500-year-old Leonardo da Vinci painting sells for $450M at auction

[Abdullah71601]

Originally Posted by larsr

You would be wrong about your quote.

I made my money on Wall Street. Investment Banker. So I am as capitalistic, or more so, then the next guy. I just recognize that "great fortunes" are made on the back of society. And, so when the maker finally meets their Maker I see it as good social policy that a significant portion of their estate find its way back into society either through charity or an estate tax.

Interesting notion. I think it a better social policy that the wealth be distributed as defined by the maker’s Maker. Dumping his assets into the US treasury doesn’t return it to society in any meaningful way.

[FeelingTheBlues]

Originally Posted by GB-man

This thread sucks.

I actually find the debate quite interesting to say the least. Yet again, the very fact that I am arguing with your statement might prove it.

Originally Posted by GB-man

Here’s a picture of the painting in question my buddy Chris sent me. Got yelled at for using the flash

To be honest, I really don't like this painting that much, it does not do much for me. For the most expensive painting ever sold I cannot say I am the most impressed, I much preferred Paul Gauguin's Nafea faa ipoipo.

[Watchgeek5000]

I think I just saw this posted on the for sale/trade section of the forum!
FOR TRADE ONLY: Leonard da Vinci 'Salvatore Mundi' mint condition with nice patina looking to trade for BNIB 116610lv or GMT BLNR

[AK797]

It's crazy money for sure, but very likely will net the buyer a few hundred million profit in time so probably a great investment, not to mention all the kudos he gets.

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by GB-man

This thread sucks.

[goin camping]

Originally Posted by FeelingTheBlues

To be honest, I really don't like this painting that much, it does not do much for me. For the most expensive painting ever sold I cannot say I am the most impressed, I much preferred Paul Gauguin's Nafea faa ipoipo.

I actually like the painting. Just like the style in which it was done. Would I buy it assuming I could afford it? Nope, just does not move me.

Saw a simple line drawing in charcoal on brown paper at the Dali museum in Paris that moved me so much I actually called back to America to see if I could pull the money to buy it. No soap but it is etched in my memory.

[FTX I]

http://artwatch.org.uk/problems-with...-presentation/

THE CRITICAL RECEPTION OF THE NEW YORK SALVATOR MUNDI

Christie’s lists a broad group of international scholars and experts to whom the painting had been shown at various points between 2007 and 2010, which is to say only after “the initial phase of conservation” had been completed between 2005 and 2007. It says also that there exists a “broad consensus that the Salvator Mundi was painted by Leonardo da Vinci, and that it is the single original painting from which the many copies and student versions depend” with most placing it in the later 1490s while some date it slightly later and believe it to have been painted over a number of years. The following experts are listed:

Mina Gregori, Nicholas Penny, Carmen Bambach, Andrea Beyer, Keith Christiansen, Everett Fahy, Michael Gallagher (restorer), David Allan Brown, Maria Teresa Fiorio, Martin Kemp, Pietro Marani, Luke Syson and David Ekserdjian.

However, of the thirteen, one, Carmen Bambach, can hardly be considered a supporter of an autograph Leonardo attribution. In a review in Apollo, February 2012 (“Seeking the universal painter”) she wrote:

“The attribution of the Salvator Mundi…is an important addition to the scholarship, but requires a more qualified description, for its severely damaged original painting surface exhibits a large proportion of recent integration [i. e. new, superimposed painting]. In the present reviewer’s opinion, having studied and followed the picture during its conservation treatment, and seeing it in context in the [National Gallery’s 2011-12 major Leonardo] exhibition, much of the original surface may be by Boltraffio, but with passages done by Leonardo himself, namely Christ’s proper right blessing hand, portions of the sleeve, his left hand and the crystal orb he holds.”

Of the remaining twelve, how many have written publicly in support of an unreserved Leonardo attribution? We recently asked one of those listed if he supported the Leonardo attribution unreservedly but have yet to receive a reply. One seeming casualty of the (heavy) promotion of the Salvator Mundi as the last chance to buy a Leonardo is the mixed media drawing on vellum known as “La Bella Principessa”. Is that work no longer on the market? Its Leonardo ascription was supported by two of those listed in support of the Salvator Mundi – Mina Gregori and Martin Kemp, but then, two listed supporters of the New York painting, David Ekserdjian and Pietro Marani, have roundly rejected the “La Bella Principessa” – as presumably also did Luke Syson and Nicholas Penny when the work was excluded from the National Gallery’s 2011-12 Leonardo exhibition to the annoyance of its owner and its scholarly advocates.

