Under-Quoting in the Art Auction firm

The art auction houses proudly proclaim on their websites the remarkable achievement when a painting goes beyond 'expectations', but to me this shows that they either don't know the store or have deliberately underestimated.

An example of this was at a Sunday Art Auction at Leonard Joel in Melbourne last year. The first lot of the day was an artwork by highly sought after Western Australian artist Robert Juniper titled 'Blue River, 1978'. At 43cm by 95.5cm it was a decent size for a Juniper, and with popular hues of blue and purple in a semi-abstract scenery it was safe bet that it would achieve a good price. safe bet to many, but not initially safe bet to the auction house providing the estimates, which in case,granted an evaluation of between ,000 and ,000. However, upon calling the auction house I was told that there had been a lot of interest in the painting, and that they now improbable it to go for more that the high estimate. So why not raise the evaluation at this point? I said I would be happy to pay duplicate the upper estimate, and although the offer may not have been taken seriously, it was still an indication that the estimates were too low. The auction results for the previous year also indicated a much higher value. The median price for a Robert Juniper oil in 2008 was ,260 with an median price per square cm of .15. Multiplying this outline with the actual size of this painting (4106 sq cms) would give a base valuation of ,827. Production some adjustments for the normal ability of this work and the smaller than median size (smaller paintings generally achieve a higher price per sq cm), I would have concept that an evaluation of ,000 - ,000 would have been a more literal, estimate. The painting sold for ,600 along with buyers premium, which was still well above even my own estimates. Even with a more realistic evaluation the effect would still have set the auction off to the desired dramatic start that they were probably finding for.

Valuing paintings is not all the time as straightforward as doing straightforward calculations based on past prices. I remember being at a Deutscher Menzies auction and watching a Celia Perceval painting 'Picking Daffodils' with a realistic high evaluation of ,000 getting knocked down for ,400 after a long bidding war between three or four phone bidders, leaving the auctioneer to whisper to the perplexed audience 'do they think its a John Perceval'? The next lot was other Celia Perceval with a higher evaluation that sold for only ,520. These situations are interesting and add to the drama of an auction, but we don't need the auction houses to artificially create them. As a buyer, I would prefer to have a more literal, indication of the improbable price so that I don't waste my time with something that will ultimately be beyond my budget.

Even the most remarkable auction houses can get in wrong. I remember at one of Christie's last auctions in Australia finding at the evaluation of ,000 to ,000 on David Boyd's large 1960's work 'The Offering' from his important 'The Trial' series, and request the staff it was a typo and was surely supposed to be ,000 to ,000. I was told that the evaluation was correct, and the painting sold for ,190 along with buyers premium.

For an up-coming example keep an eye on William Boissevain's 'Unititled, c.1970s' at Bay East's auction next week. Similar paintings usually sell for between ,000 and ,000, although this painting is offered with a high evaluation of only ,500.

I will continue to enjoy the theatre of those genuine auction surprises, but with so many research tools available, feedback from the viewings and years of communal palpate of the auction house staff, apart from the rare exception there should be no excuse for getting it so wrong.

sources tell me Under-Quoting in the Art Auction firm sources tell me