Now for something completely different

Reports of actual crimes and investigations, not hypothetical situations.

Moderators: carlson1, Keith B


Topic author
philip964
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 6437
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:30 pm

Re: Now for something completely different

#16

Post by philip964 » Thu Jul 12, 2018 9:47 am

Maybe the $110 million dollar painting is sofa sized while the 31 million one is much smaller.

And I feel you are not giving your granddaughter's refrigerator picture enough credit.

User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 23844
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: Now for something completely different

#17

Post by The Annoyed Man » Thu Jul 12, 2018 9:53 am

n5wmk wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 8:09 pm
"Looks like a Basquait?" Looks like stuff I've seen on the side of box cars going down the train track. But maybe that's because I'm just a bourgeois deplorable. Or is it a deplorable bourgeois?
:coolgleamA:
It’s “deplorable bourgeois”. :mrgreen:

And you beat me to it, except I was going to say that I’ve seen that same art on freeway overpasses and warehouses in Los Angeles. I think that the statement “from far off, that looks like a Basquiat“ could be applied to almost anything that mars the general appearance of things. “That Great Dane of yours left something on my front lawn that, from far off, looks like a Basquiat. Would you kindly pick up and hang it on your own wall?”

All jokes aside, the daughter may actually have a case. Her father may well have scared off bidders with his legal claims to the right to sell the paining, which after the fact, the court ruled was a frivolous claim. If the last Basquiat sold for $110 million, it is a reasonable assumption that this one might well have commanded a price in that vicinity too. We’ll know for sure if the buyer ever gets around to selling his $31 million painting.

The flip side to her claim - at least as I see it - is that she could have simply pulled the painting from sale until AFTER the ownership issues had been settled by the courts. She would then have been in the position to include a legal document as part of the painting’s providence, making her ownership ironclad, and her right to sell it beyond dispute. That might have actually helped get the price north of that $100 million threshold.
Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and get it myself.—Hookalakah Meshobbab
I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes.—The Annoyed Boy

Post Reply

Return to “The Crime Blotter”