urbanangel
Blank Rank
π¨οΈ 0
ππ» 0
August 2012
|
Dreweatts Art Auctions π¬π§, by urbanangel on May 16, 2008 22:41:31 GMT 1, There are such things in place already, but 9 times out of 10, they aren't worth the paper they're written on...litterally. Basically a 'gentlemens agreement' then rather than a legal contract? Do galleries actively blacklist those who buy to sell? For the sake of clarification, how exactly does buying a gallery piece in 2007 and putting it in an auction in 2008 harm an artist's career? Why is it so frowned upon in the artworld?
No, sometimes they do make you sign a legal agreement.
In very simple (and short) terms, it basically says that if you sell painting 'X' before said date, you must either first offer it back to the gallery, or if you elsewhere, you must pay 'Y' back to them.
It is completely flawed, because the seller only needs 'offer' it back to the gallery first. So you simply offer to the gallery, refuse their offer, and then sell elsewhere. They're complete bullshit. They're in place more so in the US, especially with paintings like Murakami, where can can buy one day, sell the next and make $1m.
They can't force you to sell it back, as that would mean you only loaned / licensed the art in the first place, which of course no one would pay 'X' to do.
Personally i have no issue, never have had an issue, and never will have an issue with people selling work on. For people with smaller budgets, it's the only way they can climb the ladder (very much like moving up the property ladder), and why should it just be limited to people that are better off?
What i do have a bit of an issue with, is people that have absolutely zero interest in art, never have, never will, and are purely buying to sell instantly for a profit, but even then, what can you do?
There is a clear difference between these two types of people. Unfortunately for galleries, it is pretty hard to work out which type of customer is which, until after the flipping has been done.
Saying all of the above, it shows goodwill to offer a piece back to the gallery where you bought it first. 9 times out of 10, they'll tell you to sell it elsewhere, but it shows willing and IMO helps build a stronger relationship with that gallery.
You'll hear 101 different opinions on this subject, and there's no right or wrong answer. More a case of people being reasonable / honest with each other.
You've not killed anyone at the end of the day...common sense needs to prevail.
There are such things in place already, but 9 times out of 10, they aren't worth the paper they're written on...litterally. Basically a 'gentlemens agreement' then rather than a legal contract? Do galleries actively blacklist those who buy to sell? For the sake of clarification, how exactly does buying a gallery piece in 2007 and putting it in an auction in 2008 harm an artist's career? Why is it so frowned upon in the artworld? No, sometimes they do make you sign a legal agreement. In very simple (and short) terms, it basically says that if you sell painting 'X' before said date, you must either first offer it back to the gallery, or if you elsewhere, you must pay 'Y' back to them. It is completely flawed, because the seller only needs 'offer' it back to the gallery first. So you simply offer to the gallery, refuse their offer, and then sell elsewhere. They're complete bullshit. They're in place more so in the US, especially with paintings like Murakami, where can can buy one day, sell the next and make $1m. They can't force you to sell it back, as that would mean you only loaned / licensed the art in the first place, which of course no one would pay 'X' to do. Personally i have no issue, never have had an issue, and never will have an issue with people selling work on. For people with smaller budgets, it's the only way they can climb the ladder (very much like moving up the property ladder), and why should it just be limited to people that are better off? What i do have a bit of an issue with, is people that have absolutely zero interest in art, never have, never will, and are purely buying to sell instantly for a profit, but even then, what can you do? There is a clear difference between these two types of people. Unfortunately for galleries, it is pretty hard to work out which type of customer is which, until after the flipping has been done. Saying all of the above, it shows goodwill to offer a piece back to the gallery where you bought it first. 9 times out of 10, they'll tell you to sell it elsewhere, but it shows willing and IMO helps build a stronger relationship with that gallery. You'll hear 101 different opinions on this subject, and there's no right or wrong answer. More a case of people being reasonable / honest with each other. You've not killed anyone at the end of the day...common sense needs to prevail. |
|
|
|
Dreweatts Art Auctions π¬π§, by paulypaul on May 16, 2008 22:43:18 GMT 1, Basically a 'gentlemens agreement' then rather than a legal contract? Do galleries actively blacklist those who buy to sell? For the sake of clarification, how exactly does buying a gallery piece in 2007 and putting it in an auction in 2008 harm an artist's career? Why is it so frowned upon in the artworld? No, sometimes they do make you sign a legal agreement. In very simple (and short) terms, it basically says that if you sell painting 'X' before said date, you must either first offer it back to the gallery, or if you elsewhere, you must pay 'Y' back to them. It is completely flawed, because the seller only needs 'offer' it back to the gallery first. So you simply offer to the gallery, refuse their offer, and then sell elsewhere. They're complete bulls**t. They're in place more so in the US, especially with paintings like Murakami, where can can buy one day, sell the next and make $1m. They can't force you to sell it back, as that would mean you only loaned / licensed the art in the first place, which of course no one would pay 'X' to do. Personally i have no issue, never have had an issue, and never will have an issue with people selling work on. For people with smaller budgets, it's the only way they can climb the ladder (very much like moving up the property ladder), and why should it just be limited to people that are better off? What i do have a bit of an issue with, is people that have absolutely zero interest in art, never have, never will, and are purely buying to sell instantly for a profit, but even then, what can you do? There is a clear difference between these two types of people. Unfortunately for galleries, it is pretty hard to work out which type of customer is which, until after the flipping has been done. Saying all of the above, it shows goodwill to offer a piece back to the gallery where you bought it first. 9 times out of 10, they'll tell you to sell it elsewhere, but it shows willing and IMO helps build a stronger relationship with that gallery. You'll hear 101 different opinions on this subject, and there's no right or wrong answer. More a case of people being reasonable / honest with each other. You've not killed anyone at the end of the day...common sense needs to prevail.
Good point, well made...
