analogy which may better illustrate the principle: (i) If I knowingly bought artwork that was stolen from your home, that would make me vile. (ii) The fact the theft may have taken place over a decade ago is irrelevant. It wouldn't make me any less vile, because the artwork rightfully still belongs to you. (iii) The fact your artwork may have traded hands a few times over the years (allowing the initial theft to seem more remote to people handling the stolen property) is irrelevant. It wouldn't make me any less vile, because the artwork rightfully still belongs to you. (iv) The fact you may have a successful career and be financially well off is irrelevant. It wouldn't make me any less vile, because the artwork rightfully still belongs to you. Now, a couple of questions using the same analogy (which could equally apply to so-called backdoor prints): Should this forum be used as a platform to sell or advertise the sale of artwork that was stolen from your home? Would this be ethically defensible? For both questions, I would say "No". ____________ As a rule of thumb, I'd advise anyone against purchasing a Ban ksy original or limited edition print unless it is accompanied by a Pest Control certificate of authenticity.
|
|
mojo
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,191
👍🏻 3,724
May 2014
|
Backdoor Banksy Prints, by mojo on May 6, 2022 17:22:42 GMT 1, A friend of mine has just rediscovered a Banksy GWRB backdoor print (at his parents house) that he has owned for many years. PC not available. The print has some issues from previous damaged framing. I understand it is only worth what someone is prepared to pay, but does anyone have a ballpark figure please? I would love one of these!! Does he know for sure it's a backdoor print and not a fake or WCP version ?No idea of value though I'm afraid !
Handling stolen goods. (1)A person handles stolen goods if (otherwise than in the course of the stealing) knowing or believing them to be stolen goods he dishonestly receives the goods, or dishonestly undertakes or assists in their retention, removal, disposal or realisation by or for the benefit of another person, or if he arranges to do so. (2)A person guilty of handling stolen goods shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
If the Girl with Balloon really is an authentic backdoor print, then by very definition it would be stolen property.
And anyone in possession of or acquiring it would consequently be a handler of stolen goods.
A friend of mine has just rediscovered a Banksy GWRB backdoor print (at his parents house) that he has owned for many years. PC not available. The print has some issues from previous damaged framing. I understand it is only worth what someone is prepared to pay, but does anyone have a ballpark figure please? I would love one of these!! Does he know for sure it's a backdoor print and not a fake or WCP version ?No idea of value though I'm afraid !
Handling stolen goods. (1)A person handles stolen goods if (otherwise than in the course of the stealing) knowing or believing them to be stolen goods he dishonestly receives the goods, or dishonestly undertakes or assists in their retention, removal, disposal or realisation by or for the benefit of another person, or if he arranges to do so. (2)A person guilty of handling stolen goods shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
If the Girl with Balloon really is an authentic backdoor print, then by very definition it would be stolen property.
And anyone in possession of or acquiring it would consequently be a handler of stolen goods.
Not necessarily, it may have been given as a gift long before they became valuable. They didn't sell out immedietely and were available for quite some time at £150 signed. Although if it doesn't have PC COA its just a nice print of a girl letting go of a love heart shaped balloon...no need to accuse anyone of theft. |
|
|
|
|
|
Backdoor Banksy Prints, by Spider Joe on May 6, 2022 17:29:05 GMT 1, As I've yet to come across a backdoor Girl with Balloon, and had not previously heard of their existence, it would be interesting to see in-focus photos of the print — both full shots (front and back) and close-ups.
The insinuation here is accurate.
If the Girl with Balloon really is an authentic backdoor print, then by very definition it would be stolen property.
And anyone in possession of or acquiring it would consequently be a handler of stolen goods.
Not necessarily, it may have been given as a gift long before they became valuable. They didn't sell out immedietely and were available for quite some time at £150 signed. Although if it doesn't have PC COA its just a nice print of a girl letting go of a love heart shaped balloon...no need to accuse anyone of theft.
As I've yet to come across a backdoor Girl with Balloon, and had not previously heard of their existence, it would be interesting to see in-focus photos of the print — both full shots (front and back) and close-ups.
The insinuation here is accurate.
If the Girl with Balloon really is an authentic backdoor print, then by very definition it would be stolen property.
And anyone in possession of or acquiring it would consequently be a handler of stolen goods.
