[Matt]

Jul 11, 2019 12:11:10 GMT 1 campfire headphase said:

Jul 11, 2019 7:05:15 GMT 1 coller said:

so what was the actual hammer price before taxes and fees? 20k?

Market is set by what someone is willing to pay

Actually a “market” is set buy what a buyer will agree to pay AND what a seller will agree to receive.

Using an auction price as a method of comparable but leaving out the sell side makes no sense.

This is true for any transaction, including prints.

[coller]

^^^ this

still not posting the hammer price so i will assume it was just 20k

[campfire headphase]

If you were buying a car, the value is set by the asking price and what the buyer pays, not what the car dealership nets from the sale or the manufacturer. That’s not the value. A porsche’s value isn’t set by the sale after all fees are removed from the equation, it’s set by what the buyer pays as they drive off the lot. I don’t know.. I just don’t agree. I can’t say the Jonas print is 20k, because that isn’t what the winner is walking away with it at. It’s actually quite a bit more. My two cents.

[coller]

you're really working hard to avoid saying the hammer price lol

[Unica]

Hammer was 20k, buyer paid 27K. I would think if the buyer could find one for 20k he would of preferred to have paid that rather than the 27k he actually paid.
If and when the seller chooses to sell the print I would think he would have it in his books as paying 27k and not 20k.

[coller]

the value of art is the intersection of how much a buyer is willing to pay x how much a seller is willing to receive. factoring in the price of fees charged by an unnecessary intermediary when valuing art makes zero sense.

in this case, the hammer price was 20k from what i can tell. the seller agreed to sell the artwork for 20k (20k work at 0% artnet commission), and the buyer agreed to pay at least 20k for the work, based on bids. therefore, the point where the two meet is at 20k, not the price after fees and auction commission.

so its 20k as far as i'm concerned. feel free to disagree!

[artylang]

def 20k, barely above retail. Looks like the market is finally waking up.

[Matt]

Jul 11, 2019 13:15:28 GMT 1 campfire headphase said:

If you were buying a car, the value is set by the asking price and what the buyer pays, not what the car dealership nets from the sale or the manufacturer. That’s not the value. A porsche’s value isn’t set by the sale after all fees are removed from the equation, it’s set by what the buyer pays as they drive off the lot. I don’t know.. I just don’t agree. I can’t say the Jonas print is 20k, because that isn’t what the winner is walking away with it at. It’s actually quite a bit more. My two cents.

That example really does not work at all, on a lot of different levels.

I don’t give a crap about this print, but just for the sake of honesty, the buy side of a particular transaction is not the be all and end all for setting the value of another similar or even identical transaction
- the sell side must also be taken into account, creating a window of price points to consider
- a single data point can be a fluke so other comparables need to be taken into account

This is simple economics, it also applies to prints in general, and to this one in particular

[campfire headphase]

So then I’d hammer is 20k, but new owner actually pays 26-27k, what is the ‘value’ in your point of view?

[Unica]

Jul 11, 2019 13:31:01 GMT 1 coller said:

the value of art is the intersection of how much a buyer is willing to pay x how much a seller is willing to receive. factoring in the price of fees charged by an unnecessary intermediary when valuing art makes zero sense.

in this case, the hammer price was 20k from what i can tell. the seller agreed to sell the artwork for 20k (20k work at 0% artnet commission), and the buyer agreed to pay at least 20k for the work, based on bids. therefore, the point where the two meet is at 20k, not the price after fees and auction commission.

so its 20k as far as i'm concerned. feel free to disagree!

Interesting thought process. So if I offered the new owner 22k for his print, would he interpret that as he was making 2k or losing 5k?
Would it not make sense the buyer paid 27k because he could not source one for less, so at the time he was looking to buy the print was worth 27k.  Otherwise why did he not buy one at 20K?

[coller]

Jul 11, 2019 13:41:22 GMT 1 campfire headphase said:

So then I’d hammer is 20k, but new owner actually pays 26-27k, what is the ‘value’ in your point of view?

20k. intersection of what the seller would have accepted and the buyer would have paid.

if i go out tomorrow and buy a JW vote print from an auction house for a million dollars, do you really think that all other vote prints are suddenly worth a million dollars? of course not. would be pretty easy to get rich if that was the case.

