Steve McQueen's bikes....not necessarily MC content

[jbell]

What is it about prior celebrity ownership that makes an object so "valuable"?  Why would we pay more for them?  I would do the same, but don't really understand why.  The British show, Fake or Fortune, chronicles "lost" works of art that they attempt to prove are by a specific, historic artist.  Frequently, the only way they can tell is from thermo-nuclear examination.  Not quality, content or the beauty of the painting.  So why is it worth $xx millions if by Van Gogh and worth $.27 if forged and no one can tell the difference?  Obviously, it's not about the painting (sparkly red slippers, motorcycle, car, etc.) itself but rather the artist or previous owner.  Is there an expectation of transference of magical powers or a sense of familiarity with a famous figure?  Any psychologists, armchair or otherwise, care to chime in?
Written from a post turkey stupor while couch bound.

[oldbike54]

 Honestly , I think it has to do with buying status , or "cool" , which is really impossible . Now , owning a motorcycle that has true historical significance , say one of TE Lawrence's Broughs , or a bike that had racing success like Free's Vincent , or one of Hailwood's Hondas might be different 

  Dusty

[charlie b]

It's all about bragging rights.  Nothing more.

Some people are willing to pay a LOT of money to be one up on the Jones'.

[GuzziChris]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8Vqd0sBw44
"Just drivin' round in Jon Voight's car....."

[Mayor_of_BBQ]

John Voight? The periodontist?

[Aaron D.]

It's a bit of bleedover from the art world. Art has an identity-it is more than the visual presentation, it is the life of the object itself that makes it more valuable.

So a Triumph dressed to look like a German motorcycle is a silly thing. The Triumph dressed as a German motorcycle that Bud Ekins used and Steve McQueen sat on in "The Great Escape" is something else.

An MV GP triple is a beautiful oblect. An MV GP triple that was ridden by Ago to win a race-something else.

[charlie b]

It's a bit of bleedover from the art world. Art has an identity-it is more than the visual presentation, it is the life of the object itself that makes it more valuable.

So a Triumph dressed to look like a German motorcycle is a silly thing. The Triumph dressed as a German motorcycle that Bud Ekins used and Steve McQueen sat on in "The Great Escape" is something else.

An MV GP triple is a beautiful oblect. An MV GP triple that was ridden by Ago to win a race-something else.

Not really.  They are still just objects.  Some people think they are more valuable because of some history or lineage.

When an art expert has to get out a microscope or magnifier to tell if a painting is faked, then there is no real difference between the fake and original.  Fakes have been giving enthusiasts the 'thrill' of the original for centuries.

[jcctx]

The short answer : people are CRAAAAAZIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jbell]

It's a bit of bleedover from the art world. Art has an identity-it is more than the visual presentation, it is the life of the object itself that makes it more valuable.

So a Triumph dressed to look like a German motorcycle is a silly thing. The Triumph dressed as a German motorcycle that Bud Ekins used and Steve McQueen sat on in "The Great Escape" is something else.

An MV GP triple is a beautiful oblect. An MV GP triple that was ridden by Ago to win a race-something else.

Aaron, 100% agreement, I'm just curious for a lay explanation as to why we feel this way.  As Charlie points out, they're just objects that can be duplicated to the point of being indistinguishable.  What do we get out of owning something that was involved in a historic event or ridden or owned by somebody "cool".  In your example, if the two MVs were side by side, could you tell the difference?  What if Elmer Fudd rode it to a win.  Would you still feel the same way?   If Dad passes down his pocket knife to you, you have a connection to him through the knife of every experience you shared with him.  What experiences did you share with Ago, did you ever even see him race?   Just what the heck is going on in our little pea brains?

[Offcamber1]

Years ago a good friend of mine owned a Lotus Elan coupe that was used as a courtesy car in 1967 by Team Lotus when they were over hear to run the Indy 500, so the car was used by both Graham Hill and Jim Clark.  He advertised the car in Hemmings and gets a call from a guy in California that wants to trade a Maserati that had been owned by a famous singer for it.  My friend was not interested at all and the other guy was incredulous; the conversation went something like this:

West Coast Dude: "But this Maserati was owned by Linda Rondstadt, I have a copy of the pink slip with her signature on it!"