Not necessarily, it may have been given as a gift long before they became valuable. They didn't sell out immedietely and were available for quite some time at £150 signed. Although if it doesn't have PC COA its just a nice print of a girl letting go of a love heart shaped balloon...no need to accuse anyone of theft. Exactly, hit the nail on the head! |
|
dan993c2
New Member
🗨️ 285
👍🏻 222
November 2020
|
Backdoor Banksy Prints, by dan993c2 on May 6, 2022 17:34:30 GMT 1, I know of many backdoor prints from Birmingham and have seen many, however I honestly never seen a GWRB. I have a couple hanging at the moment, BME and HAND and have had WSM and Queen Vic also. Price wise who knows but I paid well under a grand for each of mine as I wanted to hang the image without the insurance premiums.
Anyways love to see some images.
I know of many backdoor prints from Birmingham and have seen many, however I honestly never seen a GWRB. I have a couple hanging at the moment, BME and HAND and have had WSM and Queen Vic also. Price wise who knows but I paid well under a grand for each of mine as I wanted to hang the image without the insurance premiums.
Anyways love to see some images.
|
|
met
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,797
👍🏻 6,771
June 2009
|
Backdoor Banksy Prints, by met on May 6, 2022 17:34:59 GMT 1, A friend of mine has just rediscovered a Banksy GWRB backdoor print (at his parents house) that he has owned for many years. PC not available. The print has some issues from previous damaged framing. I understand it is only worth what someone is prepared to pay, but does anyone have a ballpark figure please? I would love one of these!! Does he know for sure it's a backdoor print and not a fake or WCP version ?No idea of value though I'm afraid ! As I've yet to come across a backdoor Girl with Balloon, and had not previously heard of their existence, it would be interesting to see in-focus photos of the print — both full shots (front and back) and close-ups. Handling stolen goods. (1)A person handles stolen goods if (otherwise than in the course of the stealing) knowing or believing them to be stolen goods he dishonestly receives the goods, or dishonestly undertakes or assists in their retention, removal, disposal or realisation by or for the benefit of another person, or if he arranges to do so. (2)A person guilty of handling stolen goods shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years. The insinuation here is accurate. If the Girl with Balloon really is an authentic backdoor print, then by very definition it would be stolen property. And anyone in possession of or acquiring it would consequently be a handler of stolen goods. Not necessarily, it may have been given as a gift long before they became valuable. They didn't sell out immedietely and were available for quite some time at £150 signed. Although if it doesn't have PC COA its just a nice print of a girl letting go of a love heart shaped balloon...no need to accuse anyone of theft.
Noted, but you're referring to a gift — which is completely different.
My focus is solely on backdoor prints, i.e. stolen property.
A friend of mine has just rediscovered a Banksy GWRB backdoor print (at his parents house) that he has owned for many years. PC not available. The print has some issues from previous damaged framing. I understand it is only worth what someone is prepared to pay, but does anyone have a ballpark figure please? I would love one of these!! Does he know for sure it's a backdoor print and not a fake or WCP version ?No idea of value though I'm afraid ! As I've yet to come across a backdoor Girl with Balloon, and had not previously heard of their existence, it would be interesting to see in-focus photos of the print — both full shots (front and back) and close-ups. Handling stolen goods. (1)A person handles stolen goods if (otherwise than in the course of the stealing) knowing or believing them to be stolen goods he dishonestly receives the goods, or dishonestly undertakes or assists in their retention, removal, disposal or realisation by or for the benefit of another person, or if he arranges to do so. (2)A person guilty of handling stolen goods shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years. The insinuation here is accurate. If the Girl with Balloon really is an authentic backdoor print, then by very definition it would be stolen property. And anyone in possession of or acquiring it would consequently be a handler of stolen goods. Not necessarily, it may have been given as a gift long before they became valuable. They didn't sell out immedietely and were available for quite some time at £150 signed. Although if it doesn't have PC COA its just a nice print of a girl letting go of a love heart shaped balloon...no need to accuse anyone of theft.
Noted, but you're referring to a gift — which is completely different.
My focus is solely on backdoor prints, i.e. stolen property.
|
|
dan993c2
New Member
🗨️ 285
👍🏻 222
November 2020
|
Backdoor Banksy Prints, by dan993c2 on May 6, 2022 17:39:50 GMT 1, I will say this to Met that my source has told me that Banksy never cared in the early days about prints being given to the printers friends! Is my source Banksy hell no but it’s a good source.
I will say this to Met that my source has told me that Banksy never cared in the early days about prints being given to the printers friends! Is my source Banksy hell no but it’s a good source.
|
|
|
|
Backdoor Banksy Prints, by Bill Hicks on May 6, 2022 17:40:28 GMT 1, Not necessarily, it may have been given as a gift long before they became valuable. They didn't sell out immedietely and were available for quite some time at £150 signed. Although if it doesn't have PC COA its just a nice print of a girl letting go of a love heart shaped balloon...no need to accuse anyone of theft.
