Investing in Art

dnwilliams · 10 July 2007 at 10:33AM

I was thinking of investing some money in Art/Paintings/Prints. As an example would it be better to buy 10 limited edition glicee prints or One original for the same money? Example artists could be Doug Hyde, Paul Horton, Rolf Harris. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

amcluesent · 10 July 2007 at 11:26AM

>Any thoughts would be appreciated.<

Another asset bubble at the top 'o the market. A few more hedge fund collapses and the froth will go too.

debbie42 · 10 July 2007 at 3:36PM

The general sentiment with regard to art is buy it if you like it, but don't see it as an investment. If you are lucky then it may appreciate in value: if it doesn't and you like it then you haven't lost out.

Having said that, I wouldn't buy giclee prints as an investment.

Plum_Pie · 10 July 2007 at 4:13PM

If you don't want to look at something every day, don't bother buying it.

Furniture/clothes/art/wine/cars - all these things can increase in value but you need to be able to afford something that will increase sufficiently within your own lifetime if you are buying for investment purposes. Do you have this amount to spend?

Also, that taste of the market (esp for contemporary art) is not predictable - think about trends from the last 50 years. I would agree with amcluesent that bankers with more money than sense are inflating the market and a lot of this stuff will be worth nothing in a few years. Time is the best curator, after all.

I had a salutary experience with a limited edition book I bought for £120.
Value after 2 years: £220 (Yes, I was very smug.)
Value now (after 5 years): £85 (Clearly a lot of people kept their copies in mint condition, as I do, and now wish to sell.)

Now I like my book and still get a lot of pleasure from it, (although I'm sure there are people reading this thinking I am crackers to spend that much!) but I will NEVER buy something of this sort as a substitute for a traditional investment vehicle.

This hasn't put me off buying art in general... I bought a picture recently. I made a budget, saved up, went to an international fair and bought something perfect for my sitting room. I don't care if it increases in value - I bought it because looking at it makes me happy.

cOnFuDdLeD_2 · 10 July 2007 at 4:21PM

Plum_Pie wrote: »

I had a salutary experience with a limited edition book I bought for £120.
Value after 2 years: £220 (Yes, I was very smug.)
Value now (after 5 years): £85 (Clearly a lot of people kept their copies in mint condition, as I do, and now wish to sell.)

Now I like my book and still get a lot of pleasure from it, (although I'm sure there are people reading this thinking I am crackers to spend that much!) but I will NEVER buy something of this sort as a substitute for a traditional investment vehicle.

Would that be the 1988 Viz Annual - "The Big Pink Stiff One" ? I still have my copy too!

Plum_Pie · 10 July 2007 at 4:32PM

:rotfl:

It was something I bought in in 2002, before I realised I should be trying to screw Visa rather than the other way round!

Lizzieanne · 11 July 2007 at 10:35AM

debbie42 wrote: »

The general sentiment with regard to art is buy it if you like it, but don't see it as an investment. If you are lucky then it may appreciate in value: if it doesn't and you like it then you haven't lost out.

Having said that, I wouldn't buy giclee prints as an investment.

I agree, it's only worth buying if you like the artwork.

I have 2 Doug Hyde's and 1 Rolf Harris (all giclee prints) that I bought because I loved them. The Rolf Harris print I have is worth anything from £2000-£3000 (I bought it for £250) and one of the Doug Hyde's is worth about £1500-£2000 (I bought that one for £225).

That's a big increase in the value - but I bought them to keep, so the value is irrelevent, I suppose. It's always nice to know I have somethng to sell if I needed to.

[Deleted User] · 11 July 2007 at 11:09AM

Diversifying your investments is a great idea, but youll have to do your research and go with what you feel is good for you. I think prints might appreciate in the short term but itd be the originals thatll be worth the money in 500 years time just IMO.

dnwilliams · 12 July 2007 at 11:46AM

Thanks for your thoughts guys, thats another idea out the window then.
I could run to a modest original and wouldn't mind my descendents benefitting in 500 years, but kangaroo's will probably be extinct then and Rolf Harris may be out of fashion.

debbie42 · 12 July 2007 at 12:11PM

It depends what you actually want it for: as an investment or for the pleasure of looking at it?

If it's as an investment then it's not a good idea, IMO, as the statistics are against you, even if you do have a good eye for art.

If it's for the pleasure of owning it then that's another matter entirely. You can often get good value at auctions, and research past prices for artists. You are paying extra for the premiums, of course, but it's often still much less than you'd pay in a gallery.

[Deleted User] · 12 July 2007 at 12:18PM

Nostradamus predited the church of Rolf will be created in 2500 AD, his congregation will meditate with wobble boards worshiping the great golden beard. His paintings will be worth a mint, it has been written

.

Investing in Art

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free