[John The Badgers]

Good advice above.

I'm by no means an expert, but I had a Banksy print a while ago with the correct COA, I'm sure the Tenner was literally torn, then stapled to the COA. The above I think is a copied image of this? Was this how it was done then?

As mentioned, I may be way off, but appreciate that LJCal knows his onions, and I would certainly follow his advice and verify too.

[Spenie]

Looks okay to me,

[cb]

I took the print down to Pest Control office in Shoreditch and picked it up personally from them in Summer 2008. I don’t know exactly who signed it because I don’t know enough about the organisation, but I can 100% assure you that it is genuine. 

I put the lines and circles over it myself to avoid anyone else attempting to use this image. I also removed/ scrubbed the edition number from the certificate for the same reason. 

[cb]

Thanks for the suggestion. I WILL DO THAT. 

However, I’m not sure that it is going to stop some people on this forum from casting doubt on the veracity and legitimacy of my print, and that of others. I understand that these people imagine themselves to be, to whatever extent, authorities in this area, but they quite clearly aren’t. 

I also understand that some people here are just trying to safeguard others. That’s a valid reason to raise concerns.

I took the trouble to go down to the Pest Control office myself in 2008 and pay them to authenticate my print so that I have proof that’s it’s genuine. So, I have to admit it’s very frustrating that some people who clearly don’t know as much as they would love to imagine they do are happy to cast doubt without proof, or any of the required knowledge and experience. 

And of course, inevitably there will be some who still ‘aren’t sure’ about the letter/ certificate that authenticates the COA when I’ve taken the trouble to get that too.

Where does this kind of tin foil hattery end? 

[cb]

It’s good that you’ve recognised that you’re no expert. That’s a step up from quite a lot of people here who are happy to hurl their opinions and views around like chimps throwing shit at each other. 

the tenner on this certificate is torn and stapled on. Look more closely, you can actually see the staple in the image I uploaded! 

I will upload another image of it in the morning to make this more clear. 

[LJCal]

Does anyone on here know Simon Durban and still in contact with him (That's the signature real or otherwise)? He could clear this up pretty quickly I'd imagine, probably quicker than PC.

[LJCal]

Dec 19, 2023 3:46:38 GMT 1 cb said:

Thanks for the suggestion. I WILL DO THAT. 

However, I’m not sure that it is going to stop some people on this forum from casting doubt on the veracity and legitimacy of my print, and that of others. I understand that these people imagine themselves to be, to whatever extent, authorities in this area, but they quite clearly aren’t. 

I also understand that some people here are just trying to safeguard others. That’s a valid reason to raise concerns.

I took the trouble to go down to the Pest Control office myself in 2008 and pay them to authenticate my print so that I have proof that’s it’s genuine. So, I have to admit it’s very frustrating that some people who clearly don’t know as much as they would love to imagine they do are happy to cast doubt without proof, or any of the required knowledge and experience. 

And of course, inevitably there will be some who still ‘aren’t sure’ about the letter/ certificate that authenticates the COA when I’ve taken the trouble to get that too.

Where does this kind of tin foil hattery end? 

I appreciate it's frustrating for a legit seller but I wouldn't take it personally, I'm pretty sure quite a few knowledgeable collectors and dealers would raise questions. That doesn't mean it's fake, just that it's unusual for a COA from this period to be signed in ball point. Alot of people offer fakes on here so it's normal that works will be scrutinised especially where there's some sort of anomaly, legitimate or otherwise.

Of course the only people who can say 100% is pest control and possibly Simon Durban if he's willing now that he doesn't work there anymore. For what it's worth everything else looks fine to me and aside from the type of pen used I probably wouldn't have thought twice about buying this. 

[Deleted]

Dec 19, 2023 3:52:52 GMT 1 LJCal said:

Does anyone on here know Simon Durban and still in contact with him (That's the signature real or otherwise)? He could clear this up pretty quickly I'd imagine, probably quicker than PC.

Yeah it's crazy, I could likely get the nod on any pre 2019 coas in a few hrs from former management if needed even now, but current management could take months/years/maybe never.
 The majority of coas are still the old ones, if the former management set up an authentication company for pre 2019 coas, I would switch to selling Banksys with old coas only.  Less headaches/time wasting and legitimate authorities to have faith in.
I'd ask him re this coa but not sure he'd want to start an avalanche in coa requests.
It looks fine to me, buyers just do your due diligence as you would any high value artwork. If you're unsure on due diligence use a trusted AMP and they should have a system/contacts for in-depth checks on the artwork and seller.

[Minecrafter]

Does anyone think that the hatred on the new pest control is a bit unfair ?

Let's face it - it was the old staff that colluded with Sotheby's on major fraud and it would have been one of the old staff who signed off a falsely dated artwork and falsely dated the COA.

Must be awkward to deal with the backlash of other people's crimes.

As for old non existing staff authenticating COAs - that would open the floodgates for any fakers.

The new staff is still shameful as they are obviously covering up the fraud and are trying to stop the market collapsing by withholding COAs.

[cb]

[hnkpnk]

Isn't August 2008 very early for a PC COA and that explains ballpoint (or thin marker) instead of broad marker?

[cb]

Some more close ups of the signature and the Di-Faced tenner.

It looks to me like this COA has been signed using a thin-mobbed Sharpie, and not a ball point pen.
You can see in the image of the tenner that it is stapled on and that the tenner is torn. I hope this clarifies some of the doubts being casts here.

