There has been a spate of articles recently focusing on photography collecting and touching upon its investment potential. Recent articles in USA Today and the New York Times have largely been positive, although cautionary as well, but the cover article in the last The Photograph Collector newsletter sounded downright pessimistic. So, as they used to say before Mad Cow Disease and Hoof and Mouth Infection hit, "Where's the beef?"

While I am the first person to say that photography should never be considered strictly as an investment, photographs have largely done well financially over the last 25 years. Most everyone who has bought photographs still enjoys the fact that the very items that give one personal pleasure also have retained and even increased steadily in value. As Swann photo expert Daile Kaplan said to me recently: "Pictures have a lot more appeal than stock certificates."

With the battering stocks have taken lately and the continued strength of the photography market, there is the temptation to look at images as a "safer haven." There is the thought voiced in some quarters that important art and collectibles will hold up better this time around than stocks, with some of the stock money fleeing to more "physical" investments. My own feeling is that notion is probably not completely accurate, reflecting more wishful thinking than historical reality, and reality always has a nasty way of intruding on wishful thoughts. However, most photo prices rarely have gone down with a thud like the stock market has done. It is liquidity that dries up for a time--a not inconsiderable impact, although this lack of liquidity may be mediated in the future due to a broadening of the market for photography (although certainly the market hasn't grown to the "hundreds of thousands" cited by USA Today, EVEN if we count "the flea-market prowlers" that they mention). And so far, so good--as the recent AIPAD Show and Swann auction results attest (see E-Photo Newsletter #26).

The spring auctions--particularly with Sotheby's NY's blockbuster sale for MOMA and Sotheby's London's sale of Paul F. Walter's collection--should continue to show some strength despite stock market ups and downs, although there is a concern that the very large amount of material hitting the auction market (thanks largely to Sotheby's two additional special auctions) this spring and the spread-out auction schedule here and in Europe might impact prices and buy-ins for low to moderate work and might affect the auctions at Swann and Christie's East, which are earlier and have little in the way of "showcase" material. They also conflict with one Paris auction. This may provide some buying opportunities for the patient collector or dealer.

It should be noted that in major economic downturns (a euphemism for the "R" word), auctions do not usually fare as well as the overall photography market itself. The auction totals often go down (even severely) in periods of economic slowdown, but largely as a consequence of a poorer group of items being offered. Buy-ins also increase, but again usually on less unique work. The auction totals reflect more the nervousness of quality consignors (and nervous dealers cutting back on auction purchases for inventories) than actual deterioration in real values. Individual prices on quality items have in the past tended to hold fairly steady, although items that are readily available in quantity have seen even substantial drops in value (the gyrations of Ansel Adams' more readily available but expensive Moonrise to cite just one example).

This latter impact often affects various "indices" (such as The Photographic Comparative Auction Index, a basket of 25 photographs that come up at auction frequently, which is reported in The Photograph Collector newsletter) more negatively than overall market realities, because these indices need to use items that are up at auction frequently, hence more likely to drop in value, even when many of the rarer images are holding fairly steady or even going up in value. In fact, in an article on the financial returns of various collectibles, the accompanying chart in The Photograph Collector indicated that this limited (but more common) group of photographs "only" made an annual nominal return of 13.84% versus a broader survey by Pompe that showed an annual nominal return of 30.2% for the more general group of photographs. The time periods did vary a bit (Pompe 1980-1992 and Photo Collector 1975-1998), but you get the idea. Considering that there were big increases in the late 1970s and 1990s, it would appear that the Pompe group was actually at a disadvantage, making the distinction between the groups all that much stronger.

As my friend and new fellow dealer Bruce Silverstein (see Bruce's further market comments below) pointed out to me recently, an index can be a pretty inaccurate instrument over the short term. For example, if one is using auction results, you must keep in mind that auctions in October have been more susceptible to the effects of stock market dips. When people sat on their hands and watched because the NASDAQ and/or Dow were crashing, some auctions have had disastrous results. While the stock market may have bounced back soon after, the photo market had to wait another six months for the next auction results because the major auctions are only held twice a year (although we are also seeing many more auctions being added, which also complicates the situation for indices even further). That doesn't mean that the market at galleries and through private sales went down in this temporary scenario, just the auction-oriented indices.

Also, it should be noted that the photography market has often lagged the stock market and has tracked closer to the overall economy. Yes, it can be a bit complicated.

