Deleted
Posts โข 0
Likes โข
January 1970
|
Peter Doig, Canoe (Island), 2000. Framed, by Deleted on Mar 27, 2017 20:23:00 GMT 1, 12 colour Silkscreen printed on 300 gsm Somerset Tub Sized paper. Comes framed.
Signed, Numbered and Dated (Edition of 300) by the artist. 82 x 108 cm (33 x 43 in). Condition is excellent. Collection available in London (South Kensington).
PM if interested
12 colour Silkscreen printed on 300 gsm Somerset Tub Sized paper. Comes framed.
Signed, Numbered and Dated (Edition of 300) by the artist. 82 x 108 cm (33 x 43 in). Condition is excellent. Collection available in London (South Kensington).
PM if interested
|
|
pippyt75
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,008
Likes โข 1,261
March 2015
|
Peter Doig, Canoe (Island), 2000. Framed, by pippyt75 on Mar 27, 2017 23:42:58 GMT 1, That's a lovely print (yes, own one!)
That's a lovely print (yes, own one!)
|
|
Deleted
Posts โข 0
Likes โข
January 1970
|
Peter Doig, Canoe (Island), 2000. Framed, by Deleted on Apr 1, 2017 17:01:54 GMT 1, Price: ยฃ3.5K
Price: ยฃ3.5K
|
|
Nick
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,562
Likes โข 1,630
January 2014
|
Peter Doig, Canoe (Island), 2000. Framed, by Nick on Apr 1, 2017 18:38:37 GMT 1, Love this print but where does that pricing come from? Seen many sales for 1.5k-2k over the last few years, including one at bonhams last week for 2k including premiums. Let me know if you fancy halving your price as I would be interested.
Love this print but where does that pricing come from? Seen many sales for 1.5k-2k over the last few years, including one at bonhams last week for 2k including premiums. Let me know if you fancy halving your price as I would be interested.
|
|
pippyt75
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,008
Likes โข 1,261
March 2015
|
Peter Doig, Canoe (Island), 2000. Framed, by pippyt75 on Apr 1, 2017 23:24:26 GMT 1, It's 6.5K at source - counter editions on the website. So not a bad price.
It's 6.5K at source - counter editions on the website. So not a bad price.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Doig, Canoe (Island), 2000. Framed, by Brushstrokes 75 on Apr 2, 2017 10:39:18 GMT 1, It's 6.5K at source - counter editions on the website. So not a bad price.
I usually don't comment on prices but people got to stop saying crap like that.
Since June 2016, 8 went up at auction. 3 went unsold. The last one at Bonham's sold for ยฃ2k including the premium with an estimate of ยฃ1.8/2.2k. The 4 other that sold sold around ยฃ2k hammer (from ยฃ1.9 to 2.6) except for one at Dorotheum in Vienna (known for inflated prices) which sold for ยฃ5k.
So as much as I don't find the ยฃ3.5k ask that scandalous, people should refrain to hype their prints especially one like that which comes up on the market fairly often. Gallery prices don't make market vaue.
Ps : The bonhams print probably sold after sale because it shows everywhere mot to have been sold but I didn't check the condition report at Bonham's so can't attest as to why that print sold at this price. Same one in October didnt sell at 2.5/3.5.
It's 6.5K at source - counter editions on the website. So not a bad price. I usually don't comment on prices but people got to stop saying crap like that. Since June 2016, 8 went up at auction. 3 went unsold. The last one at Bonham's sold for ยฃ2k including the premium with an estimate of ยฃ1.8/2.2k. The 4 other that sold sold around ยฃ2k hammer (from ยฃ1.9 to 2.6) except for one at Dorotheum in Vienna (known for inflated prices) which sold for ยฃ5k. So as much as I don't find the ยฃ3.5k ask that scandalous, people should refrain to hype their prints especially one like that which comes up on the market fairly often. Gallery prices don't make market vaue. Ps : The bonhams print probably sold after sale because it shows everywhere mot to have been sold but I didn't check the condition report at Bonham's so can't attest as to why that print sold at this price. Same one in October didnt sell at 2.5/3.5. |
|
|
|
Nick
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,562
Likes โข 1,630
January 2014
|
Peter Doig, Canoe (Island), 2000. Framed, by Nick on Apr 2, 2017 11:19:25 GMT 1, It's 6.5K at source - counter editions on the website. So not a bad price. I usually don't comment on prices but people got to stop saying crap like that. Since June 2016, 8 went up at auction. 4 went unsold. The last one didn't sell a week ago at Bonham's with an estimate of ยฃ1.8/2.2k. The 4 that sold sold around ยฃ2k hammer (from ยฃ1.9 to 2.6) except for one at Dorotheum in Vienna (known for inflated prices) which sold for ยฃ5k. So as much as I don't find the ยฃ3.5k ask that scandalous, people should refrain to hype their prints especially one like that which comes up on the market fairly often. Gallery prices don't make market vaue. Ps : I didnt check the condition report at Bonham's so can't attest as to why that print didn't sell (twice). Same one in October didnt sell at 2.5/3.5.
