firstimer
Member
Posts: 192 
Member Since: March 2015
|
2018: When Miller became more expensive than Warhol. , by firstimer on Nov 6, 2018 18:42:00 GMT 1, I've stayed a little quiet over the last year because it seems things got a little sour over here on any post I'd see - hoping to keep this thread a healthy discussion 
SO! Full disclaimer - I own some Millers. I'm not trying to spread any pricing propaganda.
This year I've been wanting to add a Warhol to my collection. One of equally decent size as the Miller's. However, I'm genuinely getting more and more surprised to see that Miller's older body of work that I am in possession of is actually being priced (And sold) for more than some of the decent Warhol's I'm looking at... does anyone else find that crazy? When I say crazy I say it without judgement neither good nor bad - but just ... crazy!?
Warhol is a bluechip artist, correct me if I'm wrong - but I don't believe Miller has got there yet has he? Yet here I am finding prints of Miller being sold for more than Warhol.
For context: Miller's larger scale penguins are often being sold for 30k+ GBP, yet you can buy some of Warhols portrait series for not much more, in some cases, cheaper...?!
What are your thoughts on this?
Do you see Miller's older penguin series to keep rising at this rate? Or is Warhol slowing down? I never thought I'd be seeing a Warhol in the same price range anytime soon.
Please, I know how we get on here, but I'd love to keep this discussion drama free - it's just an open observation that I'm keen to see others thoughts on/ where they see art price going for these particular artists.
Hope all are well.
I've stayed a little quiet over the last year because it seems things got a little sour over here on any post I'd see - hoping to keep this thread a healthy discussion SO! Full disclaimer - I own some Millers. I'm not trying to spread any pricing propaganda. This year I've been wanting to add a Warhol to my collection. One of equally decent size as the Miller's. However, I'm genuinely getting more and more surprised to see that Miller's older body of work that I am in possession of is actually being priced (And sold) for more than some of the decent Warhol's I'm looking at... does anyone else find that crazy? When I say crazy I say it without judgement neither good nor bad - but just ... crazy!? Warhol is a bluechip artist, correct me if I'm wrong - but I don't believe Miller has got there yet has he? Yet here I am finding prints of Miller being sold for more than Warhol. For context: Miller's larger scale penguins are often being sold for 30k+ GBP, yet you can buy some of Warhols portrait series for not much more, in some cases, cheaper...?! What are your thoughts on this? Do you see Miller's older penguin series to keep rising at this rate? Or is Warhol slowing down? I never thought I'd be seeing a Warhol in the same price range anytime soon. Please, I know how we get on here, but I'd love to keep this discussion drama free - it's just an open observation that I'm keen to see others thoughts on/ where they see art price going for these particular artists. Hope all are well. |
|
expresspost
Member
Posts: 3,330
Member Since: January 2008
|
2018: When Miller became more expensive than Warhol. , by expresspost on Nov 6, 2018 18:58:06 GMT 1, Depends on the images you are talking about.
Miller's iconic prints are in the price range you quoted.
Warhol's iconic prints are in the hundreds of thousands.
A Tomato Soup Can will blitz any Harland.
Depends on the images you are talking about.
Miller's iconic prints are in the price range you quoted.
Warhol's iconic prints are in the hundreds of thousands.
A Tomato Soup Can will blitz any Harland.
|
|
matt
Member
Posts: 2,203
Member Since: September 2014
|
2018: When Miller became more expensive than Warhol. , by matt on Nov 6, 2018 19:03:08 GMT 1, Depends on the images you are talking about. Miller's iconic prints are in the price range you quoted. Warhol's iconic prints are in the hundreds of thousands. A Tomato Soup Can will blitz any Harland.
This
Also depends on your time horizon.
Warhol : decades of increase, established, close to certainty.
Miller : spike over 3-5 years, most likely to be followed by a super fast drop (not a reflection on his art, just the most probable outcome based on similar situations)
Depends on the images you are talking about. Miller's iconic prints are in the price range you quoted. Warhol's iconic prints are in the hundreds of thousands. A Tomato Soup Can will blitz any Harland. This Also depends on your time horizon. Warhol : decades of increase, established, close to certainty. Miller : spike over 3-5 years, most likely to be followed by a super fast drop (not a reflection on his art, just the most probable outcome based on similar situations) |
|
|
|
2018: When Miller became more expensive than Warhol. , by touchdowntodd on Nov 6, 2018 19:03:09 GMT 1, The real conversation is which will be around in 20 years
And no there's no comparison.
