"Liz" goes $10M below estimate at Christie's. Ouch.

You must be an complete idiot, Jerkstore.

Where do you get your information? Allow me to repost, in its entirety, the NYT article about Christies this morning - and please note that the Liz by Warhol (which not even considered by those 'in the know' to be a particular good Liz painting) owned by Hugh Grant, whose low estimate was $25,000,000, sold for $23,561,000. Please further note that Grant bought the Warhol Liz for $3,500,000 in 2001.

Where the fuck did you pull that $10MM sales number from? Out of your ass? Also note the general tone of the article - to wit -

At an Enthusiastic Christie’s Sale, ‘One Million Dollars Is the New 10 Grand’
By CAROL VOGEL
Despite fears that the art market might finally begin to crack, an overflowing salesroom of enthusiastic bidders last night at Christie’s proved the naysayers wrong as 16 record prices, for artists including Jeff Koons, Gerhard Richter and Lucian Freud, propelled the market for postwar and contemporary art to new heights.

“One million dollars is the new 10 grand,” said Andrew Fabricant, a Manhattan dealer, as he left the salesroom. “This was supernatural.”

In addition to the regular collectors and dealers, there was some star power in the audience, too. Sarah Jessica Parker sat in the second row, seeming to hang on every bid. Marc Jacobs, the fashion designer, was hard to miss with his blue hair, bright green scarf and diamond earrings. And upstairs, secreted away in a sky box, were Hugh Grant and Elizabeth Hurley.

Mr. Grant was there for more than entertainment. Christie’s had splashed his Warhol, a celebrated 1963 image of Elizabeth Taylor, across its advertisements for last night’s auction and put it on the catalog’s cover.

The 40-inch-square painting is from a series of 13, each with a different-colored background. Mr. Grant’s “Liz” is set against a deep turquoise blue and carried an estimate of $25 million to $35 million.

Few expected it to sell, because the image is considered heavy-handed and not as sharp as the others in the series. Yet Christie’s had given Mr. Grant a guarantee — an undisclosed sum to be paid regardless of the sale’s outcome — said to be $20 million.

Two bidders competed for the painting, which sold for $21 million, or $23.5 million including Christie’s buyer’s premium. It was a good investment for the actor, who bought it in 2001 for $3.5 million at Sotheby’s New York.

Although “Liz” sold below its estimate, it fetched the second-highest price of the evening. The entire sale produced a strong total: $325 million, against an estimate of $271.2 million to $373.3 million. Of the 66 works offered, all but five sold. (Final prices include Christie’s commission: 25 percent of the first $20,000, 20 percent of the next $20,000 to $500,000 and 12 percent of the rest. Estimates do not reflect commissions.)

David Rockefeller’s success last spring in selling his 1950 Rothko for $72.8 million, a record price for the artist, has drawn many more Rothkos to auction. “Untitled (Red, Blue, Orange),” a classic abstract canvas from 1955, became the most expensive work of the evening.

Five bidders tried for the painting, which sold to a telephone bidder for $34.2 million, against a high estimate of $30 million.

Another Rothko, “No. 7 (Dark Over Light),” a black, orange and cream 1954 canvas estimated at $20 million to $30 million, fared less well. A telephone bidder was able to buy it for $18.7 million ($21 million including the premium). It was not the only work that barely sold. Jeff Koons’s “Diamond (Blue),” measuring 7 feet wide and nearly 8 feet tall, has rested on its four gold-colored prongs outside Christie’s in Rockefeller Center for weeks now.

But it drew only one bidder. Larry Gagosian, the Manhattan dealer who represents the artist, bought the polished and colored stainless steel sculpture for $11.8 million, under its $12 million estimate. Still, the price was a record for the artist at auction.

A 1992 painting by Lucian Freud got a far more enthusiastic reception. “Ib and Her Husband,” a 1992 portrait of the artist’s daughter Isobel and Pat Costelloe nestled on a bed, brought $19.3 million, another record price. The seller was Janet Ketcham, a Seattle collector. The catalog listed the estimate as “on request,” but auction house experts had expected the painting to bring $16 million to $18 million.

Betting on the strength of the market, Kent Logan, a San Francisco collector, offered “Burning Gas Station,” a 1965-66 painting by Ed Ruscha. His gamble paid off. The painting, which was estimated at $4 million to $6 million, was snapped up by Mr. Gagosian for $6.9 million, another record price.

Norman and Norah Stone, also from San Francisco, were the sellers of “Piney Woods Nurse” (2002) by Richard Prince, whose retrospective is now at the Guggenheim Museum.