In addition, there is a glaring absentee on the Christie’s list – the author of the catalogue raisonné Leonardo da Vinci – the Complete Paintings and Drawings, Frank Zöllner. In the revised 2017 edition of his book, Zöllner says in his entry on the New York Salvator Mundi that while it surpasses the other known versions in terms of quality, nonetheless, it:

“also exhibits a number of weaknesses. The flesh tones of the blessing hand, for example, appear pallid and waxen as in a number of workshop paintings. Christ’s ringlets also seem to me too schematic in their execution, the larger drapery folds too undifferentiated, especially on the right-hand side. They do not begin to bear comparison with the Mona Lisa, for example. It is therefore not surprising that a number of reviewers of the London Leonardo exhibition initially adopted a sceptical stance…(Bambach 2012; Hope 2012; Robertson 2012; Zöllner 2012). In view of the arguments put forward to date and the above-mentioned weaknesses, we might sooner see the Salvator Mundi as a high-quality product of Leonardo’s workshop, painted only after 1507, on whose execution Leonardo was substantially involved. It will probably only be possible to arrive at a more informed verdict on this question after the results of the painting’s technical analyses have been published in full (Dalivalle/Kemp/Simon 2017).”

In his book’s revised 2017 preface, Zöllner writes:

“With regard to Leonardo da Vinci’s oeuvre, finally, the most sensational discovery to date has been the Salvator Mundi… The painting of Christ making the sign of the blessing has been known to art historians [only] since the start of the 20th century but subsequently disappeared from view. In 2005 it appeared on the art market and in 2011 was presented to the public in a spectacular exhibition in London (Syson/Keith 2011); since then its attribution to Leonardo da Vinci has been the subject of heated debate. This attribution is controversial primarily on two grounds. Firstly, the badly damaged painting had to undergo very extensive restoration, which makes its original quality extremely difficult to assess. Secondly, the Salvator Mundi in its present state exhibits a strongly developed sfumato technique that corresponds more closely to the manner of a talented Leonardo pupil active in the 1520s than to the style of the master himself. The way in which the painting was placed on the market also gave rise to concern.”

The long-promised delivery of the Dalivalle/Kemp/Simon technical accounts has now retreated to 2018 – seven years after the work was exhibited as a Leonardo in London and five years after it was first sold (for $80m) as a Leonardo. In 2012, Charles Hope wrote (New York Review):

“Much more suspect, however, is a recently cleaned painting of Christ as Salvator Mundi from a private collection. This was recorded in a print of the mid-seventeenth century, and the composition is known in other versions. But even making allowances for its extremely poor state of preservation, it is a curiously unimpressive composition and it is hard to believe that Leonardo himself was responsible for anything so dull.”

[bayerische]

Originally Posted by Etschell

that is a shame. i had $50 bucks on it.

In Philadelphia it’s worth 50 bucks.

[RW16610]

Very interesting thread I totally understand the desire to own this for the half a Billion. At some point in the future (maybe a VERY long time) there's a chance it could sell for more. To each their own, and if I had that much money it could likely be considered. That being said, I do appreciate the opinions voiced on both sides of things and some valid points were made. To the OP, thanks for sharing this

[Stew7]

This might be off topic for this thread but I just dinged up my old Daytona from some movie guy while I was hanging this neat painting I just got.

Where can I send it for a good polishing??

I knew it wasn't safe to hang old paintings while I wore my Rolex...

[Watchgeek5000]

Originally Posted by Stew7

This might be off topic for this thread but I just dinged up my old Daytona from some movie guy while I was hanging this neat painting I just got.

Where can I send it for a good polishing??

I knew it wasn't safe to hang old paintings while I wore my Rolex...

So basically your saying your the guy who bought the painting AND the Paul Newman Daytona.......dam your rich!!!

[77T]

I don’t want to throw cold water on the thread, but that painting was heavily damaged and only came with a 5-year warranty.

The buyer may hire the same guy who restored another masterpiece to work it over.

Remember this one ?





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AzPaul]

Originally Posted by Stew7

This might be off topic for this thread but I just dinged up my old Daytona from some movie guy while I was hanging this neat painting I just got.

Where can I send it for a good polishing??

I knew it wasn't safe to hang old paintings while I wore my Rolex...

If you can somehow manage to land Jon Voight's LeBaron, you'll have the trifecta.