Basically a 'gentlemens agreement' then rather than a legal contract? Do galleries actively blacklist those who buy to sell? For the sake of clarification, how exactly does buying a gallery piece in 2007 and putting it in an auction in 2008 harm an artist's career? Why is it so frowned upon in the artworld? No, sometimes they do make you sign a legal agreement. In very simple (and short) terms, it basically says that if you sell painting 'X' before said date, you must either first offer it back to the gallery, or if you elsewhere, you must pay 'Y' back to them. It is completely flawed, because the seller only needs 'offer' it back to the gallery first. So you simply offer to the gallery, refuse their offer, and then sell elsewhere. They're complete bulls**t. They're in place more so in the US, especially with paintings like Murakami, where can can buy one day, sell the next and make $1m. They can't force you to sell it back, as that would mean you only loaned / licensed the art in the first place, which of course no one would pay 'X' to do. Personally i have no issue, never have had an issue, and never will have an issue with people selling work on. For people with smaller budgets, it's the only way they can climb the ladder (very much like moving up the property ladder), and why should it just be limited to people that are better off? What i do have a bit of an issue with, is people that have absolutely zero interest in art, never have, never will, and are purely buying to sell instantly for a profit, but even then, what can you do? There is a clear difference between these two types of people. Unfortunately for galleries, it is pretty hard to work out which type of customer is which, until after the flipping has been done. Saying all of the above, it shows goodwill to offer a piece back to the gallery where you bought it first. 9 times out of 10, they'll tell you to sell it elsewhere, but it shows willing and IMO helps build a stronger relationship with that gallery. You'll hear 101 different opinions on this subject, and there's no right or wrong answer. More a case of people being reasonable / honest with each other. You've not killed anyone at the end of the day...common sense needs to prevail. Good point, well made... |
|
|
|
Dreweatts Art Auctions π¬π§, by manty on May 16, 2008 23:20:36 GMT 1, Basically a 'gentlemens agreement' then rather than a legal contract? Do galleries actively blacklist those who buy to sell? For the sake of clarification, how exactly does buying a gallery piece in 2007 and putting it in an auction in 2008 harm an artist's career? Why is it so frowned upon in the artworld? No, sometimes they do make you sign a legal agreement. In very simple (and short) terms, it basically says that if you sell painting 'X' before said date, you must either first offer it back to the gallery, or if you elsewhere, you must pay 'Y' back to them. It is completely flawed, because the seller only needs 'offer' it back to the gallery first. So you simply offer to the gallery, refuse their offer, and then sell elsewhere. They're complete bulls**t. They're in place more so in the US, especially with paintings like Murakami, where can can buy one day, sell the next and make $1m. They can't force you to sell it back, as that would mean you only loaned / licensed the art in the first place, which of course no one would pay 'X' to do. Personally i have no issue, never have had an issue, and never will have an issue with people selling work on. For people with smaller budgets, it's the only way they can climb the ladder (very much like moving up the property ladder), and why should it just be limited to people that are better off? What i do have a bit of an issue with, is people that have absolutely zero interest in art, never have, never will, and are purely buying to sell instantly for a profit, but even then, what can you do? There is a clear difference between these two types of people. Unfortunately for galleries, it is pretty hard to work out which type of customer is which, until after the flipping has been done. Saying all of the above, it shows goodwill to offer a piece back to the gallery where you bought it first. 9 times out of 10, they'll tell you to sell it elsewhere, but it shows willing and IMO helps build a stronger relationship with that gallery. You'll hear 101 different opinions on this subject, and there's no right or wrong answer. More a case of people being reasonable / honest with each other. You've not killed anyone at the end of the day...common sense needs to prevail.
Great post, Nice one
Basically a 'gentlemens agreement' then rather than a legal contract? Do galleries actively blacklist those who buy to sell? For the sake of clarification, how exactly does buying a gallery piece in 2007 and putting it in an auction in 2008 harm an artist's career? Why is it so frowned upon in the artworld? No, sometimes they do make you sign a legal agreement. In very simple (and short) terms, it basically says that if you sell painting 'X' before said date, you must either first offer it back to the gallery, or if you elsewhere, you must pay 'Y' back to them. It is completely flawed, because the seller only needs 'offer' it back to the gallery first. So you simply offer to the gallery, refuse their offer, and then sell elsewhere. They're complete bulls**t. They're in place more so in the US, especially with paintings like Murakami, where can can buy one day, sell the next and make $1m. They can't force you to sell it back, as that would mean you only loaned / licensed the art in the first place, which of course no one would pay 'X' to do. Personally i have no issue, never have had an issue, and never will have an issue with people selling work on. For people with smaller budgets, it's the only way they can climb the ladder (very much like moving up the property ladder), and why should it just be limited to people that are better off? What i do have a bit of an issue with, is people that have absolutely zero interest in art, never have, never will, and are purely buying to sell instantly for a profit, but even then, what can you do? There is a clear difference between these two types of people. Unfortunately for galleries, it is pretty hard to work out which type of customer is which, until after the flipping has been done. Saying all of the above, it shows goodwill to offer a piece back to the gallery where you bought it first. 9 times out of 10, they'll tell you to sell it elsewhere, but it shows willing and IMO helps build a stronger relationship with that gallery. You'll hear 101 different opinions on this subject, and there's no right or wrong answer. More a case of people being reasonable / honest with each other. You've not killed anyone at the end of the day...common sense needs to prevail. Great post, Nice one |
|
hlarmy
Junior Member
π¨οΈ 3,199
ππ» 64
November 2007
|
Dreweatts Art Auctions π¬π§, by hlarmy on May 16, 2008 23:38:40 GMT 1, That's interesting, cheers for the insight Urban Angel. I'm surprised that such practices even exist as it must be very hard to enforce when there is clearly a way around it (and a relatively easy one at that!).
