Shepard Fairey Master Index Dossier 21: 2010–2009 Release Cohort

Cohort scope

This dossier studies a defined cohort of 17 Shepard Fairey releases selected from the Gauntlet Gallery master index, spanning 2010 through 2009. The cohort begins with Ali Canvas Print and concludes with Jessica in the index sequence. It is designed as comparative research rather than as a set of isolated product summaries. The aim is to see how editions, media, publishers, and available public-sale evidence relate across a manageable group of releases.

The cohort contains 16 Screen Print, 1 Offset Lithograph. Recorded publishers include Obey Giant (16), Obey Clothing (1). The index associates 226 cleaned public-sale observations with these entries in aggregate. That number is not a cohort valuation and should not be used as one. It simply describes the quantity of recorded transaction evidence currently available under the index methodology.

Why a cohort reading is useful

Fairey’s output is expansive enough that a single title can seem self-explanatory when viewed alone. In practice, a work becomes more intelligible when set beside other releases from a similar period or adjacent catalog sequence. A cohort can reveal a changing balance among screenprints, letterpress works, giclée editions, collaborations, music subjects, political graphics, and publisher relationships. It can also show where the market record is thick enough for comparison and where the available evidence remains too sparse for confident conclusions.

This report retains a necessary distinction between edition-level facts and individual objects. The master index provides a title, year, edition designation, stated edition size, medium, publisher, and observed sales data where available. An actual offered work requires separate inspection: images of the front and reverse, signature or edition notation when applicable, corners, margins, condition, framing, documentation, and seller history. The index organizes questions; it does not answer every question about a specific sheet.

How to read the release dossiers

Each entry below follows the master-index record. It does not invent a visual description or an authentication conclusion that the data cannot support. Instead, it identifies the indexed fields, explains why medium and edition language matter, and frames the recorded market evidence as a comparison tool rather than a guarantee. This methodology is deliberately conservative. In a category where listing titles and edition claims can drift, clarity about what is known is more useful than a more dramatic but unsupported narrative.

Ali Canvas Print

The master index records Ali Canvas Print as a 2010 release: First Edition, stated edition size 450, medium Screen Print, published by Obey Giant. This combination of fields establishes the entry’s edition-level identity. It does not establish the condition, completeness, or authenticity of any individual example offered for sale. The first task for a collector is to make sure that a listing’s title, medium, edition language, and publisher information genuinely correspond to this indexed record rather than merely resembling it.

The title itself belongs to the wider field of Fairey’s public-facing image practice, where language, symbolism, portraiture, and graphic design can function simultaneously. The master index is deliberately cautious here: it records the work name but does not attempt to turn an index title into a complete visual description. That restraint matters. A collector should consult high-quality images and primary release information before making a thematic interpretation. What can be said from the record is that Ali Canvas Print forms part of the 2010 release roster, and its medium and publisher place it within the production ecology tracked for that year.

Screenprint collectors should assess ink surface, paper character, margins, and handling carefully. The stated edition size of 450 is a supply descriptor, not a ranking system. It can help frame comparisons, but it does not determine desirability, condition, or eventual resale outcomes. A collector comparing examples should ask whether the works are genuinely the same edition, whether the notation is complete, whether any Artist’s Proof or variant language is involved, and whether the listing photographs support the claims being made. A smaller number is not a substitute for a clear object record.

The master index contains 41 cleaned public-sale observations for this entry. Its reported median is $262.00, with an observed low-to-high range of $116.99 to $1,079.84. These figures should be read as a set of past observations, not a valuation. The range may incorporate object-level differences, different sale dates, weak or strong documentation, framing, venue, and catalogue accuracy. Where the count is modest, each sale carries more weight and deserves closer scrutiny. Where the count is larger, it improves the available reference set but still does not remove the need to compare like with like. Asking prices are not included in the logic of this paragraph; completed transactions and listing claims are different kinds of evidence.

For an individual example of Ali Canvas Print, build a small research file before committing. Save the listing text, request full front and reverse photographs, inspect the signature and edition area if present, and document the corners and any condition issues. Retain invoices, certificates, and seller messages together. If framed, ask whether the work is floated, hinged, or mounted; ask about glazing, visible margins, and whether the frame is part of the purchase. This object file is a practical form of provenance. It does not manufacture certainty, but it preserves the evidence a collector actually has.

Within the 2010 yearbook, Ali Canvas Print is useful as a reminder that a release roster is not a shopping list. The index helps define the field of comparison, while the collector’s work is to decide which image, process, condition state, and documentation standard genuinely fit a collection. The strongest acquisition logic combines visual conviction with clear records and a realistic view of total cost, including shipping, framing, conservation, and the possibility of holding the work for a long time.

Debbie Harry Canvas Print

The master index records Debbie Harry Canvas Print as a 2010 release: First Edition, stated edition size 450, medium Screen Print, published by Obey Giant. This combination of fields establishes the entry’s edition-level identity. It does not establish the condition, completeness, or authenticity of any individual example offered for sale. The first task for a collector is to make sure that a listing’s title, medium, edition language, and publisher information genuinely correspond to this indexed record rather than merely resembling it.

The title itself belongs to the wider field of Fairey’s public-facing image practice, where language, symbolism, portraiture, and graphic design can function simultaneously. The master index is deliberately cautious here: it records the work name but does not attempt to turn an index title into a complete visual description. That restraint matters. A collector should consult high-quality images and primary release information before making a thematic interpretation. What can be said from the record is that Debbie Harry Canvas Print forms part of the 2010 release roster, and its medium and publisher place it within the production ecology tracked for that year.

Screenprint collectors should assess ink surface, paper character, margins, and handling carefully. The stated edition size of 450 is a supply descriptor, not a ranking system. It can help frame comparisons, but it does not determine desirability, condition, or eventual resale outcomes. A collector comparing examples should ask whether the works are genuinely the same edition, whether the notation is complete, whether any Artist’s Proof or variant language is involved, and whether the listing photographs support the claims being made. A smaller number is not a substitute for a clear object record.

The master index currently contains no cleaned public-sale observation for this entry under the reporting rules used here. This is a data gap, not a conclusion about scarcity, value, or demand. These figures should be read as a set of past observations, not a valuation. The range may incorporate object-level differences, different sale dates, weak or strong documentation, framing, venue, and catalogue accuracy. Where the count is modest, each sale carries more weight and deserves closer scrutiny. Where the count is larger, it improves the available reference set but still does not remove the need to compare like with like. Asking prices are not included in the logic of this paragraph; completed transactions and listing claims are different kinds of evidence.

