The Fine Art Blog

Posthumous Jean-Michel Basquiat Prints: Collectible or NOT?

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph K. Levene) — Sat, 27 Sep 2025 13:05:00 -0400

Pace Prints: The Controversy Surrounding Posthumous Jean-Michel Basquiat Prints

Jean-Michel Basquiat, 2 Volume Catalogue Set edited by Enrico Navarra originally released in 1996

Jean-Michel Basquiat, one of the most iconic and influential artists of the 1980s, passed away at the age of 27. His work has since been recognized as a groundbreaking contribution to contemporary art, and his legacy has only grown over the years.

No official Jean-Michel Basquiat Catalogue Raisonné
While there is no official Jean-Michel Basquiat catalogue raisonné, legendary art dealer and collector Enrico Navarra published a comprehensive two-volume survey of Basquiat's work in 1996. This resource, updated in 2000, is considered the bible for authentic artworks by Jean-Michel Basquiat. It is estimated that Basquiat created approximately 700-800 paintings and 1,500 drawings/works on paper. Notably, he only created a handful of original print editions, none published in editions larger than about 24 impressions, the majority having only 10 examples.

After Basquiat’s death, his family, including his father and sisters, played pivotal roles in commercializing his work. They authorized about a dozen posthumous print editions and, in some cases, even edited and altered artworks from their original source. While these posthumous print editions were authorized by the Basquiat estate, none were approved by the Artist himself, setting them apart from his original creations. To date Pace Prints has published about 10 posthumous print editions, generating gross proceeds of over $60 million; specifically, two editions raise eyebrows, the Superhero Portfolio of 4 screenprints published in 2022 generated about $17 million and the Figure Portfolio of 5 screenprints published in 2023 has generated over $21 million in gross revenue, demonstrating that each is an expensive reproduction of either a painting or a drawing on paper, more akin to an offset color poster reproduction.

Jean-Michel Basquiat Posthumous Print Editions: A Question of Intent
The sale of posthumous print editions is not uncommon, but when they are priced exorbitantly and appear more focused on business interests than honoring an Artist’s legacy, questions arise. This is the case with the posthumous Jean-Michel Basquiat editions published and sold by Pace Prints, a renowned print publisher known for its esteemed reputation in publishing and selling original print editions.

Jean-Michel Basquiat Hollywood Africans, 1983, Collection The Whitney Museum of American Art

The first Jean-Michel Basquiat posthumous print edition published by Pace Prints in October 2015 was particularly controversial. Titled Hollywood Africans In Front Of The Chinese Theater with Footprints of Movie Stars, this posthumous print was the first Jean-Michel Basquiat posthumous print edition authorized by the Basquiat Estate since 2005. It was a derivative color screenprint based on Jean-Michel Basquiat’s 1983 painting Hollywood Africans, which is in the collection of The Whitney Museum of American Art. Pace Print's first posthumous print edition raised many questions, and the rather steep $50,000 price, which many thought was excessive to discourage flipping, added to the controversy. Despite these concerns, Pace Print's first Jean-Michel Basquiat posthumous print edition was an immediate sellout and generated a quick $3 million in gross revenue for the edition of 50 impressions.

The staggering five and six figure price tags of Pace Print's posthumous Jean-Michel Basquiat editions raised serious concerns. For decades, Pace Prints, a publisher and seller of original prints of over 80 artists including John Chamberlain, Francesco Clemento, Jim Dine, Jean Dubuffet, Agnes Martin, Louise Nevelson, Joel Shapiro and dozens more has offered and sold original prints at different price points. However, the Jean-Michel Basquiat posthumous print editions were significantly priced higher than its usual offerings. This pricing disparity prompts the question: is this a genuine effort to honor Jean-Michel Basquiat’s legacy, or is it more about capitalizing on the growing market demand for his work? The premium pricing suggests that the Basquiat posthumous prints may be viewed less as authentic representations of Basquiat’s artistic voice and more as financial opportunities for Pace Prints and the Basquiat estate.

Pace Prints,IFPDA membership page states leading publisher and gallery of original prints by contemporary artists; includes roster of 84 artists, but not Jean-Michel Basquiat

IFPDA Membership Requires Strict Adherence To Code of Ethics
The IFPDA boasts that membership requires an established reputation for integrity and strict adherence to its code of ethics. The IFPDA states that its code of ethics is central to the organization’s mission to protect its members and the public. To be a member of the IFPDA, prospective members must, in the opinion of the IFPDA, be engaged in dealing in fine, original prints and/or drawings of quality and value. By definition, a posthumous print is NOT an original print.

What is an Original Print Edition?
An original print is one that is manually created and printed by the artist themselves during their lifetime. A posthumous print, on the other hand, is made from the artist’s original matrix (e.g., a printing plate or woodblock) after their death. A posthumous print is an impression created after an artist has died, without their direct involvement or supervision. The printing is typically authorized by the respective artist’s estate.

IFPDA Members Should Sell Original Prints
As a prerequisite for IFPDA membership, a prospective member must be engaged in selling “fine, original prints and/or drawings of high quality and value.” They must not mislead customers by selling reproductions or posthumous prints without clearly disclosing their nature. This distinction is crucial to the organization’s mission of promoting quality and ethical standards for print dealers.

Pace Prints has been an IFPDA member since 1991. As a reputable gallery and print publisher, Pace Prints has a responsibility to respect the artist’s legacy. By publishing numerous posthumous Jean-Michel Basquiat editions with five and six-figure price tags, Pace Prints has clearly capitalized on the artist’s name to generate extraordinary revenue.

Membership in the IFPDA is a privilege earned through professional and ethical conduct. The IFPDA’s membership requirements necessitate an established reputation for integrity and strict adherence to its Code of Ethics. The organization emphasizes that its rigorous ethical code is central to its mission of protecting its members and the public.The IFPDA Code of Ethics mandates complete transparency and disclosure for posthumous prints. However, it does not outright prohibit members from selling and publishing such works of art. Members must provide collectors with all relevant information to enable them to make informed decisions.

For prints created after an artist’s death, the IFPDA requires its members to follow these principles:

IFPDA dealers must clearly state that a print is a posthumous work.
They must include and note the year the original image was created and the year the posthumous print was released or created.
Provenance of the original source work of art is essential.
The posthumous work must have appropriate documentation, including a Certificate of Authenticity.
Estate oversight is crucial.
The posthumous print should have been made under the supervision of the Artist’s Estate or a person designated to oversee the Artist’s legacy.

IFPDA members are expected to conduct thorough due diligence to ensure the authenticity of works. However, embers may be held liable for selling misattributed or fake prints. Ultimately, it’s evident that the code of ethics is merely a form of political correctness. Even the IFPDA lacks a rigorous set of consequences for members who breach the strict code of ethics. This lack of vigilance is particularly disheartening, especially in the year 2025. Members of the IFPDA often exhibit their artworks at art fairs, including the annual IFPDA art fair in New York. Unfortunately, it is evident that the IFPDA looks the other way as many of its members routinely sell limited edition prints in compromised or poor condition without disclosure. Consequently, the IFPDA is increasingly perceived as a popularity contest, where reputation and connections hold more significance than actual ethical behavior.

It's disappointing that the IFPDA code of ethics is not more explicit regarding member's whose selling practices breach authenticity and condition. Thousands of print impressions are exhibited, sold, and advertised by its roster of members, and it’s clear that there have been numerous breaches by its members with little or no consequences once the member is inducted into the IFPDA.

It’s assumed that IFPDA members establish and build trust within the print market. The IFPDA standards encourage transparency, requiring members to be overly transparent and accurate regarding the critical issues of provenance, authenticity, and condition. However, the general lack of vetting in conjunction with the reproducibility of prints makes the print market particularly vulnerable to forgeries. Without question, this is a significant issue that has not only exacerbated over the last several decades but is also particularly concerning given the significant number of art venues that have looked the other way.

Does The IFPDA Actively Police its Members and the Print Market?
The International Fine Print Dealers Association (IFPDA), a reputable organization dedicated to upholding high standards in the print industry, aims to promote professionalism and ethical conduct within the print dealing sector. As a watchdog, the IFPDA should ensure that the prints sold by its members are of the utmost quality and authenticity. However, there is little evidence that the IFPDA actively polices its members regarding fraudulent and/or incorrectly described artworks sold continuously on dozens of art venues. This lack of vigilance is particularly disappointing, especially in 2025. Members of the IFPDA often exhibit their works of art at art fairs, including the annual IFPDA art fair in New York. Unfortunately, it is evident that the IFPDA looks the other way as many of its members routinely sell limited edition prints in compromised or poor condition without disclosure. Consequently, the IFPDA is increasingly perceived as a popularity contest, where reputation and connections matter more than actual ethical behavior.

Art World Integrity
Pace Prints continues to publish and sell posthumous Jean-Michel Basquiat editions, but the questions surrounding their pricing and the gallery’s motivations are questionable. The premium prices attached to the series of posthumous Basquiat prints make it difficult to view them as a genuine effort to honor Basquiat’s legacy, rather than a business strategy designed to capitalize on the artist’s enduring fame.

Ultimately, the art world needs more dealers and institutions that prioritize authenticity and respect for the artist’s intentions over profits. As collectors and art enthusiasts, it’s crucial to remain vigilant and informed about where we place our trust and our money in the ever-evolving print market.

Shop Guaranteed Authentic Fine Art From Joseph K. Levene Fine Art, Ltd.

How to Spot Counterfeit Jasper Johns 1977 Color Screenprints Flooding Online Art Auctions

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph K. Levene) — Thu, 24 Jul 2025 17:08:00 -0400

by Robert Grunder & Joseph K. Levene

Recto authentic Jasper Johns Untitled (ULAE 186/S13), 1977 Color Screenprint, available Joseph K. Levene Fine Art, Ltd.

Jasper Johns’ Untitled (ULAE 186/S13), 1977, is a 9-color screenprint never intended as a standalone print. It was conceived as the dust jacket for Jasper Johns/Screenprints, a 28-page exhibition catalogue published by Brooke Alexander Editions and printed by Simca Print Artists, New York. Issued in an unnumbered limited edition of 3,000 impressions, Jasper Johns Untitled (ULAE 186/S13), 1977, is documented as Catalogue #S13 in The Prints of Jasper Johns 1960–1993: A Catalogue Raisonné by Richard Field and Field 260 on page 123, Richard Field, Jasper Johns Prints 1970-1977, Petersburg Press, Ltd., London, 1978.

The 1977 Jasper Johns exhibition catalog and color screenprint were never sold separately. The screenprint, printed by Simca Print Artists, is printed on toned parchment paper and includes the as-expected folds from its function as a dust jacket. This is a museum-quality presentation and fully conforms to the authentic format documented in the literature.

Each Jasper Johns Untitled 1977 screenprint impression was printed on Patapar parchment—a toned paper—and folded around the original Jasper Johns exhibition catalogue. Authentic impressions are never bright white and seldom offered without the accompanying 28 page exhibition catalogue as they were always offered and sold together.

Verso authentic Jasper Johns Dust Jacket printed on Patapar parchment paper shows 5 decade toning

Verso Counterfeit impression sold at RAGO shows no toning and without as published Dust Jacket

The Authentic Work: Key Specifications

Title: Untitled (ULAE 186/S13), 1977
Medium: 9-color screenprint on Patapar parchment
Image size: 9 ½ x 9 ½ in.
Sheet size, folded: 9 ⅞ x 10 ¼ in.
Sheet size, unfolded: 9 ⅞ x 20 ¼ in.
Publisher: Brooke Alexander Editions, NY
Printer: Simca Print Artists, NY
Edition: 3,000; limited edition of unnumbered impressions, none signed.
Catalogue: The catalogue was published as a loose 28-page softcover with white wraps, and never sold separately. The Jasper Johns Untitled, 1977, color screenprint cover is wrapped as a dust jacket around the 28 page exhibition catalogue. As a result, there are two distinct folds on each side of the 20 1/4 inch unfolded sheet size.
Catalogue Raisonné: Richard Field, ULAE 186/S13

Museum Collections

Museums known to hold authentic impressions of Untitled (ULAE 186/S13) include:

The Museum of Modern Art, NY
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, NY
Yale University Art Gallery, CT
The National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.
Princeton University Art Museum, NJ
Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, TX
Harvard Art Museums, MA
San Jose Museum of Art, CA
Cleveland Museum of Art, OH
National Gallery of Art, Australia

The original work has been exhibited at major institutions, including The Guggenheim, The Menil Collection, and The Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles, as part of the Rolywholyover: A Circus for Museum by John Cage exhibition.

A Surge in Counterfeits Since 2022

Following the death of Brooke Alexander, founder of Brooke Alexander Editions on May 22, 2022, the market has seen a dramatic increase in counterfeit impressions of Jasper Johns Untitled (ULAE 186/S13). This surge is troubling not only for its volume, but for its coordination across multiple auction houses and platforms that lack rigorous vetting standards.

Since 2022, over 200 purported impressions have appeared at auction and sold on numerous online venues. Several auction houses have even sold counterfeit impressions under incorrect titles, omitted the catalogue entirely, and/or listed the Jasper Johns Screenprint with invented provenance and false Certificates of Authenticity (COA's) erroneously guaranteed in perpetuity.

Since 2022, frequent online sellers of spurious Jasper Johns impressions include:

Forum Auctions
LA Modern
Rago Auctions
Ro Gallery
Dane Fine Art
Wright Auctions
Bonham's
Toomey & Company
Artsy
Chamberlains Auction Galleries
Palm Beach Auctions
US Auction Brokers

Authentic 1977 Jasper Johns impression offered by Joseph K. Levene Fine Art, Ltd., left, vs. counterfeit impression printed on white paper, right, sold in over 100 online auctions and venues since 2023.

How To Identify Jasper Johns Screenprint Counterfeits?

Missing Catalogue
The print was issued as a dust jacket for the 1977 exhibition catalogue—never as a separate work. Any listing without the 28-page catalogue is likely inauthentic.
Incorrect Paper
Authentic prints were only published on toned Patapar parchment. Bright white paper and/or opaque paper is a clear sign the listing is NOT a vintage 1977 Jasper Johns color screennprint.
Improper Format
Authentic prints have irregular margins and folded dimensions of approximately 9 ⅞ x 10 ¼ inches. Counterfeits are usually presented in a square format with symmetrical borders. It is essential to view the respective images as the seller may be reporting incorrect measurements.
Inaccurate Documentation
Several auction houses and sellers have retitled the work “Cross Hatch, 1977,” a title not found in any Jasper Johns catalogue raisonné. Others list the medium incorrectly—e.g., “serigraph on Transpagra paper” or “simili-parchment.”
Low Print Quality
Inauthentic versions are often printed in low resolution accompanied with muted and/or muddied colors. The purported works are often printed with inconsistent screening fidelity.
False COA's
One of the most common red flags is the inclusion of a false Certificate of Authenticity, also known as a COA from the “Great Dane Collection". By law COA must have requisite requirements to be meaningful.
- To be valid the COA must be a Signed Original document; if the COA is not an original and/or a photocopy that is an immediate sign the COA is insufficient.
- The COA must be dated, and include complete contact details, including name/title/address of COA author.
- The COA should include a section stipulating COA author's credentials.
- The document must provide specific details of the respective COA item and not include any generic information.
- The COA should include specific catalogue raisonné, literature and exhibition history references.

Why This Matters

The proliferation of counterfeit impressions poses a serious risk to collectors, curators and institutions. These forgeries can devalue legitimate works in the marketplace. For collectors, acquiring a counterfeit not only results in financial loss, but also damages reputations and trust within the art community.

Jasper Johns Color Screenprint complete with original 28-page catalogue sold for $6,096 including buyer's premium, Phillips on February 12, 2025.

Recent Market Reference

An authentic impression—complete with the original 28-page catalogue—sold for $6,096, including buyer's premium at Phillips on February 12, 2025.

Final Thoughts

The sudden appearance of dozens of Untitled (ULAE 186/S13) prints after Brooke Alexander’s passing is no coincidence. Without his stewardship, oversight of this edition’s legacy has clearly weakened—leaving a vacuum opportunistically filled by counterfeiters and unscrupulous sellers.

Collectors should be vigilant:

Demand proper documentation.
Avoid impressions printed on white paper.
Insist on inclusion of the full original catalogue.
Reject listings with invented titles or fake COA's.

The difference between a genuine Jasper Johns and a counterfeit is not always obvious at first glance—but the financial and historical consequences are significant. When in doubt, consult primary sources, trusted dealers, or the official Jasper Johns Catalogue Raisonné of Prints by Richard Field.

Shop Guaranteed Authentic Fine Art From Joseph K. Levene Fine Art, Ltd.

How Gen Z and Prints Are Reshaping The Art Market Future: Clickbait or Press Release?

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph K. Levene) — Wed, 9 Jul 2025 03:23:00 -0400

by Joseph K. Levene & Robert Grunder

On June 4, 2025, the Observer posted an article using a clickbait headline, "How Gen Z and Prints Are Reshaping the Art Market’s Future," which is more like a press release than a thoughtful, objective guide for aspiring print collectors. For newcomers navigating and buying original limited edition prints, the Observer's article is more misleading than helpful.

Andy Warhol, Roy Lichtenstein, Frank Stella and Jasper Johns Catalogue Raisonnés

Encouraging novice art collectors to buy prints by Picasso, Rembrandt, Goya, Dürer, Warhol and Hockney is not only reckless, it’s irresponsible. Acquiring original, collectible prints by any one of these six esteemed artists is not a simple task, especially in 2025. The supply is tight, prices are high and most importantly, identifying and acquiring authentic impressions that are NOT reproductions and/or posthumous prints requires patience, expertise and, due diligence.

Buying collectible prints demands a trained eye, rigorous provenance checks and precise condition evaluation, none of which is explained in the article. Buying fine art is NOT like buying detergent.

Collectors who want to collect art and/or assemble a meaningful art collection should always buy the book before buying any original print or, for that matter, any work of art. It also helps to look at a lot of art before you buy anything. Collecting fine art takes time, and too often, art buyers "buy with their ears, not their eyes" and end up buying the wrong artwork because they heard they should buy it or read somewhere they should buy it, but avoid doing their own due diligence.

A sound foundation in printmaking techniques, market dynamics and artist-specific nuances can prevent costly mistakes when buying fine art.

Sadly, the Observer article glosses over a harsh reality: if a novice print collector were to follow the shared advice, there’s a strong chance they will most likely purchase a worthless reproduction or posthumous edition; in other words, a non-collectible work of art that is NOT original and has minimal or no market value. Curiously, Ms. Gibbs recommends buying prints from a select group of dealers—yet not a single one of the art dealers listed in her article has a sufficient selection of original print inventory by any of the six artists she champions. This egregious omission further undermines any credibility.

Even the market data presented is vague and superficial. While the author claims that 82% of IFPDA exhibitors exceeded sales expectations at the 2025 Armory Fair, up from 81%, we are left guessing which artists drive volume. No specific data is shared that shows gross market print sales or specifics supporting the surge in under $50K print purchases.

The author’s section on edition size is superficial and misleading. A print with a published edition of fewer than 50 impressions is not inherently more valuable than a limited print with an edition size of 75, 100, or even 200 impressions. That’s simply not true and there is no market evidence that supports this purported hypothesis. Edition size alone does NOT determine value. The artist, aesthetics, creation date, and quality of the impression along with condition are far more important. Novice collectors frequently make the mistake of buying the cheapest edition, only to learn the purchased work has major condition flaws that were overlooked and that their bargain purchase print is saddled with appreciation impediments.

Kevin Czopek/BFA.com

More troubling, however, is the author's lack of transparency. The author, Jenny Gibbs, fails to disclose that she is the executive director of both the IFPDA and the IFPDA Foundation—despite heavily promoting the organization throughout the article. While Ms.Gibbs's biography includes her IFPDA association, the article avoids this disclosure. This is a clear conflict of interest. Quoting the IFPDA ethics code as a seal of approval is self-serving and does not replace independent expertise, critical evaluation, or market literacy.

Finally, the article tries to have it both ways—touting Gen Z’s emotional connection to art while simultaneously pushing $50,000 “investment-grade” prints. So, which is it? Emotional value or financial upside? This kind of contradiction confuses rather than educates.

A more responsible approach would be to arm print collectors with the tools they need: research, mentorship, and historical market awareness—not promoting a static list of blue-chip artists as a “safe” entry point for buying prints.

Shop Guaranteed Authentic Fine Art From Joseph K. Levene Fine Art, Ltd.

Manipulating Value: How The Art Market Sells Illusion

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph K. Levene) — Tue, 13 May 2025 15:30:00 -0400

by Robert Grunder

Portrait of Alice Baber, c. 1965 by Gisela Wölbing/Gertrud van Dyck, Bielefeld. Archives of American Art.

In September 2024, an unnamed New York Gallery* made headlines with the first New York solo show of Bernice Bing, an Asian-American artist who passed away in 1998. The purported star lot? Priced at $850,000.

This comes just months after this same New York gallery reportedly sold Bernice Bing's 1961 painting Velazquez Family No. II in a group show for around $400,000—a shocking leap considering Bernice Bing had NO prior public auction records and her works previously sold for about $30,000!

Bernice Bing, an Asian-American Artist who passed away in 1998

How Do You Objectively Assess Market Value When There's NO Historical or Market Trail?

Bernice Bing isn't the only artist on this unnamed New York Gallery roster to experience rapid and dramatic revaluation.

Alice Baber: For decades Alice Baber paintings routinely sold at public auctions for less than $3,000; Alice Baber's public auction record now stands at nearly $700,000 at Sotheby's NY, although recent prices hover around 10% of Baber's world record auction price. That's after a series of Alice Baber paintings suddenly fetched six figure record prices in 2022 and 2023 at John Moran Auctioneers, a third tier California auction firm established in 1969.
Lynne Drexler: Until the Lynne Drexler: The First Decade exhibition in 2022, this now deceased artist had an exceptionally limited auction history. Prior to 2022, only two Lynn Drexler's paintings had ever sold at public auction, and of those, only one crossed the modest threshold of $50,000. The fact that one of Lynn Drexler's artwork could leap from just $1,920 in 2012 to an astonishing $1.5 million in 2022—a nearly 800-fold increase—is, on its face, illogical and concerning.
Yvonne Thomas: Yvonne Thomas, an artist who passed away in 2009, had a public auction record of just a few works, previously selling for about $500; now paintings by Ms. Thomas are suddenly fetching realized auction prices of over $50,000 and beyond; one canvas by Yvonne Thomas achieved $107,100 at Christie's in May, 2022, substantially more than its $30,000 to $50,000 pre-sale estimate.
Ethel Schwabacher: Ethel Schwabacher who passed away in 1984 had virtually no auction history, yet paintings by the late abstract artist are now commanding five and six figure prices, although the pre-sale estimates are substantially less.

If you're wondering how this happens, this unnamed New York Gallery has been quite open about their achievements: they claim to follow a “conscious formula” that emphasizes selectivity, inventory control, and institutional alignment.

Put another way, this unnamed New York Gallery purportedly curates the market from the inside out, often before collectors have the chance to evaluate the work’s historical price trends or market depth.

Manufactured Demand or Market Correction?

There’s no denying that many women artists as well as artists of color have been grossly overlooked and unrecognized by the fine art market. Rediscovery is welcome—but when realized public auction prices suddenly skyrocket without a plausible rationale to support the mysterious and egregious price spike, serious collectors should carefully examine all the facts. Since many art collectors buy fine art with their ears and not their eyes, it's essential that serious collectors recognize the difference between market demand and market manipulation.

Let’s be clear:

Auction records matter because they generally reflect demand, although for decades many art dealers and gallerists have often supported their roster of represented artists at public auction.
Market depth matters because it tells you if there's a sustainable collector base.
Institutional placements matter, but it doesn't necessary always translate to resale value.

Without these pillars, a six-figure price tag may not represent value—it may represent strategy.

What Collectors Should Watch For

Transparency: Ask to see private sale histories, not just institutional placements.
Auction Activity: If there's no consistent track record, understand you could be operating in a speculative zone.
Resale Strategy: Consider whether there's enough market recognition for resale if you need liquidity and avoid getting hoodwinked because of one or two auction prices.
Timing: Beware of “first wave” pricing when artists are freshly reintroduced. Early hype is generally the most volatile.

In addition to curatorial messaging, this unnamed New York Gallery along with another Texas Gallery is bizarrely referencing Alice Baber's 2022 and 2023 six figure realized auction price spike as a rationale for collector purchase. Buying fine art just because a painting or a few paintings have realized auction prices that have have suddenly increased is highly unusual and highly suspicious; generally most legitimate fine art galleries don't tout realized auction price increases in press releases, but these New York Galleries are doing so as a REASON WHY to buy these artists? Most seasoned professionals would agree their purported art market rationale is a house of cards.

Collectors should separate artistic merit from art market manipulation. A great story and a great painting don’t always justify gallery prices that have suddenly skyrocketed by hundreds of thousands of dollars,—especially if the cataclysmic price was achieved virtually "overnight".

Advocacy vs. Asset Inflation

It’s essential to support the overdue recognition of women, BIPOC, and underrepresented artists. That’s not in question. But advocacy shouldn’t be used to justify speculative pricing. Recognition doesn’t automatically equate to market value. Value should be earned over time, with transparency and broader participation—not artificially manufactured overnight.

The Bernice Bing exhibition is undoubtedly a welcome milestone for the artist, but for collectors, it also serves as a cautionary tale: in today’s market, not every spotlight comes with substance. And not every high price reflects lasting market value.

