O/T - you think our prices are too high?

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by Some pretentious nitwit from Sotheby's

"...Passionately debated, rhapsodically venerated, and hotly contested..."

It's a banana...and some duct tape.

Six million dollars...lol.

[brianp-beme]

For that type of money I would expect a wax banana, because who wants to keep taping up fresh bananas?

Brian

[Beercan collector]

Look out for fakes

[G1911]

For a mere $620 I will send anyone interested:

1) a fresh banana

2) a 2 pack roll of unopened duct tape and

3) a certificate of authenticity

Don't miss out on this killer deal, saving you over $6,000,000 and giving more value! Offer good while supplies last.

[ASF123]

In the least surprising news of the day, the buyer is a blockchain founder who paid in crypto.

[D. Bergin]

These are who want to take over the monetary system in our country and others.

Enjoy guys.

[BioCRN]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

These are who want to take over the monetary system in our country and others.

Enjoy guys.

Absolutely no one aside from cryptobros want a world currency that is so volatile that you can order something for delivery months away (commodity markets, especially) that can drop or rise 20-30%+ on a whim and be considered absolute normal behavior for that currency.

As an aside that's related to the artwork. The banana and tape are not the actual artwork, the rights to post the banana + duct tape and proper instructions for how to do it is what's actually being sold. It's quite similar to the NFT market, though not the same.

[gunboat82]

Originally Posted by ASF123

In the least surprising news of the day, the buyer is a blockchain founder who paid in crypto.

Ding ding ding. He didn't pay $6.2M for banana art. He paid $6.2M for the kind of publicity you can only get by doing something as attention-grabbing as paying $6.2M for a banana.

Someone check the movement on his crypto holdings. I don't know how to track that stuff, but I'll bet he's the lesser fool in this scenario.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by gunboat82

Ding ding ding. He didn't pay $6.2M for banana art. He paid $6.2M for the kind of publicity you can only get by doing something as attention-grabbing as paying $6.2M for a banana.

Someone check the movement on his crypto holdings. I don't know how to track that stuff, but I'll bet he's the lesser fool in this scenario.

He didn't pay $6.2 Million either. He paid $6.2 Million of his own ponzi scheme crypto stash.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by gunboat82

Ding ding ding. He didn't pay $6.2M for banana art. He paid $6.2M for the kind of publicity you can only get by doing something as attention-grabbing as paying $6.2M for a banana.

I agree. He was buying the notoriety.

Originally Posted by gunboat82

Someone check the movement on his crypto holdings. I don't know how to track that stuff, but I'll bet he's the lesser fool in this scenario.

Indeed. Since he made his money finding greater fools for a Ponzi scheme, he decided to part with a small fraction on the ultimate (until now) celebration of foolishness.

[Gary Dunaier]

Originally Posted by gunboat82

He didn't pay $6.2M for banana art. He paid $6.2M for the kind of publicity you can only get by doing something as attention-grabbing as paying $6.2M for a banana.

If memory serves me right, that's one of the justifications Todd McFarlane made for paying $3 million for the Mark McGwire home run ball. According to a 2022 Athletic article, McFarlane has "spoken several times in recent years about the money angle, saying that the balls more than paid for themselves because curiosity about them in the business world opened doors to additional deals and revenue."