$725 Million For Largest Ranch...

hard to get a ranch on a plane or across the border!

... just a piece of paper does it Drew.

Do they allow paper on planes anymore? Sharp edges you know.

I'd be happy to have .001% of that ranch, 5 acres is plenty and at $1420/acre I could afford it!

I'm not sure what's been put "in perspective." Value is a matter of perception. Diamonds don't hold any value for some, but others are willing to spend millions on the little baubles. It's the same with paintings.

If enough people are willing to part with their money for a given thing, then that sets the market. The people who think Picasso paintings are overpriced have no effect whatsoever on Picasso's market.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

Glen,

Send me the ranch and keep the painting! Can live on a painting................

Rich

Call that a ranch? Anna Creek Station is the world's largest working cattle station. It is located in the Australian state of South Australia. Its area is roughly 6,000,000 acres (24,000 km2; 9,400 sq mi) which is slightly larger than Israel....

:D

Why would anyone want the ranch? After a few years it would probably cost $179,000,000 just to maintain it.

The painting, just seal it and hang it on the front door. No ongoing expenses or extra work.

Value

noun: value

1.
the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something.

verb
verb: value; 3rd person present: values; past tense: valued; past participle: valued; gerund or present participle: valuing

1.
estimate the monetary worth of (something).
"his estate was valued at $45,000"

I guess it comes down to what people think deserves the importance or worth. The fact that there is no "real" perspective on the value measurement between both of these is something to ponder. The only real value to the painting as far as I can see is prestige. You can throw in the element of design if you wish. 179 million dollars for it is far out of most folks understanding or attempts to understand it.

To put it in perspective for the ordinary person... which we are labeled at this level of life... one could invest 4.5 179 million dollar Picasso's to buy land larger than the size of London.

Yes, there is perspective that can be found in this Dan. And the wealthy can't seem to understand why those who struggle to get by in life have lots of animosity towards them.

One fire and the painting is lost forever...

It is a $179MM investment vehicle, nothing more.

"It is a $179MM investment vehicle, nothing more."

People don't pay $179 million for nothing. It is, above all, rare, one-of-a-kind ART.

"the wealthy can't seem to understand why those who struggle to get by in life have lots of animosity towards them."

Oh, they get it. It's one of the many turn-ons of having great wealth. Some actually do very good things with their money, from building shelters to funding art and culture. People who have problems with the wealthy should check the mirror -- that's generally where the problem is.

You won't find "idiots-per-capita" any greater among the wealthy than in the general population.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

"And the wealthy can't seem to understand why those who struggle to get by in life have lots of animosity towards them."

I have NO ANIMOSITY WHATSOEVER! Why should I? It's their money and they are free to spend it any way they like!! I've met lots of extremely wealthy individuals in my lifetime, and I'm quite sure they sensed that "envy" is not in my character.

Adam I agree - can't imagine the tax bill on that ranch.

Of course the painting requires insurance, security and climate controlled storage.

http://www.sothebysrealty.com/eng/sales/detail/180-l-2096-bjzeg2/wt-waggoner-estate-ranch-vernon-tx-76385

Check out the photos of the ranch and listing info. Appears this ranch is generating some substantial income--over 1000 producing oil wells, livestock, agriculture. I wouldn't mind visiting to see some real cowboys at work.

"Oh, they get it. It's one of the many turn-ons of having great wealth." Another frivolous form of turn-on.

Yes Sarah, I was thinking that "You" had a problem with the wealthy. Well, not really. No need to be defending yourself. By the way, I had a pretty prominent artist friend of mine who worked with the owner of that ranch as a guest rounding up the livestock. He painted several works from the experience.

As for some of the wealthy doing great things, there's no argument. We only get to hear about the very select few that are PC. I hope they pay the guards that watch that piece of art more than $15.00 per hour though!

As for "idiots per capita"... I really hadn't thought much about that. Definitely a capitalistic endeavor worth pursuing. Or would that fall into a socialistic tendency? I was focusing on the idiocy of 179 million on a painting... and only 725 Million for land farther than the eye can see! And it's not located in the middle of the Sahara.

Could have rebuilt all those burned down businesses in Baltimore and more for the price of that canvas.

People don't pay $179 million for nothing. I didn't say it was nothing - I said it was an investment vehicle, that's all. In truth though, millions of people pay huge sums of money for nothing - ask all those who lose money daily on the stock market. They have nothing tangible when the share price falls!

Of course it's about investment. It's not truly worth anything as it has no real function in the true sense. It has value due to it's aesthetics and personal taste but mainly because it's a Picasso and it will be an appreciating asset sine he ain't about to create any more... Simple law of supply and demand set against the capitalist economy and inflation.

