Report on artwork in invoices
Starting point: invoices from art galleries to Globe Services Ltd., and from Sotheby’s to Mr. D., and
correspondence between Mr. D. and Peter McKay of Globe Services.
The invoices are contained in the following files received from Mr. Cherni:

Correspondence and invoice relating to a trip to Zurich in July 2002 to buy artwork by Honore
Daumier – in file called D.-Globe-Peter-McKay-correspondence.pdf, file attached here.

Correspondence from the year 2002 regarding the acquisition of several different works of art –
in file called D.-Globe-correspondence-2002.pdf, attached here.

Correspondence in July 2003 about acquiring paintings by Zille and Liebermann – in file called
D.-Globe-Peter-PcKay-correspondence-July-2003.pdf, attached here.

Invoices from various art galleries to Globe Services Ltd. – in file called D.-invoices-receivedfrom-art-dealers.pdf, file attached here.
Questions:


Are the invoices genuine or fake?
If fake: how much of the information in them is true? Is the artwork in them genuine – does it
really exist? If so, can we establish its provenance and sale history?
Findings:
The findings are arranged by work of art in no particular order. The details from the invoices (which are
scanned image files, text not copyable) are reproduced below in a standard format, followed by the
results of our investigation.
Page 1 of 22
Artist:
Pompeo Batoni (1708 - 1787)
Work:
“Portrait of a Lady with red Feather in Hat,” (1742 – 1766)
Half length
One of two paintings created by the artist for the O’Hara family of Great Britain
Invoice from: Colnaghi gallery, London
Invoice to:
Globes Services
Date: 27th February 2002
Price: £112,500
Provenance: by descent in the family of the sitter
Sale:
Sotherby’s [sic], London, 12th December 1984, there purchased by Colnaghi
London, from whom purchased by previous collector on 12th March 1988 and
repurchased by Colnaghi on 8th June 2001.
Literature:
A. Clark, ed, E.P. Bouron [sic], “Pompeo Batoni,” 1985, p. 291, cat. No. 263.
Results of investigation:

Invoice: the relevant person at the Colnaghi gallery is Livia Schaasfma, we phoned a few
times but did not manage to speak to her; we sent an email on April 5 th with a reminder on
April 9th but as of April 14th have not heard back from the gallery.
But meanwhile we ascertained that the work in the invoice does not exist (see below), which
of course means that the invoice is not genuine.

Literature: The book cited does exist; the first author/editor has died, the second is Dr.
Edgar Peters Bowron (not Bouron as in invoice). It is a “catalogue raisonné” (definitive
catalog of the complete works) of Batoni.

Work: A painting with this name or answering this description does not exist.
o The painting in the invoice is not in the cited book. The provenance data was copied
from a different work by Batoni; the Batoni expert who compiled the catalog, Dr.
Bowron, does not know of any painting by Batoni such as described above.
o
Email from Dr. Bowron, April 10, 2010: “The painting referred to as cat. no. 263 in
my 1985 Batoni book is in fact a painting of Cleopatra and the Dying Mark Antony in
Brest. Cat. no. 261A refers to a portrait of Henry Hutchinson O'Hara with the
provenance given in your e-mail but I know of no painting of a 'Lady with a Red
Feather in Hat' by Batoni.”
Saved together with original query, as pdf: Reply-from-Dr-Edgar-Peters-BowronApril-10-2012.pdf ; attached here.
Page 2 of 22
o There exists a portrait called “Lady with a [black] feather hat”, by Gustav Klimt, 1910
and there are works on the Internet by current painters with titles such as “Lady with
red feather hat”, “Woman in a red feather hat”, etc.

Provenance: needless to say, this painting was not sold by Sotheby’s in 1984.
o The staff of the Old Masters department at Sotheby’s sent an image of the 12 th
December 1984 sale catalog at which this painting was supposed to have been sold.
One Batoni painting was sold at it: the portrait of Henry Hutchinson O’Hara which Dr.
Bowron cites as no. 261A in his catalog, from which was copied the provenance given
in the invoice for the “lady in feather hat” painting. The image is saved as Batonipainting-sold-12-Dec-1984-from-Sothebys.pdf and attached here as a pdf. In the
same email Sotheby’s sent an image of the first page of the catalog, showing the
date: saved as Batoni-first-page-of-12-Dec-1984-Sothebys-catalog.pdf and attached
here as a pdf.
Artist:
Heinrich Zille (1858-1929)
Work:
“Mother and Son” ; drawn ca. 1908 – 1909
Mentioned in letter from Globe (McKay)
Purchase authorized by D. (name spelled D) 4th July, 2003.
Invoice from: Frost & Reed, London
Invoice date: 8th July 2003
Invoice to:
Globes Services
Literature:
Alice Strobl, “Heinrich Zille, die Zeichnungen 1900 – 1910. ” Salzburg, 1984.
Provenance: private collection
Image of the picture (from correspondence, see below):
Page 3 of 22
Price: £7,850
Associated correspondence:

