[JustinD]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

I found this paragraph interesting:

A week later, the house seemed to be the victim of its own success. One of its top two lots Thursday night, Willem de Kooning’s abstract Untitled III from the late 1970s, guaranteed by the house and with an asking price in excess of $35 million, failed to draw a single bid. (In the post-sale conference, Christie’s executives acknowledged that the auction house now owns the De Kooning.)

I think one needs to understand the transitions of the market and it's up's and down's. While much seems to be made of pieces not making estimates, it is creatively ignored that each sold for multimillions more than the previous purchase. Seems to be a case of selective facts presented. The Robinson, which is not a well known piece to the public increased 4 million in 6 years...not exactly nothing.

As for DeKooning...well not to be rude, it is not a private collector item as it is dated to a 70's-80's collector aesthetic. Much as to me Cubism was a focus of 60s-70s aesthetic. As these rotations take place, the market slows to a museum focus. It would have made a lower estimate, but Christies seems to have made a terrible decision by letting the consigner set a minimum bid that they would meet if not met. That market was museum at this time and now that judgement will force them to sit on it to wait for a change.

Yes, their sale was not a bonanza of value growth, but it was not loss. This is much like a corporation stating they have lost 40 million in a year when in actuality their projected profit growth was 70 million, and they profited 30 million. I dislike that creative math as they still profited 30 million and then use it as an excuse to descale employees or whatnot. Growth is growth and not a single lot is said to have lost money. They just did not meet Christies explosive promised profit margins.