Dear Sergeyitch, no error in the dates there. You probably do not fully explain carefully read the pages of rankings.
In any ratings for each artist listed two dates - the final and initial. As of this date and they are counted together, in fact, the criteria for placement of the artist at a particular position rankings - the yield or rate of growth.
For the rankings since 2001, those dates - in fact, the date of the last and first sales of taken into account in rating works on the world's major auctions (note the words "taken into account in the rating, because not all sold by the artists are allowed to participate in the rating).
For rating for 2 years and 1 year in the column "Date" and the date are taken into account in the rating of the auction sale. But the start date, defended by exactly 2, or 1 year from the end - is not a real auction sale date, but simply the date on which calculated the initial value of the test arrangement of artists. In other words can explain it well. Imagine - or look at the site, clicking on the name of any artist in the rating - a graph of the investment index artist in time. The last point graphics - is the final date that you see in the table under the column "Date". Start date for the same rating for 2 and 1 year is removed from the sharp end for the corresponding period - 2 or 1 year. That the estimated value of the index, which you see in the corresponding point on the graph, and is taken as the initial value while determining the placement of art in the ranking.
So no inconsistency there, all information is correct in the rankings.
I hope that explained clearly (although, I fear, to understand it converges not so simple). If there are more questions - ask, do not be shy.
|