Bonhams Will “Match” What Artists Get From Resales. Here’s What That Word Actually Means.
Bonhams says its new Deans’ Choice program will match a consignor’s elected percentage for a living artist. The key question is what each side applies that percentage to.
On September 9, 2026, Bonhams announced a new program with Kasseem “Swizz Beatz” Dean and Alicia Keys’ Dean Collection that will let consignors voluntarily direct part of the proceeds from a resale to the living artist who made the work.
Bonhams says it will “match” the consignor’s elected percentage from its own buyer’s premium.
That sounds simple.
It isn’t quite what the word suggests.
The important question is not what percentage is being matched? It is:
5% of what?
Under Bonhams’ announced structure, the consignor’s contribution is calculated against the hammer price — the amount at which the auctioneer sells the work before fees.
Bonhams’ contribution is calculated against the buyer’s premium — the fee charged to the buyer on top of that hammer price.
So the two sides can use the same percentage without contributing the same number of dollars.
And once Bonhams’ tiered buyer’s-premium schedule is applied, the difference becomes larger as the artwork gets more expensive.
That is the part of the program that is easiest to miss in the announcement — and the part that matters most if you want to know what “match” actually means in money.
The two sides are matching a rate, not a dollar amount
Bonhams describes the program as an elective sale royalty.
The consignor chooses a percentage of the hammer price to direct to the artist. Bonhams then applies that same percentage to the buyer’s premium on the lot. The program is scheduled to launch with Bonhams’ November 2026 20th and 21st Century Art evening auction.
If the hammer price is larger than the buyer’s premium, the two contributions cannot be equal in dollars.
That is not a criticism of the program. It is simply how the mechanism is constructed.
The buyer’s premium is a separate charge paid by the buyer on top of the hammer price. Bonhams’ published fee schedule applies different percentages to different portions of the hammer price, so the total premium becomes a smaller share of the hammer price as the value of the lot rises. Bonhams announced a new U.S. buyer’s-premium schedule taking effect October 1, 2026, shortly before the Deans’ Choice launch.
That timing matters because the November program will operate under the new schedule.
One real sale shows the basic difference
ARTnews illustrated Bonhams’ announced formula using a Bonhams sale from May 2026 involving Jadé Fadojutimi’s Ribbon of Thought.
The painting hammered at $220,000 and sold for $279,900 including fees.
ARTnews then modeled what would have happened if the consignor had elected a 5% contribution under Deans’ Choice:
- 5% of the $220,000 hammer price = $11,000 from the consignor
- 5% of the approximately $59,900 buyer’s premium = about $2,950 from Bonhams
- Total modeled artist payment = about $13,950
The important qualification is that this was not a Deans’ Choice transaction. The program did not yet exist. ARTnews was using the earlier sale as a hypothetical example of how the announced formula would work.
The underlying sale figures are also independently reported in coverage of Bonhams’ May 20 evening sale.
So the example establishes something useful, but only at one price point.
It does not tell us how the relationship changes as the artwork becomes more expensive.
That is where the new fee schedule changes the picture.
What the announced formula actually produces
For the November launch, Bonhams’ new U.S. buyer’s-premium schedule is the relevant one.
The published schedule is tiered:
- 30% on the first $35,000
- 28% from $35,001 to $750,000
- 25% from $750,001 to $1.5 million
- 21% from $1.5 million to $7.5 million
- 14% above $7.5 million
Because those percentages apply progressively to portions of the hammer price, the buyer’s premium does not remain a fixed percentage of the entire hammer price.
That means the economics of the “match” change with the size of the sale.
What Deans’ Choice Actually Pays the Artist
Modeled, not actual Deans’ Choice transactions. Assumes a 5% consignor election and applies Bonhams’ published fee schedule scheduled to take effect October 1, 2026.
| Hammer price | Buyer’s premium | Consignor gives | Bonhams matches | Artist receives | Bonhams contribution vs. consignor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| $50,000 | $14,700 | $2,500 | $735 | $3,235 | 29% |
| $100,000 | $28,700 | $5,000 | $1,435 | $6,435 | 29% |
| $220,000 | $62,300 | $11,000 | $3,115 | $14,115 | 28% |
| $500,000 | $140,700 | $25,000 | $7,035 | $32,035 | 28% |
| $1,000,000 | $273,200 | $50,000 | $13,660 | $63,660 | 27% |
| $5,000,000 | $1,133,200 | $250,000 | $56,660 | $306,660 | 23% |
| $10,000,000 | $2,008,200 | $500,000 | $100,410 | $600,410 | 20% |
| $20,000,000 | $3,408,200 | $1,000,000 | $170,410 | $1,170,410 | 17% |
Every row is a modeled calculation, not a prediction of an actual November transaction.
The table’s point is not that Bonhams pays less as an artwork becomes more valuable.
It pays more dollars.
The point is that Bonhams’ contribution becomes a smaller share of what the consignor contributes.
At a $50,000 hammer price, Bonhams contributes about 29 cents for every dollar the consignor contributes.
At $20 million, it contributes about 17 cents.
The absolute contribution rises sharply.
The relative contribution falls.
That distinction is the economics of the program.
Why the ratio changes
Let:
- H = hammer price
- B = buyer’s premium
- r = elected percentage
The consignor contributes:
Bonhams contributes:
To compare the two:
The elected percentage disappears.