I should also note that most collectors do not and should not make decisions about what they collect based solely on the economics involved. You have to love what you collect first. This article looks a little at how the overall photography market economics have worked and may work in the future, and just how your own interests may fare financially--exclusive of your own enjoyment of the works.

In any case, here's my take on how various image types have done financially in the past and may do in the years ahead.
 

Nineteenth-century material continues to be strong, and great pieces continue to be very hard to come by and are actively fought over. The upper end of this market never seems to miss a beat. Rarity does assure that prices rarely fall in this area, and more and more collectors moving into this area have fed demand. A few elements of this part of the market look a little overpriced at this stage (Le Gray, Cravens) due to some heavy run-up at the auctions by Sheik Al Thani and others. While other parts still look distinctly underpriced (Talbot and other British and most French calotypists come to mind), largely due to the fact that little important work in these areas have come to auction recently due to its rarity. You might also add important American salt prints to this hit list, if you can find any at all on the market.

Because there is so little of quality becoming available and poorer images in poorer conditions are the usual fare, extreme price spikes are to be expected at auction when unique prime 19th century pieces appear. The Jammes sale was not the only sale to see huge price jumps for a given photographer's work. Auctions are generally a poor place to buy such work if economic considerations are a factor in your decision-making, but they may be the only place to buy certain images. However, your strategy should be to try to find the rarer work in good to mint condition and buy it privately from dealers or other collectors.

I don't foresee any drop off in most market prices here, even if a true recession was to materialize at some point. It still looks like a reasonable and disciplined market to me. The only drawback may be for buyers: slower economies sometimes encourage consignors to hold on to their items, even though there may not be any rational (or historical) reasons for this.

Daguerreotypes of quality have had a very good run-up as of late. The Sotheby's Feigenbaum sale of Southworth & Hawes material certainly opened up this market to a lot of new buyers and at levels rarely seen prior to the sale. While it didn't necessarily boost the prices of other dags, the sale did build a bigger, stronger, more liquid market, as has eBay on the lower end of the daguerreotype scale.

The lower and mid-priced part of the 19th century photography market has always been more susceptible to market fluctuations and individual quirks. Graham Nash's recent purchases on eBay in daguerreotypes have, for instance, breathed a little extra life into that area. Al Thani's purchases in the photographica equipment area turned the London market a little upside down for a while. And a trio of somewhat naïve (at least those known) buyers set the market for gold mining scenes on its ear. Markets tend to return to more normal levels after such individual buying drops off. Sometimes (as in the case of the gold-mining hard images) they even fall below previously established levels, albeit temporarily. I guess you might call this the pendulum factor.

This lower to mid-priced level is the part of the market that floats between photo history/photo art and hobbyist interests (I am arbitrarily defining hobbyist items as material collected for their specific subject matter). The closer the item is to pure hobbyist, the more likely it is to lose liquidity and even price in downturns. You can almost see the hobbyist market change by viewing results on eBay these days, which is surprisingly more tied to stock market variables than other areas of the photo market, perhaps because those on computer systems are more inclined to check their stocks daily.

The photo history/photo art side tends not to have price levels slip, but can lose some liquidity (in other words, the item doesn't sell as quickly, or there are higher buy-ins in this area at auction). But good, interesting pieces, even at lower price levels, will still sell well. Quality Middle Eastern, Asian and early Italian pieces have been selling at a premium in Europe compared to the U.S.A. market; although after Christie's NY sold a single Bonfils image for over $5,000 in its October sale, it is clear that the U.S. market is catching up quickly. I have also seen much more institutional interest in this work, particularly pieces with an ethnographic orientation, than previous.

 

The 20th century market has fluctuated more than other areas of photography in the past, particularly, as we noted above, on items that are readily available in quantity, such as many late-printed images. This is the likely area to watch for price slippage and lack of liquidity if we are to get any down the road. Again, some of the activity on lower level items in this area on eBay and Sotheby's on-line auctions are more in synch with the stock market because of the connection to computer systems and daily stock checking.

In the past it was often the contemporary market that would feel the brunt of a photo market's decline. The reasons included edition sizes too large to maintain a semblance of market discipline and a very thin (and fickle) audience of buyers.