I also agree with your comments regarding flippers; I know this has been discussed in the past many times (and trust me I don't want to open a can of worms here!) but many here seem to think that anyone who sells a few prints is automatically a flipper. However a seller can be rightly categorised either as someone who bought with the sole intention of selling in the short-term in order to make a quick profit (and clearly with no interest in art) or one that sells either to refresh his/her collection or simply to move up the so-called ladder. It's the former that pisses me off as it simply serves to prevent true fans of an artist's work from getting a piece that they would love to own and will appreciate 
On a separate note, any views on the second point I made earlier about how the existence of Adam Neate's gallery pieces in recent auctions can damage his career. Why is this?
That's interesting, cheers for the insight Urban Angel. I'm surprised that such practices even exist as it must be very hard to enforce when there is clearly a way around it (and a relatively easy one at that!). I also agree with your comments regarding flippers; I know this has been discussed in the past many times (and trust me I don't want to open a can of worms here!) but many here seem to think that anyone who sells a few prints is automatically a flipper. However a seller can be rightly categorised either as someone who bought with the sole intention of selling in the short-term in order to make a quick profit (and clearly with no interest in art) or one that sells either to refresh his/her collection or simply to move up the so-called ladder. It's the former that pisses me off as it simply serves to prevent true fans of an artist's work from getting a piece that they would love to own and will appreciate On a separate note, any views on the second point I made earlier about how the existence of Adam Neate's gallery pieces in recent auctions can damage his career. Why is this? |
|
urbanangel
Blank Rank
π¨οΈ 0
ππ» 0
August 2012
|
Dreweatts Art Auctions π¬π§, by urbanangel on May 16, 2008 23:54:21 GMT 1, That's interesting, cheers for the insight Urban Angel. I'm surprised that such practices even exist as it must be very hard to enforce when there is clearly a way around it (and a relatively easy one at that!). I also agree with your comments regarding flippers; I know this has been discussed in the past many times (and trust me I don't want to open a can of worms here!) but many here seem to think that anyone who sells a few prints is automatically a flipper. However a seller can be rightly categorised either as someone who bought with the sole intention of selling in the short-term in order to make a quick profit (and clearly with no interest in art) or one that sells either to refresh his/her collection or simply to move up the so-called ladder. It's the former that pisses me off as it simply serves to prevent true fans of an artist's work from getting a piece that they would love to own and will appreciate On a separate note, any views on the second point I made earlier about how the existence of Adam Neate's gallery pieces in recent auctions can damage his career. Why is this?
The problem with forums and if forum members know your eBay ID, is that they tend to see what you're selling, but have no idea what you're buying. Therefore if you're a large buyer, and sell say 10% of your collection in 12 months, you could 'appear' to be a huge flipper, when in fact you're a HUGE buyer and are simply trimming / tidying up your collection.
With regards to the second point, and this is just my opinion, it's a case of too much, too soon.
If Elms for example have worked pretty dam hard to build Adam's career over the last 24 months, then too many pieces appear at auction at once, and there are a few bad results, it 'could' damage two years of hard work by Adam / Elms.
On the other hand, if the results are too good, that has an equally negative effect on Adam's work, as it gives a false 'perceived' value to his pieces, which means people all of a sudden think 'any' Adam Neate s worth 'X', people try to cash in, pieces don't sell, etc , etc.
If you remember Suicide Bombers sold for almost Β£80k but at that time, you could buy primary from Elms for Β£25k to Β£30k. e.g. They didn't up their prices too much / at all.
But they were called by people saying, "I wanna sell my Neate, can you get me Β£60k for it?".
This is ridiculous, as Elms were selling for half that primary. That's the problem an over successful auction causes.
The two following Neates that were entered to Bonhams fetched mid / late Β£30k's. The latter didn't hit reserve. So people might start to think no one wants Neate and then the primary market gets unstable. Hardly fair on Elms / Adam.
A good result for the artist is when it sells for around 20% to 30% over primary. That keeps everything in line and i would argue helps the artist.
What do i know anyway
That's interesting, cheers for the insight Urban Angel. I'm surprised that such practices even exist as it must be very hard to enforce when there is clearly a way around it (and a relatively easy one at that!). I also agree with your comments regarding flippers; I know this has been discussed in the past many times (and trust me I don't want to open a can of worms here!) but many here seem to think that anyone who sells a few prints is automatically a flipper. However a seller can be rightly categorised either as someone who bought with the sole intention of selling in the short-term in order to make a quick profit (and clearly with no interest in art) or one that sells either to refresh his/her collection or simply to move up the so-called ladder. It's the former that pisses me off as it simply serves to prevent true fans of an artist's work from getting a piece that they would love to own and will appreciate On a separate note, any views on the second point I made earlier about how the existence of Adam Neate's gallery pieces in recent auctions can damage his career. Why is this? The problem with forums and if forum members know your eBay ID, is that they tend to see what you're selling, but have no idea what you're buying. Therefore if you're a large buyer, and sell say 10% of your collection in 12 months, you could 'appear' to be a huge flipper, when in fact you're a HUGE buyer and are simply trimming / tidying up your collection. With regards to the second point, and this is just my opinion, it's a case of too much, too soon. If Elms for example have worked pretty dam hard to build Adam's career over the last 24 months, then too many pieces appear at auction at once, and there are a few bad results, it 'could' damage two years of hard work by Adam / Elms. On the other hand, if the results are too good, that has an equally negative effect on Adam's work, as it gives a false 'perceived' value to his pieces, which means people all of a sudden think 'any' Adam Neate s worth 'X', people try to cash in, pieces don't sell, etc , etc. If you remember Suicide Bombers sold for almost Β£80k but at that time, you could buy primary from Elms for Β£25k to Β£30k. e.g. They didn't up their prices too much / at all. But they were called by people saying, "I wanna sell my Neate, can you get me Β£60k for it?". This is ridiculous, as Elms were selling for half that primary. That's the problem an over successful auction causes. The two following Neates that were entered to Bonhams fetched mid / late Β£30k's. The latter didn't hit reserve. So people might start to think no one wants Neate and then the primary market gets unstable. Hardly fair on Elms / Adam. A good result for the artist is when it sells for around 20% to 30% over primary. That keeps everything in line and i would argue helps the artist. What do i know anyway |
|
Bram
Artist
Junior Member
π¨οΈ 2,820
ππ» 296
November 2007
|
Dreweatts Art Auctions π¬π§, by Bram on May 17, 2008 0:00:40 GMT 1, As I understand it, auction houses make their money on commission. They need to draw buyers into the room to have a chance of achieving their commission. If an auction has unattractive pieces at high estimated prices, guess what......If they have attractive pieces at low estimated prices, mission accomplished. In this respect Dreweatts have done a good job. Prices to cover all bases and the big draws (Banksy, Neate, Walker etc) have a good coverage. They have given themselves a fair chance of earning a bit of commission.
