BCarter27 Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 The two greatest flips of all time are coming to court... https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/04/arts/design/dmitry-rybolovlev-sothebys-trial.html Quote On May 2, 2013, Bouvier, not Rybolovlev, bought the “Mundi” through Sotheby’s by putting up a painting and cash valued at $83 million. A day later, he sold it to Rybolovlev for $127.5 million, according to court papers. Quote In 2017, four years after Rybolovlev purchased da Vinci’s “Salvator Mundi” for $127.5 million in a transaction he has described as duplicitous, he resold it at Christie’s for $450 million. I have opinions, but I'd rather hear yours. vodou 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAR1979 Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 Any links to same article that are free or do not requure a sign in? ThothAmon 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Balls Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 delekkerste 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
batman_fan Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 Try this one The ultimate crooks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
batman_fan Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 My conclusion, this happens all the time in comics and OA, the numbers are just smaller. BCarter27 and Rick2you2 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Peck Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 I remember a collector, who would offer comic art to people but he didn't own the artwork. It would be up on a dealer's site or in a private collection. HE would "sell" it get the money, pay the real owner then send the artwork to the buyer and pocket the profits. Both are scums. MAR1979, Terry E. Gibbs and Twanj 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick2you2 Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 On 1/5/2024 at 1:56 PM, Brian Peck said: I remember a collector, who would offer comic art to people but he didn't own the artwork. It would be up on a dealer's site or in a private collection. HE would "sell" it get the money, pay the real owner then send the artwork to the buyer and pocket the profits. Both are scums. Sounds a bit like arbitrage to me. tth2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solar Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 (edited) No sympathy for the oligarch. He paid an asking price he was happy with at the time and also flipped that questionable davinci for a 300mm profit. Cry me an f’ing river. Don’t get me wrong, everyone else involved sucks too. Just not quite as much. Edited January 5 by Solar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAR1979 Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 NO Auction house is above reproach Rick2you2 and batman_fan 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WolverineX Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 On 1/5/2024 at 8:32 AM, BCarter27 said: The two greatest flips of all time are coming to court... https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/04/arts/design/dmitry-rybolovlev-sothebys-trial.html I have opinions, but I'd rather hear yours. I watched this a few years ago. It's called the Lost Leonardo. Great film. The painting is in Saudi Arabia now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattTheDuck Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 (edited) I don't think this even qualifies as a "first world" problem. It's a like "zeroth world" problem. Edited January 5 by MattTheDuck delekkerste and MAR1979 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cstojano Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 (edited) On 1/5/2024 at 3:58 PM, MattTheDuck said: I don't think this even qualifies as a "first world" problem. It's a like "zeroth world" problem. Just knock off a few zeroes from all the number so that mortals can relate. Basically this is like Johnny charging me 3 dollars for a Hostess honey bun back in 8th grade that his mom bought by the gross at BJ's. Edited January 5 by cstojano MAR1979 and ThothAmon 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John E. Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 Hung jury. A crime may have been committed when Sotheby's Samuel Valette sent "formal" emails raising the price of the Modigilani by the hour. According the article, we can apparently "infer that Valette raised the price at Bouvier's request." Although I would like to see the evidence of that request, because that's too important for me to just infer. Then there's skipping Valette's company in the provenance. I don't know what the legality of that is. On the other hand, you have a filthy rich oligarch who has entered and disrupted the market. Remember when we all could buy birth pages of Tigra's groomer all-day, every-day for $50? Then all that CGC money poured into the birth page/1st appearance market and now Tigra's groomer pages are $5,000. How can Sotheby's not say that Modigilanis used to be $8M, but now they're $100M once these Russian player got into the market. If I were Sotheby's, I would say that they were grossly underestimating the art and were adjusting prices to the "new normal." I mean geez--all parties honestly or deceptively--underestimated the value of the Mundi. In fact, I don't know why the F Sotheby's kept Valette on the payroll when they should have fired him and hired Bouvier. What fault of Bouvier for getting a way better price for the art than Vallete could? Bouvier clocked in 800 transactions over a period of 10 years and Sotheby's didn't jump on that talent? Tsk. I mean, Bouvier acted as a middleman. So instead of making up imaginary owners as a sales tactic, would it have been a crime if Vallete was out of the picture and Bouvier straight up said, "Sotheby's wants $107.5M for this painting.Take it or leave it." I mean, do these guys deserve one slap per cheek with a pair of white leather gloves? I wouldn't disagree with that. ThothAmon 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stock_rotation Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 On 1/5/2024 at 1:56 PM, Brian Peck said: I remember a collector, who would offer comic art to people but he didn't own the artwork. It would be up on a dealer's site or in a private collection. HE would "sell" it get the money, pay the real owner then send the artwork to the buyer and pocket the profits. Both are scums. Isn't this exactly what comic dealers do if they accept wantlists? If I send [dealer] my wantlist, and there's a high value book on the list, [dealer] is going to