Question about the Pair of CT-100's at ETM Auction

[Steve McVoy]

The Rembrant was is relatively poor condition. I think the $300 sale price was just about right. Many of the other sets did go for below market prices. I'm not sure that changing the order of how they were auctioned would have made any difference.

[benman94]

Originally Posted by Steve McVoy

The Rembrant was is relatively poor condition. I think the $300 sale price was just about right. Many of the other sets did go for below market prices. I'm not sure that changing the order of how they were auctioned would have made any difference.

I wouldn't be so quick to simply dismiss the effect of the order as it is impossible to know one way or another after the fact what effect it may have had.

I'm not just making this up as I go. See these papers that examine empirical evidence to draw the exact same conclusions I've drawn based solely on intuition:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...saBhlIqw_eNiMR

http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstrea...iNZhvdRyCSlttX

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...vae5ciFbuUQkCn

In particular, the third link is most applicable to the situation at the ETF. The public value of the set is unknown, and more than likely indeterminate, and the private value predominates.

Take it or leave it; it doesn't bother me, not my show to run. I still think that it is a simple change that could benefit the museum, however.