I was struck by the following conversation with Joseph Hackmey about his collections which resonates. I find the psychology of collecting fascinating. What makes a collection a collection and not an accumulation.
"I point out that a lot of rich people want the kudos of collecting. For many of them, art is just way of parading their wealth. He thought about this for a moment. 'You can't generalise. Some people are very knowledgeable. Some people know nothing.' I mentioned a recent sale of Russian art at Sothebys, which drew a lot of very rich Russian buyers. I expressed the view that most of the material was poor. He was familiar with the sale. 'Yes, it was poor quality,' he said. Then he added: 'The point of collecting is to know the thing that you are collecting.' He said that when he bought a stamp he knew exactly how many copies were in existence and who they belonged to. It was a point of pride that he understood the market in which he was buying.
"I asked him how he chose which kind of paintings to collect. 'I don't know why I collect certain things. There's probably a psychological reason for it.' I pointed out that there must be things in his various collections that he hasn't seen for several years. 'That's undoubtedly true,' he said.
"Five years ago he sold his collections of New Zealand and Ceylon stamps. Each of these collection realised around two million pounds. 'I had them for so many years. I thought it was enough,' he explained.
"Some buyers get a thrill out of buying stuff at auction. I asked him if it was like a poker game. 'No it's not a poker game. In poker you have to hide your intentions. Here you are making it clear that you want to buy.'
"So is it like a chess game? 'No you make up your mind on what you want. You concentrate on one type of item, rather than just dabble.'
"I asked him what makes a good collection . I had expected him to say something about learning to appreciate things and bringing them together. But I was wrong: he didn't talk like a philosopher or an art historian. Instead he had more showy approach. 'You need a big item. At least one. Then people will take an interest. If you go to an art gallery, people want to see a Rembrandt – not the minor painters.' I pointed out that three days before seeing him, I'd visited the Wallace collection in London. I was more struck by the tiny detailed paintings by Pieter de Hooch, than I was by the Rembrandts. 'Yes,' he said, 'but de Hooch is not a minor painter. He's a great painter. You need to see the good things.'"
I would tend to agree - buy the best you can afford and hang the rest of the collection around it. May be that is where the serious money lies rather than the hedge funds. Is it an accumulations of VCs or Regimental Collection with a VC as a central focus?