Contribution to the history of forgery. Kustodiyev by an unknown artist

[Тютчев]

[Кирилл Сызранский]

Сообщение от uriart

If you bought a jacket and only home he discovered that the torn, no doubt, assign the him back.

What you compare "spindzhak" with a picture. Why such plebsky approach.
Paintings, pictures, special merchandise, luxury items and as jackets and trousers, socks and pants are not sold. By the way, socks and underwear, too, are not subject to exchange.
And we have already discussed these issues returns. Auctions are reluctant to return and it is clear: they will not only "ragged jacket" to return, but not trendy, not the color, style or size, if a buyer dramatically, for example, on weight /lost weight, which in our case means : failed to sell as dearly redeemed dealer lot and starts to return to the auction.

[Wladzislaw]

Сообщение от Tjutchev

So after the fact and calculations. The main sell, and then even if the grass does not grow!

Actually, I think, Archipenko one of the most counterfeited sculptors. Pour and grind all. If we are not at Christie's and Sotheby buy, then where? "... How terrible live ...

P. S. There is a Ukrainian collector, collects sculpture, and occasionally puts it on Kiev salons. Once exhibited work Archipenko, it seemed to me that one of the fake papers. Given that he has serious things, eg. Cabinet Diego Giacometti, Moore's work ...

[uriart]

Wladzislaw, the thing is, these sculptures have already passed on ebee and even on opening day in Moscow. And these sites say a lot! Especially Ebeye.
A vyzy exactly seen in St. Petersburg. I have them and suggested how Novodel and did not conceal this.

Added after 1 minute
Cyril Syzranskiy, and pinzhak and picture - good!
And even semifresh ....<!--~ a ~-->
Cause and compare.

[Tana]

Сообщение от Cyril Syzranskiy

Not the children were really crazy enough to earn billions, and now "Lohoma a fake," "Fool cardboard" themselves to send to the whole world ...

Here is a suspected forgery was:

Cyril Syzranskiy, basically it's quite different things, be an expert in the field of art (and especially in the field of all the art) and earn billions, it is interesting, and you somewhere met a specialist (who knows everything and never made a mistake) and that billionaire?
It is impossible to know asolyutno all! And there will always be issues in which each of us will be "Fool cardboard, for this and there are experts, assistants, so that it is their fault, and I think they all worked out.

[Кирилл Сызранский]

Сообщение от Tana

Do not know asolyutno all! And there will always be issues in which each of us will be" Fool cardboard, for this and there are experts, assistants, so that it is their fault, and I think they all worked out.

I showed the expert opinion of Vladimir Petrov. He wrote it clearly, "fake Compilation".
What prevented the buyer V. bring experts in London and ask to see are interested in something?

[Игорь Гурьев]

[uriart]

[Кирилл Сызранский]

Сообщение от uriart

Probably after the fact.

Yes,

Moscow, November 21, 2006

But it says only that the buyer VA experts showed the thing after purchase.

Painting Boris Kustodiev, sold at Christie's for $ 3 million, went into the "Catalogue of fakes»:
"Every month I am asked to see 10 paintings and 9 of them are false - laments the London dealer James Batteruik (James Butterwick). - Many Russian collectors make purchases without consulting with competent experts. If the work is credible, then it has a provenance, which can be easily checked.
http://artinvestment.ru/news/artnews...kustodiev.html

[OlegTsi]

Сообщение от Cyril Syzranskiy

But it says only that the buyer VA experts showed the thing after purchase.

Personally, my opinion is this:

Vekselberg was not supposed to bring experts in the Christies. It is the responsibility and duty to check the work of Christie such a plan. After all this, and calculates the buyer. But the auction house impose OD 20 to 25%of your commissions fee. It is often considerable means, which is enough to pay for the outstanding professional expertise. But the certainty and the absence of any suspicion Christie served as a fact of pre-sale of this painting at the same Christie ten years ago.
Surprisingly one fact: Christie took the picture on its own research and expert opinion. Who should do assessment? Petrov?
Therefore, there was until today no explanation on the part of Christie's. But I think the lesson from this situation will benefit everyone.