Unica
Junior Member
Posts • 2,058
Likes • 1,220
November 2013
|
Bonhams 22nd June Prints & Multiples, by Unica on Jun 22, 2016 18:23:18 GMT 1, What was actually paid in $ Nola Grey Rain $44k Because I'm Worthless Rat $23k Grin Reaper $17k Toxic Mary $14.6k Color Trolleys $22k GWB unsigned $34.8k Jack & Jill $20k Stop & Search $46k Flying Copper $30k CND Soldiers $25.7k Weston Super Mare $20k Thats seems like fair market value for the GWB unsigned, was this the one with condition issues?
What was actually paid in $ Nola Grey Rain $44k Because I'm Worthless Rat $23k Grin Reaper $17k Toxic Mary $14.6k Color Trolleys $22k GWB unsigned $34.8k Jack & Jill $20k Stop & Search $46k Flying Copper $30k CND Soldiers $25.7k Weston Super Mare $20k Thats seems like fair market value for the GWB unsigned, was this the one with condition issues?
|
|
|
Bonhams 22nd June Prints & Multiples, by stillborncrisps on Jun 22, 2016 18:34:02 GMT 1, results for Banksy:all excluding 25% premium and resale right and tax. Because I'm worthless: £12.5k Reaper: £9.5k Toxic Mary: £8k Nola: £24k LA Set: not sold Trolleys: £12k Police Kids: £11k Stop & Search: £25k Flying Copper: £16k CND: £14k WSM: £11k I'm shocked at those results, some were really high for prints that weren't mint. Wow......
Which version of Trolleys was it?
Also, I thought resale rights were only applied to originals, not prints?
results for Banksy:all excluding 25% premium and resale right and tax. Because I'm worthless: £12.5k Reaper: £9.5k Toxic Mary: £8k Nola: £24k LA Set: not sold Trolleys: £12k Police Kids: £11k Stop & Search: £25k Flying Copper: £16k CND: £14k WSM: £11k I'm shocked at those results, some were really high for prints that weren't mint. Wow...... Which version of Trolleys was it? Also, I thought resale rights were only applied to originals, not prints?
|
|
quixote
New Member
Posts • 157
Likes • 230
May 2016
|
Bonhams 22nd June Prints & Multiples, by quixote on Jun 22, 2016 18:37:14 GMT 1, Which version of Trolleys was it? Also, I thought resale rights were only applied to originals, not prints? Regular color version of trolleys I believe...
All those prints had "AR" attached to the listing.
Which version of Trolleys was it? Also, I thought resale rights were only applied to originals, not prints? Regular color version of trolleys I believe... All those prints had "AR" attached to the listing.
|
|
loartve
New Member
Posts • 120
Likes • 16
January 2016
|
Bonhams 22nd June Prints & Multiples, by loartve on Jun 22, 2016 18:48:51 GMT 1, It was Trolleys (Colour). The Nola was an AP and dedicated. The LA set were PPs
It was Trolleys (Colour). The Nola was an AP and dedicated. The LA set were PPs
|
|
Deleted
Posts • 0
Likes •
January 1970
|
Bonhams 22nd June Prints & Multiples, by Deleted on Jun 22, 2016 18:49:16 GMT 1, Which version of Trolleys was it? Also, I thought resale rights were only applied to originals, not prints?
AR has been applied to any Banksy prints ive seen at auction recently.
Which version of Trolleys was it? Also, I thought resale rights were only applied to originals, not prints? AR has been applied to any Banksy prints ive seen at auction recently.
|
|
Black Apple Art
Art Gallery
Junior Member
Posts • 2,007
Likes • 3,970
September 2013
|
Bonhams 22nd June Prints & Multiples, by Black Apple Art on Jun 22, 2016 18:50:03 GMT 1, Excluding the fees does not show what was actually paid for the pieces so a bit deceptive. Should you not also show the prices achieved by the sellers (Hammer minus Seller Premiums and any other fees)? Otherwise that can be deceptive, as well. Well ultimately the significant factor is what buyers actually pay for these pieces and not what a seller nets due to various fees structures ect. All and all just a guide and more affirmation of the constant increase in demand and decrease in supply.