[coller]

Jul 11, 2019 13:42:16 GMT 1 Unica said:

Jul 11, 2019 13:31:01 GMT 1 coller said:

the value of art is the intersection of how much a buyer is willing to pay x how much a seller is willing to receive. factoring in the price of fees charged by an unnecessary intermediary when valuing art makes zero sense.

in this case, the hammer price was 20k from what i can tell. the seller agreed to sell the artwork for 20k (20k work at 0% artnet commission), and the buyer agreed to pay at least 20k for the work, based on bids. therefore, the point where the two meet is at 20k, not the price after fees and auction commission.

so its 20k as far as i'm concerned. feel free to disagree!

Interesting thought process. So if I offered the new owner 22k for his print, would he interpret that as he was making 2k or losing 5k?
Would it not make sense the buyer paid 27k because he could not source one for less, so at the time he was looking to buy the print was worth 27k.  Otherwise why did he not buy one at 20K?

he would be losing 5k, in the same way that if you offered the original artnet seller 22k for the print, he would be making an extra 2k.

EDIT: and i think that's actually part of the point - the market is not going to assume the cost that the buyer paid for not sourcing the print outside of an auction house. the buyer x seller price intersection is 20k so the value is 20k, because that is the price that the seller would have sold the print for outside of the auction house in a private transaction.

[campfire headphase]

Jul 11, 2019 13:38:01 GMT 1 Matt said:

Jul 11, 2019 13:15:28 GMT 1 campfire headphase said:

If you were buying a car, the value is set by the asking price and what the buyer pays, not what the car dealership nets from the sale or the manufacturer. That’s not the value. A porsche’s value isn’t set by the sale after all fees are removed from the equation, it’s set by what the buyer pays as they drive off the lot. I don’t know.. I just don’t agree. I can’t say the Jonas print is 20k, because that isn’t what the winner is walking away with it at. It’s actually quite a bit more. My two cents.

That example really does not work at all, on a lot of different levels.

I don’t give a crap about this print, but just for the sake of honesty, the buy side of a particular transaction is not the be all and end all for setting the value of another similar or even identical transaction
- the sell side must also be taken into account, creating a window of price points to consider
- a single data point can be a fluke so other comparables need to be taken into account

This is simple economics, it also applies to prints in general, and to this one in particular

I am curious to hear your thoughts. I am genuinely interested (no snark). I was offered quite a bit more for mine and I said no and on more than one occasion. Having those conversations makes me think that some people are willing to pay more. This was earlier this year. There are other data points that need to be taken into account. I completely agree. In this case, I think it went lower than it should have because it was artnet and in the summer-ish time. People are more aggressive in the spring/fall. You’re not going to find a $90M Hockney or Koons on Artnet auctions because they just don’t have exposure to those kinds of collectors. I think if it was a fall auction at a better house, it would have gone for a lot more.

[Unica]

Jul 11, 2019 13:37:59 GMT 1 artylang said:

def 20k, barely above retail. Looks like the market is finally waking up.

Retail was quite a bit lower on Shelf life, depending on when you were offered it, you may be confusing it with Speaker Life that I believe was 18k.

[coller]

Jul 11, 2019 13:46:17 GMT 1 Unica said:

Jul 11, 2019 13:37:59 GMT 1 artylang said:

def 20k, barely above retail. Looks like the market is finally waking up.

Retail was quite a bit lower on Shelf life, depending on when you were offered it, you may be confusing it with Speaker Life that I believe was 18k.

but i thought we were defining value based on what the buyer paid

[campfire headphase]

Jul 11, 2019 13:42:16 GMT 1 Unica said:

Jul 11, 2019 13:31:01 GMT 1 coller said:

the value of art is the intersection of how much a buyer is willing to pay x how much a seller is willing to receive. factoring in the price of fees charged by an unnecessary intermediary when valuing art makes zero sense.

in this case, the hammer price was 20k from what i can tell. the seller agreed to sell the artwork for 20k (20k work at 0% artnet commission), and the buyer agreed to pay at least 20k for the work, based on bids. therefore, the point where the two meet is at 20k, not the price after fees and auction commission.

so its 20k as far as i'm concerned. feel free to disagree!

Interesting thought process. So if I offered the new owner 22k for his print, would he interpret that as he was making 2k or losing 5k?
Would it not make sense the buyer paid 27k because he could not source one for less, so at the time he was looking to buy the print was worth 27k.  Otherwise why did he not buy one at 20K?

It does make sense, Jingle. If someone could go out and get one for 20k, they could have or would have. But whoever this was couldn’t.They had an option to buy from Fast Gallery at 30k, but they rolled the dice at auction and paid 24k + applicable taxes shipping and insurance too depending on where they were at. If this buyer could have gotten it for under the price with fees and tax etc, they would have. But you can’t. They’re good prints and can’t be had cheaply. Unless maybe the owner is in a distress sale situation. You have to be a little comfortable to shell out 15k for a sheet of paper on release so i don’t see the distress sale happening too often with Jonas collectors...

