Steve Roach and the Art of Law

Pro-collector group loses test case involving Chinese, Cypriot coin imports

2011-08-22T18:29:00.000-04:00

By Steve Roach - http://www.steveroachonline.com
First published in the August 29, 2011, issue of Coin World - http://www.coinworld.com/

A United States District Court in Maryland has held that import restrictions on ancient Cypriot and Chinese coins are not subject to judicial review, ruling in favor of the government on a test case initiated in 2009 by the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild.

District Judge Catherine C. Blake’s comprehensive 52-page opinion, filed on Aug. 8, dismissed the ACCG’s case and granted the government’s request for summary judgment. The ACCG is a nonprofit organization “committed to promoting the free and independent collecting of coins from antiquity.”

The United States entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Cyprus on July 16, 2007, that imposed import restrictions on archaeological material including coins of Cypriot types. The Cyprus action reversed a long-standing tradition that exempted coins from import restrictions. The U.S. State Department restricted certain designated Chinese coins pursuant to an MOU effective Jan. 16, 2009. Thus far, U.S. Customs has not shown a strong interest in enforcing the import restrictions as they relate to coins, which on Jan. 19, was expanded to include certain coins of Italian types.

ACCG initiates a test case
In April 2009, the ACCG purchased 23 low-value ancient Chinese and Cypriot coins from the London coin dealer Spink and imported the coins via a London to Baltimore flight on April 15, 2009. U.S. Customs detained the coins for alleged customs violations upon their arrival in Baltimore and issued a Notice of Detention to “allow for determination of import eligibility and/or requirements.” On May 13, 2009, Peter Tompa, counsel for the ACCG, wrote to Customs formally objecting to the detention of the coins.

Two days later, Customs amended the detention notice to request additional evidence regarding the coins.

On May 27, 2009, the ACCG disclaimed any ability to present such evidence writing that because, “the coins — like the vast majority in circulation in the collector market — have no known ownership history, ACCG cannot say if they were first found in the ground of either China or Cyprus.”

The 23 coins were seized on July 20, 2009, and the ACCG was informed of the seizure the next month. Tompa wrote Customs to formally claim the coins on Sept. 8, 2009. The ACCG brought the lawsuit against Customs, the Commissioner of Customs, the State Department and the assistant secretary of state on Feb. 11, 2010, and filed an amended complaint on July 15, 2010.

In the lawsuit, the ACCG alleged that the actions of both the State Department and Customs in connection with the import of Cypriot and Chinese coin types were “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”

Court rules against ACCG
The court’s ruling stated that when the government seeks the forfeiture of cultural property subject to import restrictions under CPIA — the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act — the initial burden is on the government to show that the material has been listed by the secretary of the Treasury on a designated list. Once this is shown, the burden shifts to the ACCG to show that the coins were legally importable. Since there is no dispute that the ACCG’s coins appeared on the list, the ruling focused on whether Customs and the other defendants had authority under the CPIA to restrict the importation of those coins.

Analyzing this point, the court found that under the CPIA, Congress assigned various responsibilities to the president and that the actions by the State Department and assistant secretary, while not directly undertaken by the president, derived from the president’s authority under CPIA.

The court also dismissed a claim that the government put the ACCG’s Executive Director Wayne Sayles on a “watch list” due to the ACCG’s decision to import coins of Cypriot and Chinese types for the purposes of the test case. Sayles alleged that he was searched by uniformed Customs officers on March 15, 2010, on his return to the United States from England. Judge Blake cited Sayles’ failure to exhaust administrative remedies through the Department of Homeland Security as the reason.

In a novel argument, the ACCG contented that the import restrictions were a violation of the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech, because the inscriptions and designs on ancient coins is “information or speech” as coins communicate “the ethos of a people, the means by which the ancient society expressed that ethos, and the individual expression of the coin maker.”

Judge Blake wrote that the imposition of the import restrictions were within the constitutional power of the government, and that combating looting and the illegal trade in looted ancient objects that threatens the cultural patrimony of other countries is a compelling government interest.

‘Disappointing turn of events’
Sayles called the decision a “disappointing turn of events” on an August 9 posting to his blog, Ancient Coin Collecting. He added: “My own interest in the past will certainly not abate because a judge in Maryland thinks the government is beyond reproach. In fact, I really doubt that my life will change measurably as a result of this decision. It is a sad day, but there’s much work to be done and little time to reflect on what might have or should have been.”

Tompa also penned an Aug. 9 entry to his blog, Cultural Property Observer, which called Judge Blake’s opinion well-written, but characterized the underlying situation as “shameful,” with “Faceless bureaucrats making decision in secret at the behest of connected, narrow special interest groups with little more than lip service being given to the protections built into the law for small businesses and individuals.”

The ACCG is currently reviewing its legal options, according to an official for the organization.

***
Steve Roach is a Dallas, Texas, based rare coin appraiser and fine art advisor who writes the world's most widely read rare coin market analysis each week in the pages of Coin World. He is also a lawyer who writes on legal topics involving fine art and collectibles, and helps create estate plans for collections. Visit him online at http://www.steveroachonline.com, join him on LinkedIn at http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevenroach or follow him on twitter @roachdotsteve

Rare Platinum 1814 half dollar pattern a pre-ANA auction highlight

2011-08-22T09:12:00.001-04:00

By Steve Roach - http://www.steveroachonline.com
First published in the September 5, 2011, Special Edition issue of Coin World

The recent volatility in the stock market had little impact on the Heritage sales held in Chicago, Aug. 11 to 12. That serves as a positive sign for what will likely be an exciting American Numismatic Association World’s Fair of Money.

While not the “official” ANA auction, it realized a healthy $31.345 million with 5,154 bidders competing for 7,370 lots. For comparison, the U.S. coin section of last year’s Heritage ANA auction in Boston realized just over $34 million with 7,133 lots.

Heritage’s top lot in Chicago was an 1855-S Indian Head gold $3 coin graded Proof 64 Cameo by Numismatic Guaranty Corp., described by Heritage as “arguably the single most important coin in the sale.” It realized a robust $1,322,500. At its last auction offering at Stack’s 69th Anniversary Sale in October 2004, it was graded by Professional Coin Grading Service as Branch Mint Proof 63 and sold for $276,000 — further confirming the current market’s taste for flashy, unique rarities.

The noteworthy 1893-S Morgan dollar graded Mint State 67 that was the subject of the Aug. 22 Coin World market analysis found a new home at $546,250, well above the reserve of $340,000 (or $391,000 with the 15 percent buyer’s fee).

Two other gold highlights included an 1863 Coronet $10 eagle graded Proof 65 Deep Cameo that sold for $299,000 (far more than the $138,000 that a similarly graded example sold for at a January 2008 Heritage auction), and a 1796 Capped Bust, No Stars $2.50 quarter eagle graded MS-61 that sold for $276,000.

Perhaps the wildest coin in the sale was a 1814 Capped Bust half dollar pattern struck in platinum with a lettered edge that realized $138,000. The obverse features 33 backward letters “P” punched into the surfaces, and “Platina” is engraved on the reverse. It is unique of the several known platinum patterns for the date in having the punched letters and engraving. With the post-striking impairments — likely contemporary to the coin’s production — it did not receive a numerical grade from NGC. But, as Heritage noted, “condition is all but irrelevant for this example,” and the eye appeal is “decent considering what the coin is.”

Among the major lots that did not sell was a 1921 Saint-Gaudens $20 double eagle graded PCGS MS-64 and a rare 1792 cent pattern graded Fine 15 (one of approximately 10 known) that did not meet its reserve of $379,500 (with the buyer’s fee).