You're comparing Miller's best images with Warhols least collected
The real conversation is which will be around in 20 years
And no there's no comparison.
You're comparing Miller's best images with Warhols least collected
|
|
firstimer
Member
Posts: 192
Member Since: March 2015
|
2018: When Miller became more expensive than Warhol. , by firstimer on Nov 6, 2018 19:17:25 GMT 1, Fair fair points
Every time I see a miller for sale - it just somehow magically increases in price exponentially from the last recorded sale. I find your takes interesting when it comes to thoughts on Miller's longevity. Am I naive to think his works will very much be around in 20 years? Maybe so - I bought them because I like them, as I do Warhol's portrait series. Guess we can use this thread to check back in years to come
Fair fair points Every time I see a miller for sale - it just somehow magically increases in price exponentially from the last recorded sale. I find your takes interesting when it comes to thoughts on Miller's longevity. Am I naive to think his works will very much be around in 20 years? Maybe so - I bought them because I like them, as I do Warhol's portrait series. Guess we can use this thread to check back in years to come |
|
streetartger
Member
Instagram: UrbanArt360
Posts: 759
Member is Online
Member Since: January 2014
|
2018: When Miller became more expensive than Warhol. , by streetartger on Nov 6, 2018 20:25:47 GMT 1, I own only this Marilyn screenprint Hand signed by Warhol, it’s an iconic piece and everybody has seen this one. Time will tell if this might happen to a Miller...I love those Miller prints and would be more than happy to own one. But I doubt they will become as iconic as a Warhol... and this Warhol Mariilyn was still quite affordable.
I own only this Marilyn screenprint Hand signed by Warhol, it’s an iconic piece and everybody has seen this one. Time will tell if this might happen to a Miller...I love those Miller prints and would be more than happy to own one. But I doubt they will become as iconic as a Warhol... and this Warhol Mariilyn was still quite affordable. |
|
amsterdam9697
Member
No Future for Stillson
Posts: 503
Member Since: December 2008
|
2018: When Miller became more expensive than Warhol. , by amsterdam9697 on Nov 6, 2018 20:30:20 GMT 1, No comparison. Not even in the same universe. Well, maybe a low-brow universe 
No comparison. Not even in the same universe. Well, maybe a low-brow universe |
|
rosac
Member
Posts: 1,696
Member Since: July 2015
|
2018: When Miller became more expensive than Warhol. , by rosac on Nov 6, 2018 20:36:37 GMT 1, Surprising also to see the price of signed Dali, Miro, Picasso (and others) prints that go through at auction are a lot cheaper than you’d think (albeit the less desirable ones)I guess people want ‘trendy’ art on thier walls... regardless of its long term investment potential they are cash rich and happy to pay current market value.
Surprising also to see the price of signed Dali, Miro, Picasso (and others) prints that go through at auction are a lot cheaper than you’d think (albeit the less desirable ones)I guess people want ‘trendy’ art on thier walls... regardless of its long term investment potential they are cash rich and happy to pay current market value.
|
|
firstimer
Member
Posts: 192
Member Since: March 2015
|
2018: When Miller became more expensive than Warhol. , by firstimer on Nov 6, 2018 20:47:10 GMT 1, No comparison. Not even in the same universe. Well, maybe a low-brow universe
No comparison. Not even in the same universe. Well, maybe a low-brow universe OIOI! LOL |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Member Since: January 1970
|
2018: When Miller became more expensive than Warhol. , by Deleted on Nov 6, 2018 20:50:13 GMT 1, Surprising also to see the price of signed Dali, Miro, Picasso (and others) prints that go through at auction are a lot cheaper than you’d think (albeit the less desirable ones)I guess people want ‘trendy’ art on thier walls... regardless of its long term investment potential they are cash rich and happy to pay current market value.