[Runnin' Rebel]

...................

Originally Posted by incontrol

You guys are frightening with you outlook on life. So anyone who was lucky enough to be born into wealth, does not deserve it? Maybe we should take the Family fortune away from them and have society redistribute it as it sees fit?

Insanity rules the day.

THIS !! Let's take all the money that families have worked hard to acquire over generations and redistribute it. Everyone happy now. We're all even steven.

A lot of wealthy families give more to charity then you'd realize and it's done quietly

[ckaynyc]

If you’re worth $1B, and spent $450MM on this painting, do you think your lifestyle changed at all? No. It is economy of scale. $500MM, $1B it’s the same thing. You guys are questioning the value behind a Da Vinci preserves for 500 years while an $18MM watch belonging to an actor is reasonable?

[tritium8]

Ibtl

[Abdullah71601]

Originally Posted by 77T

I don’t want to throw cold water on the thread, but that painting was heavily damaged and only came with a 5-year warranty.

...

And aftermarket hands.

[77T]

Originally Posted by Abdullah71601

And aftermarket hands.

I say, “send it to Rikki”.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Tony64

Wes, you make some really good points but with one correction. No one currently has a net worth of 100B. Jeff Bezos holds the title as the world's richest person with a net worth of a mere $90B.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnb...0-billion.html

We sometimes hear a new forum member ask something along the lines of "how much should I be making before I buy a Rolex?" and I was wondering how much should someone have in the bank to consider buying a painting worth almost half a billion dollars? A mega mansion,, a mega yacht, a private island I can understand. But on what kind of wall does a painting like this hang?

Any thoughts?

My guess is that there are people worth more money than this. They just don't report their income, because they make the rules

[GB-man]

Originally Posted by brandrea

My guess is that there are people worth more money than this. They just don't report their income, because they make the rules

Vladdy for one and I’m not talking the guy selling diamonds in nyc lol

Originally Posted by FeelingTheBlues

I actually find the debate quite interesting to say the least. Yet again, the very fact that I am arguing with your statement might prove it.







To be honest, I really don't like this painting that much, it does not do much for me. For the most expensive painting ever sold I cannot say I am the most impressed, I much preferred Paul Gauguin's Nafea faa ipoipo.

Haha I just meant the path it has taken. I like to talk art but no idea why people want to make it about class structure...

[Abdullah71601]

Originally Posted by GB-man

Haha I just meant the path it has taken. I like to talk art but no idea why people want to make it about class structure...

I noticed that none of those guys is running out to sell their watches or luxury cars to feed the poor.

It's just bad manners to criticize someone for how they spend their money (unless it's illegal). The scale of this purchase is quite large to me, but maybe not for a corporate art collection or a particularly wealthy buyer. While I wouldn't contemplate buying a painting for a lot of money, I would buy a Patek 5208P if I had the cash. I don't see an ethical difference between the Patek and the Leonardo.

[Star Ferry]

Originally Posted by GB-man

Haha I just meant the path it has taken. I like to talk art but no idea why people want to make it about class structure...

Not to mention, the buyer may be interested in lending it to public museums, or may already have a museum

I've enjoyed going to museums like the Barnes, Guggenheim, and Samsung Leeum, even if they were paid for by tycoons

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by GB-man

Vladdy for one and I’m not talking the guy selling diamonds in nyc lol





Haha I just meant the path it has taken. I like to talk art but no idea why people want to make it about class structure...

[FeelingTheBlues]

Originally Posted by GB-man

Vladdy for one and I’m not talking the guy selling diamonds in nyc lol

Haha I just meant the path it has taken. I like to talk art but no idea why people want to make it about class structure...

No worries, I just wanted to put a bit of humor in this otherwise rather serious thread.

Do you think Vladdy would have bought it to add tattooed tears below his eyes?

Originally Posted by Abdullah71601

I noticed that none of those guys is running out to sell their watches or luxury cars to feed the poor.

It's just bad manners to criticize someone for how they spend their money (unless it's illegal). The scale of this purchase is quite large to me, but maybe not for a corporate art collection or a particularly wealthy buyer. While I wouldn't contemplate buying a painting for a lot of money, I would buy a Patek 5208P if I had the cash. I don't see an ethical difference between the Patek and the Leonardo.

I can understand that we are talking about an incredibly expensive painting in this case but then again, what is "a lot of money" for art to you? If a painting was as much as a 5208P and it nearly moved you to tears, would you then consider it? Just being curious here.

