henryc
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 225
๐๐ป 302
December 2020
|
Christie's Art Auctions , by henryc on Mar 31, 2021 2:19:23 GMT 1, Iโm not the biggest fan of Banksy prints, but you Sir (or Madam) are frankly delusional. You donโt think works by an artist Banksy had killed will appreciate over time? Interesting.
That is an extremely serious accusation!
Can you back it up?
Otherwise it s pure calomny.
You done goofed?
You could get backtraced by the cyberpolice!!
Consequences will never be the same..
Iโm not the biggest fan of Banksy prints, but you Sir (or Madam) are frankly delusional. You donโt think works by an artist Banksy had killed will appreciate over time? Interesting. That is an extremely serious accusation! Can you back it up? Otherwise it s pure calomny. You done goofed? You could get backtraced by the cyberpolice!! Consequences will never be the same.. |
|
|
|
Christie's Art Auctions , by King Robbo Lives on Mar 31, 2021 2:25:18 GMT 1, You donโt think works by an artist Banksy had killed will appreciate over time? Interesting. That is an extremely serious accusation! Can you back it up? Otherwise it s pure calomny. You done goofed? You could get backtraced by the cyberpolice!! Consequences will never be the same..
Surely Banksy can't be more active due to all the cancelled MA tour dates... /s.
You donโt think works by an artist Banksy had killed will appreciate over time? Interesting. That is an extremely serious accusation! Can you back it up? Otherwise it s pure calomny. You done goofed? You could get backtraced by the cyberpolice!! Consequences will never be the same.. Perhaps Banksy should sue me then? Oh wait, he can't without revealing his "identity". Surely Banksy can't be more active due to all the cancelled MA tour dates... /s. |
|
henryc
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 225
๐๐ป 302
December 2020
|
Christie's Art Auctions , by henryc on Mar 31, 2021 2:34:11 GMT 1, What does it has to do with the price of fish?
Know your memes!!
What does it has to do with the price of fish?
Know your memes!!
|
|
|
|
Christie's Art Auctions , by King Robbo Lives on Mar 31, 2021 3:56:37 GMT 1, What does it has to do with the price of fish? Know your memes!!
What does it has to do with the price of fish? Know your memes!! Oof |
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Christie's Art Auctions , by Deleted on Mar 31, 2021 7:17:02 GMT 1, Couple bids overnight, very interesting
Couple bids overnight, very interesting
|
|
|
|
Christie's Art Auctions , by The Italian One on Mar 31, 2021 7:37:39 GMT 1, yesterday final total sale was 3,986,250
let's see tomorrow
yesterday final total sale was 3,986,250
let's see tomorrow
|
|
|
|
lv90210
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,030
๐๐ป 1,926
January 2018
|
Christie's Art Auctions , by lv90210 on Mar 31, 2021 7:44:34 GMT 1, Going forward if I was a buyer using Christies I'd be concerned, also if I was a seller using Christies I'd be concerned.
A lot of concern flying around.....
Going forward if I was a buyer using Christies I'd be concerned, also if I was a seller using Christies I'd be concerned.
A lot of concern flying around.....
|
|
dan993c2
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 285
๐๐ป 222
November 2020
|
Christie's Art Auctions , by dan993c2 on Mar 31, 2021 8:07:26 GMT 1, Going forward if I was a buyer using Christies I'd be concerned, also if I was a seller using Christies I'd be concerned. A lot of concern flying around.....
Going forward if I was a buyer using Christies I'd be concerned, also if I was a seller using Christies I'd be concerned. A lot of concern flying around..... This is definitely going to be interesting as the facts get out there of what actually happened! |
|
topboy
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 122
๐๐ป 141
February 2020
|
Christie's Art Auctions , by topboy on Mar 31, 2021 8:27:45 GMT 1, Couple bids overnight, very interesting
Yes i see the white rain Nola has gone up by ยฃ10,000.