My focus is solely on backdoor prints, i.e. stolen property.
Not necessarily, it may have been given as a gift long before they became valuable. They didn't sell out immedietely and were available for quite some time at £150 signed. Although if it doesn't have PC COA its just a nice print of a girl letting go of a love heart shaped balloon...no need to accuse anyone of theft.
My focus is solely on backdoor prints, i.e. stolen property.
Definition of false accusation is a claim or allegation of wrongdoing, which is not true and, or otherwise, not supported by facts. It is also known as an unfounded accusation or groundless accusation and sometimes false allegations and false claims. |
|
dotdot
Junior Member
🗨️ 3,660
👍🏻 1,030
December 2006
|
Backdoor Banksy Prints, by dotdot on May 6, 2022 17:40:45 GMT 1, this is a very murky area.
I do not know if these exist in any real capacity.
wonder what Ben knows...
..
this is a very murky area.
I do not know if these exist in any real capacity.
wonder what Ben knows...
..
|
|
mint
New Member
🗨️ 611
👍🏻 730
August 2007
|
Backdoor Banksy Prints, by mint on May 6, 2022 17:55:42 GMT 1, This stolen goods talk is garbage.
It shows the lack of understanding of how creative projects go.
I’ve done printmaking.
When doing a project I needed help…with cleaning screens, mixing inks, file issues for film output , racking prints, getting them trimmed etc.
I have often given out a extra copy from the run as a token of thanks.
It’s something for someone who was part of the process.
They’re basically worthless when they get them…more a memento.
I would let the artist know I was taking care of my guys that helped and they would typically reply with “of course”
If 15 years down the road they wanted to sell said print I wouldn’t care. Would be more shocked they still had it around!
If that unsigned / non edition print was now worth a few k then that’s pretty cool.
I don’t think the artist would lose sleep over it either.
This stolen goods talk is garbage.
It shows the lack of understanding of how creative projects go.
I’ve done printmaking.
When doing a project I needed help…with cleaning screens, mixing inks, file issues for film output , racking prints, getting them trimmed etc.
I have often given out a extra copy from the run as a token of thanks.
It’s something for someone who was part of the process.
They’re basically worthless when they get them…more a memento.
I would let the artist know I was taking care of my guys that helped and they would typically reply with “of course”
If 15 years down the road they wanted to sell said print I wouldn’t care. Would be more shocked they still had it around!
If that unsigned / non edition print was now worth a few k then that’s pretty cool.
I don’t think the artist would lose sleep over it either.
|
|
silvermyn
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,612
👍🏻 781
April 2008
|
Backdoor Banksy Prints, by silvermyn on May 6, 2022 17:57:51 GMT 1, I've got a backdoor print which I don't consider to be stolen.
There were some throw away prints taped to the box lids of the prints sold at Barely Legal. After the editions sold out, somebody pestered the staff member to sell the throw aways taped to the box lids. Eventually, the staff member sold them to him.
Now, the prints were not meant to be sold and were not made for commercial purposes. They won't get a PC COA. However, they were sold at the show.
I can see the arguments either way but it's definitely not a straight forward black and white issue.
I've got a backdoor print which I don't consider to be stolen.
There were some throw away prints taped to the box lids of the prints sold at Barely Legal. After the editions sold out, somebody pestered the staff member to sell the throw aways taped to the box lids. Eventually, the staff member sold them to him.
Now, the prints were not meant to be sold and were not made for commercial purposes. They won't get a PC COA. However, they were sold at the show.
I can see the arguments either way but it's definitely not a straight forward black and white issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Backdoor Banksy Prints, by Spider Joe on May 6, 2022 17:58:30 GMT 1, The print was gifted back in the day.
The print was gifted back in the day.
|
|
silvermyn
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,612
👍🏻 781
April 2008
|
Backdoor Banksy Prints, by silvermyn on May 6, 2022 18:11:54 GMT 1, The print was gifted back in the day.
Gifted by whom?
What authority did they have to make the gift...?
The print was gifted back in the day. Gifted by whom? What authority did they have to make the gift...? |
|
iamzero
Full Member
🗨️ 9,190
👍🏻 8,545
May 2011
|
Backdoor Banksy Prints, by iamzero on May 6, 2022 18:12:35 GMT 1, I always thought the back door prints were the Mission Print sneaky extras. Wasn’t aware that Mission printed GWRB. I will always regret not buying a back door when they were trading for a couple of hundred quid.
