Talk:List of most expensive paintings/Archive 1

Omission
an obvious omission from this list is the name of the buyers. Please add, if you know. Kingturtle 14:27, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Mona Lisa value
When the Mona Lisa was exhibited in the States, insurers valued it at over $100 million. It was not insured, due to the high premiums, but does that make it #2? - George Washington III 23:17, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
 * That was $100 million in 1962 dollars. Inflation, plus the Mona Lisa's growing popularity, would probably bump that figure higher if it was re-assessed later. In any case, though, Mona Lisa was never auctioned, so it doesn't belong on the list. &bull; Benc &bull; 08:43, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"The Guinness Book of Records lists the Mona Lisa as the most expensive object ever insured. It was assessed at $100 million on December 14, 1962, prior to the painting touring the U.S. for several months. [1] (http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/gwr5/content_pages/record.asp?recordid=50934) With inflation, this would be approximately equivalent to $587,767,686.92 in 2003. The Louvre chose to instead spend the money on security." - How can the Mona Lisa be the most expensive object ever insured if it was not in fact insured? Surely a supertanker and its cargo is more expensive anyway. Lisiate 01:51, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Inflation adjustment
Currently the list is ordered partially by absolute dollars and partially by inflation adjusted dollars. Inflation adjustment is more relevant I think, though you'd get different results with different currencies and methods of inflation adjustment. After recalculations at the http://minneapolisfed.org/research/data/us/calc/ website used earlier to account for dollar inflation I get the following top 10 instead:  †I see both $49m and $53.9 mentioned on the web, but the latter more often. Famously, the buyer, Alan Bond, couldn't actually afford his bid, and the Getty museum ended up buying it for an undisclosed price. ††Yasuo Goto paid $39,921,750 for Van Gogh's "Still Life: Vase with Fifteen Sunflowers" at auction at Christie's London in March 1987, at the time a record-setting amount, to be broken 8 months later by Irises. Interestingly, it is currently debated if this painting is a fake... Does anyone have issues with replacing the current list with the one above? Afasmit 12:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * (artist - name - sale price -year sold - inflation adjusted price)
 * 1. Van Gogh - Portrait of Doctor Gachet - $82.5m - 1990 - $122.8m
 * 2. Renoir - Au Moulin de la Galette - $78.1m - 1990 - $116.3m
 * 3. Picasso - Garçon à la Pipe - $104.17m - 2004 - $107.3m
 * 4. Van Gogh - Irises - $53.9m - 1987 - $92.3m †
 * 5. Van Gogh - Portrait de l'Artiste sans Barbe - $71.5m - 1998 - $85.4m
 * 6. Rubens - Massacre of the Innocents - $76.73m - 2002 - $83.0m
 * 7. Picasso - Les Noces de Pierrette - $51.67m - 1989 - $81.1m
 * 8. Cezanne - Rideau, Cruchon et Compotier - $60.5m - 1999 - $70.7m
 * 9. Van Gogh - Sunflowers - $39.92m - 1987 - $68.4m ††
 * 10. Picasso - Femme aux Bras Croisés - $55.0m - 2000 - $62.2m

Discrepancies, no sources
The prices given here differ substantially from those given here for the 10 most expensive paintings (listing only sales up the year 2000). The conversions to US$ differ from what you get when you apply the exchange rates given by this historical exchange rate site. How would the time-adjusted values come out if the inflation rate of some other country were applied (say, the UK)? What are the sources for this article? Lupo 08:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

further info
it would be intresting to have info on previous prices realized by these paintings during their lifetime, im sure at one time they fetched no more than a 3 figure sum and the % increases must be truly astonishing. Also i believe the vatican have most of the priceless art and also wasnt a stolen vermeer in ireland valued at £170 million? t ali 28/01/06


 * While it would be interested to list historical values, it would clutter up the list too much. That information best belongs in the articles on each individual piece of work, some of which already include such data.  Pimlottc 19:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Unless a work would have been sold more than once at a price that would warrant inclusion in the list. There's no reason why a painting couldn't be in the list twice. Piet 09:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Les Noces de Pierrette - in USD?
According to Les Noces de Pierrette, this piece was sold in France. It's most likely, then, that the price was in French francs, not USD, and should be listed as such. That may change the evaluation and its current place in the list as well. Pimlottc 19:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

France uses the euro now but your point still stands. Lisiate 22:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * They do now, but in 1989, when the sale took place, they were using francs. Pimlottc 04:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * My mistake - I thought you were referring to the recent Picasso sale... Lisiate 21:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Inflation adjusted ranking
I've just reverted the list to inflation adjusted ranking throughout for the reasons outline by someone else above. Ordering the list this way allows for better comparasions over time. Unfortunately it means we'll have to update the values periodically. Lisiate 22:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Where do the figures come from? I dont think an encyclopedia should be making these calculations itself, it should only use figures which are sourced. Maybe there should be two lists - one inflation adjusted and one that isnt. Most news sites are saying that Boy with a pipe is second at $104 million now after the klimt not fourth as it is listed here --Astrokey 44 10:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If there are different orderings in the sources, we should probably present all the prevalent ones. Piet 16:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Longer list
Media usually give top ten lists, but it would be nice to have a longer list here. it would probably not be easy to research this. Piet 09:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Then what?
''Later, Saito said he would consider giving the paintings to his government or a museum. Saito died in 1996.'' So where are they now? Did they stay in the inheritance? It's a bit strange to give this story and then not tell us how it ends. Piet 09:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Auction
The top painting on the list was sold in a private sale, yet the list headings say "at auction." One of the two has to go. Night Gyr 00:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Private Sale/Auction
The Klimt was sold privately as most art is, however the list on the site is for auction records. Several paintings have sold for over $100 million privately, but they are not afforded the publicity of a major auction. The Klimt's price is significant but the sale belongs under a completely different category. There need to be two lists.