Mr. Prince also scored a record price. The painting was bought by Jay Jopling, the London dealer, for $6 million, soaring above its $2.2 million high estimate.

Mr. Richter’s photo-based painting “Düsenjäger” (1963), a depiction of a cruising jet plane from the collection of Susan and Lewis Manilow of Chicago, was estimated at $10 million to $15 million. It sold to a telephone bidder for $11.2 million, a record for the artist at auction.

Laurence Graff, the London jeweler, was among the evening’s busiest buyers. Sitting in the front row, he snapped up several classic images by Warhol and Basquiat. For “Elvis 2 Times,” a 1963 Warhol based on a publicity image for the movie “Flaming Star,” he paid $14 million, or $15.7 million with the premium. He also bought a 1982 painting by Basquiat titled “Sugar Ray Robinson,” a brightly colored hulking figure in shorts and gloves, for $6.5 million ($7.3 million with premium), against its $6 million to $8 million estimate.

“I got some nice things,” Mr. Graff said as he was leaving Christie’s after the sale. “I was particularly pleased by the ‘Sugar Ray’ Basquiat. I was prepared to go much higher.”

You know, that was so much fun, let's just review again together, shall we, Jerkass (oops, I mean Jerkstore) -

The Liz by Warhol that you mentioned in your headline as selling for $10MM (idiot), whose low estimate was $25,000,000 -

was bought in 2001 for $3,500,000

and sold las night for for $23,561,000.

Come out, come out, wherever y-*OOF*! *OOF*! *OOF*! *OOF*! *OOF*! *OOF*!

"At an Enthusiastic Christie’s Sale...One Million Dollars Is the New 10 Grand...enthusiastic bidders last night at Christie’s proved the naysayers wrong as 16 record prices,...propelled the market for postwar and contemporary art to new heights...This was supernatural...The entire sale produced a strong total: $325 million, against an estimate of $271.2 million to $373.3 million. Of the 66 works offered, all but five sold..."

Come out, come out, wherever y-*OOF*! *OOF*! *OOF*! *OOF*! *OOF*! *OOF*!

BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh, gee whiz, and now another article from Barron's that was on Bloomberg this morning regarding last night's auction at Christie's with the $10MM (oops - $23.5MM) Liz. Some bullet point quotes from the article -

Lucian Freud, Jeff Koons, Richard Prince and nine other artists
broke auction records last night at Christie's International in
New York, easing concern that an 11-year bull market in art
may be ending.

U.S. bidders dominated the $325 million auction, the second-
largest ever for postwar and contemporary art, and only five
of the 67 lots failed to sell.
.
``It was the world's shortest recession,'' said New York
dealer Marc Glimcher of PaceWildenstein, after the sale.

``I'm stunned,'' dealer Barbara Gladstone said. ``Clearly
people wanted to buy.''

Jeff Koons's ``Diamond (Blue),'' a 7-foot-tall stainless-
steel sculpture resembling a faceted stone in a setting, sold
for $11.8 million. It was a record for the artist even though the
price didn't reach the $12 million-$20 million presale estimate.
Koons's ``Diamond'' sat on the sidewalk outside Christie's
Rockefeller Center headquarters before the auction and received
frequent cleaning to remove traces of dirt, rain and bird
droppings. The massive piece was completed just last year and sold
at Gagosian's gallery for about $3.5 million, dealers said.

Last night's sale followed the U.S. stock market's biggest
one-day rally in almost two months, as the Dow Jones Industrial
Average surged 2.5 percent. Sotheby's stock gained 7.2 percent.
With 51 lots selling for more than $1 million, the influence of
Wall Street's multi-billion-dollar losses linked to subprime home
loans wasn't apparent. ``It doesn't look like a lot of these people
were holding subprime paper,'' dealer Perry Rubenstein said.

anoone3 - you clearly have too much time on your hands.

Yes, cmstuk - it took all of ten minutes (total) to slam the idiot OP buy cutting and pasting a couple of articles the OP should have read in the first place before they opened their big mouth. And was it worth it! Guess it's hard when you see your idiot friends shot down so easily and crashing into a heap of flames, huh?

Poor baby...

Thanks for proving my point.

Wow - why so angry, cmstuk - looks like YOU'VE got too much times on your hands - being that I was actually engaging in a pointed debate with the OP, and all you're doing is randomly flaming people...

Or are you actually stupid enough to post yet again?

I can play cut-n-paste, too:

"...carried an estimate of $25 million to $35 million" (there's your $10M, moron.)

"It was a record for the artist even though the price didn't reach the $12 million-$20 million presale estimate."

"Another Rothko, “No. 7 (Dark Over Light),” a black, orange and cream 1954 canvas estimated at $20 million to $30 million, fared less well."