Excluding the fees does not show what was actually paid for the pieces so a bit deceptive. Should you not also show the prices achieved by the sellers (Hammer minus Seller Premiums and any other fees)? Otherwise that can be deceptive, as well. Well ultimately the significant factor is what buyers actually pay for these pieces and not what a seller nets due to various fees structures ect. All and all just a guide and more affirmation of the constant increase in demand and decrease in supply.
|
|
|
Deleted
Posts • 0
Likes •
January 1970
|
Bonhams 22nd June Prints & Multiples, by Deleted on Jun 22, 2016 18:51:27 GMT 1, results for Banksy:all excluding 25% premium and resale right and tax. Because I'm worthless: £12.5k Reaper: £9.5k Toxic Mary: £8k Nola: £24k LA Set: not sold Trolleys: £12k Police Kids: £11k Stop & Search: £25k Flying Copper: £16k CND: £14k WSM: £11k I'm shocked at those results, some were really high for prints that weren't mint. Wow......
Is Banksy the new Stik at these prices ?
results for Banksy:all excluding 25% premium and resale right and tax. Because I'm worthless: £12.5k Reaper: £9.5k Toxic Mary: £8k Nola: £24k LA Set: not sold Trolleys: £12k Police Kids: £11k Stop & Search: £25k Flying Copper: £16k CND: £14k WSM: £11k I'm shocked at those results, some were really high for prints that weren't mint. Wow...... Is Banksy the new Stik at these prices ?
|
|
Loobaz
New Member
Posts • 319
Likes • 170
July 2011
|
Bonhams 22nd June Prints & Multiples, by Loobaz on Jun 22, 2016 18:55:45 GMT 1, For the purposes of clarity (as sellers tend to use these results to price their private sales), below is Approximately what the Sellers achieved:
Because I'm worthless: £10k Reaper: £7.6k Toxic Mary: £6.4k Nola: £19.2k LA Set: not sold Trolleys: £9.6k Police Kids: £8.8k Stop & Search: £20k Flying Copper: £12.8k CND: £11.2k WSM: £8.8k
For the purposes of clarity (as sellers tend to use these results to price their private sales), below is Approximately what the Sellers achieved:
Because I'm worthless: £10k Reaper: £7.6k Toxic Mary: £6.4k Nola: £19.2k LA Set: not sold Trolleys: £9.6k Police Kids: £8.8k Stop & Search: £20k Flying Copper: £12.8k CND: £11.2k WSM: £8.8k
|
|
Loobaz
New Member
Posts • 319
Likes • 170
July 2011
|
Bonhams 22nd June Prints & Multiples, by Loobaz on Jun 22, 2016 18:58:20 GMT 1, Should you not also show the prices achieved by the sellers (Hammer minus Seller Premiums and any other fees)? Otherwise that can be deceptive, as well. Well ultimately the significant factor is what buyers actually pay for these pieces and not what a seller nets due to various fees structures ect. All and all just a guide and more affirmation of the constant increase in demand and decrease in supply. When Sellers use these "plus, plus" prices to price their Private sales, I do believe it necessary to take the actual price achieved into consideration. The door swings both ways, after all.
Should you not also show the prices achieved by the sellers (Hammer minus Seller Premiums and any other fees)? Otherwise that can be deceptive, as well. Well ultimately the significant factor is what buyers actually pay for these pieces and not what a seller nets due to various fees structures ect. All and all just a guide and more affirmation of the constant increase in demand and decrease in supply. When Sellers use these "plus, plus" prices to price their Private sales, I do believe it necessary to take the actual price achieved into consideration. The door swings both ways, after all.
|
|
Deleted
Posts • 0
Likes •
January 1970
|
Bonhams 22nd June Prints & Multiples, by Deleted on Jun 22, 2016 19:01:32 GMT 1, Sold for less than what people here are trying to pimp them out for.
Sold for less than what people here are trying to pimp them out for.
|
|
lee3
New Member
Posts • 832
Likes • 1,289
November 2009
|
Bonhams 22nd June Prints & Multiples, by lee3 on Jun 22, 2016 19:05:23 GMT 1, Excluding the fees does not show what was actually paid for the pieces so a bit deceptive. Should you not also show the prices achieved by the sellers (Hammer minus Seller Premiums and any other fees)? Otherwise that can be deceptive, as well. It's a fairly accepted standard to always report with premium. You know that buyers always paid a little (5%) to a lot (15%) more depending on where they live than the price with premium. You can also safely assume that sellers receive about 2/3s of the reported price with premium IF they paid full sellers fees. Given the demand for this artist in particular, most smart sellers are going to pay reduced sellers fees.