Scarcity by Design: Lynn Drexler and the Mechanics of Market Control

The dramatic market surge surrounding Lynne Drexler reveals how the value of an artist’s work can be engineered, rather than earned through a gradual process of recognition and demand. Ms. Drexler passed away in 1999, leaving behind a vast body of work—hundreds of paintings and works on paper—that remained largely under the radar for decades. This abundance, rather than diluting value, presented a unique opportunity for market savvy fine art dealers who saw dollar signs. By acquiring or controlling access to the Lynn Drexler estate and the bulk of her unsold inventory, these art dealers gained the ability to tightly manage supply, selectively release works, and manufacture a sense of scarcity which has resulted in an enormous windfall.
When the market is essentially monopolized by a small number of stakeholders—particularly in the absence of a long-standing collector base or institutional support—it becomes vulnerable to manipulation. For instance, in Lynn Drexler’s case, the rapid escalation of auction prices, including the headline-grabbing $1.5 million sale at Christie’s in 2022, appears less the result of organic demand and more the outcome of strategic market orchestration. Without a gradual build-up of value through historical sales, critical acclaim and curatorial attention, Lynn Drexler's sudden price leap raises legitimate questions about the authenticity of market demand.

In this context, what has been created around Lynn Drexler is without question not a genuine rediscovery or reevaluation, but rather the result of a fabricated market—a commercial construct designed to benefit those controlling the supply. Collectors would be wise to approach such cases with skepticism, recognizing that not every market surge reflects true artistic merit or sustainable value. Instead, it may reflect the calculated moves of those seeking to profit from the illusion of scarcity and the appearance of sudden importance.

Alice Baber and the Fine Art of Manipulation

A similar and concerning pattern is blatantly evident for realized auction price results for works by Alice Baber, who passed away in 1982. For four decades after her death, Alice Baber's art languished in near-total obscurity—un-exhibited, uncollected and largely absent from critical discourse. Even during Alice Baber's lifetime, while she was respected among her peers and occasionally exhibited alongside better-known contemporaries, Alice Baber's works were not regarded as groundbreaking or essential to the arc of Abstract Expressionism. While works by Alice Baber were in over 50 museum collections, the majority of these Alice Baber paintings were actually gifted by Alice Baber herself or her Estate.

Recently there's been a widespread push to canonize Alice Baber as a major figure in the movement. Alice Baber's paintings on canvas, characterized by soft forms and vibrant palettes, were often appreciated more for their decorative appeal than for their formal innovation or conceptual rigor. Alice Baber's recent dramatic inflation of realized auction prices which have also been used by several galleries as a reason why stands in stark contrast to the modest reception she received both during her career and in the decades that followed—raising the question of whether the art market is responding to Baber's artistic merit, or simply to a gap that savvy dealers saw fit to fill after by bidding up works to record prices. Do your own due diligence and you will immediately recognize that many of these works are current inventory of by these same dealers, and accordingly remain unsold.

On close examination, the trajectory of Alice Baber realized auction prices is a textbook case of market manipulation and distortion. Put more succinctly, Alice Baber's astonishing 2022 and 2023 auction price results at John Moran Auctioneers hint at a concerning pattern of market manipulation.

As recently as 2019, Alice Baber's paintings on canvas were routinely achieving realized auction prices in the low four figures, often under $8,000. By 2023, an Alice Baber work on canvas achieved an auction world record price of $698,500 at Sotheby's New York which came on the heals of a handful of staggering realized auction prices achieved in 2022 and 2023 largely at John Moran Auctioneers, a relatively unknown auction firm established in 1969 in Monrovia, California.

Alice Baber’s Market Shock: A Surge in Auction Prices That Defies Logic

Alice Baber The Eight-Fold Path, 1973 sold for modest $2,500 Hindman Auctions, January 11, 2019

2019: Alice Baber Modest Market Presence

Artwork: The Eight-Fold Path, 1973
Auction House: Hindman Auctions, Palm Beach Collections
Date: January 11, 2019
Estimate: $800 – $1,200
Auction Result: Sold for $2,500
Details: This breathtaking 1973 Alice Baber oil on canvas, measuring 50 x 30 inches, was part of the estate of fashion designer Arnold Scaasi and Parker Ladd, fetching a modest $2,500 in 2019.

Between 2019 and 2023, Alice Baber's auction prices experienced an unprecedented surge. The September 28, 2023 auction sale of Alice Baber's 1972 Wind Divided Mist the Darker for $698,500. at Sotheby's, New York not only achieved an all time auction world record for Baber, but also highlighted a significant shift in market perception for the artist. This rapid escalation in Baber's auction prices raises questions about the factors influencing such dramatic valuation changes, especially considering the relatively modest prices Baber's artworks had routinely commanded for decades.

Alice Baber Wind Divided Mist the Darker, 1972 achieved $698,500 Sotheby's, September 28, 2023

2023: Alice Baber Auction World Record Record Price Result

Artwork: Wind Divided Mist the Darker, 1972
Auction House: Sotheby's, New York
Date: September 28, 2023
Estimate: $60,000 – $80,000
Auction Result: Sold for $698,500, world record auction price
Details: This 1972 Alice Baber oil on canvas, measuring 80 x 80 inches, set an all time auction world record for Alice Baber, selling for 10 times more than its pre-sale estimate.

2022 & 2023: Alice Baber Series of Sudden Auction Spike Results at John Moran, California

Let's take a look at the staggering realized auction price results suddenly achieved for a handful of Alice Baber paintings on canvas sold by John Moran, the California auction firm established in 1969.

On August 30, 2022, Alice Baber's Swirl of Sounds-The Ghost in The Banyan Tree, a 1976 canvas estimated at only $3,000-$5,000, achieved an astonishing $187,500 at John Moran Auctioneers, more than 60 times the low pre-sale estimate.

Alice Baber Swirl of Sounds-The Ghost in The Banyan Tree, 1976, achieved $187,500, John Moran, August 30, 2022

Just two months later, a second Alice Baber, Swirl of Sounds - Wind, Rock and Sun, 1975 achieved $118,750, at John Moran, October 25, 2022; this 1975 canvas had a pre-sale estimate of $30,000-$50,000.

Alice Baber Swirl of Sounds-Wind, Rock And Sun, 1975 achieved $118,750. John Moran, October 25, 2022

Alice Baber auction prices kept climbing at John Moran Auctioneers when Alice Baber's Axe in the Grove, 1966, a 48 x 64 inch canvas achieved, a then record auction price of $275,000., February 28, 2023 which was eclipsed seven months later when Alice Baber's Wind Divided Mist the Darker, 1972 sold for $698,500., an auction world record at Sotheby's NY, September 24, 2023.

Alice Baber Axe in the Grove, 1966, achieved $275,000., John Moran, February 28, 2023

Three months later, Baber's strong realized auction prices didn't abate when John Moran sold Alice Baber The Sound of the Summer Hermit (The Key of Sound and Light), 1976, an enormous canvas measuring 72 x 102 inches that fetched $150,000, June 13, 2023.

Alice Baber's auction prices remained strong when John Moran sold yet another Alice Baber painting on August 29, 2023 titled The Door to the Gate to the Bridge, 1975, for $143,000; this inferior 34 x 54 inch canvas had a pre-sale estimate of $50,000-$70,000.

This pattern of explosive auction price growth would make more sense if it were backed by a groundswell of justifiable collector demand and accompanied with curatorial appreciation, museum retrospectives and/or a history of steady appreciation. But careful analysis shows that Alice Baber’s market had none of that.

To be very clear, there was no long runway—just a sharp vertical climb, seemingly driven by a concentrated public relations program by two galleries, one in New York and the other in Texas who also had a partnership association with a second New York gallery. There was a glaring lack of critical appraisal, no museum exhibitions, and a lack of any institutional embrace; in fact, museums that own works by Alice Baber were actively deaccessioning them so as to cash in. Furthermore, Baber's last solo gallery exhibition was over 40 years ago at the Katharina Rich Perlow Gallery in 1986.

In a rational market, value builds gradually over time through consistent sales, secondary market performance, and cultural relevance. What we’re seeing here is not that. It's a market spike unmoored from historical pricing data, collector base, or sustained demand—something every serious collector should view with skepticism.

This rapid escalation raises questions about the factors influencing such a dramatic change in valuation especially considering the relatively modest prices her works commanded just a few years prior.

Most concerning, the two art dealers who claim to hold significant inventories of Alice Baber’s work appear to have been involved in spending about $1 million to purchase Alice Baber inventory at John Moran Auctioneers, accounting for the bulk of Baber's highest priced realized auction lots.

To this point, the unnamed New York Gallery claimed in a press release for its debut April 2024 Alice Baber exhibition that it "holds the largest cache of works from the artist and has played an instrumental role in the market’s recent surge of interest in Baber, taking her work from just $3,000 to nearly $700,000 at auction in November last year.”

This New York Gallery conveniently fails to mention that many of the artworks it lists for sale are the very same artworks sold at John Moran Auctioneers that account for the bulk of the surge in Alice Baber auction prices. To be clear, this New York Gallery appears to not only repeatedly bid up prices at John Moran Auctioneers and/or also potentially purchased 3 Alice Baber paintings at six figure prices. If true, the unnamed New York Gallery spent nearly $500,000 to buy 3 Alice Baber paintings at leadership prices; this Alice Baber buying blitz begin August 30, 2022 with Swirl Of Sounds – The Ghost In The Banyan Tree, 1976, for $187,500, more than 60 times vs. the low pre-sale estimate; The Door to the Gate to the Bridge, 1975, acquired August 29, 2023, for $143,000; and The Sound of the Summer Hermit (The Key of Sound and Light), 1976, purchased June 13, 2023 for $150,000. In addition, the New York Gallery picked up The Blue Bow of the Jaguar, 1981 for $68,500 at Shannons, October 26, 2023.

Notably, the repeated participation of bidding up and buying Alice Baber at John Moran Auctioneers no doubt laid the groundwork for this unnamed New York Gallery to sell an Alice Baber painting for $200,000 at the 2024 Armory Show which captured a great deal of art press. Most of the art press repeated the Gallery's press release highlighting the "recent surge of interest at auction in Baber, taking her work from just $3,000 to nearly $700,000". However, none of the published art press mentioned the New York Gallery's significant expenditure of almost $500,000 to buy 3 Alice Baber paintings at John Moran Auctioneers.

Further exacerbating the situation, prior to its May-July 2024 Alice Baber exhibition, the Texas Gallery stated she "methodically acquired all 20 works in the show over the last two years.” Like the unnamed New York Gallery, the Texas Gallery failed to mention she seemingly purchased three Alice Baber paintings for no less than $537,500 at John Moran Auctioneers, including: Axe in the Ground, 1966, for a staggering $275,000, Baber’s Swirls of Sounds - Wind, Rock and Sun, 1975, for $187,500., October 25, 2022 and Baber's Light Ladder, 1966, a mediocre canvas with extensive condition issues, for $75,000, June 13, 2023.

Alice Baber archive records, including painting transparencies, slides & documentation personally reviewed

My observations are not as an outsider, but as someone deeply familiar with Alice Baber works of art, both works on canvas, unique works on paper and prints. Over the past two decades, I have reviewed hundreds and hundreds of transparencies and slides of original Alice Baber paintings as well as stacks of Alice Baber Archive materials—including personal records from Baber’s final years, kept by a former art dealer who was also one of her closest friends.

This firsthand exposure has given me a comprehensive perspective of Alice Baber's visual language, her working methods, and evolution of her practice. Based on this first hand knowledge, I can say without equivocation that some of the purported Alice Baber paintings currently being offered for sale at inflated prices raise serious questions—not only about their merit, but in several cases, their authenticity. In the case of artwork by Alice Baber, I have repeatedly observed a lack of provenance and documentation. Authenticity issues are a repeated concern; since all of the sold Baber artworks were created 40-60 years ago, many of the canvases are surprisingly fresh and lack requisite and obvious exhibition details. For instance, many of the paintings don't include any labels on the verso that you would expect to see on paintings of a similar age from the 1960's to 1980's.

The lack of documentation is reminiscent of the Knoedler Gallery scandal where works of art were created and sold yet they repeatedly lacked any verifiable pedigree. The sudden market demand for works by Alice Baber has created an environment ripe for errors, opportunism and misrepresentation.

Alice Baber Signatures: Spurious vs. Authentic:

Spurious Alice Baber signature

Correct Alice Baber signature and date

Furthermore, Alice Baber never had children; when she passed away in 1982, there was no immediate family heirs poised to steward her legacy in a centralized way. Many of the late Artist's works were dispersed informally—gifted to friends, colleagues and her sister, now deceased. Upon her death, the Alice Baber Art Fund was created under the jurisdiction of the Artist's Estate; the Alice Baber Art fund had the financial backing from the Baber Estate and included a limited selection of Alice Baber works of art, some of which was sold, others donated. The Fund was active for 16 years and dispersed grants to numerous women artists. In 2005, the Alice Baber Art Fund filed a final tax return detailing the liquidation of the organization's assets, including its remaining artworks, by public auction and distribution of proceeds to public charities, including the creation of a named fund to support visiting artists at Marlboro College.
-Alice Baber Art Fund, Annual Information Return (Form 990-PF), 2005

Contrary to the narrative implied by the recent market frenzy, there was no hidden trove of hundreds of untouched masterpieces lying dormant in the Artist's studio waiting to be "discovered" and unlike the vast inventory of art owned by the Andy Warhol and Keith Haring Estates, there are zero artworks remaining in the Estate of Alice Baber.

In other words, the inventory of available Alice Baber art when she passed away was modest, fragmented and scattered across personal circles, not amassed in institutional storage. While the list of museums that holds Alice Baber’s work may appear impressive at first glance, it's important to recognize the majority of Alice Baber art held in the respective museum collections was actually gifted and donated by Alice Baber herself. The sudden surge in Baber realized public auction prices motivated several museums to deaccession Baber works of art gifted by Alice Baber or her Estate. For reference, on November 21, 2024, the Art Museum of Greater Lafayette sold Alice Baber's The Circle of the Garden Moves on the River, a 1978 canvas for $192,000 at Sotheby's NY, one of many Baber canvases gifted by the Estate of Alice Baber. On May 16, 2025, Sotheby's NY will auction The Purple Crossing the Valley, a 1969 Alice Baber painting deaccessioned by the Art Museum of Greater Lafayette; also gifted by the Estate of Alice Baber; this beautiful Alice Baber painting has a pre-sale estimate of $40,000-$60,000.

In many cases, the museums that owns artworks by Alice Baber did not actively seek to acquire Baber's paintings, nor have the majority of museums chosen to exhibit Baber paintings in the several decades since they were acquired. This historical context makes the sudden emergence of large quantities of high-priced works on the market today not only curious, but deeply questionable.

It gets even more strange!

What Are The Names and Credentials of Those Running The Alice Baber Project?

The Alice Baber Project presents itself as a non-profit organization that "seeks to document and research artworks by Alice Baber, with a view to complete an online updated and constantly expanded catalogue raisonné that will provide a comprehensive source for Baber scholarship", yet it is not registered as a non-profit entity in the United States, nor in the United Kingdom, despite claims of being “administered by a group of European collectors.” The glaring lack of legal transparency raises serious questions about the Project’s legitimacy and intent.

Adding to the skepticism, the unnamed New York Gallery that has frequently exhibited Baber’s artwork has publicly distanced itself from the Alice Baber Project. According to the gallery, the individuals behind the Alice Baber Project “have no authority when it comes to Alice Baber,” and the gallery expressed concern over the Project’s opaque operations and inability to authenticate and vet works of art created by Alice Baber.

More troubling is the fact that the individuals spearheading the Alice Baber Project, which is clearly not a disciplined, comprehensive or meaningful catalogue raisonné of Alice Baber's art, appear to have no direct connection to Alice Baber, nor any demonstrable expertise regarding her life, artistic development and/or body of work. It is highly irregular—if not outright suspect—for a catalogue raisonné, which is meant to serve as a scholarly and authoritative record of an artist’s oeuvre, to be initiated and accordingly organized by anonymous parties without any credible affiliation, art historical background, and/or curatorial oversight.

In short, the Alice Baber Project lacks transparency, legitimacy and the necessary qualifications as an independent and objective authority to provide meaningful information/documentation concerning the legitimacy and legacy of Alice Baber. It is hardly comprehensive as the Alice Baber Project has surprisingly incomplete records; currently the Alice Baber Project includes less than 40% of the Baber art holdings owned by museums and public collections. The Project provides no explanation regarding why so many collections are omitted, nor the methodology for inclusion. Unlike most catalogue raisonnes, the documentation is generally superficial. Artworks that are included lack comprehensive details including detailed exhibition history, ownership as well as essential details including where the respective works are Titled, where and how signed along with attribution. The glaring lack of scholarship is concerning, especially since we have no assurance that those running the Project are void of any bias. The lack of transparency and superficial record keeping only add chaos and confusion to the the legacy of Alice Baber.

Without question, to be respected and taken seriously as a meaningful authority, the individuals behind the Alice Baber project should reveal their identity and provide their credentials.

The Takeaway

Collectors aren’t just buying art—they’re buying into a market, a narrative, and increasingly, a carefully curated myth that has been repeated orchestrated with misleading press releases. In today’s art world, where galleries are as much tastemakers as they are dealers, the lines between genuine rediscovery and strategic price engineering are alarmingly blurred.

We are observing once-obscure artists who are rapidly repositioned as market darlings, often with little to no critical reevaluation and/or institutional backing to justify the meteoric rise in value.

This isn’t to say many of these artists aren’t worthy of attention—but the speed, scale and selectivity of their meteoric market ascent should raise eyebrows. When a painting with no previous auction record suddenly commands a six or seven figure price, collectors must pause and interrogate what, exactly, are they buying. Is it the work itself—the form, the innovation, the cultural impact?

Or is it a storyline built to sell scarcity, urgency, and the illusion of inevitability? In a market so hungry for the next “rediscovered” voice, it’s easy to confuse curatorial vision with commercial ambition.

Before you write a six-figure check, you should ask yourself:

Am I investing in Fine Art or Am I Being Seduced by a Story Line?

*We have purposely not named the New York Gallery; that said, this “unnamed" New York Gallery is a downtown gallery primarily known for exhibiting lesser known female artists.

Shop Guaranteed Authentic Fine Art From Joseph K. Levene Fine Art, Ltd.

Art Buyers Often Overlook Condition—Buying on Price Alone Is Often A Bad Deal

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph K. Levene) — Sun, 13 Apr 2025 10:37:00 -0400

by Robert Grunder & Joseph K. Levene

Ellsworth Kelly Red/Blue color screenprint; 2 examples

Condition overlooked when buyers buy fine art on price

Too often eBay art buyers make the wrong decision when comparing prices of the same Artwork from different Sellers, especially when the higher priced art reflects differences in condition. Artwork in superior condition always becomes more valuable than art that is torn, broken, repaired, faded, erased, reduced in size, or even worse, counterfeit.

Highest price art not always best

The above is a side-by-side comparison of 2 examples of the same Ellsworth Kelly Red/Blue color screenprint. On the right, is an impression sold by Sotheby's NY in 2007 for $64,000, described "in good condition". On the left, a pristine impression of the same Ellsworth Kelly Red Blue color screenprint offered by Joseph K. Levene Fine Art, Ltd. for less than $10,000! The rare and desirable pristine impression offered by Joseph K. Levene Fine Art, Ltd. looks as good today as it did when it was first published in 1964. View Ellsworth Kelly for sale on eBay.

$64K Ellsworth Kelly dull

The comparison demonstrates the pristine Impression offered by Joseph K. Levene Fine Art, Ltd. is brighter than the impression of the same print that sold for $64,000 at Sotheby's. The blue and red of the $64,000 Sotheby's impression is not as bright as the colors on the impression offered by Joseph K. Levene Fine Art, Ltd. The comparison demonstrates the advantage of purchasing art without condition issues.

Many online buyers buy inferior art

When comparing art by price, buyers are often misled when the seller tells them the work of art is mint, not faded and/or in perfect condition, when the contrary is true, often resulting in purchase of inferior art. The truth is there is no savings as the purchased art is not worth buying.

Quality art appreciates

Many art sellers do not disclose condition, forcing buyers to guess. Importantly, when a condition statement is omitted, never assume the art is satisfactory. Worse, many sellers exaggerate condition and state an artwork is actually better than reality.

• Some internet sellers, auctions & galleries claim art is problem-free, even when photographs show otherwise.
• Many online art sellers and auction firms do not provide objective condition reports.
• Many art sellers are not knowledgeable, including galleries and auction houses.
• Some online art sellers are purposely misleading to deceive the unsuspecting art buyer.

Online art often sold with inaccurate condition statements

While the lot will often state there is no damage to the lot, the photographs show otherwise. This is not an instance of occurring once, but is repeated with unfortunate frequency. Too often buyers get incorrect and/or misleading condition report information when buying art online.

Buy art from professional art dealers

Having a relationship with a professional art dealer will always pay off in the long run. Many art sellers are not professional; some have not even inspected the art for sale, like Paddle8 which never inspects the art it offers for sale online, nor has the connoisseurship to know if is compromised. Why should you risk your hard earn money on a maybe bargain?

View guaranteed authentic blue-chip art from Joseph K. Levene Fine Art, Ltd.

Even famous name auction houses are inaccurate

You should not be fooled by famous auction house names as a guarantee of condition. Even famous name auction houses are incorrect about condition. Since all condition statements provided by auction houses are merely opinions, and nothing more, always inspect the lot yourself if you are knowledgeable, or hire an expert to do so on your behalf.

If you need a doctor, you would never call a plumber

There is a difference between amateur and professional art dealers, unless you like throwing money down the drain.

33% eBay lots sell for more than $5,000!

One third of eBay lots sold by Joseph K. Levene Fine Art, Ltd. sell over $5,000 and 20% of all eBay lots sold are sold for over $10,000. Check-out our 100% positive eBay Feedback to view descriptions and prices of Fine Art sold on eBay by Joseph K. Levene Fine Art, Ltd. Other art sellers, many who are eBay power sellers, often sell hundreds of lots on eBay, most under $25. Joseph K. Levene Fine Art, Ltd. may not make as many eBay sales, but that's because our average selling price (ASP) is over four figures.

3 decades multifaceted fine art experience

Joseph K. Levene, a Jasper Johns and Andy Warhol print authority, has 3 decades of multifaceted fine art experience, including perspective as art dealer, online gallery, fine art executive and collector. Joseph K. Levene, a Wharton School graduate, was previously President/COO, Petersburg Press, Inc., the international fine art publisher; director e-commerce, artnet; Invited charter member, Sothebys online fine art auctions.

All Fine Art sold by Joseph K. Levene Fine Art, Ltd. is GUARANTEED for Authenticity .

Selling fine art online for over 25 years

Joseph K. Levene Fine Art, Ltd. was invited by Sotheby's to join a select group of professional fine art sellers on Sotheby's online art auctions. Sotheby's required each seller guarantee authenticity and condition of all fine art lots offered on its auction site. Our Sotheby's clients recognized the importance of a guarantee of authenticity, especially for significant online fine art purchases. In addition to selling fine art online on eBay since 1999, Joseph K. Levene Fine Art, Ltd. sells guaranteed authentic fine art online on Artsy, Art Fix Daily, ArchesArt, Saatchi, Bonanza.

Shop Guaranteed Authentic Fine Art From Joseph K. Levene Fine Art, Ltd.

Jasper Johns Prints: The Importance Of Condition and Transparency

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph K. Levene) — Thu, 10 Apr 2025 13:48:00 -0400

by Robert Grunder & Joseph K. Levene

The Importance of Condition and Transparency in the Jasper Johns Print Market

The condition of Jasper Johns prints is a critical factor in preserving aesthetic and historical integrity. Condition issues such as mat stains, scuffs, tears, paper loss, foxing and faded colors can significantly diminish visual impact, collectibility and market appreciation. In addition, some art dealers and auction houses falsely describe flawed prints in "good" or "excellent" condition despite actual evidence to the contrary.

As a result, collectors should be cautious of misleading condition reports. In many cases, Jasper Johns prints that have obvious condition issues have nonetheless achieved unexplained strong realized auction prices, raising concerns about transparency and ethics of some auction sellers.

Transparency is paramount. Dealers and auction houses that provide accurate, objective condition reports, even when revealing flaws, play a critical role in preserving the long-term value and legacy of Jasper Johns prints. Print collectors are encouraged to seek out art sellers committed to integrity, recognizing accurate condition assessments is critical in the fine art market.

Significantly attenuated & discolored #JasperJohns Target color screenprint (ULAE 147), 1974, ed. 60/70 achieved $254K @Sothebys 11/16/2023.

View side by side @Sothebys faded impression vs museum quality impression available @JKLFA.https://t.co/HgQKXYnItT pic.twitter.com/SbWmMUWwKs
— Joseph K. Levene Fine Art, Ltd. (@JKLFA) November 18, 2023

Jasper Johns Target, 1974 (ULAE 147) Edition 60/70
Despite notable discoloration, a significantly faded impression of Jasper Johns Target, 1974 (ULAE 147) color screenprint achieved $254,000 at Sotheby’s New York, November 16, 2023.

#JasperJohns Savarin 3 Red, 1978 color lithograph, edition 29/40 achieved $31,500 @ChristiesInc 4/20/2023 even though the impression lacks the rich red, crimson & pink colors as originally published. https://t.co/qeFX2xZZ9k pic.twitter.com/yrygnfw7ho— Jasper Johns Prints (@JohnsPrints) April 20, 2023

Shop Guaranteed Authentic Jasper Johns Prints

Jasper Johns Savarin 3 (Red), 1978, Edition 29/40

Jasper Johns Savarin 3, 1978, color lithograph, lacking the vibrant crimson and pink tones originally intended by the Artist, fetched $31,500 at Christie’s, April 20, 2023.