"But it drew only one bidder. Larry Gagosian, the Manhattan dealer who represents the artist..." (neat - a self-sustaining market!)

Unlike Beckett, I can go on. My point was that ESTIMATES -- like real estate asking prices -- are out of whack. And I proved my point. Good for me.

Go admire your Wal-Mart Chagall, loser.

First of all, Chagall was last week in the Impressionist auctions, dumbass. But it doesn't surprise me that you wouldn't know that.

Please notice I print the entire article. You can cut and paste all you want - it's so easy for you to make stuff up, isn't it, poor baby? The Liz sold $10MM below it's HIGH estimate (oh - gee whiz - you 'forgot' that one little word 'high,' didn't you?). If the estimate is $25MM-$35MM, it basically sold at estimate, asshat.

And my favorite idiot quote of your is as follows "...My point was that ESTIMATES -- like real estate asking prices -- are out of whack. And I proved my point. Good for me..." So let's review, once again, because you're a complete idiot - from the NYT article "...The entire sale produced a strong total: $325 million, against an estimate of $271.2 million to $373.3 million. Of the 66 works offered, all but five sold..."

SO the LOW estimate for the entire sale? - $271MM

The HIGH estimate for the entire sale? - $373MM

The ACTUAL amount of the sale? - $325MM - SMACK IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ESTIMATE!! WITH OVER 90% SOLD!!

So I'm just going to ask you one more time, idiot - how is it that you're stupid enough to say "...My point was that ESTIMATES -- like real estate asking prices -- are out of whack. And I proved my point..." How are the estimates 'out of whack (sic)' when the sales total is EXACTLY in the middle of the low and high esimated total.

We breathlessly await you answer to this impossible puzzle.....

"(sic)" Really? English much, Mr. Culture?

I love getting pumper idiots wound up. It's so easy.

Yes, seems like he or she is pretty easy to bait. The only other poster I've ever seen put that much time, effort and vitirol into their responses is Pseudonym.

ain't it obvious folks?

anoone3 = spunky = pseudonym = jobless = so posts all day long

http://curbed.com/archives/2007/11/12/your_morning_credit_crunch_about_that_slump.php

Jerkstore - you still didn't respond to the primary assertion -

The LOW estimate for the entire sale? - $271MM

The HIGH estimate for the entire sale? - $373MM

The ACTUAL amount of the sale? - $325MM - SMACK IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ESTIMATE!! WITH OVER 90% SOLD!!

So I'm just going to ask you one more time, idiot - how is it that you're stupid enough to say "...My point was that ESTIMATES -- like real estate asking prices -- are out of whack. And I proved my point..." How are the estimates 'out of whack (excellent spelling)' when the sales total is EXACTLY in the middle of the low and high esimated total.

I mean, seriously - are you just reduced to parsing syntax/spelling at this point, or are you going to finally admit you're wrong about the primary assertion in your post? And yes, I'll give you the award for best spelling on streeteasy.com.

And just wait until after tonight's sale at Sotheby's - oh my god - you're going to look even more stupid than you currently do.

It's so pathetic

spunky/anoone3 - what a sad sad individual. the less people listen to him, the louder he yells. sad.

okay, you, poor delicate creatures, i'll *whisper* so as not to inflame your delicate sensibilities....

the low estimate for the entire sale? - $271mm

The high estimate for the entire sale? - $373mm

The actual amount of the sale? - $325mm - smack in the middle of the estimate - with over 90% sold!!

so i'm just going to ask you one more time, idiot - how is it that you're stupid enough to say "...My point was that estimates -- like real estate asking prices -- are out of whack. And I proved my point..." How are the estimates 'out of whack' when the sales total is exactly in the middle of the low and high esimated total.

there, is that better for you, little babies?

you don't get it spunky/anoone3. we don't care how loudly or softly you speak.

we don't care.

CUT TO: anoone3, sweaty, alone and seething with self-hatred, desperately hitting "refresh" on streeteasy while navigating auction websites in other open windows.

INSERT: Post-It stuck to computer monitor:

"Mondays: spunky
Tuesdays: pseudonym
Wednesdays: anoone3
Thursdays..."

CUT TO: Jerkstore (combing through the auction results first thing early tomorrow morning, desperately trying to prop up his idiot assertions about the art market collapsing when Sotheby's sale is as strong [or stronger] than Christies was last night).

INSERT: Post-it stuck to computer monitor:

Wednesday: try to slag Christies sale (oh well, it did too well, and I was unable in the end to actually retort anoone3's assertions so now all I can do is resort to flame hate mail).