A letter from Globe Services dated July 2nd, 2003, signed P. McKay, stating “we wish to buy 2
drawings by German papers” and listing this work and that by Lieberman, asking for a loan
of £17,000 to buy them both and including a b/w scan of a picture of each work.

A letter from “S. Daehner” to “Peter” dated July 4th, authorizing the purchase “after
referring the matter to Mr. Carmi”, and asking Globe to keep the paintings “pledged as
security for us.”

A letter from Globe Services, signed by P. McKay, dated July 8th, to Emior Investments and
S.E.D. Investments (not mentioning D. by name), confirming purchase of the two drawings
and stating that they are “pledged to you as security and kept in storage.”
Results of our investigation:

Invoice: An email enquiry to Frost & Reed, April 12th, 2012: reply by email same day:
"Further to your email of 15.06 hrs today in respect of an invoice purporting to be from
ourselves to Globes Services Ltd, dated 8 July 2003, I can categorically confirm that neither
the invoice, the paintings listed, nor the client indicated have any connection with Frost &
Reed Ltd. Nor are the names Y Carmi, S Carmi, P McKay and S D. known to us in any
capacity.”
This email with the enquiry we sent is saved as a pdf file: Reply-from-Frost-and-Reed-April12-2012.pdf, attached here.

Work: we found no work called “Mother and Son” by Zille. There is a work by him called
“Amsel” depicting a mother and her small son, but it is quite different from the above:
It is from 1923 not 1908-9.
Page 4 of 22

On April 13th we sent an email to the Zille Museum in Berlin, enquiring about the drawing in
the invoice, and hope for a reply within a few days. The email was saved as Email-to-ZilleMuseum-Berlin-April-13-2012.pdf and is attached here.

Literature: we found no work by Alice Strobl with the title given in the invoice. She has
written similar works about other artists:
o Especially often quoted and very similar in title to the above: Alice Strobl, Gustav
Klimt. Die Zeichnungen 1878-1903, Vol I, Salzburg 1980 - from a Christie’s sale
catalog; Vol. 2 (1904-1912) was published 1982 and Vol. 3 (1912-1918) was published 1984.
o Worldcat lists over 140 catalog entries for works by Strobl: most are on Klimt, a
dozen or more are on Kokoschka, and several are on Dürer; but there is none listed
on Heinrich Zille or with his name anywhere in the cataloging record.
Artist:
Max Lieberman (1847 – 1935)
Work:
“A Village Street”
Same invoice from Frost & Reid as the Zille drawing above (bought together with it)
Price:
£9,375
Provenance: Eberhard Troegar – gift from the artist, April 4, 1930
Then by descent to present owner
No literature listed, but a note: “the authenticity of this work has been confirmed by Margaret
Nouwen and Hans Geissler.”
Associated correspondence: included in that listed for the Zille drawing above.
Image of the picture (from the correspondence):
Page 5 of 22
Results of our investigation:

Invoice: this work was included in the invoice purporting to be from Frost & Reed and their
reply is valid for this work too: “I can categorically confirm that neither the invoice, the
paintings listed, nor the client indicated have any connection with Frost & Reed Ltd.”

Artist: his name is mis-spelt, the correct spelling is Max Liebermann (two n’s at the end).