For an individual example of Debbie Harry Canvas Print, build a small research file before committing. Save the listing text, request full front and reverse photographs, inspect the signature and edition area if present, and document the corners and any condition issues. Retain invoices, certificates, and seller messages together. If framed, ask whether the work is floated, hinged, or mounted; ask about glazing, visible margins, and whether the frame is part of the purchase. This object file is a practical form of provenance. It does not manufacture certainty, but it preserves the evidence a collector actually has.

Within the 2010 yearbook, Debbie Harry Canvas Print is useful as a reminder that a release roster is not a shopping list. The index helps define the field of comparison, while the collector’s work is to decide which image, process, condition state, and documentation standard genuinely fit a collection. The strongest acquisition logic combines visual conviction with clear records and a realistic view of total cost, including shipping, framing, conservation, and the possibility of holding the work for a long time.

May Day Flag

The master index records May Day Flag as a 2010 release: First Edition, stated edition size 600, medium Offset Lithograph, published by Obey Giant. This combination of fields establishes the entry’s edition-level identity. It does not establish the condition, completeness, or authenticity of any individual example offered for sale. The first task for a collector is to make sure that a listing’s title, medium, edition language, and publisher information genuinely correspond to this indexed record rather than merely resembling it.

The title itself belongs to the wider field of Fairey’s public-facing image practice, where language, symbolism, portraiture, and graphic design can function simultaneously. The master index is deliberately cautious here: it records the work name but does not attempt to turn an index title into a complete visual description. That restraint matters. A collector should consult high-quality images and primary release information before making a thematic interpretation. What can be said from the record is that May Day Flag forms part of the 2010 release roster, and its medium and publisher place it within the production ecology tracked for that year.

The stated process should be matched to the offered object and its documentation before any comparison is made. The stated edition size of 600 is a supply descriptor, not a ranking system. It can help frame comparisons, but it does not determine desirability, condition, or eventual resale outcomes. A collector comparing examples should ask whether the works are genuinely the same edition, whether the notation is complete, whether any Artist’s Proof or variant language is involved, and whether the listing photographs support the claims being made. A smaller number is not a substitute for a clear object record.

The master index contains 7 cleaned public-sale observations for this entry. Its reported median is $239.00, with an observed low-to-high range of $125.00 to $17,100.00. These figures should be read as a set of past observations, not a valuation. The range may incorporate object-level differences, different sale dates, weak or strong documentation, framing, venue, and catalogue accuracy. Where the count is modest, each sale carries more weight and deserves closer scrutiny. Where the count is larger, it improves the available reference set but still does not remove the need to compare like with like. Asking prices are not included in the logic of this paragraph; completed transactions and listing claims are different kinds of evidence.

For an individual example of May Day Flag, build a small research file before committing. Save the listing text, request full front and reverse photographs, inspect the signature and edition area if present, and document the corners and any condition issues. Retain invoices, certificates, and seller messages together. If framed, ask whether the work is floated, hinged, or mounted; ask about glazing, visible margins, and whether the frame is part of the purchase. This object file is a practical form of provenance. It does not manufacture certainty, but it preserves the evidence a collector actually has.

Within the 2010 yearbook, May Day Flag is useful as a reminder that a release roster is not a shopping list. The index helps define the field of comparison, while the collector’s work is to decide which image, process, condition state, and documentation standard genuinely fit a collection. The strongest acquisition logic combines visual conviction with clear records and a realistic view of total cost, including shipping, framing, conservation, and the possibility of holding the work for a long time.

180 South

The master index records 180 South as a 2010 release: First Edition, stated edition size 450, medium Screen Print, published by Obey Giant. This combination of fields establishes the entry’s edition-level identity. It does not establish the condition, completeness, or authenticity of any individual example offered for sale. The first task for a collector is to make sure that a listing’s title, medium, edition language, and publisher information genuinely correspond to this indexed record rather than merely resembling it.

The title itself belongs to the wider field of Fairey’s public-facing image practice, where language, symbolism, portraiture, and graphic design can function simultaneously. The master index is deliberately cautious here: it records the work name but does not attempt to turn an index title into a complete visual description. That restraint matters. A collector should consult high-quality images and primary release information before making a thematic interpretation. What can be said from the record is that 180 South forms part of the 2010 release roster, and its medium and publisher place it within the production ecology tracked for that year.

Screenprint collectors should assess ink surface, paper character, margins, and handling carefully. The stated edition size of 450 is a supply descriptor, not a ranking system. It can help frame comparisons, but it does not determine desirability, condition, or eventual resale outcomes. A collector comparing examples should ask whether the works are genuinely the same edition, whether the notation is complete, whether any Artist’s Proof or variant language is involved, and whether the listing photographs support the claims being made. A smaller number is not a substitute for a clear object record.

The master index contains 6 cleaned public-sale observations for this entry. Its reported median is $192.50, with an observed low-to-high range of $95.00 to $299.00. These figures should be read as a set of past observations, not a valuation. The range may incorporate object-level differences, different sale dates, weak or strong documentation, framing, venue, and catalogue accuracy. Where the count is modest, each sale carries more weight and deserves closer scrutiny. Where the count is larger, it improves the available reference set but still does not remove the need to compare like with like. Asking prices are not included in the logic of this paragraph; completed transactions and listing claims are different kinds of evidence.

For an individual example of 180 South, build a small research file before committing. Save the listing text, request full front and reverse photographs, inspect the signature and edition area if present, and document the corners and any condition issues. Retain invoices, certificates, and seller messages together. If framed, ask whether the work is floated, hinged, or mounted; ask about glazing, visible margins, and whether the frame is part of the purchase. This object file is a practical form of provenance. It does not manufacture certainty, but it preserves the evidence a collector actually has.

Within the 2010 yearbook, 180 South is useful as a reminder that a release roster is not a shopping list. The index helps define the field of comparison, while the collector’s work is to decide which image, process, condition state, and documentation standard genuinely fit a collection. The strongest acquisition logic combines visual conviction with clear records and a realistic view of total cost, including shipping, framing, conservation, and the possibility of holding the work for a long time.