Couple bids overnight, very interesting Yes i see the white rain Nola has gone up by ยฃ10,000. |
|
Rubberneck
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,050
๐๐ป 1,433
October 2018
|
Christie's Art Auctions , by Rubberneck on Mar 31, 2021 8:28:34 GMT 1, As I understand it this is new bidding software that was rolled out for the beeple auction, the under bidder on that auction said he couldnโt get his last bid in so seems like itโs got a fundamental flaw they havenโt fixed which compounds with multiple items.. no doubt the same thing will happen again
As I understand it this is new bidding software that was rolled out for the beeple auction, the under bidder on that auction said he couldnโt get his last bid in so seems like itโs got a fundamental flaw they havenโt fixed which compounds with multiple items.. no doubt the same thing will happen again
|
|
Rubberneck
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,050
๐๐ป 1,433
October 2018
|
Christie's Art Auctions , by Rubberneck on Mar 31, 2021 8:29:32 GMT 1, ๐ everyone bid in the last few minutes and it will explode 
๐ everyone bid in the last few minutes and it will explode |
|
Georgie Poppit
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,559
๐๐ป 1,674
February 2021
|
Christie's Art Auctions , by Georgie Poppit on Mar 31, 2021 9:19:41 GMT 1, The Christieโs First Open auction was also extended by 24hrs the day before. It was shown to end on the 29th then added an extra 24hrs and ended on the 30th.
The Christieโs First Open auction was also extended by 24hrs the day before. It was shown to end on the 29th then added an extra 24hrs and ended on the 30th.
|
|
henryc
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 225
๐๐ป 302
December 2020
|
Christie's Art Auctions , by henryc on Mar 31, 2021 9:32:43 GMT 1,
I worked in a casino for a while.
It s very true..
But it happens there s a glitch in the matrix.
I worked in a casino for a while. It s very true.. But it happens there s a glitch in the matrix. |
|
dzigavertov
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 42
๐๐ป 108
March 2021
|
Christie's Art Auctions , by dzigavertov on Mar 31, 2021 9:34:46 GMT 1, Quite the opposite, this is literally the legal terms you are signing up to when you bid. Anyone has the option not to accept these rules and not to bid. But also, this was an unusual situation and Christies have really done the best they can to resolve it and give a fair outcome for sellers. Also bidders who were happy to win the item for ยฃx might still win the item for ยฃx or a bit more - but at least it will be fair market price not web crash anomaly. That's all good and well, but what protection does the buyers have? When pieces are in an auction it is a gamble for a seller, and a buyer will hope they get a bargain. The seller hopes there are multiple buyers all wanting the same piece and get an inflated price, and the buyers are hoping the opposite. At what point can Christies (or any auction house), just say "we don't like the selling price so are going to add some more time to it, look at our T&Cs"? It seems there were issues as reported by numerous people on here, but that is Christies problem, and I don't think the buyers should be penalised. Will the next piece that goes for a lower amount than expected be cancelled, or the one after? Surely they can find out what listings were affected, and even if they accepted the hammer price, they could have offered all the premiums to the sellers etc and took a hit themselves, rather than go down this route? Great for sellers who will earn a bit more, but ultimately it seems the decision is even better for Christies.
Personally I would rather have been given the opportunity to withdraw my print, however I have had no direct response to whether or not I can withdraw the print.
