4 ms·

I remember a painting was discovered, and there was speculation that it was a da Vinci. It was appraised at $30,000. If it could be proven to be a da Vinci, it

I remember a painting was discovered, and there was speculation that it was a da Vinci. It was appraised at $30,000. If it could be proven to be a da Vinci, it would be worth a million. For the same item. Crazy.

falcor84 1y ago
Let's say that I gift you a suitcase with ten thousand $100 bills that seem legit, but you're not sure. How much would you be willing to pay for a proof that they are indeed legit?
- WalterBright 1y ago
  It's a crime to pass counterfeit money. I'm not interested in that kind of trouble. Besides, I don't need to pay to test for it being legit. Just go to a bank.
  - falcor84 1y ago
    The legality does break the analogy, but my point was just that a suitcase with ten thousand $100 bills has a non-zero value on its own, but that proving its provenance would significantly increase its value, despite the suitcase staying the same. The argument then is that this is not unique to art - it's (financially) valuable for us to know who made an artifact and what its journey was until it got to us.
Nevermark 1y ago
Do you think a sculpture by a pre-civilization human is worth more than something banged out yesterday? Heritage has great value. It is one of the few things that cannot be manufactured at will. Also, since its uniqueness holds its value, its value becomes a "strange attractor". You can put a lot of money into one of these artifacts, fairly sure to get most or more back. Since future buyers will have a similar assurance. So it isn't money thrown away, but money stored in a medium the provides satisfaction and pride. Not so different from buying real estate in some exclusive area for some crazy price. It really isn't that crazy if you are likely to get your money back later if you want. Likely at a higher amount due to a growing economy pushing prices up. Crazy would be spending millions on something unique then grinding it up.
- bryanrasmussen 1y ago
  Art as a tool for storing Mana: https://medium.com/luminasticity/art-as-a-tool-for-storing-mana-69d90f1a014b https://medium.com/luminasticity/art-as-a-tool-for-storing-m...
- neuronic 1y ago
  This is all a great way of describing why art works as a money laundering or tax evasion scheme.
  - Maxatar 1y ago
    Can you elaborate further on the tax evasion part? The money laundering part I can see since the value of art is subjective and volatile, but how does what OP said explain how art can be used for tax evasion?
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - itronitron 1y ago
      The artwork is then given to a museum as a charitable donation for a tax write-off, or so the story goes.
      - Maxatar 1y ago
        Even if this were true (and it's not), that is not tax evasion.
        fragmede 1y ago
        It's tax avoidance. The difference between the two is one is legal and the other is not.
- WalterBright 1y ago
  I've seen a lot of ancient art in museums. I have simply no desire to spend $$$ acquiring them simply because they are old. I did buy some concrete gargoyles created by a local artist, probably a replica of one from a European church. I mounted them on the driveway entrance to scare away unwanted visitors.
andrepd 1y ago
Maybe not the one you're thinking, but this is notable recent case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvator_Mundi_(Leonardo) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvator_Mundi_(Leonardo) The attribution to Leonardo is extremely dubious, but the whole thing seems to have been motivated as yet another attempt to wash the reputation of oil theocracies and their monarchs.
karmakurtisaani 1y ago
Imagine some rich asshat at a pretentious cocktail party going "I have a da Vinci at home." Vs (pointing at a picture on the phone) "I have this painting at home" Which one impresses the other rich asshats more? Maybe even millions of dollars worth more.
- mr_toad 1y ago
  Perhaps not the best example, da Vinci was prolific, and you can easily pick up something of his for under $3k.
garbthetill 1y ago
The salvator mundi was bought at an auction for $1.2k, restored & appraised, then eventually sold for $450 million. The art/collection world is fascinate everything latches onto experts putting their reputation on the line, precious metals and gem stones make way more sense to me as their authenticity is undeniable for now
- Intermernet 1y ago
  Weirdly enough, precious metals and gem stones are only valuable because we agree they are. It's exactly the same as art, but with a lot less debate.
  - 8bitsrule 1y ago
    Same thing with time ...
shbooms 1y ago
this is true a lot in the world of paintings. there are regularly auctions where you can buy items "attributed" to (meaning it's speculated but not confirmed) very famous Modern Art painters like Van Gogh, Monet, etc for under $5,000 which, if confirmed, would send the valuation many multiples higher
dahart 1y ago
Is it crazy? Clearly the value is the proof itself, not the item, right? Certainly a genuine da Vinci is an investment you can very likely recoup and make a profit on. If I could buy one that’s proven, for a million, and I had a million sitting around, I would. That would be a smart move. The $30k non da Vinci, who knows, could be everything from love of art and total loss to perhaps a small profit. It depends on how good the remainder of the story is. Even for today’s working artists, the narrative is most often the important & valuable part, and the item is just a pretty artifact that backs up the story. For expensive collectible investment art, the importance of the narrative goes way up. It’s interesting if you were thinking of the Salvator Mundi since the discrepancy between the initial appraisal and the restored sale price is two thousand times larger than your example. And it still goes to show the seemingly insane sale price was a good investment, first being sold for $80M by someone who knew he’d make a profit, then after that $120M, then $450M.
- georgefrowny 1y ago
  > Certainly a genuine da Vinci is an investment you can very likely recoup and make a profit on. I.e. it's worth money because it's worth money.
  - dahart 1y ago
    Hehe, I like it. Yeah that’s a valid, if funny and tautological way to summarize it. I am arguing that the monetary value comes from the story attached something that’s unique, historical, famous, etc. The artifact itself didn’t change value when it was proven to be a da Vinci, a new and very valuable story was attached to it. Without the story/proof it really is worth less.
    - georgefrowny 1y ago
      Yes but there has to be some kind of self-reinforcing circularity to the value of that story, or the price of a da Vinci would be roughly inflationary or even under it and therefore not a good investment. Da Vinci's story isn't substantially changing (and doesn't even have a bunch of aging, rich, nostalgic people at exactly the right age-wealth point relative to the material in question to drive prices like Superman) and there are only more famous people over time, so the percentage of all famous pointings taken by da Vinci will decrease. There are no new practical uses for paintings being discovered. While the older the work gets the more it is worth, it's 500 years old already, so even an extra 50 years is only a small increase in its relative historicity (0.2% per year, so well under the region of inflation)
georgefrowny 1y ago
Supply of money in the hands of people needing a place to stash it: way up. Numbers of famous historical artists: roughly constant, increasing very slowly Definition of famous: defined by sale price of work. Sale price: defined by fame Ascent to the list of famous/high sale price artists: under control. Club: big Your status: ain't in it.
smt88 1y ago
This isn't a great example because da Vinci was a famous historical figure and lived 500 years ago. Just the history of a real da Vinci is remarkable, regardless of the artistic merit. A more interesting example would be a convincing fake purported to be painted by a highly regarded artist who's still living and working today, and this does happen, too.
throaway1988111 1y ago
Isnt it just cause more people want to own a da Vinci than a non-da Vinci, so therefore the price goes higher cause more people are willing to outbid the other?

