A big auction with major pieces actually beat the top-end estimate – when's the last time you heard that? Wednesday night at Sotheby's, the Impressionist sale brought in $181.8 million, thrashing the high estimate of $163 million and almost tripling the Christie's auction from November 3, 2009. It's also around three times the last equivalent sale by Sotheby's, which was back in May.

The Sotheby's auction was packed with notoriety. Conde Nast's top dog, S. I. Newhouse Jr., sent some work under the gavel, as did Louis Reijtenbagh. Artwork by Giacometti, Picasso and Renoir was sold. Sixty-six lots were offered, with only 10 failing to sell.

New York art dealer Helly Nahmad told Bloomberg News, "The art market is back," but that may be premature. Bidders were chasing the high-quality pieces, and it is tempting to believe that what auctioneer Tobias Meyer calls "a year of abstinence" is over. The fact that the Sotheby's auction was so much greater than that at Christie's, though, makes me want to see a few more sales before calling it a trend.

While many of the art auction houses are dreading the fall season, Sotheby's has a few lots to celebrate. Art advisors can't keep their mouths shut, it seems, and following a luncheon for them, word got out that the house has picked up pieces by Alberto Giacometti and Andy Warhol next month.

Most collectors have been hanging onto their art, unwilling to sell their pieces in an unfavorable economic climate. Instead, they're hoping for a recovery and will likely unload the good stuff when they can get top dollar – or at least something better than fire-sale prices. So, it's pretty astounding that Sotheby's was able to nab such high-powered pieces when the rest of the world is scraping for decent. If it was looking for a differentiator this season, it got one.

The sculpture by Giacometti, "L'homme qui chavire," will go under the gavel on November 4, 2009 and is estimated at $8 million to $12 million. A similar piece by the same artist sold at Christie's New York in May 2007 for $18.5 million, after having been estimated at $6.5 million to $8.5 million. But, that was 2007 ... a different time, for sure.

The seller is publishing business stud S.I. Newhouse, Jr., who is thought to have acquired the piece in a private transaction. Maybe the Conde Nast superstar should have unloaded it sooner and sunk the cash into the magazines he had to close.

There is apparently a point at which some excessively rich individuals decide to do away with decent standards of dress altogether. They are literally so loaded they can afford to look homeless; their rags become a sort of reverse status symbol. In fact, as author Paul Fussell noted in Class: A Guide Through the American Status System, shabby clothes "advertise how much of conventional dignity [the upper classes] can afford to throw away. The wearing of clothes excessively new or excessively neat and clean suggests that your social circumstances are not entirely secure."

We'd like to think that's the reason behind the appearance of the celebs on Nerve's new list of the "Top 10 Rich People Who Look Poor." It would certainly seem to be for notoriously-underdressed billionaire Condé Nast owner Si Newhouse, who clocks in at # 7. But we think it's more than likely that the Olsen Twins (#6), Britney Spears (#3) and Amy Winehouse (#1), who's reportedly worth $20 million, are actually just slobs. Check out the full list here.