Quite the opposite, this is literally the legal terms you are signing up to when you bid. Anyone has the option not to accept these rules and not to bid. But also, this was an unusual situation and Christies have really done the best they can to resolve it and give a fair outcome for sellers. Also bidders who were happy to win the item for ยฃx might still win the item for ยฃx or a bit more - but at least it will be fair market price not web crash anomaly. That's all good and well, but what protection does the buyers have? When pieces are in an auction it is a gamble for a seller, and a buyer will hope they get a bargain. The seller hopes there are multiple buyers all wanting the same piece and get an inflated price, and the buyers are hoping the opposite. At what point can Christies (or any auction house), just say "we don't like the selling price so are going to add some more time to it, look at our T&Cs"? It seems there were issues as reported by numerous people on here, but that is Christies problem, and I don't think the buyers should be penalised. Will the next piece that goes for a lower amount than expected be cancelled, or the one after? Surely they can find out what listings were affected, and even if they accepted the hammer price, they could have offered all the premiums to the sellers etc and took a hit themselves, rather than go down this route? Great for sellers who will earn a bit more, but ultimately it seems the decision is even better for Christies. As someone who is selling a Banksy print in this sale, having owned for 16 years after buying direct from POW, I have to disagree with you here. At the end of the day I submitted this to Christie's in good faith after they convinced me that they were the place to sell Banksy's. I gave them my print on the proviso that they got me the best return. If their software was not up to the job and other potential bidders were prevented from getting involved due to technical error, then why is it suddenly the buyer who should be protected? If there was an auction house full of bidders for real and there was someone in the crowd who was preventing bidders from bidding, then the sale would be either null and void or the problem person removed from the sale - that to me looks like what Christie's have tried to do - extend the sale and hopefully sort out what became a shitshow, by removing or fixing the problem (the software). Personally I would rather have been given the opportunity to withdraw my print, however I have had no direct response to whether or not I can withdraw the print. |
|
|
|
sm3gz
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 89
๐๐ป 62
March 2021
|
Christie's Art Auctions , by sm3gz on Mar 31, 2021 9:49:50 GMT 1, That is an extremely serious accusation! Can you back it up? Otherwise it s pure calomny. You done goofed? You could get backtraced by the cyberpolice!! Consequences will never be the same.. Perhaps Banksy should sue me then? Oh wait, he can't without revealing his "identity". Surely Banksy can't be more active due to all the cancelled MA tour dates... /s.
Derek Iโm confused mate,
Are you a Banksy Fan (collector) or Banksyโs for the Bin?
Read some of your content over the forum and some interesting pointers.
Iโm just not sure if you love him or hate him ha!
That is an extremely serious accusation! Can you back it up? Otherwise it s pure calomny. You done goofed? You could get backtraced by the cyberpolice!! Consequences will never be the same.. Perhaps Banksy should sue me then? Oh wait, he can't without revealing his "identity". Surely Banksy can't be more active due to all the cancelled MA tour dates... /s. Derek Iโm confused mate, Are you a Banksy Fan (collector) or Banksyโs for the Bin? Read some of your content over the forum and some interesting pointers. Iโm just not sure if you love him or hate him ha! |
|
reg
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 339
๐๐ป 499
October 2007
|
Christie's Art Auctions , by reg on Mar 31, 2021 9:54:53 GMT 1, That's all good and well, but what protection does the buyers have? When pieces are in an auction it is a gamble for a seller, and a buyer will hope they get a bargain. The seller hopes there are multiple buyers all wanting the same piece and get an inflated price, and the buyers are hoping the opposite. At what point can Christies (or any auction house), just say "we don't like the selling price so are going to add some more time to it, look at our T&Cs"? It seems there were issues as reported by numerous people on here, but that is Christies problem, and I don't think the buyers should be penalised. Will the next piece that goes for a lower amount than expected be cancelled, or the one after? Surely they can find out what listings were affected, and even if they accepted the hammer price, they could have offered all the premiums to the sellers etc and took a hit themselves, rather than go down this route?ย Great for sellers who will earn a bit more, but ultimately it seems the decision is even better for Christies. As someone who is selling a Banksy print in this sale, having owned for 16 years after buying direct from POW, I have to disagree with you here. At the end of the day I submitted this to Christie's in good faith after they convinced me that they were theย place to sell Banksy's. I gave them my print on the proviso that they got me the best return. If their software was not up to the job and other potential bidders were prevented from getting involved due to technical error, then why is it suddenly the buyer who should be protected? If there was an auction house full of bidders for real and there was someone in the crowd who was preventing bidders from bidding, then the sale would be either null and void or the problem person removed from the sale - that to me looks like what Christie's have tried to do - extend the sale and hopefully sort out what became a shitshow, by removing or fixing the problem (the software). Personally I would rather have been given the opportunity to withdraw my print, however I have had no direct response to whether or not I can withdraw the print.ย
The world over, auction houses will tell you they're the best place, you're in good hands etc etc but unfortunately errors occur both in people and systems.
