One Irma Stern Sale, Three Prices 109 Times Apart

On 15 September 2026, Strauss & Co sold three works by Irma Stern in the same Cape Town evening sale. One hammered at R110,000. One hammered at R2.8 million. One hammered at R12 million. Same artist, same room, same afternoon. The gap between the cheapest and the priciest is 109 times.

The three lots

The R12 million hammer belongs to "Dahlias," a 1935 still life that came with real pedigree attached: it was exhibited at the Criterion Restaurant Ballroom in Johannesburg in May 1935. The pre-sale estimate was R8–10 million. It sold for more than that anyway, after 22 bids and four telephone bidders fighting over it. Once the buyer's premium and VAT were added, the price on record came to R13,725,000.

The R2.8 million hammer is "Cape Town Docks," a 1957 harbour scene. No bidding war is on record for this one. With fees included, it closed at R3,202,500.

The R110,000 hammer is the hard one. Despite the same sale, the same press cycle, and the same artist as the other two, nothing in the public record says what this work actually is. No title. No medium, no size, no estimate. Strauss's own post-sale release named "Dahlias" and "Cape Town Docks." It didn't name this one, and neither did anyone else.

Why the gap is real, not a rounding error

Okasen records hammer prices. Auction-house releases report the all-in total, after premium and VAT. So it's worth checking whether 109 times is even a fair comparison before you trust it.

Run the numbers on Strauss's published fee schedule: 15% of hammer up to R250,000, 13.5% up to R1 million, 12.5% above that, plus VAT charged on the premium. A R12 million hammer turns into exactly R13,725,000. A R2.8 million hammer turns into exactly R3,202,500. Both check out to the rand. The 109-fold spread between R110,000 and R12 million is hammer to hammer, not an accident of one figure being quoted gross and the other net.

What actually explains it

Strip away the fees and what's left is pedigree and demand, not mystery. "Dahlias" carried an exhibition history reaching back to 1935 and drew four buyers willing to chase it past its high estimate. "Cape Town Docks" is a recognisable, saleable subject with no reported contest, which is exactly why it landed in the middle of Stern's range rather than at either end. The R110,000 work got neither treatment: no documented history, no bidding story, not even a name attached anywhere we could find.

That's the actual lesson. If you're pricing a work on the strength of "an Irma Stern just sold for R12 million," stop there. The market for Irma Stern isn't one number. It's a ladder, and where a given work sits on it depends on what can be said about it before the gavel falls: who owned it, where it hung, how many people wanted it on the day. A single result, even a striking one, describes three different objects wearing the same name. It doesn't describe "Irma Stern" as a market.