Dear Fellow Members and List Subscribers,

         We've enjoyed the responses to this query regarding online art 
auction databases and found the comments very informative as to what 
subscribers to this list value.  Being a member for a few years, we have 
seen opinions on this subject vary and change over time.

         One singular omission, however, from our somewhat biased view, is 
a discussion of the premier databases for fine prints and photographs.  It 
has been our experience that most institutions feel we have the best 
databases for these categories.  In addition, we have the only database of 
dealer and gallery prices for original prints.  These databases have been 
praised by many institutions for the quality and straight-forwardness of 
the user-interface. They each contain powerful Boolean search capabilities 
that allow the data to be filtered in a myriad of ways. The prices include 
the buyer's premium, there is no cut-off on lower priced works, and the 
data goes back to 1985 for prints and much earlier for photographs. The 
user is allowed unlimited searches for an annual subscription price.

         We find that many institutions subscribe to a "fine art" database 
and then add Gordon's database(s) for works on paper.

Best Wishes,

Jodie L. Benson
Gordon's Art Reference
306 W. Coronado Road
Phoenix, AZ 85003-1147 USA
1-800-892-4622  orders
1-602-253-6948  offices
1-602-253-2104  fax
http://www.gordonsart.com

***********************************************
At 05:51 PM 07/17/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>Dear colleagues: Below is a summary of the comments we received regarding
>the various online art auction databases.  Many thanks to all who replied.
>I 'm still working on the actual cost comparisons for our needs, but, from
>these replies I know which one(s) we would like to be able to afford. We
>made a comparative chart, but it wasn't consistent and was incomplete, so at
>this point we're not offering to share it. If we get it done, we'll offer
>it.
>
>Summary of Comments made in May 2003 by ARLIS-L Participants
>regarding opinions about various Online Art Auction Databases
>
>Some notes:
>Kaarin Van Ausdal at the Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh offered to share her
>comparative analysis which was done Summer of 2002 before her library
>decided to renew Artnet, and also purchase Artprice and ArtFact. Because
>ARLIS cannot take attachments, Kaarin has offered to send a copy to other
>librarians who request it.  (Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh, Music & Art
>Department - 4400 Forbes Avenue - Pittsburgh, PA 15213)
>
>Linda Duychak of the Kohler Art Library at the University of Wisconsin
>offered this information of the very informative New York Public Library
>site with the caveat that she's not sure how often it is revised [A couple
>of the pages say 1996...]:
>www.nypl.org/research/chss/spe/art/artarc/auction/auctions.html
>
>The Buyer's Premium, a surcharge added to the auction price, may or may not
>be listed in the various databases. It is good to ascertain if the buyer's
>premium is included or not when subscribing if it is not mentioned on the
>site.
>
>Some comments have been duplicated under different headings because the
>comments offer the context of experience in which the comments are made.
>
>The compilation of comments below was done with the invaluable help of our
>volunteer Jana Chan, a 2002 graduate of UC Santa Barbara in art history and
>economics.
>
>
>Artfact.com
>
>         *       Museum Library:  I am currently ending our subscription to
>ArtFact.  While they are heavy in the decorative arts and were adding to
>their fine arts database, it was VERY lacking in the fine arts for our
>needs.  Not to mention the curators hated using it, there were few ways to
>narrow/limit the searching.  They've also just upped their subscription fee
>by $500 this year.
>         *       Museum Library: We like Artnet ... it is pretty
>comprehensive and has images which researchers really like ArtFact is nice
>because it includes the entire text from the auction catalogs, but the hit
>rate is iffy.
>         *       Museum Library: There is another fine art auction price
>database called ArtFAct located in  Rhode Island.  We had a demo here this
>morning and the salesman said their database is the only one that includes
>the decorative arts. Their indexing goes back to 1986 and includes the full
>text of all the information  that is contained in the on-line version of the
>auction catalog. He said theirs is the only database to include that
>informaion.  Images are also included. They only sell their service by a
>liscensing agreement which costs $2,000 per year