Something has gone wrong, they've accepted that and extended the auction. Successful bidders should still be willing to pay what they have bid. Every auction website has very clear rules on this. Spare a thought for those who thought they'd got a bargain only to find the auction reopening shortly after closing.
That's all good and well, but what protection does the buyers have? When pieces are in an auction it is a gamble for a seller, and a buyer will hope they get a bargain. The seller hopes there are multiple buyers all wanting the same piece and get an inflated price, and the buyers are hoping the opposite. At what point can Christies (or any auction house), just say "we don't like the selling price so are going to add some more time to it, look at our T&Cs"? It seems there were issues as reported by numerous people on here, but that is Christies problem, and I don't think the buyers should be penalised. Will the next piece that goes for a lower amount than expected be cancelled, or the one after? Surely they can find out what listings were affected, and even if they accepted the hammer price, they could have offered all the premiums to the sellers etc and took a hit themselves, rather than go down this route?ย Great for sellers who will earn a bit more, but ultimately it seems the decision is even better for Christies. As someone who is selling a Banksy print in this sale, having owned for 16 years after buying direct from POW, I have to disagree with you here. At the end of the day I submitted this to Christie's in good faith after they convinced me that they were theย place to sell Banksy's. I gave them my print on the proviso that they got me the best return. If their software was not up to the job and other potential bidders were prevented from getting involved due to technical error, then why is it suddenly the buyer who should be protected? If there was an auction house full of bidders for real and there was someone in the crowd who was preventing bidders from bidding, then the sale would be either null and void or the problem person removed from the sale - that to me looks like what Christie's have tried to do - extend the sale and hopefully sort out what became a shitshow, by removing or fixing the problem (the software). Personally I would rather have been given the opportunity to withdraw my print, however I have had no direct response to whether or not I can withdraw the print.ย The world over, auction houses will tell you they're the best place, you're in good hands etc etc but unfortunately errors occur both in people and systems. Something has gone wrong, they've accepted that and extended the auction. Successful bidders should still be willing to pay what they have bid. Every auction website has very clear rules on this. Spare a thought for those who thought they'd got a bargain only to find the auction reopening shortly after closing. |
|
Dubman
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 361
๐๐ป 415
May 2020
|
Christie's Art Auctions , by Dubman on Mar 31, 2021 10:05:04 GMT 1, What have I missed? This auction completed yesterday - and then it didnt..
What have I missed? This auction completed yesterday - and then it didnt..
|
|
Georgie Poppit
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,559
๐๐ป 1,674
February 2021
|
Christie's Art Auctions , by Georgie Poppit on Mar 31, 2021 10:25:35 GMT 1, Surely good for sellers, some good prices on a few pieces now
Surely good for sellers, some good prices on a few pieces now
|
|
scnomad
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 123
๐๐ป 62
December 2008
|
Christie's Art Auctions , by scnomad on Mar 31, 2021 10:38:19 GMT 1, Does anyone know if Christies have contacted registered bidders to let them know the auction has been extended? Has there been any formal communications / press releases etc.
Does anyone know if Christies have contacted registered bidders to let them know the auction has been extended? Has there been any formal communications / press releases etc.
|
|
Reader
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,272
๐๐ป 2,833
June 2016
|
Christie's Art Auctions , by Reader on Mar 31, 2021 10:43:50 GMT 1, Does anyone know if Christies have contacted registered bidders to let them know the auction has been extended? Has there been any formal communications / press releases etc.
