Edumacate me re: Making offers on gallery art

[Gogar]

Hello.

You BOYZ wanna teach me a little bit about how to make a 'non-insulting' offer on gallery art?

Specifically, I want to get a few "Secret Art of Dr. Suess" prints, mainly the one called "Flowerfish" or "Green Cat in Uleaborg Finland Subway."

The Advertised prices for the prints are pretty ambitious IMO, and the gallery prices usually sit right around that official advertised price. On eBay, even more, but that's not the real world.

What would you say is a good rule of thumb for making an offer?

YES I understand that I can just be a dick and go in and offer half, but I'd like to be respectful and seem like I've done at least a little research, especially since I work in the 'art' world myself.

Thanks

[MRM]

The beauty of selling prints is that they're like printing money. Once one is gone the artist, or estate, or gallery, can just print some more. You can still by Rembrandt etchings that are real Rembrandt etchings, printed just yesterday from the actual blocks Rembrandt carved centuries ago. They're all just as real as the ones Rembrandt printed and there's an infinite supply if you want more.

My point is that you shouldn't feel bad about offering the gallery or EBay seller half. Professional art sellers think anyone who buys a print is stupid, so they treat print buyers with contempt. That's why their prices are so high and they don't like to advertise that they come down. They have room to move. They just figure that if you're doing business with them you're not savvy enough to drive a hard bargain. Offer a quarter of their asking price. They may act offended but they won't be.

[nota]

gallery prices are a 50% mark up over the amount paid to the owner/artist/sellor

Dr. Suess is a very hot artist currently

are the prints by Dr. Suess in his lifetime or signed by him
or later reprints ? as there is a huge value difference ?

I guess it depends on the gallery
but why worry about their insult or not
as the owner will only get 1/2 I donot think any gallery will sell at cost
and buying from the owner is always cheaper with out a gallery's markup

[LWJ]

Also, the "value" drops considerably outside the gallery. Seus? Maybe not the case here. But I did see some prints in a gallery once that I really liked. Found the same stuff for a fraction elsewhere.

[MBAtarga]

Have you checked out your local Goodwill?

[rusnak]

What if you offered them half, on a giraffe? Would that be a gaffe? Would they, could they, get more, if they were to sell them in a store?

[rusnak]

Sorry, long ass day. I'm off my game. That was lame. Next time I'll be at my best. Maybe I'll post pics of my girl's chest.

[MRM]

Originally Posted by LWJ

Also, the "value" drops considerably outside the gallery. Seus? Maybe not the case here. But I did see some prints in a gallery once that I really liked. Found the same stuff for a fraction elsewhere.

There is no secondary market for prints. As soon as it's sold to a private buyer it loses almost all value. Dr. Seus is polular so there aren't many private buyers trying to sell their prints right now, but when he isn't the latest flavor the retail buyers start selling them the used market will bring the new market down with it and none of the prints will have anything more than interior decoration value.

[Gogar]

Thanks!

I have no illusions about the value of prints or anything and that's why I wondered about making offers because so many of them are so outrageously priced.

Some of the ones I 'enjoy' I would consider enjoying at home on my wall, if they cost about half as much.

[Eric Coffey]

Originally Posted by MRM

The beauty of selling prints is that they're like printing money. Once one is gone the artist, or estate, or gallery, can just print some more.

Yep. You will often see different "editions" added if demand is greater than expected.
They might call them different names, and they may be on different media, but they are still just prints (typically either offset lithograph, serigraph/silkscreen, or giclée).
Some can be priced higher than others, depending on the total number in the particular edition/run, the media/substrate, and any other "enhancements" like being hand signed and/or embellished by the artist.
Obviously with Geisel (Seuss), the latter isn't possible.

Still, it can be good way to obtain/enjoy a piece you like without paying an arm/leg for an original work.

[Eric Coffey]

Originally Posted by MRM

There is no secondary market for prints. As soon as it's sold to a private buyer it loses almost all value. Dr. Seus is polular so there aren't many private buyers trying to sell their prints right now, but when he isn't the latest flavor the retail buyers start selling them the used market will bring the new market down with it and none of the prints will have anything more than interior decoration value.

While true in some cases, I'd say "it depends" applies in the broader sense. Plenty of prints from certain artists have maintained or increased in value on the secondary market.
If you have a hand-signed print from a prominent/popular artist who had passed after your acquisition, then you will likely have something that will hold/gain value over time. Not always the case, but it is possible.

That said, I'd agree that it's smart policy to never buy a print as an "investment".

[Crowbob]

Signed prints and unsigned prints are different animals.

I read once that Picasso had to stop writing checks because the value of his signature oftentimes eclipsed the value of the checks.

[tabs]

A print is something I can buy down at Wall Mart for $24.99.

There are etchings, serigraphs, lithographs. Then is it signed by the artist and numbered.

Publishers sell to Galleries at half of retail. If you buy in bulk at a third of retail. Edition size also matters as to intent. Large editions of over 200 pieces is purely commercial. Smaller editions can be considered to be art. Ask me how I fking know.

No signed by the artist no number and it is a fking print.

Thomas Kincaides were the biggest rips of them all. The idiots actually thought they were buying something of value.

[tabs]

Mr MRM likes to dabble in art. He bought several inexpensive but good pieces from me. The question is has he continued to expand his horizons and has become more sophisticated? He balked at a piece for just over a G, which I sold in a flash for my price to a guy in NYC.