Especially considering the recent financial uncertainty, the fact that the auction had a 95 percent by lot and 91 percent by value sell-through rate is impressive, showing that collectors are still willing to invest in their collections.

Steve Roach is a Dallas, Texas, based rare coin appraiser and fine art advisor who writes the world's most widely read rare coin market analysis each week in the pages of Coin World. He is also a lawyer who writes on legal topics involving fine art and collectibles, and helps create estate plans for collections. Visit him online at http://www.steveroachonline.com, join him on LinkedIn at http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevenroach or follow him on twitter @roachdotsteve

“People don’t just want to buy an object, they want to buy a story.”

2011-08-01T09:11:00.000-04:00

By Steve Roach - http://www.steveroachonline.com
First published in the Aug. 15, 2011, issue of Coin World

“People don’t just want to buy an object, they want to buy a story.”

Nicolas Chow, Sotheby’s head of Chinese works of art — a category that has exploded in the past three years — wrote this, and I find it wonderfully applicable to the coin market.

Perhaps his words resonate most deeply in specialist areas, with dedicated collector bases that are expanding as the Internet makes information more accessible and better connects people with numismatic objects that may intrigue them enough to open their wallets and set new standards for what a “market price” is.

Token collecting is accessible to most anyone as tokens are generally affordable and available. But, there’s also a high-end to the market.

On June 25 at a Steve Hayden auction featuring Civil War, Hard Times, political and merchant tokens and medals, a rare Loomis Hard Times token from Cleveland, Ohio, realized $13,450 (it had an estimate of $8,000 to $12,000).

According to Hayden, it’s one of just five known and has an ownership history going back to 1916. It was not “fresh to market” — it most recently traded at a Jan. 12, 2009, Stack’s Americana sale where it brought $4,600 and was offered at auction in 1999 and 2008 — but its high price in June was a function of the right venue and the right bidders.

That it was holed and worn wasn’t a detriment to the bidders, who had to ask themselves, “Where will I find another one?”

Pioneer gold has a higher entry point in that even the more common, low grade examples are expensive.

Mormon gold has an especially dedicated collector base. Eleven bidders fought for an 1860 Mormon gold $5 coin at the July 8 Heritage Summer Florida United Numismatists auction.

The coin’s design could be described as charming, as the obverse features a seated lion while the reverse shows an eagle behind a beehive.

It graded About Uncirculated 50 and realized a huge $80,500; where another AU-50 example auctioned several months ago at Heritage brought just $51,175.

However, in another example where grades don’t tell the whole story, a visual comparison of the two coins shows that the more recently offered example is of superior quality, with substantially stronger details. Specialists know quality and will pay for it.

Steve Roach is a Dallas, Texas, based writer, rare coin appraiser and fine art advisor who writes the world's most widely read rare coin market analysis each week in the pages of Coin World. He is also a lawyer who writes on legal topics involving fine art and collectibles, and helps create estate plans for collections. Visit him online at http://www.steveroachonline.com, join him on LinkedIn at http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevenroach or follow him on twitter @roachdotsteve

Defining value: What are the 10 Langbord 1933 gold $20 double eagles worth?

2011-07-07T15:17:00.000-04:00

By Steve Roach - http://www.steveroachonline.com

As the trial to determine who owns the “Langbord 10” 1933 Saint-Gaudens gold $20 double eagles begins July 7 in a Philadelphia federal courtroom, many are wondering what these coins are worth. The Associated Press and Time both said that the coins could be worth $80 million, or more. But is this realistic?

We know what the coins grade since Numismatic Guaranty Corp. reported Nov. 3, 2009, that it had graded one coin Mint State 66, two MS-65, six MS-64 and one with an NGC Uncirculated Details, Improperly Cleaned grade.

When pricing any object, one first looks at comparables — other objects of similar type and quality and the prices they sold for. In 2002, the 1933 double eagle allegedly owned by Egypt’s King Farouk sold for $7,590,000 at auction. It graded MS-65 and was — and currently is — the only 1933 double eagle that can be legally owned by an individual.

So if the coins are ruled private property, are the “Langbord 10” worth around $7 million each?

That’s unlikely. When multiple examples of an object enter a market, the demand/supply ratio changes. While the added publicity helps — meaning that more people know what a 1933 double eagle is and may want one — it’s not enough to compensate for the fact that the coins are not unique.

A parallel in the art market is when an artist’s estate is valued for estate tax purposes, a blockage discount is sometimes used. This assumes that the works are sold at once, depressing the market. To maximize value, prudent estates use long-range marketing, which places objects into the market slowly, responding to the ebbs and flows of demand and artist reputation.

What pricing comparables do the 1933 double eagles have?

Perhaps most obvious is the 1927-D Saint-Gaudens double eagle, considered by some the rarest regular issue coin of the 20th century. Around 10 are collectible today from a mintage of 180,000. They are sold infrequently. The last example at public auction was an MS-66 that realized $1.495 million at a January 2010 auction.

Seeing that the prices for the top objects in many collecting categories are going sky high, with proper marketing to buyers beyond the existing coin-market, the 10 Langbord 1933 double eagle coins could be worth around $2 million each, perhaps more.

But how many more examples remain to be discovered is a troubling, lingering question.

Steve Roach is a Dallas, Texas, based rare coin appraiser and fine art advisor who writes the world's most widely read rare coin market analysis each week in the pages of Coin World. He is also a lawyer who writes on legal topics involving collectibles and fine art, and helps create estate plans for collections. Visit him online at http://www.steveroachonline.com, join him on LinkedIn at http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevenroach or follow him on twitter @roachdotsteve

Pretty cool! I'll be in Philadelphia next week covering the trial of the 1933 Langbord Gold $20 Double Eagles

2011-07-05T19:58:00.000-04:00

By Steve Roach - http://www.steveroachonline.com
First published in the July 18, 2011, issue of Coin World

The federal trial that should decide whether a family or the government owns 10 1933 Saint-Gaudens gold $20 double eagles will begin July 7 in Philadelphia.

The trial of Langbord v. U.S. Department of the Treasury et al, is scheduled to start at 9 a.m. It is anticipated that the trial will take two weeks. Judge Legrome D. Davis will preside over the case in Room 6A of the U.S. District Court, 601 Market Street in Philadelphia.

Coin World's Steve roach will be attending the trial starting July 11, providing daily updates online at www.coinworld.com and through social media including Coin World’s Twitter account and its Facebook page, www.facebook.com/coinworld.

A rich history
The legal dispute over the 10 1933 Saint-Gaudens gold $20 double eagles began in 2003 when Joan Langbord, the daughter of Philadelphia coin dealer Israel Switt, allegedly learned that a family safe deposit box contained the coins. She and her two sons, Roy and David, transferred the coins to the U.S. Mint for authentication in September 2004.

In May 2005, the Mint authenticated the coins but refused to return them or initiate forfeiture proceedings. The Langbords sued the government in December 2006. On July 28, 2009, Judge Davis ordered the government to file a forfeiture action, ruling that the coins were unlawfully seized. The government filed its amended complaint for forfeiture and declaratory judgment against the Langbords and the 10 coins on Nov. 10, 2010.

The government’s case attempts to create a framework for the 10 1933 double eagles as being embezzled or stolen from the Mint and wrongfully retained. The Langbords have argued that there was a window of time where people could legitimately obtain 1933 double eagles from the Mint cashier, and that some pieces may have left the Mint that way.