#JasperJohns 1979 Target with Four Faces (ULAE 203), 1979 edition 63/88, fetches $53,312 @bonhams1793 3/29/2022 despite irreversible severe yellowed mat staining.https://t.co/47f9wDmfNp pic.twitter.com/s7PcmHQL0m
— Jasper Johns Prints (@JohnsPrints) March 30, 2022

Jasper Johns Target with Four Faces (ULAE 203), 1979, Edition 63/88

With severe yellowed mat staining, Jasper Johns Target With Four Faces, 1979 (ULAE 203) etching and aquatint sold for $53,312 at Bonhams on March 29, 2022.

Although incorrectly described "in good condition", an extremely faded impression of #JasperJohns The Dutch Wives,1977 color screenprint, edition number 35/70, exceeded low pre-sale estimate, achieving $25,200 @Sothebys 10/22/2020.https://t.co/oLX0sCn9BC pic.twitter.com/Ti4erwjNV9
— Jasper Johns Prints (@JohnsPrints) October 23, 2020

Jasper Johns The Dutch Wives (ULAE 187), 1977, Edition 35/70
Described as in “good condition” despite extreme fading Jasper Johns The Dutch Wives, 1977 (ULAE 187) screenprint achieved $25,200 at Sotheby’s, October 22, 2020.

Fine art buyers should be wary of online listings by art sellers and auction firms where images are digitally enhanced. Deceptive fine art sellers often boost color saturation and contrast so faded prints appear more vibrant thereby concealing and minimizing apparent condition flaws.

Shop Guaranteed Authentic Fine Art From Joseph K. Levene Fine Art, Ltd.

David Hockney Photo Collages: A Glimpse Into Their Brilliance

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph K. Levene) — Tue, 1 Apr 2025 13:12:00 -0400

by Robert Grunder & Joseph K. Levene

David Hockney initially regarded photography with skepticism, viewing it as limited due to its static nature and inability to convey depth. Hockney's outlook shifted dramatically, however, after curator Alain Sayag persuaded the Artist to exhibit in Paris, sparking a newfound appreciation for the medium.

David HockneyThe Scrabble Game, Jan. 1st 1983 © David Hockney 1983

Hockney's photographic practice was profoundly shaped by Cubist principles. Rejecting the single-perspective view of traditional photography, he embraced a fragmented, multi-angle approach. By breaking scenes into components and reassembling them, he infused his work with movement and dimensionality, breathing new life into Cubism through a contemporary photographic lens.

David Hockney Gregory and Shinro, Nara Japan © David Hockney 1983

This led to the development of his distinctive Polaroid photo collages—what he called “joiners”. These works were not just expressive artworks but also practical tools, acting as spatial blueprints that informed the composition of his paintings. Through this dual-purpose approach, Hockney bridged the gap between photography and painting.

David Hockney Luncheon At The British Embassy, Tokyo, February 16th 1983 © David Hockney 1982

His joiners are marked by their use of subdued palettes—cool grays and blues dominate—evoking an emotional undertone. Hockney also employed negative space strategically, allowing areas of flat color to contribute as much to the narrative as the image itself. In works like Anne and David, his arrangement of photographs down a central axis mirrors the balance and calm of the winter setting, using color and form to enhance rather than distract.

David Hockney Ian Washing His Hair, London January 1983 © David Hockney 1983

As Hockney once said, “The camera can’t see space. It sees surfaces. People see space, which is much more interesting.” His joiners aim to capture that human experience of space—layered, shifting, and alive. These composites of overlapping photographs offer a way to express depth and movement absent from traditional photography. Take Nude, 17th June for instance. Though depicting a still figure, the collage suggests a quiet motion, a lived moment. Through layering and perspective, Hockney transforms static imagery into something closer to how we perceive life—dynamic and unfolding.

David Hockney Nude, 17th June © David Hockney 1984

Interestingly, the joiner technique emerged by accident. While working on a piece in Los Angeles in the 1960s, he unintentionally assembled Polaroids in a way that conveyed spatial movement. This spontaneous discovery led him to pivot temporarily from painting to photographic experimentation.

David Hockney Mother, December '82 Los Angeles © David Hockney 1982

At the heart of Hockney’s collages are deeply personal themes. His mother frequently appears, reflecting her importance across his body of work. Familiar faces, including director Billy Wilder, populate the pieces, emphasizing the role of personal relationships in his art.

David Hockney My Mother, Bolton Abbey, Yorkshire, Nov 1982 © David Hockney 1982

David Hockney’s photo collages—also known as “joiners”—stand as some of the most innovative and visually arresting works of the late 20th century. Created primarily in the early 1980s, these compositions were constructed from dozens, sometimes hundreds, of individual Polaroid or 35mm prints arranged into dynamic, fragmented scenes. Hockney’s joiners challenged traditional notions of photography, time, and perspective, offering a Cubist-inspired way of seeing the world that was wholly his own.

David Hockney An Evening At Christophers, Santa Monica, December 1982 © David Hockney 1982

Time has not been kind to these iconic works due to the inherent instability of the photographic materials used—especially the Polaroid and early color prints—many of Hockney’s photo collages have faded significantly. Colors have dulled, contrasts have diminished, and the vibrant energy that once defined them is now often only partially visible in the surviving pieces.

Original 35mm slides captured shortly after each work was completed preserve the color, light, and composition as Hockney originally intended. They serve as rare visual records, offering insight not just into the final artworks, but into the creative process and aesthetic decisions behind them.

Shown here is a curated selection of original 35mm slides, taken during the years each collage was created, showcasing the works in their original condition—before the effects of time took their toll. These slides are not just archival images; they are windows into Hockney’s true vision, and essential for understanding the full impact of his joiner experiments.

As interest in Hockney’s broader photographic practice continues to grow, these slides serve as both historical evidence and artistic treasures in their own right.

David Hockney Freda Bringing Ann & Me A Cup Of Tea © David Hockney 1983

David Hockney Grand Canyon, Arizona With My Shadow, October 1982 © David Hockney 1982

David Hockney Prehistoric Museum Near Palm Springs, 1982 © David Hockney 1982

David HockneyTelephone Pole, 1982 © David Hockney 1982

David Hockney George, Blanche, Celia, Albert and Percy, London January 1983 © David Hockney 1983

David HockneyThe Skater, New York December, 1982 © David Hockney 1982

Shop Guaranteed Authentic Fine Art From Joseph K. Levene Fine Art, Ltd.

Why You Should Avoid Buying Online Art From Artsy Auctions

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph K. Levene) — Wed, 12 May 2021 14:32:00 -0400

by Robert Grunder & Joseph K. Levene

Selection fake Andy Warhol and Roy Lichtenstein art repeatedly sold by Artsy

Over the past decade, there has been little objective Artsy analysis; the majority of published articles are unusually praiseworthy, often without reviewing and/or challenging the facts or respective spokesperson interviewed, exacerbated by Artsy's consistent failure to not release financials yet repeatedly touting massive annual growth.

We took a deeper dive into Artsy auctions to present the truth about potential pitfalls about buying art from Artsy; bottom line, our article sums it up by warning art buyers, and in particular novice art buyers to stay away from Artsy auctions since we are confident smart art buyers wouldn't dream of buying art in Artsy auctions.

In our opinion, CEO Mike Steib has been coached well and knows what to say to attract positive press, but at the end of the day, based on the material posted online, Artsy continues to condone deceptive sellers and, unfortunately like eBay, favors revenue over ethics.

While this blog article takes a deeper dive into Artsy auctions, the questionable and too often deceptive material that is offered for sale is not only confined to Artsy auctions as there are thousands of counterfeits listed 24/7 on Artsy's Buy It Now platform. It is not hard to find these spurious lots, yet surprisingly little has been written about this ticking time bomb, although numerous negative consumer reviews posted on Trustpilot, BBB, Google, and, we presume other sites too, don't hold back the truth about buying art from Artsy.

Although this article features the headline “You should avoid buying online art from Artsy auctions”, there are a dozen other suitable headlines for this blog article that takes a deeper dive into Artsy auctions so potential users are aware of the pitfalls before buying art from Artsy:

Buying at Artsy-curated auctions should be avoided, period.

Artsy never edits auction lot descriptions for accuracy.

Artsy boasts transparent pricing yet erases all realized prices and unsold auction lots.

Artsy auctions routinely include misleading lot descriptions and photographs, deceptive information, incorrect condition reports and worthless counterfeits, many sold with false COAs.
Artsy doesn't take responsibility for anything posted in online auctions.

Artsy's broad conditions of sale provide no assurance title is passed.
Buying art from Artsy auctions is hazardous to your pocketbook.

Buyers never receive refunds from Artsy auctions because Artsy is not responsible for errors or misleading content.

Artsy doesn’t vet listings and never inspects lots offered in curated auctions, either before or after the art is sold, breeding ground for fraud.

Artsy doesn’t provide any guarantee of authenticity for curated auctions.

Serious art collectors know they should never buy art from Artsy auctions.

Buying authentic art from Artsy is like playing Russian roulette.

Although Artsy boasts it's the leading online art platform, annual subscription revenue from 3,200 partner galleries does not cover Artsy overhead. Artsy overhead is enormous, including at least 325 employees, hefty salaries for founders and management and 28 engineers, significant financial package for CEO Mike Steib, and offices in New York, Los Angeles, London, Hong Kong and Berlin. Artsy revenue remains tight lipped mystery; press interviews with current and former management repeatedly acknowledge Artsy's success anecdotally, although Artsy has never released financials and probably won't anytime soon.

In a 2017 funding round, Artsy raised an incremental $50 million, bringing total funding to $100.9 million with the goal to expand into auctions and secure partnerships from Christie’s, Sotheby’s and Phillips, the three leading brick-and-mortar auction houses. Becoming competitive in auctions was a smart marketing decision to improve profitability since auction buying is a significant choice among art buyers. According to the 2020 UBS Report, buying directly from a gallery premises was most common, buying online from galleries next most common and buying art at auction was third, cited by 54% of respondents.

What happened to the $50 million investment in Artsy auctions to improve profitability? Artsy's investors must be livid, as there is no evidence the $50 million investment was well spent. Where did it go? Christie's and Sotheby's have vanished on Artsy and Phillips has virtually disappeared, posting only two 2021 Artsy auctions, January 21, 2021 and April 20, 2021 Editions and Works on Paper Day & Evening sales. For the 104-day period from January 1, 2021 through April 15, 2021, 75 Artsy auctions were posted, including 10 benefit auctions. Second and third-tier firms posting Artsy auctions include Bonham's, Heritage, Bernard Jacobson, Rago, Tate Ward, Forum, Roseberys, Digard, Italy's Fineart, Capsule, EHC Fine Art Gallery. Visit artnet.com to view a stellar group of over 200 artnet auction partners, including Sotheby's, Christie's, Phillips, Heritage. The list of artnet partners is impressive both in volume and quality vs. Artsy, demonstrating the importance of implementing strict partnership standards.

Aside from posted lots from Phillips, Bonham's, Bernard Jacobson, Heritage and Wright, there is a concerning abundance of downscale, not collectable, incorrectly documented art that is posted in Artsy auctions. Many listings fall into a gray area, requiring and/or necessitating explanation, although many avoid necessary explanation; the lot descriptions are sloppy, with insufficient disclosure. We are not referencing one or two lots, or even a handful, but a disturbing plethora of spurious material, i.e., hundreds and hundreds of lots, the majority not documented in recognized catalogues raisonnés. Virtually none would appear at Sotheby's, Christie's or Phillips, or for sale by any Art Dealers Association of America (ADAA) member. Undesirable lots are often sold with false certificates of authenticity, and lot descriptions often include unnecessary hyperbole, misleading and/or false statements and lack key photographs, such as failing to show the work framed when indicated.

The bulk of posted Artsy auction lots are in these areas:

Counterfeits
Ephemera
Facsimiles
Incorrectly documented art & mis-documented art
Afters, mostly not disclosed
Reproductions, most not disclosed
Posthumous editions
Toys
Skateboards
Unlimited editions, often incorrectly documented, many bearing fraudulent signatures
Posters, often described with exaggerated details
Pages removed from books without disclosure

Artsy's auction interface is dated and clumsy, not technologically advanced. It is inconceivable $50 million was spent as the interface is neither innovative nor even up to date given the competition. Spend a few minutes browsing and you'll immediately realize the auction interface is ill-designed, presumably created by designers who've never bid in any online art auction. If you want to check out a particular lot, users are forced to painstakingly click each lot to determine if the reserve has been met, both frustrating and time consuming. Navigation is unnecessarily clumsy; once you click into a lot, it is impossible to navigate to the next lot without first clicking out of the initial lot. Bottomline, the Artsy auction interface is an amateur mess.

Negative Glassdoor reviews by former employees don't mince words regarding concerning company issues; one former Artsy employee stated:

"Glory days are over. Company fell off a cliff after years of turmoil and leadership change", giving this advice to management "We're behind in every product aspect. Can't remember the last time Artsy innovated in the space."

Unlike online auctions offered by Sotheby's, Christie's, Phillips, and even second tier auction houses like Doyle, Hindman and Freemans, there is no attempt to streamline the process. For instance, every lot in an Artsy's Capsule sale closes at the same time. Most auction houses generally stagger online lots by at least one minute so the respective interface is not overloaded, plus it gives users a chance to bid on multiple lots. For bidders who snipe, online auction lots at Sotheby's and Christie's receive five minutes of extended bidding. Artsy states lots can be extended, but don't see evidence lots are extended.

Although payment is made to Artsy, Artsy does not pass title for auction lots sold in hosted auctions, stating New York Uniform Commercial Code is applicable for ownership transfer. The inability to pass title is a dealbreaker for knowledgeable art buyers. Artsy relies on the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) for auction transactions which is puzzling since many lots indicate foreign location and ownership which is not recognized nor applicable for UCC transactions. For reference, the UCC is not a federal law: Instead, it is model legislation that is uniform in the United States. The UCC governs contractual sales of goods for domestic transactions within the United States but the UCC actually has no International jurisdiction, so if a problem occurs, the only recourse is complaining. Visit Trustpilot to read complaints from multiple unhappy Artsy buyers who confirm Artsy asserts no responsibility regarding purchases and essentially doesn't care in the least, in direct contrast to Sotheby's, Christie's, Phillips, and big-name Artsy partner art dealers.

Artsy does not pass Title stating New York Uniform Commercial Code applicable.

Artsy maintains it has no responsibility concerning sold online art although United States Federal Law indicates otherwise. An auctioneer may be liable if he conducts auctions without passing title. According to law auctioneers are required to pass title; since Artsy receives payment, it should not shirk its responsibility. Pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code, a buyer may "revoke his/her acceptance of goods or part thereof for nonconformity of the goods sold within a reasonable time after the buyer discovers the nonconformity."

Artsy never lists auction specialist names. Check auctions at Sotheby's, Christie's, Phillips, and you always see the specialist's name with accompanying contact information. Buyers contemplating buying in online auctions expect immediate replies, especially when the art is not inspected. From February 2021 to June 2023, Robin Roche was Artsy senior director Auction consignment; Ms. Roche is a former Auctionata employee. Auctionata was an online auction firm forced into bankruptcy due to serious trade violations, including inflating financial results, shill bids, erasing unsold lots, etc.

Users complain about consistent lack of urgency by Artsy staff. There is no excuse to ignore Artsy users, especially since listings are often incomplete, contradictory and confusing; many listings have inconsistent photographs, vague provenance and incorrect measurements, purposely overlooked since deceptive sellers recognize there is little risk of recourse since Artsy doesn't vet listings. If you have a question, users are forced to send anonymous messages and wait. On August 25, 2020, Tom Feeney, complained about Artsy's poor email system; Mr. Feeney provided an unsolicited one star organic Trustpilot review stating "Never return emails. Crazy."

Nosebleed shipping and VAT surcharges are unwelcome surprises for auction lots dispatched from Europe. Too often Artsy buyers are held hostage with excessive shipping costs for auction lots with foreign ownership, specific costs not disclosed. An organic Trustpilot review from an Artsy buyer cited, "Multiple errors in basic shipping documentation suggest to me that Artsy does not know what they are doing or much care. For example, a missing Declaration of Authenticity resulted in me incurring EU import duty at 29% instead of 6%. I find I cannot reclaim this cost because, although the sale was annulled and despite Artsy’s advertised returns policy, their shipper had declared it non-returnable. Artsy continues to blank my requests for reimbursement, leaving me significantly out of pocket."

Artsy's conditions of sale state information in listings are an opinion, not statement of fact, which explains why Artsy auctions are open invitation to defraud buyers. Artsy conditions of sale state "Listing descriptions and condition reports may make reference to particular imperfections, but bidders should note Artsy lots may have other faults not expressly referred to in the listing or condition report. All dimensions are approximate. Illustrations are for identification purposes only and cannot be used as precise indications of size or to convey full information as to the actual condition of lots."

Because Artsy condition reports are irrelevant, it's "the wild wild west" when you buy in Artsy auctions. Although moot, should you want a condition report, Artsy states you may have to pay for them. Most incredulously, "information provided to prospective buyers with respect to any lot, including any pre-sale estimate, whether written or oral, and information in any listing, condition or other report, commentary or valuation, is not a representation of fact but rather a statement of opinion held by Artsy based solely upon information provided to us by the seller."

Artsy's horrifying AS IS conditions of sale indicate information in any listing is opinion, not statement of fact,
making Artsy auctions open invitation to defraud buyers.

Few buyers are aware horrifying AS IS conditions of sale, exacerbated due to Artsy's apathetic non-vetting stance.

Artsy conditions of sale indicate neither Artsy nor Seller has liability regarding authenticity, medium, provenance, description, size, condition, etc.

Distinct dichotomy between organic Trustpilot reviews about Artsy, meaning unsolicited reviews versus solicited reviews which are not only coincidentally positive but alarmingly superficial. Trustpilot reviewer C.A.S. speculates Artsy is "concerned with trying to bury mine and others' complaints on this site under a load of paid-for "5-star" posts". Organic Trustpilot reviews are uniformly negative while Artsy solicited reviews are coincidentally uniformly positive. Trustpilot reviews received organically indicate complaints about Artsy's lack of quality, poor customer service, proliferation counterfeits and misleading documentation. By comparison, Artsy solicited reviews are superficial, incredulously praise-worthy.

Pervasive lack of standards at Artsy auctions. If you have a problem, Artsy will inform you that you didn't read the fine print as C.A.S. notes in Artsy review on Trustpilot because he informed Artsy after 8 days instead of the required 7, which is an acceptable cop-out. Online art buyers expect auction houses to do their due diligence and require reimbursement for lots not authentic and/or incorrectly documented. C.A.S. is one of many unhappy Artsy buyers who have left negative reviews on Trustpilot. On the policy overview page, Artsy states sellers selling plagiarized, stolen, or fake listings may result in permanent termination, emphasis on "may". Like eBay, Artsy believes partnership revenue has greater value than ethics; Artsy's listing policy states: we will send you a warning after three complaints, depending on the severity of the issue which may result in immediate termination.

1 star Trustpilot organic review from C.A.S. indicates Artsy relaxed about "fakery" & "Artsy purchase not unique as described"

TJ, an Artsy buyer provided 1 star Trustpilot review, 9/22/2020, stating "if he could give them negative stars" due to alarming lack of ethics, stating Artsy won't refund purchase due to deceptive documentation, which according to incredulous Artsy conditions of sale is irrelevant.

1 star Trustpilot organic review by TJ states Artsy refuses purchase refund for deceptively documented art

Matt Harding, 2019 Artsy auction seller, posted 1 star Trustpilot review 11/3/2020 about Artsy's "absolutely awful customer service", stating it has been over three months since he dispatched art he sold in an Artsy auction, and thus far, not received payment.

1 star organic Trustpilot review from Matt Harding indicates Artsy hasn't issued payment for sold auction consignment

Artsy does not pro-actively vet listings even though published management interviews falsely state Artsy consistently monitors its listings. The reality is Artsy does not vet listings since the purported vetting team is non-existent. CEO Mike Steib erroneously states: "the integrity of works on our site have to be beyond reproach. We have a full time team reviewing every artwork on the site and taking action when appropriate. Works you have identified as spurious, and any further works you wish to flag for us, will get the team's immediate attention.Exacerbating the issue is Artsy's meaningless conditions of sale which provide no consumer protection which in our opinion, is a ticking time bomb. Inexcusably CEO Mike Steib has been briefed numerous times about this oversight. Without a specific vetting procedure and vetting team, Artsy management condones counterfeits and misdocumented art, in direct contrast to the impeccable standards of most of Artsy's top name gallery partners.

In a 1 star Trustpilot review, Artsy buyer C.A.S. states "Seemingly relaxed about fakery and mis-selling on their platform, Artsy strikes me as the kind of player that gives art dealing a bad name. My purchase turned into an expensive ordeal, and I have no reason to believe that the same would not happen again."

View tweet on X

Even former and current employees acknowledge Artsy's business model is defective.

Check-out negative Glassdoor.com reviews from current and former Artsy employees:

Apr 24, 2021
Glassdoor — Glory Days are over. Company fell off a cliff after years of turmoil and leadership change. No cross-team alignment even within the same department, bureaucracy is rampant. No new innovation happening, culture is dead. Went from the amazing goal of revolutionizing/democratizing the art world to basically making a high value Etsy instead.

Apr 13, 2021
Glassdoor — The ship is sinking. Too many employees for such a small market making it impossible to hit your goals.

May 3, 2020
Glassdoor — Company values mask lack of communication and transparency. Vision did not align with company mission.

Oct 14, 2019

Glassdoor — From Great to Terrible. Within 1 year working at Artsy, things deteriorated more rapidly than I've ever seen.Shady business practices took hold & sales team essentially had a 100% turnover rate.

Artsy's online auction and Buy Now platforms repeatedly offered and sold numerous counterfeit Roy Lichtenstein prints that contrary to their purported listings were NOT published or sold by Art Basel in the 1987 Art Fair and also NOT referenced at Roy Lichtenstein Foundation. Bottomline each of the so called 1987 Art Basel Special Offer Prints are counterfeit, many accompanied with Certificates of Authenticity too.

A counterfeit Roy Lichtenstein print erroneously described as "Rare promotional print produced for Art Basel in 1987 was sold at least twice by EHC Fine Art Gallery. From an edition of 1000. Stamped en verso, comes matted and ready to frame. Measures 15 x 15 inches with mat" was included in the Artsy EHC Fine Art Gallery auction that ended May 4, 2021. The purported Roy Lichtenstein print for Art Basel features the famous Girl in Mirror image Lichtenstein originally created in 1964 was never published by Art Basel in 1987 or documented by the Roy Lichtenstein Foundation. .

First, Roy Lichtenstein was very much alive in 1987; also the Roy Lichtenstein Foundation includes an ample list of posters, ephemera and promotional art on its expansive website, but the purported Art Basel print is not included among any of the 1987 entires at the Roy Lichtenstein Foundation.

For the record, Roy Lichtenstein created three works featuring the Girl in the Mirror image, The most important is Girl in Mirror, 1964, a stunning porcelain enamel on steel created in an edition of 8 plus AP's that is detailed carefully on the Roy Lichtenstein Foundation website here. An example of Roy Lichtenstein Girl in the Mirror, 1964 sold at Phillips London for £4,800,000. Roy Lichtenstein also created two 1964 unique colored pencil on paper studies which you can see here and here, but alas NO Art Basel print was ever created by Roy Lichtenstein ever.

Art Basel is well known for hosting Art Fairs, but alas, Art Basel has never published any limited edition print including this purported "rare promotional print erroneously documented from an edition of 1000" using Roy Lichtenstein's iconic Girl in the Mirror, 1964.

Most of the counterfeit Artsy listings boast the seller's inclusion of a Certificate of Authenticity (COA), which is also counterfeit and facilitated by Artsy who makes no attempt to review the authenticity of any Certificate of Authenticity. It is a felony in 50 States for an art seller to knowingly uses a false COA to sell a counterfeit work of art.

Purported Roy Lichtenstein offset lithograph not published by Art Basel, not documented by Roy Lichtenstein Foundation

Careful review of press material from the 1987 Art Basel Fair yields no mention and/or reference to the numerous and "rare Art Basel promotional editions of 1,000 Artsy has frequently sold on its Buy Now and auction interfaces. In addition, there are other disturbing anomalies. A verso image included in this auction lot and others indicates "vintage print" which is illogical for legitimate 1987 published print edition. Also the verso is stamped in ink, stating "1000 copies" which is an embarrassingly sloppy error; an established publisher of limited editions would never refer to a numbered edition of 1,000 impressions by incorrectly ascribing "copies"; a more precise reference is "edition of 1,000". Let's say the limited edition was published and released in 1987, no established publisher would immediately reference a contemporary print publication as "vintage", to think otherwise is absurd.

1987 limited edition from established publisher would never state "Vintage-Print" or "1000 copies"

The purported Roy Lichtenstein Girl in Mirror 1987 Art Basel rare promotional print is not referenced, mentioned or included on extensive list of 1987 Roy Lichtenstein artworks documented by the Roy Lichtenstein Foundation. First, Roy Lichtenstein was very much alive in 1987; plus the Roy Lichtenstein Foundation includes an ample list of posters, ephemera and promotional art, but not this counterfeit. Bottomline, this is not a rare promotional anything, just a worthless counterfeit; it is not collectable and never will be. Unfortunately this counterfeit is one of numerous fraudulent artworks sold at Artsy, in its auctions and Buy Now platforms.

Roy Lichtenstein Girl in Mirror, 1964 is iconic artwork created on porcelain enamel on steel, executed in an edition of eight examples, each measuring 42 x 42 inches. Here is the legitimate documentation record at the Lichtenstein Foundation.