For anyone interested, here’s the bio of this print. A friend of a friend called Jim purchased it in 2003 (at Santa’s Grotto I believe, but I’m not 100% sure about that). He then sold gave it to my friend Ollie Learmonth who was opening a vintage furniture store in Brighton called In My Room. I went to the opening of Ollie’s shop in Summer 2004 where I saw the print and bought it for £80. It then stayed on the back wall of the shop for over a year because I forgot that I’d bought it. Ollie reminded me and so I picked it up a few weeks later. It hung in the hall of my flat in Hackney until 2008, when I took it to Pest Control because Ollie told me that it was now worth some money. Once the print was authenticated I had it framed in Hackney by Pendragon Framers just off Hackney Road. It then went back in the wall in its brand new museum grade frame in my flat where it stayed until 2015.
Since then it has been stored securely in North London as I now live in Spain and didn’t want to bring it with me.
I considered selling it in 2018 and it was consigned to Graffik Gallery in Westbourne Grove. No concerns were raised by anyone at the gallery about its authenticity. In the end I decided not to sell because I love it.
However, now is the right moment for me to sell. I have my reasons, which are personal and not to be shared here.

I have to confess that it didn’t occur to me for a moment that I couldn’t / shouldn’t trust the people at PC when I took my print down to their offices in 2008.

If there is no trust in the institution that is authenticating these prints, where does that leave us - buyers and sellers? What difference will another (potentially fake) form of authentication make? Regardless I wrote to PC this morning to ask them what the protocol is to authenticate my authentication. Hopefully they will at least respond. I will update when I can.

I was blissfully unaware of any fraud perpetrated by staff at PC.
When did this happen? What happened to those responsible?

[Happy Shopper]

It should be very easy for a buyer to authenticate, if serious about buying. You just have to supply them your name, edition number, and the number on the Tenner... POW will then let the buyer know that all that info matches. Simple, and no need for any other discussion on authenticity, history or style of signature, etc.

[Minecrafter]

Dec 19, 2023 11:39:18 GMT 1 cb said:

Some more close ups of the signature and the Di-Faced tenner.

It looks to me like this COA has been signed using a thin-mobbed Sharpie, and not a ball point pen.
You can see in the image of the tenner that it is stapled on and that the tenner is torn. I hope this clarifies some of the doubts being casts here.

For anyone interested, here’s the bio of this print. A friend of a friend called Jim purchased it in 2003 (at Santa’s Grotto I believe, but I’m not 100% sure about that). He then sold gave it to my friend Ollie Learmonth who was opening a vintage furniture store in Brighton called In My Room. I went to the opening of Ollie’s shop in Summer 2004 where I saw the print and bought it for £80. It then stayed on the back wall of the shop for over a year because I forgot that I’d bought it. Ollie reminded me and so I picked it up a few weeks later. It hung in the hall of my flat in Hackney until 2008, when I took it to Pest Control because Ollie told me that it was now worth some money. Once the print was authenticated I had it framed in Hackney by Pendragon Framers just off Hackney Road. It then went back in the wall in its brand new museum grade frame in my flat where it stayed until 2015.
Since then it has been stored securely in North London as I now live in Spain and didn’t want to bring it with me.
I considered selling it in 2018 and it was consigned to Graffik Gallery in Westbourne Grove. No concerns were raised by anyone at the gallery about its authenticity. In the end I decided not to sell because I love it.
However, now is the right moment for me to sell. I have my reasons, which are personal and not to be shared here.

I have to confess that it didn’t occur to me for a moment that I couldn’t / shouldn’t trust the people at PC when I took my print down to their offices in 2008.

If there is no trust in the institution that is authenticating these prints, where does that leave us - buyers and sellers? What difference will another (potentially fake) form of authentication make? Regardless I wrote to PC this morning to ask them what the protocol is to authenticate my authentication. Hopefully they will at least respond. I will update when I can.

I was blissfully unaware of any fraud perpetrated by staff at PC.
When did this happen? What happened to those responsible?

This is not popular on the forum due to many closely connected people in the forum here and because an other artist called out the fraud (he didn't say his reasons ) but in 2 1/2 years neither Sotheby's nor Banksy have responded or proven the allegations wrong. But they are successful in managing to evade justice. Not a single expert in this forum can prove the allegations wrong. 

creativefolk.co.uk/jps-bursts-the-balloon-on-banksy-and-sothebys/

PS: no, I'm NOT JPS , I'm his wife. 

[Happy Shopper]

Dec 19, 2023 11:39:18 GMT 1 cb said:

I have to confess that it didn’t occur to me for a moment that I couldn’t / shouldn’t trust the people at PC when I took my print down to their offices in 2008.

If there is no trust in the institution that is authenticating these prints, where does that leave us - buyers and sellers? What difference will another (potentially fake) form of authentication make? Regardless I wrote to PC this morning to ask them what the protocol is to authenticate my authentication. Hopefully they will at least respond. I will update when I can.

I was blissfully unaware of any fraud perpetrated by staff at PC.
When did this happen? What happened to those responsible?

This is not popular on the forum due to many closely connected people in the forum here and because an other artist called out the fraud (he didn't say his reasons ) but in 2 1/2 years neither Sotheby's nor Banksy have responded or proven the allegations wrong. But they are successful in managing to evade justice. Not a single expert in this forum can prove the allegations wrong. 

creativefolk.co.uk/jps-bursts-the-balloon-on-banksy-and-sothebys/

PS: no, I'm NOT JPS , I'm his wife. 

And this insanity is completely unrelated.

[Minecrafter]

Dec 19, 2023 12:00:55 GMT 1 Happy Shopper said:

This is not popular on the forum due to many closely connected people in the forum here and because an other artist called out the fraud (he didn't say his reasons ) but in 2 1/2 years neither Sotheby's nor Banksy have responded or proven the allegations wrong. But they are successful in managing to evade justice. Not a single expert in this forum can prove the allegations wrong. 

creativefolk.co.uk/jps-bursts-the-balloon-on-banksy-and-sothebys/

PS: no, I'm NOT JPS , I'm his wife. 

And this insanity is completely unrelated.