Does anyone know if Christies have contacted registered bidders to let them know the auction has been extended? Has there been any formal communications / press releases etc. Yes, all bidders and sellers have been informed |
|
u%hdjfka c
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,005
๐๐ป 1,132
January 2021
|
Christie's Art Auctions , by u%hdjfka c on Mar 31, 2021 10:50:17 GMT 1, Very happy the auction has been extended. My ยฃ650k bid for GWB didn't go through in time yesterday. Good luck to all bidders.
Very happy the auction has been extended. My ยฃ650k bid for GWB didn't go through in time yesterday. Good luck to all bidders.
|
|
dzigavertov
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 42
๐๐ป 108
March 2021
|
Christie's Art Auctions , by dzigavertov on Mar 31, 2021 11:00:32 GMT 1, As someone who is selling a Banksy print in this sale, having owned for 16 years after buying direct from POW, I have to disagree with you here. At the end of the day I submitted this to Christie's in good faith after they convinced me that they were the place to sell Banksy's. I gave them my print on the proviso that they got me the best return. If their software was not up to the job and other potential bidders were prevented from getting involved due to technical error, then why is it suddenly the buyer who should be protected? If there was an auction house full of bidders for real and there was someone in the crowd who was preventing bidders from bidding, then the sale would be either null and void or the problem person removed from the sale - that to me looks like what Christie's have tried to do - extend the sale and hopefully sort out what became a shitshow, by removing or fixing the problem (the software). Personally I would rather have been given the opportunity to withdraw my print, however I have had no direct response to whether or not I can withdraw the print. The world over, auction houses will tell you they're the best place, you're in good hands etc etc but unfortunately errors occur both in people and systems. Something has gone wrong, they've accepted that and extended the auction. Successful bidders should still be willing to pay what they have bid. Every auction website has very clear rules on this. Spare a thought for those who thought they'd got a bargain only to find the auction reopening shortly after closing.
As someone who is selling a Banksy print in this sale, having owned for 16 years after buying direct from POW, I have to disagree with you here. At the end of the day I submitted this to Christie's in good faith after they convinced me that they were the place to sell Banksy's. I gave them my print on the proviso that they got me the best return. If their software was not up to the job and other potential bidders were prevented from getting involved due to technical error, then why is it suddenly the buyer who should be protected? If there was an auction house full of bidders for real and there was someone in the crowd who was preventing bidders from bidding, then the sale would be either null and void or the problem person removed from the sale - that to me looks like what Christie's have tried to do - extend the sale and hopefully sort out what became a shitshow, by removing or fixing the problem (the software). Personally I would rather have been given the opportunity to withdraw my print, however I have had no direct response to whether or not I can withdraw the print. The world over, auction houses will tell you they're the best place, you're in good hands etc etc but unfortunately errors occur both in people and systems. Something has gone wrong, they've accepted that and extended the auction. Successful bidders should still be willing to pay what they have bid. Every auction website has very clear rules on this. Spare a thought for those who thought they'd got a bargain only to find the auction reopening shortly after closing. Why should I spare a thought for people who did not win an auction fairly and squarely? The bottom line is here that the losers are the sellers. If the auction had been run properly, then the prices paid would have been reflected the prices bid....by everyone, not by a selected few who managed to get lucky and have their bid accepted. They can still use their bid, if it gets outbid fairly and squarely then they have lost nothing. Let's say this was a house sale and a range of offers were made to an estate agent and an estate agent only passed on a handful of those offers, then the seller would be rightly p*ssed.....or in Scotland, with closed bids by letter - if the estate agent said, they couldn't manage to open some of the envelopes so only passed on the ones they could open, there would sh*t hitting fans everywhere. |
|
|
|
dzigavertov
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 42
๐๐ป 108
March 2021
|
Christie's Art Auctions , by dzigavertov on Mar 31, 2021 11:06:15 GMT 1, Does anyone know if Christies have contacted registered bidders to let them know the auction has been extended? Has there been any formal communications / press releases etc.
