An art pottery bowl by Anna Petrus carries an estimate of €50–€100 in Adam’s mid-century modern auction, placing the object within a sale organised around a broader design category. The listing identifies the work simply as a bowl and describes its conical shape. Its spare description provides the essential particulars of the object, but little background against which to assess the valuation.

The auction is scheduled for Tuesday, October 20, 2026, with the bowl entered as lot 184. Its dimensions are given as 25 x 18 cm, with the description identifying the 18 cm measurement as height. The size field also supplies measurements of 9.8 x 7.1 in. Taken together, the listing’s identifying information, description and sale particulars establish the entry’s basic parameters: a named maker, a material category, a form, a scale and a scheduled sale date.

The €50–€100 range is an auction estimate, not a recorded transaction. That distinction is central to reading the entry: the supplied material contains no sale result for this lot and no evidence of a buyer having paid either figure. The range therefore describes the valuation attached to the bowl for the auction. It does not establish a realised price or demonstrate how demand for this particular object will develop when it is offered.

Read more: Tate revisits pictorialism through works unfamiliar to British audiences

The attribution to Anna Petrus is the listing’s principal identifying detail beyond the object’s physical description. The listing names Anna Petrus, while the accompanying description refers to a pottery bowl by Petrus. No production date, workshop, manufacturer or place of manufacture appears in the supplied entry. That leaves the attribution as the basis for identifying the maker, without additional information about when or under what circumstances the bowl was produced.

The sale’s mid-century modern designation supplies an organising context, but it should not be mistaken for a specific date assigned to the bowl. The entry does not date the work itself. Nor does it explain the relationship between this object and other pieces in the auction. The available information supports identifying the sale in which the bowl appears; it does not support a more detailed account of the bowl’s position within a design movement or period.

The physical description is similarly restricted. Conical form and pottery medium are stated, along with the dimensions, but the text does not describe colour, decoration or surface finish. It also provides no account of marks or inscriptions. The measurements offer a concrete indication of scale, yet they cannot supply those missing visual and material details. Any fuller description of the bowl’s appearance would go beyond what the available entry establishes.

Read more: Ueda says further rise in underlying inflation above 2% is unacceptable

The estimate is consequently the clearest financial information available, although its basis is not explained. There are no comparable prices, earlier valuations or previous auction results in the supplied material. Without those reference points, the €50–€100 range cannot substantiate a claim that the bowl is undervalued, unusually inexpensive for Petrus or representative of a wider market trend. Such readings would require evidence beyond this individual listing, rather than the estimate alone.

A similarly cautious distinction applies to condition and ownership history. Neither is discussed in the supplied description, and no explanation is given for the level of the estimate. The absence of that information does not establish either a problem with the bowl or an especially favourable buying opportunity. It instead limits what can be concluded about the valuation. The entry presents the object for sale without providing a documented account of its history or state of preservation.

No competing assessments from specialists, collectors or the maker appear in the material, so there is no supported disagreement to report over the attribution or price range. The contrast is between the precision of the sale particulars and the brevity of the supporting description. Lot number, dimensions, estimate and date are all specified; the background needed for a broader art-historical or market assessment is not. The story remains that of an individual offering rather than an established pricing development.

The bowl is listed for Adam’s October 20, 2026 auction. Until a result is available, the €50–€100 estimate remains the relevant published price indication, rather than evidence of an achieved value. For now, the confirmed particulars are narrow but clear: an art pottery bowl attributed to Anna Petrus, conical in shape, measuring 25 x 18 cm and listed as lot 184 in the mid-century modern sale.