From a sellers point of view, they would like to see one major piece by each artist. From a buyers perspective, they would like a big choice of pieces. The fact that there may be too many Neates may neutralise both the commission for Dreweatts and higher sale prices for the seller and thous create a buyers market. That said, I should think these Neates will achieve some good figures as they are superb and I think most people who are into this movement recognise his immense talent.
For me the Dreweatts auction will be Neatmania.
As I understand it, auction houses make their money on commission. They need to draw buyers into the room to have a chance of achieving their commission. If an auction has unattractive pieces at high estimated prices, guess what......If they have attractive pieces at low estimated prices, mission accomplished. In this respect Dreweatts have done a good job. Prices to cover all bases and the big draws (Banksy, Neate, Walker etc) have a good coverage. They have given themselves a fair chance of earning a bit of commission.
From a sellers point of view, they would like to see one major piece by each artist. From a buyers perspective, they would like a big choice of pieces. The fact that there may be too many Neates may neutralise both the commission for Dreweatts and higher sale prices for the seller and thous create a buyers market. That said, I should think these Neates will achieve some good figures as they are superb and I think most people who are into this movement recognise his immense talent.
For me the Dreweatts auction will be Neatmania.
|
|
|
|
skanky
New Member
π¨οΈ 887
ππ» 60
August 2007
|
Dreweatts Art Auctions π¬π§, by skanky on May 17, 2008 0:01:44 GMT 1, I dont think the existence of these pieces in auction will damage his career in any way, he has just had another very successfull show were he raised the bar again. IMO he nailed it under immense pressure after PPP. I agree with the point about Parla not coming to auction but the truly great Neates are being held by serious collectors and will not be surfacing anytime soon.
I dont think the existence of these pieces in auction will damage his career in any way, he has just had another very successfull show were he raised the bar again. IMO he nailed it under immense pressure after PPP. I agree with the point about Parla not coming to auction but the truly great Neates are being held by serious collectors and will not be surfacing anytime soon.
|
|
hlarmy
Junior Member
π¨οΈ 3,199
ππ» 64
November 2007
|
Dreweatts Art Auctions π¬π§, by hlarmy on May 17, 2008 0:14:11 GMT 1, All very informative
Skanky, I do kind of agree with you as surely the quality of the work will prevail over the short term ups and downs (as driven by auction results early in an artists career).
IMO (albeit somewhat inexperienced one!), a few low auction prices should not damage his career too much and may in fact prevent more of his work in future ending up in the wrong hands. If however prices go well above estimate, surely this is more worrying as it is likely to attract the wrong buyers, in it for the wrong reason. Either way, in the long run it is the quality of the work that matters and going by his recent show, this is not likely to be a problem....
All very informative Skanky, I do kind of agree with you as surely the quality of the work will prevail over the short term ups and downs (as driven by auction results early in an artists career). IMO (albeit somewhat inexperienced one!), a few low auction prices should not damage his career too much and may in fact prevent more of his work in future ending up in the wrong hands. If however prices go well above estimate, surely this is more worrying as it is likely to attract the wrong buyers, in it for the wrong reason. Either way, in the long run it is the quality of the work that matters and going by his recent show, this is not likely to be a problem.... |
|
|
|
Dreweatts Art Auctions π¬π§, by manty on May 17, 2008 0:14:58 GMT 1, I dont think the existence of these pieces in auction will damage his career in any way, he has just had another very successfull show were he raised the bar again. IMO he nailed it under immense pressure after PPP. I agree with the point about Parla not coming to auction but the truly great Neates are being held by serious collectors and will not be surfacing anytime soon.
Agree with you about him nailing it with his current show
My bet for 50p is that neither of Neates will pass their reserve at this auction
I dont think the existence of these pieces in auction will damage his career in any way, he has just had another very successfull show were he raised the bar again. IMO he nailed it under immense pressure after PPP. I agree with the point about Parla not coming to auction but the truly great Neates are being held by serious collectors and will not be surfacing anytime soon. Agree with you about him nailing it with his current show My bet for 50p is that neither of Neates will pass their reserve at this auction |
|
Bram
Artist
Junior Member
π¨οΈ 2,820
ππ» 296
November 2007
|
Dreweatts Art Auctions π¬π§, by Bram on May 17, 2008 0:19:07 GMT 1, Manty - I thought the same thing at first. A lot depends upon the type of collectors in the room / phone / net. If the message gets across and all that. But I took another look at the catalogue and those Neates.....well put it this way, if I had a spare 50k knocking about.....
Manty - I thought the same thing at first. A lot depends upon the type of collectors in the room / phone / net. If the message gets across and all that. But I took another look at the catalogue and those Neates.....well put it this way, if I had a spare 50k knocking about.....
|
|
urbanangel
Blank Rank
π¨οΈ 0
ππ» 0
August 2012
|
Dreweatts Art Auctions π¬π§, by urbanangel on May 17, 2008 0:19:10 GMT 1, I have sold a lot at auction. The reserve is key. Low reserve, high hammer - fact.
I had lunch with Bonhams before the Vision 21 sale and they said they wasn't happy with the guide of Β£40k to Β£60k but the seller was insistent. By doing that, he immediately eliminated any buyers that had a budget of less than Β£40k.
