COLUMBUS, Ohio (CBS Cleveland) — Thrift stores have often been a popular hunting ground for collectors, but few of them find anything of worth, except for one man.

Zach Bodish, a 46-year-old University District resident, purchased what turned out to be an original Picasso print at a Volunteers of America thrift store in Clintonville for $14.14, according to The Columbus Dispatch.

Initially, Bodish thought that the print was a reproduction, but he noticed on the corner there was a red signature and after some research he realized that he owned an original artist proof.

“I started shaking a little bit,” Bodish told the paper. “I realized it wasn’t going to make me rich, but still, how often do you find a Picasso?”

Bodish’s print turned out to be a linocut in which Picasso himself carved a design into a linoleum block. The block was inked and pressed into paper.

The print had other signs that it was more than just a reproduction. Written in pencil was an edition number and “original print, signed proof” written in French on the poster.

The print’s worth could go up to $6,000 and could double in a gallery. Original prints of Picasso are more common than his paintings, but autographed editions aren’t as easily found.

The paper reports that Picasso created this piece in 1958 for an Easter exhibit of his ceramic work in southern France.

Bodish isn’t sure on what he’s going to do with his treasure. He was laid off from his job two years ago, and is currently looking for full-time work.

“There’s a good chance I’ll probably sell it,” he told The Dispatch. “I want to keep it, but money is tight.”

Despite him scoring an original Picasso, Bodish is not a true fan of the print.

“I have to admit,” he told the paper, “brown is not my favorite color.”

Comments (77)
  1. Pete says:

    Unsurprising that people in Columbus, Ohio, do not recognize culture when they see it.

    1. Elizabeth Hildinger says:

      That was gratuitously nasty. What’s wrong with you?

      1. Robert says:

        Elizabeth, I couldn’t have said it any better.

  2. Gator says:

    I’m not an Ohio native or a fan, but I recognize negative cynicism and self righteous contempt when I see them. In the event you didn’t know, one of the world’s three greatest symphony orchestras is located in Ohio. Look it up!

  3. ned slone says:

    Take it to South Beach art fair & get big bucks. 60 minutes last night had a story people spending big bucks on trash art. At least this is a known artist.

    1. noname says:

      There is a great movie available on Netflix. The title is “Fake”.
      Before marveling at the occasion, do yourself a favor and watch it.

  4. joe says:

    Pete is a very cultured fellow–you have to excuse him. Maybe he’s from Minneapolis or somewhere very hoity toity.

  5. Robert says:

    I see they took the comment out. Too bad, whoever said that needs to hear a few more rebuttals,

  6. Cal says:

    Who is this Picasso – He’ll never amount to anything – trust me.

    1. Mike Martin says:

      He was that guy with two eyes on one side of his nose.
      Don’t know why women threw themselves at him.

      1. Bob says:

        Yea, he just sat there licking his eyebrow…

  7. pateriot says:

    $14. for a Picasso? I’d say he overpaid!…except that some other fool will really overpay for it! If my kid brought this home from art class in first grade I might put it on my refridgerator…but just because I love my kid!

    1. Detex says:

      haha, you wish your kid could paint like Picasso. Look up his early work before you poke fun at his “ability.”

    2. Bubba says:

      You have a talented and unappreciated child.

  8. Garr Obo says:

    How many suckers have paid lots of money for Picasso’s? Just as many of the painting, water colors or etchings this guy has put out. Obviously, he used a lot of drugs in his lifetime which caused him to revert to around eight years old when he was working. This guy was one of the greatest con men in history. As P.T. Barnum said…………………

    1. Marc says:

      What have you created?

      1. Gerry says:

        How is your question relevant to Garr Obo’s criticism?

      2. Lynn says:

        I agree. I never “got” Picasso. I paint, and his art does look like anything done in 2nd. grade. My kids work was always better.

