Anybody Been Watching Fiona Bruce On The 'fake Or Fortune' Painting Programme.

[DTCwordfan]

So the Chagall was deemed a forgery as the physical chemistry did not match, the provenance was decidedly dodgy and there was even suggestions from a professional forger that the brush strokes on certain parts of the picture were distincly non-Chagall - around the outline of the body where these were continuous lines rather than the short brush strokes that he typically used.

The owner had paid £100k for it.

So why in hell's name, why did they send it off to the Chagall Committee in Paris? These folk have also determined that it is a fake and this week (source Sunday Tel today) it is to be burnt in front of a French magistrate, a rare but evidently not unknown practice from what was indicated at the end of the programme

My question is whether the BBC/ Philip Mold are negligent for this?.........though the painting is not worth a fraction of what was paid.

I would love to see the contracts between them all over this.....

However, the programme was fascinating.........

[tonyav]

I saw something about that this morning, DT.
http://news.uk.msn.com/world/%C2%A3100000-painting-set-to-be-burned-as-fake228372

[EcclesCake]

Hmmm, if it was purchased in good faith all along the line and it is not to be resold as a Chagall, why is it being burnt?

Haven't seen the programme but it seems an extreme reaction to what isn't a problem unless it is knowingly misrepresented for sale.

[DTCwordfan]

My thoughts too, Eccles, but the French have this defined in their (written) law....same as Philip Mold's as well. What good is it going to do and the family just want it back as a souvenir with a bloody good story to it. They would even accept the committee stamping the rear of the canvas with the result that it is a fake.

The American forger was amazing!

[DTCwordfan]

As pointed out on the programme, the whole exercise would risk being a Catch 22. Who would send them candidate paintings if there was a chance that they were fake and, therefore, a fiery end.....and it's not as if the Committees can be sure on all cases. That would be outright contempt, worthy of and demonstrated by the Wildenstein Monet committee over a Monet in the last series - though at least they didn't condemn that picture to be exterminated.

[THECORBYLOON]

As was said in the programme, a potential buyer would ask for the same folk to verify its authenticity and without the confirmation, it would have little or no value. I suppose it would have SOME value as a painting but not the £100,000 paid for it some time ago.

[DTCwordfan]

But to destroy it? And then the consequences that I raised for the Committees that insist on this as a course of action? (Point above).

[ladybirder]

Yep, catch 22 about sums it up. Makes a gripping story though. Thoroughly enjoyed the programme.

[DTCwordfan]

I did too, Ladybirder, and the other two have been fascinating as well........

[THECORBYLOON]

Do you believe it is genuine?

[DTCwordfan]

Not sure that I understand the question - the painting or the series....

The painting was a fake...but once they knew, why even bother submitting it to Paris? Or the burning....apparently it is to be done this week in Paris (unless there is a legal objection and there the owner and his family may have already accepted its fate).

[Prudie]

I didn't see the programme but did hear about it on R4 today. My understanding is that the Chagall Committee deem the burning for any fakes and they consist of Chagall's grandchildren. I also thought that the owner wanted it tested in Paris and if he knew anything about Chagall then he would have known about the burning issue beforehand. This is just what I picked up from the broadcast.

[FredPuli43]

Was it not a contractual term that a) the law governing the contract is the law of the French Republic b) a person submitting a painting to the Chagall Committee understands that the painting being a fake it will be destroyed?

In any event, anyone bringing a fake painting within the jurisdiction of the French courts would be taken to know that could or would happen. Ignorance of the (French) law is no excuse; I bet French lawyers still say "Ignorantia juris haud excusat" !

[DTCwordfan]

The implication on the programme was that this was the first time in a long while that they have ordered the burning........I would have expected Philip Mold to have known - the reaction of the owner when told (on Skype in Canada) was, naturally, somewhat shocked. The programme finished with the question on what they were going to do still up in the air, the hope on appeal that the Chagall grandchildren would relent.

[DTCwordfan]

That's what I would like to know, Fred - otherwise there could be a case for negligence.

[FredPuli43]

Hardly a case for negligence. The owner himself would sign the agreement for the Chagall Committee to examine the painting and, in the unlikely event that there was no agreement; have you ever heard of any body, be it an auctioneer, storage house, shipper, art gallery or any other such body not having something to sign; it is the owner who is presumed to know the law. It could only be negligence if a professional, a lawyer say, gave the opinion that the French law would not apply in the circumstances or that the painting was otherwise protected

[DTCwordfan]

Your last sentence is the one where my query lies. I would have expected Mold to know of the risk (and he is a professional)..............still can't fathom why they forwarded it onto Paris when it had already been proven to be a dud - that was an exercise in redundancy.

[jomifl]

I hope it's insured :o)

[sandyRoe]

The announcement that it's to be burned makes a great end to the programme, but you'd wonder did the Beeb show due diligence in sending it to risk the flames.

[FredPuli43]

Mold's silence would not normally be enough. He's entitled to say nothing. Only if he was a person who held himself out to have specialist knowledge of French law or practice and he then advised that the painting could be submitted without consequences, could he be held liable, because the owner would then be relying on that professional skill in accepting that assertion.

[Peter Pedant]

I thought Mold said in the prog that he knew of the condition but he had never known the sentence carried out...

Perhaps the Chagall ctee has tired of giving opinions - certainly if your treasure is likely to go up in smoke the optiising course is to say
Dont send to Paris - I will just go on wondering.....