Thursday: try to slag Sotheby's sale (oh well, if it does too well, and I am still unable in the end to actually retort anoone3's assertions, I'll just resort again to flame hate mail).

Friday: try to slag Phillip'ss sale (oh well, if it does too well, and I am still unable in the end to actually retort anoone3's assertions, I'll just resort again to flame hate mail).

Isn't it obvious, folks? Jerkstore = faustus = cmtsuk

Liz for 23.5 million? She isn't even naked.

Rothkos for tens of millions? They look like my bedsheets.

Excuse me while I go rummage through my garage, see what I can dig up for the next sucker sale. If I can't find anything, at least I can splatter some old paint on a canvas and try to pass if off for a Pollock. What do those go for? 70-100 million?

I was just thinking almost the same thing, Rothko’s "Untitled (Red, Blue, Orange)", does look a lot like one of my comforters.

What does this have to do with real estate????

Bonzo:

Great Pollocks sell for upwards of $100,000,000 - $140,000,000.

Just wait 'til the news comes out tomorrow regarding Sotheby's evening sale.

Just wait for it, jerkstore=cmtsuk=faustus.

Dear jerkstore=cmtsuk=faustus/jock-sniffer:

Good morning! Would you care to comment on last night's Contemporary sale at Sotheby's? Why don't I allow you to digest things first this morning, rather than just ramming them down your throat.

faustus can't get spunky out of his mind. I love it.

Haey Fasutus boo spunky is here, there and everywhere. Everyone other than you is spunky.

That's pretty funny. So, spunk, you're obviously insisting that you aren't anoone3. You know what, I believe you.

Given how impetuously juvenile and uncreative in their comebacks anoone3 is, I figured it was spunky, but now I suppose I agree with masterQ - must be pseudonym.

faustus how do you know that you're you. You could actually be someone else. You may in fact be a figment of you're own imagination. Who know you can actually be MMAfia. That's the the guy who walks around his rental in his sleeveless tank top boxer shorts with knee high black socks and black shoes with a cigar in his mouth. Renting of course in some dumpy place in Elizabeth NJ complaining on high Manhattan apt prices are too high and how he's sitting on a slush fund made mostly of gold bullion.
That could be you faustus or maybe your this other jerkoff who goes by the name of faustus.

ah spunky, I'll just let that mystery continue to torture you...

Well, since jerkstore/cmtsuk/faustus/jock-sniffer has magically seemed to suddenly go into complete radio silence regarding the original posting that this thread was about (isn't that simply amazing?), allow us to have a NYT review of the second sale taht took place last night at Sotheby's. Read it and weep....

Big Prices for Bacon Paintings Lead Sales of $315.9 Million, a Record Total for Sotheby’s

By CAROL VOGEL

The art world continued its shopping spree last night at Sotheby’s, where contemporary-art collectors and dealers dropped a cool $315.9 million — a record auction total for Sotheby’s — on everything from a sculpture of a bright red heart to a somber painting of a bullfight to an image of an electric chair.

The two-hour bonanza seemed to build on the froth of Christie’s postwar and contemporary sale Tuesday night, which brought in $325 million. Of the 71 lots offered at Sotheby’s, only 6 failed to sell. “On Tuesday night, people didn’t know what to expect,” Philippe Ségalot, a Manhattan dealer who bought several works for three different clients, said at Sotheby’s. “But tonight the mood was far better.”

The auction was punctuated by two standout paintings by Francis Bacon in which Sotheby’s had invested some $60 million in guarantees. (A guarantee is a sum that the auction house promises to the seller regardless of a sale’s outcome.) It was a gamble, but it paid off.

“Second Version of Study for Bullfight No. 1” (1969), on a theme that Bacon was obsessed with, was the evening’s most expensive painting, selling for $45.9 million.

Four bidders went for the bullfight painting, and the victor was Mr. Ségalot. He said later that he was bidding on behalf of an American client whom he declined to name.

Sotheby’s had predicted that the canvas would go for about $35 million, although it did not provide an official sales estimate in the catalog.

Bidding was just as intense for a 1969 Bacon self-portrait in which the artist rendered his face in a swirling mix of bone and sinew, with haunting deep-set eyes. Like “Bullfight,” that painting did not carry a printed estimate, although experts said that they expected the self-portrait to bring $15 million to $20 million.

Three telephone bidders ended up competing with one another until Oliver Barker, a Sotheby’s expert, bought the painting for $33 million. (All that was revealed about the buyer was his paddle number, L0010.)

“Hanging Heart (Magenta/Gold)” a monumental bright red sculpture by Jeff Koons that adorned the cover of Sotheby’s auction catalog, went for $23.5 million.