Funny how this "insanity" coincides with the start of the massive drop of the market. This is no coincidence 

[astbury]

Dec 19, 2023 11:58:32 GMT 1 Minecrafter said:

Dec 19, 2023 11:39:18 GMT 1 cb said:

Some more close ups of the signature and the Di-Faced tenner.

It looks to me like this COA has been signed using a thin-mobbed Sharpie, and not a ball point pen.
You can see in the image of the tenner that it is stapled on and that the tenner is torn. I hope this clarifies some of the doubts being casts here.

For anyone interested, here’s the bio of this print. A friend of a friend called Jim purchased it in 2003 (at Santa’s Grotto I believe, but I’m not 100% sure about that). He then sold gave it to my friend Ollie Learmonth who was opening a vintage furniture store in Brighton called In My Room. I went to the opening of Ollie’s shop in Summer 2004 where I saw the print and bought it for £80. It then stayed on the back wall of the shop for over a year because I forgot that I’d bought it. Ollie reminded me and so I picked it up a few weeks later. It hung in the hall of my flat in Hackney until 2008, when I took it to Pest Control because Ollie told me that it was now worth some money. Once the print was authenticated I had it framed in Hackney by Pendragon Framers just off Hackney Road. It then went back in the wall in its brand new museum grade frame in my flat where it stayed until 2015.
Since then it has been stored securely in North London as I now live in Spain and didn’t want to bring it with me.
I considered selling it in 2018 and it was consigned to Graffik Gallery in Westbourne Grove. No concerns were raised by anyone at the gallery about its authenticity. In the end I decided not to sell because I love it.
However, now is the right moment for me to sell. I have my reasons, which are personal and not to be shared here.

I have to confess that it didn’t occur to me for a moment that I couldn’t / shouldn’t trust the people at PC when I took my print down to their offices in 2008.

If there is no trust in the institution that is authenticating these prints, where does that leave us - buyers and sellers? What difference will another (potentially fake) form of authentication make? Regardless I wrote to PC this morning to ask them what the protocol is to authenticate my authentication. Hopefully they will at least respond. I will update when I can.

I was blissfully unaware of any fraud perpetrated by staff at PC.
When did this happen? What happened to those responsible?

This is not popular on the forum due to many closely connected people in the forum here and because an other artist called out the fraud (he didn't say his reasons ) but in 2 1/2 years neither Sotheby's nor Banksy have responded or proven the allegations wrong. But they are successful in managing to evade justice. Not a single expert in this forum can prove the allegations wrong. 

creativefolk.co.uk/jps-bursts-the-balloon-on-banksy-and-sothebys/

PS: no, I'm NOT JPS , I'm his wife. 

Does your husband (JPS) know how obsessed you are with this forum? 

[hnkpnk]

Dec 19, 2023 12:05:40 GMT 1 Minecrafter said:

Dec 19, 2023 12:00:55 GMT 1 Happy Shopper said:

And this insanity is completely unrelated.

Funny how this "insanity" coincides with the start of the massive drop of the market. This is no coincidence 

Sorry to hear that your insanity started with the drop of the market.

[PC Baby]

Dec 19, 2023 10:43:59 GMT 1 cb said:

Don't look like a ballpoint to me...

[met]

Dec 18, 2023 13:32:38 GMT 1 cb said:

FOR SALE

Happy Choppers (unsigned) edition in the 400’s
COA from Pest Control (signed 2008)
The print is in near perfect condition.
Currently framed behind Museum-grade glass, by Pendragon Framers of Hackney in 2008

I have owned this print since Summer 2004.
It has only ever been hung in my dimly lit hallway, never in direct sunlight.

It's currently stored in North London.
It is for collection only.

c£18,000

If you have any questions please don't hesitate to ask.









[...]

Dec 18, 2023 16:43:12 GMT 1 High Contrast said:

I've never seen that sig on a COA before

Dec 18, 2023 16:44:38 GMT 1 Django said:

Sorry to come across a bit naive, but i have never seen a C.O.A like this before , with the lines , circling, and the signature or seem off, normally the signature is a bit thicker as if been done by a sharpie .

As referred to by hnkpnk below, this certificate of authenticity was issued in August 2008, around eight months after Pest Control Office was established.

It can often take some time for new institutions and their personnel to settle in; for preferred templates, standardised policies and procedures to be agreed upon; and for relative consistency to emerge.



Consistency in signature style can take some time as well, especially when we aren't dealing with a normal signature, but rather one that is scaled up in size on a COA, presumably for reasons of aesthetics and gravitas.



Side note: Sharpies are available with differently-sized points. And even with a regular fine-point Sharpie, the thickness of the ink on paper can vary dramatically, depending on a variety of factors, including how often that Sharpie has previously been used.

Dec 18, 2023 16:48:25 GMT 1 Dutch Art Collector said:

Hopefully you didn’t pay a lot for this one because this is not legit.

You have formulated your comment, not as an opinion or as just a possibility, but instead as an unqualified assertion of fact — when no irrefutable evidence exists to support such an assertion.

That is irresponsible and arguably foolish. Moreover, it is unfair to the seller.

For the wider benefit of this message board, please consider paying closer attention to the wording of your posts, especially when claiming particular items to be fake.



In the past, I've commented about your limited knowledge having seemingly given you a misplaced confidence in your own opinions:

A little learning is a dang'rous thing.

I recall you have also been prone to buying first, and only afterwards asking this forum for its views about the authenticity of your purchase.



But what is most grating to me are your attempts to offload some of the fakes you've purchased onto less-informed buyers.

In this respect, you are the occasional scam victim who, in turn, has chosen to take on the role of occasional scammer (while of course ensuring that you retain deniability).

Dec 18, 2023 17:49:09 GMT 1 Jimmy Oscar said:

This is a 2003 print and not a 2004 print.