If he had of put a reserve of Β£25k to Β£30k i bet you any money, it would have hammered at Β£50k plus.
Rookie mistake by a first time seller i guess.
Personally, i agree with the post above. Great selection for all budgets. Guide okay on most items, some are out. Neate are correct. The orange one should do well, the other not so well IMO.
Spoke to Elms this afternoon about the auction. Wont say what they said, but i think that their only concern, if any, would be whether the auction attracts the same buyers as the larger auction houses do, and whether they'll fill the room. The guides are right, the pieces are medium / strong. The sizes are good. My personal opinion is that the older BC piece may have an effect, but i could be wrong.
I have sold a lot at auction. The reserve is key. Low reserve, high hammer - fact.
I had lunch with Bonhams before the Vision 21 sale and they said they wasn't happy with the guide of Β£40k to Β£60k but the seller was insistent. By doing that, he immediately eliminated any buyers that had a budget of less than Β£40k.
If he had of put a reserve of Β£25k to Β£30k i bet you any money, it would have hammered at Β£50k plus.
Rookie mistake by a first time seller i guess.
Personally, i agree with the post above. Great selection for all budgets. Guide okay on most items, some are out. Neate are correct. The orange one should do well, the other not so well IMO.
Spoke to Elms this afternoon about the auction. Wont say what they said, but i think that their only concern, if any, would be whether the auction attracts the same buyers as the larger auction houses do, and whether they'll fill the room. The guides are right, the pieces are medium / strong. The sizes are good. My personal opinion is that the older BC piece may have an effect, but i could be wrong.
|
|
guest2
Junior Member
π¨οΈ 2,471
ππ» 1
December 2006
|
Dreweatts Art Auctions π¬π§, by guest2 on May 17, 2008 0:23:01 GMT 1, I dont think the existence of these pieces in auction will damage his career in any way, he has just had another very successfull show were he raised the bar again. IMO he nailed it under immense pressure after PPP. I agree with the point about Parla not coming to auction but the truly great Neates are being held by serious collectors and will not be surfacing anytime soon.
I don't think it will harm his career either. Neate is far too good and has a great attitude, paints for himself and is a skater too. (very important)
I'd still rather not see these actual pieces in auction and my point is I knew they would be. Same with the apprentice. I could probably tell you which one will be next also.
I dont think the existence of these pieces in auction will damage his career in any way, he has just had another very successfull show were he raised the bar again. IMO he nailed it under immense pressure after PPP. I agree with the point about Parla not coming to auction but the truly great Neates are being held by serious collectors and will not be surfacing anytime soon. I don't think it will harm his career either. Neate is far too good and has a great attitude, paints for himself and is a skater too. (very important) I'd still rather not see these actual pieces in auction and my point is I knew they would be. Same with the apprentice. I could probably tell you which one will be next also. |
|
urbanangel
Blank Rank
π¨οΈ 0
ππ» 0
August 2012
|
Dreweatts Art Auctions π¬π§, by urbanangel on May 17, 2008 0:27:50 GMT 1, P.S. Actually, just checked the 3 Neates again. The guides should have been Β£25k to Β£30k, not Β£30k to Β£40k.
The BC one should have been Β£10k to Β£15k.
So in fact they are a bit out.
P.S. Actually, just checked the 3 Neates again. The guides should have been Β£25k to Β£30k, not Β£30k to Β£40k.
The BC one should have been Β£10k to Β£15k.
So in fact they are a bit out.
|
|
Bram
Artist
Junior Member
π¨οΈ 2,820
ππ» 296
November 2007
|
Dreweatts Art Auctions π¬π§, by Bram on May 17, 2008 0:34:43 GMT 1, You've got that pretty much spot on UrbanAngel.
If the message gets across, then no problem. how much Dreweatts have spent on this, I'm not sure. I agree with the low estimates, high hammer but I wish someone could explain it. Lets use the example above. The original estimate (driven by the seller) is 40 - 60k and doesn't sell. An auction expert recons that if it had have been 23 - 30k it would have gone for 50k. I 100% agree with the reasoning, but why. The early bidders have no chance of buying it. The winning bidder could have snippered it for 40k (-10) in the 1st scenario. What is the psychology behind it. Very intriguing.
You've got that pretty much spot on UrbanAngel.
If the message gets across, then no problem. how much Dreweatts have spent on this, I'm not sure. I agree with the low estimates, high hammer but I wish someone could explain it. Lets use the example above. The original estimate (driven by the seller) is 40 - 60k and doesn't sell. An auction expert recons that if it had have been 23 - 30k it would have gone for 50k. I 100% agree with the reasoning, but why. The early bidders have no chance of buying it. The winning bidder could have snippered it for 40k (-10) in the 1st scenario. What is the psychology behind it. Very intriguing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dreweatts Art Auctions π¬π§, by carlito on May 17, 2008 0:38:53 GMT 1, interesting stuff urban angel - thanks for the insight into an area I know very little about
also right in the middle - a great piece on flipping, now if just a few of the 'high and mighty - i never sell a damn thing brigade - honest guv' read that and hopefully took it in, this lil forum would be a happier place 
interesting stuff urban angel - thanks for the insight into an area I know very little about also right in the middle - a great piece on flipping, now if just a few of the 'high and mighty - i never sell a damn thing brigade - honest guv' read that and hopefully took it in, this lil forum would be a happier place |
|
Bram
Artist
Junior Member
π¨οΈ 2,820
ππ» 296
November 2007
|
Dreweatts Art Auctions π¬π§, by Bram on May 17, 2008 0:41:29 GMT 1, I tried flipping once. Ended up making a loss......that's right,
I'm a FLIPFLOP ;D
I tried flipping once. Ended up making a loss......that's right,
I'm a FLIPFLOP ;D
|
|
hlarmy
Junior Member
π¨οΈ 3,199
ππ» 64
November 2007
|
Dreweatts Art Auctions π¬π§, by hlarmy on May 17, 2008 0:46:00 GMT 1, It has to come down to supply and demand; if a piece has a low estimate, this will entice a lot more people to do their research and prepare to bid at the auction. A high estimate will simply serve to push people away from auction, rather than pull them in.
