View our archives to access Part I of this article.

Provenance

Another important factor in the appraisal process of an old master painting is the work’s history or provenance. An impeccable provenance, one that links the work to a famous collection or museum, may positively increase the value of the piece. The fewer gaps which are found in the painting’s history from the time it left the artist’s workshop may support the work’s attribution as well as the title of ownership. Important art historical information, such as the positive identification of the sitter in the case of a portrait, or the identification of the commission for a piece may all help to increase the value of the work. Also, it is important to mention and record all publications, such as catalogues, articles and books; and if one is correctly building a case history for an important work, past sale's history, may also be crucial, especially if it has passed through an important sale or collection. On occasion, when a work appears in a mysterious way, proper ownership should be checked through IFAR’s Stolen Art Register.

A Case History of a Painting’s Identification

I would like to illustrate the above remarks with an actual case with which I was involved. The case was a rather complex one and is thankfully not typical for most appraisals of Old Master Paintings. The painting in question had been part of a collection of Old Master Paintings belonging to a Brooklyn collector. I mention the location since I believe that some of my colleagues may have dismissed the quality of the collection partly due to the location. This painting had been attributed by the deceased collector to Anthony Van Dyck.

The collector had acquired the works in the late 1920s; and on his demise, his heirs decided to sell them. Two major auction houses and an important Manhattan gallery were called in by the attorneys to prepare estate appraisals. The work in question was unanimously held by the contemporary experts to be a 19th century copy after Van Dyck. After many attempts by the heirs to sell the works in the collection, I was asked by a potential buyer to act as a consultant to determine the advisability of a purchase. I examined the work and the frame and knew by the treatment of the paint, the style of the frame and the craquelure that the work was older than 19th century and possibly of the period in question. The work was eventually acquired by my client. The attorneys in an aside stated that there had been a suitcase of papers gathered by the heirs concerning the works. The other appraisers had dismissed them as useless, but I asked to review them. In a jumble of papers, I found lists typed by the late collector, old 1930s certificates by unknown middle European art historians, letters between the collector and dealers, old glass negatives, documents in German and some in Russian.

Two documents available to all but so far used only by me were particularly telling for our picture. The first was a tattered copy of an 1862 gallery guide by Hubner from the Dresden Gemäldegalerie and another 1925 transmittal document under seal of the Consul General of the United States concerning the sale of the painting. In the first document the work was ascribed to Anthony Van Dyck (1599-1641), and it was stated that it had been acquired in 1741 in Vienna by an agent of the Saxon crown, Riedel. The second document was the transmittal of the work as the private property of the King of Saxony to the collector, with a complete provenance as it appeared in the 1862 catalogue. That the work was a 19th century copy seemed most remote. The frame was still the state gallery frame with the royal Saxon coat-of-arms. However, the attribution to Van Dyck, while easy and appealing, was problematic, since the painting did not stylistically relate to his known works.

I consulted many art historians for help in identifying the artist. The possibilities were either that it was a studio work of Van Dyck, which still did not account for the non Van-Dyckian passages, or by another contemporary master. After putting the matter aside, a colleague to whom I had once shown a photograph of this puzzling painting told me that he had found it in a new scholarly work by Jean-Pierre de Bruyn on Erasmus II Quellinus (1607-1678). I investigated, and to my surprise it was illustrated by its old pre-World War I gallery photograph as, of course, “collection unknown.” More importantly, the author had connected it with a contemporary known engraving by E.A. Bolswert, which was given to E. Quellinus. A firm attribution could now be made. The valuation could be placed by referring to the auction record and arriving at a value by comparison with similarly sold work by Quellinus. At that point the royal provenance and fact of the work’s publication increased its value.

The Valuation Process

We still have not fully addressed the part of the appraiser’s profession most recognized by the general public, the valuation process. How does one arrive at a valuation for an Old Master painting? After all of the above criteria have been satisfied, the appraiser may proceed to use the documentation available in the public market. The most readily attainable public information are those records kept by auction houses.

There exist many compilations of auction records. Some of the better known are Mayer, Leonard’s, Art Sales Index, ADEC, and for older sales histories, Redford’s Art Sales and Mireur’s Ventes d’Art are invaluable. More recently, lists are available, sometimes with illustrations, on various computer informational systems. A list of auction records prices is useful. For example, the 1996 Art Sale Index gives for the Swiss artist Jean-Etienne Liotard (1702-1789) a price range for his pastels from $21,371 (£13,441) to $1,303,800 (£820,000), a range which logically reflects attribution, size, condition, provenance and subject matter. An appraiser should also consult the original catalogues. Libraries, such as the Frick Art Reference Library, keep copies of many of the catalogues from major auction houses. The catalogue often will have an illustration of the work, possibly with a description, provenance, past literature and occasionally technical information.

The prices realized at auction represent just one view of the art market: that is, for the appraiser, the fair market value. In order to obtain a more balanced perspective, the appraiser should be aware of the retail market as represented by the prices asked by the major specialized dealers. It is often difficult to obtain the prices realized by dealers, and in some cases impossible, especially if the exchange or barter of like works of art are involved in the financial transaction.

In the final analysis, the work of art must speak for itself. Many wonderfully urbane dissertations have been constructed around a painting to prove or disprove its place within an artist’s oeuvre. It is wise for an appraiser, after he or she has completed an appraisal, to review it bearing in mind the words of Schopenhauer: “Remain standing before it (the work of art), bare your head, and wait patiently until it deigns to speak.”