Fully agree on the lack of ethical difference, in fact, it applies to just about anything you buy and don't need really.

[superdog]

Originally Posted by Abdullah71601

I noticed that none of those guys is running out to sell their watches or luxury cars to feed the poor.

It's just bad manners to criticize someone for how they spend their money (unless it's illegal). The scale of this purchase is quite large to me, but maybe not for a corporate art collection or a particularly wealthy buyer. While I wouldn't contemplate buying a painting for a lot of money, I would buy a Patek 5208P if I had the cash. I don't see an ethical difference between the Patek and the Leonardo.

For what it is worth, you have no idea what people are doing in terms of charity. How could you possibly notice?

No one was criticizing anyone, except for you.

This is a discussion forum. And people are having a discussion.

Kind of ironic that you have the onions to talk about people having bad manners.

[Abdullah71601]

Originally Posted by FeelingTheBlues

...

I can understand that we are talking about an incredibly expensive painting in this case but then again, what is "a lot of money" for art to you? If a painting was as much as a 5208P and it nearly moved you to tears, would you then consider it? Just being curious here.

Fully agree on the lack of ethical difference, in fact, it applies to just about anything you buy and don't need really.

I have a value threshold for art that is pretty low compared to other luxury goods. I would spend a million dollars on a particularly fantastic mechanical watch, but I wouldn't spend $150K on a car or $50K on a painting.

I don't need the presence of the artist's hand to appreciate the image. If the million dollar painting moved me to tears, a professional photographic reproduction could replace it in my home for less than $5K.

[FeelingTheBlues]

Originally Posted by superdog

For what it is worth, you have no idea what people are doing in terms of charity. How could you possibly notice?

To be fair Seth, neither do we about the person who has purchased this painting and yet some comments were made about spending this sum of money for a painting while some people live on the streets. In fact, unless someone would like to enlighten me we have not a single clue who the person actually is.

Originally Posted by Abdullah71601

I have a value threshold for art that is pretty low compared to other luxury goods. I would spend a million dollars on a particularly fantastic mechanical watch, but I wouldn't spend $150K on a car or $50K on a painting.

I don't need the presence of the artist's hand to appreciate the image. If the million dollar painting moved me to tears, a professional photographic reproduction could replace it in my home for less than $5K.

I sort of had this idea when we last spoke about art, which is absolutely fine by me and something I do on my own as I purchase reproductions. I guess it comes down to the interests and passions you have in life.

Mind you, owning an original painting by someone I admire is something I would like to do one day. I don't see myself putting much on it but the presence of the artist's hand is something I enjoy perhaps more than you do to a certain extent.

[Moggo]

Originally Posted by FeelingTheBlues

To be fair Seth, neither do we about the person who has purchased this painting and yet some comments were made about spending this sum of money for a painting while some people live on the streets. In fact, unless someone would like to enlighten me we have not a single clue who the person actually is.

That was me, I wasn’t casting aspersions on one individual more that in my ‘opinion’ the world is a strange/sad place when we have such a mismatch of wealth and living conditions.

(I am somewhat of a hypocrite as I have Rolex watches but I can still see the inequality and it’s not good).

I’m out of this thread now because if others can’t see some absurdity in this then I’m in the wrong place.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Abdullah71601]

Originally Posted by FeelingTheBlues

To be fair Seth, neither do we about the person who has purchased this painting and yet some comments were made about spending this sum of money for a painting while some people live on the streets. In fact, unless someone would like to enlighten me we have not a single clue who the person actually is.



I sort of had this idea when we last spoke about art, which is absolutely fine by me and something I do on my own as I purchase reproductions. I guess it comes down to the interests and passions you have in life.

Mind you, owning an original painting by someone I admire is something I would like to do one day. I don't see myself putting much on it but the presence of the artist's hand is something I enjoy perhaps more than you do to a certain extent.

I remember a warm feeling whilst viewing a small painting by Michelangelo. The work was amazing. Each brush stroke had a purpose. I could almost feel like I was in the company of the master. But, I can go to museums and recapture that feeling any time I want. If I was a billionaire, I’m not certain I would pay the price of an original when there are so many affordable reproductions that capture the image very well.

It is, as you say, a personal value choice. There is absolutely nothing wrong with someone investing a fortune in art, or cars, or memorabilia, or luxury wigits. It’s their money.

[GB-man]

I tend to think this sort of art is bought as a pure investment. I don’t think the buyer would be interested if there was no chance of capital gains.