Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Da Vinci Painting Obliterates Auction Record, Sells for $450.3 Million.
Comments
-
How do you know what they choose to do ?Addick Addict said:
Where did I say that the money in football isn't obscene? Because it is. And $450m for one object is beyond obscene in if my opinion. But if people get satisfaction, having paid that sort of money, staring at an object then good luck to themshine166 said:
Come on, as if the money in football couldnt be better spent curing cancer... its really not the point though is it. Next time you decorate your gaff, I hope you donate it to a hospice instead on blowing it all on wall paperAddick Addict said:The buyer in question must be so proud to have secured this painting for $450m. To be able to stare lovingly each evening at this inanimate object and show it off to one's friends must be so so satisfying.
Much more rewarding than funding chemotherapy treatment for a few thousand people and seeing the hope and joy that this might ultimately bring to those cancer sufferers and their families.
We can all do more to help others. But some can do a lot more than others. And choose not to.0 -
Chizz said:
The thing is, no-one "spends" half a billion on a painting.Greenie said:
This is where i'm at Sillav, if someone has close to half a billion to spend on a picture then the spread of wealth is obscene.sillav nitram said:That’s obscene and offensive, tells you exactly what’s wrong with our society!
It's an investment. A gamble that the amount they're shelling out to own it is less than they can get by owning it and by selling it.
And they certainly won t be writing a cheque for the full amount right now.
First, they'll arrange to pay for it over a number of years. Second, part of the funding will come at ridiculously attractive rates from the auction house that sells it (they're in a desperately hard-fought market too: they all compete to be the auction house that sells the most expensive paintings...)
They'll have a huge cost of ownership too, in terms of maintenance, shipping and insurance.
But, they'll make money while they own it, by "loaning" it - for substantial fees - to galleries around the world. They, in turn, will recoup their costs by charging punters to look at it.
Put it in a gallery in London and a million people might pay £20 each to see it over three months. Find a sponsor to attach their name to it for another million. £21m recouped in London. Do it again in Paris, Rome, Madrid, Frankfurt, Stockholm, Dublin, Amsterdam, Prague, Porto and it's covered half its cost, in Europe. Do the same in North America, the Middle East, the Far East... get Moscow to compete with Beijing and Shanghai to show it... it quickly starts to make money.
And each loan will come with conditions attached, including that the gallery pays for maintenance, shipping and insurance.
Who makes money out of the maintenance of paintings? Galleries And auction houses usually.
Who makes money out of shipping? Multi-national corporations pushing commodities around the world.
Who makes money out of insurance? Insurance companies and brokers.
So, put together a consortium made up of a gallery, a multi national, an insurance company and an auction house and it very quickly stops being a "cost" and turns into a money-spinning enterprise.
Four hundred million quid is a lot of money for a picture to hang on the wall and look at. But, to the right consortium, it's a drop in the ocean compared to how much income it can generate for itself.
They won't lose money on this, whoever it is that's bought it.
Exactly ! Hirst purchased his own diamond skull for 50m a few years ago, next things its at the tate and youre charged £20 to look at it for 10 seconds (part of his big retrospective admitedly). 1 gallery in 1 city.... then and the tees, tat, prints, posters etc and whore it around the world for a decade and its paid for its self many times over.0 -
Source?Chizz said:
The thing is, no-one "spends" half a billion on a painting.Greenie said:
This is where i'm at Sillav, if someone has close to half a billion to spend on a picture then the spread of wealth is obscene.sillav nitram said:That’s obscene and offensive, tells you exactly what’s wrong with our society!
It's an investment. A gamble that the amount they're shelling out to own it is less than they can get by owning it and by selling it.
And they certainly won t be writing a cheque for the full amount right now.
First, they'll arrange to pay for it over a number of years. Second, part of the funding will come at ridiculously attractive rates from the auction house that sells it (they're in a desperately hard-fought market too: they all compete to be the auction house that sells the most expensive paintings...)
They'll have a huge cost of ownership too, in terms of maintenance, shipping and insurance.
But, they'll make money while they own it, by "loaning" it - for substantial fees - to galleries around the world. They, in turn, will recoup their costs by charging punters to look at it.
Put it in a gallery in London and a million people might pay £20 each to see it over three months. Find a sponsor to attach their name to it for another million. £21m recouped in London. Do it again in Paris, Rome, Madrid, Frankfurt, Stockholm, Dublin, Amsterdam, Prague, Porto and it's covered half its cost, in Europe. Do the same in North America, the Middle East, the Far East... get Moscow to compete with Beijing and Shanghai to show it... it quickly starts to make money.
And each loan will come with conditions attached, including that the gallery pays for maintenance, shipping and insurance.
Who makes money out of the maintenance of paintings? Galleries And auction houses usually.
Who makes money out of shipping? Multi-national corporations pushing commodities around the world.
Who makes money out of insurance? Insurance companies and brokers.