Most expensive painting by a living artist
Does anyone know what that is? It should be added to the list.

Locations
The locations of these paintings (and if they are viewable by the public) is also notweorthy enough to merit inclusion. Cacophony 20:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. - Dudesleeper · Talk 17:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Update
The lists needed updating, especially now privately sold paintings are included. I've also extended both to 20. Most of the new data is after the website, which seems particularly informed. The exchange rates used on this French site didn't always make sense. I've instead used the exchange rate at the time of the sale, which matches those most often quoted. Most other data seem to be consistent, but there are two sales that I could not confirm elsewhere:

The sale of Van Gogh's "Wheatfield, with Cypresses" (Champ de blé avec cypress) is in fact not mentioned anywhere else. He painted two or three of these from almost the same location, one is in the National Gallery of London, the second at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and a third in a private collection. My guess it's the last one, though at the above website they show a different one. I've probably added an image of the wrong painting as well. Can anyone confirm this sale?

The other is Van Gogh's "Peasant Woman Against a Background of Wheat". Plenty of news on the deal between two unhealthily rich people in October last year, but only vague numbers. I've seen $100-150 million for this and Gauguin's "Bathers" combined, while the above website gives numbers totalling a mere $82.5 million.

The price for Irises is usually given as $53.9 million (surely American and not Australian as suggested in the painting's wiki). This list had $49 million, which was the price without the commission fee (to be paid by the buyer). These (enormous) commission fees are generally not mentioned, but I assume they are included in all other prices we have here. Please correct if you know better.

Some paintings, from the same painter, have names in French others are in English. Someone might try to bring some consistence. Finally, the overall format of the list may not be optimal; it's hard to add data (like current location) without cluttering the whole thing. Perhaps a table would be better. Afasmit 13:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Gross Clinic
The Gross Clinic by Thomas Eakins should probably go on the list.Spikebrennan 14:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Massacre of the Innocents
Massacre of the Innocents sold for £49.5mil in 2002 which would be $94.7mil, if this is true then the inflation rate would make it 110,030,327 today. Either way the painting is listed lower than it should be even if it only works out to be 94.7 million. --Joebengo 02:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I have done some research and it seems that the exchange rates were way off, most likely fixed to todays rates and not those of 2002, On July 10, 2002 the GBP to USD exchange rate was .6452 which would mean that 49,500,000 pounds would be roughly 31,937,400 USD at that time, not 94 million or 76 million as it said on the article of the painting. For this reason I am changing it, but i will still leave it on the list until everything is fixed. If anyone has questions or comments leave them below.--Joebengo 02:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The exchange rate was 0.6452 pounds per dollar, or 1.55 dollar per pound. It was sold for 49.5 M pound, or 49.5 * 1.55= 76.72 M dollar at the time. The http://minneapolisfed.org/research/data/us/calc/ translates 76.72 M 2002 dollars to 85.97 M 2006 dollars, or rounded of, 86 M dollar. This price fits its current position. I accidentally replaced my own correctly calculated 86 M with 94.7 M on Dec 28 it appears. Afasmit 15:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah I realized that I had totally messed up but didn't have an opprotunity to fix it, thanks for the help.--Joebengo 18:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Is Martinez the purchaser of #5?
His page, and the links there suggest he isn't.75.200.40.87 05:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sortable table
Hi, I have made the main table sortable, which means readers can sort on the original price and the inflation adjusted one. This obviates the need for the second duplicated table, which it seems wasn't always being. For further help on this see Help:Table and Help:Sorting. --Deon Steyn 08:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:No. 5, 1948.jpg
The image Image:No. 5, 1948.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --05:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Lead
The intro makes no sense... looks like part was deleted "This is a list of the highest known prices paid for paintings. Since that time sales of the most valuable paintings have usually been made at auctions, though that had by no means always been the case before, and the list below still shows some "private sales", including the three most expensive. The current record price was paid for a work from No. 5, 1948 by Jackson Pollock sold at US$140 million in 2006, (approx. $150.6 million in CPI-adjusted 2010 US dollars).[1]"81.108.7.135 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC).
 * I restored the missing sentences that had been deleted without explanation but are needed for context. I leave it to others if they need to be edited further. Ecphora (talk) 04:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Initial value
Do we know the initial value of the artwork when finished? Enlil Ninlil (talk) 06:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be interesting indeed. 76.67.111.164 (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Evidence needed
We will have to blank the claimed ownership of the Pollock if evidence is not forthcoming. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Calligraphy
The Beijing Poly Auctions website considers the auction of Wang Meng's ink-wash drawing / painting "the second high price of Chinese classic drawing", trailing an 11th century 18 meter long scroll with calligraphy by Huang Tingjian sold on June 3, 2010 at the same auction for ¥436.8 million (~$64m then). I think most of us would include the Wang Meng drawing in this list, but does calligraphy fit the bill? Afasmit (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * An interesting question. Chinese, Japanese, Arabic calligraphy and the western illuminated manuscripts are applied art. I would be inclined to think they should be treated separately from this list, which has a certain coherence. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Need update
The Card Players - 250 000 000$ --Sasha Krotov (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. What one can do with a quarter billion dollars these days. Afasmit (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

facebook graffiti
I removed facebook graffiti note for several reasons: thus it is nice newspaper or magazine story, it may belong to David Choe and Facebook articles, but i do not think that it belongs to this list. --Jklamo (talk) 12:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * uncertainty, if graffiti can be considered as painting
 * not paid for single painting
 * price of shares was not $200 millions in time of contract (2005), but less than $4 m (and current facebook valuation is still guess now)