Free Updates
Let us tell you when new posts are added!
Email:
Click to subscribe via RSS
Navigation
Antique Trader
Categories
April, 2008 (27)
March, 2008 (62)
February, 2008 (63)
January, 2008 (18)
antique
Antique Blog
Antique Glass
Antique News
Antique news odd
Antique scams
Antique Show
Antiques
Antiques Auction
Antiques Blog
Antiques Blogs
Antiques News
Antiques publications
Antiques Show
Antiques Spoof
Antiques, Atlantique City, Antiques Show, Antique Trader, Collectibles
Antiques, blog, question of the week
Architecture
Auction
Buddhist Art
eBay
Ephemera
Fenton Glass
fine art
Historic Preservation
Modern
Modern Architecture
Modernism
Outsider Art
pop art
stolen antiques
Toys
Vintage Fashion
Search
Archives
<
August 2008
>
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
27
28
29
30
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
More Links
Art Pottery Blog
Daryle Lambert's Blog
ephemera
Here Be Old Things
Rare Victorian Furniture Blog
Ruby Lane Blog
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Auction of recently uncovered Arbus photos abruptly canceled
Posted by Antique Trader Staff
Wrote about this a few weeks ago. A dealer in NYC sold a box of pics he found in a box lot for $3500. Turns out there was a trove of unknown Diane Arbus photos in there - very interesting ones, to be sure - and they're worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The dealer who sold them is suing the dealer he says duped him out of the find of his life. The sale was supposed to have happened yesterday, I think. Turns out it was abruptly canceled.
Both the New York Times and our friend Kristi Roberts at
Here Be Old Things
have been covering this pretty well, so I'll leave it to them. Kristi was going to the sale, and even went by the showroom to get a sneak peak.
I know that a lot of times it's buy and sell at your own risk in this business, and that they seller should have known that he was giving away a fortune at such a small price - the first clue should have been when the buyer who bought the box said, "there's nothing in there worth much at all, but I'll give you $3500 right now for the whole thing, no questions asked. 'kay?"
Money is money, I suppose, and there are no rules that say you have to play fair. Or are there? The speculation is that the original seller may just hve succeeded in his lawsuit. We'll see later.
antique
|
Antique Blog
|
Antique News
|
Antiques
|
Antiques Auction
|
Antiques Blog
|
Antiques Blogs
|
Antiques News
|
Ephemera
|
Modern
|
Modernism
|
pop art
4/10/2008 10:34:52 AM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)
Comments [1]
4/11/2008 12:53:15 AM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)
As a dealer, Bayo Ogunsanya purchased these photos from someone - probably for less than $3500. Should the original seller be suing him for the difference between what he sold them for and what Bayo Ogunsanya got from the other dealer? Where does this stop? Caveat Emptor? How about Caveat venditor? "Let the seller beware". I suspect that if Bayo Ogunsanya had later discovered that the item had been worth only $200, he would not have been beating down the door to give back the difference.
In my opinion, anyone who sells something is responsible for knowing what it is he is selling. If these photos were sold at auction without attribution, what would they have brought? That is the value of this box of photos in the sale Bayo Ogunsanya made. Anything extra was windfall. The new owner was able to attribute the photos. That is his windfall profit. His was a greater profit? Tough, that proves the value of education.
Mike
Michael Bathrick
|
bathrickAT NOSPAMberkshire dot net
Name
E-mail
Home page
Remember Me
Comment (HTML not allowed)
Enter the code shown (prevents robots):