
Salvator Mundi and the unreality of the art market - blegh
https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/salvator-mundi-da-vinci-art/
======
jfengel
It's not just the art market, though. The numbers are absurd in the fine art
market, since it's a place where rich people go to compete with each other in
games the rest of us don't get to play.

But eBay is full of sci-fi memorabilia with certificates of authenticity. A
uniform actually worn by Patrick Stewart on screen sells for more than one
that was made for him but not worn, which sells for more than a copy made with
the same materials. You might actually be able to wear the latter, but the
first two would just be set out for display, like the Mona Lisa.

That's a game we can all play, and while I'm not really much into it, I am
proud of my author-signed Klingon Dictionary for no good reason -- especially
since I never even look at it. It's weird watching hundreds of millions of
dollars exchange hands for trinkets, but when you're talking about multi-
billionaires, it doesn't really surprise me that they would similarly want to
own truly one-of-a-kind things with a poorly-defined "authenticity".

~~~
nugget
I have a running debate with one of my friends about the future outlook of
these markets. We both agree that perfect replication of many physical
collectibles (e.g. mtg cards, comic books) will become possible over the next
few decades. My belief is that this will cause authentic values to decline.
His belief is that this will cause authentic values - confirmed by
certificates and the like - to skyrocket. I still prefer my position (and it’s
fed into a growing sense of anti-materialism) but truthfully could foresee
either outcome.

~~~
moosey
[https://archive.archaeology.org/online/features/hoaxes/intro...](https://archive.archaeology.org/online/features/hoaxes/intro.html)

The archaeology community has been dealing with this for years, and supplied
this interesting read.

The art market, though, I assume is mostly money laundering.

------
stanfordkid
The cheat code:

— buy painting for $5 million

— have a museum value it at $15 million a few years later

— donate painting

— write off $15 million in taxes for a charitable contribution

Clearly the museums have an incentive to fudge the numbers for rich donors.

~~~
dondawest
Yes, a museum director is fundamentally a _tax guy._ They’re not paying for
the work that gets “donated,” so a museum director is a _negotiable third
party_ who is highly willing to appraise works at values the Donor suggests.

The incentive for the Museum to inflate the value of the work that gets
donated to them is inflating the supposed value of their holdings. The
incentive for the Donor is tax evasion.

OH WAIT I meant “tax avoidance.”

~~~
stanfordkid
It gets even crazier — there are people literally buying new paintings at
higher prices to inflate the value of existing holdings. So let’s say you buy
3 Vassarely’s @ $200k each (or insert semi-hot artist here). You wait 4 years
and have someone else buy a 4th Vassarely piece for 3x that price point. Now
you use the inflated value for that single piece as a comp for the other 3
pieces that will then be donated. Art market reps basically find ways to
facilitate these types of things.

This is why you always see wings of museums named after rich folks.

------
bparsons
Fine art is also the most efficient way to launder money.

The reason for the rapid increase in value is completely inscrutable to
regulators or the IRS, so it is the perfect tool of international financial
fraud.

~~~
_jahh
fraud is one of it but it's also a extremely high density store of value, if
world war 111 happens it's easier to take your da vinci knowing when the dust
settles it'll have value than 100 bars of gold