I am not holding out for any more bids on mine....if I was a potential buyer, after yesterday's shit show, I would bid with another house
Does anyone know if Christies have contacted registered bidders to let them know the auction has been extended? Has there been any formal communications / press releases etc. They contacted sellers to apologise, guaranteeing that they would still be trying to get them the best deal possible. There was no explanation just a reference to technical problems with the closing of lots. I am not holding out for any more bids on mine....if I was a potential buyer, after yesterday's shit show, I would bid with another house |
|
reg
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 339
๐๐ป 499
October 2007
|
Christie's Art Auctions , by reg on Mar 31, 2021 11:48:21 GMT 1, The world over, auction houses will tell you they're the best place, you're in good hands etc etc but unfortunately errors occur both in people and systems. Something has gone wrong, they've accepted that and extended the auction. Successful bidders should still be willing to pay what they have bid. Every auction website has very clear rules on this. Spare a thought for those who thought they'd got a bargain only to find the auction reopening shortly after closing. Why should I spare a thought for people who did not win an auction fairly and squarely? The bottom line is here that the losers are the sellers. If the auction had been run properly, then the prices paid would have been reflected the prices bid....by everyone, not by a selected few who managed to get lucky and have their bid accepted. They can still use their bid, if it gets outbid fairly and squarely then they have lost nothing. Let's say this was a house sale and a range of offers were made to an estate agent and an estate agent only passed on a handful of those offers, then the seller would be rightly p*ssed.....or in Scotland, with closed bids by letter - if the estate agent said, they couldn't manage to open some of the envelopes so only passed on the ones they could open, there would sh*t hitting fans everywhere.ย
Spare a thought because genuine bidders weren't to know there was a fault. They've done nothing wrong, haven't manipulated anything and believe themselves to have secured a piece. Hours after the close they've found that not to be the case.
The world over, auction houses will tell you they're the best place, you're in good hands etc etc but unfortunately errors occur both in people and systems. Something has gone wrong, they've accepted that and extended the auction. Successful bidders should still be willing to pay what they have bid. Every auction website has very clear rules on this. Spare a thought for those who thought they'd got a bargain only to find the auction reopening shortly after closing. Why should I spare a thought for people who did not win an auction fairly and squarely? The bottom line is here that the losers are the sellers. If the auction had been run properly, then the prices paid would have been reflected the prices bid....by everyone, not by a selected few who managed to get lucky and have their bid accepted. They can still use their bid, if it gets outbid fairly and squarely then they have lost nothing. Let's say this was a house sale and a range of offers were made to an estate agent and an estate agent only passed on a handful of those offers, then the seller would be rightly p*ssed.....or in Scotland, with closed bids by letter - if the estate agent said, they couldn't manage to open some of the envelopes so only passed on the ones they could open, there would sh*t hitting fans everywhere.ย Spare a thought because genuine bidders weren't to know there was a fault. They've done nothing wrong, haven't manipulated anything and believe themselves to have secured a piece. Hours after the close they've found that not to be the case. |
|
ricardob
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 451
๐๐ป 250
March 2008
|
Christie's Art Auctions , by ricardob on Mar 31, 2021 11:49:58 GMT 1, Very happy the auction has been extended. My ยฃ650k bid for Girl With Balloon didn't go through in time yesterday. Good luck to all bidders.
I call it bs
Very happy the auction has been extended. My ยฃ650k bid for Girl With Balloon didn't go through in time yesterday. Good luck to all bidders. I call it bs |
|
ubl
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 362
๐๐ป 301
November 2019
|
Christie's Art Auctions , by ubl on Mar 31, 2021 12:06:17 GMT 1, Do you think buyers will still bid in the last 15 min?
