Michael Everett Posters IMPORTANT, PLEASE READ

General art-related discussion.
User avatar
Raheen_Shabbazz
Art Connoisseur
Posts: 236
Joined: Thu May 29, 2003 1:00 am
Location: SoCal
Contact:

Fri May 22, 2009 4:56 pm

I don't really see why this effort would get people up in arms. Validating prints and signing unsigned prints hurts no one. I agree with that numbering after the fact doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I do agree with the suggestion to include just the edition size instead of a number. Do Everetts prints in particular have problems with forgeries? Not sure why the signing has to be so cryptic.
I do applaud the effort to provide a service to the fans and collectors though. No one should be scolded for such a thing.
Totally agree. And, to be honest, I fully trust a guy like NorbyJake who has been doing this for YEARS to make sure everything is on the level (as does Michael obviously). Seems to me that the majority of the cat-calling is a knee-jerk "ZOMG -- IF I CAN'T MAKE A BUCK OFF THIS IT IS THE WORST THING EVER!"

I will say from person experience that I have always been thoroughly overwhelmed by the level of effort Michael has gone through to ensure that everything is "just exactly perfect" with each and every transaction. Brow-beating an artist for trying to properly catalog their early work is a complete mystery to me.

But what do I know...
norbyjake
Art Connoisseur
Posts: 397
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 12:00 am

Fri May 22, 2009 5:00 pm

sabotage wrote:I don't really see why this effort would get people up in arms. Validating prints and signing unsigned prints hurts no one. I agree with that numbering after the fact doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I do agree with the suggestion to include just the edition size instead of a number. Do Everetts prints in particular have problems with forgeries? Not sure why the signing has to be so cryptic.
I do applaud the effort to provide a service to the fans and collectors though. No one should be scolded for such a thing.
Anybody could reprint a digital litho. It has more than likely already occurred with a couple of Michael's posters. And, anybody could write "Edition of 40, M. Everett" on the back. I have a stack of Rick Griffin posters here that Rick did not sign. Forging signatures is going to happen at some point (why do you think Emek signs, numbers, doodles & embosses?). Just signing and writing the edition size will not discourage anybody intent on producing forgeries. It will happen as readily as if they were not signed and editioned.
User avatar
hainshead
Art Connoisseur
Posts: 467
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 1:00 am
Location: Boston

Fri May 22, 2009 5:08 pm

coastrat wrote:Asking moderators to review someone's "membership suitability" is gayer than a man having sex with another man.
Welcome to EB coastrat. Are your first 5 posts as well thought out as your 6th?
freeposters
Art Enthusiast
Posts: 37
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2005 1:00 am

Fri May 22, 2009 5:10 pm

After the fiasco with the Shoreline Posters and Deer Creek Posters, which Josh from Postertrip verified, with absolute proof, I would not trust Michael Everett to tell how many posters were done or which ones were first prints. He unethically sold posters through collectors and dealers which he should have known were not first prints, but which he sold as first print shoreline and deer creek posters which were PROVEN after meticulout reseearch, to be 3rd print posters. He still continues to sell these to people and not disclose the true print runs. I would not trust Michael anymore to be honest when it comes to poster runs.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but the truth is the truth. Michael is a GREAT artist, and he is a good person too, but he has made some SERIOUS mistakes in the last, and at this point, everything he sells is speculative.
User avatar
electrachrome
Site Admin
Posts: 18162
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 12:00 am
Location: Boston

Fri May 22, 2009 5:12 pm

Raheen_Shabbazz wrote:Seems to me that the majority of the cat-calling is a knee-jerk "ZOMG -- IF I CAN'T MAKE A BUCK OFF THIS IT IS THE WORST THING EVER!"
to Piemel/Rene's credit, proper editioning of prints is a topic that is important to him and he has made some very forthright arguments regarding the matter. It isn't about value to him. I doubt he has any of Everett's work to begin with.