At the heart of the case is the problem of proving actions alleged to have taken place in the 1930s and 1940s. To this end, both sides have retained three experts each, including numismatic experts David Enders Tripp, who is testifying on behalf of the government, and Roger Burdette, the numismatic expert retained by the Langbords.

A landmark case
The case is important for several reasons. Most obvious is that the coins are extremely valuable. On July 30, 2002, at Sotheby’s in New York, more than 700 people watched as six different bidders fought for eight minutes until the 1933 Saint-Gaudens double eagle allegedly once owned by Egypt’s King Farouk sold for $7.59 million, plus $20 to officially monetize the coin. The buyer of that coin has remained anonymous.

If the Langbord coins are legal to own, the Professional Coin Grading Service Million Dollar Coin Club estimates that they would bring $2.5 to $3.5 million each at auction. Numismatic Guaranty Corp. posted a press release to its website on Nov. 3, 2009, announcing that it had graded the Langbord coins. One was graded Mint State 66, two were MS-65, six were graded MS-64 and a single one received an NGC UNC Details, Improperly Cleaned grade. The press release was removed from the NGC website several days later, adding further mystery.

In a larger sense, any court ruling that would question a collector’s right to own coins not issued as legal tender could jeopardize other legendary U.S. rarities like the 1913 Liberty Head 5-cent coin.

Final filings
While May and June were quiet months for filings, a June 24 order required the Langbord family to provide the court with two copies of its proposed trial exhibits before June 28.

On June 27, the Langbords filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental memorandum to allow the addition of Exhibits 200 to 207 to their exhibit list and prevent the government from offering several of Tripp’s expert appendices as summary charts.

The additional exhibits the Langbords seek to add fall under two categories.

The first includes two exhibits that should have been included in the Langbords’ original list and are not new to the government: Treasury Regulations issued under the Gold Reserve Act in January 1934 and an advertisement from a 1941 issue of The Numismatist for the auction of a 1933 double eagle.

The second category includes six additional documents that the Langbords are trying to introduce in response to exhibits produced by the government during discovery. These include three reports and a memorandum from a 1937 Secret Service investigation related to the Philadelphia Mint and “obsolete and inadequate” Mint record-keeping procedures in the 1930s, a document from April 1933 considering what constitutes “hoarding” and a 1934 memo to the Cashier of the Treasurer’s Office addressing gold and other coins being made available to “fill request[s] for a few pieces of new coins for special purposes.”

Perhaps more interesting are the Langbords’ objections to admitting all or parts of several of David Tripp’s summary charts introduced into evidence by the government.

Among them is Government Exhibit 75-B, titled a “Chronology of Relevant Dates regarding the History of 1933 Double Eagles, Including the 1944-1945 Secret Service Investigation and Reported Involvement of Israel Switt.” The Langbords characterize this chronology as being based on Secret Service reports that should not be admitted at trial. The Langbords also contend that it should not be admitted because it is written as an argument for the government’s position, and selectively characterizes (or as the Langbords argue, mischaracterizes) various presidential proclamations, laws and other directives while leaving out contradictory directives and letters.

In a June 23 e-mail to Coin World, Barry H. Berke, the attorney for the Langbord family, said that he fully expects that jury selection will begin July 7, with opening statements beginning on Friday, July 8 or Monday, July 11, while noting, “It’s always possible that a trial can have an unexpected delay.”

During the five years that this case has been in litigation, the possibility of a settlement has always loomed and could happen the day before trial is scheduled to start.

***
Steve Roach is a Dallas, Texas, based rare coin appraiser and fine art advisor who writes the world's most widely read rare coin market analysis each week in the pages of Coin World. He is also a lawyer and helps create estate plans for collections. Visit him online at http://www.steveroachonline.com, join him on LinkedIn at http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevenroach or follow him on twitter @roachdotsteve

$45,000 Picasso linoleum cut? Don't bet on it! Beware the cut-down poster.

2011-06-30T09:42:00.001-04:00

Each week, I get several e-mails with people who want quick, free, answers on what something is worth. Sometimes, I can dash off a quick e-mail (and do), while others take more work and I advise them to make an appointment. Often, the people who ask want some free guidance before they buy something on if something is "right" - while framing it as wanting an appraisal for (insert legitimate-sounding purpose). But, when there is a price tag on the picture, I typically know that someone wants pre-buying thoughts.

This was an easy one, and as a case study it provides some interesting fast lessons that you can apply when "picking."

Several days ago, a lady who found me online asked me to "appraise" what she characterized as a genuine Pablo Picasso linoleum cut from 1962, numbered 45 out of an edition of 160, “Still Life with a Watermelon.” While I don’t generally provide full appraisals from photographs, I’ve seen this before, so was able to answer it quickly, dashing hopes and potentially protecting her from losing money.

Originals sell at major auctions for thousands – one sold at Sotheby’s New York in October 2010 for $43,750 on an estimate of $40,000 to $60,000.

The size, at about 24 x 30 inches appeared right, but more troubling was the edition number. 45/160 is in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and the exact image, including the pencil signature and number was a poster for “Picasso Linoleum Cuts”, an exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum in 1985.

There are cases with editioned works where there are duplicate edition numbers - this was not one of those rare instances. Sadly, posters of prints are often passed off as the real thing.

So, it was a poster, with the identifying text removed, which someone likely framed. Was it intended to be deceptive? Who knows; likely not because it was in an inexpensive frame. Still, even if the poster has some value to collectors, an incomplete poster likely has little-to-no value.

***

Steve Roach is a Dallas, Texas, based rare coin appraiser and fine art advisor who writes the world's most widely read rare coin market analysis each week in the pages of Coin World. He is also a lawyer and helps create estate plans for collections. Visit him online at http://www.steveroachonline.com, join him on LinkedIn at http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevenroach or follow him on twitter @roachdotsteve

Steve Roach's Painting of the Week:

2011-06-06T11:00:00.001-04:00

Continuing on last week's picture of cattle, here's another lively and much smaller picture. There is a lot of decorative value to be found in small-sized, unsigned 19th century paintings.

Anonymous American Luminist Landscape

Ca. 1850 to 1880

Oil on Board

$550

A charming small-scale example of (likely) nineteenth century American landscape painting with a sunset, cows, trees and a light mountain with a cross in the background.

One of my favorite passages is the tilted angle of the grey cow that is drinking from the water. Soft, atmospheric and showing the influence of the Luminist school of American painting, and artists such as Albert Bierstadt and Frederic Edwin Church. From an old east coast collection

Picture of the week: William Grant Stevenson "Cattle Watering" - $1,950

2011-06-02T18:24:00.001-04:00

Greetings! Over the summer I am going to start rolling this blog into a new and improved http://www.steveroachonline.com/ which is going to feature my coin and precious metal writing, examples from my fine art inventory and provide useful information on personal property appraisals related to my work as a fine art appraiser.

Until the launch later this summer, I'm going to spotlight some of my favorite paintings that I'm currently offering for sale, housed at my showroom at:
Lost Antiques
1201 North Riverfront Boulevard
Dallas, TX 75207-4001
(214) 741-4411

William Grant Stevenson (Scottish 1849 to 1919)
Cattle Watering
1919
$1,950

A charming traditional early 20th century painting of cattle grazing before a stone bridge in a good quality gilt frame. Stevenson was elected to the Royal Scottish Academy in 1885 and is very well-known for his beautiful pictures of animals in the countryside. In looking at examples of his work, this is one of his stronger efforts. Plus, it features cows, which Texans do love! Purchased from a London dealer.

