Submitted by Sir Joshua, Apr 16, 2007 08:41

This is all a pile of baloney. Back in the '70's I worked for a dealer who made the sage and then true comment that the auction houses were just other dealers. PERIOD. They were then and they are now. All this baloney of trying to provide as broad a based field of services to the buyer and doing our best to develope the artist is a smoke screen, a thin scrim to block from the public's view the obvious. Auction houses are in business to make MONEY. And they'll do it any way feasable. The business about Noortman looking for his next step to be a broader based art service was verbal squirming to cover the fact that Sotheby's had half financed his purchase of that dour old lady by Rembrandt that he bought as a bravoura jesture for stock, as he said at the time, and then had the market collapse under him. He had debt he owed Sotheby's, some stock (a look at his website shows some pretty lame stuff) and overhead. Also he privately may have known that his health was heading downhill and he had a charming young wife he wanted to look after should the grim reaper knock on his door. I have nothing against Noortman, he was one of those bouys of good business for many years, but when he moved to Maestrecht he bit off a bit more than he could chew. But let us not forget the auction houses were licensed as auction houses, and as such given special paramaters under NY State law and what they are doing now is looking to have the best of both worlds by squirming this way and that. NY State should step in and trim their sales instead of getting seduced like the rest of the 'market' by their baloney speaches about doing good for art and customers. They are in business to make money. PERIOD.

Footnote: When Sotheby's financed Noortman's purchase of the Rembrandt portrait they did not announce at the sale that they would finance anyone else who cared to bid against someone they had agreed to back in this purchase. That has to have been illegal. They don't put an announcement in the front of a catalogue stating that they would consider backing anyone who wants to bid on anything providing they have some collateral. This is Soooooo wrong. Where is the Attorney General when we need him? Sir J.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.