Perhaps this time things may be different for this section of the market. Contemporary work at the auctions has held up surprisingly well this time around--or I should say, the "big" and very limited edition conceptual pieces have continued to be strong (some might say outrageous, given that some of the pieces have sold for multiples well over the gallery prices on same or similar items). Christie's NY may have had trouble finding buyers for some of its big vintage images last fall, but it did very well with its contemporary photography.

Tiny edition sizes and a longer list of ready buyers, especially new institutional buyers, are helping to boost this area. The editions sell out quickly putting pressure on secondary market prices. The base has been widened from the "designer" buyers of the past, but how far, still remains to be seen.

It is hard for me to find someone who is undervalued in this group, but Dieter Appelt and John Coplans come to mind as important. Also "old timer" Robert Adams is seeing a revival of sorts (two shows at Matthew Marks gallery in the last year alone).

There are a lot of others whom we may look back on and wonder what we ever saw in such blatantly obvious work. Will some museums eventually hide this stuff away with their 1970s color? Or continue to trot this material out every once in a while as "art"? But still other contemporary artists will find their way to a firmer place in the pantheon of photo history. Sometimes in the contemporary market it is just a little difficult to differentiate between these groups of winners and losers. Will Struth, Gursky and Sherman all warrant their sometimes six-figure price tags in the future? Will Mapplethorpe and Robert Adams enjoy a rebirth and see their prints rise in price? Stay tuned.
 

The vintage market for 20th-century material could be a little mixed. Most of the market still seems to be underpriced for great images, which are still in very strong demand, but not all images are being underpriced. Again rare, important images in fine condition have always done well, no matter what the economy. Vintage material from between the wars is particularly scarce and some of it, particularly European images, is still undervalued. Watch prices for some of the French and Eastern European masters. Vintage Kertesz and Atget are, in my opinion, generally overpriced (at least currently) on the top work, but most of the others from the war years are not (Doisneau, Ubac, Matter, List, Brassai, Albin-Guillot, Boubat, Kollar, Mascelet, Ronis, Krull, Izis, Cartier-Bresson, Blanc & Demilly, etc.). You can still buy decent vintage prints from these photographers for $2000-$35,000. Watch the market shift to these better priced, but still iconic image-makers. But also watch it start to distinguish between the rare and usually more visually interesting vintage prints and the massively printed later prints by Cartier-Bresson and Kertesz, among other over-printers.

Stephen Perloff, editor of The Photograph Collector, when he saw a draft of this piece commented that the market "made this distinction years ago. Neither Cartier-Bresson nor Kertesz have moved much in years for later work."

On the American side of the vintage market, look for renewed interest in Chicago School of Design photography. With a new show/book coming from the influential Art Institute of Chicago, prices, which have been slow to creep up (except for founder Moholy-Nagy), will start to reflect the true importance of this group to American photography. Prices are already moving up on Siegel, Callahan, Siskind, Lyons (Nathan, not Danny) and others in this group.

Contemporary art dealer Matthew Marks has turned the Weegee Distortion market upside down recently, but it is hard to understand how it will maintain itself when this particular body of work undergoes any real scrutiny. Before Marks, most critics discounted Weegee's multiple image prints as being rather crass and outright corny, although Weegee himself maintained that these images were art and that they were how he really wanted to be remembered. Despite Weegee's sentiments, this is a market that could see an up and down before all is said and done. Clearly his street photography is the cutting edge of his work and what collectors should seek, in my opinion.

What Marks has done for Weegee and Robert Adams, photo dealer Ted Carter of Edward Carter Galleries has done for Ansel Adams. While Adams has always been one of the American photographers whose work suffers in a down economy due to the sheer quantity of prints on the market, I expect it may hold up better if Carter has the bucks to continue to defend his market turf. He will get that opportunity next year when Christie's will offer an all-Adams auction. This spotlight will either help boost prices or deflate them.

I have felt that Adams vintage prints are actually selling at much too low a premium to his later portfolio prints. This particular market, which, I suspect, is heavily buying to decorate, has not made much, if any, distinction between vintage and late prints by Adams except on Moonrise (easily distinguished by his intensification of the negative), and even there the ratio is still very low. If institutions or a major collector or two start to become serious about Adams' work, the prices for vintage prints may rise substantially.

I have noticed some drop-offs on big Edward Weston prints during downturns, but Weston collector Michael Mattis has told me in the past that I was wrong. He maintains that what I am seeing is the effect of less interesting and lower quality prints being sold during past dips. He may indeed be correct, but usually at the very top of the 20th century vintage market there is some slight erosion on prices and liquidity, except for the mesmerizing images, which seem to sell well in any market (unlike stocks).

