Defunkd

[BrunelsUK]

Hey so I have this tshirt, if it's real it's obviously worth thousands. But it's been impossible to be 100% sure it's fake so before I discard it. I thought I would ask the experts on here... The story behind it is not mine, and I also can't verify the story but is as followed.

‘I was buying original pressing Vinyl from a guy on gum tree, he saw I was wearing an aphex twin tshirt and told me that he has something for me. He look around his house for a few mins and pulled this tshirt out and gave it to me for free. The guy was well connected to the scene’


When I tried to legit check myself I found that Warp Records in 1994 used FOTL Screen stars tags that were made in Ireland. This is made in USA. Though Warp records did use hanes made in USA in 1992 and tultex made in USA in 1995.
When I have shown big sellers on IG, a few say its fake because the front print isn’t the best quality, I agree but the back print looks great. It does also have some stains which the pics don’t show well, but I guess it means it was actually worn by someone which helps its case. The copy right is the same on the original pressing SAW II Vinyl.

I was told by a friend that there is an expert on here at authenticating prints and although there is nothing to compare too, im sure they might be able to tell more. If it's just been printed it's obviously fake but if it was printed 30 years ago - it's most definitely real!

Thanks

[Lucasxavier]

Can you zoom the print Aphex twin logo area ?

[Lucasxavier]

I can't decide yet but I see some differences
• If I look at the picture, the screen printing is different, the front one is damaged, leaking/streaked, unlike the back one which is neat and looks like it is integrated with the material, considering that the material is 50/50.
• If this is "not for sale" it should be neat and there should be no difference in the screen printing materials used.
My assumption is that maybe this shirt doesn't have a screen print on the front, then maybe a new screen print was added, especially since it's only 1 color, it's very easy to add, but it seems like the person who made the front screen print didn't have a good technique so the result was bad.
Maybe this can be your own consideration or assessment regarding this shirt.

[jimmyj]

Very tricky one. Are you still in touch with the seller who could connect you to the OG owner for more provenance details?

[BrunelsUK]

Very tricky one. Are you still in touch with the seller who could connect you to the OG owner for more provenance details?

Yeah and he's reached out as well but he only met the original owner via gum tree (a website similar to craigslist but in the UK) and the guy hasn't replied, he met him a few months ago. All the info I provided is all I have, and all I will get it. I bought the tshirt 3 weeks ago, it got lost in the post and only arrived a few days ago. Been going back and forth with the seller for weeks trying to figure it out. But I can't get anymore, I have little bits which the seller asked me leave out which could give more context but ultimately nothing that changes things.

Im really torn what to do with it...

[BrunelsUK]

I can't decide yet but I see some differences
• If I look at the picture, the screen printing is different, the front one is damaged, leaking/streaked, unlike the back one which is neat and looks like it is integrated with the material, considering that the material is 50/50.
• If this is "not for sale" it should be neat and there should be no difference in the screen printing materials used.
My assumption is that maybe this shirt doesn't have a screen print on the front, then maybe a new screen print was added, especially since it's only 1 color, it's very easy to add, but it seems like the person who made the front screen print didn't have a good technique so the result was bad.
Maybe this can be your own consideration or assessment regarding this shirt.

Yeah I agree and that makes sense, maybe the back print is original and just a test run from Warp hence the 'not for sale', whoever got it in their possession maybe wanted to put a print on the front them selves otherwise it would be quite a boring tshirt. Ultimately what I am looking for is your opinion on how old the front / back print is? That would go a long way in determining if it's authentic.

[Lucasxavier]

its the new print on front hit, not a old print