A gentleman's adventures in dealing and collecting art

2011-01-28T11:25:00.000-05:00

After a six month hiatus, I'm coming back to this blog allowing it to become a place to share my adventures as a "gentleman art dealer" as I build my fine art appraisal business in Dallas, and buy and sell interesting 18th, 19th and 20th century paintings.

The "bread and butter" of my work is still with appraising and advising collectors on rare coins, but fine art has always brought me deep pleasure, and now working with paintings on my own has provided me with a greater understanding of what makes a painting good versus what makes a painting great (the determining factor is not always cost).

So many of these pictures have great stories behind them, and hopefully you'll learn a bit on how to make smart buying and selling decisions for your own collections.

Until then, happy collecting! Steve!

Steve Roach Online: http://www.steveroachonline.com/

Rare Coin Market Report: http://www.coinmarketreport.com/

Steve Roach Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevenroach

Visit my wares at:

Lost Antiques

1201 North Riverfront Blvd

Dallas, TX 75207

Ciao for now!

2010-08-19T10:21:00.002-04:00

After almost five years and more than 30,000 views, my blogging at this page is coming to an end.

I'll still update on Twitter and I invite you to join my network on LinkedIn.

I’ll continue to write all about the rare coin market and collecting each week in the pages of Coin World and post selected writings online at www.coinmarketreport.blogspot.com.

Several posts have been left including the 2006 posting on how I passed the Texas Bar Exam which, even after four years, continues to get hundreds of views from nervous test-takers during February and July.

Thanks for five great years!
Steve Roach
www.steveroachonline.com

When is a museum's deaccessioning of a major work appropriate? Thoughts on Columbus' sale of Eakins "The Wrestlers"

2010-07-30T14:47:00.005-04:00

The blog “Los Angeles County Museum on Fire” posted a great new entry on July 24 titled “How LACMA Got ‘The Wrestlers,’” a large Thomas Eakins painting recently acquired by the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) and formerly in the collection of Ohio’s Columbus Museum of Art and National Academy of Design. The picture was the inspiration for "Manly Pursuits: The Sporting Images of Thomas Eakins" currently on view at LACMA.

LACMA on Fire explains how “The Wrestlers” – now perhaps the finest American painting in LACMA’s collection – was deaccessioned by two museums – Columbus and the National Academy of Design.

I say that Columbus made a smart move.

The blog seems takes issue with a museum like Columbus selling its masterpiece, summarizing it with, “no, you shouldn’t take away the picture that put Columbus on the map.” Drawing on an article by LACMA curator Ilene Susan Fort, the implication is that the homoeroticism of the Eakins’ “Wrestlers” made it an image “inappropriate for a moderate-size art museum in middle America.”

However, there’s practical concerns in having a great painting that doesn’t fit into a collection, taking up resources that may be better spent elsewhere.

I lived in Columbus from 2003 to 2006, and remember visiting the museum and seeing “The Wrestlers” in situ, where it occupied a wall in a hallway next to the cafeteria. It was an odd picture, indeed, and I had the feeling that it was “out of place.” Even a visit to the Columbus Museum’s highlights page for “Nineteenth-Century American” shows a group of pretty landscapes, still lifes, and pretty examples by John Singer Sargent and Winslow Homer. Nothing gritty or challenging like the Eakins.

In 2005, Columbus discretely sold its large Eakins, leaving a competent if a bit sad portrait of Weda Cook in the collection to represent Eakins and his realism (pictured below). That the sold painting went to a larger museum where it can be seen by many more people means that the loss of public access is not a concern. Further, LACMA already owns another version of "The Wrestlers" which will allow the work to be seen in a fuller context.

The museum made a business decision to liquidate a non-performing asset to acquire works that they can use to better engage the public and shed light on other works in their core collection.

Columbus is not a universal museum telling the history of art. Its pre 1850 pictures are effectively featured, Salon style, in a single room, but include a wonderful cabinet-sized Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres, “Raphael and the Baker’s Daughter,” and a huge and imposing Artemisa Gentileschi. Columbus is first and foremost a museum of European and American modernism.

The 1991 acquisition of the Howard D. and Babette L. Sirak collection of Impressionist, Post-Impressionist and modernist works had a lot of heft and depth to it. A great example is the Alexej Jawlensky “Schokko with a Red Hat,” a picture that would be a top-work at any museum worldwide (below). In fact, the picture was once a two-sided portrait. The other picture was detached and set a record in 2008, selling at auction for $18.6 million. Read the story on that here.

The museum's early acquisition of the Ferdinand Howald collection in 1931 provided the museum with some top-rate works by Picasso and Matisse. The Picasso, “Still Life with Compote and Glass” has one of the most intricate surfaces of any Picasso I’ve ever seen (pictured below).

The American collection has phenomenal pictures by Columbus’ own George Bellows, a fantastic Marsden Hartley (pictured below), and the presentation is a virtual textbook of 20^th century American art up to 1950.

It would be false to suggest that money was not a motive in Columbus selling its Eakins. But, if it was purely money that the museum was after, some duplicate Bellows would likely raise enough money for their acquisition goals. Surely the great Hartley, the Hopper, or even one of the four or five Monets would raise millions.

The museum has done some pruning of its Old Masters in recent years, with lesser examples showing up at the auctions of the past few years. For a museum that will likely contain its pre-1850 European paintings to a single room, such a move seems prudent.

The museum used the Eakins funds to buy the social realist collection put together by Philip J. and Suzanne Schiller. To regular museum goers, the pictures represent artists generally not shown in depth and support other key pictures in the collection, such as the bold 1998 acquisition "Herrin Massacre" by Paul Cadmus (below). In the three galleries devoted to the pictures, a story is told unique to the Columbus Museum and rather than having a singular painting that is of interest to a handful, it has a collection with the power to engage a community.

I think more museums should think like Columbus: using a great, but ultimately non-confirming painting to fund the purchase of multiple works that better fit the museum’s goals.

Dallas Rothko case begs questions about how much control sellers have once they sell

2010-05-19T17:37:00.002-04:00

A Dallas art collector’s lawsuit involving a Mark Rothko painting that just sold for $31.4 at auction asks the question of how much control can a collector expect to have over an object once its sale goes through?

Dallas collector Marguerite Hoffman filed suit in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas on May 11 against dealer L&M Arts, Sotheby’s, its head auctioneer Tobias Meyer, and David Martinez and his holding firm, Studio Capital, Inc., which Hoffman’s attorneys suggest was formed with he purpose of concealing Martinez’ art buying activities from the public. (Image of Tobias Meyer in front of the Rothko, with a Pollock to the left, from http://www.thecityreview.com/s10scon1.html).

The lawsuit involves an 8-foot tall painting with rich Orange colors, painted in 1961 by Mark Rothko. It was estimated at $18 to 25 million and sold for a strong $31.4 million. The picture was described in Sotheby’s catalogue as coming from a “private collection” and the provenance lists the painting as acquired from L&M Arts, New York and notes its inclusion in the 2007 Dallas Museum of Art exhibit “Fast Forward: Contemporary Collections for the Dallas Museum of Art.” The picture was at one time a promised-gift to the institution, but changing financial circumstances following the untimely death of Hoffman’s husband forced her to sell the painting.

Hoffman’s petition is noteworthy for its dramatic language, and its harsh assessment of Meyer, whose values are characterized as “mundane and materialistic.” It claims that Sotheby’s and Meyer committed a tort to secure the painting by forcing Martinez to break his contractual promise to make “maximum effort” to keep “all aspects” of the transaction confidential. The confidentiality portion of the agreement was essential to Hoffman as she “was determined to avoid the embarrassment that she believed would ensue if the fact of the sale became public.”