My friend:  "How many Grand Prix did she win?"

It was a short conversation thereafter.

The point is celebrity ownership only commands a premium if the celeb means something very deep to the buyer.

[Aaron D.]

Not really.  They are still just objects.  Some people think they are more valuable because of some history or lineage.

When an art expert has to get out a microscope or magnifier to tell if a painting is faked, then there is no real difference between the fake and original.  Fakes have been giving enthusiasts the 'thrill' of the original for centuries.

True they are just objects, and if provenance means nothing to you then they are interchangeable. Certainly most of the McQueen mania baffles me. Frankly I cannot consider any mass produced vehicle as art regardless of who owned it.

Nor can I consider photography as art. Or any print of an original painting.

[jbell]

Years ago a good friend of mine owned a Lotus Elan coupe that was used as a courtesy car in 1967 by Team Lotus when they were over hear to run the Indy 500, so the car was used by both Graham Hill and Jim Clark.  He advertised the car in Hemmings and gets a call from a guy in California that wants to trade a Maserati that had been owned by a famous singer for it.  My friend was not interested at all and the other guy was incredulous; the conversation went something like this:

West Coast Dude: "But this Maserati was owned by Linda Rondstadt, I have a copy of the pink slip with her signature on it!"

My friend:  "How many Grand Prix did she win?"

It was a short conversation thereafter.


The point is celebrity ownership only commands a premium if the celeb means something very deep to the buyer.

This makes the most sense to me, the reverence for the previous owner.  In the art world, I suspect the overwhelming majority purchase high dollar works of art, not for the arts' sake, but rather for status in the art world and the one-upsmanship value.  In your example, I'd take the Maserati, Rondstadt owned it.  Aside from being a Lotus, it might just as well have been a Yellow Cab.

Aaron, I DO see photography as art.  Give two people the same camera and the same subject and you will see two different end results.  What a painter does with brushes and pigments, a photographer does with light, exposures and angles.  The same as two musicians playing the same piece on the same instrument, you'll probably get two very distinguishable tunes.

[kirkemon]

Just after McQueen's death I saw many of his motorcycles at Ted Evan's Yamaha in Marina del Rey. There were about 25 bikes roped off and I was told that his son owned them and was getting ready to sell off the collection.
There has been a couple along with his Jaguar at the Petersen Museum, which I highly recommend when in Los Angeles.

[Arizona Wayne]

It's for the buyers who put extra value on autographed baseballs, pictures of celebrities, etc. I guess.  To some it means nothing.  To others is means $.  If you watch that series "Strange inheritances" on Fox you really see what I'm referring to.  Old baseball cards, dolls, tractors, you name it. What's a commodity really worth now?

[garbln]

Of the say 200 McQueen bikes known to exist.  We can now account for all 350 of them!

[charlie b]

True they are just objects, and if provenance means nothing to you then they are interchangeable. Certainly most of the McQueen mania baffles me. Frankly I cannot consider any mass produced vehicle as art regardless of who owned it.

Nor can I consider photography as art. Or any print of an original painting.

What about a copy of an original?  If painted by an expert that only a magnifying glass in the hands of an expert can tell the difference?  For that matter, how would you KNOW you were looking at the original in the first place?

If someone told you it was original does that mean you will view it differently?  And what if they are wrong?  Does that mean you viewed it with joy all those years in error?  It brought you no joy cause it really wasn't an original, even though at the time it did bring you joy?

I get just as much out of a print of a painting than I do the original.  I do have to admit I find most paintings just something to fill a space on the wall.  Even one of the 'famous' ones.  I've seen some of the originals.  No big deal.  I wouldn't give you $50 for an original daVinci or any of the rest.

What we like and don't like is so different.  What we place value on is also just as fleeting.