Work: We found two pictures by Liebermann with “A village street” in their names; neither
of them remotely resembles the picture above.
o “A village street with children in Laren, Holland” - Watercolour on paper, 18 x 30 cm
(7.1 x 11.8 in) Signed lower right M.Liebermann ’82; 1882. A picture and details are
at http://www.lesliesmith.nl/works/view/81. It is also found cited as “A village street
in Holland.”
o “Boy and Girl on a Village Street,” ca. 1897. Pastel on paper. 76.2 x 60 cm. Carmen
Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection on deposit at Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza; picture
and details are online at the museum here.
Artist:
Marc Chagall (1897 – 1985)
Work:
“The Dove” (24 x 19 cm)
Invoice from: Connaught Brown, London
Invoice to:
Globes
Date: 6 July 2003
Price: £108,750
No provenance data and no literature in invoice.
Invoice states that the authenticity of the work has been confirmed by the Comité Chagall.
Associated correspondence:

Letter from Globe, signed P. McKay, dated 6th July 2003, to Emior Investments, says he is
enclosing the invoice from Connaught and the certificate of Comité Chagall, but the
document from Connaught is not in fact an official invoice, just a description; nor does the
word “invoice” appear on it. We do not yet have a copy of the certificate of authenticity
supposedly also enclosed.
This letter also mentions that the agreement between (apparently) Emior and Globe dates
from January 2002.
Result of investigation regarding this work/invoice

Invoice: Email sent to Connaught Brown, April 12, 2012; reply same day by email: “can
confirm that this is not an invoice that originated from Connaught Brown.”
Reply with our original query saved as pdf file, Reply-from-Connaught-Brown-April-122012.pdf: attached here.
Page 6 of 22

Work: there are several works by Chagall whose name includes the word “dove, but none
called only “the dove” nor with the size listed above. Those found (probably not an
exhaustive list since a dove is one of Chagall’s best-known symbols):
o A color lithograph, from The Odyssey Volume II: “The Omen: The Goshawk and the
Dove,” Edition size: 250, 1975. Size: 12-3/4" x 16-3/4" = approx. 32 x 42.5 cm – much
larger than that cited in the invoice. See here for a picture and size information.
Another source gives the edition size as 270 and the size as 12.5 x 16 inches.
o “The Dove of the Ark,” etching, 12 3/8 x 9 3/8 in = approx. 31 x 23 ¾ cm – also larger
than that in the invoice.
o “Noah's Ark - The release of the dove,” Signed etching, 53.5 x 39 cm; see here for a
picture and size information.
o “The Lion and the Dove - study for Jerusalem windows', lithograph in colours, 32cm x
24cm, printed by Mourlot 1962.
Artists:
Hippolye Moreau (1832 – 1927) and Prosper Lecourtier (1851 – 1924)
Work:
Bronze statue, “Hunter with Hounds”, 83 cm high. Golden patina.
Invoice from: Mayfair Gallery
Invoice to:
Globe Services
Date: August 16, 2002
Price: £18,950
Literature:
P. Kiellberg (or Kieilberg), “Les Bronzes du XIX Siecle”, p.509, photo 2.
Provenance: Private collection
Result of our investigations

Invoice: the initial response from the Mayfair gallery was: “it does not look like our format
of invoice. Since then, our staff have changed but I will try to find out.” We have not so far
received a further reply from them.

Work: the bronze statuette does exist: a picture is at :
http://www.artbronze.com/hunterwithhoundsbyhippolytefrancoismoreauandprosperlecourtier.aspx

Literature: the book does exist. The author’s correct name is Pierre Kjellberg, the book “Les
Bronzes du XIX siècle : dictionnaire des sculpteurs” – Paris, Éditions de l'amateur, 1987 and
later editions; 720 p.; also published in English. See WorldCat list of editions.
Page 7 of 22
Artist:
Mordecai Ardon (1896 – 1992)
Work:
“Composition in Blue”; 62 x 43 cm, gouache, pastels and oil on paper, signed
lower left.
Invoice from: Marlborough Fine Arts
Invoice to:
Globe Services
Date: 10 September 2002
Price: $115,000
Provenance: From a private collection
No literature listed.
Result of investigations:

Invoice: The Marlborough gallery confirmed by email that the invoice is a fake: ““we write to
advise that the invoice that you attached was not generated by us.” Reply email including
original query saved as Reply-from-Marlborough-April-2-2012.pdf and attached here.

