A relatively new phenomenon that has appeared in the art market during the last decade has been the growth of celebrity sales or what is known as the “glamour marketplace.” Prices for items offered from the estates of Andy Warhol, Gianni Versace, Pamela Harriman and the Duke and Duchess of Windsor have far surpassed their high-end auction estimates due to the unpredictable market allure attached to a celebrity provenance. Probably the most dramatic example of this phenomenon was seen at the sale of items from the estate of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, which had been estimated by Sotheby’s to fetch between $3 and 4 million but actually realized close to $50 million.
The recent sale of items collected by Gianni Versace and sold by his heirs presented a number of questions and reflections of how well artifacts and other collectibles owned by international celebrities offered in today’s market will fare in the long run. Can these items maintain their value over time? Are there bargains to be found in these sales where everything offered seems to go through the roof?
The Glamour Marketplace
The term “glamour marketplace” was first identified in IRS litigation surrounding a donation of artifacts recovered from a sunken Spanish galleon and donated by Frank Perdue, founder of the Perdue chicken empire. The court agreed that items from the resurrected Spanish galleon would have a glamour factor that would make them more valuable than other gold artifacts.
This concept seemed to be corroborated a few years later when a collection of cookie jars collected by Andy Warhol were sold after his death at Sotheby’s. There was nothing intrinsically distinguished about these mass-produced items other than the fact that they had been selected by the discriminating eye of the omnivorous Warhol during his periodic excursions to local flea markets. Sotheby’s marketed the jars, cleverly assuring potential buyers that each jar would carry with it a Sotheby’s sticker identifying it as coming from the Warhol collection, and the prices fetched went far beyond Sotheby’s wildest estimates.
Other celebrity auctions over the years seemed to demonstrate similar results, with even the most mundane items fetching astronomical prices. Does this mean that the serious collector cannot find bargains at these sales? Yes and no.
The Versace Sale
The recent Versace sale offers meaningful insight into this phenomenon. The sale consisted of several categories of objects: a large amount of neoclassical furniture and works of art; drawings featuring 19th century academic male nudes; and many pieces of furniture crafted of Versace-designed fabrics.
Anything with Versace fabric on it did phenomenally well; buyers seemed to bid for items indiscriminately as long as the fabric displayed Versace’s unique designs. But will these pieces maintain their value over time? One wonders given the ephemeral nature of fabric which is prone to fading and has other significant conservation problems.
Notwithstanding the fact that the sales total far surpassed Sotheby’s high estimate, there were still bargains to be found for a variety of reasons. For example, a well-published Neapolitan scagliola classical Gueridon, estimated conservatively at $10,000 to $15,000, fetched only $23,700. One could speculate that such a serious piece of furniture would have done better in a standard sale of European furniture and decorative arts, but it was lost in the shuffle of a sale dominated by flamboyant objects.
One does not have to be a luminary in the world of fashion to sell upholstered furniture well. Helaine and Burt Fendelman may not have been known on the runways of Paris and Milan, but in the rarefied world of American folk art, they were known as collectors with highly discerning eyes. When they sold their collection in a monographic sale at Sotheby’s, they included as a last-minute addition an upholstered couch that they had custom made, hoping the glamour of their collection of painted furniture would rub off on the fabric piece. Indeed it did and sold many times above the high estimate, thus saving them the trouble of placing it in a yard sale. By way of a general observation, it should be noted that many charity thrift shops will not accept donations of upholstered furniture because of concerns about hygiene.
The Harriman Sale
Sometimes, in an effort to secure the consignment from the executors of estates, auction houses promise a quick sale of the property. As a result, the customary research and departmental reflection may have to be compromised in the feverish momentum of bringing the goods to the salesroom. Under such circumstances, the astute buyer may indeed find a bargain. Sotheby’s sale of the estate of Pamela Harriman offered a glaring example of this. A seemingly nondescript watercolor was catalogued as bearing the initials “W.C.” Sotheby’s staff apparently did not realize the significance of this until the early stages of the viewing when someone pointed out that “W.C.” was Pamela Harriman’s former father-in-law, Sir Winston Churchill, an accomplished amateur watercolorist. Needless to say, the drawing far surpassed its high estimate.
