Concentration vs diversification
Every mature collection – whether it concerns antiques, design, art, or historical objects – eventually faces a fundamental question: is it better to focus on one author, one workshop, or one type of object, or to build a more diversified collection. This is not a matter of taste or aesthetics. It is a strategic decision that directly affects risk, liquidity, and long-term value. From the market’s perspective, there is no single “better” answer. There are, however, predictable and repeatable consequences resulting from each of these choices.
Concentration: the strength of specialization and its price
A collection based on a single author, a single workshop, or a narrowly defined object type offers a significant cognitive advantage. Over time, the owner moves within their segment with expert confidence: recognizing variants, versions, material changes, and nuances of execution. Such a collection tends to be coherent, recognizable, and difficult to replicate. The market is capable of appreciating this consistency. A well-built single-author collection can achieve a value higher than the sum of its parts, especially when it includes rare, early, or representative works from key periods of production. Concentration also supports the construction of a collector’s narrative, which matters when selling a collection as a whole or attracting institutional interest. At the same time, this strategy carries elevated risk. The value of such a collection is strongly dependent on the condition of a single market segment. Shifts in taste, price corrections, or declining interest in a given name or object type affect the entire collection simultaneously. A concentrated collector becomes exposed to a single trend – even if that trend appeared stable for years.
Diversification: security at the cost of intensity
The opposite strategy is diversification: collecting different authors, different object types, and sometimes even different categories. Such a collection rarely achieves spectacular visual coherence, but it absorbs market fluctuations far more effectively. Diversification spreads risk. A decline in one segment may be offset by growth in another. From an asset perspective, this approach is more resistant to changes in fashion and cultural narratives. The collector is not dependent on a single name or object type, which provides greater decision-making flexibility. However, diversification has its cost. It is harder to reach an expert level in every category. Selection errors become more likely, and collections often accumulate objects that are “good, but not the best.” As a whole, such a collection may be less distinctive in market terms. In practice, diversification requires greater discipline in quality, because coherence does not emerge automatically.
Invisible risk: unconscious concentration
The most dangerous strategy is the one the collector did not plan. Many private collections are concentrated accidentally: the owner repeatedly acquires similar objects because they are available, fashionable, or easy to recognize. This form of concentration provides no expert advantage, yet carries the full risk of dependence on a single market segment. From decades of market observation, one conclusion is clear: concentration makes sense only when it is conscious, knowledge-based, and continuously deepened. Otherwise, it becomes a trap.
Hybrid strategy: core and periphery
The most mature collections often adopt a hybrid strategy. They have a clear core – one author, object type, or period – that defines the identity of the collection, and a complementary periphery that serves a diversification function. This model allows the collector to benefit from the strengths of concentration while limiting its risks. The core often acts as a value stabilizer, while the periphery provides flexibility: the ability to react to market changes, to sell parts of the collection without damaging the whole, and to gradually shift direction without abrupt decisions.
Conclusion: strategy matters more than aesthetics
In long-term collecting, the question “what to collect” is less important than “how to collect.” Concentration and diversification are not opposites, but tools that must be aligned with the goal, time horizon, and scale of the collection. A collection built solely on aesthetic intuition remains a passion. A collection built on a conscious risk strategy begins to function as an asset. And it is precisely this difference that determines its future position on the market.
