DeepSight:


Who in J.P. Morgan Chase have you been consulting with.
Can you tell me by what exact science you have reached this conclusion?

DeepSight:


Please don't assume that just because its bought for half a billion dollars, there is some special secret that the buyer is after. The buyer could just as easily be a filthy rich Saudi Prince or some other corrupt billionaire anywhere in the world who is stacking up on his ego and nothing else.

Sometime ago right here in Nigeria Theophilus Danjuma fessed up to selling an Oil Block for One Billion Dollars and not knowing what to do with the money. He then used half of it to set up a Charity.

Believe me you'd be surprised that someone could buy that thing just for the heck of it and to impress peeps around him.

Billyonaire:
Auctions of Arts are high-level money laundering schemes.

Paulpaulpaul:


See you, most of his work are rumoured to have secret codes and maps. Do you think people are that stupid? Ordinarily art is life

correctguy101:



And I thought I was alone and smart for thinking so....

It's now common knowledge...

or is it just you and I?


There's an Instagram post I made on such matters long ago.... SMH

Explorers:
Leonardo da Vinci's long lost portrait of Christ 'Salvator Mundi' has sold for a record smashing $450.3 million on Wednesday at Christie's in New York more than double the old mark for any work of art at auction.


The painting, which once sold for just $60 at auction, fetched more than four times over the Christie's pre-sale estimate of about $100 million.


'Salvator Mundi', Italian for 'Savior of the World' was purchased by an unidentified buyer bidding via telephone after a protracted bidding war that stretched to nearly 20 minutes at the New York auction house.


Salvator Mundi, an ethereal portrait of Jesus Christ by Leonardo da Vinci which dates to about 1500, has gone under the auctioneers hammer.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5087481/Da-Vinci-portrait-Christ-sells-record-450-3-mln-New-York.html

fidet1:


AM I? It is ‘Am I’, not I’m I, please.

kayjay007:
codes to unlock immortality? Please just shoot me

LordAdam16:


You are trash!

You think mudslinging=intelligence?

Anyone who has $450m lying around isn't dumb. It could have been bought by a Russian Oligarch, Arab Royalty, or a Rotschild? Whoever it is, this isn't his/her first buy, and s/he DEFINITELY has an idea about the intrinsic value of high-end art.

And you want to tell me that the last privately held work of art by Leonardo da Vinci WILL not appreciate? Has there been any top-value work of art by da Vinci that hasn't appreciated consistently for the past 1500 years? If that isn't enough proof that it would go up in price, what is?

Are you MAD?! Or you get off on appearing st*pid in public!

Buying that work of art is way better than keeping the monetary equivalent in the bank. It is older than America and has consistently risen in value. In 500 years time, it'd still be valuable, while the dollar may be history. And like all high-valued buys, it does come with its bragging rights. But whatever may be the owner's primary reason for buying it, it isn't a waste and it isn't excessive. And if it is put up for sale in a few decades time as it likely would, for any reason whatsoever, the owner or his/her protege would make a hefty premium on it. Again, regardless of his/her esoteric reason for getting it in the first place.

Next, unlike buying socks that actually address a need, beers do not address a need. And people buy beers 98% of the time for pleasure. See how inherently st*pid you are. Making a comparison between a sock and beer?

And no, I wasn't saying why people haven't stopped. I simply said, why can't you think of running a campaign so we all don't take beer for only one weekend to address the yearly needs of IDPs. ONE WEEKEND. Not stop completely. ONLY ONE WEEKEND that wouldn't kill anyone (well, probably except addicts). Can you even f*cking comprehend, you bl**ping ret*rd!

And then you use Bill Gates as a model of sensitivity? Why? Because he's pledged to give most of his wealth to charity when he passes on? He effing bought the properties of five of his neighbors for $28m mainly so his daughter could train for her pro horse riding. Are you going to tell me too that all the Olympic equestrian gold medalists needed $28m worth of real estate to become good at what they did?

Less than 10 years ago the painting that just sold for $450m was sold for around $125m. Nothing would making that Bill's $28m spend quadruple in value untouched within the same time period unless for some earth-shattering reason.

