ART AND THE ARTFUL

Evening Star, Issue 20636, 8 November 1930, Page 12

ART AND THE ARTFUL

WILES OF PICTURE DEALERS Although there are many art dealers whose character and dealings are above reproach there are others who'appear to adopt as a motto, “Make money, honestly if you can, but make money. 1 ’ Writing in ‘ Chambers’s Journal,’ Mr Janies H. Galloway recounts some of the devices used by unscrupulous dealers and self-styled experts to take advantage of the innocent. On one occasion a Scots frame-maker came into possession of a portrait which ho be- . lieved to be by Raeburn. Noticing the advertisement of a London dealer ho sent the portrait to the firm asking it to value it for him., It was promptly returned with a letter to the effect that' it was of no interest. Disappointed, the Scot hung the picture ou the wall of his shop again. Some days later a well-dressed stranger, entered the shop, noticed the portrait, and offered to buy it. Tin Scot, being honest, told the purchaser that appearances, were deceitful, and that the portrait was not' a Raeburn., After asking £25 for it ho finally consented to accept £2O, and the stranger removed the picture. A. very little later he saw his picture, reproduced in a London illustrated paper with an announcement that it had been procured by the,-firm to .which, he had first submitted it for an opinion. It was described as a genuine' Raeburn, and valued at several thousand pounds. It was afterwards ascertained that the stranger who had purchased it was a partner in the firm, who had travelled from London to Scotland with the „intention' of purchasing it after • having destroyed the faith of its Scots owner in its value, by its contemptuous rejection. This Scot was unfortunately too poor to fight the firm in a . civil action, and accepted £2OO in full settlement of bis claims. Somewhat 1 similar treatment was received by the owner of a picture who lived in Ireland. Desiring ,to sell it, she sent it to an art expert in LondonAfter examination the expert reported that he valued it at £BO, andi without assigning the work to any special artist, said he himself would be prepared to give that sum for it. The owner, who was an inexperienced woman, closed with the offer. Later a friend of hers, who was. visiting London, recognised the picture in a dealer’s gallery. Without admitting any previous knowledge of the painting, she asked its price, and was astonished to be told that it was valued at' £7,000. The -expert had recognised it as a Romney, and saw an opportunity of a large sum of money by misleading > his client. The original owner was made of sterner stuff than the Scot, in the first case. She left the matter in the hands of a solicitor, who obtained £2,000' fop her from the dishonest expert. Even experts are liable ,to, err.’and give honest opinions of paintings. that place their pretensions of knowledge iu ludicrous light. , There, is one wellknown instance in , which a world* famous judge of . paintings was, asked to call on the owner of two pictures purporting to bo by Willem Vandevelde. In giving his verdict, .ho pronounced that one was, without doubt, by the artist named, and that the other was merely a copy pf his style and was of no value. The actual truth was that the two pictures had originally been one, but owing to some dam- , age it had been cut in two and framed accordingly. In, a somewhat similar case, where a picture had, through damage, been cut in two, the buyer of one half brought it to au expert • for an opinion. The, great' man immediately pronounced it to he the work of a deceased English artist of repute, whose name he gavp. , To some extent the judgment was correct, only the name ho mentioned was not that- on the signed half of the picture*