Roy Lichtenstein Girl in Mirror, 1964, porcelain enamel on steel documented by the Roy Lichtenstein Foundation

This was not the only time EHC Fine Art Gallery sold a counterfeit impression of this same Roy Lichtenstein print on Artsy. Here is another counterfeit impression featuring the Girl With Mirror image sold by Artsy in EHC Essential Editions IV auction.

Counterfeit Roy Lichtenstein never published by Art Basel in 1987 in edition of 1,000 sold on Artsy

Here is a counterfeit Andy Warhol Bighorn Ram, EHC Fine Art Gallery sold in a 2018 Artsy auction. Falsely documented as as a "Color Offset Lithograph for Art Basel, Mounted and Unframed", the purported documentation falsely describes this work as a "Rare promotional print produced for Art Basel in 1987. From an edition of 1000. Stamped en verso, comes matted and ready to frame. Measures 15 x 15 inches with mat". However, the details adjacent to the photograph are conflicting as this part of the listing indicates the size is 8 3/8 × 8 1/4 inches.

At the end of the day, size doesn't matter as this counterfeit Andy Warhol Bighorn Ram from the Endangered Species isn't rare either as erroneously stated on Artsy. Like so many other counterfeit listings that include Art Basel reference, NONE were published or sold in 1987 by Art Basel. Bottomline, while Art Basel is well known for hosting art fairs around the world, Art Basel has NEVER published any limited edition print, including this counterfeit using an Andy Warhol Bighorn Ram image originally created for the Endangered Species portfolio of 10.

Counterfeit Andy Warhol Bighorn Ram falsely documented in an Artsy online auction as "rare promotional print produced for Art Basel in 1987 in an edition of 1000. Stamped en verso, comes matted and ready to frame. Measures 15 x 15 inches with mat, this purported Andy Warhol was NEVER published by Art Basel

Chiswick Auctions sold several counterfeit Andy Warhol prints in various Artsy online auctions, falsely claiming each published by the Carnegie Museum of Art, Pittsburgh. Documented incorrectly as a "lithograph print", this lot featured counterfeit Andy Warhol Mickey Mouse Chiswick erroneously stated was stamped "CMOA" on the verso. The reality is the image is a counterfeit Andy Warhol Mickey Mouse unique trial proof color screenprint from the Myths Series, although that is NOT referenced or mentioned, one of many dozen counterfeit Andy Warhol prints never published or authorized by the Carnegie Museum of Art, Pittsburgh.

In 2015, Lauritz.com, a Swiss auction firm withdrew 36 counterfeit Andy Warhol prints, each purportedly published by the Carnegie Museum of Art, Pittsburgh and stamped CMOA on verso. Although we repeatedly informed former CEO Mike Steib and the Artsy auction team the Carnegie Museum of Art NEVER published any Andy Warhol artwork, including those stamped with "CMOA" on the verso, our communication with accompanying substantiation was repeatedly ignored as several dozen Andy Warhol counterfeits NOT published by the Carnegie Museum of Art, Pittsburgh continued to be sold by Artsy via online auctions and Buy Now listings as indicated by the links we have posted in this disturbing article showing the callous lack of ethics by Artsy. Curiously, the listings were full of fictional details, edition sizes and descriptions varied; sometimes listed as edition of 5,000, other times 1,000. of 1000, sometimes 5,000, other times 2,400!

Counterfeit Andy Warhol Mickey Mouse sold on Artsy, falsely documented as a hand numbered lithograph print from an edition of 5,000, 19 7/10 × 15 7/10 inches never published by the Carnegie Museum of Art, Pittsburgh

Counterfeit Andy Warhol Campbell's Pepper Pot Soup print from an edition of 2,400 impressions NEVER published by Carnegie Museum of Art, Pittsburgh sold in online Artsy auction by Chiswick Auctions, October 2019. The fact is Artsy has a strong group of editorial staff who diligently authored articles about fakes yet the auction team keeps listing fakes.

Counterfeit Andy Warhol Pepper Pop Soup falsely documented as" lithograph print, 19 7/10 × 27 3/5 inches from an edition of 2,400 impressions that is stamped on reverse CMOA" never published by Carnegie Museum of Art, Pittsburgh sold by Chiswick Auctions on Artsy, October 2019

Here are six counterfeit Andy Warhol prints NOT published by Art Basel or the Carnegie Museum of Art, Pittsburgh, sold by Alpha 137 Gallery, Samhart Gallery and Lyons Gallery, fraudulent sellers, condoned by Artsy. Let's be clear, this is a sample of the many counterfeit Andy Warhol prints posted by fraudulent these sellers.

Counterfeit Andy Warhol prints posted for sale on Artsy NOT published by Art Basel and Carnegie Museum of Art, Pittsburgh

Posthumous Renoir Etching Misrepresented by Heather James Gallery on Artsy.

A posthumous impression of Pierre-Auguste Renoir's Le Chapeau Epingle (also known as La Fille de Berthe Morisot et sa Cousine), an 1884 etching presumably printed in 1921, caught our attention. Sold on Artsy by Heather James Gallery, the listing is deeply troubling and frankly, inexcusable on several levels.

First and foremost, the Artsy listing falsely describes this work as an "original etching," despite clear documentation it as a "posthumous impression, framed." By definition, an etching printed after an artist’s death cannot be an original limited edition. Renoir passed away in 1919—making any impression printed after his death posthumous.

This particular print was sold in 2018 by Heather James Gallery in an unnamed benefit auction on Artsy. The lot attracted 15 bids and sold for $7,200, including Artsy's 20% buyer’s premium, despite being estimated at just $2,000. Notably, no charity was named in connection with this so-called benefit auction—raising even more questions. Why did Artsy approve a charity auction with no specified charity?

This is a textbook case of deceptive documentation. A competent auction specialist would have immediately flagged the glaring contradiction: a posthumous impression cannot be labeled as an original etching. The listing falsely claims the work is signed—yet the piece is unsigned. The lack of due diligence is alarming, and the buyer scammed and misled.

Let’s be clear: this posthumously printed Renoir is not original, not signed, and not collectible. You can find similar posthumous prints on the market for as little as $360. Heather James Gallery surely knew this. Artsy, having raised over $100 million in funding, should be held to a higher standard. That this was allowed to happen on their platform—with no accountability—is unacceptable.

Posthumous Pierre-Auguste Renoir Misrepresented by Heather James Gallery on Artsy was falsely described as an original limited edition signed etching

Heather James Gallery did not show any photographs with the frame mentioned in the Artsy auction lot description, a recurring observation. Also the documentation incorrectly indicates "signature L/L", when in reality the posthumous Renoir etching is signed in the stone, therefore, not hand-signed at all, but again that was not stated. The correct signature documentation reference, which is a designated Artsy field, is "signed "Renoir" in the stone lower left recto". For the record, if Artsy were transparent, this lot would have clearly stated "not hand signed".

There is a significant Artsy user group pre-disposed to buying incorrectly documented and generally worthless art by famous name artists, often sold at bargain prices. Sadly this group of Artsy buyers mistakenly equate value to low price. Buyers attracted by bargain prices unfortunately fail to recognize they are actually buying worthless crap that will never appreciate. More alarming, this material will never be re-purchased by the respective sellers of this worthless crap.

Repeatedly we have observed spirited auction bidding at low price levels for works by famous name artists, either deceptively and/or incorrectly documented. As a result, Artsy has attracted a small group of dealers and Artsy auction consignors who exploit and leverage downscale art, in effect non collectible material that will never appreciate, and in fact over time, will erode user confidence as evident by Trustpilot and Better Business Bureau reviews To be clear, we are referring to Artsy listings that would never be sold by Sotheby's, Christie's, Philips, or any current member of the Art Dealers Association of America and the International Fine Art Dealer's Association.

Every one of 111 lots in Artsy's x Capsule Modern & Contemporary Master Auction of March 25, 2021 closed simultaneously and disappeared at exactly 12 noon, making it impossible for anyone to bid on multiple lots. Realized auction prices as well as unsold lots were nowhere to be found 12:01 pm, March 25, 2021. Because we carefully monitored the sale, we estimate only 46 of 111 lots, March 25, 2021 sold, representing 41% sell through rate; the auction grossed paltry $177,840 including buyer's premium. Specifically aggregate hammer price gross was $148,200 and gross buyer's premium insignificant $29,640.

Artsy x Capsule March 25, 2021 auction grossed $177,840, 46 of 111 lots sold,
representing 41% sell through; total buyer's premium for 46 lots only $29,640.

Aside from 3 miscatalogued lots, 2 by Pablo Picasso, another by Frank Stella and 3 others, Artsy's March 25, 2021 Capsule Modern & Contemporary Master Auction failed to include any art by Masters. The majority of the 111 posted lots were inconsequential, lots advertised prints by Donald Baechler, the Conner Brothers, Mr. Brainwash, Donald Sultan, Invader, Mark Ryden, Swoon, Hunt Slonem, Sonia Delaunay; others were purportedly posters by Joan Miro and Jacob Lawrence, none recognized as art by Master Artists.

Several lots in March 25, 2021 Artsy curated auction were documentation challenged. Lot 1 was purported 1964 Pablo Picasso terracotta impression, Petit buste de femme (A.R. 523), edition number 53/100 with a $25,000-$35,000 pre-sale estimate that went unsold.

Artsy includes only one photo for Lot 1, Pablo Picasso Petit buste de femme (A.R. 523), 1964

The following side-by-side compares the purported Artsy example to another terracotta example of Pablo Picasso Petit buste de femme (A.R. 523), 1964 sold by Christie's in 2015.

Atypical color example offered @Artsy compared to example sold at Christie's in 2015

Christie's included a photograph of Picasso's Madoura stamp appearing on the verso, "Madoura Plein Feu/Empreinte Originale de Picasso/42/100" in its lot listing, which is essential due to the extent of counterfeit Madoura examples flooding the market. It was callous of Artsy specialist, if there was one, to overlook inclusion of verso photograph especially since no one inspects any lot, and based on posted conditions of sale, never will. Carefully compare the two photographs above; there are enough visible red flags; we would never recommend buying purported Picasso terracotta without prior inspection.

Posted Artsy assurances are loaded with meaningless double-talk including erroneous Authenticity statement. "We pride ourselves on the quality of our partners, and every seller is required to accurately list works on our platform. That said, you should always feel empowered to ask for documentation related to an artwork’s authenticity, provenance, condition, and so forth." The statement is obvious double-talk and hyperbole in light of Artsy's "AS IS" anything goes condition of sale.

"A Glassdoor.com review from a former Artsy employee states "No one believes Artsy is 'honest and transparent'. The old CEO's regime maybe didn't have great business sense but at least people felt valued and wanted to do good work."

Meaningless posted Artsy authenticity statement:

Artsy's meaningless double-talk assurance regarding authenticity

Artsy should establish a bona-fide condition of sale NOT full of empty prose to ensure users don't buy fraudulent counterfeits and/or misdocumented art. It behooves Artsy to eliminate its "wild wild west" conditions of sale, post haste.

Lot 3, offered for sale April 25, 2021 is a prime example of Artsy's disingenuous and meaningless statement, "we pride ourselves on the quality of our partners". Offered for sale in an Artsy auction, this purported Pablo Picasso linocut is titled Femme assise en pyjama de plage II, 1964.

This is a text-book example of sloppy documentation consistently condoned by Artsy. For reference, the regular published edition was 100 numbered impressions printed on paper measuring 21 1/2 x 17 inches, image size: 15 1/2 x 11 3/4 inches. Yet, the Artsy lot documents the impression as 15 2/5 x 11 7/10 inches, which is close to the image size if it doesn't include the border.

Why guess?

Online art buyers are not fans of receiving art that is materially different than the posted lot descriptions and posted lot photographs. Often times listings show multiple stats which is beyond confusing and frankly not a good sign that the seller knows what they are doing.

Why does Artsy fail to include a photograph of the frame mentioned in the lot description? Why the secrecy? The condition report states “No apparent condition issues. Framed dimensions: 15 3/8 x 11 3/4”, now we’ve already established paper size must be 21 1/2 x 17 inches according to Pablo Picasso catalogue raisonne of prints, so this is impossible. Even worse, specialist didn't include photograph showing purported framed Picasso even though lot description indicates “work not examined outside the frame”. If it wasn’t examined outside of frame, then why is there is no posted photograph of framed impression? It is impossible and unprofessional! If you bid, what are you buying?

The colors of this Pablo Picasso linocut, appears unusually bright and enhanced, inconsistent with images documented in the well known Pablo Picasso linocut catalogue raisonne and numerous impressions sold by Christie's. Similar to numerous online auction lots at Artsy, lot details are vague and incomplete; the provenance states: ”private collection United States”, which means nothing but frankly understandable given the Glassdoor statement from a former Artsy employee, "the company is now run by a bunch of corporate hypocrites who know nothing about art".

Why does the lot description indicate this Picasso linocut edition number is "96/100" although the accompanying lot photograph indicates it is an "HC" impression. The specialist in charge, if there is one, stipulates the impression is "edition number 96/100" yet the lot photograph that was presumably approved by someone at Artsy indicates the impression is an unnumbered "HC".

Which is correct?

We would never consider buying this purported Pablo Picasso Artsy auction lot and neither should you.

Artsy lot photograph indicates purported Picasso impression is "HC"
although lot description indicates contradictory edition number "96/100"

Artsy sellers get a free pass to sell whatever they want without fear of recourse thanks to meaningless Artsy conditions of sale. It is just that dangerous for all Artsy buyers and that's why smart buyers should avoid buying fine art in Artsy auctions. Artsy has attracted a small group of art dealers/art sellers who exploit and offer for sale downscale art that is generally not collectible by capitalizing on Artsy's legitimacy.

Take a look at a misleading Frank Stella photograph and lot listing that generated enthusiastic online auction bidding. A misleading photograph of Frank Stella Bene Come II Sale, 1989 is clearly why lot 2, the Frank Stella print, received 9 bids, achieving $13,200. The following side by side shows both photographs included in in this misleading Artsy lot; we assume the enhanced photograph is the sole reason an otherwise dull impression of Frank Stella Bene Come II Sale, 1989 had spirited bidding. Presumably the bidders of this Frank Stella lot didn't realize the lot included inconsistent photographs.

Artsy lead photograph shows misleading enhanced photograph of Frank Stella Bene Come II Sale, 1989

This side by side comparison shows two impressions of Frank Stella's Bene Come II Sale, 1989, the enhanced, misleading impression sold by Artsy, adjacent to another impression of this same print sold at Phillips, 10/25/2019. Each of the impressions were from regular numbered editions of 50. Artsy's enhanced impression, edition number 27/50, fetched $13,200, while the Phillips impression, edition number 22/50, realized $8,750, 10/25/2019.

Enhanced impression, edition number 27/50 sold by Artsy realized $13,200
compared to edition number 22/50, sold for $8,750 at Phillips NY, 10/25/2019

Glaring the lack of involvement by Artsy specialists; in our opinion, it is unacceptable to condone obvious sloppiness. Based on numerous complaints from Artsy buyers and sellers who have bought and sold art, Artsy has consistently failed to take any responsibility even when the facts are obvious. Legitimate complaints by Artsy buyers are repeatedly ignored and/or difficult to find because they are buried under a coincidental abundance of five star invited reviews.

Unlike eBay and 1stdibs, Artsy never asks or posts user feedback. However, user reviews posted on the Better Business Bureau and Trustpilot underscore Artsy has consistently failed to pro-actively vet listings. A serious flaw is Artsy's management's failure to implement pro-active vetting procedures to ensure its site is without spurious, incorrectly documented or worse, counterfeit art. Paradoxically, Artsy has a first class editorial program and often authors considered articles about the dangers of buying fine art both online and in galleries, yet Artsy buy now and auctions take a blind eye to eliminating spurious and/or incorrectly documented art.

2020 Hiscox Online Art Trade Report

Is it Authentic?

The fear of buying counterfeits was cited by over half of all respondents in the 2020 Hiscox Online Art Trade Report.

According to the 2020 Hiscox online art trade report, 60% of art buyers said lack of information about an artwork’s provenance was a serious impediment to buying, and 51% stated a fear of buying art because it could be a fake. Artsy has never implemented any post sale safeguards. Clearly buyer confidence is paramount yet Artsy continues to host auctions by sellers who consistently incorrectly described works and clear fakes. In addition, Artsy is notoriously silent regarding the specific systems in place regarding counterfeits, and won't divulge number of complaints received regarding fakes and forgeries. In addition legitimate Artsy user concerns and complaints are diminished and or reduced in Google Search because Artsy has published a variety of articles about authenticity issues. In all cases the published Artsy articles never address legitimate concerns posted by users nor objectively assess obvious flaws in posted Artsy listings. As a result, this strategy buries the user reviews deeper in Google Search result, which was a strategy effectively that used by Auctionata before it was forced to close after burning through $95.4 million in venture capital.

The rules of buying art online should be no different than art you view.

Until Artsy eliminates its appalling, apathetic conditions of sale, we can't think of a single reason you should risk buying online art from Artsy. Whether buying art online or buying art in a gallery, it is essential the respective art purchased is authentic, ideally documented in the respective Artist's catalogue raisonne if there is one. If not documented in an authoritative source like a catalogue raisonne, it is always risky to buy art if the seller description is unclear or inaccurate. There is no point in buying the wrong art, or art with little value, or worse, counterfeit art due to false or exaggerated hyperbole.

When online online art sellers lose trust and buyer confidence, they are finished. Auctionata and Paddle8 two online art sites that lost user trust. Founded in 2011, Paddle8 evolved into an online auction venue; in 2020, Paddle8 filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, facing lawsuits and significant debts to numerous entities, including Justin Bieber and Jay-Z's Shawn Carter Foundation,

that have experienced and realized repeated abandonment of user trust include Auctionata and Paddle8. Condoning the appalling conditions of sale and apathetic vetting stance places Artsy on a fast track to eliminate buyer/user trust.

Going forward, Artsy cannot rely on only marketing and technology initiatives but must implement a pro-active vetting procedure with a bona team. This is a serious oversight that remarkably Artsy has never established. The challenge is daunting and requires a concerted team to ensure all Artsy listings are void of spurious, incorrectly documented fine art or worse counterfeits. Former CEO Mike Steib has previously indicated Artsy welcomes input from its users about spurious material, stating his team is beyond reproach but Steib has consistently failed to realize one million Artsy listings requires a full time vetting team.

Because listings are posted 24/7, absent a meaningful pro-active vetting procedure, Artsy will continue to enable seller fraud. The lack of any vetting procedure has been a welcome mat for fraudulent art sellers on eBay. There are hundreds if not thousands of art sellers on eBay who exclusively sell fraudulent fine art and unfortunately fall under the radar because eBay does not vet its art listings. View big name art listings posted on eBay majority of fraudulent eBay listings are very obvious to anyone knowledgable, yet bargain Because numerous estates do NOT authenticate any works of art these days, including the Estates of Keith Haring, Jean-Michel Basquist, Andy Warhol, Jackson Pollock, etc., fraudulent sellers e that are overtly obvious but because policing of its art listings. If on the other hand Artsy does nothing and ignores our plea, then Artsy's seemingly inability and indifference to sufficiently address the lack of buyer confidence will lead art buyers and reputable dealers/galleries to ultimately abandon the platform.

Shop Guaranteed Authentic Fine Art From Joseph K. Levene Fine Art, Ltd.

Was Auctionata Ever Ethical?

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph K. Levene) — Mon, 11 May 2020 22:30:00 -0400

by Robert Grunder & Joseph K. Levene

Auctionata closes after burning $95.6 million in venture capital

Why did online auction start-up Auctionata close after burning $95.6 million in venture capital if it purportedly was online global leader in art and luxury collectibles?

Truth be told, neither Auctionata nor Paddle8 was ever global leader of anything. Auctionata's problems stem from a massive scam of fraud, lies, exaggeration, hyperbole and insider trading orchestrated with precision by former CEO Alexander Zacke and his wife Susanne Zacke, which according to the recently released KPMG audit of Auctionata, extend into Zacke's family, including his mother Irene and his son Maximilian Zacke.

An objective financial accounting will show Auctionata's astonishing sales and purported record growth vs. prior years was pure fiction.

The fact is none of Auctionata's so called record online sale achievements were ever supported by actual sales. Unlike Sotheby's and Christie's, Auctionata never released any detailed data. Most alarming, actual auction results published on Live Auctioneers don't corroborate the erroneous record sales cited in Auctionata press releases which were in turn picked up by the international press, which failed to confirm via any due diligence.

Robert Grunder and Joseph K. Levene co-authored several critical articles about Auctionata, including Auctionata Guarantee is a Guaranteed Risk where we assessed the meaningless 25 year Auctionata guarantee; in this article for The Fine Art Blog, we stated:

"Hyperbole, documentation errors, mistakes, accepted norm at Auctionata. The analysis showed the Auctionata guarantee was largely a publicity stunt and hardly a guarantee of anything because the Auctionata terms & conditions exclusions void 25-year-Auctionata guarantee. We also noted that hyperbole, exaggeration, errors and omissions are routine at Auctionata. It appears the majority of Auctionata communication was simply regurgitated, becoming propaganda, accepted without equivocation by the American press, including: Forbes, Skates, The New York Times, Luxury Daily, e-commerce bytes."

Alexander Zacke erroneously tells 2013 IDCEE conference Auctionata fastest growing company

Auctionata was never global leader of anything.

In 2014, Auctionata erroneously alleged record sales with a 70% sold through rate communicated to the press. But, according to data only available at Live Auctioneers and not Auctionata itself, the unsold lot rate was actually 41.2% for 12,091 lots offered at Auctionata AG and Auctionata Inc. Unsold rates in New York where the company launched in October 2014 were even worse; for the balance of 2014, the unsold rate in New York was 58.8% and some NY auctions, like African & Oceanic art, where ONLY 6 lots sold, exceeded 90% unsold. Clearly, Auctionata management was never objective about its poor New York performance. Factor in the consistent gang of negative reviews from buyers who claimed they would never do business again proves the strong growth touted by then CEO Alexander Zacke was just a fantasy.

For the two years between 2014-2015, only 11 of the top 33 Auctionata lots that sold for over €91,000 were art.

10 lots sold over €91,000 were watches/clocks, a partnership with Chrono24.
8 lots sold over €91,000 were cars.
4 lots sold over €91,000 antiques.
In addition, Auctionata deceptively erased 44 unsold photography lots in its 2/26/15 auction.

In 2014, Ben Hartley, then International managing director at Auctionata erroneously boasted most Auctionata lots sell between $5,000 and $20,000.

However, the truth is during 2014, Auctionata ONLY sold 193 auction lots priced between $5,000 and $20,000, out of a total universe of 8,255 lots sold in Germany and New York, translating to just 2.3% of all lots sold. Regarding New York sales, based on limited results available, Auctionata sold only 34 lots during 2014, of which 6 were between $5,000 and $20,000. Most surprising, Auctionata sold a staggering 1,840 lots under $50.00, representing 22% of ALL Auctionata lots sold in 2014, contrary to its 2/15 press release stating there is "demand in the mid-market range for art and luxury collectibles that is not being met."

In our judgment, every $50 lot sold by Auctionata had an incremental administrative cost of at least $125 per lot. And we stated that to avoid unnecessary financial ruin, it behooves Auctionata to immediately cease selling low-end lots under $150-$250, which will never be profitable even with their almost 50% combined commission rate from buyers and sellers. After all, Auctionata was just burning money and filling the pockets of Alexander Zacke as it was building auction studios around the world; had a team of over 300 employees and 300 experts, etc.

In 2015, Auctionata purportedly sold 5 art lots for over $200K, each with competing bids, yet all were mysteriously erased from sold auction results, including a mediocre Claude Monet and Paul Klee, even though Live Auctioneers showed numerous competing bids, all above the respective low estimates, obviously shill bids created to falsify results. The same exists for numerous 2015 lots in other categories such as cars, watches, clocks, etc., many also apparently sold with competing bids, yet all magically erased after their respective auctions, an issue not addressed in the KPMG audit.

Only 26 lots sold out of 80, Auctionata watch auction, 3/30/2015

Although press releases subsequent to the KPMG merger and recent bankruptcy announcement stress transparency, nothing could be further from the truth.

Auctionata consistently made a habit of purging all negative information, like every unsold lot from its website, although Auctionata was unable to eliminate unsold lot results from Live Auctioneers. In fact, financial results were never released publicly at Auctionata either before or after the KPMG audit that promised transparency. It is incomprehensible the extent in which investors have been unable to carefully review financial results on either a macro or micro basis. Most disturbing is the overt disregard to authenticity and ethics which is the single most cited complaint among auction and store buyers at Auctionata.

Auctionata & Paddle8 have burned over $146 million in venture capital

Auctionata's investors were largely unaware or condoned Alexander Zacke's shocking lack of ethics, management inexperience and naivety about art and the online auction market because they continued to provide five rounds of venture capital funds even though there was no corroborating sales support.

CEO Thomas Hess correctly stated: "Auctionata did not have the leadership it needed for a long time," regarding founder Alexander Zacke, although truth is Auctionata never had the leadership. According to crunchbase, investors have lost over $146.1 million in both firms; Auctionata burned over $95.6 million in venture capital since 2012 and Paddle8 the company Auctionata merged with in 2016, has burned over $51 million in venture capital since 2011 and continues to burn more funds after just getting a $15 million investment to finance its separation from Auctionata.

Why wasn't Alexander Zacke, his wife Susanne Zacke, complicit members of its supervisory board dismissed for fraud?

Why wasn't Alexander Zacke, his wife Susanne Zacke and complicit members of its supervisory board immediately dismissed after results of the KPMG audit indicated massive patterns of fraud by the Zackes, inappropriate consignments and buying by his mother Irene Zacke and son Maximilian Zacke?