I always thought the back door prints were the Mission Print sneaky extras. Wasn’t aware that Mission printed GWRB. I will always regret not buying a back door when they were trading for a couple of hundred quid.
|
|
met
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,797
👍🏻 6,771
June 2009
|
Backdoor Banksy Prints, by met on May 6, 2022 18:15:32 GMT 1, Not necessarily, it may have been given as a gift long before they became valuable. They didn't sell out immedietely and were available for quite some time at £150 signed. Although if it doesn't have PC COA its just a nice print of a girl letting go of a love heart shaped balloon...no need to accuse anyone of theft. Noted, but you're referring to a gift — which is completely different. My focus is solely on backdoor prints, i.e. stolen property. Definition of false accusation is a claim or allegation of wrongdoing, which is not true and, or otherwise, not supported by facts. It is also known as an unfounded accusation or groundless accusation and sometimes false allegations and false claims.
Sorry, I don't understand your comment.
Do you believe I'm making a false accusation?
If a print is a backdoor print, then, once again, it is by very definition stolen property.
I cannot see any real scope for good-faith disagreement here. But there are certainly plenty of ways for somebody to rationalise being in possession of stolen property.
Perhaps there's just a misunderstanding here as to what technically constitutes a backdoor print.
Authorised gift prints outside of the regular edition (and by "authorised", I mean approved or sanctioned by their legal owner) are obviously not "backdoor prints".
It would be nonsensical to describe them as such.
Not necessarily, it may have been given as a gift long before they became valuable. They didn't sell out immedietely and were available for quite some time at £150 signed. Although if it doesn't have PC COA its just a nice print of a girl letting go of a love heart shaped balloon...no need to accuse anyone of theft. Noted, but you're referring to a gift — which is completely different. My focus is solely on backdoor prints, i.e. stolen property. Definition of false accusation is a claim or allegation of wrongdoing, which is not true and, or otherwise, not supported by facts. It is also known as an unfounded accusation or groundless accusation and sometimes false allegations and false claims.
Sorry, I don't understand your comment.
Do you believe I'm making a false accusation?
If a print is a backdoor print, then, once again, it is by very definition stolen property.
I cannot see any real scope for good-faith disagreement here. But there are certainly plenty of ways for somebody to rationalise being in possession of stolen property.
Perhaps there's just a misunderstanding here as to what technically constitutes a backdoor print.
Authorised gift prints outside of the regular edition (and by "authorised", I mean approved or sanctioned by their legal owner) are obviously not "backdoor prints".
It would be nonsensical to describe them as such.
|
|
|
|
Backdoor Banksy Prints, by Black Wolf on May 6, 2022 18:26:51 GMT 1, A backdoor print is not stolen property lol, this is silly talk
Hope you find a price and GLWS
A backdoor print is not stolen property lol, this is silly talk
Hope you find a price and GLWS
|
|
Reader
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,273
👍🏻 2,836
June 2016
|
Backdoor Banksy Prints, by Reader on May 6, 2022 18:32:05 GMT 1,
Below is an April 2017 post from a separate thread, Love rat on the bay*.
It features some considered arguments that are relevant, and may be of interest to newer members of this forum:
I haven't seen the eB ay listing you're referring to. But I would also argue it doesn't matter. Based on your description alone, the Love Rat print will be one of two things: 1. CounterfeitFor what it's worth, over the years I've personally examined a number of counterfeit Ban ksy prints, some more convincing than others, including with fake blind stamps. Almost inevitably, counterfeits are accompanied by plausible-sounding, fabricated back stories (and perhaps an email trail, which may or may not be genuine, but could easily have been widely circulated, printed off in the hundreds, and used by anyone to prop up any forgery). One or two specific names will generally be thrown into the mix — like that of a printer or an ex-Pictures on Walls employee — to lend credence to a made-up story. [Crossing out the edition number can serve a similar purpose and, opportunely for a fraudster, it takes the print outside the parameters for opining which Pest Control has set for itself.] This plays as well into the desperation or greed of potential buyers, who are looking for every excuse to believe the story being peddled. They very much want to believe, which of course can cloud their judgement and lead them to disregard basic due-diligence red flags. A capable con artist will be fully aware of this and exploiting it. They'll be pushing the right psychological buttons of potential buyers, the inexperienced buyers tending to be the easiest marks. 