Re the two previous threads, from John and Pete. There seems to have been a slight misunderstanding about what I was inferring. The point that I wanted to make was that, when selling a piece and donating the proceeds to charity, there is no longer the pressure to set a price that accurately reflects the value of the piece. I noted the fact that Malcom avoided falling into this trap, which is good for all of us. He kept the value of the item high, reflecting the work that he put into it. He gains by this because his work becomes known and appreciated for its real value. The charity gains by getting the higher donation and, ultimately, we turners all gain because the more of our output that is sold at a realistic price, the more the general public get to realise its true value.
John...you wrote that I'd got it wrong, stating that, 'If he is not charging a realistic price he certainly is undervaluing his work'. That was precisely the point that I was making, so I'm not clear as to how I got it wrong.
Les