There was a time when there was a strict code about editions and reprints...maybe it's still followed by some in the fine art world. Those cannons of ethics have long been ignored in our little word of gig posters and art prints. Maybe this isn't the best approach, but it's not my place to tell an artist how to handle his catalogue. For sure this isn't a perfect solution, but at least Jim and Michael are taking a stab at providing an added measure of authenticity to the uneditioned work.

2 ¢
User avatar
heather_honey
Art Connoisseur
Posts: 724
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 2:30 pm
Location: the present tense

Fri May 22, 2009 5:13 pm

I'm befuddled about how an artist inviting people who own his work to send it to him for a signature merits so much rage. If you don't want to send your prints in, don't. If you don't even own any why do you care anyway? The constructive criticism about the numbering from the mods makes sense but the rants are pretty uncalled for.
jcporter wrote:damn...with a name like "heather honey"...it's got to be good!
Give the gift of health and life to needy pets: http://saveuspets.org/
User avatar
electrachrome
Site Admin
Posts: 18162
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 12:00 am
Location: Boston

Fri May 22, 2009 5:15 pm

freeposters wrote:After the fiasco with the Shoreline Posters and Deer Creek Posters, which Josh from Postertrip verified, with absolute proof, I would not trust Michael Everett to tell how many posters were done or which ones were first prints. He unethically sold posters through collectors and dealers which he should have known were not first prints, but which he sold as first print shoreline and deer creek posters which were PROVEN after meticulout reseearch, to be 3rd print posters. He still continues to sell these to people and not disclose the true print runs. I would not trust Michael anymore to be honest when it comes to poster runs.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but the truth is the truth. Michael is a GREAT artist, and he is a good person too, but he has made some SERIOUS mistakes in the last, and at this point, everything he sells is speculative.
Josh...we know this is you.

Image
User avatar
MJBuck
Art Expert
Posts: 4342
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 1:00 am
Location: Portland, OR

Fri May 22, 2009 5:15 pm

freeposters wrote:After the fiasco with the Shoreline Posters and Deer Creek Posters, which Josh from Postertrip verified, with absolute proof, I would not trust Michael Everett to tell how many posters were done or which ones were first prints. He unethically sold posters through collectors and dealers which he should have known were not first prints, but which he sold as first print shoreline and deer creek posters which were PROVEN after meticulout reseearch, to be 3rd print posters. He still continues to sell these to people and not disclose the true print runs. I would not trust Michael anymore to be honest when it comes to poster runs.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but the truth is the truth. Michael is a GREAT artist, and he is a good person too, but he has made some SERIOUS mistakes in the last, and at this point, everything he sells is speculative.
didn't want to post that with your normal handle? :wink:
out and perfect.
norelation wrote:quit with the sniveling and just sell the damn poster. i don't care about your life story, we all got problems. just tell me about bent corners, or if your cat has used it for target practice.
mistersmith wrote:That means I'm going to touch you.
freeposters
Art Enthusiast
Posts: 37
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2005 1:00 am

Fri May 22, 2009 5:18 pm

electrachrome wrote:
Raheen_Shabbazz wrote:Seems to me that the majority of the cat-calling is a knee-jerk "ZOMG -- IF I CAN'T MAKE A BUCK OFF THIS IT IS THE WORST THING EVER!"
to Piemel/Rene's credit, proper editioning of prints is a topic that is important to him and he has made some very forthright arguments regarding the matter. It isn't about value to him. I doubt he has any of Everett's work to begin with.

There was a time when there was a strict code about editions and reprints...maybe it's still followed by some in the fine art world. Those cannons of ethics have long been ignored in our little word of gig posters and art prints. Maybe this isn't the best approach, but it's not my place to tell an artist how to handle his catalogue. For sure this isn't a perfect solution, but at least Jim and Michael are taking a stab at providing an added measure of authenticity to the uneditioned work.