2. Genuine, and therefore stolenIf genuine, then clearly the print should never have left POW's premises. It is highly unlikely the rightful owner of the work (whether Ban ksy or POW as a company) would have sanctioned this, since its presence on the open market compromises the integrity of the authorised edition. So if this scenario is correct, it seems fair to assume a theft took place at some point — and that the eB ay seller is consequently dealing in stolen goods. Here we can rely on first principles: Is knowingly trading in, handling, or buying stolen goods acceptable? Would a decent person answer "Yes", if considering the issue honestly? I believe most people would find it morally objectionable. And perhaps even more so given it relates to property belonging to an artist whom the seller and potential buyers presumably admire. What you'll often find among dealers and collectors who choose to partake in sleaziness involving so-called backdoor prints are attempts to excuse their behaviour — mental contortions allowing them to trick their own conscience and sleep at night. They justify themselves in different ways. For example, by the fact the initial theft took place many years ago. Or that the stolen goods have exchanged hands on numerous occasions, the multiple links in the chain making the connection to the theft less direct. No doubt individuals and institutions dealing in artworks looted during wartime also make generous use of these self-serving rationalisations. But here again, first principles allow us to see through the disingenuousness, obfuscation attempts, and convenient self-delusion. ____________ Here's an analogy which may better illustrate the principle: (i) If I knowingly bought artwork that was stolen from your home, that would make me vile. (ii) The fact the theft may have taken place over a decade ago is irrelevant. It wouldn't make me any less vile, because the artwork rightfully still belongs to you. (iii) The fact your artwork may have traded hands a few times over the years (allowing the initial theft to seem more remote to people handling the stolen property) is irrelevant. It wouldn't make me any less vile, because the artwork rightfully still belongs to you. (iv) The fact you may have a successful career and be financially well off is irrelevant. It wouldn't make me any less vile, because the artwork rightfully still belongs to you. Now, a couple of questions using the same analogy (which could equally apply to so-called backdoor prints): Should this forum be used as a platform to sell or advertise the sale of artwork that was stolen from your home? Would this be ethically defensible? For both questions, I would say "No". ____________ As a rule of thumb, I'd advise anyone against purchasing a Ban ksy original or limited edition print unless it is accompanied by a Pest Control certificate of authenticity.
Below is an April 2017 post from a separate thread, Love rat on the bay*.
It features some considered arguments that are relevant, and may be of interest to newer members of this forum:
I haven't seen the eB ay listing you're referring to. But I would also argue it doesn't matter. Based on your description alone, the Love Rat print will be one of two things: 1. CounterfeitFor what it's worth, over the years I've personally examined a number of counterfeit Ban ksy prints, some more convincing than others, including with fake blind stamps. Almost inevitably, counterfeits are accompanied by plausible-sounding, fabricated back stories (and perhaps an email trail, which may or may not be genuine, but could easily have been widely circulated, printed off in the hundreds, and used by anyone to prop up any forgery). One or two specific names will generally be thrown into the mix — like that of a printer or an ex-Pictures on Walls employee — to lend credence to a made-up story. [Crossing out the edition number can serve a similar purpose and, opportunely for a fraudster, it takes the print outside the parameters for opining which Pest Control has set for itself.] This plays as well into the desperation or greed of potential buyers, who are looking for every excuse to believe the story being peddled. They very much want to believe, which of course can cloud their judgement and lead them to disregard basic due-diligence red flags. A capable con artist will be fully aware of this and exploiting it. They'll be pushing the right psychological buttons of potential buyers, the inexperienced buyers tending to be the easiest marks. 2. Genuine, and therefore stolenIf genuine, then clearly the print should never have left POW's premises. It is highly unlikely the rightful owner of the work (whether Ban ksy or POW as a company) would have sanctioned this, since its presence on the open market compromises the integrity of the authorised edition. So if this scenario is correct, it seems fair to assume a theft took place at some point — and that the eB ay seller is consequently dealing in stolen goods. Here we can rely on first principles: Is knowingly trading in, handling, or buying stolen goods acceptable? Would a decent person answer "Yes", if considering the issue honestly? I believe most people would find it morally objectionable. And perhaps even more so given it relates to property belonging to an artist whom the seller and potential buyers presumably admire. What you'll often find among dealers and collectors who choose to partake in sleaziness involving so-called backdoor prints are attempts to excuse their behaviour — mental contortions allowing them to trick their own conscience and sleep at night. They justify themselves in different ways. For example, by the fact the initial theft took place many years ago. Or that the stolen goods have exchanged hands on numerous occasions, the multiple links in the chain making the connection to the theft less direct. No doubt individuals and institutions dealing in artworks looted during wartime also make generous use of these self-serving rationalisations. But here again, first principles allow us to see through the disingenuousness, obfuscation attempts, and convenient self-delusion. ____________ Here's an analogy which may better illustrate the principle: (i) If I knowingly bought artwork that was stolen from your home, that would make me vile. (ii) The fact the theft