falcor84 1y ago

Let's say that I gift you a suitcase with ten thousand $100 bills that seem legit, but you're not sure. How much would you be willing to pay for a proof that they are indeed legit?

WalterBright 1y ago
It's a crime to pass counterfeit money. I'm not interested in that kind of trouble. Besides, I don't need to pay to test for it being legit. Just go to a bank.
- falcor84 1y ago
  The legality does break the analogy, but my point was just that a suitcase with ten thousand $100 bills has a non-zero value on its own, but that proving its provenance would significantly increase its value, despite the suitcase staying the same. The argument then is that this is not unique to art - it's (financially) valuable for us to know who made an artifact and what its journey was until it got to us.

Nevermark 1y ago

Do you think a sculpture by a pre-civilization human is worth more than something banged out yesterday? Heritage has great value. It is one of the few things that cannot be manufactured at will. Also, since its uniqueness holds its value, its value becomes a "strange attractor". You can put a lot of money into one of these artifacts, fairly sure to get most or more back. Since future buyers will have a similar assurance. So it isn't money thrown away, but money stored in a medium the provides satisfaction and pride. Not so different from buying real estate in some exclusive area for some crazy price. It really isn't that crazy if you are likely to get your money back later if you want. Likely at a higher amount due to a growing economy pushing prices up. Crazy would be spending millions on something unique then grinding it up.

bryanrasmussen 1y ago
Art as a tool for storing Mana: https://medium.com/luminasticity/art-as-a-tool-for-storing-mana-69d90f1a014b https://medium.com/luminasticity/art-as-a-tool-for-storing-m...
neuronic 1y ago
This is all a great way of describing why art works as a money laundering or tax evasion scheme.
- Maxatar 1y ago
  Can you elaborate further on the tax evasion part? The money laundering part I can see since the value of art is subjective and volatile, but how does what OP said explain how art can be used for tax evasion?
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - itronitron 1y ago
    The artwork is then given to a museum as a charitable donation for a tax write-off, or so the story goes.
    - Maxatar 1y ago
      Even if this were true (and it's not), that is not tax evasion.
      - fragmede 1y ago
        It's tax avoidance. The difference between the two is one is legal and the other is not.
WalterBright 1y ago
I've seen a lot of ancient art in museums. I have simply no desire to spend $$$ acquiring them simply because they are old. I did buy some concrete gargoyles created by a local artist, probably a replica of one from a European church. I mounted them on the driveway entrance to scare away unwanted visitors.