Do you think buyers will still bid in the last 15 min?
|
|
woodman
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 236
๐๐ป 216
June 2017
|
Christie's Art Auctions , by woodman on Mar 31, 2021 12:23:46 GMT 1, That's all good and well, but what protection does the buyers have? When pieces are in an auction it is a gamble for a seller, and a buyer will hope they get a bargain. The seller hopes there are multiple buyers all wanting the same piece and get an inflated price, and the buyers are hoping the opposite. At what point can Christies (or any auction house), just say "we don't like the selling price so are going to add some more time to it, look at our T&Cs"? It seems there were issues as reported by numerous people on here, but that is Christies problem, and I don't think the buyers should be penalised. Will the next piece that goes for a lower amount than expected be cancelled, or the one after? Surely they can find out what listings were affected, and even if they accepted the hammer price, they could have offered all the premiums to the sellers etc and took a hit themselves, rather than go down this route? Great for sellers who will earn a bit more, but ultimately it seems the decision is even better for Christies. As someone who is selling a Banksy print in this sale, having owned for 16 years after buying direct from POW, I have to disagree with you here. At the end of the day I submitted this to Christie's in good faith after they convinced me that they were the place to sell Banksy's. I gave them my print on the proviso that they got me the best return. If their software was not up to the job and other potential bidders were prevented from getting involved due to technical error, then why is it suddenly the buyer who should be protected? If there was an auction house full of bidders for real and there was someone in the crowd who was preventing bidders from bidding, then the sale would be either null and void or the problem person removed from the sale - that to me looks like what Christie's have tried to do - extend the sale and hopefully sort out what became a shitshow, by removing or fixing the problem (the software). Personally I would rather have been given the opportunity to withdraw my print, however I have had no direct response to whether or not I can withdraw the print.
The whole shitshow is down to Christies, they should be the ones taking a hit and somehow compensating the sellers with some sort of agreement for the underperforming lots dues to their technical issues, or adding all their commission to the sold prices, for their own longterm reputation and damage limitation.
Their solution will definitely seem better for any seller, as the seller has nothing to lose now. It will also be better for them with more commission going their way, and since you have said you haven't even had a response on whether you can withdraw it or not, that tells you exactly where they stand and seems very poor form on their part.
Anyway, just my thoughts and good luck with it.
That's all good and well, but what protection does the buyers have? When pieces are in an auction it is a gamble for a seller, and a buyer will hope they get a bargain. The seller hopes there are multiple buyers all wanting the same piece and get an inflated price, and the buyers are hoping the opposite. At what point can Christies (or any auction house), just say "we don't like the selling price so are going to add some more time to it, look at our T&Cs"? It seems there were issues as reported by numerous people on here, but that is Christies problem, and I don't think the buyers should be penalised. Will the next piece that goes for a lower amount than expected be cancelled, or the one after? Surely they can find out what listings were affected, and even if they accepted the hammer price, they could have offered all the premiums to the sellers etc and took a hit themselves, rather than go down this route? Great for sellers who will earn a bit more, but ultimately it seems the decision is even better for Christies. As someone who is selling a Banksy print in this sale, having owned for 16 years after buying direct from POW, I have to disagree with you here. At the end of the day I submitted this to Christie's in good faith after they convinced me that they were the place to sell Banksy's. I gave them my print on the proviso that they got me the best return. If their software was not up to the job and other potential bidders were prevented from getting involved due to technical error, then why is it suddenly the buyer who should be protected? If there was an auction house full of bidders for real and there was someone in the crowd who was preventing bidders from bidding, then the sale would be either null and void or the problem person removed from the sale - that to me looks like what Christie's have tried to do - extend the sale and hopefully sort out what became a shitshow, by removing or fixing the problem (the software). Personally I would rather have been given the opportunity to withdraw my print, however I have had no direct response to whether or not I can withdraw the print. Of course you would disagree, as you are a seller, and I don't blame you for that at all. I honestly, really do not know what the best action was to take after the lots closed, but I do not think it is right to just simply penalise the buyers and add more time, and just carry on. What is to stop in any future Christies auction can a group of people get together and all start shouting they tried to bid and failed due to technical issues, and get that auction extended (maybe a bunch of the sellers friends, and claim Christies have set a precedent)? Get the media involved? They have potentially opened a can of worms imo. The whole shitshow is down to Christies, they should be the ones taking a hit and somehow compensating the sellers with some sort of agreement for the underperforming lots dues to their technical issues, or adding all their commission to the sold prices, for their own longterm reputation and damage limitation. Their solution will definitely seem better for any seller, as the seller has nothing to lose now. It will also be better for them with more commission going their way, and since you have said you haven't even had a response on whether you can withdraw it or not, that tells you exactly where they stand and seems very poor form on their part. Anyway, just my thoughts and good luck with it. |
|
dzigavertov
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 42
๐๐ป 108
March 2021
|
Christie's Art Auctions , by dzigavertov on Mar 31, 2021 12:28:22 GMT 1, I don't expect many bidders to be active in the next day, never mind last 15 minutes...this sale has become a shambles.