Or is it because he is a better known philanthropist? The Rotschilds are famous anonymous collectors of art and have been part of a lot of the buys in the last two centuries. They're worth at least $500b. They've donated billions in art, buildings, and endowments. And if hypothetically, a member of their clan got this painting, would you then call the Rotschilds insensitive?

All you f*ckfaces thinking anyone owes you sh*t because you are unfortunate need to get a reality check. The guy who got the painting probably has business interests spanning several countries employing tens of thousands of people. With indirect impact on hundreds of thousands more. Those are people above the poverty line because s/he is adept at running a business that didn't become one of the 90% of businesses that fail within 5 years.

Yet all of that is lost on you because s/he paid $400m for a painting THAT'S WORTH EVERY CENT. Pray tell, $1 trillion+ of illicit outflows has left Africa in the last 60 years. None of the cretinous f*cktards who did the pillaging were hounded. They all get cozy once in a year in Addis Ababba blowing steam off and laughing at your collective stupidity and you self-righteous pr*ck haven't started a campaign to hound any of them. No sub-Saharan spring or fall or summer or winter for that matter. And you think it is someone else's responsibility to take care of the same people that you imbec*les rape, siphon from and pay blind eye to.

How many times have aid for IDPs been siphoned and diverted? How many protests have happened to demonstrate outcry? Or you think it's just sitting behind the keyboard like a mor*nic couch potato with a myopic sense of what others should do without doing anything noteworthy yourself. Self-entitled goo-faced sh*thead arm-chair moralist!

BAST*RD!

Continue replying me, see how far you can go displaying your flagrant id*ocy!

-Lord

Paulpaulpaul:



Ignorance bawo?


I didn't say it emphatically, I said rumoured. Who doesn't know the price was sentimental value? Mona Lisa by the same man, as common as it is, has secret code
s

You may doubt it but he was a great cryptographer

sisisioge:
...but Jesus isn't that ugly nau. Whew! Ugly painting!

Eaa247:
Money being wasted when poverty and diseases are ravaging a greater number of the world's population
May ppl b conscious enough to help one another!!!

adwem2003:


Please Paul, code and maps for what? Longetivity or richess?

centboy123456:




I have read somewhere and dey said Jesus is black not this people make us believe Jesus is white u fit any link so I can go check out my self

sisisioge:


Buddy mi...Jesus has to be seriously handsome ni. No other feasible option

Howdy?

LordAdam16:


You are trash!

You think mudslinging=intelligence?

Anyone who has $450m lying around isn't dumb.

It could have been bought by a Russian Oligarch, Arab Royalty, or a Rotschild? Whoever it is, this isn't his/her first buy, and s/he DEFINITELY has an idea about the intrinsic value of high-end art.

And you want to tell me that the last privately held work of art by Leonardo da Vinci WILL not appreciate? Has there been any top-value work of art by da Vinci that hasn't appreciated consistently for the past 1500 years? If that isn't enough proof that it would go up in price, what is?

Are you MAD?! Or you get off on appearing st*pid in public!

Buying that work of art is way better than keeping the monetary equivalent in the bank. It is older than America and has consistently risen in value. In 500 years time, it'd still be valuable, while the dollar may be history.

And like all high-valued buys, it does come with its bragging rights.

But whatever may be the owner's primary reason for buying it, it isn't a waste and it isn't excessive.

And if it is put up for sale in a few decades time as it likely would, for any reason whatsoever, the owner or his/her protege would make a hefty premium on it. Again, regardless of his/her esoteric reason for getting it in the first place.

Next, unlike buying socks that actually address a need, beers do not address a need. And people buy beers 98% of the time for pleasure. See how inherently st*pid you are. Making a comparison between a sock and beer?

And no, I wasn't saying why people haven't stopped. I simply said, why can't you think of running a campaign so we all don't take beer for only one weekend to address the yearly needs of IDPs. ONE WEEKEND. Not stop completely. ONLY ONE WEEKEND that wouldn't kill anyone (well, probably except addicts). Can you even f*cking comprehend, you bl**ping ret*rd!