may have taken place over a decade ago is irrelevant. It wouldn't make me any less vile, because the artwork rightfully still belongs to you. (iii) The fact your artwork may have traded hands a few times over the years (allowing the initial theft to seem more remote to people handling the stolen property) is irrelevant. It wouldn't make me any less vile, because the artwork rightfully still belongs to you. (iv) The fact you may have a successful career and be financially well off is irrelevant. It wouldn't make me any less vile, because the artwork rightfully still belongs to you. Now, a couple of questions using the same analogy (which could equally apply to so-called backdoor prints): Should this forum be used as a platform to sell or advertise the sale of artwork that was stolen from your home? Would this be ethically defensible? For both questions, I would say "No". ____________ As a rule of thumb, I'd advise anyone against purchasing a Ban ksy original or limited edition print unless it is accompanied by a Pest Control certificate of authenticity. Can you send that to the British Museum and the V&A on behalf of the rest of the world please. |
|
|
|
Backdoor Banksy Prints, by concrete jungle on May 6, 2022 20:23:26 GMT 1, This stolen goods talk is garbage. It shows the lack of understanding of how creative projects go. I’ve done printmaking. When doing a project I needed help…with cleaning screens, mixing inks, file issues for film output , racking prints, getting them trimmed etc. I have often given out a extra copy from the run as a token of thanks. It’s something for someone who was part of the process. They’re basically worthless when they get them…more a memento. I would let the artist know I was taking care of my guys that helped and they would typically reply with “of course” If 15 years down the road they wanted to sell said print I wouldn’t care. Would be more shocked they still had it around! If that unsigned / non edition print was now worth a few k then that’s pretty cool. I don’t think the artist would lose sleep over it either.
This stolen goods talk is garbage. It shows the lack of understanding of how creative projects go. I’ve done printmaking. When doing a project I needed help…with cleaning screens, mixing inks, file issues for film output , racking prints, getting them trimmed etc. I have often given out a extra copy from the run as a token of thanks. It’s something for someone who was part of the process. They’re basically worthless when they get them…more a memento. I would let the artist know I was taking care of my guys that helped and they would typically reply with “of course” If 15 years down the road they wanted to sell said print I wouldn’t care. Would be more shocked they still had it around! If that unsigned / non edition print was now worth a few k then that’s pretty cool. I don’t think the artist would lose sleep over it either. I’d tend to agree with this - although I think a lot of the thoughts around Banksy back doors needs to consider time as the context. Back in the day prints (as we know)were going for hundreds not thousands or tens of thousands of £££. Of course the fact that they are now major money probably clouds judgement on those extras handed out to helpers or discarded due to slight flaws etc. I own a back door Flying Copper bought directly from Backdoor Brummie back in the day - he described it as a print that had been over trimmed and indeed the paper is a couple of cm short of the standard 70 by 100 size. However it’s def from the original run - I’ve directly compared it to one of the edition and it’s an exact match in terms of image and paper type. I don’t equate any massive value to it and have had it up on the wall for years - makes me smile now and then and to be honest I don’t get any less enjoyment from it than my other couple of ‘legit’ editioned Banksy’s. |
|
dotdot
Junior Member
🗨️ 3,660
👍🏻 1,030
December 2006
|
Backdoor Banksy Prints, by dotdot on May 6, 2022 21:06:56 GMT 1, Going back the op,
Can we have a photo of this image , I'm intrigued to understand "what is it that makes it a backdoor print " ?
When it was received by your friend how was it described ? apart from damaged .. etc
is it cut (shorter or thinner)
it doesn't have an ed #
what colour is the balloon (not a joke)
with regards to semantics arguments etc - i'm interested in all angles on this - as i actually raised a thread on this a few weeks ago...
./
Going back the op,
Can we have a photo of this image , I'm intrigued to understand "what is it that makes it a backdoor print " ?
When it was received by your friend how was it described ? apart from damaged .. etc
is it cut (shorter or thinner)
it doesn't have an ed #
what colour is the balloon (not a joke)
with regards to semantics arguments etc - i'm interested in all angles on this - as i actually raised a thread on this a few weeks ago...
./
|
|
|
|
Dice
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,235
👍🏻 1,529
October 2011
|
Backdoor Banksy Prints, by Dice on May 6, 2022 21:45:04 GMT 1, There are loads of legitimate back door prints and I know a guy who has one of each direct from the printer but he doesn’t have a GWB. Never come across that before.
There are loads of legitimate back door prints and I know a guy who has one of each direct from the printer but he doesn’t have a GWB. Never come across that before.
|
|
|
|
Backdoor Banksy Prints, by Spider Joe on May 7, 2022 11:34:02 GMT 1,
Additional information about the artwork:
The print was given (not sold) to my friend, and from memory this was just after the print release sold out. It came via a relationship with* someone directly connected to POW and was described at the time as an ‘off’ print.