There is more and more interest in the early second half of the 20th century as better prints by Arbus, Frank, Woodman, Keetman and others continue to climb rapidly, although some of these names have already made very recent run-ups.
 

I should also note that photographs, like all art and collectibles, are taxed somewhat differently than stock and other financial investments. Thus you pay more on capital gains for art/collectibles. We need to lobby our representatives on this unfair discrimination in this area. The stockbrokers just have more political pull than the art world. Perhaps AIPAD can join with the major art dealers and collectors groups to lobby this issue. At the least, letters/email from you to your appropriate congress people wouldn't hurt. Here is the site to find out your representatives' email addresses and other contact information: http://www.uscongress.com .

By the way, senators Chuck Grassley, IA and Max Baucus, MT serve on the Joint Committee On Taxation. Republican Grassley is also chairman of the Committee on Finance and Baucas is the ranking Democrat. Both seem to be more interested in giving their constituent farmers tax breaks rather than investors interested in art/collectibles, but who knows. If you happen to live in Europe, good luck with your tax mess and your legislators.

And, finally, let me say that I (and those collectors and dealers who gave us their thoughts below) love photography first for what it is: a wonderful obsession with art, history, anthropology, beauty and mystery. Financial considerations should never become the preoccupation or aim of any collector. That is when you are sure to go wrong, but that doesn't mean you should make yourself an easy mark either. Hopefully this article will help you understand how the market works so that you can avoid the major pitfalls and enjoy your own personal collection without losing any money on it.

I also admit that I have no crystal ball and your own guesses may be more accurate than my own, but there you have it: my current take on the photography market.
 

I thought you shouldn't just have my viewpoint, so I shared an early draft of the above with a few of the top people in the photography world in order to get their opinions on the market and where it might be heading. They give you some of their knowledge below. Make sure you read down all the way. Ken Jacobson makes the point that all of us would want you to hear. I have always said that there is no substitute for an educated eye.

From Michael Mattis, an important collector largely of vintage material and picture opportunity for USA Today's recent article on photography:

"An economist would refer to the vintage photo market as "sticky downward," meaning that while prices go up in an up market, in a down market prices don't really go down much; rather, the length of time that it takes to sell a piece increases drastically. Much more like residential real estate than like stocks and bonds.

"As a collector in it for the long haul, I like down markets just fine: there is less frenzied competition for fine pieces, and more time to contemplate and finance a purchase -- and the dealers are less ornery about time payments!

"In contrast to vintage photos, the contemporary market seems to me to bounce down as much as up. And investors in contemporary photography should beware: there is nothing staler than "yesterday's avant-garde." Examples: prices seem really soft for much of the color work from the 1970s, and for names such as the Starn Twins who had the "buzz" 5-10 years ago. Will Nan Goldin still be as hot in 15 years--who will want to buy pictures of old people in rehab? I would guess that Adam Fuss and Sally Mann are among today's artists who will have real staying power. Personally I've been collecting Francesca Woodman lately, and I've discovered a young Beijing-based Chinese photographer, Liu Zheng, who's simply amazing."

From Bruce Silverstein, former Wall Street trader, a collector of photo modernism and a new NYC gallery owner:

"On photography as an alternative to stock: I learned a long time ago, that buying and selling art as an investment can be a tricky thing. With a stock, you place a sale order at a limit, and the trade can be done in five seconds. With a photograph, you either have to wait for the next auction, or sell to a dealer or collector. Either way, the process is more cumbersome. I have always been better off relying on my eye, and buying those pieces that I love. Those have turned out to be the best investments
in the end.

"On photography prices: I learned a valuable lesson when I was a kid. I used to buy coins with my hard-earned savings for $10-$25 dollars. I would try to buy one of each type of coin, in as best condition as my money could buy. Today, 25 years later these more common coins are still worth $10-$25, while the rarest examples have skyrocketed. This type of trend is common in most markets: American furniture, sports memorabilia, you name it. Photography is no different. A printed-later Satiric Dancer by Kertesz was $2500 ten years ago; it is $5000 today. The vintage version, if you could have found one, would perhaps have gone up five-fold in this period. The best and rarest pieces will always be in demand, and, as the collector base of photography continues to grow while being supplemented by institutional buying, those prices will grow at an even faster rate.

