[pure-silver] Re: {Disarmed} Re: Experts: Ansel Adams photos found at garage sale worth $200 million
- From: "Harry Lock" <harrylock@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 07:55:15 +0200
Hi All
I agree with Tim on all accounts, especially the $200 million claim. I think it
is the journalist making the story dramatic by calculating maximum value of an
AA print. It will all come down to supply and demand. Calculating future
earnings - especially in the art market - is a tricky one.
An example - Here at home, South Africa, two well respected artists died within
a couple of years of each other. The one family immediately put all of the
works in his studio up for sale. The prices paid for the works were average, if
not disappointing. The second family, also with a studio full of work,
announced that they were only going to release two works onto the market per
year. The prices soared!
My choice would be to do a deal, get a cheque, and put the money in the bank.
I owned a gallery for many years and my motto was - 'A dollar in the hand is
better than two on the wall.'
Cheers
Harry
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Daneliuk
To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 7:19 AM
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: {Disarmed} Re: Experts: Ansel Adams photos found
at garage sale worth $200 million
On 7/28/2010 12:09 AM, Eric wrote:
> Mark, I wasn’t proposing that part in my question. If I had I would have
> brought up copyright. I am simply asking , is it right to get a steal of
> a deal to the tune of $200 million dollar? You come down on the side of
> , Well Sure and thank you very much without any thought of the mental
> capacity of the seller. No moral obligation to prevent someone from
> giving away the family farm? Now I don’t know how the glass negs came
> into the possession of the seller, but lets just assume through a
> legitimate process.
>
The only ethical or moral consideration is whether fraud or force were
involved. Absent either of these, an honest deal was made and everyone
lives with the resulting endgame.
It was (IIRC) the economist Von Hayek that got a Nobel for
demonstrating that all opportunities for profit exist because of an
imbalance of information. The mere fact that one party knew more than
another does not - prima facia - constitute fraud or a moral foul. So,
no, the buyer in this case has no moral obligation to the seller.
Although the amounts are much different (I really question the $200M
claim in the article), this is no different than my finding a
Hasselblad at a garage sale for $100 and selling it for $1000 on eBay ...
P.S. If this were NOT so, then the seller would be morally obligated to
make the buyer whole if they'd made a poor purchasing decision. One cannot
on the one hand argue for a buyer's responsibility to the seller unless one
is also willing to demand that the seller step up if the buyer got a bad deal.
In the end, trying to regulate voluntary commerce among willing participants
always devolves into force by a third party and isn't a very good idea.
Caveat Emptor demands Caveat Venditor ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,)
and unsubscribe from there.
Other related posts:
