3.99 vase sells for $100,000

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by packs

If I remember correctly the original sellers of the African mask sought out an opinion from the person who ultimately bought it from them.

Not quite. An article by Adam Schrader on Art Net News on October 3, 2023, summarizes the issue perfectly, so I will just quote it (I am going to omit the paragraph breaks and leave out some of the extraneous details):

“A legal case making its way through the French court system is raising questions about whether a person who has sold an artwork or artifact later determined to have a much higher value can seek further compensation. An unnamed 81-year-old woman and her 88-year-old husband came across an African mask while clearing out their second home. While most of the contents of the home went into a garage sale, they decided to sell the mask to a local antiques dealer, who agreed to buy the mask for €150, or about $157, in September 2021. Months later, they discovered through reading the newspaper that their mask had just made €4.2 million ($4.4 million) at a specialized auction in Montpellier. ... The couple launched suit against the antiques dealer, who they believe cheated them. ... The couple’s argument hinges on the suspicion that the dealer had a good idea of the true value of the object when he bought it from them. The antiques dealer did not display the mask at his shop and instead contacted the auction houses Drouot Estimation and Fauve Paris, which estimated it to be worth about €100–€120, and €400–€600 respectively. Despite these valuations given by two auctioneers, he went on to seek a third opinion from a specialized sale of African objects in Montpellier. After ordering analysis using carbon-14 dating and mass spectrometry, the mask was dated to the 19th century and an ethnologist’s expert appraisal revealed it was used for purification rites by the Ngil society, a secret society that operated within the Fang ethnic group in Gabon until the 1920s. The auction house placed the mask for sale with an estimate of between €300,000 and €400,000. The mask was sold for €4.2 million, about $4.4 million, at an auction in March 2022.”

He sounds like a smart professional who took a risk, and it paid off. Hell, the experts he consulted had views that put the value of the mask in line with what he paid for it, and it was only after a lot more homework and testing that he got a crazy good outcome.

More to the point, philosophically speaking, even assuming that the dealer knew he was looking at a very valuable object, I do not think he had a duty to tell the sellers anything. Anyone with expertise has probably worked his butt off to get to that level of knowledge and has a right, in our hyper-capitalist society, to use it to profit. Nor do I think people with equal bargaining power (not knowledge, bargaining power) have anything to bitch about when the counterparty has superior knowledge and uses it to advantage. An expert has no reason to give up that advantage in an arms' length transaction. I heard about a similar situation over the weekend, $25 item morphing into a $50K item when a smart buyer figured it out. I am jealous but not critical. My only complaint is that I wasn't the one who found the golden ticket.

The vase deal is the mirror of that situation: the professional was blind without a cane and the buyer was canny. More power to her.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

He sounds like a smart professional who took a risk, and it paid off. Hell, the experts he consulted had views that put the value of the mask in line with what he paid for it, and it was only after a lot more homework and testing that he got a crazy good outcome.

More to the point, philosophically speaking, even assuming that the dealer knew he was looking at a very valuable object, I do not think he had a duty to tell the sellers anything. Anyone with expertise has probably worked his butt off to get to that level of knowledge and has a right, in our hyper-capitalist society, to use it to profit. Nor do I think people with equal bargaining power (not knowledge, bargaining power) have anything to bitch about when the counterparty has superior knowledge and uses it to advantage. An expert has no reason to give up that advantage in an arms' length transaction. I heard about a similar situation over the weekend, $25 item morphing into a $50K item when a smart buyer figured it out. I am jealous but not critical. My only complaint is that I wasn't the one who found the golden ticket.

The vase deal is the mirror of that situation: the professional was blind without a cane and the buyer was canny.

Yeah. My recollection is that the bigger argument was the ethics of getting a deal that's too good. Based on the discussion, for some of the posters, buying a million dollar piece for $100 constitutes a moral failing on the part of the purchaser.

Of course, we also had lots of exciting hypotheticals, and some pushing to attempt to figure out where the ethicists draw the line between getting a good deal and acting unethically. I even shared somewhat of a similar situation where I recently purchased an item for somewhere between 1% and 10% of its value, and the overwhelming response was basically that I got a good deal, and shouldn't worry about it.

My recollection is that the potential for bad karma was also a factor.

[G1911]

I can only find one post in the original thread saying this kind of suit should be acceptable.

Most of the original thread is a guy calling anyone who gets a huge bargain without telling the seller what they have and using their knowledge for the sellers gain a "huge piece of shit" and the resulting virtue signaling debate. There was not really any debate over anything remotely approaching either the mask case or this vase.

1 single person thought a suit was reasonable. I still do not get why we are bringing this up as if there is any legitimate debate whatsoever.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by G1911

I can only find one post in the original thread saying this kind of suit should be acceptable.

Most of the original thread is a guy calling anyone who gets a huge bargain without telling the seller what they have and using their knowledge for the sellers gain a "huge piece of shit" and the resulting virtue signaling debate. There was not really any debate over anything remotely approaching either the mask case or this vase.

1 single person thought a suit was reasonable. I still do not get why we are bringing this up as if there is any legitimate debate whatsoever.

Plenty of people seemed to have some qualms about the original situation.

Even you had a quote there:

"One should not rip people off for ethical reasons..."

Of course, you then went on to argue that you shouldn't be obligated to use your knowledge to benefit someone else.

And then there were also a handful of posts about how people believed it was appropriate to cut the seller into your deal if you're able to make good money on your flip.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by raulus

Plenty of people seemed to have some qualms about the original situation.

Even you had a quote there:

"One should not rip people off for ethical reasons..."

Of course, you then went on to argue that you shouldn't be obligated to use your knowledge to benefit someone else.

And then there were also a handful of posts about how people believed it was appropriate to cut the seller into your deal if you're able to make good money on your flip.

One should not be rude to their neighbors. That doesn't mean I believe I can sue my neighbor who forgets to bring a casserole to the neighborhood potluck. I am unable to find anyone besides our regular singular troll arguing in favor of a suit of the nature in discussion.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by G1911

One should not be rude to their neighbors. That doesn't mean I believe I can sue my neighbor who forgets to bring a casserole to the neighborhood potluck. I am unable to find anyone besides our regular singular troll arguing in favor of a suit of the nature in discussion.

Fair enough!

Still seems like we argued for a while about it, all things considered.

And maybe we haven't plumbed the depths of the various ethical hypotheticals yet, which is why we need another thread to help us flesh it out further.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by raulus

Fair enough!

Still seems like we argued for a while about it, all things considered.

And maybe we haven't plumbed the depths of the various ethical hypotheticals yet, which is why we need another thread to help us flesh it out further.

Perhaps we can even sue each other to create months of drama for the board.