Hendrix Experience John Mayall San Francisco 68 Griffin

[macc5]

The SS-4 edition has no bootlegs..

Norby was speaking of the PP-3 printing... That is the pirate

[macc5]

And, as ricv64 said, it would be nice to hear from Cushway regarding these recent SS-4 auctions.

def would like to hear some info...

[norbyjake]

someone must have added the others recently as I didnt see those sales the other day when the recent PP was on ebay...

am I wrong on that?

Is the PP designation Printers Proof as the seller stated or Pirate Printing?

PP in this case is Pirate Printing. The reprint was bootlegged in the 80's by John Berns. It loses some detail, and there is a faint finger print along the lower left end right edge.[/quo

I believe there is some confusion here. I think the "PP" goatboy was inquiring about is the "PP" referenced under the recent SS-4 auctions. There, the "PP" stands for Printers Proof (unless there was some nefarious activity going on, in which case it could be classified as a Pirate Print). I believe the "PP" norbyjake was referring to in his answer is the "PP-3" EDITION, which is defined as Pirate Print. I am modifying the auctions to make it a litte less confusing.

And, as ricv64 said, it would be nice to hear from Cushway regarding these recent SS-4 auctions.

I'll call Phil and have him post something. I think he & Rick had full control of the printing. I would be very skeptical of anything that is not signed.

[Codeblue]

And people have problems with Emek's editions....

[norbyjake]

I just spoke with Phil. These unsigned printer's proofs were not part of the official run. The seller is accurate in that he/she was involved in the printing. In a word, Phil is pissed, and he is going to try to contact these people. It will most likely be next week before we hear back.

Phil's memory is that they printed, signed & numbered 500. There were also 50 A/P's and 2 P/P's, all of which were signed. There were some that were damaged during the run, but given the condition of the ones offered on ebay, they are not the damaged prints (that Phil thought were destroyed).

Hope this helps.

[Codeblue]

Looks like there needs to be an "SS4-PP" edition.

[goatboy]

Looks like there needs to be an "SS4-PP" edition.

More like Printers Proof so goatboy doesn't get confused again

[norbyjake]

Looks like there needs to be an "SS4-PP" edition.

More like Printers Proof so goatboy doesn't get confused again

I would wait to hear from Phil, "Pirate" may be appropriate.

[whalaw]

I just spoke with Phil. These unsigned printer's proofs were not part of the official run. The seller is accurate in that he/she was involved in the printing. In a word, Phil is pissed, and he is going to try to contact these people. It will most likely be next week before we hear back.

Phil's memory is that they printed, signed & numbered 500. There were also 50 A/P's and 2 P/P's, all of which were signed. There were some that were damaged during the run, but given the condition of the ones offered on ebay, they are not the damaged prints (that Phil thought were destroyed).

Hope this helps.

Thank you for the information, Jim. In speaking with Phil in the past regarding the SS-4s, he has always told me the same thing: 500 s/n; 50 a/p; and 2 p/p. I figured these were "backdoor" prints.

[Codeblue]

That sounds dirty.

[macc5]

hmmm.. very interesting...

[artoholic]

I have somewhat of a vested interest in this situation being that I won the most recent Ebay auction for SS-4. I have not paid the seller at this point, as I am now questioning the authenticity. I messaged the seller and they assured me that they were involved in the printing at Arellanes Studios back in 89. I also figured that it would be next to impossible to counterfeit a serigraph this complex. However given the recent controversy I am second guessing my decision. I have never backed out of a winning bid, but if the seller misrepresented the item being auctioned then I feel I have every right to refuse them payment. Any information that anyone can contribute would be greatly appreciated. Thanks folks

[macc5]

I have somewhat of a vested interest in this situation being that I won the most recent Ebay auction for SS-4. I have not paid the seller at this point, as I am now questioning the authenticity. I messaged the seller and they assured me that they were involved in the printing at Arellanes Studios back in 89. I also figured that it would be next to impossible to counterfeit a serigraph this complex. However given the recent controversy I am second guessing my decision. I have never backed out of a winning bid, but if the seller misrepresented the item being auctioned then I feel I have every right to refuse them payment. Any information that anyone can contribute would be greatly appreciated. Thanks folks

yeah, i was bidding on that one as well..

I dont think they are fakes, seems like they may be extra prints from the run that Phil thought were destroyed...

[ricv64]

I have somewhat of a vested interest in this situation being that I won the most recent Ebay auction for SS-4. I have not paid the seller at this point, as I am now questioning the authenticity. I messaged the seller and they assured me that they were involved in the printing at Arellanes Studios back in 89. I also figured that it would be next to impossible to counterfeit a serigraph this complex. However given the recent controversy I am second guessing my decision. I have never backed out of a winning bid, but if the seller misrepresented the item being auctioned then I feel I have every right to refuse them payment. Any information that anyone can contribute would be greatly appreciated. Thanks folks

look at all his other items all Arellanes studios prints . most likly left overs from the run .

[goatboy]

The guy sounds like a thieving pirate to me