Once the bidding starts you will then have those at the higher end willing to pay Β£50k and those at the low end willing to pay Β£30k; however if a low estimate is in place, the lower end bidders will help to push the price up to the estimate (at which point the high end bidders will enter the bidding war). If an estimate is set high, the high end bidder will simply win the auction at a lower price as the demand has not been artificially created by way of a low estimate.
This is probably a simplistic way of looking at it, but if you factor in the adrenaline of an auction and the commitment bidders build up subconsciously you suddenly have a bidding war.
Having said that, surely the last thing Drewetts would want to do is place an estimate too high (as they seem to have done on many of the lots) - wouldn't it be best to go slightly low rather than slighty high?
It has to come down to supply and demand; if a piece has a low estimate, this will entice a lot more people to do their research and prepare to bid at the auction. A high estimate will simply serve to push people away from auction, rather than pull them in.
Once the bidding starts you will then have those at the higher end willing to pay Β£50k and those at the low end willing to pay Β£30k; however if a low estimate is in place, the lower end bidders will help to push the price up to the estimate (at which point the high end bidders will enter the bidding war). If an estimate is set high, the high end bidder will simply win the auction at a lower price as the demand has not been artificially created by way of a low estimate.
This is probably a simplistic way of looking at it, but if you factor in the adrenaline of an auction and the commitment bidders build up subconsciously you suddenly have a bidding war.
Having said that, surely the last thing Drewetts would want to do is place an estimate too high (as they seem to have done on many of the lots) - wouldn't it be best to go slightly low rather than slighty high?
|
|
Bram
Artist
Junior Member
π¨οΈ 2,820
ππ» 296
November 2007
|
Dreweatts Art Auctions π¬π§, by Bram on May 17, 2008 0:50:29 GMT 1, It has to come down to supply and demand; if a piece has a low estimate, this will entice a lot more people to do their research and prepare to bid at the auction. A high estimate will simply serve to push people away from auction, rather than pull them in. Once the bidding starts you will then have those at the higher end willing to pay Β£50k and those at the low end willing to pay Β£30k; however if a low estimate is in place, the lower end bidders will help to push the price up to the estimate (at which point the high end bidders will enter the bidding war). If an estimate is set high, the high end bidder will simply win the auction at a lower price as the demand has not been artificially created by way of a low estimate. This is probably a simplistic way of looking at it, but if you factor in the adrenaline of an auction and the commitment bidders build up subconsciously you suddenly have a bidding war.
Agreed - but it doesnt explain why a piece would go unsold @ 40k when there is a bidder(s) in the room willing to pay 50k
It has to come down to supply and demand; if a piece has a low estimate, this will entice a lot more people to do their research and prepare to bid at the auction. A high estimate will simply serve to push people away from auction, rather than pull them in. Once the bidding starts you will then have those at the higher end willing to pay Β£50k and those at the low end willing to pay Β£30k; however if a low estimate is in place, the lower end bidders will help to push the price up to the estimate (at which point the high end bidders will enter the bidding war). If an estimate is set high, the high end bidder will simply win the auction at a lower price as the demand has not been artificially created by way of a low estimate. This is probably a simplistic way of looking at it, but if you factor in the adrenaline of an auction and the commitment bidders build up subconsciously you suddenly have a bidding war. Agreed - but it doesnt explain why a piece would go unsold @ 40k when there is a bidder(s) in the room willing to pay 50k |
|
nacional
Junior Member
π¨οΈ 1,734
ππ» 227
August 2007
|
Dreweatts Art Auctions π¬π§, by nacional on May 17, 2008 0:54:10 GMT 1, Banksy Soupcan /10 for 4-6 grand. Well low, should be up in the 10-13 bracket IMO.
(probably cause I got one....)
Banksy Soupcan /10 for 4-6 grand. Well low, should be up in the 10-13 bracket IMO.
(probably cause I got one....)
|
|
guest2
Junior Member
π¨οΈ 2,471
ππ» 1
December 2006
|
Dreweatts Art Auctions π¬π§, by guest2 on May 17, 2008 0:57:20 GMT 1, It has to come down to supply and demand; if a piece has a low estimate, this will entice a lot more people to do their research and prepare to bid at the auction. A high estimate will simply serve to push people away from auction, rather than pull them in. Once the bidding starts you will then have those at the higher end willing to pay Β£50k and those at the low end willing to pay Β£30k; however if a low estimate is in place, the lower end bidders will help to push the price up to the estimate (at which point the high end bidders will enter the bidding war). If an estimate is set high, the high end bidder will simply win the auction at a lower price as the demand has not been artificially created by way of a low estimate. This is probably a simplistic way of looking at it, but if you factor in the adrenaline of an auction and the commitment bidders build up subconsciously you suddenly have a bidding war. Agreed - but it doesnt explain why a piece would go unsold @ 40k when there is a bidder(s) in the room willing to pay 50k
With a high estimate poss the bidders with the dosh may get turned off with lack of interest, with a low estimate and the bidding starts at a lowish price the momentum of the auction helps generate confidence and then the big shot steps in and wins the auctions and thinks he's king kong.
