Most shippers focus primarily on the minimum selling price and the percentage of commissions, and perhaps on the distribution of costs such as insurance and art photography. However, there are a number of less obvious but important issues, including significant risks under the standard conditions offered by auction houses. The full effect of these conditions may not be obvious to non-experts who read the agreements for the first time, but they have been the subject of a number of disputes and can have significant financial consequences for shippers.1 Art purchase contracts include guarantees regarding status, title and authenticity. Differences in the condition of a work should be obvious as soon as the buyer takes possession. Securities disputes generally involve simple legal issues, although the facts can be complex. However, questions of authenticity can arise years after the sale, when new information is brought to light, when experts change their assessment of the work (perhaps even the same experts who initially supported the listing) or when new media analysis tools are developed. (In addition, auctioneers are prevented from questioning the finding that the auction room may « possibly » be held liable, since supply contracts generally provide that the shipper is liable for auction room counsel fees if the shipper does not pay on termination request.) I can`t speak for what shippers` fees were before, but now the highest commission calculated for shipments with a hammer price of at least $15,000 is lower than most of their competitors at this value, even if small regional houses include. The commission goes down when the price of the hammer goes up. But that probably means they will be even more selective, which they are willing to take. In other words, you can ship poor quality equipment, subject to the willingness of specialists to take care of it, but the percentage of shipping costs will be higher if the price is lower.