December 31, 2004
More on the Met's Duccio
A bit more background on the acquisition over at ArtNet News. Seems that Sotheby's had given the owners a $15M estimate, but before the consignment was finalized Christie's managed to broker it for three times that -- probably around twice what one would have expected as a final price. But as the article notes:
Though the Met is not known for superior negotiating skills, its hand was forced on the Duccio when the Louvre showed unexpected interest in picture. "You'd think that the Louvre has everything, but they don't have a Duccio," said the curator, "and when Philippe de Montebello heard from Christie's that they were after it, he went insane.Hat tip to Walter Robinson.
Posted by David on December 31, 2004 10:55 AM
IF SOTHEBY'S ACTUALLY PROVIDED AN ESTIMATE AS LOW AS $15 MILLION DOLLARS ON THE DUCCIO IT SEEMS ONLY TO MAKE SENSE AS A VERY LOW ESTIMATE--YOU DON'T HAVE TO ESTIMATE A WORK AS RARE AND ONE LIKELY TO GARNER HIGHLY COMPETATIVE BIDDING AS THE DUCCIO IN PRICE RANGE WHERE IT IS LIKELY TO SELL.
GIVEN THAT THIS IS THE LAST PRIVATELY HELD KNOW DUCCIO AND THAT SEVERAL MAJOR MUSUESMS LIKE THE LOUVRE, THE MET AND ALSO THE GETTY--DESPITE REPORTS THAT THEY TURNED IT DOWN--REALLY?--WOULD HAVE BEEN BIDDING, NOT TO MENTION RICH ITALIANS WHO MIGHT ALSO HAVE BEEN BIDDING.
THE WORK IS INFINITELY RARER THAN THE RUBENS WHICH SOLD FOR A GOOD TWO FIFTHS MORE AND THERE IS NO REASON TO THINK THAT IF PONTORMO AT AUCTION SO MANY YEARS AGO BROUGHT 45 MILLION, THAT THIS DUCCIO COULD NOT HAVE NEARED THE 100 MILLION AT ACUTION.
THE STORY AS IT APPEARS HERE THAT THE MET WENT NUTS WANTING IT AND THAT $45 MILLION IS FAR MORE THAN IT WOULD HAVE BROUGHT AT AUCTION IS NONSENSE!
THREE CHEERS FOR THE MET FOR GETTING A SIGNIFICANT DUCCIO TO ADD TO THE MET'S COLLECTION AND FOR BEATING OUT THE COMPETITION. I THINK THEY UNDERPAID BY A GOOD 25-50 MILLION.
Posted by: on January 9, 2005 1:14 AM
Historical and aesthetic value is one thing; market value, quite another.
Don't mistake me -- if Damien Hirst's shark is worth over $10M, a good Duccio ought to fetch $100M. But that's not the way the art market works.
Sotheby's $15M estimate (of the minimum selling price, of course, not the maximum) was entirely reasonable. A bit conservative, but no auction house (and no consignor) wants to end up with a major piece like this bought in. At the high end of the art market, great works can soar -- but they can also flop.
Posted by: David on January 9, 2005 9:47 AM
in response again--sorry, but while no auction wants to get it wrong and place too high an estimate on a work of art like this--loosing the work to your traditional rival beacuse you were so far off the mark is the proof in this pudding.
sotheby's got it wrong--maybe they didn't understand the potential value of virtually the last duccio in private hands that is likely to be sold on the open market. maybe they didn't really understand duccio's singular place in renaissance art history along with giotto as far as art historians are concerned.
to say they acted in a conservative and correct manner is to try and deny their enormous error and the brilliant quick action taken by the met.
i still say at auction $100 million.
Posted by: michael on May 6, 2005 8:07 PM
cronaca.com