When someone gets around to spending that much on a painting they probably already have a few ranches, oil wells and anything else their imagination can think of to purchase.

This is kind of like saying they need to put either/or switches on dollar bills.

Either you buy this can of coke a cola or you dont, but you can not buy anything else.

So much for legal tender.

Dave

This fella just lost 14 Billion Dollars yesterday. Might have to pull out a couple of Picasso's and sell them to start over again. I somehow don't think he has been reduced to eating at McDonald's though.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/the-man-who-lost-dollar14-billion-in-one-day/ar-BBk4iEq

"...at one time was considered China’s richest man based on the value of his majority stake in the Chinese solar company,..."


When I read about the financial losses of solar companies it always reminds me of the Solyndra fiasco.

David Brooks on a radio interview the other day said something to the effect that after $85K money loses any meaning. Once your basic needs are met it all becomes rather abstract.

The painting was bought by Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabor al-Thani, former prime minister and foreign minister of Qatar. He probably doesn't need the oil wells on that ranch and money is no object to him, though he seems to like it quite a lot. The ranch probably wouldn't interest him, he doesn't need oil wells and he owns a large lump of Scotland so the painting might well have more value to him than a ranch. What money means to us and what it means to him are probably two entirely different things.
By the bye - my wife once met one of HBJ's wives at one of his houses in Qatar.
(PS - I don't agree that $85k is the limit beyond which money loses meaning - that's not even the value of a small house. It loses meaning once you think you have sufficient for all your future needs. I'd reckon that beyond about $500k it ceases to matter very much, but it would take $1m to cease to matter at all - that's just a personal assessment, though).

Glenn stop, look down at your feet, there's a dead horse under you.

"Could have rebuilt all those burned down businesses in Baltimore and more for the price of that canvas."

Glenn, your sentiment reminds me of all the beauty pageant contestants who wish for world peace. Cute, but naive. There isn't enough money in all the world to solve everyone's problems. There will always be people buying yachts, planes and paintings while others starve in the streets. That's okay with me. More than okay.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

Paul a cool million a year to keep you happy? High maintenance! ;-)

The point is, someone shopping in the $178 million dollar range is far from needing anything.

And while on the subject - let's put to rest the myth that rich people give away a lot of money - http://www.salon.com/2014/10/06/study_rich_give_less_to_charity_as_low_and_middle_income_people_give_more/

Hope the horse isn't yours Kevin...

Dan,

My statement was totally tongue and cheek. In fact, almost every argument I have made is pretty tongue and cheek. And I do not have an angst against the wealthy. I burned my Occupy Tent last year...

"let's put to rest the myth that rich people give away a lot of money"

The article proves exactly the opposite. It talks about a percentage of income. If a poor person gives 2% of his $100,000 income, that's $2000. If a wealthy person gives 2% of his $10 million income, that's $200,000. If the wealthy person cuts his contribution in half this year, that's still $100,000.

Wealthy people build hospitals and cultural institutions like museums, while lower income contributors tend to support social service agencies. In other words, low income givers are trying to eradicate the poor (a fools game) while the rich contribute to human education and culture.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

News Flash

Buffett: Stop blaming the rich for income inequality

“No conspiracy lies behind this depressing fact: The poor are most definitely not poor because the rich are rich,” Buffett, who’s net worth we clock in at $71.3 billion, wrote in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece published late yesterday. “Nor are the rich undeserving. Most of them have contributed brilliant innovations or managerial expertise to America’s well-being. We all live far better because of Henry Ford, Steve Jobs, Sam Walton and the like. Instead, this widening gap is an inevitable consequence of an advanced market-based economy.”

Dan - Poor people give because they see the suffering first hand. Rich give as a social activity. To put their name on a hospital wing, to get a pat on the back at the a black tie dinner, to attend a dinner with celebrities, to gain power from politicians etc.

"Behind every great fortune there is a crime."
—Balzac

"Paul a cool million a year to keep you happy? High maintenance! ;-) "

Oh, PER YEAR, you didn't say that, I thought you meant total assets available to meet any needs.

Mind you, if you are talking annual salaries I think I would probably still want that million a year, because by the second year they'd probably find out I wasn't worth it and give me the push. At least I'd have enough to live on forever :)

News Flash

Buffett: Stop blaming the rich for income inequality

“No conspiracy lies behind this depressing fact: The poor are most definitely not poor because the rich are rich,” Buffett, ..."

...

Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?