"There is an arbitrage between rare photographs and other art forms. As long as that unique photo is trading at fractions to major paintings and sculpture, the photography market is poised to continue to rise. In addition, the collector base of photography is growing at an amazing pace. I think that this is due to many factors. First of all, there has been an enormous increase in the number of young collectors in the photo markets. These people are drawn to the market because it is still relatively affordable to build great collections. In addition, these people relate more to vintage photographs than classic paintings because most use cameras in their every-day lives and have respect for the artists of the medium. Television images, video, the media--all have contributed to the growth of the photo market. Photographic images are everywhere in this day and age, and people can relate to them.

"The market will continue to benefit from the many museums that are playing catch-up in building their photographic collections. There is only a limited amount of top material available, which will create a "short squeeze" for these pieces. In addition, many collectors of sculpture and paintings still perceive photography as relatively inexpensive, and will most likely shift some buying into this market. Now that photography is being integrated into museum collections, sitting side by side to the masters of other mediums, photography is getting incredible publicity and positive reinforcement from the art establishment. This should continue to raise public awareness and increase the quality and quantity of collectors.

"Vintage Kertesz might be relatively high versus other masters, but until some of these unique masterpieces are selling consistently above $1 million, I think there is a lot of room.

"Vintage Henry Cartier-Bressons from the 1930s are incredibly rare and beautiful, yet they are priced at levels on a par with printed-later key images by Robert Frank that are relatively more common. Collectors need to become more savvy and take advantage of these opportunities.

"There are so many people looking for really great Edward Weston prints. The only problem now is finding them. Rarely do they reach auction. Rarely do they reach even known collectors. They move in and out of the market like ghosts, often never to be seen again.

"Aaron Siskind is not only an influential figure in the photography world, but also had a huge impact on abstract expressionist painters such as Kline and DeKooning. Yet, a superb vintage print by Siskind from the 1940s can be commonly found for under $10,000. There are still incredible opportunities out there."


From Janet Lehr, long-time NY photography dealer and AIPAD member:

"In the main I agree with your analysis. However, I feel there's lots of leg to Weegee, and I don't see Atget as overpriced.

"As perhaps the most senior member of the dealer set, I can say that photographs have proven to be an excellent hedge against the vagaries of the stock market. It doesn't take a genius to pick the 'right' photograph, if you are buying for safety of principle, but it does take a wizard to do that as unerringly in the stock market: ergo, the layman has an infinitely better chance in photography. Other artwork is not so easily chosen. A fall from favor can be for a longer time than one would like, perhaps for as much as a century. In photography, which artist has suffered such a fall? Trot out one of those artists' great images in a good print and you'll fast have the answer: no one.

"My fear is that as we pass into a middle period of collecting, where there is less of real worth to collect, the field may then loose the strength that it now has. Ten to 15 years ago success was like shooting ducks in a barrel. As that ratio lessens, the success rate must fall, and, apart from connoisseurs, the general buyer may lose interest."


From Laurence Miller of Laurence Miller Gallery, NYC, fellow resident of Bucks County, PA and long-time AIPAD and ADAA member:

"Perhaps of interest is the reality that the photo market is much greater than the auctions, that they are perhaps the tip, although the most visible, of the iceberg. Whatever happens at auction, and it sounds like Sotheby's will do great with the MOMA material, all of the veteran dealers with high credibility will continue to have good business, perhaps not as much growth, but I doubt much letdown. Each market fluctuation over the past 20 years has shaken out the speculators and the flirt-type collectors (more interested in telling you what they just purchased rather than buying something from you) and, at the same time, brought in more and more art/fine print collectors who are gradually coming to appreciate how wonderful, and how darn inexpensive, fine photographs are. Why, a collection--that's right a "collection"--of Walker Evans can be acquired for the same amount as a very large contemporary oil painting at a top gallery.

"Many people are seeing the advantage of photos. Sometimes smaller IS better. But the Gursky bubble may be for real, and perhaps $300,000 for a top Gursky in an edition of six may be a better value than a Diane Arbus (edition perhaps not known). Time will tell."


From Rudolf Kicken of Kicken Berlin and long-time AIPAD member:

"The supply of good vintage material is becoming very scarce. This development is being reinforced by the fact that exceptional collections often "leave" the market forever, like the recent group of photographs from the Thomas Walther collection that went to MOMA.