find [owner], mark the price up and offer it to me. If I agree to the price, I pay [dealer], who then pays [owner]. [Owner] ships the book to [dealer], [dealer] ships the book to me. I'm paying [dealer] to do the legwork that I didn't want to or couldn't do myself. There's nothing scummy about that. tth2, John E. and MAR1979 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Peck Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 On 1/5/2024 at 11:41 PM, stock_rotation said: Isn't this exactly what comic dealers do if they accept wantlists? If I send [dealer] my wantlist, and there's a high value book on the list, [dealer] is going to find [owner], mark the price up and offer it to me. If I agree to the price, I pay [dealer], who then pays [owner]. [Owner] ships the book to [dealer], [dealer] ships the book to me. I'm paying [dealer] to do the legwork that I didn't want to or couldn't do myself. There's nothing scummy about that. These were pieces that were for sale publically. He would post it for sale even though he didnt own it. MAR1979 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post tth2 Posted January 6 Popular Post Share Posted January 6 On 1/6/2024 at 6:26 PM, Brian Peck said: These were pieces that were for sale publically. He would post it for sale even though he didnt own it. If the buyer wasn't willing to do the legwork to find that piece wherever else it was publicly on sale, and thus would never have known that the piece was available elsewhere and therefore would never have otherwise acquired it, I have no problem with that buyer being charged extra. He's got a piece that he otherwise wouldn't have, he was willing to pay the price, and the seller got compensated for the extra legwork that he had to do to put the piece in the buyer's hand. Isn't this basically what every wholesaler/distributor does? Rick2you2, stock_rotation, Randall Dowling and 2 others 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyNameIsLegion Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 (edited) On 1/6/2024 at 5:10 AM, tth2 said: If the buyer wasn't willing to do the legwork to find that piece wherever else it was publicly on sale, and thus would never have known that the piece was available elsewhere and therefore would never have otherwise acquired it, I have no problem with that buyer being charged extra. He's got a piece that he otherwise wouldn't have, he was willing to pay the price, and the seller got compensated for the extra legwork that he had to do to put the piece in the buyer's hand. Isn't this basically what every wholesaler/distributor does? no, this was different. You may not have been in the hobby then or you're too young. He made up a list of art, even with pictures and prices that he lifted from other dealers or collectors and shopped it privately via email. You thought you were see this guys catalog of art for sale, but it was a complete fiction. If someone agreed to buy a piece, he'd get the money and turnaround and buy it from the owner. This only worked for a period time when there was no CAF, no Dragonberry list of dealers, google wasn't all that. Online commerce wasn't much or a thing yet besides eBay, Edited January 6 by MyNameIsLegion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tth2 Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 On 1/6/2024 at 7:30 PM, MyNameIsLegion said: no, this was different. You may not have been in the hobby then or you're too young. He made up a list of art, even with pictures and prices that he lifted from other dealers or collectors and shopped it privately via email. You thought you were see this guys catalog of art for sale, but it was a complete fiction. If someone agreed to buy a piece, he'd get the money and turnaround and buy it from the owner. This only worked for a period time when there was no CAF, no Dragonberry list of dealers, google wasn't all that. Online commerce wasn't much or a thing yet besides eBay, I still don't see the problem. I don't think someone has to actually have a piece in their physical inventory to sell it, so long as they can obtain it to fulfill the purchase. I know a number of comic dealers back in the day who offered me comics that they probably didn't have physically in hand but knew where to get them from other dealers or collections if I pulled the trigger. In fact, especially if this was back in the old days where I'd have no idea that a piece was available and who had it, and thus would never have been able to acquire the piece but for this guy bringing it to my attention, I can't see how I'm worse off. If he wasn't doing this, I would never be able to acquire the piece in the first place. Now, if after paying the guy he for some reason couldn't get the piece from a dealer and then didn't refund the money to me, that's a whole different issue. Randall Dowling and Rick2you2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThothAmon Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 If the case has made it this far it has already survived a summary judgment motion, meaning the judge found sufficient allegations of fact viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, that if ultimately believed by the trier of fact, makes out a potentially winnable case. Devil will be in the details, which the article I read was devoid of, but the “oligarch” hopefully walks away with ничто. Russian for nada. John E. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malvin Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 On 1/6/2024 at 4:00 AM, tth2 said: I still don't see the problem. I don't think someone has to actually have a piece in their physical inventory to sell it, so long as they can obtain it to fulfill the purchase. I know a number of comic dealers back in the day who offered me comics that they probably didn't have physically in hand but knew where to get them from other dealers or collections if I pulled the trigger. In fact, especially if this was back in the old days where I'd have no idea that a piece was available and who had it, and thus would never have been able to acquire the piece but for this guy bringing it to my attention, I can't see how I'm worse off. If he wasn't doing this, I would never be able to acquire the piece in the first place. Now, if after paying the guy he for some reason couldn't get the piece from a dealer and then didn't refund the money to me, that's a whole different issue. I think in some cases, the pagers were not for sale, just in someone's collection and he was shopping it around and then would try to buy if someone bit. Malvin Twanj 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