Shopping at the Dallas Museum of Art

A sad point is that Martinez effectively went shopping at the museum while the painting was on display in the “Fast Forward” show, traveling in secret to Texas to view the painting as it was on the wall of the Dallas museum. The sale agreement was dated Feb. 27, 2007 - while the painting was on display and (presumably) an assumed gift to the institution.

Apparently Martinez made a promise when he bought the painting in 2007 to keep it in his private collection indefinitely and in return for this promise, Hoffman received less than its fair market value, or less than it would bring at auction. The lawsuit states that: “Martinez traded his written promise for the promise of a cash bonanza.”

Some interesting points in the filing:

The assertion that “times have changed. The Rothko market is hot” as the reasoning for Martinez flipping at auction. Couldn’t the same be said in 2007 when it sold? Several months after Hoffman sold the picture, an earlier Rothko “White Center (Yellow, Pink and Lavender on Rose)” sold at a Sotheby’s auction for $72,840,000 (pictured below, right). Wouldn’t this argument be stronger if Martinez cashed out immediately, rather than waiting for the market to crash and be reborn?

How enforceable is a contract agreement that seeks to maximize the confidentiality of “all aspects of the transaction indefinitely,” and why wasn’t there a specific provision that addressed the possibility that buyer would try to “flip” the painting at auction for a quick profit? The contract addressed a breach before the delivery of the painting, but not post-delivery.

How could L&M specify with certainty that the painting would “disappear” into Martinez’ collection and why would it set itself up for the embarrassment when such a tough restriction failed to be met?

Desperation at Sotheby’s

Martinez was opportunistic in selling the painting, and the filing paints Sotheby’s as desperate for it. The lawsuit maintains that Tobias Meyer was desperate for high-quality marquee works for the evening sale as rival Christie’s had just secured two major collections: Frances Lasker Brody which included a Picasso that sold for $106 million making it the most expensive painting ever sold at auction and the Michael Crichton collection which realized nearly $100 million. The papers refer to a New Yorker profile of Meyer and describes him as aggressive and ready to pounce on an acquisition noting, “Meyer makes no bones about the fact that he has few scruples.” That Meyer had been coveting this painting for 15 years made it even more of a prize.

The demand for relief includes a request that all parties involved refrain from publicly discussing, commenting on or referring to the 2007 sale.

For its part, the Dallas Museum of Art has supported Hoffman, noting that the collection displayed in Fast Forward was intended to be fluid, and that the collection would “continue to evolve and change.” For its part, Sotheby’s has dismissed the suit without merit and L&M has stated that its actions were consistent with the highest ethical standards.

Now that “the cat’s out of the bag,” it will be interesting to see where this goes and if further filings shed more light on the collecting habits of Martinez.

LACMA's curious new Henner

2010-04-27T16:02:00.001-04:00

By Steve Roach
First published in Steve Roach and the art of law

The Los Angeles County Museum of Art has a clever way of selecting and funding some of the art for its collection. Each year it hosts a Collectors Committee event, where donors pool resources to purchase works for the collection. Curators from the various departments present works, giving short but passionate presentations on the object’s importance, condition and its place in the collection.

The members come together for dinner and vote on which pieces to acquire. The 2010 event raised more than $2 million dollars, and purchased some great objects, including what is perhaps the oddest choice in recent memory: “Portrait of Madame Paul Duchesne-Fournet,” by the forgotten academic painter Jean-Jacques Henner (pictured left). It’s the type of painting that most museums today have in storage, if they haven’t already deaccessioned it as it does not fit in with the public’s conception of painting in France at the end of the 19th century which is generally either Impressionism or Bouguereau.

Such was the case with the only expensive Henner to sell at auction in recent years, a sensual “Mary Magdelene” that sold at Sotheby’s in New York for $57,000 against a $25,000 to $35,000 estimate (pictured right). That piece has been let go from a museum's collection not once, but twice. It was bequeathed to the Metropolitan Museum in New York in 1891 by Sarah M. Hitchcock, and in 1928 left the collection. It went through five intermediaries in the next two years until landing in the collection of the Toledo Museum of Art where it remained until it was deaccessioned with several other European paintings in 2007. The picture was last shown in Toledo in 2005, in the exhibit, "The Unseen Art of TMA: What's in the Vaults and Why?"

First of all, I have not seen LACMA's new Henner in person nor did I have any knowledge of it during my time at Christie’s 19th Century European Paintings department. However, for the $335,000 price tag, I would have loved to have seen the curator’s performance, described as "memorable," on why LACMA had to have this piece, because from both a historic and aesthetic perspective, the picture seems a curious choice.

Henner and the academic tradition
In LACMA’s Unframed blog, Curator J. Patrice Marandel is quoted as stating, “Among the portrait painters of his generation, Henner developed a distinctive style. Less voluptuous than Carlous-Duran’s but more spirited than Leon Bonnat’s, Henner’s portraits were particularly appealing to a clientele eager to display in a dignified manner their newly acquired wealth and social rank.” The best talking point for the picture from the curator is not the quality itself, but that Henner charged his subject 10,000 francs for the picture.

An essay in The Collector and Art Critic, Vol. 3, No. 11 from September 1905, notes that “Henner is noted for his deadly coloring in his women’s faces, making them look like opium or arsenic victims; for his elusive outline and the russet hair of his models. His best part is the richness of his color, distinguished by the florid beauty of chromatic opposites…he may have often repeated the same note, yet his sonnets in paint were always tuneful and harmonious.” If the deadly coloring of an arsenic victim is ineed Henner's trademark, then LACMA's picture is at least typical in that regard.

Likely part of the presentation compared the work to John Singer Sargent's great "Madame X (Madame Pierre Gautreau)" of 1883-4 in the Metropolitan Museum, although the Henner lacks nearly all the elements that makes the Sargent so striking (and so daring).

As the witty and dead-on blog “LACMA on Fire” pointed out, when American museums have Henners, they’re not by choice, rather “They were given them long ago, after the death of the aristocratic sitters.” The anonymous author of that blog suggests that the impetus for the Henner's acquisition came from a Dia Foundation-organized show that traveled to LACMA in 2008 where artist Francis Alys collected around 300 copies of Saint Fabiola, a “once-famous, now lost, painting by Henner” (image of the show pictured, right). The show was described as a “clever postmodern Alys goofing off poor academic Henner, butt of a joke he’d n ever understand.”

Henner’s market and comparables
The auction market for Henner works is heavily skewed towards the bottom, with works of questionable authenticity, poor-condition or incompleteness selling frequently at regional auctions for $5,000 to $15,000. An example of a nicer “cheap” Henner is this “Portrait of Young Woman” that sold at Piasa for $8,250 against an estimate of around $2,000 to $3,000 (pictured right, top). Occasionally an example of almost comically low quality pops up at a smaller auction house, such as the picture “Red and Blue” that showed up at James D. Julia and sold for $1,380 against an $800 to $1,200 estimate in 2009 (pictured right, lower).

Looking at peer artists like Charles Carolus-Duran finds another large nearly two meter high portrait that sold at Sotheby’s in New York for $45,000 against a $30,000 to $40,000 estimate (pictured left). It’s a bit sexier than the new LACMA piece. A large Leon Bonnat genre painting, “The Broken Pitcher” sold at Christie’s New York for $180,000 against a $100,000 to $150,000 estimate, but it too had a greater decorative quality. A beautiful and large Leon Perrault, “The Young Seamstress” sold at Sotheby’s New York for $144,000 against an estimate of $25,000 to $35,000. But like the Bonnat, it was pretty and decorative.