Excluding the fees does not show what was actually paid for the pieces so a bit deceptive. Should you not also show the prices achieved by the sellers (Hammer minus Seller Premiums and any other fees)? Otherwise that can be deceptive, as well. It's a fairly accepted standard to always report with premium. You know that buyers always paid a little (5%) to a lot (15%) more depending on where they live than the price with premium. You can also safely assume that sellers receive about 2/3s of the reported price with premium IF they paid full sellers fees. Given the demand for this artist in particular, most smart sellers are going to pay reduced sellers fees.
|
|
mrblast
New Member
Posts • 494
Likes • 129
January 2011
|
Bonhams 22nd June Prints & Multiples, by mrblast on Jun 22, 2016 21:12:57 GMT 1, Well ultimately the significant factor is what buyers actually pay for these pieces and not what a seller nets due to various fees structures ect. All and all just a guide and more affirmation of the constant increase in demand and decrease in supply. When Sellers use these "plus, plus" prices to price their Private sales, I do believe it necessary to take the actual price achieved into consideration. The door swings both ways, after all. Yes but the market is more accurately reflected by what someone is prepared to pay not by what the seller receives net after his individual circumstances and fee structures have been considered.
Well ultimately the significant factor is what buyers actually pay for these pieces and not what a seller nets due to various fees structures ect. All and all just a guide and more affirmation of the constant increase in demand and decrease in supply. When Sellers use these "plus, plus" prices to price their Private sales, I do believe it necessary to take the actual price achieved into consideration. The door swings both ways, after all. Yes but the market is more accurately reflected by what someone is prepared to pay not by what the seller receives net after his individual circumstances and fee structures have been considered.
|
|
Loobaz
New Member
Posts • 319
Likes • 170
July 2011
|
Bonhams 22nd June Prints & Multiples, by Loobaz on Jun 22, 2016 21:41:45 GMT 1, When Sellers use these "plus, plus" prices to price their Private sales, I do believe it necessary to take the actual price achieved into consideration. The door swings both ways, after all. Yes but the market is more accurately reflected by what someone is prepared to pay not by what the seller receives net after his individual circumstances and fee structures have been considered. All I am saying is that when Sellers use these auction sales figures to price their artwork for private sale (which we all know to be the case), I think it is pertinent to also remember their net result from such sales.
When Sellers use these "plus, plus" prices to price their Private sales, I do believe it necessary to take the actual price achieved into consideration. The door swings both ways, after all. Yes but the market is more accurately reflected by what someone is prepared to pay not by what the seller receives net after his individual circumstances and fee structures have been considered. All I am saying is that when Sellers use these auction sales figures to price their artwork for private sale (which we all know to be the case), I think it is pertinent to also remember their net result from such sales.
|
|
Deleted
Posts • 0
Likes •
January 1970
|
Bonhams 22nd June Prints & Multiples, by Deleted on Jun 22, 2016 22:16:36 GMT 1, I think the market is as much driven by what a seller is prepared to accept as much as a buyer is prepared to pay.
I think the market is as much driven by what a seller is prepared to accept as much as a buyer is prepared to pay.
|
|
|
|
Bonhams 22nd June Prints & Multiples, by stillborncrisps on Jun 23, 2016 0:27:51 GMT 1, Wasn't there a thread here in the last month or so about auction hyping? Prices getting driven up, recorded as such, but behind the scenes the sales all fall through - bonly that little detail gets 'lost', but conveniently creates a false new price level.
Unless we know that these sales definitely complete, today's surprise leapfrog in pricing is meaningless/not to be trusted as a yardstick?
Wasn't there a thread here in the last month or so about auction hyping? Prices getting driven up, recorded as such, but behind the scenes the sales all fall through - bonly that little detail gets 'lost', but conveniently creates a false new price level.
Unless we know that these sales definitely complete, today's surprise leapfrog in pricing is meaningless/not to be trusted as a yardstick?
|
|
lobster
New Member
Posts • 575
Likes • 184
December 2008
|
Bonhams 22nd June Prints & Multiples, by lobster on Jun 23, 2016 9:23:58 GMT 1, " Well ultimately the significant factor is what buyers actually pay for these pieces and not what a seller nets due to various fees structures ect. All and all just a guide and more affirmation of the constant increase in demand and decrease in supply "
Read more: urbanartassociation.com/thread/139330/bonhams-22nd-june-prints-multiples#ixzz4COBpV9cr
I would strongly disagree with this statement - trust me I am firmly NOT in the " Banksy prices are not increasing " camp like that crazy American dude on here who constantly posts how prices are inflated (!!) but I think Auction Results like yesterday prove something very different.
