Auction sale of Dainichi statue attributed to Unkei

[cjb...@u.washington.edu]

Members:

Colleagues on the JAHF (Japan art historian's forum) asked me to post
here a summary I gave of the sale of a statue of Dainichi at
Christie's auction on Tuesday. The complicated scenario within which
it was assessed in Japan, left Japan and entered the market, the sale
price, and the fact that it will return to Japan via this circuitous
route of private ownership and sale have generated a lot of discussion
in the Japanese press. In short:
The statue was in a private collection.
It was loaned to the Tokyo National Museum for x-ray and futher study.
Based on items found inside and its style, it is attributed to Unkei.
The Japanese govt. / Bunkacho could not/ would not purchase it citing
lack of funds to meet the sellers price (which was presumably based in
part on the information that the Bunkacho / museum experts provided!)
Because the work was not designated as a juyôbunkazai (among other
reasons) it was able to leave Japan for auction. Christies' estimate
was 1.5 -2 million US$. Mitsubishi Co won it for $14.3 million when
the hammer dropped, supposedly for another buyer (although Mitsubishi
has an art collection of their own).

Below is the summary I posted on JAHF with links to English and
Japanese articles, all of which explain the big picture but also
highlight some intriguing gaps in the tale.

(and please don't ask me about the shop where one can purchase such
works 'for the wages of a salaried employee'! if I knew of such
places, I'd send Michael Pye there tomorrow on his bicycle, with my
wages--assuming that he'd cooperate!)


***
The Bunkacho estimated the statue's value at 300-400 million yen in
July 2006. The counteroffer of the seller was 800 million. It could
not be purchased at that price.

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/world/news/20080320-OYT1T00159.htm (in
Japanese)

Christie's estimate was $1.5 to 2 million, half of the evaluation.
It sold for over 14 million dollars (1.4 billion yen)

The Yomiuri reported in English that Mitsukoshi participated in the
auction for a Japanese customer whose name is unavailable. The article
mentions that the Bunkacho decided not to bid after it was told that a
"private museum with a large budget" would bid.
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/features/culture/20080320TDY03305.htm

"Despite an appraisal from the Tokyo National Museum that the statute
is highly likely a work of Unkei, it has not been designated as a
national treasure or an important cultural asset in Japan, like
another 12 of Unkei's works have been."
http://mdn.mainichi.jp/national/news/20080319p2a00m0na004000c.html

Why not?

"The owner did not agree to its designation [as a cultural asset in
Japan]."
http://mainichi.jp/select/today/news/20080220k0000e040024000c.html (in
Japanese)
http://www.iza.ne.jp/news/newsarticle/books/art/122128/ (in Japanese)

As the Yomiuri article in English also states: "The privately owned
sculpture was put on auction because it has not been designated as an
important cultural asset by the government, a status that would oblige
the owner to inform the government of any plan for a sale."
I suppose it should state, "it COULD be put on auction because..."

Christie's has declined to reveal the consignor's identity, but Ryoju
Sasaki, a correspondent for Yomiuri in New York was able to interview
the seller after the auction.

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/world/news/20080320-OYT1T00159.htm

The last part indicates, roughly:
The consignor is in his early forties, working for a company with non-
Japanese capital. He bought the statue eight years ago at an antique
store for an amount "one can afford with his salary." He found it a
burden to keep it after finding out that it was very likely a work of
Unkei. Hoping to keep it within Japan, he contacted the officials at
the Bunkacho, but they told him they could not pay his asking price
for it under the current regulations. He believed that a buyer at
auction would take better care of the statue than an ordinary citizen
like himself, and was relieved that it would in fact be coming back to
Tokyo.

[Edward Lipsett]

> Mitsubishi Co won it for
> $14.3 million when the hammer dropped, supposedly for another
> buyer (although Mitsubishi has an art collection of their own).

I believe that's Mitsukoshi, as in the department store, not Mitsubishi.
http://www.asahi.com/culture/news_culture/TKY200803190004.html

=====
Edward Lipsett
Fukuoka, Japan

[cjb...@u.washington.edu]

Yes, Mitsukoshi Co Ltd., which has an art collection as well as
depaato, as stated in my longer summary. My opening summary was
written hastily, apologies. CJBogel

On Mar 21, 4:25 pm, "Edward Lipsett" <translat...@intercomltd.com>
wrote:

> > Mitsubishi Co won it for
> > $14.3 million when the hammer dropped, supposedly for another
> > buyer (although Mitsubishi has an art collection of their own).
>

> I believe that's Mitsukoshi, as in the department store, not Mitsubishi.http://www.asahi.com/culture/news_culture/TKY200803190004.html