Buying art should always be approached with great caution, and consumers must be doubly alert when faced with the relative anonymity of online auction sellers. But a measure of protection is offered by asking a few simple questions, and knowing what the right answers should be.
Before placing a bid on a work attributed to a non-living artist, always inquire on the availability of a valid Certificate of Authenticity — a document commonly referred to as a COA –, signed by a living, recognized expert on the artist, designating the specific work on the auction block. If the seller will not show you the actual certificate (some promise to include it in delivery after you buy the work…bad idea), he or she should at least provide the name and contact information of the signatory, allowing you to call and verify the claim.
Ask for a provenance, a paper trail showing the work’s commercial journey from the artist’s studio to the seller. A valid provenance can include gallery stickers, catalog listings, a photo of the artist with his work or a verifiable list of previous owners. The more a provenance is anecdotal, the less valuable it is. It should not sound like a colorful Gothic tale, but offer verifiable facts.
If you’re bidding on a work by a living artist, get his or her number and verify the authenticity. The provenance in this case is evident.
If, for any reason, the seller refuses to provide valid documentation for a painting or print, don’t buy it. It’s that simple. And your caution should be proportionate to the enthusiasm of the refusal:
Recently, a seller on a major online auction site described a Rouault print as carrying a “…guaranteed authentic signature”.
Like any cautious buyer, we asked the seller how he proposed to substantiate such a categorical statement. The request seemed reasonable enough. But the reply was quick and angry, containing an irate accusation of sarcasm; and the seller’s surprising statement that nothing could be unconditionally guaranteed, “…short of the artist stepping from the grave.” The reply was in direct contradiction to the posting’s unconditional guarantee, and a very good reason to stay well away.
Another transparent ploy is the spontaneous “discovery” of names and initials on the back of a work. A recent posting’s description stated, “The painting dates to the C16th/C17th, on the reverse of the painting is a handwritten description of the painting as well as the words ‘by Albrect Durer’.”
We asked what dating technique had been used, and whether any documentation could be provided. The seller responded that the painting simply “looked very old”, and added this interesting bit of information, “I did not even know who ‘Albrect Durer’ was until I searched the web tonight!”
We can safely assume that Albrecht Dürer never came within daubing distance of this painting. And it is anyone’s guess how the name – spelling mistakes and all – ended up scrawled on the back.
Yet another posting featured a work allegedly painted by Jackson Pollock. The online description carried what the seller called a provenance, the anecdote of how a “well known friend” of the artist had received the work as a gift, and how the seller had purchased the painting from “the actual curator of the collection.” That may well have been true, but all the players in the story were anonymous, and the seller refused to identify them.
An unverifiable claim is useless.
Also, when asked for a confirmation of authenticity, the same seller answered that he would not provide one because of “…the politics that riddle the art world.”
Less than honest sellers frequently use offense as the best defense, putting themselves above the rabble of so-called “unethical exploiters” poisoning the art world with their “dishonesty and rapaciousness”. They sometimes snigger at the mere mention of a Certificate of Authenticity, assuring you that most of them are “…not worth the paper they’re printed on.” And they are right, to a certain extent. A valid certificate of authenticity must conform to specific rules of ethics and common practice; most importantly, the signatory must be a living, recognized expert on the artist. Otherwise, it is indeed worthless. But that does not discredit the accepted process of authentication. It simply means that any old piece of paper, signed by anyone is simply not a Certificate of Authenticity.
There are several works by Dali, Picasso and Matisse currently for sale on most online auction sites, all of them offered with a Certificate of Authenticity. The so-called COAs are issued by an organization that appears unknown to the world of art, and signed by someone who has no known expertise at authenticating Dali, Picasso or Matisse; nor does the certificate carry any contact information for him. Repeated requests for contact information remain unanswered.
It is at best misleading to describe such a document as a Certificate of Authenticity.
How Does the Industry Deal with Online Fraud
April 12, 2006
How is the online auction industry dealing with this problem?
It was difficult to reach a major online auction site’s office. Dialling their number led the caller through an electronic maze of recorded instructions, ending in a voice-mail too full to receive more messages. After several emails and one snail-mail, an answer came from the Public Relations department. But the reply fell far short of answering specific queries on art fraud, and just repeated the general advice to buyers found on their site. A second communication repeating specific questions on dubious art sales remains unanswered.
The key word in most online auction sites responses to potential fraud appears to be “marketplace”: referring to themselves as a marketplace — rather than a retailer — shifts total responsibility on the buyer. The auction site, in their view, is the shopping mall and the sellers are the tenants. But this analogy falls apart when you understand that most auction sites take a percentage on the selling price of every transaction, creating a de facto partnership with sellers and raising obvious issues of conflict of interest. Are genuine efforts made to drive out swindlers who are also high volume sellers? Perhaps the answer is in the growing number of complaints against online auction sites.
