Rabin was one of the best selling artists , and the auctions are as recent work and written in the Soviet Union. The latest in the market , there are fewer and prices are rising at twice the pace. Despite the "dark" paint the majority of still lifes and landscapes Rabin 1960-1970 's, these works have appeared in recent years the most commercially attractive and expensive. However, the Paris period is also valued highly enough , as mentioned in the Tretyakov Gallery retrospective , of course, even more pushed further rise in prices .
And the price of his things are steadily growing and growing as the proposals of his works at auctions.
If, for example , in 2003, was sold at auction only 4 of Rabin with a turnover of € 7,687 , while in 2007 there were already 28 with a turnover of € 1,426,609 .
In that year, put up for auction 30 works of O. Rabin.

Look what he bought . The main exhibition , post-revolution .

[color="#666686 " ]Added after 3 minutes[/color]
This refers to the collection , which was bought by Abramovich ?
I see it mainly sell out here , so expensive. There have been cases of sale of collections from here to there , or what?
And like others above you. How much they vacuums ?

Only conditionally and chronologically.

And this is the most valuable part of it.

Stories , of course , interesting . But look at the cost of sales of his paintings , 12000, 16000, 37000 pounds of unsold , unsold, ... , 6000 .

Since 2008, prices have fallen to the " vodka- balalaika " very noticeable.

A very good question . Because the whole pricing policy on the market not determined by the results of auctions . This is our market.

I think the way that an artist has other, more important for his interests. The artist is important to create. And when thoughts are bytovuhoy and money - not to become an artist ...

Added after 1 minutes
I think this should be asked of the Oscar Yakovlevich ...

Added after 4 minutes
So we topic - how to promote the artist.
And we do not like or do not like living this or that artist as it gets and it is true or not ...

Buscador, you direct the romantic maximalist - the artist must live in poverty, create, create . Picasso constantly thinking and talking about money , the paintings kept in the bank, gave nothing to anyone , ever drove with a suitcase full of money . In Matisse every produced risunochek was registered , as they lived all his large family . Again, nothing anyone away , lived in contract, selling work by size.

  So I'm here and I think , analyze .. why should I listen to your romantic stories about the poor creators , when I study the history of the real great artists ? And Van Gogh was not the poor all the time and money required . Rembrandt bought a house in the center . Teach materiel .
Picasso even in franzuskie museums refused to give free work - told - you want? let them buy on the same basis !

Seriy, think about his work, and not about the greatness of the great ones.
And then, maybe, something will ...

Cyril Syzransky, I'm not going to discuss the artist's place in the hierarchy , I just said that the results of Western auctions have yet to understand and interpret. I doubt that we can.
 And yes , it is unclear if the auction price is high , why cramped living conditions ? And the fervor with which you talked about the financial prosperity of the artist , now with the same fervor summon help her financially . You superior mettle ! And does it make any sense , it does not matter ...
Well, you is not important, but for me, yes , I want to still understand logically and consistently communicate. University education and the degree of binding.