5/5 It’s true we don’t observe an `objective’ value of art. But again, the comparison to public equity is the issue. Many old paintings are priced based on comparative analysis, as is common practice for VC, M&A, PE, etc. The National Gallery insurance valuations in my research are like that.

4/5 I agree that the stock market is often a poor point of comparison. Art is less regulated, less liquid, and less transparent. But that doesn’t equate to art not being an investment. Similar issues exist for VC, PE, and Real Estate.

3/5 It’s true not many artworks manage to be sold over long periods. Collecting contemporary artists is like investing in start-ups: the minority make it but those that do, have a great rate of return. See Chambers, Dimson, and Spaenjer’s (2020) work on Keynes’ art collection

2/5 The article outlines how Jonathan Guthrie sold one artwork with largely no profit. Buying one artwork is like buying one stock. Just because S&P 500 is going up, doesn’t mean the value of all the equities in the market is going up. Same with art.

Looks amazing, Nick! The icons fit perfectly. I also like that you linked all the extra work you did outside your research too. You curated some amazing resources for teaching economic history