There has been much discussion lately about what many consider inflated prices for works by young and emerging artists, but few reporters—or even members of the trade—are willing to put numbers to it. Artnet News editor-in-chief Naomi Rea did, in a column ahead of Art Basel in June, writing, “Now, $30,000 gets you a résumé-light emerging artist. The art market has lost its grip on price-setting—and dealers must recalibrate.”But how much should a collector pay then?Longtime advisor and Baer Faxt founder Josh Baer has just offered his answer. In the latest edition of his free No Reserve newsletter, Baer gives advice on what he calls “ultra-emerging” artists, writing that the most a collector should pay for a large work in a first solo show by such an artist at “a reputable gallery” is $15,000, and $5,000 for a small piece. (What is an ultra-emerging artist? Baer’s example is one just out of school: “e.g. the MFA graduate from Yale,” he writes. As for what qualifies as large or small, Baer told me over text that he means, say, 60 by 40 inches versus 20 by 16.)“A new collector needs about an additional $25,000 of pre-tax, discretionary income to buy a work around $15k—kind of like what a week in the Bahamas would cost,” Baer elaborates in his newsletter. As for would-be speculators, that time has passed. “The stories of collectors buying their Jean-Michel Basquiat for $7,500 in the ’70s/’80s and selling for $35 million now (I’m old enough to know many of these people) is just not going to happen,” Baer added.LA gallerist Charlie James told ARTnews he thinks Baer is spot-on with both scale and pricing. “I think these thresholds are useful,” James said. “I think $15,000 for a large work might actually be a little high.”An experienced collector of emerging and ultra-emerging artists offered a different perspective. “It’s an interesting thought,” he said, “but pricing in the art market can’t really be codified. So many factors go into it.”