>         *       Non-librarian but one who works with this data:  Sloppy.
>Sometimes multiple listings for same sale.
>         *       University Library: there's one other system you might want
>to consider for comparison: Artfact: images and sales records. We have the
>online version. Although it doesn't get used heavily, it is a nice database
>and has been helpful.
>         *       ARLIS/NY discussion Nov 2002:  Artfact.com was mentioned as
>an important resource since it is the only database that covers decorative
>arts. A_______ mentioned that Artfact.com is good for decorative arts but is
>weak in covering fine arts. Many participants noted the difficulty of
>retrieving accurate results in Artfact.com due to the cumbersome search
>interface.
>
>Artnet.com
>
>
>         *       Museum Library:  I'm still a devoted fan of artnet.com.  Not
>cheap, but consistently broader coverage plus a high percentage of thumbnail
>images [that can be enlarged].  We also use artfact.com, but its strength
>remains dec arts, and artprice.com turns up information for us occasionally.
>But again, the lead horse is artnet.com, at least for us.
>         *       Museum library: Artnet is over priced and very limited.
>         *       Public Library: We like Artnet...it is pretty comprehensive
>and has images which researchers really like.
>         *       Public Library: Our ultimate choices were to keep Artnet (at
>$970/year based on our actual usage, which we had to negotiate once we had
>some usage statistics), and to purchase [also] Artprice and ArtFact.
>         *       ARLIS/NY discussion Nov 2002:  t was agreed that Artnet.com
>was the best for image access since many of the other databases do not
>include an extensive amount of images. A_______ brought to everyone's
>attention that Artnet.com offers monthly usage reports for your account and
>now offers IP address restriction.
>         Museum Library: We had a free, trial subscription for 4? weeks to
>Artprice but found it very difficult to maneuver about and awkward to use,
>so decided against it.  We're still looking at artnet but haven't had time
>to make a final decision. I talked to a rep in Baltimore, and found we could
>get a good price.
>         *       Museum library: ...best for image access.... offers monthly
>usage reports for your account and now offers IP address restriction
>         *       Museum Library: Our contemporary art curators subscribe to
>it just for that department. They get 8 or 9 searches a month for the price.
>They like it, but can't share it with other departments because of the
>search restrictions. We are thinking of expanding to include all museum
>departments if the cost affordable.
>         *       Non-librarian but one who works with this data: Artnet data
>goes back to 1989 but no further, and they do not produce a CDRom or hard
>copies"
>         *       Non-librarian but one who works with this data: ...not
>complete; can't depend on [Artprice and Artnet]; coverage sporatic sketchy.
>         *       Non-librarian but one who works with this data: Does not
>have pictures.
>
>Artprice.com
>
>         *       Museum library: ...turns up information for us occasionally.
>         *       Museum library:  [compared to the preferred Art Sales Index
>Online ] Artprice and Askart are also good, but you are billed for every
>item you look at and have to renew monthly.
>         *       Museum library: We had ADEC (the ArtPrice cd-rom version) a
>few years ago, and again I found that many times an artist would not come
>up, although they would appear in the printed Art Sales Index...
>         *       Museum library: Artprice.com was discussed for its
>comprehensive coverage.  Its drawbacks were mentioned as being a clunky
>interface and no images.  It is noted of offering access to biographical and
>signature information for select artists.
>         *       Museum Library: We had a free, trial subscription for 4?
>weeks to Artprice but found it very difficult to maneuver about and awkward
>to use, so decided against it.
>         *       Public library: I find artprice is a little harder to use
>than artnet and it has no pictures, but includes more records and
>biographical in information which is helpful.
>         *       Non-librarian but one who works with this data:   Artprice
>...logs even the smallest [sales] amounts
>         *       Non-librarian but one who works with this data:   Artprice
>has a CdRom but it is very difficult to use.
>         *       Non-librarian but one who works with this data:   Too
>expensive....can't depend on them; coverage sporatic sketchy
>         *       ARLIS/NY discussion Nov 2002: Artprice.com was discussed for
