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

An Andy Warhol Artwork Was Stolen and Never Seen Again

thedailybeast.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 28 posts

Re: An Andy Warhol Artwork Was Stolen and Never Seen Again

#11

Post by daveFNbuck »

jpalomaki wrote: post #6
twunde wrote: post #2

What I find pretty amazing about this theft and the theft from the Isabella Stewart Gardner museum in Boston is that the pieces stolen can't be resold on the open market. Whomever is paying for these thefts, can only sell to discreet private buyers (who then can't display them openly without risking being caught). The economics of it are fascinating. A collector is paying someone to steal artwork, which then becomes…

Watched a documentary about stolen van Gogh. Turned out the person planned to use it in negotions with authorities if he got caught (for other crimes, he was involved in drugs). In some countries you can negotiate a shorter sentence if you agree to cooperate. ”Give me shorter sentence, I’ll bring back the national treasure - put me to jail for life and you’ll never see it”.

If he had ended up dying without getting caught, we may have never seen that van Gogh again either.

Re: An Andy Warhol Artwork Was Stolen and Never Seen Again

#12

Post by flarg »

twunde wrote: post #2

What I find pretty amazing about this theft and the theft from the Isabella Stewart Gardner museum in Boston is that the pieces stolen can't be resold on the open market. Whomever is paying for these thefts, can only sell to discreet private buyers (who then can't display them openly without risking being caught). The economics of it are fascinating. A collector is paying someone to steal artwork, which then becomes…

I read somewhere that stolen works of art are used as a form of currency between drug crime Organisations

Re: An Andy Warhol Artwork Was Stolen and Never Seen Again

#13

Post by paulcole »

flarg wrote: post #12
twunde wrote: post #2

What I find pretty amazing about this theft and the theft from the Isabella Stewart Gardner museum in Boston is that the pieces stolen can't be resold on the open market. Whomever is paying for these thefts, can only sell to discreet private buyers (who then can't display them openly without risking being caught). The economics of it are fascinating. A collector is paying someone to steal artwork, which then becomes…

I read somewhere that stolen works of art are used as a form of currency between drug crime Organisations

Doesn't make a ton of sense. If you can't convert it to currency easily, why does it have value at all?

Re: An Andy Warhol Artwork Was Stolen and Never Seen Again

#14

Post by ciupicri »

thedaemon wrote: post #9
dang wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News?

Only if you do as well. Also, I don't think that word means what you think it means. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/unsubstantive

From the link you gave:

   substantive adjective
   7. of considerable amount or quantity.
   8. possessing substance; having practical importance, value, or effect
I bet that's what dang had in mind about your comment.

Re: An Andy Warhol Artwork Was Stolen and Never Seen Again

#15

Post by goldenchrome »

paulcole wrote: post #13
flarg wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read somewhere that stolen works of art are used as a form of currency between drug crime Organisations

Doesn't make a ton of sense. If you can't convert it to currency easily, why does it have value at all?

When you have functionally infinite money, rare objects become more important indicators of status. And when you and all of your friends are involved in illegal activities, your mutually assured destruction makes any questions of legality moot.

Re: An Andy Warhol Artwork Was Stolen and Never Seen Again

#16

Post by mulmen »

paulcole wrote: post #13
flarg wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read somewhere that stolen works of art are used as a form of currency between drug crime Organisations

Doesn't make a ton of sense. If you can't convert it to currency easily, why does it have value at all?

Off the top of my head: ease of transport?

Re: An Andy Warhol Artwork Was Stolen and Never Seen Again

#17

Post by paulcole »

mulmen wrote: post #16
paulcole wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't make a ton of sense. If you can't convert it to currency easily, why does it have value at all?

Off the top of my head: ease of transport?

If that was the case why don’t they switch to Mickey Mantle rookie cards? Or USB drives with BTC? Lugging around a Pollack must get tiring.

Re: An Andy Warhol Artwork Was Stolen and Never Seen Again

#18

Post by paulie_a »

twunde wrote: post #2

What I find pretty amazing about this theft and the theft from the Isabella Stewart Gardner museum in Boston is that the pieces stolen can't be resold on the open market. Whomever is paying for these thefts, can only sell to discreet private buyers (who then can't display them openly without risking being caught). The economics of it are fascinating. A collector is paying someone to steal artwork, which then becomes…

Generally this type of stuff is used as collateral for illegal transactions. Everyone knows it really isn't going to be sold, or even can be. It's a sign of good faith and legitimacy in the underworld.

They are generally not ending up in some rich guys mansion.

Re: An Andy Warhol Artwork Was Stolen and Never Seen Again

#19

Post by baddox »

paulcole wrote: post #13
flarg wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read somewhere that stolen works of art are used as a form of currency between drug crime Organisations

Doesn't make a ton of sense. If you can't convert it to currency easily, why does it have value at all?

If it is the currency, why would it need to be convertible to another currency?

Re: An Andy Warhol Artwork Was Stolen and Never Seen Again

#20

Post by dhnsmakala »

throwawaymath wrote: post #8
twunde wrote: post #2

What I find pretty amazing about this theft and the theft from the Isabella Stewart Gardner museum in Boston is that the pieces stolen can't be resold on the open market. Whomever is paying for these thefts, can only sell to discreet private buyers (who then can't display them openly without risking being caught). The economics of it are fascinating. A collector is paying someone to steal artwork, which then becomes…

On a national basis, the top 1% in the US don't have enough money to finance bespoke art heists (nor can they generally afford black market museum pieces). So it's probably not them :)...maybe the top 0.1% or 0.01% could. Whenever I think about this particular topic, I come to the conclusion that there must be much more nuance to it. I assume the pieces are eventually sold outside of the United States, maybe to oliga…

Do you realize that the top .1% is also part of the top 1%?
Post reply on HN