Surprising also to see the price of signed Dali, Miro, Picasso (and others) prints that go through at auction are a lot cheaper than you’d think (albeit the less desirable ones)I guess people want ‘trendy’ art on thier walls... regardless of its long term investment potential they are cash rich and happy to pay current market value. I was suprised as well. I think it has to do with the amount of total prints circulating around. I’m sure Warhol and Picasso have a great deal more prints floating about than Harland Miller. |
|
jbelleit
Member
Posts: 764
Member Since: April 2017
|
2018: When Miller became more expensive than Warhol. , by jbelleit on Nov 6, 2018 20:55:53 GMT 1, I have a set of matching Dali's (before the 1975 fakes and "Afters") and i am always surprised that these (hand signed of an edition of 199) are sold for less than many new artists' prints.
I have a set of matching Dali's (before the 1975 fakes and "Afters") and i am always surprised that these (hand signed of an edition of 199) are sold for less than many new artists' prints.
|
|
coller
Member
Actual member since 2012; account deleted in 2015
Posts: 2,233
Member Since: April 2015
|
2018: When Miller became more expensive than Warhol. , by coller on Nov 6, 2018 22:36:03 GMT 1, Surprising also to see the price of signed Dali, Miro, Picasso (and others) prints that go through at auction are a lot cheaper than you’d think (albeit the less desirable ones)I guess people want ‘trendy’ art on thier walls... regardless of its long term investment potential they are cash rich and happy to pay current market value.
Wasn't Dali signing anything people would put in front of him for the last decade or so of his life? And then there's the whole Warhol Foundation COA thing.
I'm a bit far removed so I might be over-simplifying.
Surprising also to see the price of signed Dali, Miro, Picasso (and others) prints that go through at auction are a lot cheaper than you’d think (albeit the less desirable ones)I guess people want ‘trendy’ art on thier walls... regardless of its long term investment potential they are cash rich and happy to pay current market value. iirc Dali and Warhol have authentication issues that affected their markets. Wasn't Dali signing anything people would put in front of him for the last decade or so of his life? And then there's the whole Warhol Foundation COA thing. I'm a bit far removed so I might be over-simplifying. |
|
Chris JL
Member
Posts: 1,542
Member Since: March 2017
|
2018: When Miller became more expensive than Warhol. , by Chris JL on Nov 6, 2018 23:48:56 GMT 1, Miller is more risky, hence his works should give you (in expectation but with more uncertainty), a higher return.
Warhol is much less risky, hence his work should give you (still in expectation but with much less uncertainty), a lower return.
It’s basic asset pricing theory: higher expected returns are compensation for higher risk.
Depending on your risk appetite, you’ll go for high risk high return or for the lower risk lower return... or you’ll just use something else as investment, and you’ll instead hang on your wall what you truly like (the latter would be my financial advice).
Miller is more risky, hence his works should give you (in expectation but with more uncertainty), a higher return.
Warhol is much less risky, hence his work should give you (still in expectation but with much less uncertainty), a lower return.
It’s basic asset pricing theory: higher expected returns are compensation for higher risk.
Depending on your risk appetite, you’ll go for high risk high return or for the lower risk lower return... or you’ll just use something else as investment, and you’ll instead hang on your wall what you truly like (the latter would be my financial advice).
|
|
KGR
Member
Posts: 92
Member Since: November 2017
|
2018: When Miller became more expensive than Warhol. , by KGR on Nov 7, 2018 6:49:48 GMT 1, Depends on the images you are talking about. Miller's iconic prints are in the price range you quoted. Warhol's iconic prints are in the hundreds of thousands. A Tomato Soup Can will blitz any Harland. You can get a soup can at auction for 20-30k USD.
millers are more expensice than that but a smaller edition i think does make a difference. Milers are 40 50 edition prints where as Warhols are 250 editions.
Your right the tomato and some of the better cans are more expensive but the lesser titles are cheaper.
Depends on the images you are talking about. Miller's iconic prints are in the price range you quoted. Warhol's iconic prints are in the hundreds of thousands. A Tomato Soup Can will blitz any Harland. You can get a soup can at auction for 20-30k USD.
millers are more expensice than that but a smaller edition i think does make a difference. Milers are 40 50 edition prints where as Warhols are 250 editions.
