Mystery buyer for Margaret portrait but it will stay here
Q
sSheet=/news/2006/06/15/ixuknews.html
Mystery buyer for Margaret portrait but it will stay here
By Catriona Davies and Stephanie Condron
(Filed: 15/06/2006)
A portrait of the late Princess Margaret by Pietro Annigoni, which hung in
her private apartment in Kensington Palace, was sold at auction for £680,000
last night.
The identity of the buyer was a mystery.
The portrait had a guide price of £200,000, and sold for £680,000
A man wearing a denim shirt, who had bid on behalf of the buyer, said
afterwards: "The buyer is intent on keeping the painting in England."
The decision by Princess Margaret's children to sell the painting had been
one of the most controversial aspects of the two-day sale of her personal
effects.
Just before bidding began, the auctioneer announced that one of the children
had asked for the right to join in, suggesting that they could have been
divided over the sale.
Friends of the princess had been hoping that a white knight, in the form of
the Queen or the National Portrait Gallery, would step in to save the
painting for the nation.
It was painted in 1957 and was last exhibited to the public at the National
Museum of Wales, in Cardiff, in 1977. It had a guide price of £200,000.
The auction, which began on Tuesday, raised £13,658,728, including buyer's
premium. Viscount Linley and Lady Sarah Chatto decided to sell 800 items of
their mothers' possessions to help pay a £3 million inheritance tax bill on
the £7.2 million estate that she left on her death in 2002.
However, accountants suggested last night that the high prices could leave
the children with an even higher capital gains tax bill.
The lots ranged from family heirlooms to ordinary household items and from
wedding presents to a gift from Pope Pius XII in 1949.
The sale had been opposed by many of Princess Margaret's friends and her
former husband, Lord Snowdon, because it contained irreplaceable personal
items.
There were also concerns about selling gifts from visiting heads of state or
organisations.
Some white cast-iron balustrading from Ascot racecourse, which had been
installed at Kensington Palace and was listed with a guide price of £8,000
to £15,000, was withdrawn at the last minute to be donated to the nation. It
will remain at the palace.
Viscount Linley said in a statement: "The last two days have shown the deep
affection in which my mother was held during her lifetime and today."
Coco
Q wrote:
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/15/nmarg15.xml&
> sSheet=/news/2006/06/15/ixuknews.html
>
> The lots ranged from family heirlooms to ordinary household items and from
> wedding presents to a gift from Pope Pius XII in 1949.
>
No one would be selling this stuff unless they are hard-up for cash. I
bet they have been living WAY beyond their means, and their blood cheap
relatives will not spare a few quid! Very loving family how they look
after each other! The woman just died and they are selling all her
stuff and clothing for anything they can get while the going is good.
yD
Swings & roundabouts, eh?
Too bad that the Annigoni may not be exhibited again.
... snip ...
> Some white cast-iron balustrading from Ascot racecourse, which had been
> installed at Kensington Palace and was listed with a guide price of £8,000
> to £15,000, was withdrawn at the last minute to be donated to the nation. It
> will remain at the palace.
Huh?
> Viscount Linley said in a statement: "The last two days have shown the deep
> affection in which my mother was held during her lifetime and today."
Well, maybe, but just as likely, if not more so, imo, is that the
items' provenance makes them an investment rather than a token of
affection for Princess Margaret.
yD
Q
"yD" <yaffa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1150388262....@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Swings & roundabouts, eh?
**Other accountants say they will be able to keep the profits.
Too bad that the Annigoni may not be exhibited again.
**Sooner or later -- I'm guessing "sooner" -- we'll know who bought the
Annigoni.
... snip ...
> Some white cast-iron balustrading from Ascot racecourse, which had been
> installed at Kensington Palace and was listed with a guide price of £8,000
> to £15,000, was withdrawn at the last minute to be donated to the nation.
It
> will remain at the palace.
Huh?
**As it turns out, it was not sellable because it was part of a landmarked
property.
> Viscount Linley said in a statement: "The last two days have shown the
deep
> affection in which my mother was held during her lifetime and today."
Well, maybe, but just as likely, if not more so, imo, is that the
items' provenance makes them an investment rather than a token of
affection for Princess Margaret.
