Charity shop sold Picasso print for $14

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.news.com.au/weird-true-freak ... 6314218742

Thrift stores don't always know the value of what they are selling. I've bought Depression Glass in thrift stores for less than $1 a piece, and some rare patterns at that.

Probably my best find was about 17 years ago. I was at a fairly large privately owned thrift store. My husband knew the guy who owned it and had done some work for him when he was wiring the place, cheaply and off the books. The guy paid the lowest wage possible so he had a lot of teenagers and people who were desperate for money working there. I don't know who was pricing the items, but I got a full length sable coat for $15. I snatched that up right away. I was actually thinking that it was a fake and a very good one, but the label was by a real furrier and I took it to Goldstein's to have it checked and it is real. I still have it.

Either the person who priced it didn't know it was real and what sable is worth, knew sable was real and what it was worth and didn't like the boss so they priced it low, or was an animal rights person and thought that fur shouldn't be glamourized so they priced it really low hoping that somebody trashy would buy it.

I volunteer at a charity shop and everyone resents us because we're the one shop who actually know what things are worth and we price accordingly. Leads to a lot of people asking for discounts which they aint gonna get.

^^^ It's a charity shop. IMHO, the whole point shouldn't be about "deals" but about raising money for the charity. If there is something there that's clearly of value, it ought to got for what it's worth or at least close to it.

It does depend on the purpose of the charity. We do have one line of thrift stores in our area that are not so much about raising money as they are about offering affordable clothing etc. to those who can't afford regular pricing. But then, even those who do not have any need for it, who can afford to shop elsewhere, sometimes buy up everything they can. Seems to defeat the purpose, but what are the stores to do? Make you provide proof of income?

Oh no! I wouldn't have ever been able to afford that coat if I had told them that. Nor the depression glass. The dude who owned the store paid my husband crap wages for wiring it for him. He didn't have to take the job, but it was side work and off the books in cash, so he did. If I come across a bargain I'm going to buy it. Thrift stores are the only place I can afford to buy a lot of things, and I'm going to try and get the price down as low as I can. I'm buying something, not giving a monetary donation.

Over the years British charity shops have changed there retail strategies quite alot as there competing with the commercial retail sector. Hence, one of the reasons why British charities have been more commercial and corporate in there activities.

Excluding the motive for retail takings (both for profit and/or philanthropy), economical speaking there will always be differences on what of value and how valuable something is. Also the cultural costumes of haggling play a role in this IMHO.

Now about the business of art, its risky for the buyer as they might be buying a fake (there have been many Picasso fakes going around). Plus as well auctions are bit like haggling, auctioneers only give estimate values on pieces. ie, if that print when to auction it might get a final bid and sold less that the price to what sold for in the charity shop. (I doubtful that might be the case). Finally I think the media coverage that the print has already got will have an effect on its future re-sell value.

Everybody wants something for nothing, or next to nothing if they can get it. I'm no different, and a lot who have more disposable income than the average person, have it because looking for good deals is at least part of what put them in that position.

Still, I can't help but wonder when a thrift store's purpose is to raise money for charities, if it's really right to practically give away the stuff that's donated, when they could be raising more money with somewhat fairer pricing. It's really more of a question in my mind than a statement of principle. I'm certainly not going to turn down brand new or practically brand new clothes for my kids at ten cents a pop if it's available. But then I don't have disposable income at all anymore, so there's that too.

Those places have so much stuff donated to them that they make their profit by selling things really cheap. The cheaper it is, the more people who come. They only pay overhead, everything is donated. Most of the places I have been to have back rooms bigger than the store that are full of stuff to sell. They don't have room in the store for it all at once.

If I give you ten pair of new jeans and you advertise them for $5 each you expect to make $50 profit. If the guy up the street is advertising the same thing for $1 each he will only make $10 profit. However, people will go to his store and buy them all and he will make the profit, not you because yours are higher. If can afford to pay more for clothes than what you pay in a thrift store, then you usually go to a consignment shop. Those places have a standard about what they accept and sell, and it's less than buying new but more than buying at a thrift store or a yard sale.

People go to thrift stores for three reasons. 1. It's all they can afford and they need the items they are buying 2. They are looking for bargains and just browsing to see if there is a really good buy 3. They want an item that isn't made any longer or is hard to find and a thrift store is a good place to find those things.

OOM: Hope you don't mind if I fixed the tags for you there ^^^ (it was showing up weird)

I'm not sure what it is really. There's sometimes something about the way charities are operated that troubles me. Competition among charities for example. Something about that concept just seems wrong. I get that it's how things work in the free market, and that it probably is just one of those things that is best to accept than to fruitlessly bang one's head against the wall over. It's a pet peeve of mine, but not anything worth starting campaigns about.

Call it a dream: A world where all charities work together in tandem.

People donate more quality items to the shop I volunteer at because we sell the items for reasonable price. The dirt-cheap shops only get rubbish donations because if you give them anything nice, they won't make the most of it. If I have anything nice to donate, I do the same. It's about quality of donations, not quantity.

Kewl print!! My mom once found a textile framed in museum framing in the trash. She had it appraised and it was worth 2,000. She sold it to a local museum for 2,500.

My idea of bargain hunting is dumpster diving. You will be surprised what people throw away.

One of my friends furnished her whole house in dumpster dived stuff...doesnt look too bad either.
Pier One allows dumpster diving...but walmart will arrest anyone who goes through their trash, but some stores do allow it...to be on the safe side...it is best to ask.

so to say I want something for nothing....sometimes, yes.

Jojo

I've never been a fan of Picasso, and this looks like crap. How is that art? I wouldn't even pay 14 cents for it.

I guess that you never when to art school, I did and studied printmaking and fine art. That piece is a linocut in the history of modern art both Picasso and Matisse revolutionised linocut as a professional relief print medium via there experimentation with the medium and there own style of Expressionism. I have seen both there print works in exhibitions, I like Picasso's paintings tho I prefer Matisse's prints to Picasso's.

How does his sense of tastes equate to him not being educated on the subject?

I have an education in art and I don't like Picasso's work, either... I really don't like expressionism at all.

Are you claiming that am challenging CCL's aesthetic judgement? No I am not!!
His critique did give me the impression that was an "average" lay-person's evaluation of art.

Not in the slightest... I am pointing out that his opinions are not invalid based on education...

the statement "I guess that you never when to art school" and the phrase "lay-person" in the context they have been used place a stigma of ignorance upon the target of the comment and gives the impression that their opinion on the piece in question bears less weight. If that is not the case, then the wording is unclear as the second statement still gives that impression, at least to me.