Letter: Art market profits don't mean recovery

Wednesday 16 March 1994 00:02 GMT

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Sir: Your headline 'Christie's soars on art recovery' (Business, 11 March) is somewhat contradicted by the narrative.

You mention in your article that the increase in the buyers' premium in 1993 added pounds 12m to profits. This means that the increase due to market recovery is minimal ( pounds 6.7m to pounds 6.9m and not pounds 18.9m). Even this result includes purely financial items.

In other words, Christie's higher profits are not attributable to the soaring art market but to the soaring buyers' premium.

Yours sincerely,

JONATHAN PRICE

Munich

13 March

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Letter: Art market profits don't mean recovery

Join our commenting forum

Thank you for registering