Paul Quatrochi is seeking to open a dialogue in the spirit of establishing the rightful role of the Art Loss Register as underscored in this FT article published worldwide, regarding allegations of forgery.
Think Like A Faker
By Anthony Haden-Guest
Published: July 20 2007 14:52 Last updated: July 20 2007 14:52
Paul Quatrochi, a private dealer in Manhattan, only found out that the Art Loss Register (ALR) was now listing fakes when it asked him about a collection with which he was familiar. The ALR, which maintains a list of stolen works, wanted his opinion on whether certain pictures were fakes.
Quatrochi said that he regarded both the collector and his holdings with some scepticism. “He has two Vermeers. Two!” he chortled. An unusual claim that positively demanded scrutiny. “They are hard to date. I’d put them at about 1920.” But Quatrochi, who is trained in art law, noted that this was highly litigious territory and wondered if the ALR knew what it was getting into.
The Art Loss Register was founded in 1991 by Julian Radcliffe, then the director of a Lloyds brokers. “We only really started registering fakes to build up a database in the last two years,” he says. Concerns such as those voiced by Quatrochi don’t bother him unduly.
“We are not the arbiter of whether something is a fake,” he says. “We merely raise the red flag.
“We do sometimes find ourselves in a position where one side says, ‘Put it on the database and I’ll sue you if you don’t.’ And the other guy says, ‘It shouldn’t be on the database and I’ll sue you if it’s on.’”
Has the ALR been taken to court for doubting authenticity? “No. People are often threatening to sue. Very often they withdraw, a little bit shamefaced, when they discover they need us on their side next time round.”
Quatrochi was contacted about the suspect collection by Katja Lubina, a young Dutchwoman who works at the ALR’s offices in London. “I was going through the cases on the database registered as fakes, doing some quality control so that we can immediately act,” she says.
Can’t that be legally a high-risk business?
“Yes,” she says. “Nobody in this office would like to say this painting is a fake. So what we do is we advise them that there are indications that it could not be the real one.”
I observe that this seems a fine distinction.
“We are not saying it is a fake. We are saying, ‘Please be advised that someone might think this is a fake.’ For instance, another identical work has been for years in such and such a museum. So it could be that it is a fake. But we are not saying it.”
The ALR folders resonate with greed, guile and longing. One letter reads: “You mentioned that a South American gentleman had offered this painting to you for sale.” An ALR search established the painting was a copy of a Monet in the Musée d’Orsay in Paris.
In such cases, the ALR’s role is simple. Lubina is delighted when she has more complexity to deal with. “People are so creative in covering up fakes,” she says. She cites some supposed Van Gogh drawings, which were not only fake themselves but which had been embellished with fraudulent Nazi stamps on the reverse.
“They point you in the wrong direction. And you immediately think, ‘Well, this might be a case of looting.’ And your attention is on whether the provenance is OK, that is wasn’t confiscated or stolen. Which takes you away from thinking whether it is a genuine work or not.”
Fakers can get more creative than this. “It’s not just about faking the work of art. It’s about faking the whole provenance,” Lubina says. One of the ALR’s most potent fake-busting databases is the Witt Library in the Courtauld Institute at Somerset House in London. “It is an archive where you can look up provenance for works of art. They keep boxes for every artist. They record sales of paintings over a number of years,” she says.
“You can go into archives like the Witt, with your backpack, everything,” Lubina says. “You slip something in one of the files. From then on it will always be picked up by people researching. That happened in the Dr Drewe and John Myatt case.”
Myatt was the artist. Dr John Drewe, armed with an antique typewriter, manufactured the provenance. Between 1986 and 1994, they put 200 bogus pieces into circulation. Many are certainly still hanging or floating around. “There are such great criminal minds out there,” says Lubina. “I think we would all be surprised if we knew the real size of the [problem].”
So Lubina and everyone else at the Art Loss Register has to learn to think like the fakers?
“Yes. Probably after having worked here, I can develop my own techniques,” she says with a merry laugh.
The Art Loss Register, tel: +44 (0)20-7841 5780 (UK); +1 212-297 0941 (US); artloss@artloss.com
anthony.haden-guest@ft.com
ś�际收藏界的赝品清单 - FT中文网 - FTChinese.com曼哈顿私营经销商保罗•夸特罗奇(Paul Quatrochi)出乎意料地发现，国际 ... 那么，ALR有没有因为对艺术品的真实性提出质疑而被告上法庭呢http://s.info.com/clickserver/_iceUrlFlag=1?rawURL=http%3A%2F%2Fapp.ftchinese.com%2Fstory.php%3Fstoryid%3D001013872&0=&1=0&4=74.205.26.218&5=205.188.117.17&9=6e6d127e79764f34b4b8b486f50cca01&10=1&11=us.infoflag&13=search&14=867530&15=main-title&17=16&18=5&19=0&20=3&21=13&22=iZpm%2FQXy6vQ%3D&40=Blj86vtprvmmvVvhLHnKXw%3D%3D&_IceUrl=true
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Friday, July 24, 2009
"Klimt case"
Josh Baer's submission to 'The Art Law Blog' (Zaretsky), then appropriated by the Maine Antique Digest (Hewett):
Friday, June 13, 2008
Klimt Case
Josh Baer:"Maggie Wachter has sued Paul Quatrochi alleging he reneged over the $1.2 million purchase of a Klimt drawing and she has also sued Day & Meyer alleging they will not return the artwork to her."