On my3cents.com, a consumer advocate Website, we found a long list of complaints against a major online auction site and fraudulent sellers, including this e-mail, “If you're the winning bidder and you do not pay you are suspended. If the seller takes your money and does not send the item, no action is taken against him, he's got (name of auction site deleted) blessing to defraud you and keep doing it to others because he's a paying customer. It's been a month since I put the complaint and this seller is still allowed to defraud buyers…”
Another buyer writes, “She does not respond to her emails and she is no longer an (name of auction site deleted) seller. She is however selling her prints on other websites and will not send me my print.”
And finally, this from yet another customer: “I have just been ripped off of $785.00 US by a scam artist on (name of auction site deleted) and no amount of emails to (name of auction site deleted) can get that sleazy outfit to respond to my plight.”
No matter what efforts most major online auction sites claim to be making to limit fraud, buying art from an online auction site – like buying from a bricks and mortar auction house, for that matter — is ultimately a question of caveat emptor, buyer beware. In fairness, it might well be impossible to keep track of the millions of transactions that take place throughout worldwide sites – a major site claims eight million buyers and sellers worldwide. And most sites do include comprehensive security centres, offering very good advice for buyers and sellers alike, including a mechanism for reporting unsatisfactory transactions or outright fraud. But the question remains, How do major online auction sites respond to these reports and complaints?
Part of the answer to that question might lie in discussion boards — a forum for exchange of problems and solutions among buyers and sellers. A quick survey of them shows that a significant number of complaints centre on non-delivery and inability to contact the Website by snail mail or phone. One of these complaints, headed “(name of site deleted) Loses Another Buyer”, is from someone who asks, “How long can they last with only sellers and no buyers?”
The disgruntled user goes on to say that he or she (it’s impossible to determine gender from the user name) fell victim to fraud five times out of 150 purchases, with an average loss of $500 per bad transaction. Complaints and requests are fruitless, as the buyer says that he or she never received a penny. The e-mail goes on to state that, “…the claims process itself can drive you nuts.”
This posting provoked a string of comments – five pages in all –, many of them relating similar experiences:
“…lots of people out to make a quick buck.”
“…it is very depressing to hear good buyers feeling this way.”
“I am now in the process of filing claims on three items.”
NEXT WEEK: Protecting yourself: Beware of bad answers to good questions.
Online auctions: art fraud for the masses
March 31, 2006
Internet forgeries and flimflams
By
Marc Carrier
The work by American abstract painter Richard Diebenkorn attracted lots of attention. The bids opened at .30 cents and soon started soaring. The price reached four figures, then six figures, finally selling to a buyer in the Netherlands for $135,805.
The painting was a fake. And so were most of the bids. A U.S. court sentenced a man to almost four years in jail for this crime.
The ring leader and his accomplices posted bogus paintings on a prominent online auction site – the forged works of Alberto Giacometti, Maurice Utrillo, Edward Hopper, and others –, and boosted their profits using a swindle called shill bidding to drive up the prices. It’s an easy trick. One or more people register to an auction site under a variety of anonymous profiles and compete with real buyers by posting phoney bids. There is nothing new about this. It is a ploy that has been around since the earliest days of bricks and mortar auction houses. The Internet just makes it easier.
Too easy.
Auctions now reach far beyond the carpeted salons of Christie’s and Sotheby’s thanks to the Internet, resulting in a widespread democratization of art fraud. Anyone with a computer and a modem is vulnerable to online deceit. And the problem appears to be growing. According to the Internet Fraud Complaint Centre, a partnership between the FBI and the National White Collar Crime Centre, almost half of all reported crimes concern online auction sites. The latest available figures (2002) show 48, 252 total complaints of fraud for the U.S. alone — a three-fold increase on the previous reporting year –, for a median value of nearly $300 per complaint. Internet auction fraud makes up 46% of that figure, for a loss of over $20 million, while statistics on Canada‘s Recol Website (Reporting Economic Crime Online, a collaboration between the RCMP and National White Collar Crime Centre of Canada) show that 19% of all reported crimes concern Internet auction fraud.
NEXT WEEK: How is the online auction industry dealing with this problem?
MEANWHILE, IF YOU OR SOMEONE YOU KNOW HAVE FALLEN VICTIM TO ONLINE OR BRICKS-AND-MORTAR ART FRAUD, I WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU. TELL YOUR STORY IN TOTAL CONFIDENCE BY WRITING TO: carrierartappraisal@yahoo.ca