I have one - and this is clear on the COA.

And all my COAs have H: & W: (H: 70cm x W: 50cm) in the size section, but not sure how consistent it is across all COAs.

To the seller - I would contact PC and get them to certify this was a mistake on the COA. Hopefully all is good and you have an authentic print but I would double check.

The issue of uncertainty about the consistency of Pest Control Office is a good point.

That may also be relevant to the Year section in Pest Control Office COAs.

Year can refer to the year of a print's release. And it can just as equally correspond to the year in which a specific print in the overall edition was sold to its original buyer.



Take the example of a Virgin Mary (a.k.a. Toxic Mary), released by Pictures On Walls in 2003. It was one of Banksy's least popular screenprints at the time, with copies languishing for ages on a shelf at POW.

Now, any signed copies sold in 2004 would be signed and dated that year by the artist.

Presumably, the Year sections of the corresponding COAs for these prints also refer to 2004.

Dec 18, 2023 17:59:38 GMT 1 Richy Rich said:

Dec 18, 2023 17:49:09 GMT 1 Jimmy Oscar said:

This is a 2003 print and not a 2004 print.

I have one - and this is clear on the COA.

And all my COAs have H: & W: (H: 70cm x W: 50cm) in the size section, but not sure how consistent it is across all COAs.

To the seller - I would contact PC and get them to certify this was a mistake on the COA. Hopefully all is good and you have an authentic print but I would double check.

Does your COA read 'Happy Chopper' or 'Happy Choppers'? I swear one I used to have read 'Happy Chopper' but maybe it's another inconsistency of Pest Control.

I've seen both singular and plural.

Query: If only one of the three Apaches has a visible pink bow, can all three of them still be described as "happy"?

Below is an example of a Pest Control Office COA referencing the title, Happy Chopper, singular:

Dec 19, 2023 11:07:57 GMT 1 hnkpnk said:

Isn't August 2008 very early for a PC COA and that explains ballpoint (or thin marker) instead of broad marker?

That seems a very plausible explanation.

And to me, it looks like a marker signature by Simon Durban, perhaps just done with a new (i.e. relatively still-pointy) Sharpie.

Dec 19, 2023 11:39:18 GMT 1 cb said:

Some more close ups of the signature and the Di-Faced tenner.

It looks to me like this COA has been signed using a thin-mobbed Sharpie, and not a ball point pen.
You can see in the image of the tenner that it is stapled on and that the tenner is torn. I hope this clarifies some of the doubts being casts here.

For anyone interested, here’s the bio of this print. A friend of a friend called Jim purchased it in 2003 (at Santa’s Grotto I believe, but I’m not 100% sure about that). He then sold gave it to my friend Ollie Learmonth who was opening a vintage furniture store in Brighton called In My Room. I went to the opening of Ollie’s shop in Summer 2004 where I saw the print and bought it for £80. It then stayed on the back wall of the shop for over a year because I forgot that I’d bought it. Ollie reminded me and so I picked it up a few weeks later. It hung in the hall of my flat in Hackney until 2008, when I took it to Pest Control because Ollie told me that it was now worth some money. Once the print was authenticated I had it framed in Hackney by Pendragon Framers just off Hackney Road. It then went back in the wall in its brand new museum grade frame in my flat where it stayed until 2015.
Since then it has been stored securely in North London as I now live in Spain and didn’t want to bring it with me.
I considered selling it in 2018 and it was consigned to Graffik Gallery in Westbourne Grove. No concerns were raised by anyone at the gallery about its authenticity. In the end I decided not to sell because I love it.
However, now is the right moment for me to sell. I have my reasons, which are personal and not to be shared here.

I have to confess that it didn’t occur to me for a moment that I couldn’t / shouldn’t trust the people at PC when I took my print down to their offices in 2008.

If there is no trust in the institution that is authenticating these prints, where does that leave us - buyers and sellers? What difference will another (potentially fake) form of authentication make? Regardless I wrote to PC this morning to ask them what the protocol is to authenticate my authentication. Hopefully they will at least respond. I will update when I can.

I was blissfully unaware of any fraud perpetrated by staff at PC.
When did this happen? What happened to those responsible?

For what it's worth, neither your screenprint nor its accompanying COA caused any alarm bell to ring in my ear.



That said, the sensible default precaution for anyone who's considering a private purchase of a Banksy print or original — or a public purchase from one of the less-reputable auction houses — is to email Pest Control Office and await its hopefully-prompt "okay" before any money changes hands.

[Deleted]

Dec 19, 2023 12:05:40 GMT 1 Minecrafter said:

Dec 19, 2023 12:00:55 GMT 1 Happy Shopper said:

And this insanity is completely unrelated.

Funny how this "insanity" coincides with the start of the massive drop of the market. This is no coincidence 

Its coincidence. It would be a massive stretch to think anything JPS said in that article would have any effect on the Banksy market, at all tbh and I'd be surprised if PC did any more than glance at it. I didn't hear any collectors mention it as a concern. 
 It was an orchestrated stunt, maybe they bent some info into shape to suit the narrative/impact, nobody cares.  
There's plenty of factors for the price readjustment, mostly major things like the world economic situation/wars etc mixed in with poor market management, not so much a JPS article. This market was correcting regardless, it was time.

[Minecrafter]

Dec 19, 2023 15:34:59 GMT 1 @castlegalleryltd said:

Dec 19, 2023 12:05:40 GMT 1 Minecrafter said:

Funny how this "insanity" coincides with the start of the massive drop of the market. This is no coincidence 

Its coincidence. It would be a massive stretch to think anything JPS said in that article would have any effect on the Banksy market, at all tbh and I'd be surprised if PC did any more than glance at it. I didn't hear any collectors mention it as a concern. 
 It was an orchestrated stunt, maybe they bent some info into shape to suit the narrative/impact, nobody cares.  
There's plenty of factors for the price readjustment, mostly major things like the world economic situation/wars etc mixed in with poor market management, not so much a JPS article. This market was correcting regardless, it was time.