posted by Donn Zaretsky at 2:19 PM
<<
MY REPLY to the Maine Antique Digest (David Hewett), Josh Baer, and The Art Law Blog (Donn Zaretsky):
Forums > Klimt "Fischblut" : Wachter v. Quatrochi Art Agents, Ltd. et al
Reply
Paul Quatrochi
Posted: 07/23/09 18:59
Maine Antique Digest Article of 2008:Would-be Seller of Klimt Sues Would-be Buyer for $1.2 Millionby David Hewett On June 5, a woman in Austria filed a lawsuit against New York City's Quatrochi Art Agents, Inc. for $1.2 million. Also named in the suit was the moving and storage firm Day & Meyer, Murray & Young, Corp. Maggie Wachter brought the suit against the art firm's owner, Paul Quatrochi, for failing to complete the contract that both signed on April 18, 2007, whereby Quatrochi was to buy Wachter's Gustav Klimt drawing Fischblut for $1.2 million.Wachter's suit claims that she completed her part of the agreement by arranging for the drawing to be stored at the New York City facilities of Day & Meyer, Murray & Young, a 15-story building on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, where it was to remain until Quatrochi came up with the full purchase price in the form of a certified check. Quatrochi was given 150 days after the date of signing to do that.According to the suit filed by Wachter's lawyer, Timothy McInnis, the Klimt drawing was not to be removed from the storage facility without Wachter's written consent. The suit alleges that the deadline for payment passed with no certified check, and when Wachter tried to get her drawing back, Day & Meyer refused to turn it over to her.McInnis, when asked if Wachter questioned that the drawing was still at Day & Meyer, said it was his firm's policy not to comment on cases still in litigation and declined to answer the question.Maggie Wachter appears to be an international citizen. When she needed a witness for her signature on the contract in 2007, she was in Europe, and the witness was Barbara Ensslin, the U.S. Consul at the U.S. Embassy in Vienna, Austria.
© 2008 Maine Antique Digest*******************************
Paul Quatrochi's Reply:
Dear David Hewett: Regarding the Klimt in question, Ms. Wachter's counsel is ill-advised and his inaction verges nearly on legal malpractice. We have stated that the requisite due diligence regarding title (specifically the sale of the work, Fischblut in 1938 Vienna, in the height of the Nazi occupation of Austria) needed to be exhaustive and thorough, and would require sufficient time until I and my client were fully satisfied that the work was not a spoil of war. The provenance of the work was utterly misrepresented by Ms. Wachter, and had to be entirely deconstructed, employing extensive research, scholars, and governmental authorities. Any purported breach is solely due to the extent of the research my client contracted me to do, as his agent.At variance to your published representations of Wachter's counsel, we have consistently endeavoured in good faith to return the work to Wachter or her counsel, with our offer having been consistently declined. We also have made proposals to buy out Wachter's interest, with no reply. I should also clarify that the action was levied against a dormant NYS corporation, and not me personally- the corporation having been altogether closed and dissolved. Such conduct has baffled me and my attorneys, and perhaps Wachter ought seriously rethink her choice of counsel. I ought add that neither I nor my counsel was ever contacted by the Maine Antique Digest at any time for comment, and hence the belated counterpoint to your stunningly unprofessionally one-sided exegesis of the matter in question.
PAUL D. QUATROCHI
***********
Quatrochi Fine Art Agents, Ltd.(New York)
Office: (212) 722-3700 /Fax: (212) 987-7669
Worldphone: (917) 560-8534
E-mail: Quatrochi@quatrochi.com
Website: http://www.quatrochi.com/
Quatrochi Reply as a Post-Script:
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Art Law Blog - "Klimt case"
PS: I think in the interest of truth-telling, I am surprised by the short-sightedness of Wachter's counsel, who expect the exercise of a mere option and agreement to buy a drawing, to trump, eclipse, or enjoy a higher priority than my higher duty to the international art markets, to prevent any potentially ill-gotten gains and spoils of war from being 'sold' to good-faith BFPs (as well as similar acts of spoliation)- only furthering and contributing to the litigious character of the art world. As I have previously said, all good-faith sellers of good character have never forbiddden me in past time from doing my requisite due diligence and research- all conducted at the instruction of the buyer, for whom I dutifully serve as 'agent'. Also as previously stated we have offered on endless occasions to return the work from safe-keeping (D&M) to Wachter's counsel with our offer consistently being declined, or our consistent offer to buy out Wachter's interest with no reply. This is baffling and untoward conduct from opposition counsel that I have never seen before, and certainly confusing enough to befuddle the NYS Bar Association's Disciplinary Committee should Wachter choose to engage them.