What Bonhams sale proved yesterday was that CERTAIN buyers are prepared to pay these prices to this Auction House ?? Bonham clearly have huge marketing resources and also a database of art buyers who have bought with them before , paid in full etc etc - clearly there are large amount of art buyers who will choose to buy at auction for the security and transparency that this route affords - valid or not.
At first glance the upto 40% ( ish ) disparity between the hammer price and what the seller actually receives looks like insanity and I am sure we all look at auction prices sometimes and think frankly the guy would have actually been better off sticking it on eBay or certainly posting on here (!!) while of course a lot of times going down the auction route actually gets you more money despite the frankly (IMO ) ludicrous premiums as I am sure whoever consigned the Stop and Search yesterday would certainly agree with ??
In short results like yesterday prove the prices that can be achieved through auction houses with all the resources they have at their disposal - what it doesn't prove is what ALL buyers are prepared to pay ??
" Well ultimately the significant factor is what buyers actually pay for these pieces and not what a seller nets due to various fees structures ect. All and all just a guide and more affirmation of the constant increase in demand and decrease in supply " Read more: urbanartassociation.com/thread/139330/bonhams-22nd-june-prints-multiples#ixzz4COBpV9crI would strongly disagree with this statement - trust me I am firmly NOT in the " Banksy prices are not increasing " camp like that crazy American dude on here who constantly posts how prices are inflated (!!) but I think Auction Results like yesterday prove something very different. What Bonhams sale proved yesterday was that CERTAIN buyers are prepared to pay these prices to this Auction House ?? Bonham clearly have huge marketing resources and also a database of art buyers who have bought with them before , paid in full etc etc - clearly there are large amount of art buyers who will choose to buy at auction for the security and transparency that this route affords - valid or not. At first glance the upto 40% ( ish ) disparity between the hammer price and what the seller actually receives looks like insanity and I am sure we all look at auction prices sometimes and think frankly the guy would have actually been better off sticking it on eBay or certainly posting on here (!!) while of course a lot of times going down the auction route actually gets you more money despite the frankly (IMO ) ludicrous premiums as I am sure whoever consigned the Stop and Search yesterday would certainly agree with ?? In short results like yesterday prove the prices that can be achieved through auction houses with all the resources they have at their disposal - what it doesn't prove is what ALL buyers are prepared to pay ??
|
|
Viking Surfer
Junior Member
Posts • 2,389
Likes • 3,504
February 2015
|
Bonhams 22nd June Prints & Multiples, by Viking Surfer on Jun 25, 2016 9:23:16 GMT 1, Featuring another Stik Baby print.
Interesting to note that the STIK - Baby Print only sold for 5k including the buyers premium.
Looks like the auction pushers are starting to bow out.
Featuring another Stik Baby print. Interesting to note that the STIK - Baby Print only sold for 5k including the buyers premium. Looks like the auction pushers are starting to bow out.
|
|
tartarus
Junior Member
Posts • 2,628
Likes • 2,168
February 2013
|
Bonhams 22nd June Prints & Multiples, by tartarus on Jun 25, 2016 9:28:20 GMT 1, Featuring another Stik Baby print. Interesting to note that the STIK - Baby Print only sold for 5k including the buyers premium. Looks like the auction pushers are starting to bow out.
Oh right. So all of a sudden, one auction result sets his prices. Funny that isn't it.
5k is still a great price, but keep trying to talk it down.
Featuring another Stik Baby print. Interesting to note that the STIK - Baby Print only sold for 5k including the buyers premium. Looks like the auction pushers are starting to bow out. Oh right. So all of a sudden, one auction result sets his prices. Funny that isn't it. 5k is still a great price, but keep trying to talk it down.
|
|
Dice
Junior Member
Posts • 2,200
Likes • 1,490
October 2011
|
Bonhams 22nd June Prints & Multiples, by Dice on Jun 28, 2016 14:43:40 GMT 1, I still can't believe someone out there was willing to pay £31000 for a stop and search!
I still can't believe someone out there was willing to pay £31000 for a stop and search!
|
|