It was interesting to read the prices, certainly.  I figured the
estimates in areas where I have any clue of prices to be perhaps
three times the 'normal' price.  However, these instruments have
(I imagine) had a great deal more spent on them than most -- whether
spent appropriately or not being a matter of opinion and some debate.
It seems that the estimates were reached in most cases and exceeded
in many, so all kudos to the auctioneers.

However, the ability to get such prices is precisely why auction houses
are in business.  Their ability to attract buyers and get them to pay
top dollar is why they're asked to sell things even though they take
about a third of the buyer's cash.  It's a mixture of presentation,
confidence, contacts... -- you name it.  This sale wasn't a weekend's
work; it was many months of work by a lot of people (look at that
catalogue, not cheap to create yet alone print, and you can download
the PDF for free).

Oddly enough, many of the major auction houses lose money, the cost
of fancy premises and glossy presentation way exceeding the fees taken
for most sales.  It's been noted in the British papers from time to
time that the big London houses survive solely because of the top-end
art sales which subsidise the losses.  One fancy painting can cost more
than the entire Milhous collection and is a great deal less work to
sell!

Julian Dyer