All excuses from people who are worried about their investments / earnings don't justify or remove the fact it was brazen fraud. 
What a silly schoolboy error , but one that can't be undone, it changed everything and revealed the truth. 

The "stunt" didn't work for people who know Banksy's work , obviously better than they knew it themselves. 

[Londown 01]

Dec 19, 2023 16:19:25 GMT 1 Minecrafter said:

Dec 19, 2023 15:34:59 GMT 1 @castlegalleryltd said:

All excuses from people who are worried about their investments / earnings don't justify or remove the fact it was brazen fraud. 

Nobody cares about what you're saying. Please go away. 

[Richy Rich]

Dec 19, 2023 16:19:25 GMT 1 Minecrafter said:

Dec 19, 2023 15:34:59 GMT 1 @castlegalleryltd said:

Its coincidence. It would be a massive stretch to think anything JPS said in that article would have any effect on the Banksy market, at all tbh and I'd be surprised if PC did any more than glance at it. I didn't hear any collectors mention it as a concern. 
 It was an orchestrated stunt, maybe they bent some info into shape to suit the narrative/impact, nobody cares.  
There's plenty of factors for the price readjustment, mostly major things like the world economic situation/wars etc mixed in with poor market management, not so much a JPS article. This market was correcting regardless, it was time.

All excuses from people who are worried about their investments / earnings don't justify or remove the fact it was brazen fraud. 
What a silly schoolboy error , but one that can't be undone, it changed everything and revealed the truth. 

The "stunt" didn't work for people who know Banksy's work , obviously better than they knew it themselves. 

On a serious note, is it worth starting your own thread about your misgivings over the stunt? That way people who are actually interested in agreeing with you or entering into a debate can do so without you hijacking other member's threads? 

[Zippy]

Thanks met for your insightful and structured reply.

I agree that the 'This is not legit' comment is unfair to the seller.
If anyone is seriously considering buying the print, let me know as I may be able to help re the COA.

On another note...

[compound]

Dec 19, 2023 15:30:44 GMT 1 met said:

Dec 18, 2023 13:32:38 GMT 1 cb said:

FOR SALE

Happy Choppers (unsigned) edition in the 400’s
COA from Pest Control (signed 2008)
The print is in near perfect condition.
Currently framed behind Museum-grade glass, by Pendragon Framers of Hackney in 2008

I have owned this print since Summer 2004.
It has only ever been hung in my dimly lit hallway, never in direct sunlight.

It's currently stored in North London.
It is for collection only.

c£18,000

If you have any questions please don't hesitate to ask.









[...]

Dec 18, 2023 16:43:12 GMT 1 High Contrast said:

I've never seen that sig on a COA before

Dec 18, 2023 16:44:38 GMT 1 Django said:

Sorry to come across a bit naive, but i have never seen a C.O.A like this before , with the lines , circling, and the signature or seem off, normally the signature is a bit thicker as if been done by a sharpie .

As referred to by hnkpnk below, this certificate of authenticity was issued in August 2008, around eight months after Pest Control Office was established.

It can often take some time for new institutions and their personnel to settle in; for preferred templates, standardised policies and procedures to be agreed upon; and for relative consistency to emerge.



Consistency in signature style can take some time as well, especially when we aren't dealing with a normal signature, but rather one that is scaled up in size on a COA, presumably for reasons of aesthetics and gravitas.



Side note: Sharpies are available with differently-sized points. And even with a regular fine-point Sharpie, the thickness of the ink on paper can vary dramatically, depending on a variety of factors, including how often that Sharpie has previously been used.

Dec 18, 2023 16:48:25 GMT 1 Dutch Art Collector said:

Hopefully you didn’t pay a lot for this one because this is not legit.

You have formulated your comment, not as an opinion or as just a possibility, but instead as an unqualified assertion of fact — when no irrefutable evidence exists to support such an assertion.

That is irresponsible and arguably foolish. Moreover, it is unfair to the seller.

For the wider benefit of this message board, please consider paying closer attention to the wording of your posts, especially when claiming particular items to be fake.



In the past, I've commented about your limited knowledge having seemingly given you a misplaced confidence in your own opinions:

A little learning is a dang'rous thing.

I recall you have also been prone to buying first, and only afterwards asking this forum for its views about the authenticity of your purchase.



But what is most grating to me are your attempts to offload some of the fakes you've purchased onto less-informed buyers.

In this respect, you are the occasional scam victim who, in turn, has chosen to take on the role of occasional scammer (while of course ensuring that you retain deniability).

Dec 18, 2023 17:49:09 GMT 1 Jimmy Oscar said:

This is a 2003 print and not a 2004 print.

I have one - and this is clear on the COA.

And all my COAs have H: & W: (H: 70cm x W: 50cm) in the size section, but not sure how consistent it is across all COAs.

To the seller - I would contact PC and get them to certify this was a mistake on the COA. Hopefully all is good and you have an authentic print but I would double check.

The issue of uncertainty about the consistency of Pest Control Office is a good point.

That may also be relevant to the Year section in Pest Control Office COAs.

Year can refer to the year of a print's release. And it can just as equally correspond to the year in which a specific print in the overall edition was sold to its original buyer.



Take the example of a Virgin Mary (a.k.a. Toxic Mary), released by Pictures On Walls in 2003. It was one of Banksy's least popular screenprints at the time, with copies languishing for ages on a shelf at POW.

Now, any signed copies sold in 2004 would be signed and dated that year by the artist.

Presumably, the Year sections of the corresponding COAs for these prints also refer to 2004.