These Parties Disgust Me

The master index records These Parties Disgust Me as a 2010 release: First Edition, stated edition size 450, medium Screen Print, published by Obey Giant. This combination of fields establishes the entry’s edition-level identity. It does not establish the condition, completeness, or authenticity of any individual example offered for sale. The first task for a collector is to make sure that a listing’s title, medium, edition language, and publisher information genuinely correspond to this indexed record rather than merely resembling it.

The title itself belongs to the wider field of Fairey’s public-facing image practice, where language, symbolism, portraiture, and graphic design can function simultaneously. The master index is deliberately cautious here: it records the work name but does not attempt to turn an index title into a complete visual description. That restraint matters. A collector should consult high-quality images and primary release information before making a thematic interpretation. What can be said from the record is that These Parties Disgust Me forms part of the 2010 release roster, and its medium and publisher place it within the production ecology tracked for that year.

Screenprint collectors should assess ink surface, paper character, margins, and handling carefully. The stated edition size of 450 is a supply descriptor, not a ranking system. It can help frame comparisons, but it does not determine desirability, condition, or eventual resale outcomes. A collector comparing examples should ask whether the works are genuinely the same edition, whether the notation is complete, whether any Artist’s Proof or variant language is involved, and whether the listing photographs support the claims being made. A smaller number is not a substitute for a clear object record.

The master index contains 18 cleaned public-sale observations for this entry. Its reported median is $475.00, with an observed low-to-high range of $100.00 to $750.00. These figures should be read as a set of past observations, not a valuation. The range may incorporate object-level differences, different sale dates, weak or strong documentation, framing, venue, and catalogue accuracy. Where the count is modest, each sale carries more weight and deserves closer scrutiny. Where the count is larger, it improves the available reference set but still does not remove the need to compare like with like. Asking prices are not included in the logic of this paragraph; completed transactions and listing claims are different kinds of evidence.

For an individual example of These Parties Disgust Me, build a small research file before committing. Save the listing text, request full front and reverse photographs, inspect the signature and edition area if present, and document the corners and any condition issues. Retain invoices, certificates, and seller messages together. If framed, ask whether the work is floated, hinged, or mounted; ask about glazing, visible margins, and whether the frame is part of the purchase. This object file is a practical form of provenance. It does not manufacture certainty, but it preserves the evidence a collector actually has.

Within the 2010 yearbook, These Parties Disgust Me is useful as a reminder that a release roster is not a shopping list. The index helps define the field of comparison, while the collector’s work is to decide which image, process, condition state, and documentation standard genuinely fit a collection. The strongest acquisition logic combines visual conviction with clear records and a realistic view of total cost, including shipping, framing, conservation, and the possibility of holding the work for a long time.

Henry Rollins Frequent Flyer Tour

The master index records Henry Rollins Frequent Flyer Tour as a 2010 release: First Edition, stated edition size 225, medium Screen Print, published by Obey Giant. This combination of fields establishes the entry’s edition-level identity. It does not establish the condition, completeness, or authenticity of any individual example offered for sale. The first task for a collector is to make sure that a listing’s title, medium, edition language, and publisher information genuinely correspond to this indexed record rather than merely resembling it.

The title itself belongs to the wider field of Fairey’s public-facing image practice, where language, symbolism, portraiture, and graphic design can function simultaneously. The master index is deliberately cautious here: it records the work name but does not attempt to turn an index title into a complete visual description. That restraint matters. A collector should consult high-quality images and primary release information before making a thematic interpretation. What can be said from the record is that Henry Rollins Frequent Flyer Tour forms part of the 2010 release roster, and its medium and publisher place it within the production ecology tracked for that year.

Screenprint collectors should assess ink surface, paper character, margins, and handling carefully. The stated edition size of 225 is a supply descriptor, not a ranking system. It can help frame comparisons, but it does not determine desirability, condition, or eventual resale outcomes. A collector comparing examples should ask whether the works are genuinely the same edition, whether the notation is complete, whether any Artist’s Proof or variant language is involved, and whether the listing photographs support the claims being made. A smaller number is not a substitute for a clear object record.

The master index currently contains no cleaned public-sale observation for this entry under the reporting rules used here. This is a data gap, not a conclusion about scarcity, value, or demand. These figures should be read as a set of past observations, not a valuation. The range may incorporate object-level differences, different sale dates, weak or strong documentation, framing, venue, and catalogue accuracy. Where the count is modest, each sale carries more weight and deserves closer scrutiny. Where the count is larger, it improves the available reference set but still does not remove the need to compare like with like. Asking prices are not included in the logic of this paragraph; completed transactions and listing claims are different kinds of evidence.

For an individual example of Henry Rollins Frequent Flyer Tour, build a small research file before committing. Save the listing text, request full front and reverse photographs, inspect the signature and edition area if present, and document the corners and any condition issues. Retain invoices, certificates, and seller messages together. If framed, ask whether the work is floated, hinged, or mounted; ask about glazing, visible margins, and whether the frame is part of the purchase. This object file is a practical form of provenance. It does not manufacture certainty, but it preserves the evidence a collector actually has.

Within the 2010 yearbook, Henry Rollins Frequent Flyer Tour is useful as a reminder that a release roster is not a shopping list. The index helps define the field of comparison, while the collector’s work is to decide which image, process, condition state, and documentation standard genuinely fit a collection. The strongest acquisition logic combines visual conviction with clear records and a realistic view of total cost, including shipping, framing, conservation, and the possibility of holding the work for a long time.

Jason Jessee X Obey Clothing

The master index records Jason Jessee X Obey Clothing as a 2010 release: First Edition, stated edition size 200, medium Screen Print, published by Obey Clothing. This combination of fields establishes the entry’s edition-level identity. It does not establish the condition, completeness, or authenticity of any individual example offered for sale. The first task for a collector is to make sure that a listing’s title, medium, edition language, and publisher information genuinely correspond to this indexed record rather than merely resembling it.

The title itself belongs to the wider field of Fairey’s public-facing image practice, where language, symbolism, portraiture, and graphic design can function simultaneously. The master index is deliberately cautious here: it records the work name but does not attempt to turn an index title into a complete visual description. That restraint matters. A collector should consult high-quality images and primary release information before making a thematic interpretation. What can be said from the record is that Jason Jessee X Obey Clothing forms part of the 2010 release roster, and its medium and publisher place it within the production ecology tracked for that year.

