wow!
Thst's awesome!
I thought the gov't was clamping down on modern artists for a mo.Must check out the Martin Bros...
UK.gov whacks export ban on 'grotesque' crab made by famous Brit potter bros
Blighty's Ministry of No Fun Allowed* has continued to live up to its nickname by slapping an export ban on a fugly crab ornament that by all rights should be locked in a chest and slung into the deepest abyss never to be seen again. With a malevolent anthropomorphic grin smeared across its face, the salt-glazed stoneware …
-
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 18th June 2019 15:54 GMT katrinab
Re: If UK.Gov really wants it to stay...
It is by no means certain that this sale would be VATable even if sold to a UK buyer.
See https://www.gov.uk/guidance/vat-on-antiques-or-art-from-historic-houses-notice-70112
If it is sold from a private house and it isn't a business asset, it is outside the scope of VAT.
If you sell to a qualifying public art gallery, it is exempt.
If it is sold in order to pay an inheritance tax bill due on it, it is exempt.
If it is a business sale that is VATable, it would be under the second hand margin scheme, so you would be able deduct the cost of buying it.
-
Tuesday 18th June 2019 15:22 GMT A. Coatsworth
Don't see the problem, they were simply making a mask of Falkor the Lucky Dragon[1], the mask fell down when still wet and got squished. No horrors there.
[1] the fact that they were in the early XX century making props for a 1983 movie is of no consequence. Don't ask how they got the secret of time travel, if you value your soul or sanity in the least.
-
Tuesday 18th June 2019 15:48 GMT John Savard
Usual Suspects Innocent
And here I thought that instead of an artistic treasure concerning which the British government is rightly zealous to preserve as part of its homeland's heritage, this was merely a mass-produced toy that was being banned from export to China because like skeletons or blood in video games it was offensive to cultural sensibilities.
-
Tuesday 18th June 2019 16:39 GMT mark l 2
Would they still prefer it remained in the UK even if its going in a private collection for just a few rich people to see, as say a overseas museum buying it? As it only makes sense to remain in the UK if it is going to be accessible for the public to see it. (not that I would pay to do so as its hideous)
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 18th June 2019 21:41 GMT jake
Re: From what I remember ...
Where did I say I was abroad with the Brits?
Well, to be perfectly honest, I was abroad with the Brits, but only because I am a Californian who has spent close to 20% of my life in the UK. But visit Spain with you lot on VACA? No fuckin' way. I have much better things to do with my down time than drinking Harp, Carlsberg or Kronenberg on a beach in Andalusia or Valencia.
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 19th June 2019 09:19 GMT Nick Kew
Who loses here?
You say it sold in New York.
Has some 'merkin buyer ponied up that price, and is now being retrospectively denied his/her purchase? That sounds grossly unfair!
Or has the price not yet been paid, and now becomes likely to be cancelled? That would be grossly unfair on a vendor who has gone to the trouble and expense of auctioning it, and could've limited bids to British buyers, or else not tried to sell in the first place.
Either way, shouldn't putting on such restrictions after an auction has taken place render the responsible official liable to compensate someone? Or if not, is Act Of Stooge something you (can) insure against?
Biting the hand that feeds IT