www.bonhams.com/auctions/24037/lot/216/
Anyway saying that they are available from source at ยฃ6.5k is completely misleading. These were released in 2000, using tiered pricing, once the early tiers sold out they have sat on their site at the ยฃ6.5k price for almost 17 years! So that price has obviously been accepted as totally inflated.
It's 6.5K at source - counter editions on the website. So not a bad price. I usually don't comment on prices but people got to stop saying crap like that. Since June 2016, 8 went up at auction. 4 went unsold. The last one didn't sell a week ago at Bonham's with an estimate of ยฃ1.8/2.2k. The 4 that sold sold around ยฃ2k hammer (from ยฃ1.9 to 2.6) except for one at Dorotheum in Vienna (known for inflated prices) which sold for ยฃ5k. So as much as I don't find the ยฃ3.5k ask that scandalous, people should refrain to hype their prints especially one like that which comes up on the market fairly often. Gallery prices don't make market vaue. Ps : I didnt check the condition report at Bonham's so can't attest as to why that print didn't sell (twice). Same one in October didnt sell at 2.5/3.5. According to the website I think it may have actually sold. Possibly after the auction? www.bonhams.com/auctions/24037/lot/216/Anyway saying that they are available from source at ยฃ6.5k is completely misleading. These were released in 2000, using tiered pricing, once the early tiers sold out they have sat on their site at the ยฃ6.5k price for almost 17 years! So that price has obviously been accepted as totally inflated. |
|
|
|
Peter Doig, Canoe (Island), 2000. Framed, by Brushstrokes 75 on Apr 2, 2017 21:14:49 GMT 1, I usually don't comment on prices but people got to stop saying crap like that. Since June 2016, 8 went up at auction. 4 went unsold. The last one didn't sell a week ago at Bonham's with an estimate of ยฃ1.8/2.2k. The 4 that sold sold around ยฃ2k hammer (from ยฃ1.9 to 2.6) except for one at Dorotheum in Vienna (known for inflated prices) which sold for ยฃ5k. So as much as I don't find the ยฃ3.5k ask that scandalous, people should refrain to hype their prints especially one like that which comes up on the market fairly often. Gallery prices don't make market vaue. Ps : I didnt check the condition report at Bonham's so can't attest as to why that print didn't sell (twice). Same one in October didnt sell at 2.5/3.5. According to the website I think it may have actually sold. Possibly after the auction? www.bonhams.com/auctions/24037/lot/216/Anyway saying that they are available from source at ยฃ6.5k is completely misleading. These were released in 2000, using tiered pricing, once the early tiers sold out they have sat on their site at the ยฃ6.5k price for almost 17 years! So that price has obviously been accepted as totally inflated.
Which is the only reason I commented ๐
I usually don't comment on prices but people got to stop saying crap like that. Since June 2016, 8 went up at auction. 4 went unsold. The last one didn't sell a week ago at Bonham's with an estimate of ยฃ1.8/2.2k. The 4 that sold sold around ยฃ2k hammer (from ยฃ1.9 to 2.6) except for one at Dorotheum in Vienna (known for inflated prices) which sold for ยฃ5k. So as much as I don't find the ยฃ3.5k ask that scandalous, people should refrain to hype their prints especially one like that which comes up on the market fairly often. Gallery prices don't make market vaue. Ps : I didnt check the condition report at Bonham's so can't attest as to why that print didn't sell (twice). Same one in October didnt sell at 2.5/3.5. According to the website I think it may have actually sold. Possibly after the auction? www.bonhams.com/auctions/24037/lot/216/Anyway saying that they are available from source at ยฃ6.5k is completely misleading. These were released in 2000, using tiered pricing, once the early tiers sold out they have sat on their site at the ยฃ6.5k price for almost 17 years! So that price has obviously been accepted as totally inflated. Which is the only reason I commented ๐ |
|
