But perhaps still grounded a bit on knowledge of transactions in an actual manuscript collector's scene market. That, from my point of view, may or may not exist. If it does exist it's unlikely to have transactions of that size, but it would also only transact comparatively minor manuscripts. And multiplying up minor transaction volumes to enormous valuations isn't exactly unheard of. The only difference is that the factor derived from "importance" is a bit subjective, but that's the nature of a collector's market and the claim isn't really stating anything like precision. It's not like the library could have taken up a mortgage with the manuscripts as security.
Bill Gates paid $30.8 million for da Vinci's Codex Leicester at Christie's in 1994.
Dave Smith sacrificed a big screen TV to acquire a new motorcycle.
Which one has more value?
No - based on the prices fetched by similarly unique documents of great historical relevance, an estimate in this range for what they would fetch, if they were offered for sale, seems very reasonable.
I'd guess it's a route for laundering too.
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/02/09/584555705/epis...
Episode 823: Planet Monet
> The art market is going nuts. People are spending record amounts of money of paintings like Leonardo da Vinci's Salvator Mundi. But not everyone is rushing home to hang their new artwork up on their walls. A lot of buyers are storing their art in vast warehouses near airports. They're called, "freeports."
> Freeports exist between countries, a sort of no man's land, which means you can store your artwork there as long as you want, without having to pay any taxes on it.
> Where are these freeports? How do they work, and are they even legal? Today on the show, we try to find out.
That particular painting was by all accounts bought by (or at least for) the Abu Dhabi tourism ministry as advertising and a centerpiece for their new fancy art museum.
Although other claim it might also have been purchased for Mohammed bin Salman to go in his fancy new art museum.
Either way it seems to be two governments really really wanting a fancy new painting to show off in their fancy new art museum. The most generous interpretation would be that since the Mona Lisa directly and indirectly brings millions of tourism dollars to Paris every year having a famous Da Vinci painting of their own would bring millions of tourism dollars to their city as well.
Is it only the West that has an exclusive right over art?
If they can pay for it, and its future maintenance, and there's a willing seller, then why not? It's not like all of the Louvre's pieces were commissioned by some French king, and the same goes for MOMA or any of London's museums. In fact, let's be glad they're buying it and not looting it like the West did with a large portion of their exhibits.
No one is saying they shouldn't. The main thing people are questioning is the ridiculous amount of money they spent for a painting more and more people are convinced isn't actually a Da Vinici.
Secondly the painting hasn't actually showed up in any museum yet, and in fact no one knows for sure where it actually is.
Anonymous Oil Sheiks drastically overpaying (and shattering the old art sale record by over $150 million) for a painting that probably isn't a Da Vinci only for the painting to completely disappear makes for a fun story.
I think the painting's whereabouts are pretty well known in many circles - some vault in Switzerland. As for why it hasn't come up, it was originally bought by the Saudi Crown Prince as a vanity piece, which he decided to initially loan to the Louvre Abu Dhabi, but then he himself wanted to create a new tourism economy in Saudi Arabia to rival that of the UAE (good luck with that), so he decided not to loan it, while they await the construction of some new museum (and new city) in North West Saudi Arabia. Kinda silly tbh, but for a while it was stored on his private yacht (which is even sillier).
As for its authenticity, I thought questions around it were settled a long time back - it is a Da Vinci original because it has some corrections (change of thumb position being the main one), which are only possible in a piece an original painter would do and not a mere copyist. But it's been heavily altered because it had to be severely repainted - even the back of it had fallen to termites and the painting had to be glued together.
If it turns out to be fake, it does make for a funny story, but it's a considerably less sum than what they are accustomed to. And even if it turned out to be fake, they could simply engage the seller (Sotheby's in this case) in vicious litigation and possibly even bankrupt it (there's a parallel case against Sotheby's for the same painting by the previous owner).
Of course it doesn't matter. It's a funny little news story about weird rich people and the weird world of high end art that pops up from time to time and that people find vaguely entertaining.
As for it's authenticity, no one is claiming it's a forgery or a copy, the question is if any of it was actually painted by the hand of Leonardo Da Vinci as opposed to perhaps one of his students or another artist working out of his studio.