Is it connoisseurship when people overpay? Shouldn’t they know better? Or are they just putting their appreciation of the object they’re buying above all else?

I pose these questions after Sotheby’s and Christie’s held fine art auctions this week. Souren Melikian posits in yesterday’s IHT that the link between the price paid for items and the artistic achievement displayed was tenuous at best. Sure, these were one of a kind pieces from some of the masters—but if nothing else bidders were inconsistent. At Sotheby’s, a Cezanne watercolor went for an “unthinkable” $25.5 million, but was quickly followed by sketches that went for a “modest” $2.28 million and an “absurdly low” 1.27 million.

Melikian acknowledges that it is difficult to tell what the price of a very rare work of art should be, but two paintings that were certainly worthy, a “breathtaking masterpiece” by Maurice de Vlaminck and a “beautiful” painting by early Impressionist Eva Gonzales, found zero bids.

Of course the bidders were paying what they thought was a fair price for the art—but if the art lacked the quality and aesthetics expected for how much was paid (at least in the opinion of the IHT reporter)—can we consider the buyers to be connoisseurs? Maybe. Beauty remains in the eye of the beholder / holder of wealth.

Nice little article from Suzy Menkes, fashion editor of the International Herald Tribune, about her idea of luxury, recently published in Kiwi Collection, an online luxury travel magazine.

For me, luxury is art, craft and sensory pleasure. Art is something that we understand. It may be difficult and challenging but it is at the heart of luxury.

I agree with her; part of the difficult and challenge in art (and connoisseurship and luxury) is putting in the time and effort to develop a worthy appreciation. At Janus Thinking we believe that a big part of luxury is understanding yourself and what you want–the luxury you choose should always ‘feel’ right. Menkes concurs; she says that people long for true luxury experiences; they go out of their way to find places and things with perfect design and ambiance. You can read all of Menkes’ article here.

An article in the IHT highlights a renewed interest among manufacturers in niche market luxury handsets. Vertu, the sector heavyweight, simply can’t turn out their precious-metal phones fast enough, as they are restricted by the limited capacity of their workshop in the UK.

However, if Siemen’s venture into the luxury market can be taken as an example, evidence would suggest that mass production and (relatively) affordable pricing is not the way to go. Their Xelibri line was culled after only 18 months in the market – but the Gizmodo article doesn’t quite tell the whole story. While the Xelibri handsets were undeniably oddball, and had only a limited feature set, the same could be said for Vertu’s line-up. Less quirky, perhaps, but a far cry from today’s smartphones in terms of functionality.

Is a high price a key determinant of appeal, then? The Xelibri range retailed for hundreds of pounds, whereas Vertu’s premium range starts in the tens of thousands; had Siemens added a couple of zeros to the prices of their fledgling range, woud they have fared better?

Economists call products which exhibit this characteristic Veblen goods, after Thorsten Veblen, who was among the first to examine the purchasing of luxury items. To anyone involved in brand strategy, this concept won’t be at all unfamiliar – by pitching to a higher price bracket, the sense of exclusivity is increased.

However, all of this comes with a caveat: unless the expensive product is backed up with outstanding customer service, great packaging and comprehensive after-sales support, the appeal may quickly fade. Simply slapping a bigger price tag onto a poor product experience won’t drive new custom.