Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Leonardo Da Vinci Painting Sells for $450.3M, Shattering Auction Records

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 152 posts

Re: Leonardo Da Vinci Painting Sells for $450.3M, Shattering Auction Records

#21

Post by comboy »

blunte wrote: post #16

Why is this a surprise? There's a point at which money no longer makes sense - both to the people without it as well as the people with it. There are many reasons for spending relatively incomprehensible amounts of money for something. One is to show others that you can; it's a demonstration of just how wealthy you are. Another is to try to make something special of the money that otherwise has reached a level of bei…

> What else is there?

Storage of value. If you want to diversify, you may want something easy to move/hide for some scenarios. I'm not saying this painting works great for that purpose, just that that's one of the things that may make people want to buy it.

Re: Leonardo Da Vinci Painting Sells for $450.3M, Shattering Auction Records

#22

Post by mynegation »

"the old masters market is contracting, because of limited supply"

Can someone familiar with the art market comment on how that works? That seems contrary to what I know about markets. I mean, I understand that the volume is contracting, but the context is that such "[high] price is remarkable".

Re: Leonardo Da Vinci Painting Sells for $450.3M, Shattering Auction Records

#23

Post by noncoml »

bwang29 wrote: post #5

According to another source from BBC, the final bid for the work was $400m, with fees bringing the full price up to $450.3m. http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-42000696 What's interesting from the BBC article is the image "The painting has been cleaned and restored from the image on the left to the one on the right" doesn't even look like the same person? Another anecdote - In 1958 it was sold at auction in L…

> the work of a follower of Leonardo and not the work of Leonardo himself

How are they certain now that it is indeed Leonardo's job.

Also if the exact same painting is sold for $60 when it is thought to be work of a follower of Leonardo and $450m when it is believed to be Leonardo's work, what does this say about the collectors?

Re: Leonardo Da Vinci Painting Sells for $450.3M, Shattering Auction Records

#24

Post by byebyetech »

omarchowdhury wrote: post #19
brm wrote: post #10

Fascinating to watch Rybolovlev move money in the open like this with the help of the art market apparatus. What a time to be alive. If you're not keeping track this was almost double the price expected for a da Vinci of questioned provenance sold by the fertilizer magnate who bought Donald Trump's Palm Beach mansion for double the estimated price and then never lived in it.

Wouldn't he need someone to pay that same amount or more for the painting to effectively have moved money with this apparatus? And if the next buyer is similarly motivated, isn't the valuation akin to a Ponzi?

Ponzi scheme is a scam where buyer is fooled into buying something that has no value. Here if the painting is used as an apparatus to move money, it becomes sort of a currency to move $450 million dollars. As long as the big money movers honor its price it could be used for such purpose. Almost like Bitcoins!

Re: Leonardo Da Vinci Painting Sells for $450.3M, Shattering Auction Records

#26

Post by ktta »

comboy wrote: post #17

Marketing wins everywhere. Paintings, IT, open source projects, startups, everything. It seems to be responsible for 90%+ value in worryingly many cases. It may be getting worse. I think in the next few years we will see rise of companies that help customers make decent choices that are not solely based on advertising. We have many user review based solutions but it just doesn't work with most things (not even touchi…

“When information is cheap, attention becomes expensive.”

― James Gleick

We've come to a point where we're inundated with everyone trying to push their own agenda that it is difficult to both sort the BS out, while also becoming impossible to really appeal/reach out to the people who would appreciate and benefit from what one has to offer.

>I think in the next years we will see rise of companies that help customers make decent choices that are not solely based on advertising.

I'm skeptical. It all comes down to money. The big boys have a lot to spend. Sure, there will always be someone somewhere doing something, but coming out of a niche and reaching out to people is difficult. It is easier get subconsciously influenced by billboards and banners than being aware and knowing what you really want. Especially since no one seems to be aware of if they really need something. Something to watch - https://www.netflix.com/title/80114460

Case in point - is the 'undisclosed buyer' really benefiting $450.3 mil worth? Money has diminishing returns after $70k/yr/person (from the doc above) but people just want more. So we're ready to listen to what people say would be nice to have. Another part is how they've become status symbols.

>For tech stuff there are reviewers out there who test many things and which you can trust

I'm just going to link to a site which I think is very impartial for as long as I've known them and have excellent reviews with their methodology outlined.

It was called thesweethome(.com), but I guess now it redirects to their other website, thewirecutter (was tech stuff only). It has reviews of everything from knives to dishwashing soap (the long read on that was interesting[1]).

https://thewirecutter.com/

It was acquired this time a year ago by NYT and I haven't been too keen on buying stuff in general for a while (again, minimalism) so can't say if anything has changed since then.

[1]: https://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-dish-soap/#are-green-...

Re: Leonardo Da Vinci Painting Sells for $450.3M, Shattering Auction Records

#27

Post by dbkelly »

For anyone paying attention, the seller of the painting is Dmitry Rybolovlev. How did Rybolovlev amass so much money? Through pollution. His company Uralkali is listed as one of the top polluters in Russia. This is how externalities work: He keeps the profits, you (literally) eat the losses. Perhaps this detail is the biggest story here.

Re: Leonardo Da Vinci Painting Sells for $450.3M, Shattering Auction Records

#28

Post by gowld »

omarchowdhury wrote: post #19
brm wrote: post #10

Fascinating to watch Rybolovlev move money in the open like this with the help of the art market apparatus. What a time to be alive. If you're not keeping track this was almost double the price expected for a da Vinci of questioned provenance sold by the fertilizer magnate who bought Donald Trump's Palm Beach mansion for double the estimated price and then never lived in it.

Wouldn't he need someone to pay that same amount or more for the painting to effectively have moved money with this apparatus? And if the next buyer is similarly motivated, isn't the valuation akin to a Ponzi?

You can see some of the debate in the articles linked from here: https://www.google.com/search?q=art+market+money+laundering

Re: Leonardo Da Vinci Painting Sells for $450.3M, Shattering Auction Records

#29

Post by dchuk »

bwang29 wrote: post #5

According to another source from BBC, the final bid for the work was $400m, with fees bringing the full price up to $450.3m. http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-42000696 What's interesting from the BBC article is the image "The painting has been cleaned and restored from the image on the left to the one on the right" doesn't even look like the same person? Another anecdote - In 1958 it was sold at auction in L…

That's...kinda weird, right? The before and after are clearly two different paintings. Hair is different, mouth is different...I would assume, as a layman, that restoring a piece of art the goal should keep it looking nearly the same just cleaning it up and removing damage. This looks like they just straight up painted over it.

Re: Leonardo Da Vinci Painting Sells for $450.3M, Shattering Auction Records

#30

Post by usaphp »

mrb wrote: post #3

I think the buyer probably had a net worth at least ≥ $4.5 billion (I wouldn't spend more than 10% of my wealth on a single painting.) According to https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/ there are only ~380 persons that would qualify. Any one knows who is the buyer?

> I wouldn't spend more than 10% of my wealth on a single painting.

Well I guess it’s easier to spend 10% of your wealth if you know you still have $4 billion left.

Post reply on HN