Michael Everett Posters IMPORTANT, PLEASE READ

General art-related discussion.
Post Reply
piemel
Art Connoisseur
Posts: 801
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 1:00 am

Fri May 22, 2009 5:48 pm

Is this downtown Berkely or something?

This has nothing to do with money or if I can trust some dealer. For all I care/know they are both 100% upstanding citizens of this planet. It has nothing to do me not believing the artist or dealer. I don't them nor their background

Its the IDEA that is retarded and the fact that members of the poster collecting community actually would agree with this. The idea that an artist can do a partial renumbering 5 years after the print run is just stupid.

Look, you had an idea and brought it up and you thought it was actually a good idea. I am telling you its a drymounting dumbass idea... I am not scolding you for trying to do some good deed/service for your collectors... I am scolding you for not thinking this through and I am scolding the members here for not immediately calling you on this fudge.
User avatar
itsdug
Art Expert
Posts: 9879
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:00 am
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Fri May 22, 2009 5:56 pm

piemel wrote:its a drymounting dumbass idea....
i changed my mind
no comment ®
User avatar
MJBuck
Art Expert
Posts: 4342
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 1:00 am
Location: Portland, OR

Fri May 22, 2009 6:07 pm

Never trust a woman that wears her pants too tight.

Sage advice.
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.
Flimby

Fri May 22, 2009 6:22 pm

freeposters wrote:
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.
so would you kindly explain why the email address you used to register on this site is postertrip@xxxxxx.com?
User avatar
jojobadass
Art Freak
Posts: 19947
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 12:00 am
Location: chick-fila
Contact:

Fri May 22, 2009 6:24 pm

I'll go on record saying that I trust m. everett way more than I trust josh.
For the best concert and movie posters available, check out: http://www.jojosposters.com

For other art crap....be sure to check out: http://www.jojosfineart.com

And for the kinkiest records in the world......check out the newest website in the Jojo Empire: http://www.jojosrecords.com
User avatar
hayward96
Art Connoisseur
Posts: 755
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 11:28 pm

Fri May 22, 2009 6:24 pm

norbyjake wrote:
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.
Are there known forgeries of any of these prints? Will they be confiscated or signed if they are mailed in?
User avatar
treesis
Art Connoisseur
Posts: 813
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 1:00 am
Location: Inside my flat file

Fri May 22, 2009 6:28 pm

freeposters wrote: 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?
Why dont you take a poll about how EB'ers feel re Shepard Fairey and get back to me.

FWIW, Ive bought from Michael over the years, and via Jake, he's never "cut me off", never been unfriendly. Prints and original works. In fact, he's gone the extra mile - he's signed stuff I brought to him. I dont expect him to keep in touch though or anything like that.
norbyjake
Art Connoisseur
Posts: 397
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 12:00 am

Fri May 22, 2009 6:32 pm

hayward96 wrote:
norbyjake wrote:
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.
Are there known forgeries of any of these prints? Will they be confiscated or signed if they are mailed in?
Currently, Michael believes at least three of his posters have been booted/reprinted. If a boot is sent to Michael, he'll simply send it back (as he doesn't have originals to replace them with).
User avatar
treesis
Art Connoisseur
Posts: 813
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 1:00 am
Location: Inside my flat file

Fri May 22, 2009 6:33 pm

hayward96 wrote:
norbyjake wrote:
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.
Are there known forgeries of any of these prints? Will they be confiscated or signed if they are mailed in?
I only know of a double printing of the SCI Art Factory 99, or heard of it at one point - dont know if that's true or ? Both were official posters.

I also think the Aaron Ralston benefit poster from 03 had some issues, where some were damaged and they ran off more copies but Im also not 100% sure on this.

Also can't recall if the Tory Newlin benefit print was #d.
User avatar
bdix
Art Enthusiast
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 1:00 am
Location: Austin, Texas
Contact:

Fri May 22, 2009 6:42 pm

a partially numbered edition (well, looks like it'll be "editionS").

that's just brilliant.

i think i just gave up on printmaking.
User avatar
mreverett
Art Enthusiast
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 7:09 pm
Location: Nebraska
Contact:

Fri May 22, 2009 6:56 pm

treesis wrote:
hayward96 wrote:
norbyjake wrote:
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.
Are there known forgeries of any of these prints? Will they be confiscated or signed if they are mailed in?
I only know of a double printing of the SCI Art Factory 99, or heard of it at one point - dont know if that's true or ? Both were official posters.

I also think the Aaron Ralston benefit poster from 03 had some issues, where some were damaged and they ran off more copies but Im also not 100% sure on this.

Also can't recall if the Tory Newlin benefit print was #d.
The 2nd edition of SCI Art Factory was S/N maybe in a higher run (200?) but included Keller Williams as guest, visibly different in number and inclusion of new lettering.
Official and official. I do not know of any Ralston print issues, a 100% benefit but still worthy of consideration here...
Michael
User avatar
haven
Art Expert
Posts: 5485
Joined: Thu May 29, 2003 12:00 am

Fri May 22, 2009 7:18 pm

piemel wrote: Its the IDEA that is retarded and the fact that members of the poster collecting community actually would agree with this. The idea that an artist can do a partial renumbering 5 years after the print run is just stupid.
I concur with this statement.
User avatar
funkin
Art Connoisseur
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 1:00 am

Fri May 22, 2009 7:23 pm

norbyjake wrote: Currently, Michael believes at least three of his posters have been booted/reprinted. If a boot is sent to Michael, he'll simply send it back (as he doesn't have originals to replace them with).
Why not just disclose which prints may be bootlegged, how to tell the difference and what the original print runs were. If people still want their prints signed and the artist is willing to sign them i don't see a problem, but partially numbering print runs years after the fact doesn't seem like it'll help anything.
norbyjake
Art Connoisseur
Posts: 397
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 12:00 am

Fri May 22, 2009 7:52 pm

funkin wrote:
norbyjake wrote: Currently, Michael believes at least three of his posters have been booted/reprinted. If a boot is sent to Michael, he'll simply send it back (as he doesn't have originals to replace them with).
Why not just disclose which prints may be bootlegged, how to tell the difference and what the original print runs were. If people still want their prints signed and the artist is willing to sign them i don't see a problem, but partially numbering print runs years after the fact doesn't seem like it'll help anything.
It will help prevent FUTURE attempts to bootleg the posters, which given that these are easily copyable lithos, will be a very popular venture by those so inclined.
whalaw
Site Admin
Posts: 5946
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 12:00 am

Fri May 22, 2009 7:54 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.
I feel the exact same way. The efforts of Jim and Michael are greatly appreciated, but for the reasons mentioned above, I think it is a poor idea at best.
Post Reply