The closest auction comparable from recent memory is a large portrait by the French society artist Jacques Emile Blanche, of similar size, but more animated in the composition with a real personality behind the sitter. “Portrait of the Comtesse de Greffuhle” went unsold at an estimate of $400,000 to $600,000.

There is a near total-absence of comparable prices for large academic portraits, as most sellers are unprepared to accept the generally low estimates that have to accompany these pictures to make them sell at auction. The aggressive estimate on the Blanche effectively killed all interest in the piece.

Thus, those looking to value these large academic portraits are left with few comps, instead relying on instinct and a perception of quality. It will be interesting to see how the new work is displayed, and in what context.

CPAC to address import restrictions on ancient coins

2010-04-19T17:20:00.002-04:00

Coin hobby issues call to fight anticipated Italian request to restrict importation of some ancient coins into United States
By Steve Roach
First published in the May 3, 2010 issue of Coin World

The Ancient Coin Collectors Guild is urging collectors to voice their opposition to a possible failure to exempt coins in an upcoming renewal of a Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and Italy. Unless coins are specifically exempted, there could be import restrictions on many classical coins. A major problem is that no one is quite sure what such import restrictions would include and how they would be enforced should they be adopted by the U.S. State Department.

As reported in the April 26 issue of Coin World, the U.S. State Department’s Cultural Property Advisory Committee will meet on May 6 and 7 to discuss a request for renewal of import restrictions on a variety of objects that Italy claims as its state cultural heritage. The window for public comment closes on April 22. The bilateral agreement between Italy and the United States was formed in 2001, renewed in January 2006 and is up for renewal in 2010.

The agreement is centered on Italy’s efforts to protect its cultural heritage from looting and smuggling. The notice of the CPAC meeting in the April 7 Federal Register did not indicate if Italy has formally requested that import restrictions on coins be added to current restrictions.

The ACCG anticipates that an attempt will be made in the session to add coins to the list of restricted objects. The organization issued a press release on April 13 noting that while coins have been exempted twice before from similar Italian requests, if coins are added, “this would mean that ancient coins minted in what is now Italy will require either an export permit from Italy or documentation indicating that they left Italy prior to the effective date of the restriction.”

A problematic situation
Ute Wartenberg Kagan, executive director of the American Numismatic Society, expresses much of the uncertainty in the possible restrictions, stating: “I am not sure I fully understand what restrictions would be imposed on coins from Italy or how customs officials would be able to enforce them. While Roman coins circulated all over the Mediterranean world, even in India and beyond, it is uncertain how import restrictions for Roman coins would help significantly the protection of archaeological sites in Italy.”

She adds: “Greek coins from Sicily or southern Italy did not circulate much outside their area and are almost all found in Italy. So I get this particular case, but not Italy as an entity. I very much hope that CPAC, and more importantly the State Department, which ultimately decides on these issues, consider that museums and many U.S. collectors make ancient coins available to researchers and the general public. Any rule has to be transparent to administer for museums and collectors.”

Including coins in the restricted objects would be problematic for a number of reasons. First, the restrictions would likely be applied to objects of “Italian” type entering the United States from any country, not just Italy. Second, only a tiny percentage of the millions of Roman and Greek coins from southern Italy and Sicily that have been traded in established and legitimate markets for hundreds of years have documentation.

Scott Rottinghaus, American Numismatic Association governor and Roman coin collector, characterizes the application of import restrictions on coins as against the interests of the American public. “Since ancient coins are so common, the provenances and individual import licenses from the Republic of Italy that are anticipated by these regulations would in practice be difficult or impossible to obtain. “Because Roman coins circulated throughout the ancient world, they are found far from present-day Italy, commonly in places like the United Kingdom, which was part of the Roman Empire, and less commonly in more far-flung places like India. It seems unreasonable for Italy to claim ownership of an ancient coin found in India, just because the coin was minted in Rome,” Rottinghaus said.

The ACCG warns that “any mandated documentation would make orphans of these coins already in collections and the associate trade,” and that the potential import restrictions “would shift the burden of proof to the buyer instead of the accuser when an import is detained and/or seized for supposed illegal entry.” However, no one knows what such documentation would look like or what it would entail.

A 2009 report of the Cultural Policy Research Institute estimates the number of Greek and Roman coins in private hands without an established provenance at “not less than 700,000,” consisting of from 200,000 to 300,000 Greek and 500,000 to 600,000 Roman coins.

Peter Tompa, an attorney actively involved in the ACCG, wrote on his blog “Cultural Property Observer” that “by its very nature, an extension suggests a continuation, not a major expansion of a current agreement to include a whole new class of artifacts actively collected by tens of thousands of Americans. Unfortunately, based on the last minute inclusion of coins in the extension of the Cyprus Memorandum of Understanding in 2007 (publicly announced the day of the CPAC hearing), anything is possible when the secretive State Department bureaucracy is running the show.”

Cyprus precedent
Tompa was commenting on an action by the U.S. State Department on July 16, 2007, that imposed restrictions on the importation of ancient coins “of Cypriot types” issued before A.D. 225. That action reversed a longstanding tradition that exempted coins from such restrictions, and the State Department did not state any justification supporting the addition of coins.

The ACCG has aggressively sought information related to the CPAC’s somewhat opaque decision-making process through multiple Freedom of Information Act requests and a lawsuit related to the FOIA requests.
On Nov. 20, 2009, a judge ruled in favor of the State Department, finding that the government’s search for documents requested by the ACCG was adequate and that the withheld information was reasonable.
The import restrictions on coins of possible Cypriot origin give Customs officers broad discretion to detain any coin that “looks Cypriot.”

U.S. Customs has not shown a strong interest in enforcing the Cypriot restrictions, although a group of 23 inexpensive Chinese and Cypriot coins imported from the United Kingdom was seized by Customs in Baltimore in 2009.

The coins were imported by agents acting for the ACCG to test the legitimacy of the import restrictions, and on Feb. 11, the ACCG filed suit against the U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the State Department, asking that the court declare that the import restrictions affecting coins of Cypriot and Chinese type as arbitrary and capricious.

2009 public session
The last public comment session on the Italian Memorandum was held Nov. 13, 2009, at the State Department offices in Washington, D.C., where the collector interests and archaeological interests seemed very much opposed.

Tompa spoke on behalf of the International Association of Professional Numismatists and the Professional Numismatists Guild. Kerry Wetterstrom, publisher of the monthly magazine The Celator, spoke on behalf of the ACCG, warning that the proposed revisions may create a “one-way street” in terms of trade and effectively prevent American collectors from participating in the hobby of ancient coin collecting.

Directors of major museums including the Indianapolis Museum of Art, Baltimore’s Walters Art Museum and the Minneapolis Institute of Arts focused their comments on the benefits of mutually beneficial loan arrangements and the role of legal markets in facilitating international trade.

Representatives of the archaeological community included Patty Gerstenblith of the Lawyers’ Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation and Sebastian Heath of the Archaeological Institute of America, who is also a research scientist at the ANS. Stefano De Caro of the Italian Ministry of Culture acknowledged that while Italy has not always done all that it could do to protect its cultural heritage, it wanted the same protections that Cyprus received.

Industry response
While ACCG founder and executive director Wayne Sayles has characterized this issue as a “cultural property war” consisting of “a bitter turf war between private collectors, independent scholars, museums, nationalist governments and archaeologists,” the issue is perhaps more nuanced.
The ANS has published a statement on the subject, where the ANS “recognizes the importance of legislative and treaty provisions aimed at curbing illicit traffic in archaeological artifacts,” while at the same time showing its awareness that in the case of coins, “such measures can have the unintended effects of placing an undue burden on lawful collecting, legitimate numismatic trade, and scholarly research.”

