Paul allen christies auction results ,,

[rjackson44]

Well i guess the art market has no issues omg ,,look at the results .I just bought 5 k in vintage hockey cards ..im very happy like looking at them .oh well ….

[raulus]

Plenty of incredibly rich people willing to trade gigantic mountains of cash for one of a kind original art.

There are some people who expect our world will become more like that world. But I have my doubts. And I will be personally quite content if we don’t become like the fine art market.

[Snapolit1]

This article paints a somewhat more complicated picture of the high end art market and Christie's in particular.

https://news.artnet.com/market/chris...08029/amp-page

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

This article paints a somewhat more complicated picture of the high end art market and Christie's in particular.

https://news.artnet.com/market/chris...08029/amp-page

That story sort of parallels differences between modern versus pre-war/vintage card markets. That Basquiat painting of Robinson is hideous, and reminds me of a lot of the crazy modern crap out there today in cards. And just like with modern cards, the modern art market is seeing similar dramatic drops in value from just in the last couple of years. Ughhhh, now I can't get the image of that Sugar Ray Robinson painting out of my head.

[rjackson44]

Bob and steve here you go ..bob Basquiat is the hottest investment in art . Like it or not never compare cards to art foolish

[brianp-beme]

After checking over some of his artwork, it looks like he took a Basquiat over the canvas.

Brian

[parkplace33]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

This article paints a somewhat more complicated picture of the high end art market and Christie's in particular.

https://news.artnet.com/market/chris...08029/amp-page

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.)

[drcy]

Also, companies are often the winners.

[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.

[Snapolit1]

To quote the old Wall Street adage, trees don't grow to the sky . . . .

Originally Posted by JustinD

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.