Choxon77
17
Depends on whether one includes the buyer's premium in the numbers...
Nov 11, 2021,08:41 AM
Christie's does not charge a buyer's premium for Only Watch. On hammer/sale/bid pricing, the FFC (at Christie's) hammered for more than the Sonnerie (at Phillips). On the price paid by the buyer (sometimes referred to as the 'realised price'), the Sonnerie is higher than the FFC as Phillips charged a buyer's premium on the Sonnerie at just under 22% on top of the hammer price (the 22% comprising 26% up to Swiss Francs 600k and then 21% on the balance to the 3.9M hammer price).
I can see arguments for using both approaches, but my current view is that the hammer price - ie, not including the buyer's premium - better reflects the sale price of the watch (and it is the price which the seller realises) since the buyer's premium is purportedly to cover the auctioneer's administrative costs and is anyway not shared by the auctioneer with the seller. It is equally true though that the buyer's premium is part of the total price the buyer has to pay to 'get' the watch. So, 'sale price' or 'buy price'?