>its comprehensive coverage. Its drawbacks were mentioned as being a clunky
>interface and no images. It is noted for
>         offering access to biographical and signature information for
>selected artists.
>
>Art-sales-index.com
>
>         *       Museum Library:  Art Sales Index Online is my favorite. The
>subscription is about $800 per year. You renew once a year with unlimited
>searching. Their data base goes back farther than the others and covers more
>subject areas.  ArtPrice and AskArt are also good but you are billed for
>every item you look at and have to renew monthly. ArtNet is over priced and
>very limited.
>         *       Museum library: ...has the most comprehensive coverage going
>back to the 1920's for Christie's and Sotheby's"
>         *       Non-librarian but one who works with this data: Excellent
>coverage; no pictures; excludes lesser known because doesn't list paintings
>under $500 (?). Price does not include buyer's premium (although chart is
>available for the asking).
>         *       The Publisher: we have been around since 1968 and our
>database with 2.6 million entries has been available on line since 1983 and
>on the internet since 2000. Our database does not have as many illustrations
>due to copyright issues but we do have auction sale results back to the
>1920's. Please see our web site for more information or ask other ARLIS
>member who use us (partial list below) [36 of their customers listed]
>"...the current web site needs a total overhaul, and this is being done at
>present....  Having said that, the actual data on the web site is fine,
>although again I will be reorganizing the software to allow much better
>searching, sorting and displaying."
>         *       The Publisher: Art Sales Index does not log lots of less
>that £300 (unlike Artprice that logs even the smallest amounts) so these 2.3
>million are substantial sales.... As far as prices are concerned, I am keen
>to make the pricing structure as transparent, user friendly and reasonable
>as possible, so any comments here would be most welcome.
>         *       ARLIS/NY discussion Nov 2002: A_______also mentioned that
>Art Sales Index has the most comprehensive coverage going back to the 1920s
>for Christie's and Sotheby's.
>
>
>Askart.com
>
>         *       Museum Library: ...AskArt is ONLY American art and not
>international in scope (they don't even include Mexico and only an
>occasional Canadian artist if they did work in America).  Their information
>is also often wrong or lacking; however, it remains a good first source to
>start.  I also am not sure how far back they hold information.  Knowing that
>your collection and, probably, active collecting, is still as varied as
>ours, I think they may be too restrictive.
>         *       Museum Library: We had a 1 month trial membership. The two
>who used it said (1 )I did make use of their service a few times, but found
>it of limited assistance, partly due to so much of our collection being
>European and in part because the site just seems "clunky." I know that is
>not a technical term, but it is the best I can do. It feels like the
>Reader's Digest of information.  (2)I used it several times and found the
>information quite helpful. Its focus on American art makes it less useful
>for the museum.  If we subscribe I'd use it.
>         *       Non-librarian but one who works with this data:   Excellent
>coverage; no pictures; excludes lesser known because doesn't list paintings
>under $500.  Price does not include buyer's premium
>         *       Non-librarian but one who works with this data: only
>American art
>
>
>Heather Brodhead, Librarian
>Fearing Library
>Santa Barbara Museum of Art
>Fearing Library
>[log in to unmask]
>Tel:  805.884.6451    Fax:   805.966.6840
>
>__________________________________________________________________
>Mail submissions to [log in to unmask]
>For information about joining ARLIS/NA see:
>         http://www.arlisna.org//membership.html
>Send administrative matters (file requests, subscription requests, etc)
>         to [log in to unmask]
>ARLIS-L Archives and subscription maintenance:
>        http://lsv.uky.edu/archives/arlis-l.html
>Questions may be addressed to list owner (Kerri Scannell) at: [log in to unmask]

__________________________________________________________________
Mail submissions to [log in to unmask]
For information about joining ARLIS/NA see:
        http://www.arlisna.org//membership.html
Send administrative matters (file requests, subscription requests, etc)
        to [log in to unmask]
ARLIS-L Archives and subscription maintenance:
       http://lsv.uky.edu/archives/arlis-l.html
Questions may be addressed to list owner (Kerri Scannell) at: [log in to unmask]