Star Wars Set 10 Moss

[egrimens]

actual film posters (100 years old up to now) are usually a much different stock than these screen prints to be fair, and thus the paper behaves differently. Hard to really compare in this regard.

I had a print that was in a tube for 4-5 years, that has now been flattening for about 3 years and still isn't flat, paper stock definitely plays a role as does humidity (I live in a pretty dry climate so that doesn't help), but that being said the print is probably flat enough to frame at this point should I choose to.

[hakson]

Prices are creeping in the $4500 range very soon.

[binky79]

Prices are creeping in the $4500 range very soon.

Only 3 sets sold this year, cheapest was over 5k with roll bends.

[Loobaz]

Only 3 sets sold this year, cheapest was over 5k with roll bends.

Yes, and that seller didn't accept bids from International buyers.. .

[hakson]

A few sets are available here for 6k but none have moved. Only 3 sets sold this year was probably due to collectors asking an arm and a leg for theirs. Clearly ppl overpaid and now the market is correcting itself.

[electrachrome]

Really appreciate the help and feedback.

How do you know what number the posters are if you've never even opened the tube?

Says it on my invoice & shipping confirmation. You bring up a good point & it is worth checking out: maybe I lucked out and actually have a version from 1-50!

219 is the Mondo store item stock number. Stout Star Wars set (regular edition) was 231. Return of the Jedi was 228, Revenge of the Jedi 224, etc...
99% sure you should have a matching # set, but without ever opening, you have no idea what the number is.
As others have said, you will need photos, so you should open that tube up sometime when you have all the time in the world to do it unrushed.

[nutter97]

$8200!!!!! makes me feel like i own a real piece of art

[crowley26]

There are so many MIXED signals here.

A signed version sells for $7.3k in August.
An unsigned version sells for $5.2k later in August.
An unsigned version sells from reputable dealer for $8.2k in November.
The signed version from August is re-listed (assuming deal fell through), but only sells for $5.1k in December.

Scratches head.

[63schoeffling]

There are so many MIXED signals here.

A signed version sells for $7.3k in August.
An unsigned version sells for $5.2k later in August.
An unsigned version sells from reputable dealer for $8.2k in November.
The signed version from August is re-listed (assuming deal fell through), but only sells for $5.1k in December.

Scratches head.

Save your money and put a down payment down on some property, yo.

[electrachrome]

Save your money and put a down payment down on some property, yo.

he's lookin to sell, not buy.

[63schoeffling]

Save your money and put a down payment down on some property, yo.

he's lookin to sell, not buy.

Heh, shouldn't have skimmed.

[rubberneck]

Someone asked me for a comment on those Buddich pieces. I wrote a big long thing, but it can pretty much apply to any time someone is accused of ripping me off.

The fact that you ask for both an on and off the record statement suggests an assumption that these pieces would make me uncomfortable, but that I might prefer to remain diplomatic. This is not the case. I’m going to be completely, totally honest.

There is nothing wrong with this.

These are parodies. There are no legal grounds for dispute. If there were, I would not enforce them. Increasingly I feel as though ownership of a style or even a single image is an unhealthy notion. As an artist, you make your work and you push it out into the ether. People are free to react to it however they want. Whether that means they buy a print from you, or print it out themselves, or even adapt it into their own work. I’ve friends who rail against every perceived slight on their copyrighted style, and it brings them nothing but misery and constant frustration. They see imitation and parody as a price you pay for doing good work. It’s not a price you pay. It’s a reward you’ve earned. You were lucky enough to make something with which people connected, and it got a reaction. You can’t police what that reaction is.

When I was asked to make those posters five years ago, my goal was to create something that felt entirely like Star Wars, but didn’t look like it. Something that fell a little outside of the incredibly rich history of Star Wars art. But are they unique pieces of art? Are they genius flashes of inspiration, pulled from nowhere? No. Of course not. I can still point to every stylistic and conceptual reference I used to inform those pieces. The impressive optical illusions of Jason Munn and Noma Bar. The bold compositions of Saul Bass and Paul Rand. The evocative landscapes of Dan Danger and Dan McCarthy. I tried to capture something of all of those great examples to make work that felt new and surprising. The fact that it proved popular enough to spawn parodies only proves that it must have worked. And I couldn’t have done it without stealing a bunch of other people’s fudge.

But do I like these Buddich posters? No, not particularly. When I look at them, I only see all the things I dislike about my originals. The things that I would go back and do differently (my sympathies for Mr. Lucas, here). But they’re parody posters for a parody movie. It’s a strong concept.

[jlabbate]

^^FOILS!

[sidewaysscott]

hahaha those are awesome. Who did them?

[Kramerica]

^^FOILS!

Of course.

hahaha those are awesome. Who did them?

Budich