Shepard Fairey Master Index Dossier 29: 2001–2000 Release Cohort
Cohort scope
This dossier studies a defined cohort of 17 Shepard Fairey releases selected from the Gauntlet Gallery master index, spanning 2001 through 2000. The cohort begins with Chinese Building and concludes with Obey Air 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 17 Screen Print. Recorded publishers include Obey Giant (17). The index associates 208 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.
Chinese Building
The master index records Chinese Building as a 2001 release: First Edition, stated edition size 300, 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 Chinese Building forms part of the 2001 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 300 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 $574.00, with an observed low-to-high range of $415.00 to $648.00. 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 Chinese Building, 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 2001 yearbook, Chinese Building 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.
Mao Banner
The master index records Mao Banner as a 2001 release: First Edition, stated edition size 20, 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 Mao Banner forms part of the 2001 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 20 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 Mao Banner, 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 2001 yearbook, Mao Banner 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.
Wreath
The master index records Wreath as a 2001 release: First Edition, stated edition size 200, 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 Wreath forms part of the 2001 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 contains 4 cleaned public-sale observations for this entry. Its reported median is $725.00, with an observed low-to-high range of $449.99 to $1,250.00. 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 Wreath, 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 2001 yearbook, Wreath 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.
Obey Destroyers
The master index records Obey Destroyers as a 2001 release: First Edition, stated edition size 200, 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 Obey Destroyers forms part of the 2001 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 contains 1 cleaned public-sale observations for this entry. Its reported median is $2,796.00, with an observed low-to-high range of $2,796.00 to $2,796.00. 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 Obey Destroyers, 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 2001 yearbook, Obey Destroyers 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.
Obey Pole
The master index records Obey Pole as a 2001 release: First Edition, stated edition size 200, 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 Obey Pole forms part of the 2001 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 contains 2 cleaned public-sale observations for this entry. Its reported median is $309.38, with an observed low-to-high range of $119.99 to $498.76. 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 Obey Pole, 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 2001 yearbook, Obey Pole 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.
Cash For Chaos
The master index records Cash For Chaos as a 2001 release: First Edition, stated edition size 200, 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 Cash For Chaos forms part of the 2001 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 contains 8 cleaned public-sale observations for this entry. Its reported median is $450.56, with an observed low-to-high range of $224.99 to $810.00. 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 Cash For Chaos, 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 2001 yearbook, Cash For Chaos 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.
Visual Pollution Gas Mask
The master index records Visual Pollution Gas Mask as a 2001 release: First Edition, stated edition size 200, 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 Visual Pollution Gas Mask forms part of the 2001 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 contains 6 cleaned public-sale observations for this entry. Its reported median is $562.50, with an observed low-to-high range of $500.00 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 Visual Pollution Gas Mask, 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 2001 yearbook, Visual Pollution Gas Mask 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.
Playboy Poster
The master index records Playboy Poster as a 2001 release: First Edition, stated edition size 200, 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 Playboy Poster forms part of the 2001 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 contains 1 cleaned public-sale observations for this entry. Its reported median is $1,000.00, with an observed low-to-high range of $1,000.00 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 Playboy Poster, 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 2001 yearbook, Playboy Poster 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.
Big Brother 2
The master index records Big Brother 2 as a 2001 release: First Edition, stated edition size 200, 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 Big Brother 2 forms part of the 2001 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 contains 15 cleaned public-sale observations for this entry. Its reported median is $800.00, with an observed low-to-high range of $148.50 to $3,000.00. 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 Big Brother 2, 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 2001 yearbook, Big Brother 2 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.
Metropolis
The master index records Metropolis as a 2001 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 Metropolis forms part of the 2001 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 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 Metropolis, 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 2001 yearbook, Metropolis 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.
Double Face
The master index records Double Face as a 2000 release: First Edition, stated edition size 140, 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 Double Face forms part of the 2000 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 140 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 2 cleaned public-sale observations for this entry. Its reported median is $1,082.66, with an observed low-to-high range of $437.59 to $1,727.74. 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 Double Face, 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 2000 yearbook, Double Face 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.
Big Brother Profile
The master index records Big Brother Profile as a 2000 release: First Edition, stated edition size 140, 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 Big Brother Profile forms part of the 2000 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 140 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 Big Brother Profile, 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 2000 yearbook, Big Brother Profile 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.
Chinese Stencil
The master index records Chinese Stencil as a 2000 release: First Edition, stated edition size 200, 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 Chinese Stencil forms part of the 2000 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 contains 5 cleaned public-sale observations for this entry. Its reported median is $588.87, with an observed low-to-high range of $135.00 to $725.00. 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 Chinese Stencil, 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 2000 yearbook, Chinese Stencil 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.
Factory
The master index records Factory as a 2000 release: First Edition, stated edition size 200, 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 Factory forms part of the 2000 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 contains 141 cleaned public-sale observations for this entry. Its reported median is $150.00, with an observed low-to-high range of $90.00 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 Factory, 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 2000 yearbook, Factory 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.
Hello Scuzz
The master index records Hello Scuzz as a 2000 release: First Edition, stated edition size 140, 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 Hello Scuzz forms part of the 2000 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 140 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 $1,727.74, with an observed low-to-high range of $1,727.74 to $1,727.74. 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 Hello Scuzz, 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 2000 yearbook, Hello Scuzz 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.
Japan Stencil
The master index records Japan Stencil as a 2000 release: First Edition, stated edition size 140, 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 Japan Stencil forms part of the 2000 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 140 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 2 cleaned public-sale observations for this entry. Its reported median is $334.50, with an observed low-to-high range of $119.00 to $549.99. 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 Japan Stencil, 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 2000 yearbook, Japan Stencil 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.
Obey Air
The master index records Obey Air as a 2000 release: First Edition, stated edition size 150, 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 Obey Air forms part of the 2000 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 150 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 16 cleaned public-sale observations for this entry. Its reported median is $412.50, with an observed low-to-high range of $93.00 to $2,495.00. 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 Obey Air, 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 2000 yearbook, Obey Air 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 2029 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 29: 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.