Screenprint collectors should assess ink surface, paper character, margins, and handling carefully. The stated edition size of 200 is a supply descriptor, not a ranking system. It can help frame comparisons, but it does not determine desirability, condition, or eventual resale outcomes. A collector comparing examples should ask whether the works are genuinely the same edition, whether the notation is complete, whether any Artist’s Proof or variant language is involved, and whether the listing photographs support the claims being made. A smaller number is not a substitute for a clear object record.

The master index currently contains no cleaned public-sale observation for this entry under the reporting rules used here. This is a data gap, not a conclusion about scarcity, value, or demand. These figures should be read as a set of past observations, not a valuation. The range may incorporate object-level differences, different sale dates, weak or strong documentation, framing, venue, and catalogue accuracy. Where the count is modest, each sale carries more weight and deserves closer scrutiny. Where the count is larger, it improves the available reference set but still does not remove the need to compare like with like. Asking prices are not included in the logic of this paragraph; completed transactions and listing claims are different kinds of evidence.

For an individual example of Jason Jessee X Obey Clothing, build a small research file before committing. Save the listing text, request full front and reverse photographs, inspect the signature and edition area if present, and document the corners and any condition issues. Retain invoices, certificates, and seller messages together. If framed, ask whether the work is floated, hinged, or mounted; ask about glazing, visible margins, and whether the frame is part of the purchase. This object file is a practical form of provenance. It does not manufacture certainty, but it preserves the evidence a collector actually has.

Within the 2010 yearbook, Jason Jessee X Obey Clothing is useful as a reminder that a release roster is not a shopping list. The index helps define the field of comparison, while the collector’s work is to decide which image, process, condition state, and documentation standard genuinely fit a collection. The strongest acquisition logic combines visual conviction with clear records and a realistic view of total cost, including shipping, framing, conservation, and the possibility of holding the work for a long time.

Relief For Haiti

The master index records Relief For Haiti as a 2010 release: First Edition, stated edition size 450, medium Screen Print, published by Obey Giant. This combination of fields establishes the entry’s edition-level identity. It does not establish the condition, completeness, or authenticity of any individual example offered for sale. The first task for a collector is to make sure that a listing’s title, medium, edition language, and publisher information genuinely correspond to this indexed record rather than merely resembling it.

The title itself belongs to the wider field of Fairey’s public-facing image practice, where language, symbolism, portraiture, and graphic design can function simultaneously. The master index is deliberately cautious here: it records the work name but does not attempt to turn an index title into a complete visual description. That restraint matters. A collector should consult high-quality images and primary release information before making a thematic interpretation. What can be said from the record is that Relief For Haiti forms part of the 2010 release roster, and its medium and publisher place it within the production ecology tracked for that year.

Screenprint collectors should assess ink surface, paper character, margins, and handling carefully. The stated edition size of 450 is a supply descriptor, not a ranking system. It can help frame comparisons, but it does not determine desirability, condition, or eventual resale outcomes. A collector comparing examples should ask whether the works are genuinely the same edition, whether the notation is complete, whether any Artist’s Proof or variant language is involved, and whether the listing photographs support the claims being made. A smaller number is not a substitute for a clear object record.

The master index contains 1 cleaned public-sale observations for this entry. Its reported median is $153.50, with an observed low-to-high range of $153.50 to $153.50. These figures should be read as a set of past observations, not a valuation. The range may incorporate object-level differences, different sale dates, weak or strong documentation, framing, venue, and catalogue accuracy. Where the count is modest, each sale carries more weight and deserves closer scrutiny. Where the count is larger, it improves the available reference set but still does not remove the need to compare like with like. Asking prices are not included in the logic of this paragraph; completed transactions and listing claims are different kinds of evidence.

For an individual example of Relief For Haiti, build a small research file before committing. Save the listing text, request full front and reverse photographs, inspect the signature and edition area if present, and document the corners and any condition issues. Retain invoices, certificates, and seller messages together. If framed, ask whether the work is floated, hinged, or mounted; ask about glazing, visible margins, and whether the frame is part of the purchase. This object file is a practical form of provenance. It does not manufacture certainty, but it preserves the evidence a collector actually has.

Within the 2010 yearbook, Relief For Haiti is useful as a reminder that a release roster is not a shopping list. The index helps define the field of comparison, while the collector’s work is to decide which image, process, condition state, and documentation standard genuinely fit a collection. The strongest acquisition logic combines visual conviction with clear records and a realistic view of total cost, including shipping, framing, conservation, and the possibility of holding the work for a long time.

Eye Alert Cream

The master index records Eye Alert Cream as a 2010 release: First Edition, stated edition size 350, medium Screen Print, published by Obey Giant. This combination of fields establishes the entry’s edition-level identity. It does not establish the condition, completeness, or authenticity of any individual example offered for sale. The first task for a collector is to make sure that a listing’s title, medium, edition language, and publisher information genuinely correspond to this indexed record rather than merely resembling it.

The title itself belongs to the wider field of Fairey’s public-facing image practice, where language, symbolism, portraiture, and graphic design can function simultaneously. The master index is deliberately cautious here: it records the work name but does not attempt to turn an index title into a complete visual description. That restraint matters. A collector should consult high-quality images and primary release information before making a thematic interpretation. What can be said from the record is that Eye Alert Cream forms part of the 2010 release roster, and its medium and publisher place it within the production ecology tracked for that year.

Screenprint collectors should assess ink surface, paper character, margins, and handling carefully. The stated edition size of 350 is a supply descriptor, not a ranking system. It can help frame comparisons, but it does not determine desirability, condition, or eventual resale outcomes. A collector comparing examples should ask whether the works are genuinely the same edition, whether the notation is complete, whether any Artist’s Proof or variant language is involved, and whether the listing photographs support the claims being made. A smaller number is not a substitute for a clear object record.

The master index contains 12 cleaned public-sale observations for this entry. Its reported median is $443.50, with an observed low-to-high range of $95.00 to $1,500.00. These figures should be read as a set of past observations, not a valuation. The range may incorporate object-level differences, different sale dates, weak or strong documentation, framing, venue, and catalogue accuracy. Where the count is modest, each sale carries more weight and deserves closer scrutiny. Where the count is larger, it improves the available reference set but still does not remove the need to compare like with like. Asking prices are not included in the logic of this paragraph; completed transactions and listing claims are different kinds of evidence.