Then he gets the bill a week later with a further 20% ontop plus VAT and he realises he's just paid Β£14000 for a pizza box ;D ;D ;D
It has to come down to supply and demand; if a piece has a low estimate, this will entice a lot more people to do their research and prepare to bid at the auction. A high estimate will simply serve to push people away from auction, rather than pull them in. Once the bidding starts you will then have those at the higher end willing to pay Β£50k and those at the low end willing to pay Β£30k; however if a low estimate is in place, the lower end bidders will help to push the price up to the estimate (at which point the high end bidders will enter the bidding war). If an estimate is set high, the high end bidder will simply win the auction at a lower price as the demand has not been artificially created by way of a low estimate. This is probably a simplistic way of looking at it, but if you factor in the adrenaline of an auction and the commitment bidders build up subconsciously you suddenly have a bidding war. Agreed - but it doesnt explain why a piece would go unsold @ 40k when there is a bidder(s) in the room willing to pay 50k With a high estimate poss the bidders with the dosh may get turned off with lack of interest, with a low estimate and the bidding starts at a lowish price the momentum of the auction helps generate confidence and then the big shot steps in and wins the auctions and thinks he's king kong. Then he gets the bill a week later with a further 20% ontop plus VAT and he realises he's just paid Β£14000 for a pizza box ;D ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Dreweatts Art Auctions π¬π§, by manty on May 17, 2008 0:59:36 GMT 1, It has to come down to supply and demand; if a piece has a low estimate, this will entice a lot more people to do their research and prepare to bid at the auction. A high estimate will simply serve to push people away from auction, rather than pull them in. Once the bidding starts you will then have those at the higher end willing to pay Β£50k and those at the low end willing to pay Β£30k; however if a low estimate is in place, the lower end bidders will help to push the price up to the estimate (at which point the high end bidders will enter the bidding war). If an estimate is set high, the high end bidder will simply win the auction at a lower price as the demand has not been artificially created by way of a low estimate. This is probably a simplistic way of looking at it, but if you factor in the adrenaline of an auction and the commitment bidders build up subconsciously you suddenly have a bidding war. Agreed - but it doesnt explain why a piece would go unsold @ 40k when there is a bidder(s) in the room willing to pay 50k
Maybe the guy that would have paid Β£50K bid Β£40k and no one outbid him?
It has to come down to supply and demand; if a piece has a low estimate, this will entice a lot more people to do their research and prepare to bid at the auction. A high estimate will simply serve to push people away from auction, rather than pull them in. Once the bidding starts you will then have those at the higher end willing to pay Β£50k and those at the low end willing to pay Β£30k; however if a low estimate is in place, the lower end bidders will help to push the price up to the estimate (at which point the high end bidders will enter the bidding war). If an estimate is set high, the high end bidder will simply win the auction at a lower price as the demand has not been artificially created by way of a low estimate. This is probably a simplistic way of looking at it, but if you factor in the adrenaline of an auction and the commitment bidders build up subconsciously you suddenly have a bidding war. Agreed - but it doesnt explain why a piece would go unsold @ 40k when there is a bidder(s) in the room willing to pay 50k Maybe the guy that would have paid Β£50K bid Β£40k and no one outbid him? |
|
guest2
Junior Member
π¨οΈ 2,471
ππ» 1
December 2006
|
Dreweatts Art Auctions π¬π§, by guest2 on May 17, 2008 1:00:56 GMT 1, Having said that, surely the last thing Drewetts would want to do is place an estimate too high (as they seem to have done on many of the lots) - wouldn't it be best to go slightly low rather than slighty high?
I think you'll find that the person entering the lot is probably more to blame than the auction house. The seller is worried about loosing money so the bottom estimate is normally the reserve. The auctioneer can usually use their discretion if it's very close to the bottom estimate though.
Having said that, surely the last thing Drewetts would want to do is place an estimate too high (as they seem to have done on many of the lots) - wouldn't it be best to go slightly low rather than slighty high? I think you'll find that the person entering the lot is probably more to blame than the auction house. The seller is worried about loosing money so the bottom estimate is normally the reserve. The auctioneer can usually use their discretion if it's very close to the bottom estimate though. |
|
|
|
Bram
Artist
Junior Member
π¨οΈ 2,820
ππ» 296
November 2007
|
Dreweatts Art Auctions π¬π§, by Bram on May 17, 2008 1:01:40 GMT 1, Agreed - but it doesnt explain why a piece would go unsold @ 40k when there is a bidder(s) in the room willing to pay 50k With a high estimate poss the bidders with the dosh may get turned off with lack of interest, with a low estimate and the bidding starts at a lowish price the momentum of the auction helps generate confidence and then the big shot steps in and wins the auctions and thinks he's king kong. Then he gets the bill a week later with a further 20% ontop plus VAT and he realises he's just paid Β£14000 for a pizza box ;D ;D ;D
and then he's King Dong ;D or King Wrong ;D or if he's Chinese -
King Wong ;D or Peter Stringfellow... King Thong. Or a House DJ...
King Tong...that's it...i'm dry 
Agreed - but it doesnt explain why a piece would go unsold @ 40k when there is a bidder(s) in the room willing to pay 50k With a high estimate poss the bidders with the dosh may get turned off with lack of interest, with a low estimate and the bidding starts at a lowish price the momentum of the auction helps generate confidence and then the big shot steps in and wins the auctions and thinks he's king kong. Then he gets the bill a week later with a further 20% ontop plus VAT and he realises he's just paid Β£14000 for a pizza box ;D ;D ;D and then he's King Dong ;D or King Wrong ;D or if he's Chinese - King Wong ;D or Peter Stringfellow... King Thong. Or a House DJ... King Tong...that's it...i'm dry |
|
|
|
Dreweatts Art Auctions π¬π§, by manty on May 17, 2008 1:01:56 GMT 1, Agreed - but it doesnt explain why a piece would go unsold @ 40k when there is a bidder(s) in the room willing to pay 50k With a high estimate poss the bidders with the dosh may get turned off with lack of interest, with a low estimate and the bidding starts at a lowish price the momentum of the auction helps generate confidence and then the big shot steps in and wins the auctions and thinks he's king kong. Then he gets the bill a week later with a further 20% ontop plus VAT and he realises he's just paid Β£14000 for a pizza box ;D ;D ;D
LOL, and its empty, no bloody pizza , what a swizz
Agreed - but it doesnt explain why a piece would go unsold @ 40k when there is a bidder(s) in the room willing to pay 50k With a high estimate poss the bidders with the dosh may get turned off with lack of interest, with a low estimate and the bidding starts at a lowish price the momentum of the auction helps generate confidence and then the big shot steps in and wins the auctions and thinks he's king kong. Then he gets the bill a week later with a further 20% ontop plus VAT and he realises he's just paid Β£14000 for a pizza box ;D ;D ;D LOL, and its empty, no bloody pizza , what a swizz |
|
guest2
Junior Member
π¨οΈ 2,471
ππ» 1
December 2006
|
Dreweatts Art Auctions π¬π§, by guest2 on May 17, 2008 1:03:20 GMT 1, With a high estimate poss the bidders with the dosh may get turned off with lack of interest, with a low estimate and the bidding starts at a lowish price the momentum of the auction helps generate confidence and then the big shot steps in and wins the auctions and thinks he's king kong. Then he gets the bill a week later with a further 20% ontop plus VAT and he realises he's just paid Β£14000 for a pizza box ;D ;D ;D and then he's King Dong ;D or King Wrong ;D or if he's Chinese - King Wong ;D or Peter Stringfellow... King Thong. Or a House DJ... King Tong...that's it...i'm dry
And he's married to ting tong from tooting!
