[windowliker]

>why didn't it sell?

If I had to guess it would be something to do with this part:

"Solow, auction experts said, had a history of not seeking guarantees, choosing to negotiate for a portion of the buyer’s fees instead. Last night that strategy proved fateful."

The vendor and the auctioneer have some private agreement, which meant the sale probably ended below an acceptable price.

[geoffreymcgill]

My understanding is that the $64.25M in "bidding" wasn’t real, as it was likely done with chandelier bids. Essentially fake phantom bids placed by the auctioneer to simulate interest and push the price upward. It’s a common tactic, but many see it as deceptive, especially when it creates the illusion of genuine demand.

[torlok]

That sounds like wash trading. How is this legal?

[maxerickson]

Many see it as blatantly deceptive and wonder how someone would argue otherwise.

[kjellsbells]

Yes, it was a so-called "enhanced hammer" deal where the commission that the seller normally pays to the auction house is inverted to flow the other way...assuming a minimum selling price has been reached. The intent is to encourage more ultra-high-end sellers to work with that auction house instead of another. The auction house still makes money from the fee that the buyer pays btw, ie the hammer price is not the price the buyer pays: they pay an extra 20% to the auction house.

So what seems to have happened here is that the seller set a de facto minimum of $70M before their deal with Sothebys would take effect, and, seeing that there was no interest, pulled the sale.

More details here: $70 Million Giacometti Flops at Sotheby’s, as Demand for Trophy Art Softens

https://news.artnet.com/market/70-million-giacometti-flops-a...

[ToddLevin]

Just for clarity - this was not an "enhanced hammer" deal. It was a simple fact that the consigner set their reserve at $70 million, and the consigner would not lower their reserve, even knowing the risk that the work would publicly fail at that level. An enhanced hammer deal is an entirely different situation, and it applies to third-party guarantees and/or irrevocable bids (know as IBs) – and neither apply in the specific situation...

[f33d5173]

That article makes it clear that the 64.2 million bid was a chandelier bid; there were no real bids on it.