And then you use Bill Gates as a model of sensitivity? Why? Because he's pledged to give most of his wealth to charity when he passes on? He effing bought the properties of five of his neighbors for $28m mainly so his daughter could train for her pro horse riding. Are you going to tell me too that all the Olympic equestrian gold medalists needed $28m worth of real estate to become good at what they did?

All you f*ckfaces thinking anyone owes you sh*t because you are unfortunate need to get a reality check.

The guy who got the painting probably has business interests spanning several countries employing tens of thousands of people. With indirect impact on hundreds of thousands more. Those are people above the poverty line because s/he is adept at running a business that didn't become one of the 90% of businesses that fail within 5 years.

Yet all of that is lost on you because s/he paid $400m for a painting THAT'S WORTH EVERY CENT. Pray tell, $1 trillion+ of illicit outflows has left Africa in the last 60 years. None of the cretinous f*cktards who did the pillaging were hounded. They all get cozy once in a year in Addis Ababba blowing steam off and laughing at your collective stupidity and you self-righteous pr*ck haven't started a campaign to hound any of them. No sub-Saharan spring or fall or summer or winter for that matter. And you think it is someone else's responsibility to take care of the same people that you imbec*les rape, siphon from and pay blind eye to.

How many times have aid for IDPs been siphoned and diverted? How many protests have happened to demonstrate outcry? Or you think it's just sitting behind the keyboard like a mor*nic couch potato with a myopic sense of what others should do without doing anything noteworthy yourself. Self-entitled goo-faced sh*thead arm-chair moralist!

BAST*RD!

Continue replying me, see how far you can go displaying your flagrant id*ocy!

-Lord

sisisioge:
...but Jesus isn't that ugly nau. Whew! Ugly painting!

Gerrard59:



Respect Sir.

Individuals thinking they have a right to tell another individual how to spend his/her money.

Billyonaire:
Auctions of Arts are high-level money laundering schemes.

ogbiwa:
People questioning why someone would pay that much for just a painting, you don't understand that these things have now become more than just art. An original painting by Da Vinci himself is currency. These are assets. The worth is in the value that the painting holds, not the painting itself. The Mona Lisa's value has been pegged at "Invaluable". That means there's no amount of money offered in the world that can buy it. And it's by the same Da Vinci that painted this one. You think he's buying it to beautify his living room? Except he lives in a highly guarded fortress and even at that he won't cos you dont want to know how many international art crime organizations that would be after that painting. Do you know how many attempts have been made to steal the Mona Lisa even in a heavily guarded museum? So the owner is not just buying a painting but also a means to store up wealth, just like people who buy large diamonds or gold and store them in bank vaults. These paintings of high value could also act as an item of power and influence. And no, they're not buying because it contains any "codes or maps".

centboy123456:




I have read somewhere and dey said Jesus is black not this people make us believe Jesus is white u fit any link so I can go check out my self

emmanuelpopson:



https://www.nairaland.com/3721445/black-africans-ruled-europe-711


go through this page..I think I saw it here...the picture of Jesus with Mary.. been viewed by the Popes...

thank me later

DeepSight:


LordAdam16 - you should also avert your mind to this.

LordAdam16:


Doesn't f*cking matter!

People also launder money through religious institutions (churches, mosques, et cetera), as well as many high-traffic businesses from laundromats to fortune 500 companies. From art to real estate. What's the f*cking point?

Still doesn't make the art worth any less than $400m.

-Lord

adwem2003:
Am I the only one who thinks this is madness?

ken55:


It's not madness. It's business. You will be surprised how much that piece can be resold a day later if the owner wants to.

LordAdam16:


Doesn't f*cking matter!

People also launder money through religious institutions (churches, mosques, et cetera), as well as many high-traffic businesses from laundromats to fortune 500 companies. From art to real estate. What's the f*cking point?

Still doesn't make the art worth any less than $400m.

-Lord

DeepSight:


OH, Lord, Mr. Lord. I hope you know that you are the one who commenced with said mudslinging. More than that, your surmise and ripostes are riddled with untenable and unsustainable assumptions.