Artwork: The Ardon gallery seems to have a complete listing of Ardon’s paintings. From a search of
them at www.ardon.com, none are called “Composition in Blue”. We sent an email enquiry to the
address given at the website, April 13 2012. On April 16th we received a reply from Orah Ardon at the
gallery: a work by that name exists but is an oil painting not as described above:
‫ ברשותי תמונת שמן‬,‫ אגב‬.‫ כל העניין נראה מוזר‬.‫"אין לי כל אינפורמציה על תמונה כזאת ועל קנייתה ומכירתה‬
“.‫בשם “קומפוזיציה בכחול” שמעולם לא הצעתי למכירה‬
Artist:
Rosalba Carriera (1675 – 1757)
Work:
“Portrait of Angela Francesca Castaldi”, 68 x 55 cm, oil painting
Invoice from: Victor Frances gallery
Invoice to:
Globe Services
Date: 2 December 2002
Price: £126,000
Provenance: The Castaldi family
Then the National Gallery, Florence [exhibited 1846 – 1915]
Purchased by forbearers [sic] of present family in 1916.
No literature listed.
Results of our investigation:

The Victor Frances gallery was meanwhile acquired by the Sladmore gallery (contacted
previously about the statuette by Archipenko, see below). Our phone call was redirected to
Sladmore who stated in the phone call that they assumed the invoice to be a fake because
Victor Frances had dealt (like Sladmore) in bronzes and not in paintings: “Victor Frances
Gallery merged with Sladmore. Victor Frances died a few years ago, and although Sladmore
have some records they will be incomplete. However the Victor Frances purchase itself is
Page 8 of 22
suspect (although not impossible). Victor Frances specialised in 19th century bronzes and
NOT paintings – certainly not Old Master paintings (i.e. 18th century works). If they did
make that sale it was unusual as it was not what the gallery focused on.”

We followed up with an email requesting this in writing and received a message from a
mobile phone: “Same as the last I would think. It is neither their letter head nor anything
they ever dealt in.“ (“The last” refers to our previous query about the Archipenko invoice
from Sladmore.) The message and the query it replied to are saved as Reply-from-Sladmorefor-Victor-Frances-April-4-2012.pdf and attached here.
Artist:
Alexander Archipenko (1887 – 1964)
Work:
“Smiling Woman”, bronze, black patina
Inscribed “Archipenko”, dated 1914, number 3/9
Invoice from: Sladmore
Invoice to:
Globe Services
Date: 6 August 2002
Price: £28,000
Provenance: Perls Gallery, NY (acquired from the artist, May 25, 1959)
Private collection, Gt. Britain (acquired from the above, Nov. 29, 1959)
Literature:
Alexander Archipenko, “Fifty Years,” NY, 1960, fig. 142
(illustration of another cast)
Results of our investigation:



Invoice: the Sladmore gallery confirmed that the invoice is a fake: ““Sorry but this is a fake
invoice. We have neither sold this piece nor ever had a letter heading like this. I have no
knowledge of this company or any of the names you have listed.”
The email reply together with the original query is saved as Reply-from-Sladmore-April-32012.pdf and attached here.
Work: No mention of it found. Not found in Artfact (provenance database).
Literature: Nearest work to that cited: Alexander Archipenko. “Archipenko: Fifty Creative
Years, 1908-1958”, NY, Techne, 1960. See WorldCat list of editions. Ebook version available
at HathiTrust Digital Library; searchable but full text not viewable; the phrase “Figure 142”
or “Fig. 142” was not found in it. Page 88 contains the word “figure” and the number “142”
but apparently not together.
Nearest copy of this book is at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, in Humanities library,
location NB 699 A41 A4. We may be able to request it on inter-library loan, or request a photocopy
of it, via the Haifa University Library or the Technion library.
Page 9 of 22
Artist:
Augustin-Jean Moreau-Vauthier (French, 1831-1893)
Work:
“Girl holding Goose”, bronze, golden-brown patina, heightened w. gilding
Invoice from: Hazlitt Holland-Hibbert
Invoice to:
Globes Services
Date: 10 August 2002
Price: £10,750
No provenance or literature cited.
Results of our investigation:

Invoice: The Hazlitt gallery confirmed by email that the invoice is a fake: “As I suspected this
is a fake invoice. It is not on our headed paper or invoice in our ‘style’ and Hazlitt HollandHibbert have never handled an artist by that name.” The gallery’s email, saved as Replyfrom-Hazlitt-Holland-Hibbert-gallery-April-11-2012.pdf, is attached here.