So, put together a consortium made up of a gallery, a multi national, an insurance company and an auction house and it very quickly stops being a "cost" and turns into a money-spinning enterprise.
Four hundred million quid is a lot of money for a picture to hang on the wall and look at. But, to the right consortium, it's a drop in the ocean compared to how much income it can generate for itself.
They won't lose money on this, whoever it is that's bought it.0 -
What do you mean "source"? I've simply posited a suggestion as to how the purchase can be seen as a lucrative investment. I haven't claimed that's what will happen, just that it could.Greenie said:
Source?Chizz said:
The thing is, no-one "spends" half a billion on a painting.Greenie said:
This is where i'm at Sillav, if someone has close to half a billion to spend on a picture then the spread of wealth is obscene.sillav nitram said:That’s obscene and offensive, tells you exactly what’s wrong with our society!
It's an investment. A gamble that the amount they're shelling out to own it is less than they can get by owning it and by selling it.
And they certainly won t be writing a cheque for the full amount right now.
First, they'll arrange to pay for it over a number of years. Second, part of the funding will come at ridiculously attractive rates from the auction house that sells it (they're in a desperately hard-fought market too: they all compete to be the auction house that sells the most expensive paintings...)
They'll have a huge cost of ownership too, in terms of maintenance, shipping and insurance.
But, they'll make money while they own it, by "loaning" it - for substantial fees - to galleries around the world. They, in turn, will recoup their costs by charging punters to look at it.
Put it in a gallery in London and a million people might pay £20 each to see it over three months. Find a sponsor to attach their name to it for another million. £21m recouped in London. Do it again in Paris, Rome, Madrid, Frankfurt, Stockholm, Dublin, Amsterdam, Prague, Porto and it's covered half its cost, in Europe. Do the same in North America, the Middle East, the Far East... get Moscow to compete with Beijing and Shanghai to show it... it quickly starts to make money.
And each loan will come with conditions attached, including that the gallery pays for maintenance, shipping and insurance.
Who makes money out of the maintenance of paintings? Galleries And auction houses usually.
Who makes money out of shipping? Multi-national corporations pushing commodities around the world.
Who makes money out of insurance? Insurance companies and brokers.
So, put together a consortium made up of a gallery, a multi national, an insurance company and an auction house and it very quickly stops being a "cost" and turns into a money-spinning enterprise.
Four hundred million quid is a lot of money for a picture to hang on the wall and look at. But, to the right consortium, it's a drop in the ocean compared to how much income it can generate for itself.
They won't lose money on this, whoever it is that's bought it.
But, if you insist, source: me.1 -
So you made it all up then.....?Chizz said:
What do you mean "source"? I've simply posited a suggestion as to how the purchase can be seen as a lucrative investment. I haven't claimed that's what will happen, just that it could.Greenie said:
Source?Chizz said:
The thing is, no-one "spends" half a billion on a painting.Greenie said:
This is where i'm at Sillav, if someone has close to half a billion to spend on a picture then the spread of wealth is obscene.sillav nitram said:That’s obscene and offensive, tells you exactly what’s wrong with our society!
It's an investment. A gamble that the amount they're shelling out to own it is less than they can get by owning it and by selling it.
And they certainly won t be writing a cheque for the full amount right now.
First, they'll arrange to pay for it over a number of years. Second, part of the funding will come at ridiculously attractive rates from the auction house that sells it (they're in a desperately hard-fought market too: they all compete to be the auction house that sells the most expensive paintings...)
They'll have a huge cost of ownership too, in terms of maintenance, shipping and insurance.
But, they'll make money while they own it, by "loaning" it - for substantial fees - to galleries around the world. They, in turn, will recoup their costs by charging punters to look at it.
Put it in a gallery in London and a million people might pay £20 each to see it over three months. Find a sponsor to attach their name to it for another million. £21m recouped in London. Do it again in Paris, Rome, Madrid, Frankfurt, Stockholm, Dublin, Amsterdam, Prague, Porto and it's covered half its cost, in Europe. Do the same in North America, the Middle East, the Far East... get Moscow to compete with Beijing and Shanghai to show it... it quickly starts to make money.
And each loan will come with conditions attached, including that the gallery pays for maintenance, shipping and insurance.
Who makes money out of the maintenance of paintings? Galleries And auction houses usually.
Who makes money out of shipping? Multi-national corporations pushing commodities around the world.
Who makes money out of insurance? Insurance companies and brokers.
So, put together a consortium made up of a gallery, a multi national, an insurance company and an auction house and it very quickly stops being a "cost" and turns into a money-spinning enterprise.
Four hundred million quid is a lot of money for a picture to hang on the wall and look at. But, to the right consortium, it's a drop in the ocean compared to how much income it can generate for itself.
They won't lose money on this, whoever it is that's bought it.