With a high estimate poss the bidders with the dosh may get turned off with lack of interest, with a low estimate and the bidding starts at a lowish price the momentum of the auction helps generate confidence and then the big shot steps in and wins the auctions and thinks he's king kong. Then he gets the bill a week later with a further 20% ontop plus VAT and he realises he's just paid Β£14000 for a pizza box ;D ;D ;D and then he's King Dong ;D or King Wrong ;D or if he's Chinese - King Wong ;D or Peter Stringfellow... King Thong. Or a House DJ... King Tong...that's it...i'm dry And he's married to ting tong from tooting! |
|
guest2
Junior Member
π¨οΈ 2,471
ππ» 1
December 2006
|
Dreweatts Art Auctions π¬π§, by guest2 on May 17, 2008 1:04:44 GMT 1, With a high estimate poss the bidders with the dosh may get turned off with lack of interest, with a low estimate and the bidding starts at a lowish price the momentum of the auction helps generate confidence and then the big shot steps in and wins the auctions and thinks he's king kong. Then he gets the bill a week later with a further 20% ontop plus VAT and he realises he's just paid Β£14000 for a pizza box ;D ;D ;D LOL, and its empty, no bloody pizza , what a swizz
What a swizz! Love that word - my nans favourite ..god bless her!
With a high estimate poss the bidders with the dosh may get turned off with lack of interest, with a low estimate and the bidding starts at a lowish price the momentum of the auction helps generate confidence and then the big shot steps in and wins the auctions and thinks he's king kong. Then he gets the bill a week later with a further 20% ontop plus VAT and he realises he's just paid Β£14000 for a pizza box ;D ;D ;D LOL, and its empty, no bloody pizza , what a swizz What a swizz! Love that word - my nans favourite ..god bless her! |
|
Bram
Artist
Junior Member
π¨οΈ 2,820
ππ» 296
November 2007
|
Dreweatts Art Auctions π¬π§, by Bram on May 17, 2008 1:05:03 GMT 1, and then he's King Dong ;D or King Wrong ;D or if he's Chinese - King Wong ;D or Peter Stringfellow... King Thong. Or a House DJ... King Tong...that's it...i'm dry And he's married to ting tong from tooting!
wasn't he the Ping Pong champion of Hong Kong?
and then he's King Dong ;D or King Wrong ;D or if he's Chinese - King Wong ;D or Peter Stringfellow... King Thong. Or a House DJ... King Tong...that's it...i'm dry And he's married to ting tong from tooting! wasn't he the Ping Pong champion of Hong Kong? |
|
|
|
Dreweatts Art Auctions π¬π§, by master on May 17, 2008 1:09:01 GMT 1, And he's married to ting tong from tooting! wasn't he the Ping Pong champion of Hong Kong?
king kong went to hong kong to play ping pong with his ding
And he's married to ting tong from tooting! wasn't he the Ping Pong champion of Hong Kong? king kong went to hong kong to play ping pong with his ding |
|
|
|
Dreweatts Art Auctions π¬π§, by darjeeling on May 17, 2008 4:02:52 GMT 1, Once Adam's exposure increases to a worldwide audience I think prices are going MAD. I mean he only creates what, like 50 pieces a year? And he's only been showing in galleries 2 years and is creating works of this caliber - unbelievable!
Are you really serious? As if his retail prices at Β£40-80k aren't completely MAD already?
Yes, exactly, this guy has only been showing in galleries for 2 years and yet his work is being priced as high as artists that have been showing for 10-20 years.
And you guys are seriously surprised that people are cashing in? 
Of course you should cash in. Anyone with half a brain would sell that sh*t. Whether you love or hate Neate's work, it's a high risk investment at these prices. Going to be lots of singed fingers round these parts one day, let me tell ya...
Once Adam's exposure increases to a worldwide audience I think prices are going MAD. I mean he only creates what, like 50 pieces a year? And he's only been showing in galleries 2 years and is creating works of this caliber - unbelievable! Are you really serious? As if his retail prices at Β£40-80k aren't completely MAD already? Yes, exactly, this guy has only been showing in galleries for 2 years and yet his work is being priced as high as artists that have been showing for 10-20 years. And you guys are seriously surprised that people are cashing in? Of course you should cash in. Anyone with half a brain would sell that sh*t. Whether you love or hate Neate's work, it's a high risk investment at these prices. Going to be lots of singed fingers round these parts one day, let me tell ya... |
|
|
|
Dreweatts Art Auctions π¬π§, by griffermans on May 17, 2008 7:26:17 GMT 1, the catalogue seems to have vanished from the site.
the catalogue seems to have vanished from the site.
|
|