For an individual example of Eye Alert Cream, build a small research file before committing. Save the listing text, request full front and reverse photographs, inspect the signature and edition area if present, and document the corners and any condition issues. Retain invoices, certificates, and seller messages together. If framed, ask whether the work is floated, hinged, or mounted; ask about glazing, visible margins, and whether the frame is part of the purchase. This object file is a practical form of provenance. It does not manufacture certainty, but it preserves the evidence a collector actually has.

Within the 2010 yearbook, Eye Alert Cream is useful as a reminder that a release roster is not a shopping list. The index helps define the field of comparison, while the collector’s work is to decide which image, process, condition state, and documentation standard genuinely fit a collection. The strongest acquisition logic combines visual conviction with clear records and a realistic view of total cost, including shipping, framing, conservation, and the possibility of holding the work for a long time.

Eye Alert Red

The master index records Eye Alert Red as a 2010 release: First Edition, stated edition size 350, medium Screen Print, published by Obey Giant. This combination of fields establishes the entry’s edition-level identity. It does not establish the condition, completeness, or authenticity of any individual example offered for sale. The first task for a collector is to make sure that a listing’s title, medium, edition language, and publisher information genuinely correspond to this indexed record rather than merely resembling it.

The title itself belongs to the wider field of Fairey’s public-facing image practice, where language, symbolism, portraiture, and graphic design can function simultaneously. The master index is deliberately cautious here: it records the work name but does not attempt to turn an index title into a complete visual description. That restraint matters. A collector should consult high-quality images and primary release information before making a thematic interpretation. What can be said from the record is that Eye Alert Red forms part of the 2010 release roster, and its medium and publisher place it within the production ecology tracked for that year.

Screenprint collectors should assess ink surface, paper character, margins, and handling carefully. The stated edition size of 350 is a supply descriptor, not a ranking system. It can help frame comparisons, but it does not determine desirability, condition, or eventual resale outcomes. A collector comparing examples should ask whether the works are genuinely the same edition, whether the notation is complete, whether any Artist’s Proof or variant language is involved, and whether the listing photographs support the claims being made. A smaller number is not a substitute for a clear object record.

The master index contains 4 cleaned public-sale observations for this entry. Its reported median is $686.83, with an observed low-to-high range of $334.00 to $1,000.00. These figures should be read as a set of past observations, not a valuation. The range may incorporate object-level differences, different sale dates, weak or strong documentation, framing, venue, and catalogue accuracy. Where the count is modest, each sale carries more weight and deserves closer scrutiny. Where the count is larger, it improves the available reference set but still does not remove the need to compare like with like. Asking prices are not included in the logic of this paragraph; completed transactions and listing claims are different kinds of evidence.

For an individual example of Eye Alert Red, build a small research file before committing. Save the listing text, request full front and reverse photographs, inspect the signature and edition area if present, and document the corners and any condition issues. Retain invoices, certificates, and seller messages together. If framed, ask whether the work is floated, hinged, or mounted; ask about glazing, visible margins, and whether the frame is part of the purchase. This object file is a practical form of provenance. It does not manufacture certainty, but it preserves the evidence a collector actually has.

Within the 2010 yearbook, Eye Alert Red is useful as a reminder that a release roster is not a shopping list. The index helps define the field of comparison, while the collector’s work is to decide which image, process, condition state, and documentation standard genuinely fit a collection. The strongest acquisition logic combines visual conviction with clear records and a realistic view of total cost, including shipping, framing, conservation, and the possibility of holding the work for a long time.

Your Eyes Here

The master index records Your Eyes Here as a 2010 release: First Edition, stated edition size 450, medium Screen Print, published by Obey Giant. This combination of fields establishes the entry’s edition-level identity. It does not establish the condition, completeness, or authenticity of any individual example offered for sale. The first task for a collector is to make sure that a listing’s title, medium, edition language, and publisher information genuinely correspond to this indexed record rather than merely resembling it.

The title itself belongs to the wider field of Fairey’s public-facing image practice, where language, symbolism, portraiture, and graphic design can function simultaneously. The master index is deliberately cautious here: it records the work name but does not attempt to turn an index title into a complete visual description. That restraint matters. A collector should consult high-quality images and primary release information before making a thematic interpretation. What can be said from the record is that Your Eyes Here forms part of the 2010 release roster, and its medium and publisher place it within the production ecology tracked for that year.

Screenprint collectors should assess ink surface, paper character, margins, and handling carefully. The stated edition size of 450 is a supply descriptor, not a ranking system. It can help frame comparisons, but it does not determine desirability, condition, or eventual resale outcomes. A collector comparing examples should ask whether the works are genuinely the same edition, whether the notation is complete, whether any Artist’s Proof or variant language is involved, and whether the listing photographs support the claims being made. A smaller number is not a substitute for a clear object record.

The master index contains 31 cleaned public-sale observations for this entry. Its reported median is $230.00, with an observed low-to-high range of $91.99 to $5,999.00. These figures should be read as a set of past observations, not a valuation. The range may incorporate object-level differences, different sale dates, weak or strong documentation, framing, venue, and catalogue accuracy. Where the count is modest, each sale carries more weight and deserves closer scrutiny. Where the count is larger, it improves the available reference set but still does not remove the need to compare like with like. Asking prices are not included in the logic of this paragraph; completed transactions and listing claims are different kinds of evidence.

For an individual example of Your Eyes Here, build a small research file before committing. Save the listing text, request full front and reverse photographs, inspect the signature and edition area if present, and document the corners and any condition issues. Retain invoices, certificates, and seller messages together. If framed, ask whether the work is floated, hinged, or mounted; ask about glazing, visible margins, and whether the frame is part of the purchase. This object file is a practical form of provenance. It does not manufacture certainty, but it preserves the evidence a collector actually has.

Within the 2010 yearbook, Your Eyes Here is useful as a reminder that a release roster is not a shopping list. The index helps define the field of comparison, while the collector’s work is to decide which image, process, condition state, and documentation standard genuinely fit a collection. The strongest acquisition logic combines visual conviction with clear records and a realistic view of total cost, including shipping, framing, conservation, and the possibility of holding the work for a long time.

