4 ms·

I think the buyer probably had a net worth at least ≥ $4.5 billion (I wouldn't spend more than 10% of my wealth on a single painting.) According to https://www.

by mrb 9y ago

I think the buyer probably had a net worth at least ≥ $4.5 billion (I wouldn't spend more than 10% of my wealth on a single painting.) According to https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/ https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/ there are only ~380 persons that would qualify. Any one knows who is the buyer?

obilgic 9y ago
doesn't have to be an individual.
aerovistae 9y ago
You would spend 10% of your wealth on a painting?
- existencebox 9y ago
  Non-glib answer: Art tends to hold value very well. For someone in that wealth bracket, this is probably a very reasonable diversification + having a significant amount of sentimental value. (it's Davinci, which even for a pleb like me would be neat to have in your living room) glib answer: More money than sense. Edit: I realize you didn't have "why would you" in your question and answered something you didn't ask. Apologies. (I nontheless maintain my statements :) )
  - username223 9y ago
    > For someone in that wealth bracket, this is probably a very reasonable diversification + having a significant amount of sentimental value. I can't even pretend to understand how people in that "wealth bracket" think. Imagine if you knew, or at least knew of, every person in the world with as much or more money than you (i.e. a few hundred). Imagine if you had enough money to ensure that, barring major wars or mistakes, all of your close friends and descendants could live comfortably without ever having to work another day. What would you do with the spare hundreds of millions of dollars? Build space ships? Build islands? Buy paintings? Buy paintings, only to set them on fire to demonstrate your power? > (it's Davinci, which even for a pleb like me would be neat to have in your living room) Imagine the maintenance costs. I'd keep the thing in a Swiss vault, and sell it to the highest bidder.
- Noxchi 9y ago
  It's not really spending. If you look at the resale values it is investing. High art is more investment than consumption (as they say, the rich get richer...)
usaphp 9y ago
> I wouldn't spend more than 10% of my wealth on a single painting. Well I guess it’s easier to spend 10% of your wealth if you know you still have $4 billion left.
khazhou 9y ago
You wouldn't spend more than 10% of your wealth on a Da Vinci?
- username223 9y ago
  Nope. Let's say I'm worth between $10k and $10m, i.e. somewhere in the range of a normal human. I would be crushed by the maintenance costs, even if I kept it in a Swiss vault instead of on my wall where I could actually look at it. The only reason I would spend 10% of my net worth is to immediately sell it to a Russian oligarch for a fat profit.
- megy 9y ago
  Of course not. Most people would not. I wouldn't spend that much no matter how much I had.

by mrb 9y ago

obilgic 9y ago

doesn't have to be an individual.

aerovistae 9y ago

You would spend 10% of your wealth on a painting?

existencebox 9y ago
Non-glib answer: Art tends to hold value very well. For someone in that wealth bracket, this is probably a very reasonable diversification + having a significant amount of sentimental value. (it's Davinci, which even for a pleb like me would be neat to have in your living room) glib answer: More money than sense. Edit: I realize you didn't have "why would you" in your question and answered something you didn't ask. Apologies. (I nontheless maintain my statements :) )
- username223 9y ago
  > For someone in that wealth bracket, this is probably a very reasonable diversification + having a significant amount of sentimental value. I can't even pretend to understand how people in that "wealth bracket" think. Imagine if you knew, or at least knew of, every person in the world with as much or more money than you (i.e. a few hundred). Imagine if you had enough money to ensure that, barring major wars or mistakes, all of your close friends and descendants could live comfortably without ever having to work another day. What would you do with the spare hundreds of millions of dollars? Build space ships? Build islands? Buy paintings? Buy paintings, only to set them on fire to demonstrate your power? > (it's Davinci, which even for a pleb like me would be neat to have in your living room) Imagine the maintenance costs. I'd keep the thing in a Swiss vault, and sell it to the highest bidder.
Noxchi 9y ago
It's not really spending. If you look at the resale values it is investing. High art is more investment than consumption (as they say, the rich get richer...)

usaphp 9y ago

> I wouldn't spend more than 10% of my wealth on a single painting. Well I guess it’s easier to spend 10% of your wealth if you know you still have $4 billion left.

khazhou 9y ago

You wouldn't spend more than 10% of your wealth on a Da Vinci?

username223 9y ago
Nope. Let's say I'm worth between $10k and $10m, i.e. somewhere in the range of a normal human. I would be crushed by the maintenance costs, even if I kept it in a Swiss vault instead of on my wall where I could actually look at it. The only reason I would spend 10% of my net worth is to immediately sell it to a Russian oligarch for a fat profit.
megy 9y ago
Of course not. Most people would not. I wouldn't spend that much no matter how much I had.