*misleading
Print dimensions: 65.2 x 49.9mm
Condition – there are three noticeable condition issues: 1. Darkening of the paper to the bottom LH 3rd. At some point the frame was damaged and the glass broke whilst being stored. The area that has discoloured is in the location of the broken piece of glass.
2. There are 3 noticeable marks that run vertically down the RH side to the right of the balloon. They appear to be at regular intervals and could possibly be why this print never made the grade? They are more noticeable on the rear.
3. The print is slightly wavey. I would guess this was due to the previous framing and humidity, although happy to be corrected.
Additional information about the artwork:
The print was given (not sold) to my friend, and from memory this was just after the print release sold out. It came via a relationship with* someone directly connected to POW and was described at the time as an ‘off’ print.
*misleading
Print dimensions: 65.2 x 49.9mm
Condition – there are three noticeable condition issues: 1. Darkening of the paper to the bottom LH 3rd. At some point the frame was damaged and the glass broke whilst being stored. The area that has discoloured is in the location of the broken piece of glass. 2. There are 3 noticeable marks that run vertically down the RH side to the right of the balloon. They appear to be at regular intervals and could possibly be why this print never made the grade? They are more noticeable on the rear. 3. The print is slightly wavey. I would guess this was due to the previous framing and humidity, although happy to be corrected.
|
|
silvermyn
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,612
👍🏻 781
April 2008
|
Backdoor Banksy Prints, by silvermyn on May 7, 2022 12:39:12 GMT 1,
Additional information about the artwork:
The print was given (not sold) to my friend, and from memory this was just after the print release sold out. It came via a relationship with someone directly connected to POW and was described at the time as an ‘off’ print.
Print dimensions: 65.2 x 49.9mm
Condition – there are three noticeable condition issues: 1. Darkening of the paper to the bottom LH 3rd. At some point the frame was damaged and the glass broke whilst being stored. The area that has discoloured is in the location of the broken piece of glass. 2. There are 3 noticeable marks that run vertically down the RH side to the right of the balloon. They appear to be at regular intervals and could possibly be why this print never made the grade? They are more noticeable on the rear. 3. The print is slightly wavey. I would guess this was due to the previous framing and humidity, although happy to be corrected.
 
That's great. The back story is incredibly important when building provenance, which will support its value.
Value wise, and due to the condition issues, I think it could be worth at least a couple of grand. Big auction houses would probably not want it without a PC COA. Maybe worth discussing with someone like Sworders? Check out some of the Banksy stuff they have sold in the past.
www.sworder.co.uk/
But it has to be worth more than the WCP version even with the damage. Not a retirement pot IMHO but you never know where an auction will take it.
Additional information about the artwork:
The print was given (not sold) to my friend, and from memory this was just after the print release sold out. It came via a relationship with someone directly connected to POW and was described at the time as an ‘off’ print.
Print dimensions: 65.2 x 49.9mm
Condition – there are three noticeable condition issues: 1. Darkening of the paper to the bottom LH 3rd. At some point the frame was damaged and the glass broke whilst being stored. The area that has discoloured is in the location of the broken piece of glass. 2. There are 3 noticeable marks that run vertically down the RH side to the right of the balloon. They appear to be at regular intervals and could possibly be why this print never made the grade? They are more noticeable on the rear. 3. The print is slightly wavey. I would guess this was due to the previous framing and humidity, although happy to be corrected.
That's great. The back story is incredibly important when building provenance, which will support its value. Value wise, and due to the condition issues, I think it could be worth at least a couple of grand. Big auction houses would probably not want it without a PC COA. Maybe worth discussing with someone like Sworders? Check out some of the Banksy stuff they have sold in the past. www.sworder.co.uk/But it has to be worth more than the WCP version even with the damage. Not a retirement pot IMHO but you never know where an auction will take it. |
|
|
|
Backdoor Banksy Prints, by Spider Joe on May 7, 2022 14:00:37 GMT 1,
Additional information about the artwork:
The print was given (not sold) to my friend, and from memory this was just after the print release sold out. It came via a relationship with someone directly connected to POW and was described at the time as an ‘off’ print.
Print dimensions: 65.2 x 49.9mm
Condition – there are three noticeable condition issues: 1. Darkening of the paper to the bottom LH 3rd. At some point the frame was damaged and the glass broke whilst being stored. The area that has discoloured is in the location of the broken piece of glass. 2. There are 3 noticeable marks that run vertically down the RH side to the right of the balloon. They appear to be at regular intervals and could possibly be why this print never made the grade? They are more noticeable on the rear. 3. The print is slightly wavey. I would guess this was due to the previous framing and humidity, although happy to be corrected.