One of five versions by the artist, each in a different color, it was being sold by the Manhattan collector Adam Lindeman. Sotheby’s had estimated it would bring $15 million to $20 million; the hammer price without premium was $21 million.

The Manhattan dealer Larry Gagosian beat four other contenders, paying $23.5 million with Sotheby’s commission and breaking the record price for the artist, set the previous evening.

Mr. Gagosian represents Mr. Koons, and on Tuesday night at Christie’s, he bought Mr. Koons’s giant sculpture “Blue Diamond” for $11.8 million. It was not known whether he was acting for a client or buying for his own gallery stock in either purchase.

One of the evening’s biggest consigners was Helyn D. Goldenberg, a Chicago representative for Sotheby’s, and her husband, Ralph. Among the most prominent works offered by the couple was Warhol’s “Self-Portrait (Green Camouflage),” a 1986 painting in which the artist’s face is glimpsed behind a gray, green and yellow pattern.

Three bidders competed for the painting, which went to a telephone bidder for $11 million, or $12.3 million including Sotheby’s premium, after an estimate of $9 million to $12 million.

Some paintings by Rothko have brought healthy prices this week. Last night, a gray-and-black canvas by Rothko sold for $10.7 million, against its estimate of $12 million to $18 million. (The price with premium was $12 million.) The sellers were the Iowa collectors John and Mary Pappajohn, who had bought the canvas at Christie’s for $800,000 in 1996.

Sotheby’s essentially won a Rothko duel: on Tuesday night, Christie’s offered a very similar 1969 gray-and-black painting by Rothko of similar dimensions. (Both measured 60 by 68 inches.) Christie’s sold for just $9.5 million, or $10.6 million including premium.

This was also a good week for the sculptor John Chamberlain. Last night “Big E,” a twisted amalgam of painted and chromium-plated steel automobile parts from 1962, was a hot commodity. Three bidders wanted the piece, and the dealer Robert Mnuchin landed it for $4.1 million ($4.6 million with premium), well above its $3 million high estimate and a record price for the artist at auction.

Basquiats have commanded strong prices recently, too. Last night, six people went for “Untitled (Electric Chair),” a large canvas (66 by 96 1/4 inches) from 1982 of graffiti and a cartoonish figure in an executioner’s chair against a bright yellow background. Estimated at $8 million to $10 million, it was snapped up by a telephone bidder for $10.5 million, or $11.8 million with premium. An untitled Basquiat from 1981 that was being sold by Peter Brant, the Greenwich, Conn., publisher, was estimated at $7 million to $9 million. A telephone bidder bought it for $6.9 million, or $7.7 million including Sotheby’s commissions.

Ellsworth Kelly’s work only occasionally comes to auction, and last night his “Spectrum VI,” a group of 13 single-color canvases arranged in a horizontal row, was on offer. Three people went after it, and it sold for $4.6 million, or $5.1 million with commission, marginally above its low estimate. Still, it was a record price for the artist.

This season, Chinese artists have made their way into the huge contemporary art auctions rather than being ghettoized in Asian art sales. Many fetched record prices last night. Zhang Xiaogang’s “Family Portrait,” a figurative work from his “Bloodline Series” inspired by 1920s photographs, brought $4.4 million ($4.9 million including premium), well above its $2.5 million to $3.5 million estimate.

After the sale, Sotheby’s staff members could not conceal their euphoria, especially after a poor showing at its Impressionist and modern art sale last week and a plunge in its stock price.

Looking relieved, Tobias Meyer, the evening’s auctioneer and director of its contemporary art department worldwide, said, “There was high-quality hunger from a global community.”

Hey jerkstore/cmtsuk/faustus/jock-sniffer:

Don't pull damage what's left of your brain trying to spin those results from last night - we wouldn't want you to hurt yourself!

$325MM from Christie's Contmporary evening sale (their second largest total ever) + $315MM from Sotheby's Contemporary evening sale (a new all-time record high for them) = $640,000,000 worth of contemporary art sold in two nights.

And mind you, this total doesn NOT include the total amounts from the two day sales at Christies (which was ANOTHER $92MM!), the two day sales at Sothebys (taking place today as I write this), or any of the Phillips results (tonight and tomoorow) at this point. This will be an all-time record week for the Contemporary art sales - between $750,000,000 and $1,000,000,000 total sales in three or four days.

How does it feel to be so misinformed and so completely wrong about something? God, for your own sake, I really hope you don't 'invest' in the market or real estate, either. With your sense of timing and depth of understanding, you'll be doing handjobs for crack behind buildings with that kind of predictive track record.

Is this easy or what?

Very easy - to see what an idiot you are.

