Van Cleef & Arpels invites you to open the doors of wonder with the "Cosmic Splendor: Jewelry from the Collections of Van Cleef & Arpels" exhibition at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. Until January 4, 2026, discover the Maison's precious creations, paying tribute to the marvels of the cosmos.

Van Cleef & Arpels invites you to open the doors of wonder with the "Cosmic Splendor: Jewelry from the Collections of Van Cleef & Arpels" exhibition at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. Until January 4, 2026, discover the Maison's precious creations, paying tribute to the marvels of the cosmos.

What I might have pointed out, too, is that these grey area deals might be harmless, and possibly even helpful. The same dealer, who claims to have been involved in some side deals, said they tend to come about as a tool of client acquiescence—such as when a potential trade wouldn’t meet Sotheby’s minimum commission requirements. A Sotheby’s dealmaker is arguably doing the house a solid by placating the client by routing a transaction through an LLC and creating the sort of goodwill that might entice them to bring something larger to the table down the line.

What kind of deal wouldn’t meet Sotheby’s threshold? The dealer suggested, and some others ratified, that many items are offered in a price to me structure—i.e., a seller wants a minimum price for a work, and the broker is therefore incentivized to squeeze as much margin as they can from the buyer. It isn’t uncommon for a private dealer to be caught between a seller with a minimum price to me of, say, $1 million, and a potential buyer unwilling to pay more than $1.05 million. And that 5 percent margin would not hit Sotheby’s minimum commission for private sales.

These sorts of deals put brokers in a bind. They can’t paper the transaction through Sotheby’s—the platform just can’t accept such a low commission, or else everyone would want to pay 5 percent or even less. But they also can’t quite turn away the buyer and seller, or else they’d nuke the deal. And they certainly aren’t incentivized to introduce the two to each other and cut Sotheby’s out of any future deals. Therefore, you can imagine a world in which a dealer might come to the conclusion that they should take a small introductory commission on the deal just to get it done, keep everyone happy and engaged, and pocket 50 grand—which could really help if their salary and bonus had been cut. In this scenario, everyone wins: Arguably both the buyer and seller would appreciate the flexibility and return with larger works that required Sotheby’s officialization.

“That’s a lovely TV movie,” a lawyer and longtime art market dealsmith told me when I ran this scenario past him. “But I have no idea if it’s true.” In fact, this dealmaker said he’s never come across the practice, though he rarely buys and sells individual works.

Last week, after I made a passing joke about Sotheby’s seemingly being run like a pirate ship compared to the very straitlaced Christie’s, one reader wondered whether I was suggesting that consignors would, or should, prefer the latter house. That was emphatically not my point. Sure, there are a small group of very proper fiduciaries who might be put off by the side dealing rumors. But, for the most part, rich people are just as greedy as anyone else, and the best deal for the consignor wins. For all of the focus on rectitude, there are plenty of consignors who would clamber aboard the pirate ship.

That’s part of the fun of buying art. If the market were straightforward retail, there would be no thrill to it. Many buyers are in it for the tales of battling the swashbucklers. There’s a reason why so many are invested in the idea that the art market is unregulated: They love the romance and daring of it all. The brand is so powerful—or maybe I should say the duopoly is so powerful—that all Sotheby’s has to offer is a meaningful alternative to its rival and there will always be customers.

The New Yorker article was meant to illustrate Drahi’s character as a businessman and chart its effect on the operation of the company. Bad press, perhaps, but what it describes is a far sight better than what came before him. After all, Sotheby’s still had to compete for deals between 2001 and 2005—the era defined by owner Alfred Taubman’s conviction on a conspiracy to fix prices and his family’s sale of its controlling interest in the company. Consignors still did business with the company despite the fact that its owner was a felon.

Before Taubman’s time, the auction business was even less scrupulous: Specialists weren’t above walking off with objects to sell for their own enrichment. Whether or not there is side dealing at Sotheby’s, the art business is a lot cleaner than it has ever been before.

Need help? Review our FAQ page or contact us for assistance. For brand partnerships, email ads@puck.news.

You received this email because you signed up to receive emails from Puck, or as part of your Puck account associated with {{customer.email}}. To stop receiving this newsletter and/or manage all your email preferences, click here.