Let Fury Have The Hour

The master index records Let Fury Have The Hour as a 2010 release: First Edition, stated edition size 450, medium Screen Print, published by Obey Giant. This combination of fields establishes the entry’s edition-level identity. It does not establish the condition, completeness, or authenticity of any individual example offered for sale. The first task for a collector is to make sure that a listing’s title, medium, edition language, and publisher information genuinely correspond to this indexed record rather than merely resembling it.

The title itself belongs to the wider field of Fairey’s public-facing image practice, where language, symbolism, portraiture, and graphic design can function simultaneously. The master index is deliberately cautious here: it records the work name but does not attempt to turn an index title into a complete visual description. That restraint matters. A collector should consult high-quality images and primary release information before making a thematic interpretation. What can be said from the record is that Let Fury Have The Hour forms part of the 2010 release roster, and its medium and publisher place it within the production ecology tracked for that year.

Screenprint collectors should assess ink surface, paper character, margins, and handling carefully. The stated edition size of 450 is a supply descriptor, not a ranking system. It can help frame comparisons, but it does not determine desirability, condition, or eventual resale outcomes. A collector comparing examples should ask whether the works are genuinely the same edition, whether the notation is complete, whether any Artist’s Proof or variant language is involved, and whether the listing photographs support the claims being made. A smaller number is not a substitute for a clear object record.

The master index contains 41 cleaned public-sale observations for this entry. Its reported median is $150.00, with an observed low-to-high range of $95.00 to $450.00. These figures should be read as a set of past observations, not a valuation. The range may incorporate object-level differences, different sale dates, weak or strong documentation, framing, venue, and catalogue accuracy. Where the count is modest, each sale carries more weight and deserves closer scrutiny. Where the count is larger, it improves the available reference set but still does not remove the need to compare like with like. Asking prices are not included in the logic of this paragraph; completed transactions and listing claims are different kinds of evidence.

For an individual example of Let Fury Have The Hour, build a small research file before committing. Save the listing text, request full front and reverse photographs, inspect the signature and edition area if present, and document the corners and any condition issues. Retain invoices, certificates, and seller messages together. If framed, ask whether the work is floated, hinged, or mounted; ask about glazing, visible margins, and whether the frame is part of the purchase. This object file is a practical form of provenance. It does not manufacture certainty, but it preserves the evidence a collector actually has.

Within the 2010 yearbook, Let Fury Have The Hour is useful as a reminder that a release roster is not a shopping list. The index helps define the field of comparison, while the collector’s work is to decide which image, process, condition state, and documentation standard genuinely fit a collection. The strongest acquisition logic combines visual conviction with clear records and a realistic view of total cost, including shipping, framing, conservation, and the possibility of holding the work for a long time.

Venice Pattern Set

The master index records Venice Pattern Set as a 2009 release: First Edition, stated edition size 100, medium Screen Print, published by Obey Giant. This combination of fields establishes the entry’s edition-level identity. It does not establish the condition, completeness, or authenticity of any individual example offered for sale. The first task for a collector is to make sure that a listing’s title, medium, edition language, and publisher information genuinely correspond to this indexed record rather than merely resembling it.

The title itself belongs to the wider field of Fairey’s public-facing image practice, where language, symbolism, portraiture, and graphic design can function simultaneously. The master index is deliberately cautious here: it records the work name but does not attempt to turn an index title into a complete visual description. That restraint matters. A collector should consult high-quality images and primary release information before making a thematic interpretation. What can be said from the record is that Venice Pattern Set forms part of the 2009 release roster, and its medium and publisher place it within the production ecology tracked for that year.

Screenprint collectors should assess ink surface, paper character, margins, and handling carefully. The stated edition size of 100 is a supply descriptor, not a ranking system. It can help frame comparisons, but it does not determine desirability, condition, or eventual resale outcomes. A collector comparing examples should ask whether the works are genuinely the same edition, whether the notation is complete, whether any Artist’s Proof or variant language is involved, and whether the listing photographs support the claims being made. A smaller number is not a substitute for a clear object record.

The master index contains 5 cleaned public-sale observations for this entry. Its reported median is $495.00, with an observed low-to-high range of $431.00 to $1,079.84. These figures should be read as a set of past observations, not a valuation. The range may incorporate object-level differences, different sale dates, weak or strong documentation, framing, venue, and catalogue accuracy. Where the count is modest, each sale carries more weight and deserves closer scrutiny. Where the count is larger, it improves the available reference set but still does not remove the need to compare like with like. Asking prices are not included in the logic of this paragraph; completed transactions and listing claims are different kinds of evidence.

For an individual example of Venice Pattern Set, build a small research file before committing. Save the listing text, request full front and reverse photographs, inspect the signature and edition area if present, and document the corners and any condition issues. Retain invoices, certificates, and seller messages together. If framed, ask whether the work is floated, hinged, or mounted; ask about glazing, visible margins, and whether the frame is part of the purchase. This object file is a practical form of provenance. It does not manufacture certainty, but it preserves the evidence a collector actually has.

Within the 2009 yearbook, Venice Pattern Set is useful as a reminder that a release roster is not a shopping list. The index helps define the field of comparison, while the collector’s work is to decide which image, process, condition state, and documentation standard genuinely fit a collection. The strongest acquisition logic combines visual conviction with clear records and a realistic view of total cost, including shipping, framing, conservation, and the possibility of holding the work for a long time.

Jim Muir Print

The master index records Jim Muir Print as a 2009 release: First Edition, stated edition size 450, medium Screen Print, published by Obey Giant. This combination of fields establishes the entry’s edition-level identity. It does not establish the condition, completeness, or authenticity of any individual example offered for sale. The first task for a collector is to make sure that a listing’s title, medium, edition language, and publisher information genuinely correspond to this indexed record rather than merely resembling it.

The title itself belongs to the wider field of Fairey’s public-facing image practice, where language, symbolism, portraiture, and graphic design can function simultaneously. The master index is deliberately cautious here: it records the work name but does not attempt to turn an index title into a complete visual description. That restraint matters. A collector should consult high-quality images and primary release information before making a thematic interpretation. What can be said from the record is that Jim Muir Print forms part of the 2009 release roster, and its medium and publisher place it within the production ecology tracked for that year.