Your right the tomato and some of the better cans are more expensive but the lesser titles are cheaper.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Member Since: January 1970
|
2018: When Miller became more expensive than Warhol. , by Deleted on Nov 7, 2018 8:37:09 GMT 1, Ahhh remember the days when people bought pretty pictures to put on there walls....
Ahhh remember the days when people bought pretty pictures to put on there walls....
|
|
iamzero
Member
Posts: 8,506
Member Since: May 2011
|
2018: When Miller became more expensive than Warhol. , by iamzero on Nov 7, 2018 9:17:17 GMT 1, I’d choose a soup can over a Miller any day.
I’d choose a soup can over a Miller any day.
|
|
dungle
Member
Posts: 3,922
Member Since: June 2011
|
2018: When Miller became more expensive than Warhol. , by dungle on Nov 7, 2018 9:48:45 GMT 1, On a £ per square inch Miller is still cheaper
😉
On a £ per square inch Miller is still cheaper
😉
|
|
grahamh
Member
Posts: 2,105
Member Since: November 2012
|
2018: When Miller became more expensive than Warhol. , by grahamh on Nov 7, 2018 10:13:16 GMT 1, There are 5000 Soup Can prints ( 20 designs x 250 edition of each )..
As they are now 50 years old, there is no way of verifying how many remain and in what condition they are.. and this is why the difficulty in gauging an accurate pricing..but that is still a massive amount of Soup Can prints.
In the last couple of weeks we have seen two Tomato Soups hit $100k hammer for the first time. As pointed out, the Tomato is the premium edition, after that, most of the other titles seem much of a muchness in what they go for but condition is the real leveller. The reason being that Galleries will only go for the premium conditioned ones and then put a massive price on them.. and are happy to hold them and wait for someone to pay top dollar
Saying that, all titles have continued to rise quite significantly over the last 18 months to 2 years ( at auction , privately and in galleries ) - not in line with Millers, but still 10 - 20% and being an iconic image, i cant see why that wont continue.
Just an opinion.. not a fact!
G
Depends on the images you are talking about. Miller's iconic prints are in the price range you quoted. Warhol's iconic prints are in the hundreds of thousands. A Tomato Soup Can will blitz any Harland. You can get a soup can at auction for 20-30k USD.
millers are more expensice than that but a smaller edition i think does make a difference. Milers are 40 50 edition prints where as Warhols are 250 editions.
Your right the tomato and some of the better cans are more expensive but the lesser titles are cheaper.
There are 5000 Soup Can prints ( 20 designs x 250 edition of each ).. As they are now 50 years old, there is no way of verifying how many remain and in what condition they are.. and this is why the difficulty in gauging an accurate pricing..but that is still a massive amount of Soup Can prints. In the last couple of weeks we have seen two Tomato Soups hit $100k hammer for the first time. As pointed out, the Tomato is the premium edition, after that, most of the other titles seem much of a muchness in what they go for but condition is the real leveller. The reason being that Galleries will only go for the premium conditioned ones and then put a massive price on them.. and are happy to hold them and wait for someone to pay top dollar Saying that, all titles have continued to rise quite significantly over the last 18 months to 2 years ( at auction , privately and in galleries ) - not in line with Millers, but still 10 - 20% and being an iconic image, i cant see why that wont continue. Just an opinion.. not a fact! G Depends on the images you are talking about. Miller's iconic prints are in the price range you quoted. Warhol's iconic prints are in the hundreds of thousands. A Tomato Soup Can will blitz any Harland. You can get a soup can at auction for 20-30k USD.
millers are more expensice than that but a smaller edition i think does make a difference. Milers are 40 50 edition prints where as Warhols are 250 editions.
