THRIFTSTORE FIND HOMERUN? IS THIS A REAL, RARE ROLLING STONES POSTER?

Saw this in the paintings/posters bin a aisle away & zipped to it; even though I had no idea at the moment that it was a Stones concert poster - the eye popping colors put the git up in my steps!
Then when I saw it was a Rolling Stones poster that I never saw before I got excited; because even a copy of something so unusual was going to be valuable. And the Prints Plus label on the back made me more sure it was a copy by them.
BUT(!) when I got home and googled it, I found this article (https://www.classicposters.com/Rolling_Stones/poster/Art_of_Rock/4.273) - that said there were very few of the originals that survived & were so rare that bootleg versions were made - and these versions were easy to tell because they were smaller than the original's 20" x 30" and the colors weren't as eye popping.
Well, I measured mine - and it measures 20" x 30"!! And the colors certainly pop on it!
And I looked closer at the label on the back & maybe it's the final inspection label for when someone had the poster framed & was not made by Posters Plus?
The only thing I haven't done is open it to see if it is on thin white paper like the original was made on- I wanted to check here first before taking that step.
So, is there a way to tell if it's an original?
Thanks all - this is a VERY cool piece either way!
PS - 1st photo inside & 2nd photo taken outside

 

The artist has recently reissued a limited edition of this poster. In her description, she notes that "there have been poor quality copies produced over the years".

https://www.kateburnessart.com/products/genuine-1973-rolling-stones-concert-poster
"In 1973 I was asked by the Rolling Stones to create a poster for their Cardiff and Pembroke Castle Concerts following their world tour.

When the local authorities cancelled the concerts for fear of corrupting local youth, most of the original posters were pulped, making this "the rarest and most desirable Rolling Stones poster out there" according to classicposters.com. There are less than 20 of the original posters left in the world, they are extremely valuable and sought after by collectors, and sell for many thousands of dollars, with Mick owning the original painting.

These are part of a limited edition of 73 taken from one of the original posters. They are printed on 310 gsm paper of the highest archival quality using the Giclee method, and signed and numbered by the artist Kate Burness. Though there have been poor quality copies produced over the years, this is the only high standard archival quality edition. There will never be any more!"

 

The colors on yours are different than the ones in her limited edition reprint.

Can't tell what year the reprinting occurred.

 

The tape is half off on the bottom and dried out - should I take it off & see if it's thin white paper or archival paper or something else?

 

This was framed in 99 - so it's either the reprint (but paper especially along edges looks pretty thin to me) or an original that the owner finally had framed 26 years after the concert that never was?
If it's either of the first 2 it has to be valuable, right?

 

You need to know when the reprinted one was issued.

What are the odds that something this size on notably thin paper survived unprotected all that time in such good condition?

Yes. An original may have been framed early on & then reframed (put in a 'print shield') 26 years later. Or, reports of how much smaller the bootlegs were have been greatly exaggerated.

 

So do I open it???

 

Can you tell whether the tape is directly on the back of the poster or on a backing layer?

 

No, it could be one of the "poor quality copies produced over the years".

Following up through her website, it seems the reissue was done after 2014. There is an article that describes her working to get permission from the Rolling Stones to reissue it at that time.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/63440850/Rare-poster-painter-reaches-out-to-Stones
So any of these new editions could not have been framed in 1999.

You can also compare the colors to this original sold at Sotheby's:
http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions...l-history-presley-to-punk-n09160/lot.127.html

It looks like there are significant differences in the colors of the sky, in particular.

 

The paper the framed one is on looks to me like a dorm room poster.

 

But the Christies also says printed on Cardboard which I didn't see anywhere else?

 

Perhaps they meant mounted. All I can suggest is that you google "Rolling Stones Cardiff poster" and look at the images and descriptions for any that are described as a 1973 original.

 

Have you tried contacting the original artist through her website? She'd probably have tips on how to determine an original from a reprint.
In 1994, there was a "limited edition lithograph" done of the poster. The picture area is smaller and it also includes a wide white border with the signatures of the Stones and the number of the printing out of 5000. Yours definitely isn't from that reprint. However, I'm sure the poster has been reproduced a lot throughout the years (and it still is.)
The Sunday Sun Times interview with the artist (linked on her website) states, "Almost all of the posters were destroyed, except for a dozen or so the artist gave to friends".
Taking that statement into account, there are oddly quite a few "original" posters for sale on the web! All these claimed "originals" are the correct 20x30 inches size and printed in bright colors with metallic inks, like yours. So, it seems likely that not all the reproductions were done poorly.
In one "original" poster sale listing, the seller describes, "layers upon layers of glorious beautiful coloured ink printing and screen printing" and "The scales on the dragon are amazing layers of Metallic screen printing and when you look closely you can see these so much work was done in creating this legendary poster."
Taking all this into account, I'd email photos to the artist and see if she can help. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for you!

 

I didn't know she was still around - I will check her site & see if I can mail her a pic.
Thanks

 

https://www.kateburnessart.com/products/genuine-1973-rolling-stones-concert-poster

 

It's a great image. Jeez, part of me misses the 70's!

One additional idea might be to see what kind of merchandise "Prints Plus" was selling since you have such a clear label. Did they do framing, or just sell their own merchandise? I think (from something I read) that they were set up in shopping malls, might have been a national chain.

 

I took a couple of staples out of the backing (not little office staples either!) and lo & behold - it's thin white paper!!!!
So that would make this an original, right?!
A problem is it is stuck or glued in some spots to the foam board (I saw when I tried to separate it to look at a bigger view of back).
And it has some rippling along the bottom edge.
But it is a real, rare one, right?
Thanks again everyone!

 

Given that the originals are extremely scarce, that thin paper is not necessarily diagnostic, that yours has a label from a (formerly) common mall poster art store, and it is known to have been frequently reproduced, I don't think there is any reason to believe this is one of the original posters - other than wishful thinking.

 

Besides it measuring the same as what originals measure (20 x 30) & repros were made smaller; not a single mention of reproductions being made the same size, plus the thin white paper, plus the label from that mall store says it was framed by them, not sold by them.
I could be wrong but there's a lot more saying it's right than your 1 reason that's wrong; that the originals are extremely scare... I'll side on it's real for now.
It does happen; I found a William Aiken Walker painting at the same store a week or two ago; and finding one of them in a thrift store is extremely scarce too.

 

I was one of the members arguing that your Walker could well be genuine, based on several factors. I have used the same kind of reasoning and evidence to suggest your poster is less likely to be genuine.
Based on the auction records for Walker paintings, his work is much more common than the original Rolling Stones poster.