That's great. The back story is incredibly important when building provenance, which will support its value. Value wise, and due to the condition issues, I think it could be worth at least a couple of grand. Big auction houses would probably not want it without a PC COA. Maybe worth discussing with someone like Sworders? Check out some of the Banksy stuff they have sold in the past. www.sworder.co.uk/But it has to be worth more than the WCP version even with the damage. Not a retirement pot IMHO but you never know where an auction will take it.
That’s very helpful, thank you
Additional information about the artwork:
The print was given (not sold) to my friend, and from memory this was just after the print release sold out. It came via a relationship with someone directly connected to POW and was described at the time as an ‘off’ print.
Print dimensions: 65.2 x 49.9mm
Condition – there are three noticeable condition issues: 1. Darkening of the paper to the bottom LH 3rd. At some point the frame was damaged and the glass broke whilst being stored. The area that has discoloured is in the location of the broken piece of glass. 2. There are 3 noticeable marks that run vertically down the RH side to the right of the balloon. They appear to be at regular intervals and could possibly be why this print never made the grade? They are more noticeable on the rear. 3. The print is slightly wavey. I would guess this was due to the previous framing and humidity, although happy to be corrected.
That's great. The back story is incredibly important when building provenance, which will support its value. Value wise, and due to the condition issues, I think it could be worth at least a couple of grand. Big auction houses would probably not want it without a PC COA. Maybe worth discussing with someone like Sworders? Check out some of the Banksy stuff they have sold in the past. www.sworder.co.uk/But it has to be worth more than the WCP version even with the damage. Not a retirement pot IMHO but you never know where an auction will take it. That’s very helpful, thank you |
|
|
|
Backdoor Banksy Prints, by Terry Fuckwitt on May 7, 2022 14:16:49 GMT 1, You should probably change the title of this thread if it was a gifted print outside of the edition. The definition of 'backdoor' means that it was either stolen or dishonestly obtained
You should probably change the title of this thread if it was a gifted print outside of the edition. The definition of 'backdoor' means that it was either stolen or dishonestly obtained
|
|
nick42
New Member
🗨️ 227
👍🏻 158
July 2020
|
Backdoor Banksy Prints, by nick42 on May 7, 2022 15:02:50 GMT 1, Agreed on terminology for these. Definitely interested in a POW overrun or test print, if exists, for ‘Stop and Search.’
Agreed on terminology for these. Definitely interested in a POW overrun or test print, if exists, for ‘Stop and Search.’
|
|
|
|
Backdoor Banksy Prints, by Spider Joe on May 7, 2022 15:08:20 GMT 1, You should probably change the title of this thread if it was a gifted print outside of the edition. The definition of 'backdoor' means that it was either stolen or dishonestly obtained
You should probably change the title of this thread if it was a gifted print outside of the edition. The definition of 'backdoor' means that it was either stolen or dishonestly obtained Thanks. I’ve changed it to test print, but again, happy to be corrected. |
|
silvermyn
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,612
👍🏻 781
April 2008
|
Backdoor Banksy Prints, by silvermyn on May 7, 2022 16:17:16 GMT 1, You should probably change the title of this thread if it was a gifted print outside of the edition. The definition of 'backdoor' means that it was either stolen or dishonestly obtained
A gift print will have a present, heart, peace symbol, or a combination of one or more marked on the front. They are usually signed. Original owners of gift prints may even get a PC COA.
A stolen print is a print that has been dishonestly misappropriated. This is a criminal matter and the prints remains the property of the legal owner.
Backdoor prints get into circulation via the back door. Hence the terminology. It doesn't mean they were stolen but they are not part of the edition and are not prints gifted by the artist.
Test prints are the prints Banksy left in shops when he was originally trying to find a distributor. These have the words "Test print" written on the front.
I'd say the original thread title was correct IMHO.
You should probably change the title of this thread if it was a gifted print outside of the edition. The definition of 'backdoor' means that it was either stolen or dishonestly obtained A gift print will have a present, heart, peace symbol, or a combination of one or more marked on the front. They are usually signed. Original owners of gift prints may even get a PC COA. A stolen print is a print that has been dishonestly misappropriated. This is a criminal matter and the prints remains the property of the legal owner. Backdoor prints get into circulation via the back door. Hence the terminology. It doesn't mean they were stolen but they are not part of the edition and are not prints gifted by the artist. Test prints are the prints Banksy left in shops when he was originally trying to find a distributor. These have the words "Test print" written on the front. I'd say the original thread title was correct IMHO. |
|
