ART AND ARTFUL

Greymouth Evening Star, 14 November 1930, Page 8

ART AND 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.” Writing in ‘Chambers s Journal,” Mr James 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 he believed to be by Raeburn. Noticing the advertisement of a London dealer he 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 on the wall of his shop again. Some days later a welldressed stranger entered the shop, noticed the portrait, and offered to buy it. The Scot, being honest, told the purchaser that appearances were deceitful, and that the portrait was not a Raeburn. After asking £25 for it he finally consented to accept 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 genfline 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. The Scot was unfortunately too poor to fight the firm in a civil action, and accepted £2OO in full settlement of his claims. Somewhat 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 London. After examination the expert reported that he valued it at £BO, and, 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 nowledge of the* painting, she asked its price, and was astonished‘to be told that it was valued at £7OOO. The expert had

recognised it as a Romney, and saw an opportunity of making 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 for her from the dishonest expert. Even experts are liable to err and give honest opinions of paintings that place their pretensions of knowledge, in ludicrous light. There is one wellknown instance in which a worldfamous judge of paintings was asked to call on the owner of two pieties purporting to be by Willem Vandevelde. In giving his verdict, he pronounced that one was, without doubt, by the artist named, and that the other was merely a copy of his style and was of no value. The actual truth was that the two pictures had originally been one, but owing to some damage 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 an expert for an opinion. The great man immediately pronounced it to be the work of a deceased English artist of repute, whose name he gave. To some extent the judgment, was correct, only the name he mentioned was not that on the signed half of the picture.