|
|
Post by sin on Oct 22, 2012 9:08:28 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by devours on Oct 22, 2012 9:18:38 GMT -8
Geddes prints are ripe as flipper fodder. A shame for sure. I think that's why I have loved how Ashley has sold all of his prints. Under the radar and sold out instantly with no actual time offered.
|
|
|
|
Post by fnord on Oct 22, 2012 10:24:05 GMT -8
There were a lot of crews on line. Multiple groups of 5-6 people all organized to purchase.
|
|
|
|
Post by |peetov| on Oct 22, 2012 10:44:17 GMT -8
i was in line and probably about 30 people away from getting anything. there were people loading cars with sets of prints. as was stated by fnord, crews of people. also, i completely mis-timed when i would need to arrive. i bumped into some people on their way out who said they got the last print and they had arrived at 7am.
|
|
|
|
Post by sin on Oct 22, 2012 11:30:06 GMT -8
I'd rather see the gallery release the print at secondary market rate so at least the artist gets the benefit of the demand. I'm sure this topic has been discussed into the ground so I wont beat the dead horse.
|
|
|
|
Post by Weezy on Oct 22, 2012 23:21:40 GMT -8
I'd rather see the gallery release the print at secondary market rate so at least the artist gets the benefit of the demand. I'm sure this topic has been discussed into the ground so I wont beat the dead horse. I agree. Where demand far exceeds supply, the fairest thing is to let the price rise so that the piece goes to the person who values it most. When you seek to defy the realities of the market, the market will reassert itself. The argument you sometimes hear is that an artist's prices need to be managed, to maintain supportable, long term pricing, thereby encouraging the very often false idea of art as "investment" and avoiding collectors' wrath of feeling duped by gallerists about overpaying when demand, and thus prices, wane. I haven't found that compelling. Why can't the value of work go up and down as demand waxes and wanes? It does at auction. Okay, you bought at the top and demand sinks, you lose. Big whoop if you really love the work. But if you bought on speculation that turned out wrong, well... then you're bitter. It doesn't change the reality that demand is what it is, regardless of how inaccurate your perception of it may be. There may be some value in keeping the true demand for the artists' work a mystery. For example, if a gallery sets the price at $5K, but the highest price someone is willing to pay in an auction setting is $10K, that's informative. You now know, for example, that demand wouldn't support a sale at $15 or $20K or maybe even $40K so you'd never offer to pay that. If there's no auction, and the price is $5K, all you know is that there's a feverish demand to get the piece at that price and you're left to speculating that demand wouldn't actually support a price of, say, $40K, because you don't have any way of accurately assessing actual demand. The opacity of demand combined with scarcity may drive an overestimation of actual demand, pushing prices marginally higher than they otherwise might be, particularly if promoters are ardently encouraging such misperceptions. It exploits ignorance and market failure to make more money. But doesn't the secondary market provide that clarity eventually? Probably it would, but for unique pieces turnover is low enough that one may ascribe low demand = lower prices as a one off event or as relating to demand for that particular piece. In the print market, the pieces are identical and the volume is higher, so it's more difficult to obscure the reality of demand. Thoughts? Weezy |
|
x43x
Junior Member
Posts: 91
|
Post by x43x on Oct 27, 2012 7:51:06 GMT -8
When the print price was first posted it was $450, but that was apparently a mistake. I think they should have left it at that price. The flippers would have bought it anyway, but at least Jeremy would have gotten more. Even $275 was higher than their normal pricing, but they probably made about the same after the gallery cut and since they didn't have to ship anything.
|
|