2 ¢
If Michael has been proven to be deceptive with people in the past, what makes you think he will fess up in the present or the future? How can you believe there are 100 shoreline prints done, when there were only 10 and Only 7 Deer Creek, when Michael claims there were 100 of those too? Michael claims he did 100 Shoreline and 100 Deer Creek prints, but he only did 10 Shoreline and 7 Deer Creek originally. They were printed on super thin paper. The second prints were done on Hard Board around 1997-8 and the Third Prints were done more recently but he keeps selling Third Prints as First Print Originals. How can you ever trust or believe someone who does this crap?
freeposters
Art Enthusiast
Posts: 37
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2005 1:00 am

Fri May 22, 2009 5:21 pm

MJBuck wrote:
freeposters wrote:After the fiasco with the Shoreline Posters and Deer Creek Posters, which Josh from Postertrip verified, with absolute proof, I would not trust Michael Everett to tell how many posters were done or which ones were first prints. He unethically sold posters through collectors and dealers which he should have known were not first prints, but which he sold as first print shoreline and deer creek posters which were PROVEN after meticulout reseearch, to be 3rd print posters. He still continues to sell these to people and not disclose the true print runs. I would not trust Michael anymore to be honest when it comes to poster runs.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but the truth is the truth. Michael is a GREAT artist, and he is a good person too, but he has made some SERIOUS mistakes in the last, and at this point, everything he sells is speculative.
didn't want to post that with your normal handle? :wink:
I'm good friends with Josh, but he is not me, sorry. He has sold me some great stuff, and he has a pretty awesome collection of stuff. Josh doesn't post on here. He hates Expresso Beans, from what I understand. He belives Expresso Beans is for the "kids", but I see it differently. I collect random art and newer poster artists, myself, so I like the site. I have to agree with him though, since I have seen the proof, myself.
User avatar
MJBuck
Art Expert
Posts: 4342
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 1:00 am
Location: Portland, OR

Fri May 22, 2009 5:22 pm

I never said you were Josh... :P
out and perfect.
norelation wrote:quit with the sniveling and just sell the damn poster. i don't care about your life story, we all got problems. just tell me about bent corners, or if your cat has used it for target practice.
mistersmith wrote:That means I'm going to touch you.
User avatar
itsdug
Art Expert
Posts: 9879
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:00 am
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Fri May 22, 2009 5:26 pm

no comment
no comment ®
freeposters
Art Enthusiast
Posts: 37
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2005 1:00 am

Fri May 22, 2009 5:28 pm

I think it's more important to have the correct information, so whatever the problem with Josh is, it matters not to me. Josh explained to me the reason he stopped collecting Michael Everetts stuff and sold it all off, mostly, was because he felt Michael cheated people including himself. That is what is important, not whether or not Josh and Michael had a problem in the past. I can understand people wanting to support an artist, and I support Michael, myself, but as A collector, I resent an artist presenting posters as original when they are clearly not. That is the problem with Michael's past and his honesty. Everytime he connects with someone, he sells them a bunch of stuff, and then cuts them off when they can't buy anymore. How many artists treat people like that? How mnay artists sell prints as originals, when they know they aren't?

I'm just responding to the post I find ridiculous, knowing the truth of the matter. Michael could never tell anyone with certainty, that a poster is a true original print, because he has been unethical in the past. I find it extremely unfortunate, but it's the truth.
User avatar
talkingdeads
Art Expert
Posts: 7053
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: it's subjective

Fri May 22, 2009 5:34 pm

I agree with Piemel, and sadly with Josh/freeposters. If Everett wants to sign them, then that's cool, but as far as his posters are concerned they should all be considered open editions.
freeposters
Art Enthusiast
Posts: 37
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2005 1:00 am

Fri May 22, 2009 5:41 pm

talkingdeads wrote:I agree with Piemel, and sadly with Josh/freeposters. If Everett wants to sign them, then that's cool, but as far as his posters are concerned they should all be considered open editions.
That's all i'm saying. The past should be considered. In the past, editions have been messed up. It was a big deal to Josh when he found out that Michael had been doing this. Getting the word out, to the poster community, was pretty important. It's important that people know the truth about the poster edition runs and history.

And please stop associating me with Josh. My name is Tim o. I only know Josh through local shows and posters.
Post Reply