andrepd 1y ago

Maybe not the one you're thinking, but this is notable recent case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvator_Mundi_(Leonardo) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvator_Mundi_(Leonardo) The attribution to Leonardo is extremely dubious, but the whole thing seems to have been motivated as yet another attempt to wash the reputation of oil theocracies and their monarchs.

karmakurtisaani 1y ago

Imagine some rich asshat at a pretentious cocktail party going "I have a da Vinci at home." Vs (pointing at a picture on the phone) "I have this painting at home" Which one impresses the other rich asshats more? Maybe even millions of dollars worth more.

mr_toad 1y ago
Perhaps not the best example, da Vinci was prolific, and you can easily pick up something of his for under $3k.

garbthetill 1y ago

The salvator mundi was bought at an auction for $1.2k, restored & appraised, then eventually sold for $450 million. The art/collection world is fascinate everything latches onto experts putting their reputation on the line, precious metals and gem stones make way more sense to me as their authenticity is undeniable for now

Intermernet 1y ago
Weirdly enough, precious metals and gem stones are only valuable because we agree they are. It's exactly the same as art, but with a lot less debate.
- 8bitsrule 1y ago
  Same thing with time ...

shbooms 1y ago

this is true a lot in the world of paintings. there are regularly auctions where you can buy items "attributed" to (meaning it's speculated but not confirmed) very famous Modern Art painters like Van Gogh, Monet, etc for under $5,000 which, if confirmed, would send the valuation many multiples higher

dahart 1y ago

Is it crazy? Clearly the value is the proof itself, not the item, right? Certainly a genuine da Vinci is an investment you can very likely recoup and make a profit on. If I could buy one that’s proven, for a million, and I had a million sitting around, I would. That would be a smart move. The $30k non da Vinci, who knows, could be everything from love of art and total loss to perhaps a small profit. It depends on how good the remainder of the story is. Even for today’s working artists, the narrative is most often the important & valuable part, and the item is just a pretty artifact that backs up the story. For expensive collectible investment art, the importance of the narrative goes way up. It’s interesting if you were thinking of the Salvator Mundi since the discrepancy between the initial appraisal and the restored sale price is two thousand times larger than your example. And it still goes to show the seemingly insane sale price was a good investment, first being sold for $80M by someone who knew he’d make a profit, then after that $120M, then $450M.

georgefrowny 1y ago
> Certainly a genuine da Vinci is an investment you can very likely recoup and make a profit on. I.e. it's worth money because it's worth money.
- dahart 1y ago
  Hehe, I like it. Yeah that’s a valid, if funny and tautological way to summarize it. I am arguing that the monetary value comes from the story attached something that’s unique, historical, famous, etc. The artifact itself didn’t change value when it was proven to be a da Vinci, a new and very valuable story was attached to it. Without the story/proof it really is worth less.
  - georgefrowny 1y ago
    Yes but there has to be some kind of self-reinforcing circularity to the value of that story, or the price of a da Vinci would be roughly inflationary or even under it and therefore not a good investment. Da Vinci's story isn't substantially changing (and doesn't even have a bunch of aging, rich, nostalgic people at exactly the right age-wealth point relative to the material in question to drive prices like Superman) and there are only more famous people over time, so the percentage of all famous pointings taken by da Vinci will decrease. There are no new practical uses for paintings being discovered. While the older the work gets the more it is worth, it's 500 years old already, so even an extra 50 years is only a small increase in its relative historicity (0.2% per year, so well under the region of inflation)

georgefrowny 1y ago

Supply of money in the hands of people needing a place to stash it: way up. Numbers of famous historical artists: roughly constant, increasing very slowly Definition of famous: defined by sale price of work. Sale price: defined by fame Ascent to the list of famous/high sale price artists: under control. Club: big Your status: ain't in it.

smt88 1y ago

This isn't a great example because da Vinci was a famous historical figure and lived 500 years ago. Just the history of a real da Vinci is remarkable, regardless of the artistic merit. A more interesting example would be a convincing fake purported to be painted by a highly regarded artist who's still living and working today, and this does happen, too.

throaway1988111 1y ago

Isnt it just cause more people want to own a da Vinci than a non-da Vinci, so therefore the price goes higher cause more people are willing to outbid the other?