**I think they're a little of both. Over time, IMO, the value of that
particular provenance will fade; then all that will be left is sentimental
and possibly intrinsic value. -- Q
yD
yD
They're the accountants I'd go to :)
> Too bad that the Annigoni may not be exhibited again.
>
> **Sooner or later -- I'm guessing "sooner" -- we'll know who bought the
> Annigoni.
I hope so. As I recall, it is quite splendid.
> ... snip ...
> > Some white cast-iron balustrading from Ascot racecourse, which had been
> > installed at Kensington Palace and was listed with a guide price of £8,000
> > to £15,000, was withdrawn at the last minute to be donated to the nation.
> It
> > will remain at the palace.
>
> Huh?
>
> **As it turns out, it was not sellable because it was part of a landmarked
> property.
Kensington Palace, you mean? Does it count that the balustrading was
not part of the original? I see it on a hall landing, and can just
picture her leaning over going yoo hoo.
>
> > Viscount Linley said in a statement: "The last two days have shown the
> deep
> > affection in which my mother was held during her lifetime and today."
>
> Well, maybe, but just as likely, if not more so, imo, is that the
> items' provenance makes them an investment rather than a token of
> affection for Princess Margaret.
>
> **I think they're a little of both. Over time, IMO, the value of that
> particular provenance will fade; then all that will be left is sentimental
> and possibly intrinsic value. -- Q
Yes, you're probably right. Some things will stay on the high side
because they once belonged to her. The tiara, for instance, simply
because she wore it on her wedding day.
yD
>
>
> yD
Q
Q wrote:
> "yD" <yaffa...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1150388262....@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> **Sooner or later -- I'm guessing "sooner" -- we'll know who bought the
> Annigoni.
I hope so. As I recall, it is quite splendid.
**Then here's some good news for you:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/16/nqueen316.xm
l&sSheet=/news/2006/06/16/ixuknews.html
'One of Margaret's children bought painting'
By Nigel Reynolds, Arts Correspondent
(Filed: 16/06/2006)
Pietro Annigoni's romantic portrait of Princess Margaret, one of the star
items of this week's £13.6 million auction of her possessions, is believed
to have been bought back by one of her children, probably Lady Sarah Chatto.
A source close to the Royal Family told The Daily Telegraph last night: "I
have it on good authority that the Annigoni was bought by one of Princess
Margaret's children. We think it was Sarah not David."
The source, a close friend of Princess Margaret until her death in 2002,
said she believed Lady Sarah may loan the picture, bought at the auction for
£680,000, to the National Portrait Gallery to hang beside Annigoni's
portrait of the Queen.
It is believed Lady Sarah was particularly attached to the picture and she
had been unhappy at including it among the 800 lots in the two-day
Christie's sale.
Lady Sarah and her brother Viscount Linley put many of their late mother's
possessions on sale to pay a £3 million inheritance tax bill.
Before the portrait went on sale on Wednesday, Christie's, where Viscount
Linley is a non-executive director, said one of the children had asked for
the right to join the bidding.
The guide price was £200,000 and only two bidders drove up the price. The
battle was won by a man in a denim shirt who said he was bidding for someone
else. He would only say the portrait would stay in Britain.
The source said: "There isn't any question of a row between Sarah and her
brother. They get on very well but Sarah is a very private person who hates
publicity and hasn't enjoyed some of the recent media coverage. She had
become discontented and unhappy with the sale.
"Sarah is thinking of using some of the money from the sale to move to the
country to buy a bigger house to bring up her two sons."
Lady Sarah, a talented artist whose husband, Daniel, is also an artist,
feels their terrace house on a busy central London street is unsuitable for
family living.
"It is not generally understood that David and Sarah were never badly off.
Princess Margaret left them quite a bit, apart from the possessions.
"I also understand the Queen gave them substantial sums of capital soon
after they were born and these were put in trust. They could have solved
their problems by selling a third of the possessions. Too much was put up
for auction.
"David has been the driving force and Sarah has been hesitant at times but
she and Daniel have been trying to meet important financial objectives, not
just paying inheritance tax."
Buying back heirlooms at an auction is unusual but not unheard of. It
generally occurs when beneficiaries of an estate cannot agree on what to
dispose of. But it is an expensive practice.