Similar time constraints probably forced Sotheby’s to cut corners in the Versace sale. Although a very glamorous catalogue was produced with elaborately composed striking color photography, not everything was reproduced. Lot 49 was a series of five very fine drawings by Luigi Ademollo (1764-1849), yet, strangely, only one was reproduced. When the drawings sold considerably under the estimate of $30,000 to $40,000 for $24,900, one was left to wonder whether the economic cataloguing in the expensive catalogue contributed to the modest price fetched?
Conclusions
What conclusions can be made from these and other anecdotal observations? For both collectors and appraisers, there are definitely general factors to bear in mind.
For collectors: One should be aware of the strong temptation of falling victim to auction hype and frenzy and paying too much for an item that may not maintain its value over time. This may be fine if the object is a “dream piece” and one wishes to retain it through eternity, or at least during one’s lifetime. But, if a future sale may be a consideration, perhaps the opinion of an independent art consultant or appraiser may be advisable to give an objective opinion on what future resale value may be. This may be a prudent consideration when one is contemplating spending a significant amount of money.
For appraisers: One should be extremely circumspect in analyzing the sales results of glamour auctions, taking into account several general considerations.
1. Was the object catalogued properly? Frequently, these sales are of estate property, and, in such cases, they are often put together quickly to help the heirs distribute the assets of the estate in a timely manner.
2. Were the objects sold in the appropriate sale? Sometimes, objects included in celebrity sales may fetch higher prices in specialized sales that include property from many consignees and which will attract a larger group of collectors of a specific type of object. For example, one could argue that the Neapolitan Gueridon in the Versace sale would have done better in a specialized auction of European furniture and decorative arts, or the 19th century drawings by Ademello, also in the Versace sale, would have fetched higher prices in a sale of 19th century European paintings.
3. What type of marketing effort would be required to duplicate or surpass the prices realized for objects sold in a glamour sale? Without such heroic marketing efforts, will these objects retain their value over time, based strictly on their exalted provenance? Future sales of items from the Versace sale, which have now been dispersed throughout the world, will not be sold in the same theatrical environment created by Sotheby’s, with rooms painted in colors evocative of Versace fabrics. Nor will future sales of paintings from the collection of Victor and Sally Ganz have viewing rooms similar to those created by Christie’s in which an environment was constructed to resemble the Ganz’s New York apartment.
4. Does the object sold in a glamour auction have intrinsic value or is it just an ephemeral item whose luster may vanish over time once removed from the marketing enthusiasm and the enthusiasm for the celebrity? Barbra Streisand and Rudolf Nureyev may not be held in the same awe by the next generation of fans once other celebrities have appeared to take their place.
Certainly the Picassos from the Ganz collection will retain their value as long as there are collectors of Picasso. But can the same be said for all the little objects from Jacqueline Kennedy’s apartment without the characteristics that readily communicate they once belonged to the former first family? Certainly JFK’s famous rocking chair will always be associated with the late president; but can the same be said of a generic pin cushion or even Jacqueline Kennedy’s fake pearls which may be confused in the future with the copies made by the Franklin Mint shortly after they purchased the Kennedy ones at the sale? One has to be extremely cautious when assigning a value in the future to the more mundane items that once belonged to the rich and famous. The auction price of today may not be sustainable over time.
The glamour market like every other market has to be scrutinized carefully. Collectors should be careful not to be caught up excessively in auction frenzy, just as investors in the stock market should avoid being caught up in overvalued companies that have little investment track record. However, on the other hand, bargains can still be found, in part simply because there is a frenzy in the glamour marketplace. In such situations, a deep breath and a rational approach can lead to great rewards.