Dec 18, 2023 17:59:38 GMT 1 Richy Rich said:

Does your COA read 'Happy Chopper' or 'Happy Choppers'? I swear one I used to have read 'Happy Chopper' but maybe it's another inconsistency of Pest Control.

I've seen both singular and plural.

Query: If only one of the three Apaches has a visible pink bow, can all three of them still be described as "happy"?

Below is an example of a Pest Control Office COA referencing the title, Happy Chopper, singular:

Dec 19, 2023 11:07:57 GMT 1 hnkpnk said:

Isn't August 2008 very early for a PC COA and that explains ballpoint (or thin marker) instead of broad marker?

That seems a very plausible explanation.

And to me, it looks like a marker signature by Simon Durban, perhaps just done with a new (i.e. relatively still-pointy) Sharpie.

Dec 19, 2023 11:39:18 GMT 1 cb said:

Some more close ups of the signature and the Di-Faced tenner.

It looks to me like this COA has been signed using a thin-mobbed Sharpie, and not a ball point pen.
You can see in the image of the tenner that it is stapled on and that the tenner is torn. I hope this clarifies some of the doubts being casts here.

For anyone interested, here’s the bio of this print. A friend of a friend called Jim purchased it in 2003 (at Santa’s Grotto I believe, but I’m not 100% sure about that). He then sold gave it to my friend Ollie Learmonth who was opening a vintage furniture store in Brighton called In My Room. I went to the opening of Ollie’s shop in Summer 2004 where I saw the print and bought it for £80. It then stayed on the back wall of the shop for over a year because I forgot that I’d bought it. Ollie reminded me and so I picked it up a few weeks later. It hung in the hall of my flat in Hackney until 2008, when I took it to Pest Control because Ollie told me that it was now worth some money. Once the print was authenticated I had it framed in Hackney by Pendragon Framers just off Hackney Road. It then went back in the wall in its brand new museum grade frame in my flat where it stayed until 2015.
Since then it has been stored securely in North London as I now live in Spain and didn’t want to bring it with me.
I considered selling it in 2018 and it was consigned to Graffik Gallery in Westbourne Grove. No concerns were raised by anyone at the gallery about its authenticity. In the end I decided not to sell because I love it.
However, now is the right moment for me to sell. I have my reasons, which are personal and not to be shared here.

I have to confess that it didn’t occur to me for a moment that I couldn’t / shouldn’t trust the people at PC when I took my print down to their offices in 2008.

If there is no trust in the institution that is authenticating these prints, where does that leave us - buyers and sellers? What difference will another (potentially fake) form of authentication make? Regardless I wrote to PC this morning to ask them what the protocol is to authenticate my authentication. Hopefully they will at least respond. I will update when I can.

I was blissfully unaware of any fraud perpetrated by staff at PC.
When did this happen? What happened to those responsible?

For what it's worth, neither your screenprint nor its accompanying COA caused any alarm bell to ring in my ear.



That said, the sensible default precaution for anyone who's considering a private purchase of a Banksy print or original — or a public purchase from one of the less-reputable auction houses — is to email Pest Control Office and await its hopefully-prompt "okay" before any money changes hands.

If it weren’t for older members considered responses like this, this place would be like the wild west. So many Banksy experts about, who own loads of ephemera who jump to conclusions about things like this. Well done met and others who are here to genuinely help out. 

[Django]

Dec 19, 2023 15:30:44 GMT 1 met said:

Dec 18, 2023 13:32:38 GMT 1 cb said:

FOR SALE

Happy Choppers (unsigned) edition in the 400’s
COA from Pest Control (signed 2008)
The print is in near perfect condition.
Currently framed behind Museum-grade glass, by Pendragon Framers of Hackney in 2008

I have owned this print since Summer 2004.
It has only ever been hung in my dimly lit hallway, never in direct sunlight.

It's currently stored in North London.
It is for collection only.

c£18,000

If you have any questions please don't hesitate to ask.









[...]

Dec 18, 2023 16:43:12 GMT 1 High Contrast said:

I've never seen that sig on a COA before

Dec 18, 2023 16:44:38 GMT 1 Django said:

Sorry to come across a bit naive, but i have never seen a C.O.A like this before , with the lines , circling, and the signature or seem off, normally the signature is a bit thicker as if been done by a sharpie .

As referred to by hnkpnk below, this certificate of authenticity was issued in August 2008, around eight months after Pest Control Office was established.

It can often take some time for new institutions and their personnel to settle in; for preferred templates, standardised policies and procedures to be agreed upon; and for relative consistency to emerge.



Consistency in signature style can take some time as well, especially when we aren't dealing with a normal signature, but rather one that is scaled up in size on a COA, presumably for reasons of aesthetics and gravitas.



Side note: Sharpies are available with differently-sized points. And even with a regular fine-point Sharpie, the thickness of the ink on paper can vary dramatically, depending on a variety of factors, including how often that Sharpie has previously been used.

Dec 18, 2023 16:48:25 GMT 1 Dutch Art Collector said:

Hopefully you didn’t pay a lot for this one because this is not legit.

You have formulated your comment, not as an opinion or as just a possibility, but instead as an unqualified assertion of fact — when no irrefutable evidence exists to support such an assertion.

That is irresponsible and arguably foolish. Moreover, it is unfair to the seller.

For the wider benefit of this message board, please consider paying closer attention to the wording of your posts, especially when claiming particular items to be fake.



In the past, I've commented about your limited knowledge having seemingly given you a misplaced confidence in your own opinions:

A little learning is a dang'rous thing.

I recall you have also been prone to buying first, and only afterwards asking this forum for its views about the authenticity of your purchase.



But what is most grating to me are your attempts to offload some of the fakes you've purchased onto less-informed buyers.