Your right the tomato and some of the better cans are more expensive but the lesser titles are cheaper.
|
|
barsukauk
Member
F Y
Posts: 713
Member Since: May 2010
|
2018: When Miller became more expensive than Warhol. , by barsukauk on Nov 7, 2018 10:34:08 GMT 1, I've stayed a little quiet over the last year because it seems things got a little sour over here on any post I'd see - hoping to keep this thread a healthy discussion SO! Full disclaimer - I own some Millers. I'm not trying to spread any pricing propaganda. This year I've been wanting to add a Warhol to my collection. One of equally decent size as the Miller's. However, I'm genuinely getting more and more surprised to see that Miller's older body of work that I am in possession of is actually being priced (And sold) for more than some of the decent Warhol's I'm looking at... does anyone else find that crazy? When I say crazy I say it without judgement neither good nor bad - but just ... crazy!? Warhol is a bluechip artist, correct me if I'm wrong - but I don't believe Miller has got there yet has he? Yet here I am finding prints of Miller being sold for more than Warhol. For context: Miller's larger scale penguins are often being sold for 30k+ GBP, yet you can buy some of Warhols portrait series for not much more, in some cases, cheaper...?! What are your thoughts on this? Do you see Miller's older penguin series to keep rising at this rate? Or is Warhol slowing down? I never thought I'd be seeing a Warhol in the same price range anytime soon. Please, I know how we get on here, but I'd love to keep this discussion drama free - it's just an open observation that I'm keen to see others thoughts on/ where they see art price going for these particular artists. Hope all are well.
Jaja this is the joke of the year....
Is not market for miller
I've stayed a little quiet over the last year because it seems things got a little sour over here on any post I'd see - hoping to keep this thread a healthy discussion SO! Full disclaimer - I own some Millers. I'm not trying to spread any pricing propaganda. This year I've been wanting to add a Warhol to my collection. One of equally decent size as the Miller's. However, I'm genuinely getting more and more surprised to see that Miller's older body of work that I am in possession of is actually being priced (And sold) for more than some of the decent Warhol's I'm looking at... does anyone else find that crazy? When I say crazy I say it without judgement neither good nor bad - but just ... crazy!? Warhol is a bluechip artist, correct me if I'm wrong - but I don't believe Miller has got there yet has he? Yet here I am finding prints of Miller being sold for more than Warhol. For context: Miller's larger scale penguins are often being sold for 30k+ GBP, yet you can buy some of Warhols portrait series for not much more, in some cases, cheaper...?! What are your thoughts on this? Do you see Miller's older penguin series to keep rising at this rate? Or is Warhol slowing down? I never thought I'd be seeing a Warhol in the same price range anytime soon. Please, I know how we get on here, but I'd love to keep this discussion drama free - it's just an open observation that I'm keen to see others thoughts on/ where they see art price going for these particular artists. Hope all are well. Jaja this is the joke of the year.... Is not market for miller |
|
matt
Member
Posts: 2,203
Member Since: September 2014
|
2018: When Miller became more expensive than Warhol. , by matt on Nov 7, 2018 10:42:02 GMT 1, Depends on the images you are talking about. Miller's iconic prints are in the price range you quoted. Warhol's iconic prints are in the hundreds of thousands. A Tomato Soup Can will blitz any Harland. You can get a soup can at auction for 20-30k USD.
millers are more expensice than that but a smaller edition i think does make a difference. Milers are 40 50 edition prints where as Warhols are 250 editions.
Your right the tomato and some of the better cans are more expensive but the lesser titles are cheaper.
Similarly you can get a « heroin » Miller print for the price of a bus fare or thereabouts...
No matter how you look at it, if you compare apples to apples there is a rift between the two artists
Depends on the images you are talking about. Miller's iconic prints are in the price range you quoted. Warhol's iconic prints are in the hundreds of thousands. A Tomato Soup Can will blitz any Harland. You can get a soup can at auction for 20-30k USD.
millers are more expensice than that but a smaller edition i think does make a difference. Milers are 40 50 edition prints where as Warhols are 250 editions.
Your right the tomato and some of the better cans are more expensive but the lesser titles are cheaper.
Similarly you can get a « heroin » Miller print for the price of a bus fare or thereabouts... No matter how you look at it, if you compare apples to apples there is a rift between the two artists |
|
|
|
2018: When Miller became more expensive than Warhol. , by adewilliams on Nov 7, 2018 10:42:33 GMT 1, "I've got a Brillo box and I say it's art
It's the same one you can buy at any supermarket
Cause I've got the style it takes"
Songs for Drella - John Cale and Lou Reed
"I've got a Brillo box and I say it's art
It's the same one you can buy at any supermarket
Cause I've got the style it takes"
Songs for Drella - John Cale and Lou Reed
|
|
