[19818914]

Jul 24, 2019 17:05:30 GMT 1 pippyt75 said:

I’m loving these smaller prints like Vote and the Miller. They slot in anywhere.

Made for the walls not the drawers. And easy to move around the home when things get boring.

[hubblebubble]

My smallest Banksy is my most valuable. My smallest Hockney is my most valuable. My smallest Invader is my most valuable. Size and price point are variables. For me, quality, potential longevity and image relevance to the artist's oeuvre are the key drivers when assessing the cost of a work. I don't buy art by the square meter. (Disclosure - I bought a HM 'Boogie')

[lv90210]

Jul 24, 2019 17:56:24 GMT 1 hubblebubble said:

My smallest Banksy is my most valuable. My smallest Hockney is my most valuable. My smallest Invader is my most valuable. Size and price point are variables. For me, quality, potential longevity and image relevance to the artist's oeuvre are the key drivers when assessing the cost of a work. I don't buy art by the square meter. (Disclosure - I bought a HM 'Boogie')

Your small weener as well I would imagine .....

[hubblebubble]

Jul 24, 2019 17:59:25 GMT 1 lv90210 said:

Jul 24, 2019 17:56:24 GMT 1 hubblebubble said:

My smallest Banksy is my most valuable. My smallest Hockney is my most valuable. My smallest Invader is my most valuable. Size and price point are variables. For me, quality, potential longevity and image relevance to the artist's oeuvre are the key drivers when assessing the cost of a work. I don't buy art by the square meter. (Disclosure - I bought a HM 'Boogie')

Your small weener as well I would imagine .....

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water...

[expresspost]

We don't know which images you got, so it is hard to quantify.

It is possible to own a di-faced tenner and a soup cans poster and your statement about banksy would still be true, but misleading about smaller being most valuable.

Jul 24, 2019 17:56:24 GMT 1 hubblebubble said:

My smallest Banksy is my most valuable. My smallest Hockney is my most valuable. My smallest Invader is my most valuable. Size and price point are variables. For me, quality, potential longevity and image relevance to the artist's oeuvre are the key drivers when assessing the cost of a work. I don't buy art by the square meter. (Disclosure - I bought a HM 'Boogie')

[hubblebubble]

Jul 24, 2019 18:24:18 GMT 1 expresspost said:

We don't know which images you got, so it is hard to quantify.

It is possible to own a di-faced tenner and a soup cans poster and your statement about banksy would still be true, but misleading about smaller being most valuable.

Jul 24, 2019 17:56:24 GMT 1 hubblebubble said:

My smallest Banksy is my most valuable. My smallest Hockney is my most valuable. My smallest Invader is my most valuable. Size and price point are variables. For me, quality, potential longevity and image relevance to the artist's oeuvre are the key drivers when assessing the cost of a work. I don't buy art by the square meter. (Disclosure - I bought a HM 'Boogie')

That's exactly my point... it's about the image, not about the size.

I didn't say 'smaller is most valuable'.  Apologies if it came across that way.  I was simply trying to demonstrate, by highlighting pieces from within my own collection, that to say something should be priced less than something else simply because it covers a smaller surface area isn't necessarily the best metric when assessing whether to purchase.

[19818914]

I’m definitely talking about the image quality too. I understand the size discussion all too well.

It just seems we tend to inflate the value of the things we own.