Btw anything under 5k is considered to be low end. A serious beginning collector is in for 20k a pop.

Artist pricing is set by auction records. That is open market spot bidding. I have several really good pieces by the same artist that I am collectively in for about 2100. A gallery in L.A. who features that artists work (handles the estate) prices them at 50k going to 100k each. So what is the real value?

My guess is that the value has come up from what I paid because they are mid century locus specific L.A. city scenes.

[tabs]

Mr MRM likes to dabble in art. He bought several inexpensive but good pieces from me. The question is has he continued to expand his horizons and has become more sophisticated? He balked at a piece for just over a G, which I sold in a flash for my price to a guy in NYC.

Btw anything under 5k is considered to be low end. A serious beginning collector is in for 20k a pop.

Artist pricing is set by auction records. That is open market spot bidding. I have several really good pieces by the same artist that I am collectively in for about 2100. A gallery in L.A. who features that artists work (handles the estate) prices them at 50k going to 100k each. So what is the real value?

My guess is that the value has come up from what I paid because they are mid century locus specific L.A. city scenes.

[tabs]

Then there is what I do and that is dumpster diving. This weekend I saw a piece of Abstract Expressionism. It was signed and when Googled what came up was an artist whose first name was the signature, his last name was represented on the painting by a letter preceding his signatured first name. The bulk of the artists work was not of the same composition as the Googled work, but there were a few of similar composition and even pallet. I missed it at $227. The upshot is that the Googled artist has sold at auction for $44,000,000.00. Lol or maybe crying.

Anyway I have always said there is more money left lying around in art than anything else.

[Eric Coffey]

Originally Posted by Crowbob

Signed prints and unsigned prints are different animals.

Just to clarify, some prints are signed/stamped via "authorized" signature, and not truly hand-signed by the actual artist. More still have no post-print signature at all (only the one from the original work inclusive in the transfer).
Many folks think they have hand-signed prints when in fact it's just the signature on the original piece that became part of the print. Actual hand-signed prints can be different animals, but even then, the "it depends" clause still applies.

[Eric Coffey]

Originally Posted by tabs

A print is something I can buy down at Wall Mart for $24.99.

There are etchings, serigraphs, lithographs. Then is it signed by the artist and numbered.

They are all prints. If it's not an original work, it's a print. The only differences being the print method/medium/substrate.

The most common:

Lithograph (offset plates).
Serigraph (silkscreen).
Giclée (ink-jet).
Intaglio (etching).

As mentioned above, not all are (hand) signed by the artist either.
Also, the "official" editions are typically numbered, but there are usually plenty of extras made during a run, and those are usually left unnumbered.
Some go back to the artist, some are used for gallery displays, etc.

[RF5BPilot]

My rule of thumb has been to assume any art I can afford is worthless. So, what am I willing to pay for it to be able to see it at home? I treat ít as entertainment. So, how entertaining would it be and what is that worth?

Even if they don't accept your offer, try to leave your contact info. I've had more than one artist/gallery contact me later after they've had time to consider the offer.

[tabs]

Originally Posted by Eric Coffey

They are all prints. If it's not an original work, it's a print. The only differences being the print method/medium/substrate.

The most common:

Lithograph (offset plates).
Serigraph (silkscreen).
Giclée (ink-jet).
Intaglio (etching).

As mentioned above, not all are (hand) signed by the artist either.
Also, the "official" editions are typically numbered, but there are usually plenty of extras made during a run, and those are usually left unnumbered.
Some go back to the artist, some are used for gallery displays, etc.

U did not read critically. I said without being signed and numbered it is just a print no matter the substrate.

I have a serigraph by Evind Earle where there never was an original piece. It was meant to just be a low volume serigraph of 175 pieces plus AP's. It cost Earle 15m to stop playing the commercial serigraph game. He felt it was commercializing his art.

You are talking about all the games that are played. If it is not hand signed by the artist then forget it I do not play.

Then there is the original stuff where the artist didnt sign the piece. There you better know your stuff. Sam Hyde Harris wife after he passed had a stamp authenticating pieces from his estate. Those I would consider to be legit.

Late one night on ebay I saw a small unframed unsigned piece. On the back it had an artist supply house in downtown L.A. which was in business before 1920 called the Louve. I knew the stamp. Looking at the colour pallet and brush strokes it was a ringer for Sam Hyde Harris who lived in Alhambra, CA, which was a few scant miles away from the supply house. The pieces composition was the back of a small CA bunglow house. I surmised it was a keep your chops up practice piece by Hyde and that was why it was not signed. I got it for 107 from a guy in Fresno who bought it for 2.00 at a Thrift.

Again late one night I was cruising ebay for about to end art. In between doing that I was looking a my just arrived American Art Review magazine when I saw an unsigned painting on ebay that was a dead on ringer for an artist who the magazine had a featured article on. I looked at the colour pallet, brush strokes, and composition. Dead on. Got it for 500.

The piece was of a steam ship in NY harbor circa 1910. It had been conserved with relining of the canvas(someone thought enough of it to spend some money on it in order to conserve it) and had a 1910 period frame. it does appear to have a partial singnature in one corner MUL NA. I believe it to be a Fredrick Mulhaupt piece done while he was living in NYC. Later he moved to Gloucester, MA where he was known as the dean of the cape ann school.