5 ms·

According to another source from BBC, the final bid for the work was $400m, with fees bringing the full price up to $450.3m. http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainme

According to another source from BBC, the final bid for the work was $400m, with fees bringing the full price up to $450.3m. http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-42000696 http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-42000696 What's interesting from the BBC article is the image "The painting has been cleaned and restored from the image on the left to the one on the right" doesn't even look like the same person? Another anecdote - In 1958 it was sold at auction in London for $60. By then the painting was generally reckoned to be the work of a follower of Leonardo and not the work of Leonardo himself.

nhooyr 9y ago
50.3 million dollars in fees....
- TylerE 9y ago
  10-15% is pretty standard in the auction world.
  - gowld 9y ago
    Still absurd to not discount when the price gets so high.
    - ryankupyn 9y ago
      I'd actually be inclined to have an escalating fee (as a % of sale price) for a higher final price (relative to an independent appraisal) if I were a seller - just to keep the incentives aligned.
    - TylerE 9y ago
      Auctioneers cost go up proportionally. What do you think insurance and security costs for something like?
noncoml 9y ago
> the work of a follower of Leonardo and not the work of Leonardo himself How are they certain now that it is indeed Leonardo's job. Also if the exact same painting is sold for $60 when it is thought to be work of a follower of Leonardo and $450m when it is believed to be Leonardo's work, what does this say about the collectors?
dchuk 9y ago
That's...kinda weird, right? The before and after are clearly two different paintings. Hair is different, mouth is different...I would assume, as a layman, that restoring a piece of art the goal should keep it looking nearly the same just cleaning it up and removing damage. This looks like they just straight up painted over it.
- robotresearcher 9y ago
  The restoration removed the previous painted-over-it paint.
- onewaystreet 9y ago
  Christie's has more details here: http://www.christies.com/features/Salvator-Mundi-timeline-8644-3.aspx http://www.christies.com/features/Salvator-Mundi-timeline-86... That BBC quote is a bit misleading. The photo on the left is what the painting looked like before restoration, not what it looked like when it was originally painted. Parts of it had been damaged and repainted over multiple times in the past which is why the restored version looks so different.
  - zhte415 9y ago
    That was an excellent article and dialogue. Thank you.
  - Jaruzel 9y ago
    Bearing in mind here, that Christie's had a vested interest in the painting selling for as high as an amount as possible. So interesting this may be, it's hardly unbiased. Personally, I'm a believer. :)

nhooyr 9y ago

50.3 million dollars in fees....

TylerE 9y ago
10-15% is pretty standard in the auction world.
- gowld 9y ago
  Still absurd to not discount when the price gets so high.
  - ryankupyn 9y ago
    I'd actually be inclined to have an escalating fee (as a % of sale price) for a higher final price (relative to an independent appraisal) if I were a seller - just to keep the incentives aligned.
  - TylerE 9y ago
    Auctioneers cost go up proportionally. What do you think insurance and security costs for something like?

noncoml 9y ago

> the work of a follower of Leonardo and not the work of Leonardo himself How are they certain now that it is indeed Leonardo's job. Also if the exact same painting is sold for $60 when it is thought to be work of a follower of Leonardo and $450m when it is believed to be Leonardo's work, what does this say about the collectors?

dchuk 9y ago

That's...kinda weird, right? The before and after are clearly two different paintings. Hair is different, mouth is different...I would assume, as a layman, that restoring a piece of art the goal should keep it looking nearly the same just cleaning it up and removing damage. This looks like they just straight up painted over it.

robotresearcher 9y ago
The restoration removed the previous painted-over-it paint.
onewaystreet 9y ago
Christie's has more details here: http://www.christies.com/features/Salvator-Mundi-timeline-8644-3.aspx http://www.christies.com/features/Salvator-Mundi-timeline-86... That BBC quote is a bit misleading. The photo on the left is what the painting looked like before restoration, not what it looked like when it was originally painted. Parts of it had been damaged and repainted over multiple times in the past which is why the restored version looks so different.
- zhte415 9y ago
  That was an excellent article and dialogue. Thank you.
- Jaruzel 9y ago
  Bearing in mind here, that Christie's had a vested interest in the painting selling for as high as an amount as possible. So interesting this may be, it's hardly unbiased. Personally, I'm a believer. :)