Actually, I think there are two alternative views of money - probably neither of them entirely correct - that lead to different conclusions. One view says there is a fixed amount of wealth at any given time and therefore those who have more than an average amount are depriving people at the bottom of a fair - maybe even an adequate - share.
The other view says that money is created by talent and therefore those at the top are creating money which makes more cash available for those at the bottom.
In the days of the Gold Standard, the first view probably had quite a bit going for it - the size of the cake being defined by the amount of gold available in the world, but since that link was dropped the money supply is determined by how long the printing presses are left switched on for (or what banks do with their computers), so it is possible to increase wealth at the top without reducing wealth at the bottom.
Curiously, some who hanker for a return to the gold standard also maintain that the rich having more does not mean the poor having less, but I don't see how those two views are compatible.
And I don't know whether a bit of home-spun economics represents a violation of the "no politics" policy of the forum.

I'm not quite sure that economics and how it reflects the value of art is really political. Of course, everything seems to make it's way into that arena somehow these days. Sign of the times that we live in and the battle of the classes.

My main point is to show just how much $179 million really is. It is such a great amount of money that we cannot conceive of it. It makes the purchase of the Ranch look like a real bargain... and also challenges our sense of what is important and whether we really understand what important is in this wacky world that we live in.

How priceless is your personal art to you? Is there any work of art that you would personally sacrifice for in order to have it? Could be anybodies. Any local artists that grab your attention? What are these artists general price range.

I was just in a gallery in Laguna Beach, California and there was a work that was being offered at over 1.5 million hanging on the gallery store wall. I don't see that too often. It was a huge painting of Jerusalem and an obvious Christian religious theme to it. I was pretty surprised by the whole package.

It all depends how much you have. $179m is nothing to HBJ. Spending that will have as much impact on his lifestyle as the decision on whether or not to buy a packet of chewing gum would have on you or me. I suspect that the importance of that Picasso to him lies in the fact that the world will come to know that he is so rich that he has paid the highest ever price - the fame is his reward, not possession of the artwork

They did an experiment many years ago.... Someone else will have to find it.

Gramps was still alive so I'm talking a long time ago.

They gave so many people a lot of money each

Before this, some were wealthy and some were poor

Some of the people spent all the money. Some spent some and invested some. Some invested all of it (or most)

At the end, the rich were richer
The poor were as poor and moaning about the money having gone

Gramps was an investor in his future as is my mother. They were (gramps) and are (Mother) very wealthy people and both despaired of me a long time ago

I would love just a couple of acres of that ranch

Abbie, you might remember the film "Trading Places" with Dan Ackroyd and Eddie Murphy. It conveyed the opposite. Okay... a movie is a movie. But it communicates ideas at us, and judging by the way that people gobble it up, you would think that the idea that a man taken from the street corner arbitrarily could make decisions on Wall Street every bit as good as the one who was brought up living, moving, and breathing in that environment simply by redressing them and setting them loose. "My Fair Lady Comes" to mind. The war of the classes.

I see that limited is a big word for Picasso. A quick check shows these estimates of his creative deeds:

"Picasso was exceptionally prolific throughout his long lifetime. The total number of artworks he produced has been estimated at 50,000, comprising 1,885 paintings; 1,228 sculptures; 2,880 ceramics, roughly 12,000 drawings, many thousands of prints, and numerous tapestries and rugs."

What are the chances of Fine Art America enter into the Limited Edition Market? LOL

Glenn there has to be a demand for LE. People are here buying prints for decorative purposes not for some kind of investment. Limited edition pillows, duvets and cell phone covers?

Edward,

Opening up this thing to one of a kind originals and Limited Editions might be another stream of revenue dumping off into the ocean of things already available. I'm pretty well versed on what people are buying here. As for pillows being limited edition and duvet covers being limited edition it certainly wouldn't be anything new to the market. Nonetheless, I was referring to paintings, drawings, and photography on canvas, archival paper, etc., etc.,etc.

Creating a demand. That's called marketing. FAA is as big a vehicle (if what we have been led to believe is true) as there is in cyber place... err... space. They have the platform. They just need the artists now... :)

Agree with Edward re Limited Editions. I think the Greenwich Workshop has it covered. Good luck getting into their pool of artists. Because of GW's stellar reputation, I would never consider buying a LE which did not originate from them as the publisher.

In the early 80's, I bought two LE's by the same artist for approx $150 each. Those two LE's have long since sold out at the publisher (Greenwich Workshop) and are now each valued in excess of $5K on the secondary market. Ironically, the two LE's have the same sequence number, so that may raise the value if sold together with the Certificates of Authenticity. About 8 or 9 years ago, I bought a LE giclee by the same artist. The value of that LE on the secondary market has now more than tripled. I bought all three simply because I liked them. The artist's original works sell upwards of $1+ million.

About 20 years ago, I bought a LE by a different artist for approx $50 on the secondary market. It is now sold out at the publisher (Greenwich Workshop). However, because of lesser demand and popularity of the artist, the value on the secondary market has only risen to approx $400. Again, I bought this LE because I liked it.

