O/T Da Vinci painting.

[roger_ramjet]

The art world is full of smoke and mirrors. Let me illustrate this by reference to something that allegedly happened maybe 10 years ago. names and identities removed for obvious reasons

On the face of it, a piece of artwork was sold by a major auction house for a very large sum of money. This represented a significantly higher price than had been expected. To the outside world, it was surprising, but to the the inside world there was a knowing smile. In fact the piece of work had not been sold at all - or rather it had been bought back in by the original owner, despite there being a substantial cost in auction house fees.

Why, you may ask. Simply this - if one piece of work by an artist suddenly is seen to be worth maybe 4 times as much as it had been previously reckoned to be worth, what do you think happened to all the other pieces of work by the same artist? The enhanced value of the other work well exceeded the cost of "selling" the one item. The auction house effectively was remunerated for raising the value of everything else - whether knowingly or innocently. All this is alleged / market rumour of course.

So was the painting sold at all, or was it just used to ramp up the market?

[ramAnag]

Idealism to the point of self parody maybe.

What has to be taken into account is that, for all its artistic merit, this is not a piece of art being sold really. Its an investment as Andy alluded to earlier. Would you get on the same moral high horse if you had read that one investment company had paid $ 1 billion for some US Treasury stock? If so you will end up with a very sore arse as these sort of deals go on every day and that horse has a hard saddle.

No value has been "stolen" from the poor and needy - simply two investors have exchanged a piece of art for a notional value that has no relationship with its intrinsic worth. If you want to get indignant,consider Christie's position: a $ 50.3 million buyers premium and no doubt a percentage of the actual $ 400 million sale price. They maybe earned $ 100 million plus for being a market maker facilitating the exchange of an asset between to investors.

As for a gallery buying it - get real: it has an investment value way in excess of what any gallery could afford to pay - let alone make money on for your "public good". Besides which, its not a remotely interesting piece of work: a portrait of a bloke painted some 1500 years after he had died. The only interest in seeing it lies in fact in its alleged value.

Stenson: you are not far wrong. The painting was sold for less than $ 10,000 as recently as 2005. It was bought by a group of art dealers as a painting by one of Leonardo's students: they restored it and then magically authenticated it as a genuine LDV ! The kings new clothes fade into insignificance in comparison to that level of chicanery.

So we have something traded at an artificial value between parties. Claude Davies anyone?

Have I upset you Rog...or are you just still without a coffee machine?
‘Indignant’, ‘Moral high horse’...’self parody’...don’t really get any of that. I’ve asked a question, that’s all and it’s not a matter of stealing from the ‘poor and needy’.
The issue surely is...can it be acceptable for individuals to have so much disposable wealth when others have virtually nothing and when, for instance, our own public services - in one of the World’s wealthier nations - are in crisis.
The question applies almost as much to the wages of footballers as it does to this painting but I’m not trying to start the revolution...just asking...is this morally acceptable or is it as simple as, everything has its price and that’s how it is?

[roger_ramjet]

Have I upset you Rog...or are you just still without a coffee machine?
‘Indignant’, ‘Moral high horse’...’self parody’...don’t really get any of that. I’ve asked a question, that’s all and it’s not a matter of stealing from the ‘poor and needy’.
The issue surely is...can it be acceptable for individuals to have so much disposable wealth when others have virtually nothing and when, for instance, our own public services - in one of the World’s wealthier nations - are in crisis.
The question applies almost as much to the wages of footballers as it does to this painting but I’m not trying to start the revolution...just asking...is this morally acceptable or is it as simple as, everything has its price and that’s how it is?

Caffeine withdrawl symptoms!!

But my point is that this is just an exchange of value between two investors (or maybe not, see my second post) and so has no consequence on the real world.

Your question must surely be, can individuals be allowed to be so wealthy when there are so many poor people around? This question has little to do with the particular trade but maybe it has just highlighted the iniquities of wealth distribution between people.