Several dealers in ancient coins, including Harlan J. Berk Ltd. and Classical Numismatic Group Inc., have sent e-mails urging their clients help to prevent the possible import restrictions. Educational Coin Co., a firm that offers “more than 300 million pieces from over 200 different countries” at a wholesale level, has taken an ad in this week’s Coin World urging collectors to oppose import restrictions, warning collectors that “what is happening to Ancient Coins today can easily happen to World Coins tomorrow and even to certain types of American coins.” The ad urges the collector community to speak up in opposition to restrictions on cultural property, adding, “If our voice is loud enough, it will most certainly be heard.”

Lively debate
While the voice of collectors has been present in considering these issues, the side favoring national patrimony and, largely, the archaeological community has been equally vocal. It will be up to the CPAC, which has historically lacked transparency in its decision making, to weigh the merits of the collector’s perspective against the interests of archaeologists and Italy’s interest in what it considers its cultural heritage. David Vagi, director of ancient coins at Numismatic Guaranty Corp., is not particularly hopeful that the collector arguments will be considered by the committee. “A defining characteristic of this debate is a blatant lack of sincerity on the part of CPAC to consider other views,” Vagi said, adding, “so long as openness to other perspectives does not exist, no measure of logic or reason can prevail.”

Coins are different from other antiquities, as Tompa pointed out in an essay published in the 2005 book, Who Owns the Past? Their wide circulation makes them impossible to link to any one modern nation-state who can claim them as cultural patrimony, and many coins are recovered outside archaeological sites. Some nations have taken a progressive approach to the issue of looting and preserving cultural heritage, and requested museums return certain items in their collections.

While it is unclear exactly if coins are still on the mind of the Italian government, everyone can agree that the plundering of ancient sites is wrong, and results in the destruction of history. This is an issue steeped in politics, with potentially large ramifications for collectors should a large category of ancient coins be subject to import restrictions.

The ACCG has set up a free Fax Wizard that will send concerns about the possible inclusion of coins in the Italian Memorandum directly to the Cultural Property Advisory Committee. Access to this free service is available at the ACCG Web site at: www.accg.us.

The Archaeological Institute of America also has a Web resource that provides its view of the Italian Memorandum, although not specific to coins. Its own fax form, along with a background information and guidance on how to write an effective letter.

The Best of Both Worlds: Steve Roach featured in April, 2010 Texas Bar Journal!

2010-04-01T17:35:00.002-04:00

By Ellen Carnes, Texas Bar Journal

First published in April, 2010 Texas Bar Journal

Available online here

Like many students, Steve Roach worked his way through law school. Unlike many students, his job involved handling almost half a million dollars worth of gold coins every week. Roach worked as a coin grader, using his lifelong interest in coins and fine art to determine the condition and value of rare coins. Since then, Roach — now a Dallas attorney, art appraiser, licensed auctioneer, and editor at Coin World — has been straddling the worlds of art and law.

As an art appraiser, Roach assigns a value to pieces of art, rare coins, and other collectibles. Being a lawyer, Roach says, is invaluable to his appraisal and collection management practice. He works with many attorneys, often for clients who are going through divorces, settling estates, or donating parts of their collections. “I’m able to anticipate what they will need,” he says. “I know the drill.”

He also works with collectors to assist them with estate planning for their collections, and with those who inherited collections. “People plan for their traditional investments like IRAs or stocks, while neglecting their art, coins, and other valuable personal property when making their estate plans.”

Roach has loved art his entire life and can trace his passion for coin collecting to his grandmother, who gave him his first rare coins when he was growing up in Michigan. He went on to major in art history at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Mich., where he spent his summers working with rare coin dealers. After a year in Dallas as a coin grader and trader at Heritage Rare Coin Galleries, he decided to pursue a law degree.

“I thought it was the ultimate academic challenge,” he says, “and that art and the law would be the best of both worlds.” After graduation, Roach returned to Heritage to lead its trusts and estate department, and then moved to New York as a specialist in the 19th century European paintings department of Christie’s, the world’s largest auction house.

Currently, he is associate editor of Coin World, the leading publication for coin collectors. “I love the freedom to write about the things I love — coins and collecting,” he says. Through his work at Coin World and his growing estate planning and art appraisal practice, Roach has had the opportunity to “handle interesting objects and meet interesting people, but, above all, to see more and learn more.”

It’s an especially exciting time to be an attorney involved in fine art and the larger area of cultural property. There are numerous stolen art cases involving items looted during World War II, as well as artifacts with questionable provenances from Italy, Cyprus, Greece, and the Middle East. A Pennsylvania family recently discovered nearly a dozen 1933 Double Eagle gold coins (one sold for $7.6 million in 2002) in a forgotten
safety deposit box. When the U.S. Treasury seized the coins, asserting they must have been stolen years earlier, the family took the conflict to court. Another recent lawsuit, brought by private coin collecting groups against the U.S. government, challenged the restrictions on importing ancient coins from Cyprus and China. This is part of a larger debate in the art world: Do antiquities, like ancient coins, belong to the country of origin or to the private collectors who have acquired them? “Being an attorney,” Roach says,
“I get to contribute to the dialogue, and I love that.”

You can read more about the overlapping worlds of art and law on Roach’s website, www.steveroachonline.com.

Andy Warhol Authentication Lawsuit...Total Market Domination!

2007-07-20T11:21:00.001-04:00

I’ve been reading with a lot of interest about the recent suit against the Andy Warhol Art Authentication Board. The claimant owns a silkscreen Warhol self-portrait similar to the image used on the US postage stamp a few years back. It has been denied by the Warhol Foundation twice, in 2001 and 2003. Claimant is seeking $20 million in damages and accuses the Foundation and the Authentication Board of being a “deeply corrupt enterprise” that deliberately drives up the value of the Warhol’s work by limiting the supply of Warhols on the market for the past 20 years, with the purpose of achieving “total domination” of Warhol’s market. (Insert image of Dr. Evil from Austin Powers here).

My initial response was in favor of the foundation. Isn’t that what foundations are supposed to do? Aren’t they fulfilling their duties by the careful regulation and placement of an artists’ body of work into the stream of commerce in order to maximize its market value and scholarly reputation through careful placement?

But, it’s not that easy. But the most troubling is that the suit raises the serious conflict of interest of entwined organizations that have the sole power to authenticate works for market acceptance, and then provide works for this market at the same time. The lawsuit says the main purpose of the Foundation and Board is to reject as many works as possible to induce artificial scarcity in the market and by doing so increase the value of its own holdings. With an overheated market where buyers don’t want to take the time to research, authentication is a necessity.

The Foundation based its denial on its observation that the background features were printed rather than handpainted and that the density of the half-tone had flaws. It stamped “Denied” on the back, which subsequently bled through the front.

The picture itself does not have a crystal clear provenance. There are lots of fake Andy Warhols, and lots of Andy Warhols which are of ambiguous authenticity because his production method required many studio assistants with access to the silkscreens. The idea of even defining what constitutes an authentic Warhol is problematic.

Charlie Finch writes on the website Artnet, “A few years after Andy died in 1987, whispers abounded that, if you visited a certain tavern in Hell’s Kitchen and asked the right bartender, you could purchase one of the silkscreens that Rupert Smith used to create many late Warhols, get your own squeegee and make "Andys" yourself. Allegedly Smith, dying of AIDS, felt embittered by his treatment by Warhol’s minions and sought revenge.” The work in question was purchased by the claimant in 1989 for $195,000. Its origins are unclear, but it is said to have been given to a publisher in exchange for stereo equipment back in 1964.

