Community Chat

[chiclet]

I just think of all the starving children and dogs that could have fed.

[gardenman]

---

@Kachina624 wrote:

Imagine the worry and responsibility of having to keep it safe.  Thieves would always be hot on its trail.

---

Thieves tend to avoid the really high-end stuff due to the challenge of finding a buyer for it. You can't put it back on the auction market. Whoever buys it has to keep it hidden and can't ever sell it, or let it be known they own it. If you steal it, you'll never get anything close to the $450 million for it. Your only real option would be to ransom it back to the original owner for however much you can get, but that becomes tricky as transferring that kind of money while handing over the painting is more than a little complicated and risky. Stealing a painting like that becomes a huge pain for the person who steals it. There are much easier, more lucrative things to steal. The market for stolen art is not very big. The risks are very high and the rewards are very small.

Things like gems can be recut and sold easily. Gold is easy to sell. You can't cut down a painting and sell the bits and pieces. You've got to have a buyer who never intends to display it to anyone and wants it solely for their ego as they can't do anything with it other than keep it out of sight. There aren't a lot of those types of buyers floating around. Stolen artwork always finds its way back to the original owner. It may take a while, but eventually it'll find its way back to the original owner. Smart thieves go nowhere near artwork of that caliber. It's far more trouble than it's worth.

[Financialgrl]

My first thought when I heard this (bad grammar only for effect) - - "ain't nothing in this world worth that amount of money, nothing".  Second thought was thinking how many ppl (starving, sick, or otherwise that money could help).

[SahmIam]

Many of the fine pieces of art that are in museums the public sees daily are on loan courtesy of a private collector. It is correct that it costs $$$$ to insure items of great worth, not to mention that many insurance companies require to owner to install specific types of security else, no coverage. I applaud those private collectors who feel that the public should be able to enjoy the art and choose to spend THEIR money on something and then have it hang/sit in a museum for generations so all can enjoy. Many great works are tucked away because 1) the owner chooses not to share and 2) because a museum simply can't afford to purchase the piece.

[gardenman]

---

@SahmIam wrote:

Many of the fine pieces of art that are in museums the public sees daily are on loan courtesy of a private collector. It is correct that it costs $$$$ to insure items of great worth, not to mention that many insurance companies require to owner to install specific types of security else, no coverage. I applaud those private collectors who feel that the public should be able to enjoy the art and choose to spend THEIR money on something and then have it hang/sit in a museum for generations so all can enjoy. Many great works are tucked away because 1) the owner chooses not to share and 2) because a museum simply can't afford to purchase the piece.

---

Many of those loaning their art to a museum view the art as an investment piece. Spend $450 million today and in five years time it might be worth $550 million or more. By loaning it to a museum you let them assume the risk of safeguarding it. As investments go, high end art (that valued at $10 million or more) is pretty safe. All of the rest of art is generally a really bad investment with a low return. The only real risk is in buying a forgery, and there are lots of forgeries out there. If you're comfortable with the provenance of the piece and are absolutely sure it's not a forgery, the price doesn't really matter. The high end art will go up in value. The only real issue is the cost to sell it down the road. Galleries typically want 50% of the sale price. Auction houses want a percentage of the sale. Brokers want their cut. You need it to increase substantially to make any real money, but generally speaking, it does. 

[goldensrbest]

It is breathtakingly beautiful.His paintings are rare and to be admired.

[SahmIam]

---

@gardenman wrote:

---

@SahmIam wrote:

Many of the fine pieces of art that are in museums the public sees daily are on loan courtesy of a private collector. It is correct that it costs $$$$ to insure items of great worth, not to mention that many insurance companies require to owner to install specific types of security else, no coverage. I applaud those private collectors who feel that the public should be able to enjoy the art and choose to spend THEIR money on something and then have it hang/sit in a museum for generations so all can enjoy. Many great works are tucked away because 1) the owner chooses not to share and 2) because a museum simply can't afford to purchase the piece.

---

Many of those loaning their art to a museum view the art as an investment piece. Spend $450 million today and in five years time it might be worth $550 million or more. By loaning it to a museum you let them assume the risk of safeguarding it. As investments go, high end art (that valued at $10 million or more) is pretty safe. All of the rest of art is generally a really bad investment with a low return. The only real risk is in buying a forgery, and there are lots of forgeries out there. If you're comfortable with the provenance of the piece and are absolutely sure it's not a forgery, the price doesn't really matter. The high end art will go up in value. The only real issue is the cost to sell it down the road. Galleries typically want 50% of the sale price. Auction houses want a percentage of the sale. Brokers want their cut. You need it to increase substantially to make any real money, but generally speaking, it does. 

---

Exactly. Well said.

[SharkE]

---

@Financialgrl wrote:

My first thought when I heard this (bad grammar only for effect) - - "ain't nothing in this world worth that amount of money, nothing".  Second thought was thinking how many ppl (starving, sick, or otherwise that money could help).

---

I don't like to make fun of other people who aren't college educated.

Husband is a medical professional, but, I'm not. Never once has he turned to me and made fun of me when I try to pronounce words or correct me in public, etc.

He accepts other people and doesn't look down his nose at people who have not had his opportunities growing up.

By the way, living in Tx. you never know if that 'rube' could buy us all out and have change left over. LOL

[Oznell]

I just read that it wasn't a mysterious Russian business man or Walmart heir at all--  it was the Saudi Crown Prince who got it.  Wow, lucky.  It was intimated in the article that he may put it in a museum for awhile.   I'm sure at some point it will be in his residence.

If I had a da Vinci, I'd almost feel guilty for all the time I DIDN"T spend looking at it.  I never can remember if moist air or dry air is better for canvases-- it probably doesn't matter since he will have top advisers to consult on how to protect this treasure...

It makes me unreasonably happy to think of a 500 year old masterpiece having a home...

[proudlyfromNJ]

---

@SharkE wrote:

---

@Financialgrl wrote:

My first thought when I heard this (bad grammar only for effect) - - "ain't nothing in this world worth that amount of money, nothing".  Second thought was thinking how many ppl (starving, sick, or otherwise that money could help).

---

I don't like to make fun of other people who aren't college educated.

Husband is a medical professional, but, I'm not. Never once has he turned to me and made fun of me when I try to pronounce words or correct me in public, etc.

He accepts other people and doesn't look down his nose at people who have not had his opportunities growing up.

By the way, living in Tx. you never know if that 'rube' could buy us all out and have change left over. LOL

---

@SharkE.  I agree with you. I hate when posters are corrected.