Although the KPMG audit indicated without equivocation Alexander Zacke, his wife and other members of the supervisory board, investors and employees, have repeatedly acquired objects through the auctions of the start-up company, under their own name or under pseudonyms, Alexander and Susanne Zacke continued to work for Auctionata until October 2016. Former CEO Alexander Zacke and Auctionata disingenuously stated results of the KPMG audit were transparent, when the facts show otherwise. In fact, Alexander Zacke suppressed the results of the KPMG audit; never released the findings publicly and clearly misled Paddle8 management in its merger.

Auctionata's response to the KPMG audit was hardly transparent nor honest.

Robert Grunder and Joseph K. Levene co-authored "Auctionata & Paddle8 merge despite serious trade violations by CEO". In this article for The Fine Art Blog, we referenced Alexander Zacke's lame excuse where he stated "Our bidding activity in 2013 and 2014 during which we bought some paintings and other things was […] to decorate our Berlin apartment; others also made purchases for similar reasons." Zacke statement: disingenuously defends the egregious civil and criminal activity stating: "Naturally we made mistakes in the beginning, but such mistakes are common in start-ups. It would be rather astounding had this not been the case."

The KPMG audit indicates the Zacke's implemented the Auctionata scam by buying and consigning material which helped inflate auction results right from the beginning of the company's launch.

The KPMG audit indicated the scam included numerous instances of shill bids, hyperbole, conflicts of interest, poor evaluation procedures, fraudulent material along with a meaningless 25 guarantee that up until the KPMG audit, was never questioned by either its numerous investors and/or the international press.

There is no question Zacke's scam was abetted by the International Press who never challenged Auctionata's erroneous growth.

The Auctionata PR Department issued press releases which in turn resulted in erroneous international headlines like: Auctionata Successfully Closes 2 with +163% sales increase which was picked up via bizjournals and artdaily. Disrupting the global auction market: Auctionata achieves online world was anther bit of press release magic picked up without due diligence by privateartinvestor.com

Auctionata customer warns INACCURATE condition reports

Alexander Zacke never had requisite experience to be CEO of online start-up Auctionata.

It is incredible no one had the foresight to say, wait a second, what does Alexander Zacke know about running a complex online art business where ethics and transparency are vital? Only the German press hinted at Alexander Zacke's mysterious dismissal as Dorotheum Asian art department head. Auctionata's investors were either unaware or condoned the ethics violations Alexander Zacke committed as Dorotheum Asian art department head as well as Zacke's shady eBay history.

Alexander Zacke claimed to be a major eBay seller yet his listings and sales were never public.

In fact, Alcxander Zacke always sold lots on eBay via private listings which in turn precluded buyers ability to ever see final selling prices of all items that are listed privately on eBay. In addition, private listings were the favorite choice of scam eBay sellers who manipulated prices via shill bids, as buyer names were never disclosed and sellers could either bid themselves or have friends and/or family members bid items up.

KPMG audit confirms Alexander Zacke guilty serious trade violations, including insider trading & shill bidding

The KPMG audit indicated the scam included numerous instances of shill bids, hyperbole, conflicts of interest, poor evaluation procedures, fraudulent material along with a meaningless 25 year guarantee that up until the KPMG audit, was not challenged.

For the sake of Auctionata's investors and to aid in a potential criminal investigation, Auctionata should issue revised financials for 2013-2015 purging all lots with shill bids including those manipulated with bots by Alexander & Susanne Zacke along with settlements paid to customers affected. Given the scope of the accusations detailed in the KPMG audit, it wouldn't surprise us if Auctionata investors request criminal prosecution of Alexander and Susanne Zacke and the board of directors who failed to operate without prejudice in an arms length manner. Former CEO Thomas Hesse blames former CEO Alexander Zacke for contributing to the insolvency with the takeover of Paddle8. He says "The merger of Auctionata and Paddle8 cost a lot of money," says Hesse. The truth is the problems started well before the Paddle8 merger, and Alexander Zacke used the merger to hide the results of the KPMG audit.

Auctionata is no more. @artnet https://t.co/C77ZINVKLy

— Brian Boucher (@briankboucher) February 28, 2017

Thankfully, Auctionata has been forced to close

With liquidation proceedings beginning on March 1, 2017, this sad scam comes to an end. Hopefully, German authorities will pursue criminal charges against Alexander and Susanne Zacke as well as other complicit board members for their extensive violations of German law.

Shop Guaranteed Authentic Fine Art From Joseph K. Levene Fine Art, Ltd.

Fake 1973 Roy Lichtenstein Prints Dupe Christie's, Phillips & Sotheby's Specialists

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph K. Levene) — Mon, 4 May 2020 17:43:00 -0400

by Robert Grunder & Joseph K. Levene

Why were 5 FAKE Roy Lichtenstein prints from non-existent Printers Proof edition accepted by London specialists at Christie's, Phillips & Sotheby's?

Why did specialists at Phillips, Christie's & Sotheby's London accept 5 FAKE Roy Lichtenstein prints for auctions, each erroneously cataloged as Printer's Proofs?

Starting in October 2016, counterfeit Roy Lichtenstein Finger Pointing prints from a non-existent edition of 10 Printer's Proofs have repeatedly fooled London auction specialists at Christie's, Phillips & Sotheby's. So far, all 5 of the Fake Finger Pointing Printer's Proof impressions have been confined to Europe.

Fake Roy Lichtenstein Finger Pointing erroneously documented as Printer's Proof 4/10 sold for $11.4K at Christie's

Fake Roy Lichtenstein Finger Pointing erroneously numbered PP 4/10 from non-existant edition of 10, sold $11.4K at Christie's

2 months later, Phillips sold another Fake Finger Pointing; this time documented as Printer's Proof 10/10

2 months later, Phillips sold Fake Finger Pointing, erroneously numbered PP 10/10 from non-existent Printer's Proof edition for £10,625, January 19, 2017

Roy Lichtenstein's Finger Pointing screenprint was originally created as one of 30 limited edition prints included in the 1973 New York Collection for Stockholm Portfolio published for Moderna Museet. For perspective, regular numbered impressions of Finger Pointing from the edition of 300 have auctioned separately about 5 times over the last 3 decades.

The Roy Lichtenstein Prints Catalogue Raisonné avoids reference to any Finger Pointing Printer's Proof edition.

Although the Roy Lichtenstein Print Catalogue Raisonné correctly stipulates the 1973 Finger Pointing screenprint was published in a regular numbered edition of 300 impressions, the reference concerning proofs is vague; the Catalogue just states an "unknown number of proofs".

Roy Lichtenstein Prints Catalogue Raisonné avoids reference of 75 proofs documented in other Catalogue Raisonnés

M. Corlett, The Prints of Roy Lichtenstein: A Catalogue Raisonné 1948-1993, New York, 1994, no. 126

Whoever is responsible for the 5 Fake Finger Pointing impressions from the non-existent edition of 10 Printer's Proofs didn't consult Heiner Bastian's Cy Twombly: A Catalogue Raisonné of the Printed Graphic Work 1953-1984, Richard Axsom's Printed Stuff: Prints, Posters, and Ephemera by Claes Oldenburg, A Catalogue Raisonné 1958-1996 or other Catalogue Raisonnés for prints included in the historic Stockholm Portfolio.

Cy Twombly Untitled, 1973 print from the same portfolio is documented in the Cy Twombly Catalogue Raisonné on page 67, Bastian concurs that in addition to the regular numbered edition of 300, there are 100 other proofs, including: 9 PP's, 30 AC's; 31 PC's; 4 TP's; 25 AP's & 1 Workshop Proof.

Cy Twombly Catalogue Raisonné 1953-1984, Catalogue #38:

Heiner Bastian, Cy Twombly: A Catalogue Raisonné of the Printed Graphic Work 1953-1984, NY University Press, 1985, no. 38

Claes Oldenburg, A Catalogue Raisonné 1958-1996, Catalogue Reference 109:

Richard H Axsom & David Platzker. Printed Stuff: Prints, Posters & Ephemera by Claes Oldenburg, A Catalogue Raisonné 1958-1996. Manchester, Vermont: Hudson Hills Press, 1997, no. 109

Do specialists at Christie's, Sotheby's and Phillip's know left vs. right?

According to The Prints of Roy Lichtenstein: A Catalogue Raisonné 1948-1993, authentic Finger Pointing impressions all contain the Roy Lichtenstein copyright "©" and Styria Studio stamps on the lower left, with each numbered in pencil on the lower right.

By comparison, the FAKE Printer's Proof Finger Pointing impressions are ALL incorrectly stamped on the lower right and numbered left.

More disturbing the fake Finger Pointing impressions share wavy, distorted "Styria Studio" and "Roy Lichtenstein" stamps, lacking the requisite copyright symbol "©", evident on authentic impressions and clearly documented by Cortett in the Roy Lichtenstein Catalogue Raisonné. The stamps are obvious "homemade" forgeries, yet no auction house mentioned the location and copyright "©" anomalies nor reproduced the erroneous stamps.

The 5 Fake Finger Pointing impressions all share wavy "Styria Studio" & "Roy Lichtenstein" stamps which appear on verso

View Fake vs Authentic Styria Studio & Roy Lichtenstein stamps on verso Finger Pointing:

FAKE Roy Lichtenstein Finger Pointing stamp not only obviously wavvy, but lacks ©, stamped in wrong location.
AUTHENTIC Roy Lichtenstein Finger Pointing stamp bears © along with stabile & legible blank ink stamp, verso.

3 FAKE Finger Pointing Printer's Proof impressions were withdrawn at Sotheby's, Christie's & Phillips because we alerted the respective specialists.

3 more purported Printer''s Proof impressions were accepted for UK auctions in the first half of 2017, but withdrawn after Robert Grunder, Director, Joseph K. Levene Fine Art, Ltd., contacted each firm, explaining discrepancies of the fake Printer's Proofs vs. requisite documentation detailed in The Prints of Roy Lichtenstein: A Catalogue Raisonné 1948-1993. Careful review of the documentation location in conjunction with prior sale of sold impressions from the correct Printer's Proof edition of 9, makes it easy to spot fakes from the non-existent edition of 10. Why weren't the fakes recognized by UK auction house experts at each firm?

Fake Finger Pointing, Lot 215, Withdrawn Christie's, 3/29/17

Fake Finger Pointing, erroneously numbered PP 1/10 from non-existent Printer's Proof edition, Lot 215, Withdrawn Christie's, 3/29/17

Fake Finger Pointing, withdrawn Phillips London, June 7, 2017

Fake Finger Pointing, Withdrawn Sotheby's, Lot 185, 4/4/17 auction

Fake Finger Pointing, erroneously numbered PP 5/10 from non-existent Printer's Proof edition of 10, withdrawn Sotheby's, Lot 185, 4/4/17 auction

Consistent with the Cy Twombly & Claes Oldenburg Print Catalogue Raisonnés, authentic Finger Pointing Printer's Proof impressions from the documented edition of 9 have sold at public auction.

Authentic Finger Pointing Printer's Proof 6/9 sold Santa Monica Auctions, 10/18/09

Authentic Printer's Proof numbered 6/9 sold at Santa Monica Auctions 10/18/2009

Authentic Finger Pointing Printer's Proof 8/9 sold Rago auction, 11/5/16

Authentic Printer's Proof numbered 8/9 sold at Rago 11/5/2016

The Roy Lichtenstein Foundation should update online records for Finger Pointing to accurately reflect the additional 100 proofs as published & confirmed by other Catalogue Raisonnés.

Currently the online records only stipulate there are 25 AP's in addition to the regular numbered edition of 300.

Roy Lichtenstein Foundation entry for Finger Pointing

The vague and incomplete documentation from the Roy Lichtenstein Foundation certainly emboldens forgers who have the added incentive of a low, if any, cost of goods. Since 90% of realized Roy Lichtenstein auction prices are prints, with nearly 200 of those being at least six figures, it is incumbent that the Foundation become more vigilant. While we will continue to point out fakes, perhaps the major auction firms need to be more careful in vetting material, lest they continue to sell suspicious works.

Shop Guaranteed Authentic Fine Art From Joseph K. Levene Fine Art, Ltd.

Condition Matters! Why The Same Ellsworth Kelly Screenprint NOT Always The Same?

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph K. Levene) — Fri, 27 Dec 2019 16:11:00 -0500

by Robert Grunder & Joseph K. Levene

Ellsworth Kelly Screenprint: 2 Examples

Buyers Overlook Condition When Buying Art by Price

Buyers often make the wrong decision when comparing fine art prices from different sellers, especially when the higher priced work of art reflects differences in condition. Artwork in superior condition is always more valuable than art that is torn, repaired, faded, erased, reduced in size, or worse, counterfeit.

A High Priced Auction Is Not Always The Best

The side-by-side comparison of 2 examples of the same Ellsworth Kelly Red/Blue Screenprint; each impression was originally included in the Ten Works x Ten Painters Portfolio, published by the Wadsworth Atheneum. On the left, an impression Sotheby's NY sold for $64,000 in 2007; described as being in "good" condition.

On the right, a pristine impression of the Ellsworth Kelly Red/Blue screenprint available from Joseph K. Levene Fine Art, Ltd., for less than $10,000, which is not only less expensive, but considerably more vivid and brighter as the impression has been archival stored since it was originally published.

Many Buyers Save Money Buying Compromised Art

Sometimes Buyers are mistakenly told a work of art is "mint" or "pristine" or "not faded" when the contrary is true, resulting in the purchase of an inferior work. The truth is there is no savings as the work is just not worth buying at all and the seller description was purposely deceptive to encourage purchase.

Condition Matters!

The Same Jasper Johns Lithograph Can Be Different!

Jasper Johns Savarin Blue: 2 Examples

Quality Art Appreciates

Many sellers do not disclose condition, forcing buyers to guess. Importantly, when the condition of a work of art is omitted, never assume the artwork is satisfactory; protect yourself and ask. But, and there is a big "but" here, never assume that the answer you get is accurate, as many sellers often over-promise.

Some sellers, auction houses, galleries and online auctions will claim a work of art offered for sale is problem free, even when the lot photographs show otherwise.
Many internet art sellers, galleries and auction house personnel do not properly evaluate the condition of art they are offering.
Many sellers are not knowledgeable, including art galleries, auction houses, online auctions, etc.
Other sellers of art are purposely deceptive because they realize the truth will kill the potential sale.
Some art sellers are purposely misleading so as to take advantage of the unsuspecting art buyer.

Request An Objective Condition Evaluation

Many art sellers prefer not including an objective/accurate condition statement since that information will only discourage the buyer. Other art sellers do not document the condition issue on their invoice, because it may provide future liability evidence. Lately we are noticing a pattern of meaningless "condition" statements from online auction sellers who routinely state "no damage to the lot", when the photographs clearly show otherwise.

Auction Houses Are Often Inaccurate About Condition

Never assume a famous auction house is a "guarantee of condition". Just because the art is sold by a "famous name" auction house, that does not mean the condition reported is accurate.

Condition Reports provided by auction houses are merely opinions that don't hold up after your purchase. Most auction will caution prospective buyers they are unable to provide condition evaluations.. You must either inspect the lot yourself if you are knowledgeable, or hire an expert.

Only Buy Art from Reputable Professional Fine Art Dealers

Working with a professional art dealer will pay off in the long-run. Many art dealers are not professional, and some have never seen the work of art they are purportedly selling, or have the connoisseurship to know if the work of art is compromised. However, never assume that all art dealers are professional either.

If You Need A Doctor, You Wouldn't Call A Plumber

There is a difference between an amateur and professional fine art dealer, unless you like throwing money down the drain.

Condition Matters!

The Same Andy Warhol Orangutan Screenprint Can Be Different!

Andy Warhol Orangutan Screenprint: 2 Examples

Shop Guaranteed Authentic Fine Art From Joseph K. Levene Fine Art, Ltd.

Why Has Counterfeit Calder Sculpture Sold Over 75 Times At Auction?

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph K. Levene) — Fri, 10 May 2019 21:15:00 -0400

by Joseph K. Levene & Robert Grunder

Documented by Van Ham as Alexander Calder Pink Elephant, sold $3,616, 12/3/09

Art fraud affects art collectors at all levels, from buyers who spend a few thousand dollars to art collectors and investors who buy six and seven figure art. Unfortunately, many art buyers learn the truth long after they were duped by dishonest art sellers, and rarely receive refunds.

Counterfeit art has low cost of goods. The New York Times reporter Patricia Cohen, stated "between 1996 and 2008, Knoedler earned approximately $60 million on fraudulent artworks and cleared $40 million in profits".

Tweet This Counterfeit Alexander Calder sculpture has more aliases than Al Capone

Earlier this year, the Calder Foundation documented a series of pink and black sculptures, lithographs and textiles, all of which violate Calder's intellectual property rights, often fraudulently misattributed to Alexander Calder.

One of the misappropriated Calder Foundation is a small metal sculpture sold at public auction over 75 times since 2004, at auction houses including Wright, Phillips, Drouot, Bloomsbury, Galerie Fischer and Van Ham.

Since 2004, this work has been misattributed over 40 times as a sculpture by Alexander Calder and more than 35 times as a sculpture created After Alexander Calder.

Documented by Van Ham as Alexander Calder Pink Elephant, sold $3,616, 12/3/09

Documented by Wright as Alexander Calder L'Élephant Noir, sold $5,000, 10/12/10

Thus far in 2013, counterfeit Alexander Calder sculptures have been sold more than seven times by auction houses online and off, including: artnet, Chantilly Encheres, Artprecium, LiveAuctioneers, Rome & Associates and Fraisse & Jabot. Thousands have been spent by ignorant buyers due to deceptive selling practices; due diligence by these firms would have revealed each of the sold sculptures was NOT created by Alexander Calder nor authorized by the Estate of Alexander Calder.

3 misattributed #AlexanderCalder Sculptures sold @LiveAuctioneers in June http://t.co/UXlYQBggwW pic.twitter.com/G6IKTiUeg1

— The Fine Art Blog (@thefineartblog) August 25, 2013

Documented as After Alexander Calder Black Elephant by Fraisse & Jabon, 4/11/13

You could say the small counterfeit sculpture misattributed to Alexander Calder has more aliases than Al Capone, and has been sold with a variety of Titles including:

Elephant Noir

Sun, Moon & Stars

Celestial Elephant

Black Elephant

Pink Elephant

This small sculpture not created by Alexander Calder once fetched $24,857 even though not conceived, designed, nor painted by Alexander Calder nor authorized by anyone from the Calder family or the Estate of Alexander Calder.

Documented by Massol as Alexander Calder L'Élephant Noir, sold $24,857, 8/14/05

Google one of the erroneous titles and/or images shown in this article, and you'll see dozens of counterfeit sculptures attributed to Alexander Calder are sold by unscrupulous art sellers.

Many auction sellers further their deception by accompanying the misattributed Calder sculpture with fraudulent “Certificates of Authenticity", known as a "COA", allegedly written by George Gordon which falsely indicates the sculpture was approved by the Estate of Alexander Calder. The mobile elements were loosely based upon and have been misappropriated from images related to Calder's projects for Braniff Airlines.

As Joseph K. Levene stated in Fine Art or eBay Fake Art? “Certificate of Authenticity”(COA) fraud is rampant. No matter how well written, a fake COA will always remain fake".

The bottom-line is no COA can transform a counterfeit work of art into an authentic work of art, and the fraudulent certificate by George Gordon is no different. As the Calder Foundation states "As works of art, these unfortunate objects are of no interest and have no historical place in Calder's life and work".

However, one thing you will never see on these fakes is a Calder Application Number which is necessary to demonstrate that a work of art by Calder is genuine. Curiously, many of the auction houses that have offered this small misattributed sculpture and the counterfeit textiles and lithographs also have sold authentic Calders that have Calder Foundation Application numbers.

On May 1, 2013, a black elephant sculpture fetched $4,715 on artnet with a certificate of authenticity; estimated $4,000–$5,000, the counterfeit Calder attracted five bids.

Documented by artnet as After Alexander Calder, sold $4,715 with 5 bids

COA cannot transform counterfeit into authentic art

Summary of issues regarding counterfeit sculpture:

Offered 2 colors, Pink & Black, neither authorized by Alexander Calder or Estate

Offered for sale with a range of different titles

The monograph signature "CA" that appears on sculpture is a forgery.

There is no authorized edition of 999.

Many purported sculptures sold repeatedly, each with same edition number.

The certificate of authenticity (COA) from George Gordon is counterfeit, pure fiction!

Sometimes documented with 1973-2002 date, which is impossible since Alexander Calder passed away in 1976.

Other times, erroneously documented as sculpture created in 1972 or 1973.

Everything about this misattributed sculpture allegedly created in an edition of 999 is fiction, or to put it in art terms, a blatant counterfeit, yet numerous galleries, brick and mortar auction houses and online auctions continue to sell it.

If you purchased one of these pink or black elephant forgeries, and thought it was an authentic Alexander Calder sculpture, here's the bad news; this purported work is counterfeit, not created by Alexander Calder or authorized by the Calder estate, and will never have any value or considered as a collectible work of art.

To sum it up in one word, it is "fake".

View all Alexander Calder Misattributed Art here.

Shop Guaranteed Authentic Fine Art From Joseph K. Levene Fine Art, Ltd.

Metropolitan Museum Buys $840 Masterpiece

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph K. Levene) — Sun, 14 Apr 2019 01:43:00 -0400

by Joseph K. Levene & Robert Grunder

$840 Jacques-Louis David purchased by The Metropolitan Museum of Art

A post in the Swann Galleries blog stated the highest priced lot in the Old Master Drawings auction was $42,000, fetched for a watercolor attributed to Turner. Not surprisingly, Swann Galleries did not mention the $840, with buyer's premium, fetched for lot 228, incorrectly documented as a "French School" work "After the painting by J-L David", created "Early Ninetieth Century".

Paradoxically, Swann Galleries recognized the drawing's similarity to the Jacques-Louis David painting titled Death of Socrates, purchased by The Metropolitan Museum of Art in 1931, but failed to recognize this rare work was one of several unique compositional drawings by a Jacques-Louis David. For some reason, Swann Galleries overlooked careful comparison of the many differences of lot 228 versus the 1787 Jacques-Louis David painting in the collection of The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Jacques-Louis David The Death of Socrates, 1787

Jacques-Louis David
The Death of Socrates, 1787

Oil on canvas

51 x 77 1/4 in. (129.5 x 196.2 cm)

Catharine Lorillard Wolfe Collection, Wolfe Fund, 1931 (31.45)

Collection The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

However, the curators at The Metropolitan Museum of Art did not overlook anything as they were certain lot 228, sold in Swann Galleries Old Master Drawing Sale on January 29, 2013, was an authentic Jacques-Louis David drawing, similar to another 1787 Jacques-Louis David drawing auctioned by Delorme & Collin du Bocage for $597,889 in 2005, and subsequently purchased by The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. George Goldner, Curator drawings, The Metropolitan Museum of Art stated the drawing style is typical of David. It was obvious we had to have it.

Comparison to The Death of Socrates canvas purchased by The Metropolitan Museum of Art in 1931 shows "the seated figure of Crito reaches out imploringly to grasp Socrates’s thigh: in the earlier drawing, Crito merely looks up, holding a large open book on his lap."

Jacques-Louis David drawing now in Collection The Metropolitan Museum of Art

Jacques-Louis David

Study for The Lictors Bringing Brutus the Bodies of his Sons, 1787

Black chalk, pen and black and brown ink, brush and gray and brown wash, heightened with white gouache

Auctioned by Delorme & Collin du Bocage: 12/7/05; Lot 00071

Sold for 510,000 EUR; $597,889, now in the Collection The Metropolitan Museum of Art

The consequences of the incorrect attribution by Swann Galleries is significant since the drawing only fetched $700, or $840 with buyer's premium, is one of several authentic, unique compositional drawings of The Death of Socrates, created in 1787 by Jacques-Louis David, and most likely, would have fetched million dollar auction price. For reference, a similar Jacques-Louis David compositional drawing was auctioned four years ago at Sotheby's London in 2009, and that artwork fetched $1,081,110 with buyer's premium!

Had lot 228 been documented correctly by Swann Galleries as a 1787 compositional drawing by Jacques-Louis David instead of just as an "After", the consignor would have, most likely, received a seven figure check instead of a $700 hammer price, which also does not include deductions for Swann Galleries' selling fee commission, illustration charges, insurance, etc. Accordingly, it appears the consignor of lot 228 has support to pursue a damages claim resulting from the misattribution by Swann Galleries.

Shop Guaranteed Authentic Fine Art From Joseph K. Levene Fine Art, Ltd.

Richard Pettibone Realized Auction Prices Dramatically Increase

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph K. Levene) — Sun, 13 Jan 2019 18:08:00 -0500

by Joseph K. Levene & Robert Grunder

Richard Pettibone Roy Lichtenstein, The Artist's Studio: The Dance, 1975
+70% vs prior time at auction

Sold $56,250. Christie's 11/13/2014

An Appropriation pioneer, Richard Pettibone laid the groundwork for many appropriation artists including Sherrie Levine, Louise Lawler, Vik Muniz, Eric Doeringer, Richard Prince and Elaine Sturtevant. Ken Johnson, The New York Times observes: Richard Pettibone has devoted his career to making small reproductions of works by Brancusi, Warhol, Lichtenstein, Stella and other artists whose fame far exceeded his.

The recent Museum of Modern Art exhibition of Elaine Sturtevant, an appropriation artist who was a contemporary of Richard Pettibone, caused a spike in auction prices. Sturtevant's appropriation of Roy Lichtenstein Crying Girl fetched $3.4 million at Christie's, 11/12/14; the same painting sold for $710.K at Phillips three years earlier.

Similarly, auction prices for Richard Pettibone Pop Art Appropriations have increased dramatically recently.

