Talk:Buyer's premium

Retailing High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Retailing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of retailing 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.RetailingWikipedia:WikiProject RetailingTemplate:WikiProject RetailingRetailing articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Retailing To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : SM Lanang Premier
Copyedit : Retailing in India
Expand : :- Please expand this project's list of articles. The subcategories of Category:Retailers is also an excellent starting point.
- Expand this project's image gallery page

- More articles for expansion: Automated retail, Big-box store, Chain store, Hypermarket, Store manager
NPOV : Retail loss prevention
Photo : Retail design
Stubs : Leakage (retail), Retail geography
Verify : Department store, Discount store, Retail clerk, Retail in the Republic of Ireland, Retail media, Retail software, Suggested retail price
Other : * Please add this project's banner {{WikiProject Retailing}} to retail-related talk pages. Also, bots can be utilized to automate this task.
- Also, add biographies to the articles list.

–When a task is completed, please remove it from the list.

Rem'g false precision[edit]

In the second section of the 'graph referring to 2013, as i write in the last 'graph but one, i find:

... 20% to the amount $100,001 to $2,000,000 and 12.0% to the remainder.[13]

"20%" is as should be, while "12.0%" is nonsense and suitable only in prescriptive (as opposed to descriptive) contexts: Only when describing something that is measured rather than counted, which is not the case here, where a purchase price in dollars (or even pounds and pence) is what the 100% whole represents. The error may have been copied from the source cited, but even so it is nonsense of a kind it would be reckless of us to reproduce. I have made no effort to track down the out-of-date source, but it would be a mistake to repeat it even if Christie's were they who uttered it (in the otherwise presumably reliable source they publish).

I say that with full awareness that we are not the arbiters of what is true: neither is Christies in some things, and this is one of them, since they seem to show no consistent practice of violating that standard: and we would not rely on their word, if they set out to sell a dressing gown as a dressed-up goon.
--JerzyA (talk) 03:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]