Paul allen christies auction results ,,

[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.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

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

Toward it, but the market is often prone to trends in aesthetics as well as the same financial pressures of the overextended. I think the story more shows that Christies has made some massive mistakes in estimating growth that will cost them dearly.

If I was a seller of a period that I would know is not in vogue at the time, you can bet I would be taking advantage of such poor estimation. Christies would be at the top of my list. I think this will be a time of realization in the market as moneyed Boomers liquidate collections built in the 80's and 90's focused on MCM looks that could swamp the market. I would not be surprised to see not just the equalization of returns to purchased price, but possibly losses in those areas.

As for the high growth modern and pop, still waiting to see what the dip in crypto holdings do to logically slow even liquid capital entering the modern market. Will those losing money hold, or will it be a sell off? I think the exotic car market (6-7 figure cars) is showing signs of this impact, will art?

It's hard to say, as the wise money makes serious cash in a recession. As the cash strapped sell luxury items low to gain liquidity. The insular investor with large capital is the buyer, a cycle we see over and over in these times when wise millionaires turn to billionaires in the future. They snatch up Blue chip investments at the bottom, stocks, real estate, collectables, etc. and wait for the inevitable return for the profits.

As I personally believe that the peak recessionary period will come next spring/summer, it will be an interesting dynamic to watch. This could be waylaid by the election results however as my financial prognostications always love a split government as gridlock tends to pause wasteful spending and poor policy choices in any administration. Things could possibly not be as bad as it seems, but like all predictions or honestly guesses...that could be horribly wrong just as easily, lol.

[steve B]

Art is weird. If I love it or hate it I can't afford it.

Basquiat would be well into the "I hate it" category.