Buying a masterpiece - not a masterstroke

The Guardian reports on whether buying a masterpiece is actually a great investment. The verdict seems to be that, well - ok an investment in a great work of art might be fractionally better than bonds, but it's not going to be a whole heap better than US and UK equities in general and in fact, if you take into account buying and selling costs, insurance, storage etc, then you're unlikely to see any return for your money unless you pick something outstanding.

What do I mean by outstanding? Well, as Slate reports in more detail, Ronald S. Lauder thought Gustav Klimt's 1907 society portrait Adele Bloch-Bauer I (below) was pretty outstanding because he shelled out 135 million dollars for it!

Now, last time I dug around to see how much I had to spend on a good investment piece, I didn't quite have $135m in my wallet - and I did check thoroughly between the dog eared tesco receipts and the half dozen or so partially completed Cafe Nero loyalty cards.

If I did find a little money there, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't go for a masterpiece. For one thing I can't think of many contemporary masterpieces, because it's contemporary art that most people want these days - something that looks good for the modern living environment. I can't begin to imagine a tired old Constable (painting that is, not your local bobby) sitting square in the middle of your living room wall with your pale beech wooden floors, hint of mocca corner sofa and carbon fibre 42 inch plasma TV.

So - if you're looking to invest in art, forget a masterpiece; take a look round our store and pick an item that suits your living environment, your budget, and your taste, and who knows - you might get a better return on your money than poor old Mr Lauder will.