That means the consignor’s choice of 1%, 3%, 5%, or another permitted rate determines how much money is directed to the artist, but it does not determine how large Bonhams’ contribution is relative to the consignor’s.
That relationship is already embedded in the fee structure.
As the hammer price rises, Bonhams’ tiered buyer’s premium becomes a smaller percentage of the hammer price.
Higher hammer price → lower buyer’s-premium share of hammer → smaller Bonhams contribution relative to the consignor
The rate controls the size of the pool.
The fee schedule controls how that pool is divided between the consignor and Bonhams.
The $220,000 example changes under the November schedule
There is an easy source of confusion here.
The historical Fadojutimi example produced a buyer’s premium of about $59,900 on a $220,000 hammer price.
The new schedule produces $62,300 on the same $220,000 hammer price.
That is a difference of $2,400 in the buyer’s premium.
At a hypothetical 5% election, it changes Bonhams’ modeled contribution from approximately $2,950 to $3,115 — a difference of about $165.
So the older ARTnews example is still useful for understanding the announced formula.
But it should not be treated as the exact economics of a November Deans’ Choice lot.
The program will launch after Bonhams’ new buyer’s-premium schedule takes effect.
That is why the schedule date matters.
It is also why the broader table is more informative than the original one-point example: it shows the relationship under the fee structure that will actually govern the launch.
This is a voluntary alternative to a missing U.S. resale right
The larger context is important, but it should not be confused with the mechanism itself.
In the United States, artists generally do not have a federal statutory right to receive a percentage when their original artworks are resold.
The U.S. Copyright Office’s resale royalty analysis describes resale royalty rights as a way for visual artists to participate in the increased value of their works over time, while noting that such a right is not part of current U.S. copyright law.
That makes Deans’ Choice something specific:
It is not the creation of a U.S. resale royalty right.
Participation depends on the parties choosing to use it.
And that matters because a statutory royalty and a voluntary auction-house program answer different questions.
A law can establish a right.
A voluntary program establishes a mechanism that participants can choose.
The Copyright Office’s 2013 analysis also documents the long-running U.S. debate over resale royalties and notes that many countries have adopted some form of resale royalty.
What we still do not know
The mathematics is clearer than the broader program economics.
The public announcement establishes the basic formula, and Bonhams’ fee schedule makes the modeled calculations possible. But some details of the full program terms remain outside the evidence reviewed for this article.
For example, the public record reviewed here does not establish:
- whether there is a maximum election rate;
- exactly how participation will be disclosed on individual lots;
- whether the election can be changed or revoked under particular circumstances;
- how the program handles an artist’s death or estate.
Those questions should not be answered by inference.
Theodore Feder, president of Artists Rights Society, has characterized the program as applying during an artist’s lifetime, but that characterization should not be presented as Bonhams’ contractual language without access to the underlying terms.
There is also a separate economic question that this article cannot answer yet:
Will consignors and artists actually use the program at meaningful rates?
That will require real Deans’ Choice transactions.
The November auctions will begin producing that evidence.
Until then, the responsible thing is to distinguish between what can already be calculated and what cannot.
The larger Money Traces question
The interesting part of Deans’ Choice is not the word “match” by itself.
It is what happens when the headline percentage is traced back to the money underneath it.
A 5% election sounds like a single number.
It isn’t.
For the consignor, it is 5% of the hammer price.
For Bonhams, it is 5% of the buyer’s premium.
Those are different financial bases.
And because Bonhams’ buyer’s premium is tiered, the difference between them changes with the value of the artwork.
That does not make the program deceptive.
It makes the word “match” more precise than it first appears.
The real question is not simply:
“What percentage does Bonhams match?”
It is:
“Five percent of what?”
That is where the economics become visible.
And it is the same reason Money Traces looked past the headline numbers in its earlier examination of a $150 million loan backed by $356 million of art : the headline figure and the underlying financial mechanism are not always the same thing.
What November will actually tell us
The calculations in this article do not depend on November.
The formula is already public.
The fee schedule is already public.
The relationship between the two can already be calculated.
What November will reveal is something different:
whether consignors opt in, what rates they choose, which artists participate, and how much money actually reaches artists through the mechanism.
That evidence could eventually answer a much larger question about whether voluntary resale participation can become a meaningful part of the secondary art market.
For now, the narrower conclusion is enough.
The table contains modeled calculations, not actual Deans’ Choice transactions. The historical Fadojutimi example is a hypothetical reconstruction reported by ARTnews, while the November calculations apply Bonhams’ published fee schedule scheduled to take effect October 1, 2026. The article does not treat the modeled figures as forecasts of actual November results.
Sources & Verification
- Bonhams — official auction-house website and primary institutional source for Bonhams.
- ARTnews — September 9, 2026 coverage used for the hypothetical Jadé Fadojutimi example and reporting on Deans’ Choice.
- The Art Newspaper — Swizz Beatz and Alicia Keys launch resale royalty initiative with Bonhams — September 9, 2026 independent coverage of the initiative, participation structure, November launch and Bonhams’ new buyer’s-premium schedule.
- U.S. Copyright Office — Resale Royalty Right — primary legal and policy background on resale royalties in the United States.
- U.S. Copyright Office — NewsNet Issue 520 — December 13, 2013 discussion of resale royalties and voluntary initiatives.
- Money Traces — A $150 Million Loan, $356 Million of Art, and What the Collateral Is Really Worth — related Money Traces investigation referenced for the shared money-trail approach.
Comments
Post a Comment