    2. Ya Ya says:

      Picasso was also known for paying for EVERYTHING by check, including home furnishings, taking a huge party of friends out to dinner, etc because he knew that no one ever cashed his check because they wanted his signature. Add ‘crook’ to the list!

      1. Bubba says:

        How does that make him a crook. He paid but people valued his signature more than the monetary value of the check.

      2. swissik says:

        I doubt that checks were in use during Picasso’s life, maybe he wrote IOUs while his guests paid the bills.

      3. Salmon says:

        That story is true, but it wasn’t Picasso, it was Salvador Dali.

    3. Artlover from Md. says:

      Piccasso was a genius ( look at his earlier work) but his later stuff was GARBAGE! He had a malevolent sense of humor and once his reputation was set he made CRAP and knew that pretentious collectors would pay piles of money for . Picasso had talent, but he trivialized it. A bigger con was Pollack–he had NO TALENT but he’s in all the great museums. (He’s the one who’s art is a swirling mass of drips on canvas–can’t be distinguished from something an energetic three year old might do.) It is heartening to read the comments here and to see not everyone is taken in by shyksters.

  9. Richard says:

    I admit I am no Art expert…if you think figuring out and appreciating Picasso is tough, take a visit to the Salvadore Dali museum here in S.W. Florida!
    Good luck Mr. Bodish…get what you can!

    1. swissik says:

      Dali’s talent lay in designing fashions for the old Paris fashionhouses of his time. Quite interesting, he went through several phases, some of them good some of them rubbish. As for the Picasso original print: that is an oxymoron, it is either a print or an original. A print doesn’t become original just because the artist signed it. Today many prints made from an original are numbered and limited, but that doesn’t make them originals, just makes a more expensive print. Even if the Picasso is a forgery, $14. is cheap.

  10. El Greco Boogliodemus says:

    The thing about Picasso is that he really was good in spite of everyone saying he was good.

    1. Detex says:

      Indeed, many of these retarded comments come from Drudge, they would not know culture if it bit them in the arse.

      1. Hypo Gore says:

        Your character is on full display as you feel the need to denigrate people born with mental deficiencies to attack people expressing opinions you disagree with.

      2. swissik says:

        You are no doubt one of those tolerant progressives.

  11. retired art dealer says:

    ah, not so fast. these linocuts have been mass produced back in the 60s, much like the “original” dali stuff. legally not fakes, but also not rare. the “cuts” are actually done with a press. real worth? about $25. no free lunch for him. the reporter needs to do some more research instead of buying the hype.

    1. Nomad says:

      The story says it was signed print…

  12. Werewindle says:

    It was not an original… it was a signed print.

    1. Detex says:

      That is how a block print works. It is an AP, artists proof…

  13. PowerPC says:

    The art world is neurotic. Picasso was popular during his lifetime and sold millions in “art”. On the other hand, a true artist, Van Gogh, could barely give a painting away. His mother actually threw out and burned hundreds of his paintings. In my opinion he was a fantastic artist and a master. He was tormented by severe depression throughout his life and still managed to produce high quality art. It is really a shame that he was not appreciated during his lifetime like the much less talented Picasso. I am not an art expert I only know what I like. I like art that you do not have to turn upside down or look at it with eyes squinted to figure out what the artist is trying to convey. Van Gogh painted real scenes and they could be appreciated for their detail and beauty.

    1. Artlover from Md. says:

      You say you are not an “expert” but it appears that you have an intuitive eye for genius. Van Gogh was a stupendous genius. Just because his art lacks the refinement of, say, Ingres, does not mean he wasn’t brilliant. Even his sketches have tremendous power.Van Gogh is world-famous and rightfully so.

  14. aaaaandre says:

    I hope he makes a nice “contribution” to the Thrift Store.