I hereby grant that you are an international yabbis expert and concede defeat in my pathetic attempt to match you in your area of expertise - Yabbis. However I would now like us to settle down and examine properly what you are saying, especially the assumptions contained therein which have no basis. So here goes.

This is the first assumption. You have no way of knowing this. Your reasoning seems to derive from two unspoken assumptions here: first that a person who has that much wealth could not be dumb and second that such a person necessarily has noble, high-minded or strategic economc reasons for doing so. My Lord, this is entirely an assumption. Surely you must know in the first place that your first unspoken assumption has no basis: there are a great many people who have access to unlimited wealth without any special talents or any remarkable intelligence about them whatsoever. Such people include Royalty, Inherited Fortune, Corrupt Politicians and Egregious Businessmen - as well as many underworld characters whose wealth springs from such things as illicit trade in drugs, people, arms and all manner of unsavory things. The list is endless and although I could cite much more to buttress this point, I am sure you would be reasonable enough to agree that there are many wealthy people out there who are in fact dumb. In this, it remains a truth that time and chance happeneth to all men: the race is not to the swift nor the battle to the strong - "Money miss road" is everywhere in this world. I would not say this if I am not personally acquainted with billionaires who are indeed intrinsically daft.

Your second assumption is that such a person must be purchasing such a work for a high minded reason. This is also an assumption. You have no idea whatsoever the reason for that purchase: you have no idea whether it is an ego trip and on this single point alone your entire argument must fail: for it rests on the assumption that the purchase is an investment. If you cannot prove that, however likely it may seem to you, then you also cannot insist as a matter of fact that the substance of your argument which rests on this assumption stands.

This is another assumption.



You seem to assume that it will appreciate forever. Beyond the half billion it has been purchased for, how much further do you expect it to appreciate? Ten billion? A hundred Billion? A trillion? A Zillion? All of that is not possible, and I use hyperbole for a reason nonetheless, we will return to this point form two other critical lenses later: the first shall be the changing value of appreciation through time and the second shall be the humanity of the matter.

Neither condition (even if true) phases me: I am not given to being bothered as to other people's perception of me, thank you very much.

My Lord, you have no idea what the world will be like in five hundred years time. No Idea whatsoever. Nor can you have any idea what will be the drivers of commerce and the value system which would attach to such things at that time.

No, my Lord, it is verily both a waste and it is excessive. Although I had intended to keep my epistle on death for a later time, perhaps I will start here. This discussion, you may not realize, goes to the root of the question as to what we do with our short time as human beings on earth. You come across as one who has not closely reflected on our mortality and this is part of the reason that I say that you lack the sensitivity to appreciate what I am trying to say. Sensitive human beings recognize mortality, the brevity of life and the vanity and vain-glory of material things. This is not to say that they are not given to enjoying of the material world and its pleasures, it simply means that they cannot and do not place such things at a premium: they do not prioritize those things: they recognize, for example that there is far greater artistic beauty in one single act of kindness to a needy stranger or an abandoned child, than there is in purchasing and analyzing the priciest works of art by the greatest artistic masters ever. This is a subtle and sensitive point which I do not expect you to grasp, given the gutter profanity of your world view, however please surprise me by showing that you grasp this point.

One more time: this is an assumption: the work cannot appreciate indefinitely especially as it has crossed the Rubicon financially. Again you make an assumption on value systems remaining the same over time. In the fast moving and ever changing times in which we live, you cannot make this assumption. It is not only technology that is changing fast, world views are also evolving and a time may very well come when new age movements given to higher charitable thought would have overcome much more of the word than you expect. A time may come when such a purchase is looked upon derisively. You may not believe this: but in that you would belong with the sort of people who could never have conceived human flight, much less space travel.

I take serious objection to this and offense at it on behalf of all alcohol loving people. I resent this statement and will not dignify it for we know and insist - indeed we assert with sacred privilege - that Alcohol is a cardinal need of humanity. I will not dignify this example further.

Sincerely I am not aware of all Bill Gates transactions but the point still stands if you choose to understand it. There remain sensitive people all over the world of fabulous wealth who live very humbly and would simply not do this.

