[BostonCard]

Or this one, that was in the news:

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/06/1...mated-50m/

Apparently the painting was worth a few hundred thousand when the painter's identity was in dispute.  Send it to a Rembrandt "expert" who "determines" it was painted by Rembrandt... and suddenly it is worth $50 M.  That's what is so messed up about the art world.  It is the same friggin piece.  The art did not change one bit (other than the varnish that was removed).  If it was a second rate piece before, it was a second rate piece after being found to be a Rembrandt.  If it was always a great piece, then it should have always been priced accordingly.

BC

[BostonCard]

Or this one, that was in the news:

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/06/1...mated-50m/

Apparently the painting was worth a few hundred thousand when the painter's identity was in dispute.  Send it to a Rembrandt "expert" who "determines" it was painted by Rembrandt... and suddenly it is worth $50 M.  That's what is so messed up about the art world.  It is the same friggin piece.  The art did not change one bit (other than the varnish that was removed).  If it was a second rate piece before, it was a second rate piece after being found to be a Rembrandt.  If it was always a great piece, then it should have always been priced accordingly.

BC