In this respect, you are the occasional scam victim who, in turn, has chosen to take on the role of occasional scammer (while of course ensuring that you retain deniability).

Dec 18, 2023 17:49:09 GMT 1 Jimmy Oscar said:

This is a 2003 print and not a 2004 print.

I have one - and this is clear on the COA.

And all my COAs have H: & W: (H: 70cm x W: 50cm) in the size section, but not sure how consistent it is across all COAs.

To the seller - I would contact PC and get them to certify this was a mistake on the COA. Hopefully all is good and you have an authentic print but I would double check.

The issue of uncertainty about the consistency of Pest Control Office is a good point.

That may also be relevant to the Year section in Pest Control Office COAs.

Year can refer to the year of a print's release. And it can just as equally correspond to the year in which a specific print in the overall edition was sold to its original buyer.



Take the example of a Virgin Mary (a.k.a. Toxic Mary), released by Pictures On Walls in 2003. It was one of Banksy's least popular screenprints at the time, with copies languishing for ages on a shelf at POW.

Now, any signed copies sold in 2004 would be signed and dated that year by the artist.

Presumably, the Year sections of the corresponding COAs for these prints also refer to 2004.

Dec 18, 2023 17:59:38 GMT 1 Richy Rich said:

Does your COA read 'Happy Chopper' or 'Happy Choppers'? I swear one I used to have read 'Happy Chopper' but maybe it's another inconsistency of Pest Control.

I've seen both singular and plural.

Query: If only one of the three Apaches has a visible pink bow, can all three of them still be described as "happy"?

Below is an example of a Pest Control Office COA referencing the title, Happy Chopper, singular:

Dec 19, 2023 11:07:57 GMT 1 hnkpnk said:

Isn't August 2008 very early for a PC COA and that explains ballpoint (or thin marker) instead of broad marker?

That seems a very plausible explanation.

And to me, it looks like a marker signature by Simon Durban, perhaps just done with a new (i.e. relatively still-pointy) Sharpie.

Dec 19, 2023 11:39:18 GMT 1 cb said:

Some more close ups of the signature and the Di-Faced tenner.

It looks to me like this COA has been signed using a thin-mobbed Sharpie, and not a ball point pen.
You can see in the image of the tenner that it is stapled on and that the tenner is torn. I hope this clarifies some of the doubts being casts here.

For anyone interested, here’s the bio of this print. A friend of a friend called Jim purchased it in 2003 (at Santa’s Grotto I believe, but I’m not 100% sure about that). He then sold gave it to my friend Ollie Learmonth who was opening a vintage furniture store in Brighton called In My Room. I went to the opening of Ollie’s shop in Summer 2004 where I saw the print and bought it for £80. It then stayed on the back wall of the shop for over a year because I forgot that I’d bought it. Ollie reminded me and so I picked it up a few weeks later. It hung in the hall of my flat in Hackney until 2008, when I took it to Pest Control because Ollie told me that it was now worth some money. Once the print was authenticated I had it framed in Hackney by Pendragon Framers just off Hackney Road. It then went back in the wall in its brand new museum grade frame in my flat where it stayed until 2015.
Since then it has been stored securely in North London as I now live in Spain and didn’t want to bring it with me.
I considered selling it in 2018 and it was consigned to Graffik Gallery in Westbourne Grove. No concerns were raised by anyone at the gallery about its authenticity. In the end I decided not to sell because I love it.
However, now is the right moment for me to sell. I have my reasons, which are personal and not to be shared here.

I have to confess that it didn’t occur to me for a moment that I couldn’t / shouldn’t trust the people at PC when I took my print down to their offices in 2008.

If there is no trust in the institution that is authenticating these prints, where does that leave us - buyers and sellers? What difference will another (potentially fake) form of authentication make? Regardless I wrote to PC this morning to ask them what the protocol is to authenticate my authentication. Hopefully they will at least respond. I will update when I can.

I was blissfully unaware of any fraud perpetrated by staff at PC.
When did this happen? What happened to those responsible?

For what it's worth, neither your screenprint nor its accompanying COA caused any alarm bell to ring in my ear.



That said, the sensible default precaution for anyone who's considering a private purchase of a Banksy print or original — or a public purchase from one of the less-reputable auction houses — is to email Pest Control Office and await its hopefully-prompt "okay" before any money changes hands.

[Django]

Dec 19, 2023 15:30:44 GMT 1 met said:

Dec 18, 2023 13:32:38 GMT 1 cb said:

FOR SALE

Happy Choppers (unsigned) edition in the 400’s
COA from Pest Control (signed 2008)
The print is in near perfect condition.
Currently framed behind Museum-grade glass, by Pendragon Framers of Hackney in 2008

I have owned this print since Summer 2004.
It has only ever been hung in my dimly lit hallway, never in direct sunlight.

It's currently stored in North London.
It is for collection only.

c£18,000

If you have any questions please don't hesitate to ask.









[...]

Dec 18, 2023 16:43:12 GMT 1 High Contrast said:

I've never seen that sig on a COA before

Dec 18, 2023 16:44:38 GMT 1 Django said:

Sorry to come across a bit naive, but i have never seen a C.O.A like this before , with the lines , circling, and the signature or seem off, normally the signature is a bit thicker as if been done by a sharpie .

As referred to by hnkpnk below, this certificate of authenticity was issued in August 2008, around eight months after Pest Control Office was established.

It can often take some time for new institutions and their personnel to settle in; for preferred templates, standardised policies and procedures to be agreed upon; and for relative consistency to emerge.



Consistency in signature style can take some time as well, especially when we aren't dealing with a normal signature, but rather one that is scaled up in size on a COA, presumably for reasons of aesthetics and gravitas.



Side note: Sharpies are available with differently-sized points. And even with a regular fine-point Sharpie, the thickness of the ink on paper can vary dramatically, depending on a variety of factors, including how often that Sharpie has previously been used.