Interesting that your tone has turned from the initial post you used to explain how the art market was 'crashing.' Now that your OP has been rendered moot (I notice that you've still not responding to the sales results now at all), all you can do now is assume a sarcastic posture by flaming me.

Is that really all you are reduced to? Can you even be reasonable enough to admit you simply pulled the trigger too soon in your OP, and that you made an error in judgment? Or is all you have left random sarcasm and anger?

Jerkstore your name fits your responses.

Experiment/Competition: see how few words you have to use to elicit a 500 word ranting response from anoone3 / Ps(ycho)eudonym.

Me first.

Anoone3, you suck ass.

pathetic...

499 to go.

Let's play another game - how many words we have to use to continue eliciting anything but an on-point non-flaming response from jerkstore/cmtsuk/faustus/masterq to their original post.

I'm betting.... zero.

Oh, and sticking to the point of this OP, and not all the angry random flaming from jerkstore/cmtsuk/faustus/masterq, Sotheby's just posted the results from their morning sale of contemporary art today (this afternoon is still in progress).

Add another $68,000,000 to this weeks take, bringing the current total to about $800,000,000 in 48 hours so far, with four auctions still to report. This will be a record, highest grossing week ever for the Contemporary art sales.

and what the hell does this have to do with real estate?

Those who consume real estate at the prices demanded by Manhattan are also consumers of luxury goods, most notably fine art - and, in particular, Impressionist and (to a far greater extent) Contemporary Art. The Art market, while not having a direct correlational effect to Manhattan real estate, does provide a good barometer of general market sentiment, and is one possible way (among many) of taking the temperature of those who are invested in both.

The general rule of thumb is to not only look at the amounts of art sold in terms of dollars, but also in terms of percentages sold. If over 90% of the evening auction sales have sold, that's considered a very hot market. If 80%-90% of the art in the evening sales sell, that's considered healthy, and normal. If 70%-80% of the art in the evening sales sell, it's less than ideal, and is a definite sign of weakness bordering on serious trouble. In the rare case where less than 70% of an evening auction sale sells, that would be considered an unmitigated disaster - basically, a crash of epic proportions.

This only applies to the evening Impressionist and Contemporary sales. Some other sales (like rugs, or antiquities) regularly sell only 60% of there sales (or less), and that's considered absolutely the norm. I'm only discussing Impressionist and Contemporary Evening sales.

keep ranting ... noone cares about this topic (except you), even though I'm sure you're right that the art market is still doing well. It's laughable you'd waste so much of your time screaming about this.

cmtsuk - what is your issue? Why are you so angry?

anny23 asked a reasonable question, and I was trying to dignify this question with an honest and straight-forward factual answer. Nothing in my answer was remotely directed at you!

Why must you persist in ONLY personal attacks and flaming when this last Q/A had absolutely nothing to do with you?

And why is an on point, well-written, response so threatening to you that you continue describe my last post as a "rant?"

YOU answer instead - what DOES the health/nonhealth of the Contemporary/Impressionist Art market have to potetially do with real estate prices in Manhattan? Seriously - do you think there is any correlation, or not?

When all is said and done, $850,000,000+ in four days of Contemporary auctions. A new record high.

To paraphrase the aptly named Jerkstore who began this thread with his one-liner rant -

"...OUCH. Come out, come out, wherever y-*OOF*!..."

This has to be one of the most retarded, useless threads ever on streeteasy.

Then say 'hats off!' to Jerkstore for originating it.

I guess I called it too early. Wait: what's this...?

[CUT TO: anoone3, googling "econ 101 AND risk"]

Not a pretty picture: Auction houses adding more risk to balance sheets
How Christie's, Sotheby's stoke art pipeline by guaranteeing prices. Shades of subprime?

By Matthew Quinn
November 19, 2007

The booming art market shook off some fears by investors last week that it too is headed for a fall, as both Christie's and Sotheby's pulled off two huge—and by all accounts successful—auctions of contemporary art. Yet the art business is becoming an increasingly risky one for the auction houses, since, more and more, they put their own balance sheets at risk to help keep the market hot.

Last week's auctions came as a particular relief, coming just one week after Sotheby's Impressionist sale missed the low end of estimates by more than 20%, sending its shares down 28% in one day. Shares of Sotheby's were further battered that same week when the firm disclosed it had lost $14.6 million on guarantees for the Impressionist sale, highlighting the risk auction houses are taking on.

Guarantees, in which the auction house promises a seller a minimum price, have become a common tool to attract sellers—but at a cost. “It's a way for them to get business if they're willing to take the merchandising risk of possibly owning that art,” said Sheldon Kaye, executive vice president at asset-based lender Rosenthal & Rosenthal. “They're going to keep offering them up until they get burned real bad.”

