Brian Sewell - Being ill-used by Christie's (67/90)

[@iainholmes2735]

He loved his hounds.

[@madoak5597]

He did

[@morsmagne]

I disagree with him - his experience demonstrates that experience counts for everything. Obviously, Christie’s must have trusted his judgement hugely. Nobody else looked at those drawings to make the decision.

[@jmitterii2]

Sounds like every employer everywhere for the most part.... Unless its saving their business from complete and obvious ruin or saving them from being fired themselves on the spot... our employment as underlings are nothing more than little chess figurines fucking and making a muppet noises as we poop out money for them. And if something gets greasy and needs expertise... yet their job isn't immediately on the line, or companies main revenue or big revenue aspect or isn't going to go bust... we are just playthings. There has never been much in the way of meritocracy in any dictatorship we call businesses. Meritocracy is a myth to get the gullible to worker harder for less.

[@Richard-hv5hh]

What a silly and unimaginative story. He could have asked the collector if he could have an hour to call London, contact his colleagues and see if they could make an exception in his case as he was making some fair points and that it was an unusual case. He could have added that board decisions were standard when it came to agreeing to a variance on the normal Christie's fee. I think he lost the sale due to simply not using that approach.