When Warhols are selling for more than $70,000,000, there is a lot of money riding on this. Unfortunately, it is the market that decides the worth of an object and it is the market that accepts the authentication of the Board and the Foundation. If the Board is so corrupt in its authentication, then why would the Warhol market have so much steam, and why would the Board’s approval be so golden? And I wonder if it has ever denied authentication to a Warhol Oxidation painting (pictured Left)?

Thoughts on the Texas Bar Exam - How I Passed.

2006-11-03T22:20:00.000-05:00

As an introduction, I wrote this right after the bar exam because I wanted to record my experiences while they were fresh 1) to help other people and 2) to help myself in the event that I didn't do well. I am so thankful that I passed the bar exam. Now that I passed, why not share my experiences with taking the Texas bar exam with the hope that it may help someone else.

I took Barbri and was overall content with it. I thought it prepared me well. In Dallas, it is at a dumpy, or charming depending on your attitude banquet hall called Eddie Dean’s Ranch. That I couldn't find an image of it on the web says something of its quality. If spending $2500 for a course wasn’t enough, parking is $5 a day. Some of the professors are excellent. Constitutional Law with Chemerinski stands out because he not only memorized his entire presentation, but also made it funny. Only one stood out as extremely bad and that was Alderman with consumer rights. For a topic that most people have no experience with, he succeeded in making it difficult, and I think he actually tried to make it harder so that he could get a few extra days out of BarBri. But, overall I felt that Barbri got me thinking about the topics more than I would have without it.

Also, I should preface this with this: I graduated from a school in Ohio. I had never taken sales, commercial paper, secured transactions, bankruptcy, oil and gas, consumer law, or criminal procedure. So, I was a little nervous about all of the new topics.

I took the BarBri Texas Civil & Criminal Procedure and Evidence workshop. DO NOT TAKE THIS OPTIONAL CLASS. It is a joke, a waste of money, and if I actually knew something about consumer law (see above), I think that this class would violate something. It exists because Barbri expects you to fear the exam (well, they know you fear it) and that the fear will make you do anything to get an edge on the competition. You sit in a room and watch a video with the same information as the BarBri in-class lectures. The lecturers go over everything, giving you no idea what is important or what isn’t. Spending a few hours with old exams, then taking you and a friend out to dinner would be more beneficial. BarBri should be embarrassed that this course is associated with their program.

Studying for the bar exam was more difficult than I thought, and to justify my study I kept looking at bar passage statistics. For example, where I went to law school has a bar passage rate of 88% and the peer-school in Dallas has a similar rate. The overall stats for Texas overall is around 75%, 80% for first time test takers, but 70% for those outside of the state. Those who took PMBR from the peer-school in Dallas was like 95%. I could find a stat to prove I would pass, and that made me feel better. It almost felt like studying, too!

Barbri starts near the end of May and it consists of lectures every day on a topic. This goes on until early July. You get a pre-filled out outline and you fill in the blanks in class. Some outlines are more effective than others and sometimes you get stuck writing a lot. I did not take the PMBR class before the bar exam, but I did take the 3 day refresher after the exam. I thought that the 3 day was great, because if nothing else, it scared me in to going into crazy-mode study. PMBR makes this test purposely hard to scare you and to assure you of the value of the program. But, I thought it was a good overview of tough topics and while expensive, I felt more prepared because of it. Also, I thought that the questions from PMBR were challenging in a good way and forced me to learn.

So how much did I study? This is the truth. I went to Barbri every day and paid really close attention in class. I re-read the notes from the class at night very slowly to really understand everything. I would sometimes read the Conviser mini-outline before a class, but only sometimes. So for the first month or so I would go to class and then spend 2 hours or so after class reviewing notes.

After Barbri was done, I specifically prepared for the MBE first (40%). The month before the exam, I kept doing the review, but started to do some of the BarBri questions when I felt like it. I did around 400 of the BarBri questions before PMBR. After PMBR, I did 500 more of the questions out of the blue book. Between the practice tests and my review questions, I did around 1300 questions. My score on the practice Barbri test was 106, 46th percentile. My score on the PMBR test was 84, 39th percentile. However, my success rate on the PMBR blue questions was 67% . I felt confident going into it. My final score on the MBE was well above average.

I studied for the essays closer to the exam (40%). The three weeks before the exam, I started outlining the answers to the essay question. I actually only wrote out a few whole answers, which in retrospect I should have done more of. It’s easier to cheat when you do an outline because you can justify it to yourself and not be forced to learn it. I outlined around 6-9 essays per question, so for a topic like wills, I would do around 15 questions. Overall I outlined and learned around 100 answers.

I knew nothing for the procedure and evidence part of the test (10%). I did the extra workshop offered by Barbri (see above), but I learned the most by reviewing old tests. I did 8 tests of each, for a total of 16. I thought this prepared me well. I worked hard on this topic.

I didn’t really prepare for the MPT (10%). I read a few answers, and went over the workshop notes, but by the time it was time to study for the MPT, I didn’t have the energy. Again, I’m not used to handwriting essays and I felt like this was a huge disadvantage. I finished with just enough time and I feel like I could have done better. Again, if you have a computer, I would recommend using it.

One thing that I didn’t expect was the amount of study I would do the nights before the exam parts. I was consumed with this feeling of what if I missed by one point and what more can I do. I found this study very productive. Before the MBE I went over all of the questions from the PMBR blue book that I got wrong and the PMBR charts from the blue book. Before the essays, I went over all of the essay answers one more time that I had worked on. I refreshed myself on a few topics that I was not fresh on.

I felt ready when I took the exam. When I was done with the exam, I didn’t know how to feel. I felt like I might have passed, and felt good that I did my best, but at the same time I felt this horrible what if feeling and imagined how it would feel to fail. I woke up the next morning worried and drained. In a test where a passing score is around 65% right, its hard to feel good afterwards. I wasn’t happy or sad, just glad that I in theory never had to take an exam like this again.

The first thing that I did after the exam was go home and clean my apartment and rid it of all of my study aids. I gathered notes, books, flashcards, earplugs, everything bar related and put it in a box. I didn’t return my books because I thought that they were useful and, this little fear inside of me of “what if I need to use these again?”

In retrospect, I would have done some things differently. I would have signed up for the 3 day PMBR earlier and worked on the MBE questions at the beginning to feel confident for the Barbri practice MBE. I would have typed the exam, no questions asked, even if it would have meant buying a computer. My answers were sloppy, my handwriting bad, and my spelling atrocious. But, I had something to say for every answer and understood the questions. When I was done, I felt like I passed, but the 14 week wait sucks. I think my biggest fear was that I would miss it by a point. The worst part was the week before results are released.

The studying wasn’t so bad, it was the thought in the back of my mind of what if all of this doesn’t work and I have to take it again, and how it would disappoint some people, and make some happy. That feeling is horrible. I was thinking, I didn't go out and drink for two months for this!!!

This is for people who have to deal with someone who is studying for the bar exam. Be prepared for a grumpy, rather spazzy person. The first month of study is this general worry that turns to a more specific, what will happen when I fail this test the second half. I ate twice what I normally eat, but actually lost weight because of my anxiety. I got bad skin. My escape was junky TV that was extremely brainless, ie. My Super Sweet 16. But, I passed and it was worth it. I hope that you found this helpful!