Auction price with premium for #RichardPettibone Self Portrait triples in 6 months. pic.twitter.com/8X08kqlD75 — JosephKLeveneFineArt (@JKLFA) November 12, 2014

Richard Pettibone Roy Lichtenstein, The Artist's Studio: The Dance, 1975
+70% vs. last time sold at auction

Sold $33,000. Sotheby's 11/10/2005

sold $56,250. Christie's 11/13/2014

Richard Pettibone Roy Lichtenstein Masterpiece, 1962


Sotheby's 3/9/2011 $50-$70K pass	Sotheby's 9/24/2014 sold $106,000.

Richard Pettibone Roy Lichtenstein Rouen Cathedral, 1970


Christie's 5/12/2010 sold $56,250.	Christie's 11/13/2013 sold $106,250.

Richard Pettibone Andy Warhol Jackies, 1970


	Sotheby's 9/14/2011 sold $10,794.	Sotheby's 10/18/2014 sold $32,000.

Shop Guaranteed Authentic Fine Art From Joseph K. Levene Fine Art, Ltd.

Fine Art OR Fake Art? How Can You Be Sure

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph K. Levene) — Fri, 30 Nov 2018 22:34:00 -0500

by Joseph K. Levene & Robert Grunder

Fine Art OR Fake Art?

Buying Fine Art on eBay, or more importantly, determining whether an eBay seller is really offering authentic Fine Art worthy of purchase is never easy. As is widely known, eBay takes zero position regarding quality, authenticity, accuracy, condition, etc., of the art listings posted.

eBay assumes this stance because they state they don't sell anything as "eBay never take possession of goods sold through eBay." Although eBay brings buyers and sellers together, eBay takes no responsibility as to whether counterfeits or fakes are offered for sale.

Too often, the eBay art buyer is seduced into buying Fine Art that is actually Fake Art.

The Tiffany vs. eBay lawsuit underscores this point since the majority of eBay listings offering Tiffany goods are actually counterfeit, and Tiffany is now pressing eBay to clean up its act and do something about it. Let's hope the judge rules in Tiffany's favor as that will be a huge cue to Meg Whitman to start hiring personnel who actually monitor the site without double-talk.

As many know, many eBay art sellers don't provide full disclosure of the respective works being offered, which often makes the Lot seem more appealing than it would be after first hand inspection.

Examples include Sellers who won't/don't include a jog of the artist's signature, especially if they know the lot isn't genuine. Others neglect the art's measurements, or worse, don’t include an actual jog of the Work being offered for sale.

Many eBay sellers even state that their lot is accompanied with a certificate of authenticity, otherwise known as a "COA". Buyers need to be certain the COA doesn't camouflage the reality that you are really buying “Fake Art”, and that there was no "deal" after all.

In the end, the eBay Fine Art Seller that you thought is offering "Fine Art", is often selling “Fake Art", and eBay has no policy to immediately protect buyers and removes fraudulent sellers, even after repeated paypal and/or eBay complaints and obvious breaches that most would immediately discern.

Before you buy art online, and in particular, eBay, take time to carefully review all of a sellers listings. Check to see if there is a similarity and take time to view all recently sold lots from that seller.

View the lots; read the descriptions and ask yourself these questions:

Does the seller have a legitimate business?
Does the seller have a website that provides real information?
Does the seller have an address/a phone number?
Does the seller answer emails on a timely basis and address the questions asked?
How long has the seller been established?
Does it make sense for a fine art seller to be offer a work worth $1,000 for $100?

There is one eBay art seller who routinely ust takes color reproductions from Andy Warhol Books and then states the purported Art is "hand-signed" with an "Andy Warhol signature". Curiously, this seller keeps changing his eBay name and location, yet he also keeps conning art buyers into buying worthless "Fake Art".

This same eBay seller then goes on to state that his respective Andy Warhol works are from a "Private Collection, VIP who has died", or the signature was obtained in person by Warhol at unnamed gallery.

Why would Andy Warhol have signed so many Andy Warhol reproductions?

This same eBay seller states that their alleged Andy Warhol works are sold with a "Certificate of Authenticity from our gallery" as further assurance. And this same seller then lists a dozen other "so called Warhol" works all with the same "Private Collection, VIP - Signed Art book Collection" statement.

Because of the low price, many eBay buyers are seduced to bid on this Seller's eBay lots, and reject an authentic Andy Warhol because it cannot be sold at a similar unrealistic low price.

The COA is not only worthless, but because that seller is located in Switzerland, the COA is not even legally binding in the United States.

In the case of authentication of Works created by Andy Warhol, there is only one respected authority that can officially determine whether a work is or is not "in their opinion" a work created by Andy Warhol, the Andy Warhol Art Authentication Board, Inc.

Unfortunately, the Andy Warhol Art Authentication Board, Inc., no longer accepts works for Authentication, although it has already authenticated and rejected thousands of works of art as works created by Andy Warhol.

So even you have a Work of Art that comes with an eBay Seller COA, if the Andy Warhol Foundation states that in "their opinion the Work that you submitted is not a Work by Andy Warhol", your COA will be worth nothing as no seller's COA will have the power to override the Foundation's opinion.

It is time to force eBay to better review its art listings to ensure that its fine art listings are not filled with obvious fakes. Should you see a pattern of something that looks suspicious, contact eBay; send eBay an e-mail, and if they do nothing, send another.

At some point, eBay start monitoring their site more closely as it would be better for all those eBay sellers who care to sell legitimate items, and help protect buyers. One of the reasons that so many the overall average price of lots sold on eBay continues to fall, is more and more buyers are abandoning eBay as a reliable source for quality art.

Bottom-line, most of those so called Picasso listings you see on eBay are from sellers offering counterfeits; ditto many of those 60's Lichtensteins; and add for good measure those Matisse listings and the Degas listings too.

Recently we have noticed "some so called prominent internet sellers" claiming to offer "Keith Haring Subway drawings that are accompanied with an authenticity certificate. These sellers don't acknowledge the alleged authenticity certificate is not issued by the Estate of Keith Haring, the only Internationally accepted source to authenticate purported art by Keith Haring.

The fact is the Estate of Keith Haring NEVER authenticated Keith Haring Subway drawings.

Our advice is to boycott art sellers who falsely state a Keith Haring Subway drawing is accompanied with an Authenticity certificate, as the only thing authentic is outright fraud, indicating that seller is neither professional nor honest.

You Never Want To Buy Fake Art

The only thing in common is that some eBay Sellers knows how to create a good con.

For Guaranteed Authentic Art, visit Joseph K. Levene Fine Art, Ltd. on eBay

All Fine Art offered and sold by Joseph K. Levene Fine Art, Ltd. is GUARANTEED for Authenticity.

Shop Guaranteed Authentic Fine Art From Joseph K. Levene Fine Art, Ltd.

Auction Houses Get Free Pass On Condition

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph K. Levene) — Sun, 8 Jul 2018 18:06:00 -0400

by Joseph K. Levene & Robert Grunder

Why did Sotheby's state Jasper Johns Savarin Blue lithograph offered and sold at auction was in "good condition" even though the impression was no longer Blue?

Since the blue is significantly faded in the Savarin Blue sold by Sotheby's, (the impression on right), why did Sotheby's state that the lot that fetched $46,000., "is in good condition"?

The side by side comparison demonstrates the condition difference between a pristine impression as originally published in 1979 by U.L.A.E. and the impression sold at Sotheby's.

You can immediately see the "blue" is significantly faded in the impression on the right. The buyer of the Sotheby's Jasper Johns Savarin 6 (Blue), was misled since the Jasper Johns Savarin Blue sold by Sotheby's is not "in good condition".

There are 2 essential issues when you buy art:

authenticity
condition

Although Sotheby's and Christie's have a terms of guarantee which includes authenticity, there is always a disclaimer for condition.

Condition Disclaimer

Frequent abusers of inaccurate condition reports are major International auction houses, including Christie's and Sotheby's, as well as smaller auction houses, Phillips de Pury, Bonhams and Swann.

Auction houses regularly issue misleading condition reports, and due to cut-backs, no longer routinely publish condition statements in catalogues, leaving buyers blind, especially if they do not inquire regarding condition.

Did buyer of $107,000., Marcel Duchamp Boîte sold at Christie's, 7/7/2010, realize extensive insect infestation?

Marcel Duchamp Boite Christie's Sold for $107,000.

Although Christie's offered the Marcel Duchamp Boite with the extremely low estimate of $7,535 - $10,046., there was no statement of condition in the published catalogue description.

We hope the buyer of this Duchamp realized the Boite was not only accompanied with the excrement of a thousand insects, but also augmented with "dust control by micro-aspiration of every element constituting the bag"; "alteration in watercolor", (the Boite was not originally published with watercolor) and "consolidation of the other landings".

By the way, this only begins the "bad" news; the full treatment report must be requested, if the prospective bidder/buyer knew to request it. Let's hope the buyer read it and was fully informed!

We would not buy nor sell a work of art in this degraded condition, nor recommend its purchase to anyone. Furthermore, no reputable art dealer would consider selling this work of art in such compromised condition without explicit disclosure.

This Duchamp Boite was no bargain, even with its low estimate; not publishing a condition statement is unacceptable.

What do we mean?
The unpublished condition report, only provided on an "as requested basis" by Christie's, indicates the following treatment:

"Restored paper losses due to the insects especially on "stoppage étalon" which is print on blue and grey vellum paper. Tiny tears to the "braseuse de chocolat". Spots of foxing inside the cover box and mat staining inside the cover box. The outside of the box is dirt.

Description of the restoration interventions:

Dust removal by micro-aspiration
Consolidation of the elements of "stoppage étalon"
"Tu m", laying of Japanese paper on the lacks, watercolor retouches.
Consolidation of the other unstuck elements.
The complete restoration report is available on request.

Did Buyer of $823K Jasper Johns 0-9 Set of 10 lithographs realize Number 9 was completely faded?

Christie's states Jasper Johns Figure 9 is here. Do you see it?

The Jasper Johns 0-9 Set of 10 Figure lithographs, offered from the estate of Merce Cunningham, was sold by Christie's for $823.000., which boils down to $82,300 per print.

Why did the catalogue illustration of this nearly million dollar lot not show accurate colors?

Here is a photograph of the Jasper Johns 0-9 set taken by us during the auction preview, which confirms the colors were not only faded, but where is missing Jasper Johns Figure 9?

Look for yourself.

Jasper Johns 0-9 Set sold at Christie's with missing Figure 9

Many auctions houses state a lot is in good condition, when the condition report clearly indicates otherwise or omits other key issues.

On 7/13/2010, Bonham's will auction a purported Andy Warhol Liz. It appears that stating a lot is in "good condition" is requisite for all lots at Bonhams, whether accurate or not.

The unpublished condition not only sites the above listed issues, but omits that this particular impression is trimmed considerably by over 1.3 inches on each side, but is "otherwise in very good condition".

The Andy Warhol Liz was originally published as an offset lithograph with a size of 23 1/8 inches x 23 1/8 inches, yet Bonhams never states that this Work is trimmed!

Which is better?

Good condition

Good condition aside from occasional scuffing, a crescent shaped crease at the lower left and creasing in the upper left and lower corners.

How can a work of art be otherwise in good condition when it has scuffing, craquelure, ink loss, soiling, nicks, etc.?

Phillips de Pury recently sold a Bruce Nauman for $108,100 described as follows "craquelure in the surface, slightly discolored in places along the lower and left sheet edges, a foxmark in the lower right corner, scattered soiling in upper right corner, a few nicks at the sheet edges (particularly lower sheet, some with associated minor surface loss), soiling and discoloration on the reverse, otherwise in good condition."

There is not much left to be in any type of good condition after you read through the litany of problems on the described Bruce Nauman sold by Phillips de Pury for $108,100.

Since there is no agreed upon industry standard for assessing the condition of works of art, buyers should always obtain the advice of a professional and informed art expert when buying works of art at auction.

Shop Guaranteed Authentic Fine Art From Joseph K. Levene Fine Art, Ltd.

Auctionata Guarantee Is Guaranteed Risk

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph K. Levene) — Fri, 20 Apr 2018 15:15:00 -0400

by Joseph K. Levene & Robert Grunder

Hyperbole, documentation errors, mistakes, accepted norm at Auctionata.

Analysis of statements, interviews, press releases by Auctionata CEO Alexander Zacke and international managing director Ben Hartley, coupled with review of Terms & Conditions exclusions that void 25-year-Auctionata guarantee demonstrate hyperbole, exaggeration, errors and omissions are routine at Auctionata. It appears the majority of Auctionata communication is simply regurgitated, becoming in essence, journalistic propaganda, accepted without equivocation by the American Press, including: Forbes, Skates, The New York Times, Luxury Daily, e-commerce bytes.

In contrast, the German press, including Der Standard, Wirtschaftsblatt and The Wall Street Journal (German edition) appear more critical and apprehensive, challenging the viability of Auctionata's investment to build a 5,000 foot New York TV studio. Alexander Zacke and Ben Hartley acknowledge the importance of establishing consumer trust. Establishing trust is an uphill battle as collectors, especially knowledgeable ones, repeatedly observe factual untruths, erroneous and misleading comparisons, blatant counterfeits, missing provenance, documentation errors, flawed condition reports, all allegedly sanctioned by freelance, paid by the minute, "experts". And bizarrely, Terms & Conditions loopholes in the widely touted 25 year Auctionata Guarantee indicate claims won't be accepted for lots with errors and omissions; well, that's an enormous amount of lots. Perhaps Auctionata should re-draft its guarantee to ensure it is NOT meaningless and useless.

Are Auctionata Investors aware of the consistent negative customer reviews, aside from 5 stars awarded by CEO Alexander Zacke, which skew towards one star at Yelp, Trustpilot, Ripoffreport, Reseller Ratings, indicating buyers and consignors are universally dissatisfied with auctionata's poor/ineffective services, warning auctionata's condition reports are not objective, but worse, inaccurate and incomplete. The website mentions "buyer protection", however, user reviews indicate Auctionata failed to remedy errors and mistakes.
It is inconceivable Auctionata Investors would agree the New York expansion is so successful, they cannot wait to burn more cash by duplicating the 5,000 foot TV studio and branch office in Hong Kong and elsewhere.
What is Auctionata management doing to improve massive unsold lot rates inconsistent with the alleged 70% sold through rate communicated to the press. In 2014, according to data available at Live Auctioneers, the Unsold rate was 41.2% for the 12,091 lots offered at Auctionata AG and Auctionata Inc. Try to get that same information at Auctionata, and learn that level of transparency is unavailable. The Unsold lot rate for New York auctions since October 2014 is much worse, 58.8%, and some NY suctions, like African & Oceanic Art, where ONLY 6 lots sold, exceed 90% unsold. Clearly, Auctionata management has not been objective about its poor New York performance.

Why does investor Sylwester Janik think Auctionata is an excellent example of what to look for now that Series C funding has reached $95 million.

Recently Auctionata announced it had closed €42m Series C funding, led by Warsaw's MCI Management and joined by London’s Kreos Capital, New York's Hearst Ventures and Hong Kong's Yuan Capital.

“We are excited to back Auctionata’s ambitious growth plans,” said Sylwester Janik, partner, MCI Management. “The company is an excellent example of what we look for in our investments: a disruptive business model combined with a high quality team and a leadership with strong industry experience.”

Does Alexander Zacke REALLY believe all art appreciates?

Alexander Zacke states "Art is Not Only Stable but Safe", 2014 Interview, Auctionata Magazine "Art is not only a stable, but also a safe, investment. By safe, I mean that afterwards, the item has appreciated in value. Art is therefore a long-term, stable and safe investment."

CEO Alexander Zacke may be new to the corporate world, but that doesn't excuse irresponsibility. We are surprised CEO Alexander Zacke doesn't realize it's unethical to guarantee art as a stable and safe financial investment, especially since the majority of art sold on Auctionata is not collectible. For reference, according to data on Live Auctioneers, 41.7% 2014 sold Auctionata auction lots were under €2,000, contrary to the company's statement that most lots sell between $5,000 and $20,000.

Was Auctionata fastest growing German Company as Alexander Zacke stated in 2013 IDCEE speech?

Alexander Zacke tells 2013 IDCEE Conference Auctionata fastest growing company

Alexander Zacke mistakes facts in 2013 IDCEE speech: "Auctionata is probably the fastest growing company in the world and GMV (Gross Merchandise Volume) currently grows +6.5% per week, and has done so for the the past 12 consecutive months."

Auctionata does NOT rank among top 25 fastest growing Internet companies according to Informalo.
The Next Web confirms Auctionata didn't make the list of top 5 fastest growing German companies either.

Propaganda or Press?

The American press, including Forbes, Skates and Private Investors seemingly have an unexplained love affair with Alexander Zacke and mostly regurgitate company statements and press releases, without equivocation. It is also surprising American press has accepted without challenge the 2014 Auctionata press release announcing record sales of €31.5 million, which Auctionata claims converts to an astonishing $41 million; put aside the nearly 30% premium, NO specific source of revenue was provided, nor is there any transparent detail on the Auctionata website either.

In contrast, the German Press including Der Standard, Wirtschaftsblatt and Wall Street Journal (German edition), is sharply more critical about Alexander Zacke and the 1995 Asian art scandal at Dorotheum that came to light shortly after Mr. Zacke's departure. The German Press is evasive as to why Alexander Zacke left his full time job at Dorotheum in 1995 as department head of Asian art and fails to provide specifics about the consignment sources largely responsible for the sudden increase in Asian art volume at Dorotheum during Zacke's tenure.

Alexander Zacke states on linkedin: " I took over their Asian Art department with an annual sales level of 1 million ATS. When I left the company four years later, annual sales were at 45 million ATS."

The German press is circumspect regarding conflict of interest accusations with respect to Asian Art consignments from Mr. Zacke's family during his tenure as Asian Art department head, stating "no one is willing to talk about it on record".

Von Marcus Pfeil, technology reporter The Wall Street Journal doesn't hold back providing alarming perspective on a 6/21/13 report about the Dorotheum Asian art scandal: "Speculation is Alexander Zacke was embroiled in the 1997 Asian scandal at the Vienna based Dorotheum. The renowned auction house then auctioned incorrectly attributed objects. Although Zacke worked as an Asian expert at Dorotheum from 1990 to 1995. Later, however, it turned out that some of the wrongly attributed artifacts had been auctioned in 1995, during Zacke's time at Dorotheum - coming from Galerie Zacke."

"Most of those who were involved at the time, do not want to talk. A former Dorotheum executive only says they had all made mistakes, Zacke's successor at Dorotheum declined to speak on the phone, and a renowned Asian expert who for years did business, with the Zacke's, even says she was afraid of this family."

"Perhaps this man is just looking for a second chance. As of today, he has not been found guilty of a crime anyway. Otherwise we would not have invested in Auctionata" says Lars von Holtzbrinck Ventures Langusch. 15.5 million euros has been collected by the venture capitalists Holtzbrinck, Bright Capital, Kite Ventures, Otto eVentures and starting this year, Earlybird wave."

There were more than 30 dealers selling art on eBay in 1999.

“I started to sell on eBay when there were 30 people in this business or even less,” Zacke stated. “I saw the whole growth until where it is now…” - Alexander Zacke interview, Gründerszene

eBay launched in 1995, and Alexander Zacke's recollection is wrong; there were far more than 30 dealers selling fine art on eBay in 1999, Joseph K. Levene, author of The Fine Art Blog, and President of Joseph K. Levene Fine Art, Ltd., began selling on eBay in 1999. Joseph K. Levene Fine Art, Ltd., was an original Sothebys.com fine art charter member, one of 2,000 art dealers in the United States and Europe, among a select group chosen to also sell on eBay during the first Sotheby's/eBay partnership.

Alexander Zacke fails to mention his team of 200-250 Auctionata "experts" are really freelance employees paid by the minute via PayPal

Alexander Zacke boasts "Auctionata has largest network of renowned experts who value, authenticate & curate art"

Auctionata "experts" are freelance employees paid by the minute via PayPal. Full time commitments by the team of 200 to 250 Auctionata freelance "experts" is highly problematic for several reasons. Relying on freelance experts is a marketing and legal liability; in addition, although Auctionata clearly states its valuations are NOT appraisals and each lot is authenticated and checked, there is an unusually high degree of counterfeits sold. Being freelance may explain why so many Auctionata lots contain errors, inaccurate or vague condition reports, erroneous and misleading comparisons that reference irrelevant price comparisons, all without specifics and NONE linked.

Auctionata experts are paid by the minute via PayPal; states Alexander Zacke: "our experts are paid fixed-fee based on the number of minutes they spent on the case. That payment is done automatically and is processed into their PayPal accounts. If the item goes to auction, then they will also receive a commission."

Conflicts of interest by the freelance expert team is a serious issue, especially for consignors who want to ensure valuations are NOT biased.
Many "experts" have full time jobs and/or own/represent competing businesses selling/involved with similar items they evaluate part-time for Auctionata. Several high ranking Experts own full time businesses, some online too, which compete with Auctionata. Of course, the names of the business are withheld on the CV's posted on Auctionata, but visible on Google and linkedin. For reference, neither Christie's, Sotheby's nor frankly, any legitimate auction house or gallery would ever tolerate employees with side businesses, yet this a conflict of interest that has serious implications and is a scandal waiting to happen.
Do experts recuse themselves if they have previously dealt with a consignor at THEIR business?
What is the review procedure for lots documented by its freelance"expert" team and what happens to experts who have a high incidence of making errors and listing counterfeits?
Do Auctionata experts self consign material and/or does a third party get involved?
Lack of experience is a serious concern with Auctionata experts and department employees given the extent of mistakes which are common in their listings; many "experts" are 2014/15 attendees of appraisal programs offered by Sotheby's, Christie's, etc.
What steps does Auctionata take to ensure its experts are not convicted felons; involved in fraudulent activities? After all a former Auctionata expert was convicted of fraud and is no longer employed by Auctionata.
Auctionata should engage a neutral consultant to identify the numerous counterfeit artworks sold to date, and take pro-active action to inform their buyers and offer the opportunity to refund the sale, including payment of shipping.

Freelance "experts" get commission based incentive IF respective lot consigned & sold.

Paradoxically, Auctionata pays experts by the minute, but if customers request valuations for over 5 items, Auctionata sometimes imposes value based fees, considered unprofessional and unethical. Furthermore, although the website states valuations are free, in other areas of the website it states that only the first 5 valuations are free. Why the double talk?
The American Appraisers association warns against value based fees and states: using the results of the appraiser’s undertaking might well suspect that these results were biased and self-serving.

Auctionata terms of guarantee doesn't guarantee much.

Auctionata erroneously claims all lots have been thoroughly checked, valued and authenticated

Is every lot really guaranteed for 25 years at Auctionata?

For the answer, you need to review over 17K words in the Terms & Conditions section of the Auctionata guarantee. For comprehension, word recommends a college education but legal counsel is more appropriate. The Terms & Conditions section is alarmingly confusing, particularly when you realize Auctionata has two different terms & conditions sections, one for Auctionata AG, the German Auctionata, and another for Auctionata, Inc. the US company. Review both terms & conditions and you will be more confused once you read the extensive list of exclusions that VOID guarantee coverage for the advertised 25 years.

Auctionata AG & Auctionata Inc. have different Terms & Conditions

Auctionata AG Guarantee fine print states: Please note that this website allows you to purchase goods from Auctionata AG or Auctionata, Inc. - a wholly owned US subsidiary of Auctionata AG. Both organizations operate with a different limited sarranty. The Auctionata guarantee below apply for all purchases of goods at auction or via the online shop in which Auctionata, Inc. acts as the seller. For all purchases of goods at auction or via the online shop in which Auctionata AG acts as the seller, this Auctionata Guarantee apply.

Why does Auctionata AG claim there is a 25 year guarantee on all lots when the Terms & conditions stipulates coverage is ONLY VALID when conducted by an AUCTIONATA EMPLOYEE.
Auctionata employees NEVER provide valuations only the freelance experts, yet the Auctionata AG Terms & Conditions states the guarantee only applies if employees do valuations.
Auctionata AG Terms & Conditions EXCLUDES any lot designated as museum copy which would apply to any lot designated as an "after".

No lot documented as "AFTER" covered by Auctionata Guarantee

Any lot designated as "After" NOT COVERED by Auctionata Guarantee

If buyers don't read the Auctionata AG terms & conditions fine print, the website does little to ensure buyers realize all lots documented as AFTER, MUSEUM COPY and/or REPRODUCTION are excluded from the 25 year guarantee.

11.2 If a catalogue description explicitly refers to an item as a “copy” (e.g. as a “museum copy”), then the item in question will be deemed purchased as a copy and not as an original, and will thus not be covered by the Auctionata guarantee in this respect. Likewise, if the catalogue description explicitly describes or designates an item as being "of doubtful authenticity", then said item will be deemed purchased not as an original but as an “item of doubtful authenticity” and will thus not be covered by the Auctionata guarantee in this respect.

Stating ALL LOTS covered by 25 Year Auctionata Guarantee is DECEPTIVE.

Why does Auctionata AG falsely state every item is AUTHENTICATED when numerous lots are EXCLUDED from any guarantee.

The website deceptively communicates "every item available to bid for on Auctionata or on sale is checked, valued and authenticated by our specialists and experts"?
Auctionata AG undermines itself by stating it "values trust", but knowledgable collectors will immediately realize Auctionata sells buckets of afters, copies and doesn't even asterisk these lots STATING the GUARANTEE doesn't apply.
Auctionata AG excludes guarantee coverage for lots where documentation is provided by non Auctionata employees.

