I’m pretty sure the buyer of this was not into DiVinci per se, or and maybe not even an art aficionado at all. The work is of widely questioned authenticity. At a minimum it has be so heavily restored that the original brushstrokes by the master likely gone or covered up. Furthermore, if it is a DiVinci, it was not one of his better efforts. This was about buying the most expensive piece of artwork ever, and having that bragging right. The price makes perfect sense if that was the motivation.
Obviously the art world is not protected by third party graders. Here we have a seriously doctored piece of art and the provenance is iin question. 450 million later......funny.
PCGS would never let this happen........ even if they could afford the buyback.
@cnncoins said:
Really interesting "trail" with this piece. First, it took 6 years to properly restore. As I understand it there was a consortium of art dealers who purchased the painting for 80M and "flipped' it the owner for 125+M. This resulted in lawsuits where the buyer was suing the sellers for "excessive markup", among other things. The owner put it in auction where the auction company guaranteed the seller $100M regardless of the bidding action. If it had gone for 50M, the auction company would be down a quick 50M. I wonder what will happen with the lawsuits after selling for 450M? The sellers will probably countersue that they sold it way too cheap and are entitled to more money!
And that "consortium" of dealers helped keep the price down on their original purchase price. Consortium is a nice word. Collusion is a bad one.
If a painting can go for $450M I wonder what needs to happen so coins up further, say up to even $50M.
For one thing, the coin would have to increase in size by about 50X-1000X. Then we're talking turkey.
It's been confirmed that the purchaser is the Louvre Museum. They are going to place it as the star attraction in their Abu Dhabi branch museum. It makes sense that the Louvre would buy it to protect their investment in the Mona Lisa.
It's been confirmed that the purchaser is the Louvre Museum. They are going to place it as the star attraction in their Abu Dhabi branch museum. It makes sense that the Louvre would buy it to protect their investment in the Mona Lisa and maintain their status of having the most famous Da Vinci paintings. And we're back to no Da Vinci paintings in private hands.
Comments
I’m pretty sure the buyer of this was not into DiVinci per se, or and maybe not even an art aficionado at all. The work is of widely questioned authenticity. At a minimum it has be so heavily restored that the original brushstrokes by the master likely gone or covered up. Furthermore, if it is a DiVinci, it was not one of his better efforts. This was about buying the most expensive piece of artwork ever, and having that bragging right. The price makes perfect sense if that was the motivation.
LIBERTY SEATED DIMES WITH MAJOR VARIETIES CIRCULATION STRIKES (1837-1891) digital album
Obviously the art world is not protected by third party graders. Here we have a seriously doctored piece of art and the provenance is iin question. 450 million later......funny.
PCGS would never let this happen........ even if they could afford the buyback.
OINK
And that "consortium" of dealers helped keep the price down on their original purchase price. Consortium is a nice word. Collusion is a bad one.
If a painting can go for $450M I wonder what needs to happen so coins up further, say up to even $50M.
For one thing, the coin would have to increase in size by about 50X-1000X. Then we're talking turkey.
It's been confirmed that the purchaser is the Louvre Museum. They are going to place it as the star attraction in their Abu Dhabi branch museum. It makes sense that the Louvre would buy it to protect their investment in the Mona Lisa.
http://edition.cnn.com/style/article/record-breaking-da-vinci-painting-abu-dhabi-louvre/index.html
It's been confirmed that the purchaser is the Louvre Museum. They are going to place it as the star attraction in their Abu Dhabi branch museum. It makes sense that the Louvre would buy it to protect their investment in the Mona Lisa and maintain their status of having the most famous Da Vinci paintings. And we're back to no Da Vinci paintings in private hands.
http://edition.cnn.com/style/article/record-breaking-da-vinci-painting-abu-dhabi-louvre/index.html
Pretty sure some Saudi prince actually bought it and is loaning it to the museum.
That's correct. Several stories about this today.