[campfire headphase]

Jul 11, 2019 13:19:29 GMT 1 coller said:

you're really working hard to avoid saying the hammer price lol

the hammer price is fairly accessible to all and has already been mentioned elsewhere in the thread. There’s no need for me to say it.

[campfire headphase]

Jul 11, 2019 12:48:28 GMT 1 Unica said:

I view the price as the the total price paid, the buyer didn't just pay the hammer price. The buyer paid hammer price and all the fees.
When you buy at auction I assume you also pay buyers premium, ARR and shipping etc
If i'm budgeting to buy at auction I always factor another 30% on top of hammer.

correct.

[coller]

Jul 11, 2019 13:51:45 GMT 1 campfire headphase said:

Jul 11, 2019 13:42:16 GMT 1 Unica said:

Interesting thought process. So if I offered the new owner 22k for his print, would he interpret that as he was making 2k or losing 5k?
Would it not make sense the buyer paid 27k because he could not source one for less, so at the time he was looking to buy the print was worth 27k.  Otherwise why did he not buy one at 20K?

If someone could go out and get one for 20k, they could have or would have. But whoever this was couldn’t.They had an option to buy from Fast Gallery at 30k, but they rolled the dice at auction and paid 24k + applicable taxes shipping and insurance too depending on where they were at. If this buyer could have gotten it for under the price with fees and tax etc, they would have.

you're so close

[Matt]

Jul 11, 2019 13:41:22 GMT 1 campfire headphase said:

So then I’d hammer is 20k, but new owner actually pays 26-27k, what is the ‘value’ in your point of view?

Somewhere in between these two points depending on a variety of factors like who is selling, who is buying, what are the alternative sources, how many middlemen etc...

[coller]

Jul 11, 2019 13:53:39 GMT 1 campfire headphase said:

Jul 11, 2019 13:19:29 GMT 1 coller said:

you're really working hard to avoid saying the hammer price lol

the hammer price is fairly accessible to all and has already been mentioned elsewhere in the thread. There’s no need for me to say it.

hadn't been mentioned before that post, you need an artnet account to access the final price. thanks for your help though.

[artylang]

Always best to view from what the seller receives as the value. Otherwise youre just playing mental gymnastics with your ego.

[19818914]

Definitely what the seller receives.

[Unica]

Where can I get one for 20K?

[19818914]

Jul 11, 2019 14:31:09 GMT 1 Unica said:

Where can I get one for 20K?

That’s your job to find it. The seller got 20k so it’s not unreasonable to think there is another seller out there who would be ok with that.

I don’t mean that in a rude way btw.

[Winter]

I think the value is what the buyer paid not what the seller received. The sites that have data of auction sales are shown as hammer plus buyers fees - this is the figure that is referenced not the amount someone got for the piece.
The initial release price of these was $12k I believe.

[campfire headphase]

Jul 11, 2019 14:50:46 GMT 1 Winter said:

I think the value is what the buyer paid not what the seller received. The sites that have data of auction sales are shown as hammer plus buyers fees - this is the figure that is referenced not the amount someone got for the piece.
The initial release price of these was $12k I believe.

This.

[Matt]

Jul 11, 2019 14:55:25 GMT 1 campfire headphase said:

Jul 11, 2019 14:50:46 GMT 1 Winter said:

I think the value is what the buyer paid not what the seller received. The sites that have data of auction sales are shown as hammer plus buyers fees - this is the figure that is referenced not the amount someone got for the piece.
The initial release price of these was $12k I believe.

This.

Again I don’t Know the value of this actual print, and I find Winter ‘s point interesting but

- the auction price sites I follow (mostly artprice) show hammer AND an estimate of total with fees
- the price with fees is NOT in the strict sense the value of the print. A portion of the value is for the service rendered by the auction house and it is captured by the auction house

So as much as it is a good indicator of value, saying “the buyer paid this so it is the value of the print for any other transaction”...is simply wrong ( and empirically proven wrong more often than not)

[Winter]

When you buy a piece from auction you are factoring in the auction fees as part of what you have to pay for that piece of art. That is the price of the art.
When you go to say Hang Up gallery and buy a Banksy print that they are selling on consignment you don't separate their consignment fee and say the true value of the print is what the seller is getting back - the price of that piece of art is the total of what you are prepared to pay. If that is £50k then that is the value of that piece of art NOT the £40k or whatever the seller receives.

[coller]

matt is correct, i'll just leave it at that.