idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
But the worth of the story could make it more valuable in the interim, which is relatively attractive. If inflation remains at around 3%, the chance of this painting depreciating to the point it wasn't a worthwhile purchase are next to nil. And no one buys paintings as a short-term investment.
Do you see the problem?
I agree that whomever buys it almost certainly will buy it because of the whole "lost for 100 years" bit, and will pay a pretty penny for it. But once the novelty/buzz wears off, it wont be worth as much. So that person had better really want the novelty and not care much about value on the market. To be fair, that likely describes most collectors of such things. I'm just saying that the pitch you're giving is exactly what someone selling the painting would use to maximize the amount he can get. Nothing wrong with that, but how much it's really going to sell for will depend on whether people buy the pitch or see through it (and/or don't care about the value anyway).
Yes, but that is the reality of the art market. People don't want Van Gogh because he was the greatest artist to ever live (well, I'm sure that's why SOME people want Van Gogh, but I'm doubting there's a meaningful overlap between those people and people who happen to own Van Gogh pieces). People buy art because it's a status symbol and because much of it isn't going to depreciate in value over time.
At least, that's the case where these price levels are concerned. ANY Van Gogh piece is going to nab you a very, very pretty penny far down the line when you finally sell it, in 30+ years (or when your grand kids sell it, whatever). The chances that the market won't inflate to that point are very low. It's an incredibly safe investment, because the chances of his works being unwanted even a century from now are next to nothing.
So what you pay for a Van Gogh right now doesn't actually matter much when calculating the value when you sell it. Sure, it certainly matters to you right now, but the difference between 3.4 mil and 3.5 mil won't be felt nearly as much if you go to sell it in 20 years as it would if you go to sell it in 1 year. It's essentially the difference between 6.8 and 7 million.
Enough to care? Sure.
Enough to care so much you don't bother nabbing the bragging rights to this painting right now
when you're in a position to drop 4 million dollars without a care in the world? Absolutely not.
And that's generally the case with the sorts of people buying such big name pieces. Bidding wars ensue over the name alone
, even for lesser works. A decent work, at the apex of his career, with a solid story behind it? I would not be surprised at all if this sold for more than one of his better (but not top-15) works sold.
Because, honestly, unless it's a painting that EVERYONE knows, like Starry Night or his self portrait, most of the potential buyers couldn't give two sh*ts about the quality.
Van Gogh's single greatest work of art, if it doesn't have a famous title, would absolutely sell for less than this painting here. It would absolutely, strictly speaking, be the better investment
, but since the higher priced option is still an extremely solid investment, who cares? There's only so many to go around, after all.