Posted by quatrochi at 12:22 PM 0 comments
Friday, June 13, 2008
Klimt Case
Josh Baer:"Maggie Wachter has sued Paul Quatrochi alleging he reneged over the $1.2 million purchase of a Klimt drawing and she has also sued Day & Meyer alleging they will not return the artwork to her."
posted by Donn Zaretsky at 2:19 PM
<<
MY REPLY to the Maine Antique Digest (David Hewett), Josh Baer, and The Art Law Blog (Donn Zaretsky):
Forums > Klimt "Fischblut" : Wachter v. Quatrochi Art Agents, Ltd. et al
Reply
Paul Quatrochi
Posted: 07/23/09 18:59
Maine Antique Digest Article of 2008:Would-be Seller of Klimt Sues Would-be Buyer for $1.2 Millionby David Hewett On June 5, a woman in Austria filed a lawsuit against New York City's Quatrochi Art Agents, Inc. for $1.2 million. Also named in the suit was the moving and storage firm Day & Meyer, Murray & Young, Corp. Maggie Wachter brought the suit against the art firm's owner, Paul Quatrochi, for failing to complete the contract that both signed on April 18, 2007, whereby Quatrochi was to buy Wachter's Gustav Klimt drawing Fischblut for $1.2 million.Wachter's suit claims that she completed her part of the agreement by arranging for the drawing to be stored at the New York City facilities of Day & Meyer, Murray & Young, a 15-story building on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, where it was to remain until Quatrochi came up with the full purchase price in the form of a certified check. Quatrochi was given 150 days after the date of signing to do that.According to the suit filed by Wachter's lawyer, Timothy McInnis, the Klimt drawing was not to be removed from the storage facility without Wachter's written consent. The suit alleges that the deadline for payment passed with no certified check, and when Wachter tried to get her drawing back, Day & Meyer refused to turn it over to her.McInnis, when asked if Wachter questioned that the drawing was still at Day & Meyer, said it was his firm's policy not to comment on cases still in litigation and declined to answer the question.Maggie Wachter appears to be an international citizen. When she needed a witness for her signature on the contract in 2007, she was in Europe, and the witness was Barbara Ensslin, the U.S. Consul at the U.S. Embassy in Vienna, Austria.
© 2008 Maine Antique Digest*******************************
Paul Quatrochi's Reply:
Dear David Hewett: Regarding the Klimt in question, Ms. Wachter's counsel is ill-advised and his inaction verges nearly on legal malpractice. We have stated that the requisite due diligence regarding title (specifically the sale of the work, Fischblut in 1938 Vienna, in the height of the Nazi occupation of Austria) needed to be exhaustive and thorough, and would require sufficient time until I and my client were fully satisfied that the work was not a spoil of war. The provenance of the work was utterly misrepresented by Ms. Wachter, and had to be entirely deconstructed, employing extensive research, scholars, and governmental authorities. Any purported breach is solely due to the extent of the research my client contracted me to do, as his agent.At variance to your published representations of Wachter's counsel, we have consistently endeavoured in good faith to return the work to Wachter or her counsel, with our offer having been consistently declined. We also have made proposals to buy out Wachter's interest, with no reply. I should also clarify that the action was levied against a dormant NYS corporation, and not me personally- the corporation having been altogether closed and dissolved. Such conduct has baffled me and my attorneys, and perhaps Wachter ought seriously rethink her choice of counsel. I ought add that neither I nor my counsel was ever contacted by the Maine Antique Digest at any time for comment, and hence the belated counterpoint to your stunningly unprofessionally one-sided exegesis of the matter in question.
PAUL D. QUATROCHI
***********
Quatrochi Fine Art Agents, Ltd.(New York)
Office: (212) 722-3700 /Fax: (212) 987-7669
Worldphone: (917) 560-8534
E-mail: Quatrochi@quatrochi.com
Website: http://www.quatrochi.com/
Quatrochi Reply as a Post-Script:
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Art Law Blog - "Klimt case"
PS: I think in the interest of truth-telling, I am surprised by the short-sightedness of Wachter's counsel, who expect the exercise of a mere option and agreement to buy a drawing, to trump, eclipse, or enjoy a higher priority than my higher duty to the international art markets, to prevent any potentially ill-gotten gains and spoils of war from being 'sold' to good-faith BFPs (as well as similar acts of spoliation)- only furthering and contributing to the litigious character of the art world. As I have previously said, all good-faith sellers of good character have never forbiddden me in past time from doing my requisite due diligence and research- all conducted at the instruction of the buyer, for whom I dutifully serve as 'agent'. Also as previously stated we have offered on endless occasions to return the work from safe-keeping (D&M) to Wachter's counsel with our offer consistently being declined, or our consistent offer to buy out Wachter's interest with no reply. This is baffling and untoward conduct from opposition counsel that I have never seen before, and certainly confusing enough to befuddle the NYS Bar Association's Disciplinary Committee should Wachter choose to engage them.
Posted by quatrochi at 12:22 PM 0 comments
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)