Skinner's Auction results


Recommended Posts

I'm rather astounded! Can anyone interpret the meaning of so many lots in the October 11 auction selling "above" if not outrageously "above" estimate?

Jerry

In looking over the Skinner results, it appears that the selling prices are consistent with current market conditions. One thing that I have noticed about Skinner's sales estimates is that they are pretty conservative. Maybe it is to get consignors to place a low reserve which will produce a sale. IMHO

What really amazes me is that just about everything was sold. Maybe there is a method to their madness. They sure made a bundle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What really amazes me is that just about everything was sold. Maybe there is a method to their madness. They sure made a bundle.

Well, the live attendance was much lighter than usual, the number of lots offered less than 3/4 (281 lots vs. 400+) of the usual, and many lots sold to either the desk or phone, internet and left bids. There was some very agressive bidding on several lots, but many of the top lots did not appear to sell.

The estimates are usually very conservative to result in a pleased consigner and encourage interest among the buyers.

jesse

Link to post
Share on other sites
Can anyone interpret the meaning of so many lots in the October 11 auction selling "above" if not outrageously "above" estimate?

I think Skinner intentionally tries to under-estimate the prices. Skinner likes a low estimate for 2 reasons: 1. More people will think that they might be able to buy the lot and will become potential bidders. 2. A low estimate usually also means a low reserve, which means the lot is more likely to sell. The auction house would like to sell everything.

And then there is the occasional lot which sells for many multiples of its estimate. This happens when the bidders recognize value that the auction house's expert completely missed. For example, lot 76 was described as an unstamped French silver-mounted violin bow attributed to Dominique Peccatte. Estimated at $3,000-5,000, it sold for a bid of $28,000, making it the most expensive bow in the sale. Isaac Salchow, one of the country's more knowlegeable French bow experts, was one of the under bidders. I assume that the bow was a real D Peccatte that David Bonsey did not recognize as such.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Skinner intentionally tries to under-estimate the prices. Skinner likes a low estimate for 2 reasons: 1. More people will think that they might be able to buy the lot and will become potential bidders. 2. A low estimate usually also means a low reserve, which means the lot is more likely to sell. The auction house would like to sell everything.

And then there is the occasional lot which sells for many multiples of its estimate. This happens when the bidders recognize value that the auction house's expert completely missed. For example, lot 76 was described as an unstamped French silver-mounted violin bow attributed to Dominique Peccatte. Estimated at $3,000-5,000, it sold for a bid of $28,000, making it the most expensive bow in the sale. Isaac Salchow, one of the country's more knowlegeable French bow experts, was one of the under bidders. I assume that the bow was a real D Peccatte that David Bonsey did not recognize as such.

Talking about many multiples. This was a lot I had my eye on: Czech violin estimate was $400 - 600 sold for $3200! blew right by my modest bid limit that was still well above the "high" estimate. I don't know enough to comment about the estimates on the higher end items, but the estimates on the lower-end items that I, at least would expect to sell in the $1K to 3K range seemed to be very, very low.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Talking about many multiples. This was a lot I had my eye on: Czech violin estimate was $400 - 600 sold for $3200!

That was lot # 240, an early John Juzek Master Art, not mint but in pretty good condition with no cracks. $400-600 was a ridiculously low estimate for that violin, and I knew it would sell for a lot more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That was lot # 240, an early John Juzek Master Art, not mint but in pretty good condition with no cracks. $400-600 was a ridiculously low estimate for that violin, and I knew it would sell for a lot more.

Lot 240 was a model 335 Juzek, certainly not the top of the line such as the Model 900 which probably goes for the same as an E.H. Roth (Sr.) Perhaps that went for a high dollar figure because someone played it prior to the auction and fell in love with the sound. These things are important to players regardless of the market value.

An interesting lot was no. 191 which went for $652 a Caesar Castelli violin , or should I say labeled as such.

If that was a real Castelli, someone got a super bargain. He was a fairly important mid 20th Century Maker in Ascoli.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That was lot # 240, an early John Juzek Master Art, not mint but in pretty good condition with no cracks. $400-600 was a ridiculously low estimate for that violin, and I knew it would sell for a lot more.

What about this one? Lot 121 $300-500 estimate, sold for $1896. and Lot 171 which went for $1659 against a $600-800 estimate.

Maybe we are seeing some EH Roth price appreciation spilling over onto other similar instruments?

as opposed to this one Lot 166 which went for $474 against a $300-500 estimate and which looks to me as af it might have been one of the bargains of the sale, though I didn't bid on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What about this one? Lot 121 $300-500 estimate, sold for $1896. and Lot 171 which went for $1659 against a $600-800 estimate.

Maybe we are seeing some EH Roth price appreciation spilling over onto other similar instruments?

as opposed to this one Lot 166 which went for $474 against a $300-500 estimate and which looks to me as af it might have been one of the bargains of the sale, though I didn't bid on it.

The Juzek was clearly undervalued and everyone knew include Skinners.

Tarisio has a similar Master Art which will likely close the same or more.

Low reserves ensure the auction house that the items will sell and the encourage

the naive buyer that they can beat the house.

Link to post
Share on other sites
An interesting lot was no. 191 which went for $652 a Caesar Castelli violin , or should I say labeled as such.

If that was a real Castelli, someone got a super bargain. He was a fairly important mid 20th Century Maker in Ascoli.

In my opinion lot number 191 was a new violin-less than 5 years old with an obviously fake label. If I had to guess, I would say it was made far to the east of Italy. Lot 121 was a minty Paul Knorr violin, I think, worth about $5000 to a dealer.

Lot # 264 was a very interesting and unusual violin that sold for well under the estimate.

37 lots of 281 were unsold. 86.8% sold rate-much lower than normal and quite low for such a small sale in my opinion.

jesse

Link to post
Share on other sites
What about this one? Lot 121 $300-500 estimate, sold for $1896. and Lot 171 which went for $1659 against a $600-800 estimate.

I thought 171 was a nice honest violin and was willing to go to 1300 for it... but the bidding went so quickly I didn't participate.

Jesse, lot 264, according to the web was estimated at 12,000 and unsold.

I won a few things, met some interesting people and got to see Tarisio's items too. It was a fun time, I just wish the buyer's premium wasn't so high, that plus MA tax comes to 24.75%.

Cheers, Ed

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.