Screenprint collectors should assess ink surface, paper character, margins, and handling carefully. The stated edition size of 450 is a supply descriptor, not a ranking system. It can help frame comparisons, but it does not determine desirability, condition, or eventual resale outcomes. A collector comparing examples should ask whether the works are genuinely the same edition, whether the notation is complete, whether any Artist’s Proof or variant language is involved, and whether the listing photographs support the claims being made. A smaller number is not a substitute for a clear object record.

The master index contains 12 cleaned public-sale observations for this entry. Its reported median is $253.00, with an observed low-to-high range of $149.00 to $600.00. These figures should be read as a set of past observations, not a valuation. The range may incorporate object-level differences, different sale dates, weak or strong documentation, framing, venue, and catalogue accuracy. Where the count is modest, each sale carries more weight and deserves closer scrutiny. Where the count is larger, it improves the available reference set but still does not remove the need to compare like with like. Asking prices are not included in the logic of this paragraph; completed transactions and listing claims are different kinds of evidence.

For an individual example of Jim Muir Print, build a small research file before committing. Save the listing text, request full front and reverse photographs, inspect the signature and edition area if present, and document the corners and any condition issues. Retain invoices, certificates, and seller messages together. If framed, ask whether the work is floated, hinged, or mounted; ask about glazing, visible margins, and whether the frame is part of the purchase. This object file is a practical form of provenance. It does not manufacture certainty, but it preserves the evidence a collector actually has.

Within the 2009 yearbook, Jim Muir Print is useful as a reminder that a release roster is not a shopping list. The index helps define the field of comparison, while the collector’s work is to decide which image, process, condition state, and documentation standard genuinely fit a collection. The strongest acquisition logic combines visual conviction with clear records and a realistic view of total cost, including shipping, framing, conservation, and the possibility of holding the work for a long time.

Burmese Monk

The master index records Burmese Monk as a 2009 release: First Edition, stated edition size 450, medium Screen Print, published by Obey Giant. This combination of fields establishes the entry’s edition-level identity. It does not establish the condition, completeness, or authenticity of any individual example offered for sale. The first task for a collector is to make sure that a listing’s title, medium, edition language, and publisher information genuinely correspond to this indexed record rather than merely resembling it.

The title itself belongs to the wider field of Fairey’s public-facing image practice, where language, symbolism, portraiture, and graphic design can function simultaneously. The master index is deliberately cautious here: it records the work name but does not attempt to turn an index title into a complete visual description. That restraint matters. A collector should consult high-quality images and primary release information before making a thematic interpretation. What can be said from the record is that Burmese Monk forms part of the 2009 release roster, and its medium and publisher place it within the production ecology tracked for that year.

Screenprint collectors should assess ink surface, paper character, margins, and handling carefully. The stated edition size of 450 is a supply descriptor, not a ranking system. It can help frame comparisons, but it does not determine desirability, condition, or eventual resale outcomes. A collector comparing examples should ask whether the works are genuinely the same edition, whether the notation is complete, whether any Artist’s Proof or variant language is involved, and whether the listing photographs support the claims being made. A smaller number is not a substitute for a clear object record.

The master index contains 18 cleaned public-sale observations for this entry. Its reported median is $550.00, with an observed low-to-high range of $182.50 to $2,999.00. These figures should be read as a set of past observations, not a valuation. The range may incorporate object-level differences, different sale dates, weak or strong documentation, framing, venue, and catalogue accuracy. Where the count is modest, each sale carries more weight and deserves closer scrutiny. Where the count is larger, it improves the available reference set but still does not remove the need to compare like with like. Asking prices are not included in the logic of this paragraph; completed transactions and listing claims are different kinds of evidence.

For an individual example of Burmese Monk, build a small research file before committing. Save the listing text, request full front and reverse photographs, inspect the signature and edition area if present, and document the corners and any condition issues. Retain invoices, certificates, and seller messages together. If framed, ask whether the work is floated, hinged, or mounted; ask about glazing, visible margins, and whether the frame is part of the purchase. This object file is a practical form of provenance. It does not manufacture certainty, but it preserves the evidence a collector actually has.

Within the 2009 yearbook, Burmese Monk is useful as a reminder that a release roster is not a shopping list. The index helps define the field of comparison, while the collector’s work is to decide which image, process, condition state, and documentation standard genuinely fit a collection. The strongest acquisition logic combines visual conviction with clear records and a realistic view of total cost, including shipping, framing, conservation, and the possibility of holding the work for a long time.

Spider Lily

The master index records Spider Lily as a 2009 release: First Edition, stated edition size 450, medium Screen Print, published by Obey Giant. This combination of fields establishes the entry’s edition-level identity. It does not establish the condition, completeness, or authenticity of any individual example offered for sale. The first task for a collector is to make sure that a listing’s title, medium, edition language, and publisher information genuinely correspond to this indexed record rather than merely resembling it.

The title itself belongs to the wider field of Fairey’s public-facing image practice, where language, symbolism, portraiture, and graphic design can function simultaneously. The master index is deliberately cautious here: it records the work name but does not attempt to turn an index title into a complete visual description. That restraint matters. A collector should consult high-quality images and primary release information before making a thematic interpretation. What can be said from the record is that Spider Lily forms part of the 2009 release roster, and its medium and publisher place it within the production ecology tracked for that year.

Screenprint collectors should assess ink surface, paper character, margins, and handling carefully. The stated edition size of 450 is a supply descriptor, not a ranking system. It can help frame comparisons, but it does not determine desirability, condition, or eventual resale outcomes. A collector comparing examples should ask whether the works are genuinely the same edition, whether the notation is complete, whether any Artist’s Proof or variant language is involved, and whether the listing photographs support the claims being made. A smaller number is not a substitute for a clear object record.

The master index contains 17 cleaned public-sale observations for this entry. Its reported median is $243.00, with an observed low-to-high range of $100.00 to $385.00. These figures should be read as a set of past observations, not a valuation. The range may incorporate object-level differences, different sale dates, weak or strong documentation, framing, venue, and catalogue accuracy. Where the count is modest, each sale carries more weight and deserves closer scrutiny. Where the count is larger, it improves the available reference set but still does not remove the need to compare like with like. Asking prices are not included in the logic of this paragraph; completed transactions and listing claims are different kinds of evidence.

For an individual example of Spider Lily, build a small research file before committing. Save the listing text, request full front and reverse photographs, inspect the signature and edition area if present, and document the corners and any condition issues. Retain invoices, certificates, and seller messages together. If framed, ask whether the work is floated, hinged, or mounted; ask about glazing, visible margins, and whether the frame is part of the purchase. This object file is a practical form of provenance. It does not manufacture certainty, but it preserves the evidence a collector actually has.