Luckily for me, the four purchases over time have transitioned into investments that now have some liquidity value.

POD is one thing. LE is a totally different thing.

LE requires another level of selling. Buyers have to trust that you are truly offering LEs. Typically a reputable third party adds this level of trust. Like Sarah points out, a publisher with a reputation in the industry.

Sarah,

Greenwich Workshop is just one in a myriad of Limited Edition Publishers. There are many of them out there and also many private individuals who had their own publishing companies... kinda like the dreaded Peter Lik. Some of them millionaires many times over.

Reputable. A big word. Is that a backhand to FAA?

The cyber world is being used by too many to say that a reputable firm cannot possibly sell Limited Edition Fine Art. If reputation is a question here, why be so intricately involved?

Is the glass always half-full in your world Edward?

I indicated "stellar reputation" because Greenwich Workshop been at it since 1972 and still going strong.

"Reputable. A big word. Is that a backhand to FAA?" Nope, not all!! My post addressed my experience with LE's, not POD's.

"If reputation is a question here, why be so intricately involved?" I don't understand this question.

Sarah, I was very involved in the Limited Edition area for many years. Greenwich was one of many that were available. Their reputation was a good one, though what they had to offer was not quite my ticket. It took them a long time to enter into the canvas limited edition market. Really came in very late and missed the profit from that explosion..

You might notice that I was addressing Edward's comment following yours.

Reputation is something that everyone has to build. The implication seems to be that it cannot happen in the cyber world. They also said that the internet wouldn't take much market from brick and mortar stores somewhere back there.

Now, this is totally off topic, but I want to ask you a question. On your site, you mention, "Landscapes Surrealism Graphics Pen and Ink Pointillism Inspirational Spiritual." I recently had a discussion (last night) with an artist who was also an art professor for many years, has a BFA, etc.. He said that "pointillism" is a term used for painting. And, that ink dot work is classified as "stippling". I was always under the impression that "pointillism" was singularly used to describe the predominate use of dots, irregardless of the medium. Now, I am perplexed and would be curious to know your take on "pointillism". Thanks.

Back on topic: I'm really liking the ranch. I wonder if the next owner will offer the "dude ranch" experience. I'll just observe and paint.

I wouldn't argue with the professor! His historical perspective of the term is grounded in fact. The original idea is using painted color points to blend together when stepping back from a work of art. But black and white stippling has been referred to as pointillism for many years also. Probably just redefined in everyday use like so many words are.

When I first started working with ink points it was pretty natural to use the term pointillism. If you go through the net you can see some pretty magnificent pen and ink B & W work portrayed with the term pointillism. I think I replaced the use of the term in some of my presentations. My Pen and Ink Gallery says Stippling.

http://www.creativebloq.com/graphic-design/pointillism-examples-dot-art-11121135

I injured my hand doing it and haven't created much pen and ink the past several years. I have one unfinished piece that has been on the board for 4 years. Ran into a block wall on it. Just as well. There's so much more I know now than I did several years ago.

Publishing is different than printing. A publisher prints out the entire edition at once. Arts proofs are made, approved by the artist and then the rest of the run is printed. The prints are signed and numbered by the artist. Not the same as POD.

Glenn, thanks for the link. Amazing work!!

Edward,

That used to be the case. But today's technology allows one picture at a time to be printed up upon order. Artist proofs are also not what they used to be. They turned into designated AP instead of AP's that were approximately 10% of the run for the Artist on approval. Many artists received them as part of the contract and sold them personally. Printers and purchasers/collectors also don't have to worry about plates wearing out and the final prints being of less quality than the original prints. The final prints in today's print world can actually be better than the initial ones.

Making an entire edition at one time is not the norm. Greenwich isn't going to run 250 prints from a Bev Doolittle Series unless the are assured of pre-sales volume. They may do it if Bev Doolittle is thinking about doing something extra to each print to make it more collectible. Nobody wants to have stock hanging around waiting to be sold. Perhaps printing more might litigate the shipping costs for a retail purchaser who doesn't mind the financial outlay up-front though. That would take some real confidence in the sales force and product of the artist.

Limited Edition comes in many forms. Being signed by the artist is the best form, but is not necessarily what is being done. Thomas Kinkade instigated a DNA signature to verify authenticity some years ago. I would imagine that it is still being used since he is no longer around.

There is a simple way to do it. The issue for anyone taking it on is "will it be a benefit"? FAA might think of it a more of a nuisance since their are some special handling considerations that have to be taken care of. Also, Base Limited Edition price structures would have to be established.

This is way off the initial topic of this thread, but it can be done. FAA might not be the vehicle unless they open up a new division that is separate altogether from this hub and let it sink or die on it's own.

@ Sarah... You're welcome.