Talk:Buyer's premium

Rem'g false precision

   In the second section of the 'graph referring to 2013, as i write in the last 'graph but one, i find:

... 20% to the amount $100,001 to $2,000,000 and 12.0% to the remainder.[13]

   "20%" is as should be, while "12.0%" is nonsense and suitable only in prescriptive (as opposed to descriptive) contexts: Only when describing something that is measured rather than counted, which is not the case here, where a purchase price in dollars (or even pounds and pence) is what the 100% whole represents. The error may have been copied from the source cited, but even so it is nonsense of a kind it would be reckless of us to reproduce. I have made no effort to track down the out-of-date source, but it would be a mistake to repeat it even if Christie's were they who uttered it (in the otherwise presumably reliable source they publish).

   I say that with full awareness that we are not the arbiters of what is true: neither is Christies in some things, and this is one of them, since they seem to show no consistent practice of violating that standard: and we would not rely on their word, if they set out to sell a dressing gown as a dressed-up goon.
--JerzyA (talk) 03:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)