Value of giclee prints

At least 7 of the 24 to 33 converted /embezzled originals (valued over $15k to over $20K per piece) at the time, were made into limited editions and or giclees. The editions are marketed over the internet / websites and at 2 shows yearly. I am fairly certain that the conversions and fraud findings, at the time, were part of the trial. So these multiples would likely be considered converted and or embezzled. They (multiples) do cross state lines and out of the USA as well in the dumping and counterfeits we have observed. One of the first ones was actually done as counterfeit overseas to an attorney collector who alerted us so we complained to eBay VeRo who did nothing at first. Now eBay appears to be just starting to shut off these unlawful sales after what appears to be hundreds of thousands of dollars in unauthorized contraband transactions. We had to write more VeRo ebay complaints in 2008 and 2009 before this was started to be undertaken---guess they like the revenues and traffic they get from the popularity of the art. The artist, public and the other collectors at the original pricing structure are hurt while the dumpers make out big time. The schemers seem to finance their litigation with contraband and counterfeit sales revenues too. Most amazing is that these dumping and counterfeiting frauds accelerated by the very same people's in law and a sales staffer(s) at the publisher AFTER the courts' rulings to stop it. When you said "slick , Huckster" years ago you were right on the money.

That looks like forgery to me, that is, if the original edition certificate of authenticity or tirage states the size and medium and shows no other state (of medium or size) offered by the publisher. Publishers have done this by taking an image from a work and having a sculpture produced (the maquette produced by other hands than the artist) which should be made against the law. I believe the law is now that if there are no other states shown on the original certificate or tirage (pulling), there are none, and none can be produced in the future (lawfully, all states of the print have to be recorded and offered to the buyer). It does not exclude a sculpture derived from the two dimension art (it should as they are re-marketing the image in another medium). Many publisher have gotten away with offering a print in two different sizes without stating it on any certificate of authenticity or tirage.

Sorayama news article pinned to his gallery wall.......I just wanted to let you know we had the conversations with the two other artists you had mentioned in your posts of years ago. Well, one artist at least as Earle only has his gallery director around. This has given us quite an eye opening about the frauds some of these publishers conduct in the reproduction market. The living artist (a friend of yours I believe) told us about the frauds going back to the 1980s --multiple investors by MLG partner selling one of his pieces many times over to different buyers and the dumping he experienced in the 1990s---after he made mistake of trusting the "huckster". He told us how he finally felt some reprieve to see Sorayama's results---yet it is not over as they are now trying to re-construct the entire scam into something it is not. The Judge got confused after seeing over 12,000 pieces of contraband / counterfeits ! in the litigation cloistered warehousing. Judge thought they were merely "unauthorized overruns" because trustee / attorneys never explain it as they prefer to bill with longer hours against the publishers estate while allowing the publisher to jump start up a new fraud or continue this one. Tough on the artist and collectors rights who do not have these teams of lawyers. So now artist stands alone to go back at great cost to bring the court up to speed while the huge attorney team of this art gang conjures other false stories. Like saying it was not the publisher --(he says he was over-medicated) --doing these things but a bunch of bad sales people (who somehow are still on staff and accelerating the frauds). If you speak to your artist friend let him know the day may or may not come for him to frame the Sorayama news article on his wall. But we think without his help to design the frame (by speaking to us more) it will not fit well enough to put a dent in this fraud which is now at hand in the months ahead. Artists in their art are here to speak up and raise the yellow flags.

Yes, I'm aware of greedy sales people (art consultants -- yeah, right) and employees of artists and publishers who have nefariously got hold of part of an edition of prints and sold copies out the back door. There are also printer's proofs circulating around which the print studio or the master printers retained as part of publishing deal, and some of these are trial proofs (not the same color ways or even alterations of the image). Many of these are signed but not numbered. I briefly worked for a Orange County company who marketed these but with full disclosure -- that's not excluding those retailers who got hold of PP's and sold them, numbering them by their hand. Kostabi's manager at one time was having his staff of artists produced multiple paintings and then signing them himself and selling them on the street (meaning, of course, in an art black market). He was caught, but I wager he's one out of an unknown number who have gotten away with it. There are still many prints around which aren't legitimate but the instigators are experience the unfortunate truth that "limited edition" prints are not worth much on the secondary market. The prints often won't have the publisher or artists' chop mark (the blank embossed, dated trademark or, in the case of MLLE, the corporate seal). Yamagata began fingerprinting his prints on the face with ultra-violet ink to stop forgeries. Again, on most of his old prints on the 80's and 90's, the secondary market can bring double the original price but, more often than not, the original price of the print or less.

This is just more proof that we unfortunately live in a wicked world as far as business ethics and the politicians, more right than left, want to leave the market unfettered. The customer, or victim if you want, has to observe caveat emptor.

A 15 Jan 2010 Bankruptcy Appeal Panel concluded its work in support of the federal court trial rulings by the late Hon Judge Florence Marie - Cooper and in support of the bankruptcy court Hon Judge Sherri Bluebond who added embezzling to rulings as well as no discharge of debt. The Appeal courts heard arguments on Feb. 3, 2010 and the results should be in the months ahead. LINK:
http://knol.google.com/k/art-sorayama-v-tamara-bane-gallery-and-robert-bane#

I want to thank all thee artists for their input regarding giclee in this forum. I was about to purchase two giclee prints, one of Monet's Waterlily Pond & one of Van Gogh's Mulberry Tree (which I adore), both for $76 - $106 at 70%+ off (price varied depending on size). The image online was just beautiful, very enticing on the framed stretched canvas. But I was wary to spend $100+ on art that, well, can we really call it art any more?

In our home we have beautiful works: valuable stencils, etchings, photographs, paintings, carvings, lithographs, sculptures, drwings & more. We also have hand blown glass fish sculptures & real puffer fish hanging from the ceiling & Starfish on the walls; and so on! I am proud of this. And I love my limited edition & autographed Clive Barker litho's; but would never hang any poster art in my home. Ever. I don't like them.

Back to the point, I love the two works I was interested in possessing, the Monet & Van Gogh printings, but I am so glad I found your opinions in this forum before purchasing them. While the print being on a real canvas & wrapped around a real frame at a "huge" discount (arghhhh, the works still tempt me!), I have decided it just isn't worth it. No matter how great the technology you really can't reproduce the original; & the beautiful brush strokes. Though it's still tempting... Am I wrong?