I am very glad you used the word "probably" here. And this is to underscore the point that you have no idea if this is the case at all. No idea whatsoever. Therefore you cannot build an entire argument justifying the purchase on what you have no idea of, okay?

In closing, I did say above that I wish to address two things which seem to be eluding you. I mentioned changing values and I mentioned the humanity of the matter.

With respect to changing values let me tell you something. Do not persist with your assumption that that which is valuable today will always be valuable in the future. History is replete with paradigm shifts and value shifts of the sort that render such a presumption untenable. You were so bold as to declare how valuable the work will remain in five hundred years time. You presume too much my son. You do not even know tomorrow.

The second point is the sheer humanity of the matter. Now before I proceed bear in mind that I have shown you that all you have said about the buyer possibly being a job-creating magnate are all assumptions. You have no way of knowing that. You also have no way of knowing that it was bought as an investment at all. That is an assumption. Further, you have no way of knowing just how well it would do as an investment even if that were the case - which you cannot be sure of.

Now in terms of humanity, what I mean is this. You seem to have some capitalist cold in your heart which leads you to disdain the worth of prioritizing the suffering of humanity as a whole over such things. This is why I said to you that I can hardly argue with you on this point because one who is cold in that regard and does not possess the sensitivity I speak of can never understand the point sought to be made. You would deride it as as emotional point, but please I would beg to be emotional on such a score. This is because the world is in such great distress and the suffering of people just like you and me is so great in many places - from hunger, disease and various unmentionable things - that the work of charity and goodwill is never complete, and there is no question that there is always more to be done.

Sensitive souls would recognize the greater work of art inherent in diverting such funds to the next hungry or abandoned child, than could ever exist in hanging up a mediocre work of art in a room for the next 50 years waiting for it to appreciate, enjoying aristocratic bragging rights, and such other trifles while everyday - a work of art that is irreplaceable can be saved: the work of art which is the tear in the eye of that next starving child.

End of.

PS - And yes, as much as I love Da Vinci - that is a mediocre work of art. It is his name and the history that push the value.

LordAdam16:


Chief, do you have an idea of what it means to have $450m in liquid assets and be ready to spend it on art? Not in stocks, real estate, but liquid assets? By my educated guess, whoever has that kind of money lying around is worth at least $10b. Both in the legal and underground world, the odds of having that much money and being dumb is larger than it is to win a global lottery.

This is not some Arab millionaire flying his $2m lambo car to London during the shopping season. Or some guy renting the enter floor in Ritz Carlton for a bachelor party. It's a made man or family who is bold enough to pay four times the asking price for one of the highest profile piece of art and is willing to invest in the multi-million dollar maintenance and security it'd require.

I can almost say with all certainty, this isn't a money miss road, because such a buyer would be a high-level patron of Christie's and most likely a frequent collector of art. Christie's and other high-end galleries don't accept random buyers for flagship sales. They already have a list of people with pockets deeper than Hades, and these people get front row seats in such auctions. Dumb people don't enter that list.

If every high-end sports car maxing out at $3m straight-out-the-dugout price have their exclusive lists that they reserve one-of-a-kind production cars for, how much more a 350+ year old auction that has brokered over $100b worth of sales.

In fact, take a few hours to research the high-end market of the art industry and you'd find out that only a small group of people snap up high-priced artworks. An exclusive group that know themselves with connections, and you think a dumb person who definitely has at least bought over $100m worth of art prior to this doesn't have the expected appreciation of HQ paintings at the back of his mind?

DeepSight:


Quick question: just how are you certain this person is one who earned their money with their savvy or intelligence?

In the bold, you seem to hint that you are certain it could not be some chance billionaire.

How are you certain it's not some Saudi Prince drunk on oil? Or some other inherited fortune elsewhere?

With particular reference to the red bold do you think that high end inherited money would be turned down that list of yours if they have a low IQ? Or do you suggest that it is impossible for a Saudi Prince or other inherited money to have low IQs - and to patronize high end art even with low IQs?

PS: Will respond to the rest later, you made several fair points which I do not dispute: none of them take away the kernel of my argument though.