Lady Sarah or her brother will have paid a 20 per cent buyer's premium on
the first £100,000 of the Annigoni's price, 12 per cent on the remainder and
a seller's premium.
A spokesman for Lord Linley declined to comment
-- Q
yD
It doesn't sound to me as though " They get on very well" if they
couldn't come to an arrangement whereby Sarah could have given her
brother half of the estimated value, but rather had to bid and pay more
than necessary. That is, of course, *IF* she is the buyer.
yD
Q
***That's a big *if* but I'm inclined to think we'll soon know. It's
possible that the portrait was included in the sale because both the sellers
and Christies underestimated how much Margaret's bits and pieces would
yield. When it became clear that the children were going to make more than
enough money to pay off the tax debt, they (or she, as the case may be)
decided to bid on the portrait .
***I think this is one of those mysteries that will be cleared up soon. I
don't think the painting will disappear into some obscure private
collection, in any case. It doesn't have the sort of investment value of a
Van Gogh or something like that. -- Q
yD
yD
Wouldn't it be something if they had both been bidding anonymously! I
agree with you re the underestimation of how much their mother's things
would bring in, but the tiara and the portrait are valuable in and of
themselves and the royal connection could only bring that value up.
>
> ***I think this is one of those mysteries that will be cleared up soon. I
> don't think the painting will disappear into some obscure private
> collection, in any case.
Let's hope not!
It doesn't have the sort of investment value of a
> Van Gogh or something like that. -- Q
But *some* investment value, surely. But hopefully it will be donated
or loaned to the National Portrait Gallery so we can go and gawp when
we want :)
yD
>
>
> yD
Q
***It would, but it said in one of the stories that they had applied for
permission to bid on that lot. So whichever child was bidding on the
portrait, the other knew about it and presumably did not participate..
I
agree with you re the underestimation of how much their mother's things
would bring in, but the tiara and the portrait are valuable in and of
themselves and the royal connection could only bring that value up.
***I think that the tiara differs from the portrait in that whoever bought
it could wear it, or make copies of it to sell. I don't know that that
many collectors would want to spend a great deal of money on a large
portrait of somebody who is not a family member, by an artist whose work may
or may not grow in value. The point of owning the portrait is to exhibit
it -- unless Margaret was a close relative, in which case it belongs in a
place of honor over the fireplace, in the dining room or in the front hall.
>
> ***I think this is one of those mysteries that will be cleared up soon. I
> don't think the painting will disappear into some obscure private
> collection, in any case.
Let's hope not!
It doesn't have the sort of investment value of a
> Van Gogh or something like that. -- Q
But *some* investment value, surely.
***IMO, not a great deal. Some of the pre-auction commentary said that in
general, Annigoni's paintings were not going for stupendous prices. He's
been dead for almost twenty years, so if there hasn't been a sharp upward
spiral in the value of his work, there isn't likely to be -- at least not
within the time frame that would make it useful as an investment..
But hopefully it will be donated
or loaned to the National Portrait Gallery so we can go and gawp when
we want :)
***I think that's a likely outcome, worthy of a betting pool maybe. -- Q
yD
>
>
> yD
Hal S.
"Q" <quon...@yahoo.comedycentral> wrote in message
news:4493121d$0$12380$540e...@novia.net...
They probably couldn't split the value presale cuz the auction house already
had a contract to do the auction and they would want to realize as much
money from the sale as possible. By the time the auction house had signed
them up, it was out of the children's hands.--Hal S.
Q
"Hal S." <h.sa...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:S5mdnZLRRLN60w7Z...@comcast.com...
minds about the Annigoni. Christies had clearly made a fortune on the
auction, and wouldn't have wanted to risk future celebrity auctions going
elsewhere by getting into an unseemly row with Linley and Lady Sarah over
their property. One of the lots -- the Lalique crucifix that was given to
Pcss Margaret by her mother -- was indeed withdrawn at the last minute.
At Sotheby's and Christies, lots are withdrawn from the sale all the time.
IIRC, the seller has to pay some kind of penalty for doing this, but in this
case it surely would have been less than the spread between the anticipated
price of the Annigoni and the actual price.
Maybe the children were hoping that the Queen or a museum would bid on it
and that's why it wasn't removed from the sale. It's possible that whoever
bid up the picture was a private collector who would indeed have taken it
out of the country. -- Q