Dec 18, 2023 16:48:25 GMT 1 Dutch Art Collector said:

Hopefully you didn’t pay a lot for this one because this is not legit.

You have formulated your comment, not as an opinion or as just a possibility, but instead as an unqualified assertion of fact — when no irrefutable evidence exists to support such an assertion.

That is irresponsible and arguably foolish. Moreover, it is unfair to the seller.

For the wider benefit of this message board, please consider paying closer attention to the wording of your posts, especially when claiming particular items to be fake.



In the past, I've commented about your limited knowledge having seemingly given you a misplaced confidence in your own opinions:

A little learning is a dang'rous thing.

I recall you have also been prone to buying first, and only afterwards asking this forum for its views about the authenticity of your purchase.



But what is most grating to me are your attempts to offload some of the fakes you've purchased onto less-informed buyers.

In this respect, you are the occasional scam victim who, in turn, has chosen to take on the role of occasional scammer (while of course ensuring that you retain deniability).

Dec 18, 2023 17:49:09 GMT 1 Jimmy Oscar said:

This is a 2003 print and not a 2004 print.

I have one - and this is clear on the COA.

And all my COAs have H: & W: (H: 70cm x W: 50cm) in the size section, but not sure how consistent it is across all COAs.

To the seller - I would contact PC and get them to certify this was a mistake on the COA. Hopefully all is good and you have an authentic print but I would double check.

The issue of uncertainty about the consistency of Pest Control Office is a good point.

That may also be relevant to the Year section in Pest Control Office COAs.

Year can refer to the year of a print's release. And it can just as equally correspond to the year in which a specific print in the overall edition was sold to its original buyer.



Take the example of a Virgin Mary (a.k.a. Toxic Mary), released by Pictures On Walls in 2003. It was one of Banksy's least popular screenprints at the time, with copies languishing for ages on a shelf at POW.

Now, any signed copies sold in 2004 would be signed and dated that year by the artist.

Presumably, the Year sections of the corresponding COAs for these prints also refer to 2004.

Dec 18, 2023 17:59:38 GMT 1 Richy Rich said:

Does your COA read 'Happy Chopper' or 'Happy Choppers'? I swear one I used to have read 'Happy Chopper' but maybe it's another inconsistency of Pest Control.

I've seen both singular and plural.

Query: If only one of the three Apaches has a visible pink bow, can all three of them still be described as "happy"?

Below is an example of a Pest Control Office COA referencing the title, Happy Chopper, singular:

Dec 19, 2023 11:07:57 GMT 1 hnkpnk said:

Isn't August 2008 very early for a PC COA and that explains ballpoint (or thin marker) instead of broad marker?

That seems a very plausible explanation.

And to me, it looks like a marker signature by Simon Durban, perhaps just done with a new (i.e. relatively still-pointy) Sharpie.

Dec 19, 2023 11:39:18 GMT 1 cb said:

Some more close ups of the signature and the Di-Faced tenner.

It looks to me like this COA has been signed using a thin-mobbed Sharpie, and not a ball point pen.
You can see in the image of the tenner that it is stapled on and that the tenner is torn. I hope this clarifies some of the doubts being casts here.

For anyone interested, here’s the bio of this print. A friend of a friend called Jim purchased it in 2003 (at Santa’s Grotto I believe, but I’m not 100% sure about that). He then sold gave it to my friend Ollie Learmonth who was opening a vintage furniture store in Brighton called In My Room. I went to the opening of Ollie’s shop in Summer 2004 where I saw the print and bought it for £80. It then stayed on the back wall of the shop for over a year because I forgot that I’d bought it. Ollie reminded me and so I picked it up a few weeks later. It hung in the hall of my flat in Hackney until 2008, when I took it to Pest Control because Ollie told me that it was now worth some money. Once the print was authenticated I had it framed in Hackney by Pendragon Framers just off Hackney Road. It then went back in the wall in its brand new museum grade frame in my flat where it stayed until 2015.
Since then it has been stored securely in North London as I now live in Spain and didn’t want to bring it with me.
I considered selling it in 2018 and it was consigned to Graffik Gallery in Westbourne Grove. No concerns were raised by anyone at the gallery about its authenticity. In the end I decided not to sell because I love it.
However, now is the right moment for me to sell. I have my reasons, which are personal and not to be shared here.

I have to confess that it didn’t occur to me for a moment that I couldn’t / shouldn’t trust the people at PC when I took my print down to their offices in 2008.

If there is no trust in the institution that is authenticating these prints, where does that leave us - buyers and sellers? What difference will another (potentially fake) form of authentication make? Regardless I wrote to PC this morning to ask them what the protocol is to authenticate my authentication. Hopefully they will at least respond. I will update when I can.

I was blissfully unaware of any fraud perpetrated by staff at PC.
When did this happen? What happened to those responsible?

For what it's worth, neither your screenprint nor its accompanying COA caused any alarm bell to ring in my ear.



That said, the sensible default precaution for anyone who's considering a private purchase of a Banksy print or original — or a public purchase from one of the less-reputable auction houses — is to email Pest Control Office and await its hopefully-prompt "okay" before any money changes hands.

[Alex Artscapy]

As per title available Banksy - Happy Chopper u/s. 
Location: UK - Viewable in London
Conditions: excellent

Complimentary insurance up to 12 months depending on membership level on Artscapy, which covers also shipping.

DM for info.

Cheers,
A.

[Reader]

 


Signed Banksy "Happy Choppers". One owner, sharp corners, clean blemish free sheet, Pest Control COA, as good as it gets. £40k inc crated and shipped fully insured from Norway, administrated by Flight Logistics or a carrier of your choice.

Full payment required in advance.

References supplied if needed.

PM if interested.