Terms and Conditions at Auctionata, Inc. indicate numerous exclusions that void 25 Year Guarantee

11. Limited Liability: "Our liability is subject to the following terms, and as may be described elsewhere in these Conditions of Sale: (a) We agree to refund the Purchase Price in the circumstances explained in Section 12. In addition, and subject to the terms of this Section 11, the total liability of us and the Seller to you in connection with the sale of any Property shall be limited to the Purchase Price actually paid for the Property. Otherwise, we (including our officers, employees or agents) and the Seller are not responsible for: (i) the correctness of any statement of any kind concerning any Property, whether written or oral, (ii) any other errors or omissions in descriptions concerning any Property, whether written or oral."

Auctionata gets first 5 star review from CEO Alexander Zacke

Alexander Zacke 5 star Trustpilot Auctionata review

Alexander Zacke, CEO and Founder Auctionata, gave Auctionata its first 5 star review, on Trustpilot, one of 8 Auctionata reviews on Trustpilot.

3 Auctionata customers were less enthusiastic, awarding Auctionata 1 and 2 star reviews, including harsh warnings cautioning buyers to think twice before buying or bidding contrary to Auctionata's claim of exceptional service at each step of the consignment process.

2 German users gave Auctionata five star Trustpilot reviews in 2014, Anne and Oksana, but 3 Auctionata buyers are less enthusiastic,

Doesn't Alexander Zacke realize Company reviews by employees are inappropriate, especially CEO's?

Auctionata customer gives 1 star, inaccurate condition report; faulty iPad app.

Auctionata customer warns INACCURATE condition reports

A second disappointed Auctionata customer also gave 1 star review on Trustpilot; 2/23/15, after receipt of a military watch; warning: "do not trust their condition reports"and said "they only provided a Eur 50 compensation" for the inaccurate condition report by the Auctionata "expert". Similar negative Auctionata customer reviews can be viewed at Yelp, Ripoffreport, Reseller Ratings. Clearly users have a problem with Auctionata's overall operations and its insufficient condition reports generated by the team of so called "experts", many of whom have entrepreneurial experience rather than supervisory/management auction and gallery experience.

Why did Auctionata announce its 12/12/12 launch was 1st live Internet auction?

2012 Auctionata launch was NOT 1st Live Auction on Internet

Exaggeration appears to be a constant theme at Auctionata

What about the thousands of preceding auctions broadcast by Live Auctioneers, Christie's LIVE, Sotheby's and Phillips?

We are certain Alexander Zacke knows better; after all he boasts he was a Titanium Power Seller who allegedly achieved $10 million annual eBay sales.

The technology that Auctionata uses is hardly groundbreaking; live streaming Auctionata auctions look clumsy; the auctioneers speak about lots in a language similar to shills on QVC, and NOT anything you would hear by auctioneers at Phillips, Christie's and Sotheby's.

Let's face it, the Auctionata claim is FICTION; long before Auctionata launched on 12/12/12, Christie's LIVE enabled users to view, see and hear auctioneers auction lots offered in real time from sales rooms around the world. And long before the 2012 launch of Auctionata, Sotheby's had the same ability for viewers to view auctions anywhere on the Internet in real time too.

Why isn't Auctionata Management scrupulous about selling quality online?

Why do many Auctionata lots have sloppy documentation, erroneous comparisons and even counterfeits?

A report in The New York Times confirms online buyers are worried "about provenance and authenticity" and indicates "the top end of the market is generally less suited to online sales”. International managing director Ben Hartley observes "online buyers feel comfortable up to about $10,000". Ben Hartley says he wants to provide "seamless user experience", yet Auctionata has failed to implement a proactive system to protect consumers from fraud, counterfeits, sloppy documentation, errors which are common in listings and erroneous comparisons?

Auctionata condones sloppy documentation, erroneous comparisons, counterfeits too.

For reference, International managing director Ben Hartley stated a vastly different point to Toovia, which we recommend you take with a grain of salt; "Our specialists vet and evaluate every piece sold at Auctionata.com and all purchases come with a 25 year guarantee".On this topic, Joseph K. Levene stated in The Fine Art Blog "The majority of lots offered for sale on Auctionata lack documentation clarity and include either vague support or no support. Too often lots sold exclude obvious information like date of sale; sale number; lot number; vague references to comparable sales results, lacking specificity/accuracy, many without links that art professionals and collectors understand and require."

Why did Auctionata "Expert" state Arp sculpture in "good condition" when photographs indicate extensive pitting?

Jean Arp Composition dans un Cercle 5, ed 3/5 sold at Sotheby's & Auctionata


Arp in good condition sold at Sotheby's	Arp with extensive pitting at Auctionata

Why didn't Auctionata "expert" disclose identical Arp, edition 3/5, was sold twice at Sotheby's?

Why did Auctionata "Expert" misattribute Tapestry sold for $10.8K as an Alexander Calder even though Calder Foundation NEVER authorized and Alexander Calder NEVER created?

Counterfeit Tapestry NOT created by Alexander Calder nor authorized by Calder Foundation

Misattributed Alexander Calder Tapestry sold for $10.8K NOT created by Alexander Calder

Why did Auctionata"Expert" misattribute painting as an Andy Warhol even though NOT created or authorized by Andy Warhol.

Verso of Counterfeit Painting Andy Warhol did not create nor authorize withdrawn from Auction No. 72, June 20, 2014

It is inconceivable that any Andy Warhol expert at Christie's, Sotheby's, Phillips, etc., would have permitted this obvious fake to be sold, especially with the bizarre fiction used by Auctionata at the time. There is no excuse for counterfeits, especially since Auctionata wants you to believe they are the premier auction house. Ben Hartley told Luxury Daily, "the initial valuation process can begin online, but authenticity is still a necessary in-person process".

Why did Auctionata use irrelevant €70K comparable for small Paul Jenkins?

Why did Auctionata Expert indicate erroneous €70K comparable for small Paul Jenkins painting?

Contrary to Alexander Zacke's statement: "...We link our work with research found in international art databases." even though this is not implemented in any lot we have seen, including the Paul Jenkins seen above and Lesser Ury painting sold for €130,000, which included sloppy and misleading documentation, including an incorrect stipulation as follow: "comparable subjects fetch up to €180,000 on the international auction market'" even though the same painting was sold twice at auction before it was offered in 2014 at Auctionata; in 2009 for $92,855 and in 1995 for $87,470.

Why did Lesser Ury documentation fail to mention 2 prior auctions, fictional provenance & erroneous comparable?

Auctionata Expert failed to state Lesser Fry sold at 1995 & 2009 auctions
Auctionata Expert incorrectly claims painting in Private Collection since 1997

More disturbing, the Lesser Ury documentation included provenance details factually incorrect; two auction sales were NOT acknowledged; in an act of fiction, Auctionata stated the painting was in the same Private Collection since 1997, even though the painting was sold in a 2009 auction. We can assure you Christie's and Sotheby's would NOT tolerate similar sloppiness from any Specialist; furthermore, this error was acknowledged by Joseph K. Levene in The Fine Art Blog, yet Auctionata has failed to make a correction.

Why did Auctionata expert misattribute cut down 2007 poster as 1980 Cindy Sherman?


Auctionata fails to disclose Sherman lot is cut down poster	Cindy Sherman 2007 Martin-Gropius-Bau Berlin poster

Auctionata "expert" misattributes 2007 Cindy Sherman poster sold for $1,200 as a circa 1980 offset lithograph when in fact, the lot is 2007 trimmed poster attached to metal.

Why would a "Photography expert" make such a mistake?
Has the so called "Photography expert" been fired?
Has Auctionata informed the buyer and offered a refund?

Auctionata erroneously claims to be global leader in online sales, when facts show otherwise.

Actual 2014 Online Art Market Estimate by Joseph K. Levene, The Fine Art Blog

Skates issued a February 2015 analysis which overlooked at least $1 billion Online Art volume at eBay and Christie's. Auctionata wouldn't make third place after factoring the $1 billion Skates overlooked along with analysis of Auctionata's top selling lots, only 11 of top 33 lots sold lots were art, and you quickly realize the Skates analysis is deeply flawed.

Specifically, analysis of sold 2014 -2015 lots over €91,000 at Live Auctioneers, indicates that Art only comprised 11 of the top 33 lots at Auctionata,
10 lots sold over €91,000 were watches/clocks, a partnership with Chrono24
8 lots sold priced over €91,000 were cars.
4 lots sold over €91,000 antiques.

Auctionata deceptively erases 44 unsold photography lots in 2/26/15 Auction.

Look quickly, you wouldn't realize 44 Unsold Lots removed Auctionata Photography Sale

Removing Unsold lots for LACK of transparency is routine at Auctionata; that way Auctionata just emphasizes sold lots and sidesteps its particularly high UNSOLD lot rates. Unfortunately, the Auctionata website editor failed to get that memo as all Auctions continue to state "See All Objects", but you can't.

Click all you like and you will ONLY see the lots sold. For a solution; visit Live Auctioneers and you can see everything, both sold and sometimes unsold as too often, the unsold lots are also appear sold, even though they aren't. Sometimes Auctionata even leaves a PDF catalogue of the respective sale.

Click "See All Objects" & ONLY See Sold Lots

58.8% 2014 Auctionata lots unsold in New York, a massive problem

Although the Auctionata website doesn't enable segregation of unsold lots, Live Auctioneers does. Since Auctionata launched New York auctions on 10/23/14, 1839 lots have been offered in New York auctions with 58.8% lots unsold according to Live Auctioneers. This contrasts with the overall 2014 unsold lot rate of 41.2% for Auctionata during 2014. Poor results to date in New York demonstrate Auctionata is seriously hemorrhaging investment funds without being close to profitable given the multi-million dollar price tag of its 5,000 foot New York TV studio.

58.8% lots in New York UNSOLD, or 1081 lots out of 1839
Only 6.9% of lots sold in New york were over $10,000, 33 lots total
51% of sold lots in New York are under $2,000.

Auctionata founder and CEO Alexander Zacke: “Since the launch of the weekly live stream auctions in May 2013, Auctionata has grown considerably and has successfully positioned itself among the global leaders for online auctions of art, antiques and luxury collectibles. In the future Auctionata will focus on efficient growth and thereby lay the ground for both organic and non-organic category and geographic expansion.”

Contrary to Alexander Zacke's statement, recent results indicate Auctionata's New York expansion has failed to gain traction, and requires immediate steps to improve quality and halt sales of inferior lots and counterfeits.

Auctionata investors should question the wasteful decision to build a New York TV studio that could have been established more efficiently outside New York City; after all, there is NO live studio audience so why waste funds on a studio no one visits.

92% Lots UNSOLD; Auctionata African & Oceanic Art auction, 3/31/15

Only 6 lots sold out of 62 African & Oceanic Art Auction, 3/31/15

74% Lots UNSOLD; only 16 lots sold out of 62, Auctionata jewelry auction 3/18/15

Only 16 lots sold out of 62 in Auctionata Jewelry Auction 3/18/15

Hyperbole goes unchecked; Jewelry specialist Katherine Palmiter incredulously states "Whether a collector, investor or stylist, a range of people found great items that will not be seen again any time soon at accessible prices."

Is something about to happen to low priced jewelry that no one else knows about?

67.5% Lots UNSOLD; Auctionata Watch Auction, 3/10/15

Only 26 lots Sold out of 80, Auctionata Watch Auction, 3/30/2015

Analysis of Auctionata revenue to date indicates that aside from auctions of Watches & Cars, Auctionata is far from a rousing success.

Auctionata may boast rhetoric about growth, revenue, trust and having the largest network of renowned experts; sadly, this marketing charade does not excuse widespread documentation errors/omissions that saddle the website.

Most likely, this is a significant concern that prevents serious collectors from buying/selling at Auctionata. Under the current circumstances, we would NOT recommend buying or selling at Auctionata, given the risks of inaccurate lot details or worse, buying a counterfeit.

In our opinion, we believe it is essential to only buy Online where there is NO doubt as to authenticity. The element of doubt at Auctionata is not worth the risk especially since the 25 Year Guarantee has so many loopholes. Major estates like the Estate of Andy Warhol, Keith Haring, Roy Lichtenstein, Jean-Michel Basquiat, etc. do NOT provide ANY authentication, so collectors should be especially careful to NOT take unnecessary risk and purchase items that have sketchy provenance or questionable documentation.

Counterfeit Art

The National Gallery Acquires 1,700 Jasper Johns Prints

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph K. Levene) — Sat, 14 Oct 2017 20:40:00 -0400

by Joseph K. Levene & Robert Grunder

Jasper Johns Unique Target at The National Gallery

A Jasper Johns Prints exhibition titled Editions with Additions: Working Proofs by Jasper Johns is on display at The National Gallery, Washington, DC until April 4, 2010.

Ruth Fine, curator of special projects in modern art, selected 42 Jasper Johns from the 1,700 Jasper Johns Proofs for 300 lithographs, etchings, and screenprints that The National Gallery has acquired from the Artist. The Collection, includes almost all the memorable images associated with Jasper Johns from the postwar era — flags, targets, maps — and more recent compositions with references to works by earlier artists.

"This extraordinary body of work, which incorporate a range of media that includes graphite, pastel, ink, and watercolor, has been created and carefully annotated by Johns over four decades. It will be the largest institutional repository of works by Johns. According the National Gallery Press Release, "Johns' proofs—including state and color trial proofs as well as working proofs—mark stages within the development of his printed images."

"It is in this context that his working proofs are best known. Part drawing and part print, the working proofs offer the additional opportunity to view Johns' motifs through the expressive lens of this combination of media, affirming the artist's comment that "an aspect always of interest to me is to develop an idea or an image and execute it in different ways to determine what its meaning could be."

The Jasper Johns Prints exhibition "is arranged chronologically, and several works are on public view for the first time. The initial section of the show features working proofs from the 1960s and 1970s to introduce several motifs that Johns continues to revisit in paintings, drawings, and sculpture as well as in prints: letters of the alphabet, targets, names of colors, and body parts."

"Works in the second section include complex compositions from the 1980's and 1990's, in which Johns introduced autobiographical references, such as an image of his shadow, family photographs, a floor plan of his grandfather's house, and works of art by others that he admires, including ceramic objects by George Ohr"

"A master in many media, Jasper Johns is a Printmaker of immense curiosity and skill." Since 1960 when he made his first lithographs, he has added etching, screenprint and other techniques to his repertoire and has completed more than 300 print editions."

"He takes full advantage of the inherent nature of printmaking techniques to reverse and duplicate images. Johns often sets his matrices aside after an edition is completed, sometimes for years, and later reworks them for a new edition, evident from the working proofs for different versions of The Seasons."

"Among the proofs shown in the Exhibit are different versions of Jasper Johns' The Seasons. In the fourth version of the The Seasons, Jasper Johns cut apart used printing plates from past works to fit them together like a jigsaw puzzle to create a new image", according to Ms. Fine.

Shop Guaranteed Authentic Jasper Johns Prints

Shop Guaranteed Authentic Fine Art From Joseph K. Levene Fine Art, Ltd.

Are 74 Edgar Degas 1998 Bronzes Casts Worth $37 million?

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph K. Levene) — Tue, 19 Sep 2017 17:37:00 -0400

by Joseph K. Levene & Robert Grunder

74 bronze sculptures cast by The Degas Sculpture Project Ltd.

74 plaster sculptures purportedly created by Edgar Degas during his lifetime continue to raise authenticity questions, controversy, scrutiny and two $20 and $37 million appraisals, even though both sculptures were cast in 1997 and 1998.

Named The Complete Sculptures of Edgar Degas, 74 bronzes cast from the “recently discovered” plasters were displayed at the Herakleidon Museum, Athens from November 27, 2009 - August 14, 2010; the museum published a catalogue about the newly discovered sculptures.

New Orleans Museum Cancels Exhibition

Because of the controversy, The New Orleans Museum of Art decided to postpone an November 2011 exhibition of 74 controversial bronze sculptures cast from “recently discovered” plasters said to have been made by Edgar Degas. Asked the reason for the postponement, Ms. Taylor said, the controversy influenced my decision. I would like to review it more carefully.

$37 million & $20 million appraisals, from Stewart Waltzer & Alex Rosenberg According to an August 2011 Art News article "Stewart Waltzer appraised the set of 74 bronzes at $37.25 million. The most valuable sculpture in the set, Little Dancer Aged Fourteen, is worth $15 million, Waltzer wrote in his appraisal."

The Stewart Waltzer appraisal stipulates:“This appraisal is accompanied by various letters and [a]ttestations from Leonardo Benatov, owner of the Valsuani foundry, stating explicitly that the plasters, which serve as the basis for the 74 Edgar Degas bronze sculptures from the 1998 Valsuani Edition marked ‘Set VII/XI,’ are authentic,” Waltzer wrote in his 2010 appraisal. “Therefore, these works have been appraised as authentic works by Edgar Degas. This appraiser and this appraisal [do] not warrant the authenticity of the 74 Edgar Degas bronze sculptures from the 1998 Valsuani edition marked ‘Set VII/IX."

Only 11 Degas Bronze sculptures realized $1 million or more Since 1990

Since 1990, 293 Degas sculptures have appeared at public auction, and only 11 have fetched over $1 million; 90% have sold under $1 million and only 22 have realized prices of $500-$1 million!

"Stewart Waltzer’s second appraisal was commissioned by Yank Barry, a Canadian businessman who bought a set of 73 Degas sculptures from Maibaum in August 2009 through his Global Village Champions Foundation Inc., and then last year bought a bronze replica of Little Dancer Aged Fourteen."

"Mr. Barry stated that at the time he bought the set of 73 bronzes he relied in part on another, earlier Waltzer appraisal, done in 2009, that put the value of the 73 bronzes (without Little Dancer) at around “$22 million.” In June 2006, at the request of Maibaum, Waltzer appraised a set of the 73 bronzes at just above $19 million, while Alex Rosenberg, another appraiser, valued the set at $20.5 million. In 2009, Waltzer appraised the Valsuani version of Little Dancer at $12 million, also at Maibaum’s request."

"When Mr. Barry bought the 73 bronzes, he issued a press release saying he had paid “considerably less” than $20 million for the set. In an interview with ARTnews, he said he had paid between “$7 million and $20 million” for them, but he would not reveal how much he had paid for the Little Dancer because, he said, he had signed a confidentiality agreement with Maibaum that prevented him from disclosing the purchase price."

Museum Loan From The Degas Sculpture Project Ltd

The 74 Sculptures were on loan from The Degas Sculpture Project Ltd., a joint project of Walter Maibaum, president of Modernism Fine Arts Inc., and Gregory Hedberg, who was director, Hirschl & Adler. William D. Cohan, formerly JP Morgan/Chase director, and contributing editor, Fortune and author, House of Cards: A Tale of Hubris and Wretched Excess on Wall Street, has written a second authoritative article about 74 Edgar Degas Plaster casts recently discovered at the Valsuani Foundry inventory. In April 2010, Cohan first wrote about the Degas Bronze controversy in Art News; Mr. Cohan wrote an update in the August issue too.

Fear of lawsuits prevent leading Edgar Degas art dealers, curators, collectors, art historians and auction house experts from issuing an official opinion. These issues continue to plague buyers. According to John Cahill, partner, New York law firm Lynn & Cahill, It's a shame that a scholar is afraid to offer an opinion.

National Gallery of Art Research Adds Further Complications

Adding to the controversy is key research from The National Gallery of Art that draws on both art history and scientific analysis to resolve questions about how Degas made sculpture. This new research should signal a decline in auction prices fetched for Edgar Degas bronzes.

Replica of Edgar Degas The Little Dancer Sold for $3,600. At Christie's

Wide Price differences between Edgar Degas replicas and bronze casts
Replicas of The Little Dancer sell in the thousands while bronzes cast as late as 1922 routinely sell in the millions. In August 2011, a replica bronze of The Little Dancer sold for $3,600; this contrasts with the $10.3 million realized at Christie's in 2003 for a bronze version of The Little Dancer with extensive provenance cast in bronze by 1922.

Edgar Degas Petite Danseuse de Quatorze Ans Sold for $10.3 million at Christie's

46 $2 million Petite Danseuse de Quatorze Ans Bronze Casts Created in 1997/98

According to William D. Cohan,from this supposed “lifetime plaster, as it is often called, the Valsuani Foundry cast 46 bronze statues of The Little Dancer Aged 14 in 1997 and 1998. Most, if not all of the bronzes, are said to have sold for about $2 million each.

Petite Danseuse de Quatorze Ans, one of 46 1997/98 casts, The Degas Sculpture Project Ltd.

All Edgar Degas Bronze Casts Are Posthumous

Edgar Degas did not create any lifetime bronze casts, yet Walter Maibaum and Gregory Hedberg claim "all the bronze sculptures shown at the Herakleidon Museum were cast from recently discovered plasters made from Degas’ original waxes during his lifetime and with his consent".

The Herakleidon Museum unequivocally states 74 Bronzes Cast with Degas' Consent “All the bronze sculptures in this exhibition were cast from recently discovered plasters made from Degas’ original waxes during his lifetime and with his consent,” it says. “This is remarkable since all the other bronzes one can currently see in museums and elsewhere were cast from masters made after the artist’s death. Therefore, the bronzes in this exhibition can be considered the original versions, and all the others the second versions of these sculptures. Thus, for the first time, it will be possible for experts, scholars and the general public to compare the artist’s bronzes in the before and after states, which is almost unparalleled in the history of art.”

From Musee d'Orsey website when Degas died in 1917, 150 wax or clay sculptures were found in his studio. These statues had remained more or less unknown to the public while the artist was alive, except for Dancer Aged 14which Degas had shown in the Impressionist exhibition in 1881. Naturally coloured, fitted with real hair, dressed in a tutu and real dancing slippers, it was an example of hyperrealism, verism taken to the extreme. Presented in a showcase like a specimen in the museum, it revealed a Degas bordering on the anthropologist or a naturalist. The critics were not mistaken: the work was violently accused of representing the girl in a bestial manner; she was compared to a monkey or an Aztec; she had a face "on which all the vices imprint their detestable promises, the mark of a particularly vicious character".

Degas thus took realism to its logical conclusion by depicting the society of his time in a barefaced almost scientific way with no shade of hypocrisy. The bronze edition made after his death, including the copy in the Musée d'Orsay, tried to preserve the characteristics of the wax statue as much as possible. The glass cage is the only element that Degas himself wanted, asserting the Dancer's status.

Edgar Degas Small Dancer Aged 14, cast 1921 - 1931, Collection Musee d'Orsay

Research From National Gallery of Art raises more questions

Suzanne Glover Lindsay, of the University of Pennsylvania, a specialist in 19th-century European sculpture, presents new information about the posthumous marketing of Degas’s lifetime sculptures. After the artist’s death in 1917, approximately 150 wax and clay sculptures, many damaged beyond repair, were found in his studio.

Edgar Degas wax version Little Dancer Aged Fourteen, 1879-81,

The Only Sculpture Edgar Degas exhibited, Collection The National Gallery

Degas’s heirs contracted with the Hébrard foundry, Paris to cast 73 of the sculptures in bronze editions, even though the Artist never cast his works in bronze or authorized any casts. When art historian John Rewald published the first catalogue of the bronzes, in 1944, he reported that Degas’s original mixed-media figures had been sacrificed in the lost-wax casting process used to create the bronzes. In 1955, however, 69 of the “lost” originals reappeared and, with the assistance of Rewald and French collector Ludwig Charell, were exhibited in 1955 at the Knoedler Gallery in New York. Collector Paul Mellon purchased the entire group for $400,000, and ultimately donated most of the sculptures to the National Gallery, the museum his father founded in 1937.

The 1955 “discovery” of original sculptures A Myth

The lifetime sculptures were offered for sale at Knoedler not by Degas’s heirs, but by members of the Hébrard family, although it's unclear how or when they had acquired ownership. The 1955 “discovery” of the original sculptures, as Lindsay notes, turns out to be a myth. Letters in The National Gallery archive from London’s Marlborough Gallery confirm The National Gallery was contacted about the sculptures as early as 1953, when Marlborough offered to put the gallery’s chief curator, John Walker, in touch with an attorney representing an unnamed benefactor interested in donating a set of Degas wax models to The National Gallery of Art.

Degas Sculptures Rarely Mentioned/Noted by Degas in His Notebooks

According to his dealer, Joseph Durand-Ruel, Degas created sculptures for 40 years. The artist rarely mentioned these works in his notebooks or correspondence, and most of the other relevant documentary sources are posthumous/secondhand. Acknowledging this gap, the National Gallery catalogue compiles a broad new range of physical evidence and cutting-edge technical analysis of Degas’s sculptural production, providing a turning point in appreciation of this elusive artist.

The Edgar Degas Bronze controversy is expected to affect auction prices of the Artist's Bronzes. Anyone who purchases sculptures by Edgar Degas must be especially cautious in light of The National Gallery's remarkable research.

Shop Guaranteed Authentic Fine Art From Joseph K. Levene Fine Art, Ltd.

Buying Fine Art NOT Like Buying Detergent!

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph K. Levene) — Thu, 24 Aug 2017 23:00:00 -0400

by Joseph K. Levene & Robert Grunder

Buying Fine Art Is Not Like Buying Detergent by Joseph K. Levene

Buying fine art is not like buying detergent; the key is to "buy intelligently". Art buyers often make the wrong decision when comparing two examples of the same work of art with the objective of "saving money". Many buyers fall prey to buying the work of art with the lowest price, and most often, not the best.

Buying Fine Art is Not like buying Detergent! blog.thefineartblog.com/2010/08/buying… via @thefineartblog
— The Fine Art Blog (@thefineartblog) August 26, 2011

Daniel Grant wrote a Wall Street Journal article titled Why You Can't Always Trust Art Dealers which casts a negative light on art dealers. We don't condone the ethical behavior sited by Mr. Grant and agree due diligence is essential to protect financial harm.