The allure of guaranteed prices has the effect of bringing out more sellers. It could be considered akin to the easy finance terms being offered by investment banks not long ago that pushed high-yield bond and loan issuance to record levels, not to mention the rise of the subprime mortgage. Of course, once buyers of that debt had their fill, banks were left holding it and faced with putting it on their balance sheets, a proposition the auction houses are increasingly bumping up against as they extend more guarantees.

Both Christie's and Sotheby's, the two largest auction houses, increased their limit on guarantees to $500 million this year. Sotheby's, the one of the two that is public, said it has outstanding guarantees of roughly $458 million for art being offered in the fourth quarter of 2007 and the first half of next year, compared with total assets of $1.3 billion, according to its third-quarter earnings filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In its third-quarter filing last year, the company had just $173 million outstanding for a similar time period.

Offering guarantees serves not only as a means of attracting sellers, but also as a revenue source. If the price exceeds the guarantee, the seller and the auction house share the difference. In its third-quarter earnings announcement, Sotheby's chief executive Bill Ruprecht said, “with respect to guarantees, we have made money on our overall guarantee portfolio year after year, and despite the losses recorded in the third quarter, it is our current expectation that we will make money on an aggregate basis this year as well.”

That of course assumes a rising market. “Guarantees have been growing as a percentage of total sales—no problem in a rising price environment but an issue if momentum slows,” wrote Bank of America analyst Dana E. Cohen in a recent note to investors.

Exactly where the art market is heading is always a matter for debate. Given the glum overall outlook for the economy, observers worry about a pullback by some investors, including hedge fund managers, several of whom have become big players in the art world, including Steven A. Cohen of SAC Capital and Citadel Investment Group's Kenneth Griffin.

By providing guarantees, the auction houses “are betting to a certain degree on the upside and strength of the market,” said Steve Pincus, managing director of the DeWitt Stern Group, which specializes in risk assessment and insurance for art.

Though auction houses are taking on more balance-sheet risk at a time when traditional lenders would like less, assessing the value of a Van Gogh or a Matisse is somewhat different from figuring out whether a borrower can pay his or her mortgage once it resets.

“This is tangible property,” said Mr. Pincus, “and not the securitization of an income stream off a mortgage where [the investors] don't know what they really have.” FW

URL for this article:
http://www.financialweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071119/REG/711190315/1004/COMPLIANCEGOVERNANCE

Jerkstore:

The information in this article very, very, very old news to anybody familiar with the Art market.
I think the most valuable commentary is the last two small paragraphs. Basically, they're saying that they have no friggin' clue. Which is a fair and reasonable statement to make, I think.

My only point initially was that you totally and absolutely jumped the gun this time calling a bottom, and in addition, you were a total ass about it. The truth is that you know absolutely, positively nothing about the Art market - which, of course, is totally fine. But trying to offer informed, reasoned commentary about something you don't know at all is totally ignorant. You're not familiar with the behind-the-scenes backroom winks-and-handshakes taking place, you don't know where this property really comes from or who is really buying or selling it, you don't know what part of the market is being propped up artificially through manipulation by those with vested interests, you don't know which property is 'good' quality and which is 'bad,' which pieces are 'fresh' to the market and which aren't - in fact, you know absolutley nothing at all EXCEPT what you read in the news AFTER the fact! And what's worse, you quote it as if it is the final informed authority on the matter! It's like someone watching Jim Cramer on TV and thinking that they have the most up-to-date insider information on a particular stock!

If you asked anybody remotely familiar with the Art market, they could have told in advance that Sotheby's Impressionist evening sale stood a good chance of performing poorly, as it was common knowledge on the inside that their two biggest lots (the Van Gogh and the Braque) had been 'shopped around' privately for six months previous to the auction and already 'burned.' On the other hand, we knew that the Contemporary evening sales stood an excellent chance of performing quite well (the "Liz" at Christie's not withstanding - any Warhol expert worth their bones knew that this particular "Liz" was not anywhere near being the best one, and that it was accompanied by an over-arching estimate - but hey, given the fact that Hugh Grant had paid $3.6 MM for it in 2001 and it sold for $23.5 MM last week, that's still one fuck of a good annual compound return!).

At the end of the day, you were a total ass - but not for calling a bottom (anybody can try, and all I can say is 'better luck next time.') You were an ass because you are trying to comment on something that you truly know nothing about by desperately grabbing quotes from any source you can, and what's worse, you won't even come clean and admit to the fact that you know nothing about the Art market. As far as the art itself goes, that's totally subjective (I hate Hirst, I love Hirst, I hate Rothko, I love Rothko, etc., whatever). But we're discussing the art market here, not the art itself.