Perhaps some of the big hitters might get activity, but I think the majority of which will remain the same.
A mate of mine did a comparison between Sothebys sale last week and this one....21 out of 22 like for like prints had higher prices realised than Christies when it ended yesterday....a good example was U/S Toxic Mary - price realised on Sothebys 88000+ on Christies 42000....over 50% less....which seems weird. Plus many of the prints had condition issues in Sothebys, whereas apparently Christie's will only accept excellent to mint condition.
It does suggest that something went seriously wrong with this sale.....it just leaves a bad taste in the mouth....for me it wasn't just about the amount of dollar I might get for mine, it was about buzzing from watching the lots having plenty of last minute activity....hardly anything happened yesterday, whereas Sothebys was great to watch the majority of lots getting last minute bids and time extensions
I don't expect many bidders to be active in the next day, never mind last 15 minutes...this sale has become a shambles.
Perhaps some of the big hitters might get activity, but I think the majority of which will remain the same.
A mate of mine did a comparison between Sothebys sale last week and this one....21 out of 22 like for like prints had higher prices realised than Christies when it ended yesterday....a good example was U/S Toxic Mary - price realised on Sothebys 88000+ on Christies 42000....over 50% less....which seems weird. Plus many of the prints had condition issues in Sothebys, whereas apparently Christie's will only accept excellent to mint condition.
It does suggest that something went seriously wrong with this sale.....it just leaves a bad taste in the mouth....for me it wasn't just about the amount of dollar I might get for mine, it was about buzzing from watching the lots having plenty of last minute activity....hardly anything happened yesterday, whereas Sothebys was great to watch the majority of lots getting last minute bids and time extensions
|
|
dzigavertov
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 42
๐๐ป 108
March 2021
|
Christie's Art Auctions , by dzigavertov on Mar 31, 2021 12:31:32 GMT 1, woodman I agree with your points - I don't think we have vastly different opinions. I also think Christie's should offer some sort of reduction in fees for both sellers and buyers as way of compensating for the massive anti-climax for everyone involved.
I expected better
woodman I agree with your points - I don't think we have vastly different opinions. I also think Christie's should offer some sort of reduction in fees for both sellers and buyers as way of compensating for the massive anti-climax for everyone involved. I expected better
|
|
orchid
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,464
๐๐ป 1,150
May 2018
|
Christie's Art Auctions , by orchid on Mar 31, 2021 12:36:22 GMT 1, woodman I agree with your points - I don't think we have vastly different opinions. I also think Christie's should offer some sort of reduction in fees for both sellers and buyers as way of compensating for the massive anti-climax for the sellers and the buyers. I expected better
After anger and bargaining, acceptance finally waits. I feel you, you could have been 20k richer last night (course it's all about the dollar for seller - fuck all else). Hope you get the best outcome From the extension.
woodman I agree with your points - I don't think we have vastly different opinions. I also think Christie's should offer some sort of reduction in fees for both sellers and buyers as way of compensating for the massive anti-climax for the sellers and the buyers. I expected better After anger and bargaining, acceptance finally waits. I feel you, you could have been 20k richer last night (course it's all about the dollar for seller - fuck all else). Hope you get the best outcome From the extension. |
|