The buyer has not been identified yet, and may not be, but the seller was a Russian Oligarch billionaire who also happens to own 2/3rds of AS Monaco and who bankrolled their spending on Falcao, Rodriguez etc etc.

So should he be criticised in the same way for selling (next year) Mbappe for how ever many hundred million euros?

An interesting individual - alleged to be a great philanthropist of the arts and architecture, but also arrested for murder, a Panama papers person, and also thought to be involved in third party ownership of players contracts and illegal manipulation of players values . Hmm now that sounds a familiar tale....

[StensonRam]

Stenson: you are not far wrong. The painting was sold for less than $ 10,000 as recently as 2005. It was bought by a group of art dealers as a painting by one of Leonardo's students: they restored it and then magically authenticated it as a genuine LDV ! The kings new clothes fade into insignificance in comparison to that level of chicanery.

So we have something traded at an artificial value between parties. Claude Davies anyone?

I wonder if there's a sell on clause otherwise the seller had their pants down in 2005!

[Manofpride]

[Andy_Faber]

Have I upset you Rog...or are you just still without a coffee machine?
‘Indignant’, ‘Moral high horse’...’self parody’...don’t really get any of that. I’ve asked a question, that’s all and it’s not a matter of stealing from the ‘poor and needy’.
The issue surely is...can it be acceptable for individuals to have so much disposable wealth when others have virtually nothing and when, for instance, our own public services - in one of the World’s wealthier nations - are in crisis.
The question applies almost as much to the wages of footballers as it does to this painting but I’m not trying to start the revolution...just asking...is this morally acceptable or is it as simple as, everything has its price and that’s how it is?

I think its just the way of it RA, there always has been, and always will be a massive disparity between the haves and have nots. historically just look round at the stately homes that were built a few centuries ago, look at the Terra Cotta Army in china, look at the Pyramids of Ghiza etc etc., built for the filthy rich by slaves, and these days I challenge you to find a leader of any nation who is not filthy rich, so there is no cultural or economic model which prevents it, other than Mutually assured Destruction.

Your point about crumbling social services is heart-felt and I'm 100% with you on helping those unable to help themselves but I'll always come back at you by saying there is equal or greater benefit in controlling/reducing the denominator (the demand for services) than there is in increasing the numerator (the supply of money). Interestingly (to me anyway) there was a report on R4 on monday which bore out my rant from a few months ago that said, whilst UK's GDP (added up wealth of the whole country) would go down by a few points due to Brexit, the GDP Per Capita (average individual wealth) would go down less, because the calc factored in that there would be a significant emigration of residents back to their countries of origin, and that (on average) these people contributed less than the rest of the population by being in low-productivity jobs, and/or depending on state aid.

[ManxRam]

Not entirely sure it wouldn’t be setting a dangerous precedent to dictate to people what they can buy Manx but I don’t think it’s got much to do with me being a house owner or enjoying a certain amount of travel Rog.
Guess it’s all part of the ‘haves and have nots’ argument. There will always be people who earn and deserve to earn more than others, I accept that, but this is an extreme example and can it be right that people have such great wealth to spend so frivolously while others are literally starving and homeless?
As a World society we seem to have lost all notion of balance and proportion imo, and then there is the question of whether it is morally right for an individual to be able to purchase great art and possibly lock it away for ever, which may or may not be the case. I think I feel such artefacts should only be for sale to ********* where they may in turn be put on public display and in turn raise money for the public good but I know that will be way too idealistic for some.

How have I been bought in to this? I've not even commented yet!

There will never be another, so the price will only head one way..

[ramAnag]

How have I been bought in to this? I've not even commented yet!

There will never be another, so the price will only head one way..

Sorry, mistook you for Adi’s post #2. Not sure how...stressed...apologies to both of you.

[roger_ramjet]

How have I been bought in to this? I've not even commented yet!

There will never be another, so the price will only head one way..

How much will it be worth by the time old Donald and short fat Kim are finished (with) our futures.

[Ram59]

£450m? You could just about afford a bottle of white lightning cider in Scotland with that! 😊