One of the most distorting practices in the art market—so prevalent it is largely ignored—is that of including the buyer’s premium (up to 25%) in official auction results but not in the pre-sale estimates. These numbers are then compared to each other as a measure of success. This system is at best absurd, at worst highly misleading.
The issue has become more pertinent recently when auctions such as Sotheby’s Old Masters sale in London in December and Christie’s post-war and contemporary auction in New York in November looked to have met expectations but in fact did not.
Where possible, therefore, we will provide readers with the price at which a work hammers down in an auction room—a price that is rarely easily available—alongside the pre-sale estimates to which it relates. We will also include the price-plus-premium figures; in most, though not all, cases, this is the amount that a buyer was willing to pay for a work.
We are not the first to do this. The Antiques Trade Gazette, the Artprice database, the research group ArtTactic and Phillips auction house are to be credited with being the most open in this regard. The Financial Times is also picking up the baton.
It is not straightforward, however. Neither is it particularly easy on the eye. But we believe it is the only way to report the facts accurately.