  15. Smokey thee Bear says:

    Bet it was made by Epson, sounds like another made-up cbs-local story-of-the-day

  16. Archie Bunker says:

    Put it up on ebay with the $15,000 grilled cheese which looks like Jesus, or the KFC fried chicken foot, and you might just get enough to pay the listing fees 🙂

  17. Okra Windbag says:

    was dis de ottist who went and damn bit his own eaaa off?

    1. cowboy1957 says:

      I’ll bet you cannot bite your ear,

      1. Okra Windbag says:

        wood yuall laak to bite on my eaaaa, cowboy?????? I poot yu on ma talk show 🙂

  18. ecurb65 says:

    It’s still is ugly, but twenty million ugly!

  19. charlesamiller says:

    The degree of ignorance in here is astounding. Pablo Picasso was an accomplished artist, and his earliest work is entirely realistic. Picasso explored several different styles in his career, but most uneducated viewers only remember his cubist period (this is what laymen call “abstract” art). As for the monetary value of Picasso’s work, he was one of the few artists who actually MADE MONEY with his art within his own lifetime, and a lot of it. His autograph alone was worth around $5000. Van Gogh, conversely, only sold ONE painting in his entire life.

    1. Detex says:

      they will not get this nor will they do the research needed to see that you are correct.

    2. swissik says:

      The absolutely best exhibit of Picasso’s art is in a private small museum in Basel, Switzerland. (I am one of those Drudge readers).

  20. Jason Talbott says:

    An Ohio man luckily plucks
    A Picasso for just fourteen bucks
    From the thrift store downtown.
    It is ugly and brown.
    The unwitting store owner cries, “Shucks!”

  21. paul says:

    Wow, the white trash of Ohio are out in force on this thread. Now I understand why I never hear “culture” and “Columbus Ohio” or “world class museum” and “Columbus Ohio” used in the same sentence.

    1. Melissa says:

      Excellent point, Paul!

  22. ETEE says:

    Too bad Pete is Unemployed. After reading this column, Obama’s IRS thugs will be paying him a little visit shortly to collect the Income Taxes based on the value of the piece to “re-distribute” to “da po”!!!

  23. ClevelandMuseumGoer says:

    I love comments about art by people who know nothing about it. “My kid could do that”, haha but they never do, now, do they? is the Art world a sham? Likely, many artists think so. But, if you think about it, JUST HOW MUCH do we over pay guys to go on a patch of grass, throw a ball to one another, and claim its the greatest thing IN THE WORLD? We pay a guy MILLIONS to throw a ball through a hoop, circus seals do that for peanuts. What is more of a sham, Art or Sports? At least most art fansget involved in art, how many sprorts fans can even do a single PULL-UP? Here is to living vicariously via others acomplishment that dont really mean anything! CHEERS!

  24. Sniffit says:

    Looks like the anti Obama Drudge bigots are awake early this morning spewing their racial hiate

    1. woodNfish says:

      Yes, we are. Eat sh$t and die a$$wipe.

  25. Martino says:

    The problem in the art world, is that you’re told what you’re supposed to like and what you’re not supposed to like. Personally, I think that Picasso had talent, but squandered it by producing so many ugly paintings and prints that were bereft of his talent. I guess we’re supposed to like them though, because the art “experts” tell us so. I recently took a trip to a well known art museum that built a new modern art wing; the artsy people were fawning over the works presented there, but really, it was all horrible. The regular people were shaking their heads in disbelief. I feel sorry for the moron who actually paid for the stuff. The lengthy explanations of the paintings’ meanings were really just lame excuses for their existence. So yes, I think much of Picasso’s work was awful.

    1. Robert says:

      Picasso’s work is at least honest because he had classical skills and wasn’t just trying to skip the hard craftsmanship of realism, etc. Yes there are a lot of art appreciation pretenders out there who ‘ooo’ and ‘ahhh’ over works they do not understand. I don’t understand all of it but I try to reserve judgement knowing that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

      Soem time ago I bought a book about the history of art. There was an introductory chapter called ‘What is Art?’. The author commented that people say ‘I don’t know art, but I know what I like’. The author said ‘You don’t “know” what you like’, meaning (I think) that you may like a work of art, but you really don’t know why if you don’t undersatnd the work, or what went into it.