"On the other hand, there are still certain areas of photography that have not yet been discovered by the market and are therefore underestimated. Some examples are work by various European photographers, movements like Subjective Photography in Germany (Gruppe fotoform), etc. There is also good 19th century material from Germany, for example, which hasn't caught most collectors' attention yet.


From Ken Jacobson, 19th century dealer and AIPAD member:

"I read your market analysis with great interest. Probably the last thing I would be qualified to predict is the market. I would note, however, that historically, the best 'investments' are often made by collectors who are uninterested in investment. They are passionate in collecting some neglected art form while everyone at the time thinks they are mad."
 

The recent auction late last month of Le Gray Egyptian material was the first such auction of this material since Le Gray prices have increased since the Jammes sale a year and a half ago. In fact, it was the first such auction of this material in quite some time. Nearly a decade has passed since the last group went through a Drouot auction in Paris and French collector Roger Therond scooped up his rather fabulous images.

The rarity of the material naturally created a buzz, but did not quite deliver--almost, but not quite.

While the expert was familiar (Marc Pagneux), the auction house was not (Rieunier Bailly-Pommery), unless you were a painting dealer. More on that later.
True to form in Paris, the auction was really a painting sale with some decorative arts and the Le Grays tossed in. Most Americans and English, who usually play a major role in this kind of material, did not even get the catalogue, although some saw the sale details on Pagneux's web site. The few that knew of the auction had not had a chance to preview, and most thought that it would be a waste of time any way. Why a waste? Because most thought the Bibliotheque Nationale, which is in the process of producing a major Le Gray exhibition, would simply preempt most of the lots. Any institution in France can, after all the bidding is finished, simply raise a hand and say that deadly word "preemption." They then buy the item for the last price bid and the former winning bidder is left with nothing, except maybe a glass of wine afterwards at Cave Drouot and words of solace by his fellow dealers/collectors for consolation.

The 'experts' were, in this instance, wrong in their prediction, as many found out to their dismay when calling into Pagneux after the sale. The BN previewed, but did not buy.

To my knowledge, I was the only American or English bidder to actually attend the sale. Only my French friends' faces were familiar, although a German painting dealer bidding from the front row was also active on a few important pieces.

The material was very clean but the prints, for the most part, were just a tad light. Nothing serious, mind you, just not that rich deep color that we have come to appreciate from Le Gray's top French material. In addition, the images were not always the most representative of Egypt. However, compared to the few poor bedraggled prints that have appeared on the market in the last ten years or so, this was still a good showing.

We all waited impatiently through the painting portion of the auction, which seemed to take forever, and almost did. Most of us adjourned to one of the nearby bars across from Drouot. We simply watched Pagneux. If he still was at the bar having coffee, we felt safe that the Le Gray portion of the auction was not close at hand. It was nearly three hours for the auction to reach lots 136 (the Le Gray material). Broken out into 23 lettered lots, plus one additional lot of an album on the Suez canal by Felix Paponot, the photography section of the sale seemed to whiz by in less than a few minutes.

During this time, French dealer Baudoin Lebon was very active, taking a number of lots, including some of the most typical images of Egypt. By my count, he took lots A, C, and M--all multiple image lots. Pagneux was successful on two lots for himself (I, Tomb of the Mamelouks, and N, the five print panorama) and one for a client. Paris dealers Laurent Herschtritt and Arnaud Delas joined forces and picked up lot Q of the Mosque of the Sultan Barkouk. Paris dealer Dominique Weitz also bought a few lots. I purchased lot F, another close up of the Tomb of the Mamelouks. A German painting dealer, who received the catalogue apparently because he was on the painting list, was successful on several lots including B, still another Tomb of the Mamelouks and lot J, Vegetation of Cairo. This last lot had the distinction of bringing the highest price in the sale, still an extremely reasonable 240,000 French francs, plus the just under 11 per cent premium (about $40,000). I underbid this lot in a three-way battle with the painting dealer and Pagneux. In fact, only lot V, an Arab village with palm trees, was also able to break into six figures, although a number of other lots got close. Robert Hershkowitz told me later that he had bought lot V and two other lots.

My impression is that prices were EXTREMELY reasonable, and that Pagneux was disappointed with the results, although happy he was able to get two nice lots for himself. He plans to hold on to his material for a while, rather than selling it immediately. He feels that the prices on this material can only go up. I agree. It is extremely rare and by one of the great French master photographers.