But, if you insist, source: me.0 -
I don't really understand what you're getting at. I posted my suggestion as to how a large investment could be justified and how a return could be made. I don't know who bought it (as I suggested in the last line) and I don't know what the buyer will do. I have merely set out a range of options.Greenie said:
So you made it all up then.....?Chizz said:
What do you mean "source"? I've simply posited a suggestion as to how the purchase can be seen as a lucrative investment. I haven't claimed that's what will happen, just that it could.Greenie said:
Source?Chizz said:
The thing is, no-one "spends" half a billion on a painting.Greenie said:
This is where i'm at Sillav, if someone has close to half a billion to spend on a picture then the spread of wealth is obscene.sillav nitram said:That’s obscene and offensive, tells you exactly what’s wrong with our society!
It's an investment. A gamble that the amount they're shelling out to own it is less than they can get by owning it and by selling it.
And they certainly won t be writing a cheque for the full amount right now.
First, they'll arrange to pay for it over a number of years. Second, part of the funding will come at ridiculously attractive rates from the auction house that sells it (they're in a desperately hard-fought market too: they all compete to be the auction house that sells the most expensive paintings...)
They'll have a huge cost of ownership too, in terms of maintenance, shipping and insurance.
But, they'll make money while they own it, by "loaning" it - for substantial fees - to galleries around the world. They, in turn, will recoup their costs by charging punters to look at it.
Put it in a gallery in London and a million people might pay £20 each to see it over three months. Find a sponsor to attach their name to it for another million. £21m recouped in London. Do it again in Paris, Rome, Madrid, Frankfurt, Stockholm, Dublin, Amsterdam, Prague, Porto and it's covered half its cost, in Europe. Do the same in North America, the Middle East, the Far East... get Moscow to compete with Beijing and Shanghai to show it... it quickly starts to make money.
And each loan will come with conditions attached, including that the gallery pays for maintenance, shipping and insurance.
Who makes money out of the maintenance of paintings? Galleries And auction houses usually.
Who makes money out of shipping? Multi-national corporations pushing commodities around the world.
Who makes money out of insurance? Insurance companies and brokers.
So, put together a consortium made up of a gallery, a multi national, an insurance company and an auction house and it very quickly stops being a "cost" and turns into a money-spinning enterprise.
Four hundred million quid is a lot of money for a picture to hang on the wall and look at. But, to the right consortium, it's a drop in the ocean compared to how much income it can generate for itself.
They won't lose money on this, whoever it is that's bought it.
But, if you insist, source: me.
(Of course, if I did have any inside knowledge, I wouldn't let on).0 -
Cheap at half the price , might get one myself.0
-
Crazy money for a possible Fake painting that is shop soiled and has had various features altered. Beard has been shaven off.
Lenny da Vinci code was only a part time painter, his main job was as a mathematician, Sculpting, Architecture and running the Hot dog stall at the San Siro on Match days.
Some famous Leonado Quotes:
"Art is never finished only abandoned"
"Learning never exhausts the mind "
"The human foot is a Masterpiece of engineering and a work of art"
"If you can't beat the first defender from a corner you will never Score"
Arrivederci LDV.0 -
Salvator Mundi sounds like he should be playing on the wing for Argentina.1
-
Or the main character in Goal!1
-
Sponsored links:
-
I don't but I do know that, even if they do, they could do so much more with $450m. And it is not difficult to shelter ill gotten gains by buying such an item - pay for it with drug money and then loan it out to bring in legitimate funds.shine166 said:
How do you know what they choose to do ?Addick Addict said:
Where did I say that the money in football isn't obscene? Because it is. And $450m for one object is beyond obscene in if my opinion. But if people get satisfaction, having paid that sort of money, staring at an object then good luck to themshine166 said:
Come on, as if the money in football couldnt be better spent curing cancer... its really not the point though is it. Next time you decorate your gaff, I hope you donate it to a hospice instead on blowing it all on wall paperAddick Addict said:The buyer in question must be so proud to have secured this painting for $450m. To be able to stare lovingly each evening at this inanimate object and show it off to one's friends must be so so satisfying.
Much more rewarding than funding chemotherapy treatment for a few thousand people and seeing the hope and joy that this might ultimately bring to those cancer sufferers and their families.
We can all do more to help others. But some can do a lot more than others. And choose not to.
Robert Maxwell could afford to buy lavish things. But then when you asset strip companies and rob employees of £400m from their pension funds you can afford to buy whatever you like. Even a Da Vinci.0 -
And he has a son married to Salma Hayek ...ValleyGary said:
On top mate.RodneyCharltonTrotta said:
Is the buyer's fee on top of bid or included in it?ValleyGary said:Christies will get around 25% from the new owner and around 10%-15% from the vendor. Not a bad days work.
The owner of Christies is Francois Pinault, who also own Gucci, YSL and a few other fashion companies, so I'm sure he's clever with his money!SoundAsa£ said:
Do they have an off shore account?ValleyGary said:Christies will get around 25% from the new owner and around 10%-15% from the vendor. Not a bad days work.
0