Within the 2009 yearbook, Spider Lily is useful as a reminder that a release roster is not a shopping list. The index helps define the field of comparison, while the collector’s work is to decide which image, process, condition state, and documentation standard genuinely fit a collection. The strongest acquisition logic combines visual conviction with clear records and a realistic view of total cost, including shipping, framing, conservation, and the possibility of holding the work for a long time.

Jessica

The master index records Jessica as a 2009 release: First Edition, stated edition size 475, medium Screen Print, published by Obey Giant. This combination of fields establishes the entry’s edition-level identity. It does not establish the condition, completeness, or authenticity of any individual example offered for sale. The first task for a collector is to make sure that a listing’s title, medium, edition language, and publisher information genuinely correspond to this indexed record rather than merely resembling it.

The title itself belongs to the wider field of Fairey’s public-facing image practice, where language, symbolism, portraiture, and graphic design can function simultaneously. The master index is deliberately cautious here: it records the work name but does not attempt to turn an index title into a complete visual description. That restraint matters. A collector should consult high-quality images and primary release information before making a thematic interpretation. What can be said from the record is that Jessica forms part of the 2009 release roster, and its medium and publisher place it within the production ecology tracked for that year.

Screenprint collectors should assess ink surface, paper character, margins, and handling carefully. The stated edition size of 475 is a supply descriptor, not a ranking system. It can help frame comparisons, but it does not determine desirability, condition, or eventual resale outcomes. A collector comparing examples should ask whether the works are genuinely the same edition, whether the notation is complete, whether any Artist’s Proof or variant language is involved, and whether the listing photographs support the claims being made. A smaller number is not a substitute for a clear object record.

The master index contains 13 cleaned public-sale observations for this entry. Its reported median is $200.00, with an observed low-to-high range of $99.99 to $585.53. These figures should be read as a set of past observations, not a valuation. The range may incorporate object-level differences, different sale dates, weak or strong documentation, framing, venue, and catalogue accuracy. Where the count is modest, each sale carries more weight and deserves closer scrutiny. Where the count is larger, it improves the available reference set but still does not remove the need to compare like with like. Asking prices are not included in the logic of this paragraph; completed transactions and listing claims are different kinds of evidence.

For an individual example of Jessica, build a small research file before committing. Save the listing text, request full front and reverse photographs, inspect the signature and edition area if present, and document the corners and any condition issues. Retain invoices, certificates, and seller messages together. If framed, ask whether the work is floated, hinged, or mounted; ask about glazing, visible margins, and whether the frame is part of the purchase. This object file is a practical form of provenance. It does not manufacture certainty, but it preserves the evidence a collector actually has.

Within the 2009 yearbook, Jessica is useful as a reminder that a release roster is not a shopping list. The index helps define the field of comparison, while the collector’s work is to decide which image, process, condition state, and documentation standard genuinely fit a collection. The strongest acquisition logic combines visual conviction with clear records and a realistic view of total cost, including shipping, framing, conservation, and the possibility of holding the work for a long time.

Research appendix: making a durable annual record

The 2021 roster should be treated as an invitation to compare records, not as a final authority over an object. Indexing is a disciplined form of reduction: it turns a complicated work into fields that can be compared across a large corpus. Title, year, edition designation, edition size, medium, publisher, and observed sales are enormously useful fields, but none of them describes the complete life of an individual sheet. The release record establishes a research hypothesis. The object, images, paperwork, and chain of custody either support that hypothesis or complicate it.

This distinction is especially valuable for print collecting because the edition is both a group and a set of individual objects. Two impressions can share a title, date, and numbered edition while having very different visual presence because of paper handling, corner condition, prior framing, light exposure, ink surface, or a missing document. The annual index cannot adjudicate those differences. It can help a collector recognize that they matter, build a list of questions before purchase, and preserve an answer after purchase.

When using comparable sales, record more than the number. Save the sale date, venue, title language, edition notation, whether the object was signed or numbered, the visible condition, and whether a frame or certificate was included. Then ask whether the offered work matches those conditions closely enough to make the comparison informative. A low result may reflect damage or uncertainty; a high result may reflect presentation, provenance, timing, or an unusually motivated buyer. The most honest conclusion is often a range of possibilities rather than a single target price.

The same caution applies to publisher and medium. A publisher credit helps distinguish a release context, and a stated process tells a collector what object-level details to inspect. Neither field is a quality guarantee. A screenprint, letterpress, lithograph, or other process should be described correctly and evaluated according to its material realities. If the listing evidence is incomplete, the appropriate response is to ask for better documentation or to price uncertainty into the decision—not to fill gaps with assumptions.

For records management, keep a single folder for each acquisition. Include the original listing, an invoice, the seller correspondence, full arrival photographs, condition notes, any certificate, and a framing record. Photograph the front, reverse, signature or edition area, and corners before the work is framed or moved. If the work is insured, add the policy record. These small steps make a collection legible to its future self. They also allow a collector to describe an object accurately without relying on memory years later.

Finally, collect with a point of view. An annual release roster can encourage completism, but completeness is not the only coherent strategy. A collection may be organized around political graphics, music-related work, ornamental imagery, a particular print process, a publisher relationship, or simply the works that remain visually compelling over time. The purpose of research is not to eliminate taste. It is to give taste a stronger factual foundation and to make the eventual choice clearer, more defensible, and easier to live with.

Dossier 21: collector conclusions

The value of a comparative cohort is not that it ranks the releases automatically. It gives a collector a structured field of view. The entries may share a period or catalog proximity while differing sharply in process, stated edition size, publisher, subject, and market visibility. Those differences should lead to better questions, not to a simplistic hierarchy.

For any offered example, begin with the exact index record and then build an object file: preserve the listing, request clear front and reverse photographs, inspect edition and signature information where relevant, note condition, and save invoices and correspondence. Compare completed sales only after accounting for meaningful differences in medium, edition, condition, documentation, framing, timing, and venue. The most durable collection is built around works that are visually persuasive and administratively legible.

Continue research through the Shepard Fairey collection, the buyer’s guide, the authentication checklist, and the price guide. This dossier is an index-led research aid, not an appraisal or forecast.