However, condemning art dealers is similar to saying you cannot trust all lawyers. Due diligence by art sellers/buyers is necessary. Seeking a second opinion from a knowledgeable/reputable professional art dealer can help avoid financial disasters since novice art buyers/sellers are at a disadvantage regarding authenticity, condition, title, etc.

Ask questions
Get references
Do not accept hyperbole
Avoid experts in everything

It is doubtful all art dealers are an authority in everything. And never sell your art to the person who also appraises it since it is a conflict of interest. If you want an appraisal, seek a legitimate appraiser who has the scholarship and connoisseurship of the respective field they are appraising, but do not also sell them your property.

Qualified appraisers will never appraise any type of property without a physical inspection. Any company/independent appraiser who says otherwise is not doing you any favors, especially for accurate appraisals.

As Daniel Grant suggested, artnet.com and artprice.com are useful tools, but relying on these tools can be limiting. Many art buyers often forget that when you compare prices, Condition Matters.Related articles by Zemant.

Shop Guaranteed Authentic Fine Art From Joseph K. Levene Fine Art, Ltd.

Deficient Internet Regulation Causes Widespread Art Seller Deception

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph K. Levene) — Sat, 12 Aug 2017 11:28:00 -0400

by Joseph K. Levene & Robert Grunder

An increasing number of internet art sellers, described as "online art sellers", "online art dealers" and/or "art broker" confuse buyers with deceptive and misleading claims.

Even in 2009, false Internet information prospers since no official procedure exists to permanently eliminate misleading seller information/deception from Google/Bing/Safari, etc., before the fraud escalates to financial damage.

What this means is that it is only when a consumer is actually harmed, will any authority allow the respective fraud to be reported.

And only with frequency will seller art fraud get the deserved attention of the FBI, local law enforcement or Internet Crime Complaint Center.

We know this because we routinely point out fraudulent art on eBay who has a consistent "do nothing" complacency, and the few times an eBay lot is withdrawn, it is only a matter of weeks before the seller just re-posts, sometimes with the same name; often with a disguise.

Many deceptive Sellers take advantage of Internet buyers outside the United States because purported art by Andy Warhol, Pablo Picasso, Marc Chagall, Joan Miro, etc., is in demand and art counterfeits have a low cost of goods.

An expensive looking website with false information is compelling to art buyers in Tokyo, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Russia, etc.

Many novice art buyers base purchase decisions on price without realizing the importance of authenticity, quality, provenance, etc.

Time and time again, we notice that counterfeit art is gobbled up over the authentic counterpart, sometimes with a premium of only +10% or +20%.

Many sellers are routinely offer Art that is grossly overprice, and allege"credibility" by claiming the purported art is accompanied with a "certificate of authenticity", that is worthless.

Others falsely claim the art is "authenticated' when in fact it is "authenticated" by an obscure person who is not the authority sanctioned by the respective artist and/or estate.

Deception even occurs with regularity on cruise ships; see our 7/20/09 post Never Buy Art On A Cruise Ship; Never! where Dali prints were sold to a UK couple for hundreds of thousands more than the actual value.

24/7 you can locate deception on eBay as eBay management is still without an effective procedure to eliminate fraudulent sellers from its site.

Believe it or not, eBay even has a blind eye towards art sellers who largely sell counterfeits, as they encourage and enable fraud by allowing PayPal payment, an eBay subsidiary.

In other words, eBay is giving its sellers an incentive to maintain extensive listings of fakes.

eBay benefits from increased listing income; PayPal benefits from seller commissions; while the buyer suffers and pays the price in the long run of the fraud.

Too often, art sold on eBay is actually not as described nor created by the artist claimed, but that didn't seem to be of importance to Meg Whitman, now running for public office.

Some sellers even attach themselves to an art membership when the facts show otherwise.

The result: buyers make decisions which are blatantly wrong, but the buyer is ill equipped to know better.

Frequently claims are announced on fancy websites; in contrast the art for sale is clearly and obviously counterfeit, full of errors and incorrectly documented.

What is a deceptive seller actually doing?

Some sellers document and designate a purported work as an "Andy Warhol", when the 2007 created Item actually uses a "design of Warhol", and was created posthumously.

The correct documentation should be After Andy Warhol; Warhol died in 1987, but that doesn't stop deceptive sellers.

Or, claim a catalogue raisonne reference to an post card or suite of post cards of Andy Warhols, originally used to announce an edition by the Pop Artist great, and cleverly omit the correct documentation.

A reputable art dealer would never confuse ephemera with an original limited edition; in this cases the correct documentation of a post card of an Andy Warhol, would be "offset lithograph" published without limit. By referencing a catalogue raisonne, deceptive art sellers make the post card appear "official", but it is an outward deception.

Ronald Feldman Gallery originally issued 10 Postcards to announce the Andy Warhol Ad Screenprint Portfolio before they were published in 1987. Advertising the postcards now as "Set of Andy Warhol Ads", along with a catalogue raisonne reference makes the postcards sound like they are edition works, when in fact they are ephemera at best.

Still other deceptive Art Sellers abuse the public's integrity by attaching the "Andy Warhol" Name to a Sunday B. Morning Print of a Marilyn, Soup Can, Mao, Flowers screenprint.

Andy Warhol never created the SUNDAY B. MORNING screenprints.

NONE!

Put another way, Andy Warhol didn't sign nor authorize any Art with the "Sunday B. Morning" title.

These Sellers know the difference between the Sunday B. Morning version and the Andy Warhol authentic counterpart, but deceptive sellers realize sloppy copy is more effective for sales.

The bottom-line is that:

Deception creates more buyer interest.
Deception creates increased sales.

Some sellers even state that the Sunday B. Morning print is authorized, when that too is blatantly incorrect.

In other words, these sellers would rather incorrectly claim the purported art is an "Andy Warhol Sunday B Morning Marilyn screenprint" rather than the correct designation of "After Andy Warhol Sunday B. Marilyn screenprint".

Any purported art seller/dealer who confuses their "Andy Warhol" Inventory when it is actually an "After Andy Warhol Print", doesn't deserve your business nor anyone else.

This extends to any dealer that mixes an Andy Warhol print with an "After Andy Warhol" on their website listings and classifies "After Andy Warhol" with "Andy Warhol" in their dealer search.

The point is: "Andy Warhol Art" is very different than "After Andy Warhol Art".

From the dealer's perspective, the mix up makes the "After Andy Warhols" get more page views, albeit misleading and confusing.

We can guarantee you that when they purchased the "After Warhol" inventory, they knew quite well it was art created by "Andy Warhol".

You would think the buyer would get the similar respect, which is why we think you shouldn't reward anyone who is purposely deceptive.

But Google, Bing, Foxfire, Safari actually reward such misinformation and there is no procedure to eliminate these purposeful deceptive sellers from their search.

No reputable jeweler would attach the "Cartier" name to a counterfeit watch, so why shouldn't fine art dealers be forced to comply with similar ethics?

The deception even extends to memberships.

Some art sellers claim to have been an original sothebys.com licensed charter member.

Other claim to be "active appraisers" when the facts show otherwise.

To offer a work of art or anything for sale on the original Sothebys.com auction site, over a decade ago, all Sothebys.com sellers were required to be "expert specialists" in their respective field.

As a further condition of sale, sothebys.com required that all licensed charter sellers provide "a guarantee of authenticity and condition of the property they sold.", a condition eBay should consider, but won't because it would immediately curtail revenue income.

In other words, on the original sothebys.com auction site, book dealers were only authorized to sell collectible books, but could not sell diamond rings.

Too bad, eBay and Google does not have a similar requirement for sellers of Art.

If someone says they are a credited "appraiser", search Google, or better yet, pick up the phone and check to see if the person is a member. Too often they aren't.

If an art appraiser ever requests to purchase works of art after providing an appraisal, a response of "no thank you" is appropriate.

Then report the incident so that appraiser is immediately removed from the respective appraisal organization.

It is a clear conflict of interest that might save you thousands of dollars; and most likely, others too.

Why Buying Fine Art On A Cruise Ship Is Financial Suicide

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph K. Levene) — Thu, 20 Jul 2017 22:51:00 -0400

by Robert Grunder & Joseph K. Levene

Cahal Milmo, The Independent, has written an article about Mrs. Day, and her husband, Julian Howard, two UK lawyers, who went on 7 day 2007 Royal Caribbean Cruise vacation, and spent $500.6K for 111 purported Salvador Dali prints.

Instead of buying art with appreciation potential, Mrs. Day, and her husband initially spent $98Kfor 11 Dali prints while on the cruise, and subsequently spent an additional $422K for 100 more Dali prints, with a market value of 90% less.

At any price, the Dali prints selected are difficult to sell, as most art buyers purchase later Salvador Dali prints solely on price, and as a result, Mrs. Day's has an immediate disadvantage of owning prints that will always be overpriced.

On July 18, 2009, the New York Times highlighted Park West's selling tactics, including significant questions of authenticity and price gouging regarding Dali and Picasso prints.

This UK couple was seduced with deceptive documentation from Park West, an auction house best known for conducting so called cruise ship auctions, a business that succeeds by convincing novices to buy art without appropriate disclosure.

The 111 Salvador Dali prints, from a series titled Divine Comedy were purchased for $510K, including a worthless appraisal and meaningless certificate of authenticity.

Unfortunately, even though lawyers, Mrs. Day and her husband forgot to do any due diligence, and as a result did not seek any opinion from other art dealers/art professionals. Furthermore, the couple did not view and inspect the Dali set of 100 prints before making a payment exceeding $400K.

If Mrs. Day had executed less than 10 minutes of due diligence, after all she is a lawyer, she would have recognized that a Salvador Dali Divine Comedy set of 100 prints only achieved $16.8K at Sotheby's public auction, 10/28/05. Furthermore, this same set of 100 prints, has never sold for more than $20K tops at any public auction, clearly in conflict to the alleged $510K appraisal.

Had the couple executed even modest due diligence, Mrs. Day would have realized it was virtually implausible to have an appraised value of $510K less than 4 years later. The art market has increased, but an increase of 30 times in this short time frame is excessive.

Like many who purchase purported Salvador Dali, Pablo Picasso and Marc Chagall prints from Park West gallery, Mrs. Day and her husband, were ideal targets. The UK couple was so overwhelmed and impressed, they forgot that buying art, requires accurate disclosure from competent/reliable sellers.

The couple didn't question the seller's reputation, nor did they even confirm the accuracy of the art's documentation.

Most likely, the Park West auctioneer overlooked any mention of its recent "litigation from Park West customers, nor the fact that The Fine Art Registry (FAR), an American art registration company has set up a website publicising what it says is Park West's penchant for sharp selling practices, insists that it has been approached by more than 200 former cruise-line passengers who believe they have been sold dud prints and pictures".

In a statement, Park West said: We are the largest at-sea gallery in the world and are proud of the relationships we have developed with more than 1.2 million clients over our 40 years in business. We stand behind the authenticity of every work of art we sell, including the works sold to Mrs. Howard and Mr. Day, and we are confident we will prevail in court.

"Royal Caribbean, which made a profit of $703M in 2007 and this year launches a new class of vessel that can carry more than 6K passengers, said: Royal Caribbean denies any allegation or suggestion that it has done anything wrong. We take very seriously the issues that have recently been raised regarding some of Park West's business practices.

"In the meantime, Sharon Day awaits the beginning of the trial of her case later this year. "All we did was get on board a ship and buy some pictures," she said. "Now we are having to stand up and fight for our children's inheritance."

Unless well versed and entirely confident, art buyers should only purchase fine art from recognized professional art sellers.

Do you get legal advice from a doctor?

Do you obtain medical advice from a cab driver?

Would you buy gold jewelry from a carpenter?

We recommend art buyers understand the difference between Fine Art and Fake Art and advocate collectors only buy correctly documented fine art from professional fine art dealers with respected reputations.

No matter how well written, no certificate of authenticity or appraisal can transform Fake Art into Fine Art.
Plain & Simple: Buying Fine Art On A Cruise Ship Is Financial Suicide.

Shop Guaranteed Authentic Fine Art From Joseph K. Levene Fine Art, Ltd.

Was Robert and Ethel Scull Art Collection Museum Quality?

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph K. Levene) — Wed, 24 May 2017 16:02:00 -0400

by Joseph K. Levene

George Segal Portrait of Robert and Ethel Scull, 1965

Robert and Ethel Scull, once had a Pop Art Collection comprised of so many museum quality masterpieces, before disposed by Sotheby's in 1973 and 1986. In fact, the quality was so strong, it was the equivalent of multiple museums collections, now that many of the works are actually now in museum collections.

The Sculls collected first class Art by Jasper Johns, Andy Warhol, Frank Stella, Roy Lichtenstein, Willem de Kooning, James Rosenquist, George Segal, John Chamberlain and dozens of other now legendary Pop Art names.

The Robert and Ethel Scull name is an Internationally recognized blue-chip provenance for the vast material sold at two historic Sotheby's auctions, which changed the Contemporary Art landscape.

In 1973, the Robert & Ethel Scull auctioned 50 paintings and sculptures at Sotheby's which only yielded $2.2 million.

Sotheby's 1986 Auction Catalogue featured James Rosenquist F-111 in sale grossing $10 million

11 years later in November, 1986, 142 additional Robert & Ethel Scull Paintings & Sculpture were auctioned for $10 million at Sotheby's New York.

Acquavella Galleries has gathered 44 of the most striking works from the Scull Collection from 11 museums, 2 foundations and 22 private collectors.

The Robert and Ethel Scull Collection Exhibition "reunion" is astonishing for its quantity of Museum Quality Pop Art Masterpieces that rivals many Museums.

Jasper Johns was one of the Robert & Ethel Scull's favorites. At one point Mr. & Mrs. Scull owned 22 major Jasper Johns Works, seven of which are included in the Acquavella Exhibition, including three Jasper Johns paintings, Map, 1961; Double Flag, 1962; Target, 1961, and an extraordinary, large, 0-9, 1961, charcoal and pastel on paper, a masterpiece of Jasper Johns' draughtsmanship.

Jasper Johns, Map, 1961, Collection of The Museum of Modern Art, New York

Jasper Johns, Map, 1961, an oil on canvas, currently in the collection of the Museum of Modern Art, a gift of Mr. and Mrs. Robert C. Scull, is a Pop art masterpiece shown in context with other Art Works formally in the Scull Collection.

Also included in the Exhibition is Jasper Johns, Target, 1961, an encaustic and newspaper collage on canvas that Robert and Ethel Scull originally sold for $125,000, at Sotheby's 1973 historic auction.

Jasper Johns Target 1961, Encaustic and newspaper collage on canvas sold by Joseph K. Levene in 1989

After the 1973 Sotheby's auction, the Jasper Johns Target, 1961 encaustic and newspaper collage on canvas acquired by Lord Peter Palumbo, prior to its 1989 sale to an Asian buyer by Joseph K. Levene who at the time was President/Chief Operating Officer, Petersburg Press, Inc. Today, Joseph K. Levene is President and founder, Joseph K. Levene Fine Art, Ltd.

Seeing this extraordinary 1961 masterpiece brought back vivid memories when Joseph K. Levene viewed Jasper Johns Target painting 22 years subsequent to viewing the painting at Crozier's Chelsea warehouse. In 1997, the Jasper Johns Target found its current Chicago home when acquired by Stefan Edlis from the Leo Castelli Gallery.

Not included in the Aquavella Exhibition is James Rosenquist's F-111, 1964-65, an 85-foot-long, 51-panel Painting, sold for a record $1.9 million at the 1986 Scull Auction, currently in the collection of The Museum of Modern Art, New York.

Robert and Ethel Scull had the good fortune of persuading Leo Castelli to sell them James Rosenquist's F-111 Pop icon, for $45,000., a decision Leo Castelli liked since it obviated separating the painting with 4 owners.

Also not included in the Exhibition, but making International headlines, is Andy Warhol 200 Dollar Bills, 1962, which first brought $385,000 at the 1986 Sotheby's Scull Auction, which Joseph K. Levene attended.

In November 2009, the Andy Warhol 200 Dollar Bills became the second highest price Andy Warhol ever sold at public auction when the Painting achieved $43.7 million, not a bad profit! The Acquavella Galleries Exhibition demonstrates the extraordinary eye for quality shared by the late Robert and Ethel Scull.

Shop Guaranteed Authentic Fine Art From Joseph K. Levene Fine Art, Ltd.

Photographer Who Shot Brooke Shield Nudes Dies

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph K. Levene) — Thu, 8 Dec 2016 22:50:00 -0500

by Joseph K. Levene & Robert Grunder

Garry Gross photograph of 10 Year Old Brooke Shields

Garry Gross, fashion photographer, best known for his controversial nude photographs of Brooke Shields, when she was 10 years old, passes.

In 1975, long before Brooke Shields became an International child star, Teri Shields, Brooke Shields' Mother, signed a $450. contract that allowed Garry Gross to shoot a series of controversial photographs of Brooke Shields, "in thick makeup and bejeweled, sitting and standing in a steaming, opulently decorated bathtub." At 17, Brooke Shields became a movie star in "Pretty Baby" and could not prevent Garry Gross from legally selling photographs from that historic shoot.

"New York State’s highest court ruled that Brooke Shields could not break the contract. In its 4-to-3 decision, the Court of Appeals said that Mr. Gross could continue to market the photos as long as he did not sell them to pornographic publications."

Ironically, years later, Richard Prince appropriated the Garry Gross Ppotograph by photographing the original, and because Gross objected, later provided Mr. Gross with an out of court settlement.

The Richard Prince Appropriation was exhibited at the 2007 Richard Prince Guggenheim Museum Retrospective in New York. More recently, Scotland Yard confiscated the Richard Prince Appropriation from the Tate Museum because it was a potential violation of obscenity. Read The New York Times obituary of Garry Gross.

Contemporary Photography on Pinterest Curated by Joseph K. Levene Fine Art, Ltd.

Artnet Takeover Tug Of War

noreply@blogger.com (Joseph K. Levene) — Thu, 7 Jul 2016 13:14:00 -0400

by Joseph K. Levene & Robert Grunder

Recently, artnet has been the subject of numerous news articles, including:

Hans Neuendorf, artnet CEO resigns and is replaced by Jacob Pabst, Mr. Neurendorf's son.

The Fine Art Blog

Posthumous Jean-Michel Basquiat Prints: Collectible or NOT?

Pace Prints: The Controversy Surrounding Posthumous Jean-Michel Basquiat Prints

How to Spot Counterfeit Jasper Johns 1977 Color Screenprints Flooding Online Art Auctions

by Robert Grunder & Joseph K. Levene

The Authentic Work: Key Specifications

Museum Collections

A Surge in Counterfeits Since 2022

Authentic 1977 Jasper Johns impression offered by Joseph K. Levene Fine Art, Ltd., left, vs. counterfeit impression printed on white paper, right, sold in over 100 online auctions and venues since 2023. How To Identify Jasper Johns Screenprint Counterfeits?

Why This Matters

Jasper Johns Color Screenprint complete with original 28-page catalogue sold for $6,096 including buyer's premium, Phillips on February 12, 2025.Recent Market Reference

Final Thoughts

How Gen Z and Prints Are Reshaping The Art Market Future: Clickbait or Press Release?

Manipulating Value: How The Art Market Sells Illusion

Manufactured Demand or Market Correction?

Advocacy vs. Asset Inflation

Scarcity by Design: Lynn Drexler and the Mechanics of Market Control

Alice Baber The Eight-Fold Path, 1973 sold for modest $2,500 Hindman Auctions, January 11, 20192019: Alice Baber Modest Market Presence

Alice Baber Wind Divided Mist the Darker, 1972 achieved $698,500 Sotheby's, September 28, 20232023: Alice Baber Auction World Record Record Price Result

2022 & 2023: Alice Baber Series of Sudden Auction Spike Results at John Moran, California

Alice Baber Swirl of Sounds-The Ghost in The Banyan Tree, 1976, achieved $187,500, John Moran, August 30, 2022

Alice Baber Signatures: Spurious vs. Authentic:

It gets even more strange!

What Are The Names and Credentials of Those Running The Alice Baber Project?

The Takeaway

Art Buyers Often Overlook Condition—Buying on Price Alone Is Often A Bad Deal

Ellsworth Kelly Red/Blue color screenprint; 2 examples

Condition overlooked when buyers buy fine art on price

Highest price art not always best

$64K Ellsworth Kelly dull

Many online buyers buy inferior art

Quality art appreciates

Online art often sold with inaccurate condition statements

Buy art from professional art dealers

View guaranteed authentic blue-chip art from Joseph K. Levene Fine Art, Ltd.

Even famous name auction houses are inaccurate

If you need a doctor, you would never call a plumber

33% eBay lots sell for more than $5,000!

3 decades multifaceted fine art experience

Selling fine art online for over 25 years

Jasper Johns Prints: The Importance Of Condition and Transparency

David Hockney Photo Collages: A Glimpse Into Their Brilliance

Why You Should Avoid Buying Online Art From Artsy Auctions

Was Auctionata Ever Ethical?

Auctionata closes after burning $95.6 million in venture capital

Why did online auction start-up Auctionata close after burning $95.6 million in venture capital if it purportedly was online global leader in art and luxury collectibles?

An objective financial accounting will show Auctionata's astonishing sales and purported record growth vs. prior years was pure fiction.

Auctionata was never global leader of anything.

For the two years between 2014-2015, only 11 of the top 33 Auctionata lots that sold for over €91,000 were art.

In 2014, Ben Hartley, then International managing director at Auctionata erroneously boasted most Auctionata lots sell between $5,000 and $20,000.

Although press releases subsequent to the KPMG merger and recent bankruptcy announcement stress transparency, nothing could be further from the truth.

Auctionata's investors were largely unaware or condoned Alexander Zacke's shocking lack of ethics, management inexperience and naivety about art and the online auction market because they continued to provide five rounds of venture capital funds even though there was no corroborating sales support.

Why wasn't Alexander Zacke, his wife Susanne Zacke and complicit members of its supervisory board immediately dismissed after results of the KPMG audit indicated massive patterns of fraud by the Zackes, inappropriate consignments and buying by his mother Irene Zacke and son Maximilian Zacke?

Auctionata's response to the KPMG audit was hardly transparent nor honest.

The KPMG audit indicates the Zacke's implemented the Auctionata scam by buying and consigning material which helped inflate auction results right from the beginning of the company's launch.

There is no question Zacke's scam was abetted by the International Press who never challenged Auctionata's erroneous growth.

Alexander Zacke never had requisite experience to be CEO of online start-up Auctionata.

Alexander Zacke claimed to be a major eBay seller yet his listings and sales were never public.

The KPMG audit indicated the scam included numerous instances of shill bids, hyperbole, conflicts of interest, poor evaluation procedures, fraudulent material along with a meaningless 25 year guarantee that up until the KPMG audit, was not challenged.

Thankfully, Auctionata has been forced to close

Fake 1973 Roy Lichtenstein Prints Dupe Christie's, Phillips & Sotheby's Specialists

Why were 5 FAKE Roy Lichtenstein prints from non-existent Printers Proof edition accepted by London specialists at Christie's, Phillips & Sotheby's?

Why did specialists at Phillips, Christie's & Sotheby's London accept 5 FAKE Roy Lichtenstein prints for auctions, each erroneously cataloged as Printer's Proofs?

Fake Roy Lichtenstein Finger Pointing erroneously documented as Printer's Proof 4/10 sold for $11.4K at Christie's

Fake Roy Lichtenstein Finger Pointing erroneously numbered PP 4/10 from non-existant edition of 10, sold $11.4K at Christie's

2 months later, Phillips sold another Fake Finger Pointing; this time documented as Printer's Proof 10/10

The Roy Lichtenstein Prints Catalogue Raisonné avoids reference to any Finger Pointing Printer's Proof edition.

Roy Lichtenstein Prints Catalogue Raisonné avoids reference of 75 proofs documented in other Catalogue Raisonnés

Cy Twombly Catalogue Raisonné 1953-1984, Catalogue #38:

Claes Oldenburg, A Catalogue Raisonné 1958-1996, Catalogue Reference 109:

Do specialists at Christie's, Sotheby's and Phillip's know left vs. right?

By comparison, the FAKE Printer's Proof Finger Pointing impressions are ALL incorrectly stamped on the lower right and numbered left.

The 5 Fake Finger Pointing impressions all share wavy "Styria Studio" & "Roy Lichtenstein" stamps which appear on verso

3 FAKE Finger Pointing Printer's Proof impressions were withdrawn at Sotheby's, Christie's & Phillips because we alerted the respective specialists.

The Roy Lichtenstein Foundation should update online records for Finger Pointing to accurately reflect the additional 100 proofs as published & confirmed by other Catalogue Raisonnés.

Condition Matters! Why The Same Ellsworth Kelly Screenprint NOT Always The Same?

Why Has Counterfeit Calder Sculpture Sold Over 75 Times At Auction?

Metropolitan Museum Buys $840 Masterpiece

Richard Pettibone Realized Auction Prices Dramatically Increase

Fine Art OR Fake Art? How Can You Be Sure

Authentic 1977 Jasper Johns impression offered by Joseph K. Levene Fine Art, Ltd., left, vs. counterfeit impression printed on white paper, right, sold in over 100 online auctions and venues since 2023.

How To Identify Jasper Johns Screenprint Counterfeits?

Jasper Johns Color Screenprint complete with original 28-page catalogue sold for $6,096 including buyer's premium, Phillips on February 12, 2025.

Recent Market Reference

Alice Baber The Eight-Fold Path, 1973 sold for modest $2,500 Hindman Auctions, January 11, 2019

2019: Alice Baber Modest Market Presence

Alice Baber Wind Divided Mist the Darker, 1972 achieved $698,500 Sotheby's, September 28, 2023

2023: Alice Baber Auction World Record Record Price Result