Talk:No. 5, 1948

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from No. 5, 1948 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 12 November 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Jackson Pollock 's No. 5, 1948 was sold by David Geffen to David Martinez for the inflation adjusted price of $140 million dollars, making it the world's most expensive painting sold at an auction as of November, 2006?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2006/November.

Wikipedia

Comments

So Blue Poles is worth somewhere between 770,000 dollars and 180 million - interesting. Yeah

Around 770,000 American dollars = 180 million Australian dollars.--TBCΦtalk? 23:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The NY Times Article is for Members only! I cannot read ist.

I replaced $770,000 with $A180 million, as that was the figure mentioned in the newspaper article. Gareth E Kegg 00:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So much talk about the price of the painting, very few words about its artistic value, I think this article need to be improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.245.214.27 (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article covers the painting's artistic value in its entirety (i.e. none) 88.104.57.78 (talk) 13:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the image so low quality and low resolution?

Can someone upload a better version? 97.124.104.102 (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]