You mean a "top," bozo? You are really so easy to provoke. Watch me keep doing it, again and again.

Once again, Jerkstore, when you have nothing constuctive left to offer aside from cut-n'-pasting some random article, all you can do is resort to flaming - it's soooooo easy to provoke you! You couldn't even leave this thread alone after it had dropped off the main page!

I bet you won't be able to help yourself, and will have to offer yet another angry, flaming nugget of frustrated ignorance. We're all waiting for you to take the bait....

OK, the results of the First Annual Anoone3 Provocation Competition are in (see my comment from 4 days ago):

Drumroll.

MASTERQ: My four words "Anoone 3, you suck ass" provoked three separate responses (ok, with a little help from Jerkstore, saying "499 to go"). That looks like about 200/300 words.

CSTMUK: Csmuk's two liner posting -- a cheeky strategy of a direct invitation from Anoone3 to rant -- provoked two separate responses, looking like about 150 words.

KYLEWEST: Kylewest's observation that this thread is retarded, while accurate, failed to anger Anoone3, who just blamed Jerkstore in a brief <100 word response.

JERKSTORE: Jerkstore's cutting and pasting a huge article provoked a good long response -- maybe 300 words, topped off with the last posting above. Bad word to response ratio, but all Jerkstore had to do was cut and paste I guess.

And the WINNER:

Overall, Jerkstore wins the Anoone3 provocation competition. By merely verbally burping or cutting and pasting random stuff he was able to inspire impassioned, lengthy, and angry responses from Anoone3, totalling hundreds (maybe thousands) of words in the above thread. Congratulations Jerkstore!!

And Congratulations to all of our participants! We even learned something today with Anoone3's thoughtful posting on art market sales rates. That was interesting.

Damn streeteasy, you just cut me off in the middle of the awards announcement!!

Anyway, we were just rounding out...

JERKSTORE: Jerkstore, with minimal effort, inspired several rants, totalling hundreds of words.

And the WINNER IS:

Overall, there could only be one winner to the Anoone3 provocation competition: Jerkstore. By merely verbally burping or cutting and pasting random sh*t from google, Jerkstore was able to inspire long, angry responses from Anoone3. Congratulations Jerkstore.

It's not the winning, it's the taking part that counts.

Most amazing is the fact that you all continue to randomly comment, but add nothing substantive to the real discussion regarding how the art market operates, what direction it's heading in, and if it has any direct or indirect correlation to the real estate market in Manhattan.

Wow - it's just like Pavolv ringing a bell for his dog.

I know, cmtsuk - you came running back yet again! Now wipe off the spittle that's slowing sliding off your lips...

Did Anoone3 just accidentally comment while logged in as Pseudonym? :)

Or vice versa, if you will.

Agree, masterq. I was completely shocked to see that anoone3 = pseudonym. Didn't see that coming :)

I knew I was right 5 days ago. I'd know that easily provoked hysteria anywhere!

pseudonym, what a putz.

Hey Faustus guess what--Yep your rent check needs to me in the mail. Hurry up after all you don't want to be late.

Spunk, listen, seriously. If you need a job, let us know. You can be my driver. But you'll need to clean up, look smart - buy a suit and tie.

I'm sure someone else on this board can use you for something. What are your skills?

My skills are evaluating how Manhattan can rid themselves of the bums like yourself cluttering the street.
Do us all a favor and try to use the toilet next time your going to urinate. They still are free in the subways.

That this was all so predictable is either sad or hilarious.

I'll go with hilarious.

My vote: hilarious

Come on spunky you must have a funnier comeback than that. Have a brewskie.

masterq I am very satisfied with the humor of my last post. Actually I had a chuckle after I read it again.

masterq btw I must admit I find absolutely no humor in any of your posts. I really don't think that's your forte. I would strongly suggest that you continue with your sarcastic rebuttals though although they are dull they can be quite educational.

Spunky your posts are funny inasmuch as you write like a 10 year old who has just learned how to curse. Which can be funny. Sometimes. Though I think you were bitter yesterday because you failed to even take part in the Anoone 3 Provocation Contest.

Speaking of which: Anoone3/Pseudonym was all over this board until he/she/it was revealed as Pseudonym yesterday. Is this it? Is it Au Revoir Anoone? Say it ain't so.

masterq talking about a 10 year old. Only one with a mentality such as yourself would even devise such an immature contest. Now a good contest would be who is the most bitter renter on this board and I must say you have won hands down. Now after you get that rent check out in todays mail how bout you passing me a brewskie.