>why didn't it sell?

If I had to guess it would be something to do with this part:

"Solow, auction experts said, had a history of not seeking guarantees, choosing to negotiate for a portion of the buyer’s fees instead. Last night that strategy proved fateful."

The vendor and the auctioneer have some private agreement, which meant the sale probably ended below an acceptable price.

Yes, it was a so-called "enhanced hammer" deal where the commission that the seller normally pays to the auction house is inverted to flow the other way...assuming a minimum selling price has been reached. The intent is to encourage more ultra-high-end sellers to work with that auction house instead of another. The auction house still makes money from the fee that the buyer pays btw, ie the hammer price is not the price the buyer pays: they pay an extra 20% to the auction house.

So what seems to have happened here is that the seller set a de facto minimum of $70M before their deal with Sothebys would take effect, and, seeing that there was no interest, pulled the sale.

More details here: $70 Million Giacometti Flops at Sotheby’s, as Demand for Trophy Art Softens

https://news.artnet.com/market/70-million-giacometti-flops-a...

That article makes it clear that the 64.2 million bid was a chandelier bid; there were no real bids on it.

Just for clarity - this was not an "enhanced hammer" deal. It was a simple fact that the consigner set their reserve at $70 million, and the consigner would not lower their reserve, even knowing the risk that the work would publicly fail at that level. An enhanced hammer deal is an entirely different situation, and it applies to third-party guarantees and/or irrevocable bids (know as IBs) – and neither apply in the specific situation...

My understanding is that the $64.25M in "bidding" wasn’t real, as it was likely done with chandelier bids. Essentially fake phantom bids placed by the auctioneer to simulate interest and push the price upward. It’s a common tactic, but many see it as deceptive, especially when it creates the illusion of genuine demand.

That sounds like wash trading. How is this legal?

A sculpture is not a security.

Many jurisdictions have laws specifically allowing it, as long as it's disclosed, like in the terms provided by Doyle Auction House:

The auctioneer will not specifically identify bids placed on behalf of the seller. The auctioneer may further bid on behalf of the seller, up to the amount of the reserve, by placing successive or consecutive bids for a lot or by placing bids in response to other bidders.

https://www.doyle.com/terms/

Many see it as blatantly deceptive and wonder how someone would argue otherwise.

This is Todd Levin, who is quoted in the New York Times article above. People seem to be very confused about how public auctions legally work. Here is a short lesson, being that I worked at Sotheby's for five years in the 1990s. An auction lot has a pre-auction low estimate and a high estimate that is printed in the catalogue. This is simply a guide that the experts provide - a conservative estimate as to what the experts think the auction lot might sell for based on comps of recent public sales of similar works. When an item comes to auction, the consigner and the auction house work together privately to set a reserve price (not to be confused with the pre-auction estimate which is public). The reserve price is the price at which the lot will sell, and if it fails to achieve the reserve price, it will pass and go unsold. The reserve price can be no higher than the low estimate. Traditionally most reserves are set between 80% and 100% of the low estimate, though this is not always the case for reasons I will not go into here. The auctioneer may open the bidding at any number below the reserve, and may bid up in any increments whatsoever until they hit the reserve. Once they hit the reserve, however the lot is going to be sold, and then the auction house cannot provide any more bids. Any bids called out after an item hits its reserve, must be actual bids placed in the room, on the phone, on the internet, or left in the book by verified bidders. I hope that clarifies precisely the legalities and mechanics of how things work...

Addressing the legality is different than addressing whether it is deceptive.

Of course people close to the process know which part of it is a game.

There's nothing remotely deceptive. Everybody understands there is a publicly available printed pre-auction estimate, and everybody understands that there is a reserve existing, only known to the consigner and the auction house, which can be no higher than the low pre-auction estimate. This is all clearly laid out in the auction house's publicly available terms and conditions, which also lay out every single one of these terms (and everything else applicable), what all the different terms mean, and how the auctioneer may and/or may not operate under those specific and crystal clear rules when running the auction. Everything is completely transparent. Now - if you go to an auction, and you don't read the publicly available terms and conditions, then perhaps yes, something might seem deceptive to you – but the reality is you're an idiot for not informing yourself of the readily-available rules and easy-to-understand laws and regulations under which the auction operates. At that point, it's not on the auction house at all, it's on you – caveat emptor.

It's fine if we don't agree, but the only reason to play the stupid game you describe is that it ends up working to the advantage of the house.

"We disclosed our nonsense in the terms and conditions, it's your fault if you don't catch on" is a fine way to do business if that is how you want to be seen doing business.

I can speak to some of it.

When items like this go up for auction, sellers often set a "minimum" price. If that isn't met, the item isn't sold and remains the property of the original owner.

As you've highlighted, the reserve price doesn't have to be guaranteed by the auction house. So if this price isn't met, nobody gets the item (unlike the standard which is that the auction house will buy the item for the reserve price).

The 50% is probably the guy rounding the estimate to make a point.

As for why 64.25 wasn't enough but 70 would have been, I don't know. My understanding is that a lot of pieces sell for above their high estimate, so I'd guess that the seller was expecting/hoping for that? I do also think that 35% versus 40% matters a lot more when that difference is 6 million dollars in absolute terms.

Why even start the bid at 59 if 70 is the lowest you'll accept

Because as people start bidding they become invested in the outcome, and can often be convinced to go higher than they otherwise would. The trick is to set it under the minimum price the right amount that you can get multiple people bidding on the same item, each topping the other by smallish amounts. That way it doesn’t “feel” like you’re crossing the right price - “I’m already in for $60m, 1 more million is like 2% more, and then I beat this other person for something valuable”

Kickstarter works like this too. If you know anything about fixed manufacturing costs, when you see hardware projects with a 4-digit goal, you cringe. Some have other sources of funding, but the reason you set an artificially low goal is that it 1) gets people more excited when they see the % of goal go to 800% or 3000%, and 2) people are more inclined to back a project that's already hit its goal, regardless of how crowdfunding works.

This is Todd Levin, who is quoted in the NYT article you have referenced. No one was willing to pay $64.25 million. That was just a chandelier bid by the auctioneer Ollie who was trying to get somebody up to open with a minimum bid of $70 million. The owner had established their reserve price at the low estimate, meaning that the low reserve of $70 million was also the lowest bid that the consigner was willing to accept as an opening bid. And if somebody bid $70 million at the hammer, they would still be responsible for the additional Sotheby's buyer's premium, and that buyers premium would've been a bit over $10 million, bringing the total paid for the Giacometti to $80 million at a minimum (had it sold). Since the previous sales that took place in 2013 in 2010 were $50 million and $53 million respectively, had this lot sold for $80 million all in, it would've sold for over 50% more than it had when it was successfully sold previously. I hope that math maths better for you with a complete explanation...

Thank you for taking the time to visit here and share insight. Yes, that explains it. The missing pieces for me were 1) no knowledge of "chandelier bids" (I thought bids were bids) 2) the article says "without a minimum price guarantee" which I read to be describing the absence of a reserve. With knowledge of chandelier bids, and an understanding that there was a reserve, it all makes sense :)

No worries, always glad to be of service if I can! I've worked in the art world (I have a private art advisory) for about 45 years now, and worked at Sotheby's for five years in the 1990s as well, so I know this territory extraordinarily up-close-and-personal from the inside out... :-)