      That changed my thinking about dismissing modern art altogether, even though a lot of it doesn’t do much for me.

  26. woodNfish says:

    There is evidence that Picasso did the same as thing Dali – signed thousands of pages of blank art stock so that modern copies could be made of his work with his signature after his death. It is believed that Picasso did not sign as many as Dali, but he still did it. Buyers have to be very careful as many of these fraudulent works are being passed off as originals.

    In the case of a print, the only true original is the print block itself, all the prints are one off. In the case of a proof, however, and especially one signed by the artist after he pulled it, it is most likely as original as a print gets and worth a decent amount of money.

    The fellow has been out of work for two years. I hope his find brings him some decent money.

  27. ovlsi says:

    His [Van Gogh’s] mother actually threw out and burned hundreds of his paintings.

    If Van Gogh’s mother trashed hundreds of his paintings she was either an abusive parent or had a good eye.

  28. workingman says:

    you would think that who ever wrote this story, that maybe, the people that reads this story would like to see a good picture of a newly found painting.

  29. Patrick says:

    In case anyone is a little surprised by the ignorant comments about art in response to this article, I can explain. There is a link to this site from Drudgereport.

    1. Clete Torres says:

      Uh, you DO realize that Drudge is just a story aggregator, right?

      Comments like yours show how little you know about the world around you. Hmm, you must be a liberal. The two often go hand in hand.

      1. swissik says:

        Right on Clete. Patrick is another one of those oh so tolerant progressives. They can only feel good about themselves by putting down their fellow human beings.

    2. Ben Dover & C. Howitt Fields says:

      Yes….yes indeed. I suppose that we Drudge readers are no match for the cultural elite such as yourself and all your fellow travelers……..You are so bright that I bet your mother called you “sun”. I suppose that the Drudge readers shouldn’t be permitted to make posts to stories such as these, just like the Supreme Court shouldn’t be permitted to strike down an unconstitutional healthcare law.

      Now Patrick I have a revelation of my own.

      In case anyone is a little surprised by the ignorant comments about Drudge readers in response to this article, I can explain. Patrick is from the far left cultural elite and is more than likely another Obama Zombie as well 🙂

  30. bob says:

    several years ago in SE wisconsin it was discovered that an elderly couple had an original Vincent Van Gogh painting on their fireplace mantel. It was valued at 4 million dollars…

  31. intaglio says:

    I read the Drudge Report daily AND The New York Times. I also enjoy (and own) several pieces of art that run the gamut from realisitc oils to cubist lithographs and intaglio prints by the likes of Rembrandt, Durer, Renior, Cezanne and yes, Picasso. (To name a few.) I appreciate each for the effort and skill and that indefinable thing that distinguishes (in MY eye) an “artist” from a “mere” technician.

    What I do NOT appreciate is the foolish attempt to stereotype everyone who reads Drudge. And, disappointingly, it seems to be the “left”, “liberal”, “wanna-be artists” who are most often involved in attempting to do so.

    What do you fear? Can you not listen to BOTH sides of an argument before forming an opinion? It is puzzling.

  32. AAron A. says:

    I like how the majority of comments show how much the author knows about art history. Just because you don’t understand something doesn’t mean you have to trivialize it. You don’t have to hate on Picasso to feel better about yourself. In fact, the best thing to do would be to, instead of spending the time to criticize, educate yourself about why his paintings are so valued.

  33. Smitty says:

    Better than Matisse. I would give 14 cents for anything of his.

  34. August says:

    So, intrinsically the painting is only worth $14 Bucks; ART IS SUCH A RACKET!

  35. el polacko says:

    most of these comments are a testimony to why anybody with any sense gets the heck out of ohio as fast as they can.

Leave a Reply to Patrick Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s