£50m on a painting

Originally Posted by tigersaw

I think yours are better. maybe the public will pay £75 million?

Thank you so much

People tell me they are really good and I make a living by painting commissions but there is a limit to what people will pay unfortunately

Now if only I could just sell one for a million........................................

[punyXpress]

50 million's a huge amount of money,
I disagree - 6 months ago it was a lot of money, but by Easter it will ( courtesy of Brown, G ) be worth two thirds of one half of...

but it does have boobies in. And when it comes to teh crunch, I'm always going to be on the side with the boobies.[/quote]

Ah! The Fallen Madonna

[northwind]

Originally Posted by Ed

Are you avin' a larf??? How is this £50m calculated, and as the painting is already there, how can it bring in more sums?

These are the numbers being quoted, no idea how it's calculated. But like I say, even if that number's wildly wrong, they have the painting forever, so if it only draws 1% of the claim, it's still going to pay for itself in a century. And they'll have it til it turns to dust. Better investment than shares just now

"As the painting is already there"- the entire point is that if they hadn't bought it, it would no longer be there. Neither would the rest of the collection, since that loan was conditional on the purchase.

Originally Posted by Ed

Why the hell am I supposed to traipse down to London to see the damn thing.

Because it is open to everyone inc tourists, tourists will mainly visit it and tourists only tend to visit London as they want to spend Monet.

If you read the link the private value is ~£150 mill, so anytime they come to sell it they will be guaranteed to make money on it.

No one who thinks spending 50 million on a lousey ( my opinion ) painting has ever had to worry about paying the gas bill, the geezer basically blackmailed a bunch of inbreeds into wasting 50 mill otherwise he would flog them ( who the hell else other then the art toffs would buy it ) he played poker & they folded...

Jas...

p.s in 4 yrs he wants another 50 mill or hes flogging the rest...

Originally Posted by Ablazze

No one who thinks spending 50 million on a lousey ( my opinion ) painting has ever had to worry about paying the gas bill, the geezer basically blackmailed a bunch of inbreeds into wasting 50 mill otherwise he would flog them ( who the hell else other then the art toffs would buy it ) he played poker & they folded...

Jas...

p.s in 4 yrs he wants another 50 mill or hes flogging the rest...

+1

[Paul the 6th]

apparently, if:

• you have a roof over your head
• food in the cupboards
• some money in a bank account for more than a day
• and you can walk around outside without fear of being harmed or killed

you're in the top two percent of the worlds population in terms of lifestyle, human rights, welfare etc...

Tut, tut Ed - I thought you were more cultured and rounded than that. It's a beautiful and important piece and I'm glad it's staying.

Try thinking about it the other way - as part of a package of attractions, people go to Paris to visit the Louvre, to Rome for the Vatican, to New York for the Met, MoMA, Frick and Guggenheim. Speaking of which, look what the Guggenheim's done for tourism to Bilbao - no one bothered going there before.

I think it's a waste of our money. I'm with Ed.

Originally Posted by ArtyLady

Neddies, pooches and moggies

why the long face?