Artist: There are TWO French artists with similar names. One was Auguste Moreau (Born 1834. Died
1917). He was the younger brother of Hippolyte Moreau (who made the Mayfair art gallery “Hunter
with Hounds” sculpture). He produced figures of young girls in filmy, swirling dresses and among his
works was a sculpture called “Girl Holding Goose”. A picture is available online from one of the many
workshops selling copies of famous works. This work also fits the description of a bronze heightened
with gilding. A short bio of him is here. However this is not the sculptor listed in the invoice.
There is another French sculptor called Augustin-Jean Moreau-Vauthier (dates 1831-1893; name
sometimes listed as Edme Augustin-Jean Moreau-Vauthier). He was a sculptor and ivory worker who
specialized in allegorical and mythological figures (Fortune, Cupid, etc.) There is no mention of a “Girl
Holding Goose” sculture by him.
We suggest that whoever faked these invoices mixed up the two artists i.e. assumed that they were
the same, for instance that “Auguste Moreau” was a short form of the name “Augustin-Jean
Moreau-Vauthier”. This in itself implies that whoever faked the invoice is not an art expert, at least
not of this period.
Work: combination of this artist and this work not found in Artfact (provenance database).
Page 10 of 22
Artist:
Wilhelm Maria Hubertus Leibl (1844 – 1900)
Work:
“Portrait of Herr und Frau Prof. Karl Leibl”, oil painting, oval, 71 x 58 cm
signed
Invoice from: Fine Art Commissions
Invoice to:
Globes Services
Date: 18 November 2002
Price: £168,200
Provenance: From a private collection
Literature:
Marcel Brion, “La Peinture Allemande”, Tisné, Paris, 1959.
Exhibited:
At various museums, including the Berlin Museum (1901), the Cologne
Museum (1926) and the Hamburg Museum (1928).
Results of our investigation:

Invoice: The Fine Art Commissions gallery confirmed that the invoice is a fake: “This was a
false invoice and nothing whatsoever to do with us. I will forward it to the art fraud
department at the Met.” [the Met = the Metropolitan Police, London.]
After consulting with our client who agreed that the invoice should be passed on to the
police but stated that as an interested party in a legal case now underway he could not do
so himself, we asked the gallery to pass it on and received from them the name of the
officer they had contacted at the art fraud department.

Work: Not found in Artfact (provenance database). Not found in Artnet (sales database). Not
mentioned on web. As far as we could ascertain, the nearest picture title to that in the
invoice would be the painter’s portrait “Des Künstlers Vater, Domkapellmeister Karl Leibl,”
1866, oil on canvas, 79 x 63 cm; in the Wallraf-Richartz-Museum in Cologne since 1868, see
database record here. But of course this is a completely different picture, of the father
alone.

Literature: An English version of the cited book: Brion, Marcel: “German Painting”, NY:
Universe Books, 1959 – is available at Tel Aviv University, Sourasky Central Library: no shelf
code given. The French version exists – see list of editions in WorldCat – but is not available
in Israel. We could obtain the book from Tel Aviv University and check it if required.
Page 11 of 22
Artist:
Honoré Dumier [sic, should be Daumier] (1808 – 1879)
Work:
10 original pastels over monotype on paper, listed below:
1. DUP
2. Mr. Pot de Naz
3. Mr. Vieux-Niais
4. Mr. D’Argo
5. Mr. Gazan
6. Le passé – le Présent – L’avenir
7. Magot de la Chine
8. Baissez le Rideau, la farce est jouée
9. Nous sommes tous honnetes [sic] gens, embrassons-nous, et que ça finesse
10. Vous avez la parole, expliquez-vous, vous êtes libre!
Invoice from: Thomas Ammann Fine Art AG, Zurich
Invoice to:
Globes Services
Date: 8 August 2002
Price: S.Fr. 442,000
Provenance: Henri Rouart, Paris (sale: Vente H. Rouart, Paris, 1912, vol. 2, lot 243)
Eugène Blot, Paris
Eugène Rehns, Paris (acquired before 1930)
Thence by descent to the present owner
Literature:
Erich Klossowski, “Honoré Daumier”, Munich, 1923
Eduard Fuchs (ed.), Der Maler Daumier, Munich 1930, Catalogued; partly illustr.
K.E. Maison, Honoré Daumier, Catalogue Raisonné of the Paintings,
Watercolours and Drawings, London 1968, vol. 1 and 2, illustrated
Pierre Georgel and Gabriel Mandel, Tout l’oevre peint de Daumier, Paris, 1972,
illustrated.
Correspondence between D. and Globe Services about this work:



A letter to “Mr. D.” from Globe, signed P. McKay, dated 26 July 2002, mentions that Mrs.
Sophie Carmi has adviced Globe of the opportunity to buy the above from the Ammann
Gallery, and states that Mrs. Carmi “acts also as their Impressionist specialist”. The
letter asks D. “to come to Zurich with Mrs. Carmi”, together with me” [i.e. with McKay],
to assess them.
A handwritten note from D. – with his signature but no written name – to “Peter” states
that he and “Koby” will arrive in Zurich on July 31st. Written on S.E.D. informal note
paper (no real letterhead).
A handwritten note – as above but with an S.E.D. rubber-stamp over his signature – to
“Peter” thanks Peter and Mrs. Carmi for “the time spent in Zurich” and says that “we”
Page 12 of 22
(presumably D. and Koby Carmi) have arrived back (i.e. in Israel) with the 10 paintings
which he is keeping as surety against the loan.
Results of investigations:

Invoice: The Thomas Ammann gallery confirmed by email that the invoice is a fake: “the
attached invoice is in form and content unknown to us and also have we no knowledge of a
person named Sophie Carmi working for Thomas Amman Fine Art AG.”
Their email, saved as Reply-from-Thomas-Ammann-Zurich-April-11-2012.pdf, is attached
here.
In addition, the invoice shows mistakes in German (and in French) similar to the ones in the
invoice supposedly from the Bernheimer gallery in Munich below – e.g. Zurich written
without the umlaut (not Zürich and not Zuerich).

Work: Lithographs of the people listed above (M. Pot de Naz etc.) do apparently exist (see
below) but the artwork listed in the invoice is “pastels over monotype” not “lithograph”.
According to the Encyclopedia Brittanica: “A monoprint is a unique print. The artist paints on
a surface such as metal, plastic, or glass and then transfers the wet design to paper, either
by rubbing or with an etching press. The primary reason for making a monoprint is that,
when the image is offset from the plate to the paper, the print achieves a separate quality
and luminosity totally unlike a painting made directly on paper. In the 19th century, Edgar
Dégas did considerable experimentation with monoprints and produced a great number of
superb ones. He often worked over the proofs with paint or pastel. There has been a strong
revival of interest in this method.”

Literature:
o The book by Erich Klossowski exists and there is an edition from 1923 though most
are from 1908; there is an e-book version (scanned, viewable in e-reader software in
the browser) but it is of the 1908 edition and not searchable.
A plain-text searchable version of the 1923 edition, online here, in German, describes
the figures nos. 2, 4 and 5 from the above list as part of the narrative of the text (not
as a description of a picture of the artwork).
It does not contain any reference to: nos. 1, (unless this is “der Advocat Dupin”,
shortened once to “Dup”); nor to nos. 3, 6, 7-10.
o The catalog by K.E. Maison exists, there is no e-version, it is held by several Israeli
universities including Haifa University: ‫ מדיה‬ND553.D24M3. We could check it if
required.
Page 13 of 22
o The book by Georgel and Mandel exists, there is a searchable but limited-view
(snippet only) version at Google Books; a “search within the book” did not find any of
the names in the list of items bought, mentioned in the text.
Artist:
Jean- Honoré Fragonard (1732 – 1806)
Work:
Lady with Straw Hat (title given in invoice in English)
Invoice from: Bernheimer gallery, Munich
Invoice to:
Globes Services
Date: June 5, 2002
Price: Euro 185,000
Heading of invoice: EINE MALLUNG DES JEAN-HONORE FRAGONARD (1732-1806)
Provenance: Paul Deloriol Chevalier Comte de Digoine und Familie (bis 1930)
Prof. Hermann Wedewer
(Sale: Heberle’s, Cologne, May 1-3 1989, Lot 83)
Mit Lucerne Fine Art Co., Lucerne, nach dem Mit Bernheimer
Literature:
G. Grappe, H. Fragonard, 1913, vol. 3, P. 108, illus.
Results of investigation:

Invoice: we sent the invoice to the Bernheimer gallery in Munich on April 3 2012: query
saved as Email-to-Bernheimer-gallery-April-3-2012.pdf and attached here. Despite a
reminder they have not so far replied.
The invoice however displays many mistakes showing that whoever wrote it does not know
German:
o There is no German word “eine Mallung” nor “eine Malung” which would be the
correct form if it existed; the word for a painting is “ein Malen” or “eine Malerei”.
o The name Fragonard should have an added s – Fragonards – because it is in the
genitive case.
o A German speaker would have recorded the Professor in the provenance as Herr
Prof. Hermann Wedewer and not just “Prof….”
o It is highly unlikely that in a provenance otherwise recorded in German, the word
“sale” should be in English – the German would be Verkauf or Auktion.
o The word “Literatür” is mis-spelt “Literator”
o München is spelt Munchen without the u-umlaut, contrary to German practice. If a
German speaker does not have access to a German keyboard (unthinkable if a Berlin
gallery is issuing the invoice) he would write in the ellipsed e – Muenchen – rather
than write the u without the umlaut.
Page 14 of 22

Work: there is a painting by Fragonard called “A Young Girl wearing a blue-bordered Straw
Hat.” However this cannot be the one in the invoice, because it was auctioned by Christie’s
(in Geneva) in 1995 – it was sold for $8,636 – and the provenance given for it in the online
record of the sale is totally different:
“Lot Description: JEAN-HONORÉ FRAGONARD, circa 1780: A young girl wearing a bluebordered straw hat and pink roses in her curly blond hair, a rose tucked in the white frillbordered décolleté of her blue bodice with white muslin sleeves; rectangular -- 70 x 54 mm,
gilt-metal mount within a silver frame bordered by a foliage openwork studded with
markasites.
Pre-Lot Text: FROM AN AMERICAN PRIVATE COLLECTION
Provenance: New York, Collection of John Pierpont Morgan (1837-1913); his sale, Christie's,
London, 24-27 June 1935, lot 524, sold 141.15 pounds to Walker; Lady Louise Lloyd-Jones;
thence by family descent.”

Literature: The book cited seems to be: Georges Grappe: “H. Fragonard - peintre de l'amour
au XVIIIe siècle,” Paris, Editions de l’art, 1913. WorldCat lists many editions (nos. 149 to
around 161 in list of 366 catalog entries for works by Grappe) but they consiste of only 2
volumes not three – i.e. the volume referred to apparently does not exist.
Grappe wrote several other works on Fragonard but the above is the closest. It is not held in
Israel. Grappe died in 1947.
Artist:
Peter Jansz van Asch
Work:
A wooded landscape
Invoice from: Sotheby’s, referencing account no. 35063943,
Sale: Old Master Paintings, 30th Oct. 2003;
sale no. W03714, lot no. 0081
Invoice to:
Mr. S D [sic] (directly, not via Globe)
Price:
Hammer price: £18,000, buyer’s premium: £1,880, total: £19,880
At same auction:
Artist:
Vincent Laurenz van der Vinne
Work:
“A winter landscap…”
Invoice from: Sotheby’s, referencing: account no. 35063943,
ref. no. 1012, Sale: Old Master Paintings, 30th Oct. 2003;
sale no. W03714, lot no. 0088
Invoice to:
Mr. S D [sic] (directly, not via Globe)
Price:
Hammer price: £25,000, buyer’s premium: £3,750, total: £28,750
Page 15 of 22
Associated correspondence:

A shipping notice from Plascow Logistics to D. informing him of the arrival of an air shipment
from Sotheby’s; it arrived on the 14th November 2003 but there is nothing but the
coincidence of dates to link it with the works bought at the above auction. (In the same pdf
file as the invoices above).
Results of investigation:

Invoice: both invoices are either complete fakes (these paintings were in fact sold but to someone
else) or partially faked (they were sold to D. but the price on them has been erased and a much
higher price written in).
o Sotheby’s archival catalog lists the sale of the van der Vinne painting on this date and
with this lot number but at a much lower price than in the invoice: £1,800 sale price
(lower than their estimate that it was worth £3,000 to £5,000) versus £25,000 on the invoice.
o Sotheby’s catalog also lists the sale of the van Asch painting with the same lot number and
date of sale, but again with a much lower price: £960 (slightly below the low end of their
estimate of £1,000 to £1,500) – versus £19,880 in the invoice. Screenshots of the catalog
information are given below.
o In addition, the Sotheby’s database lists the van Asch painting as being by “a follower of” the
artist, not by the artist himself (“a follower of” means a contemporary or near-contemporary
of the artist, painting in his style – not verifiably a pupil or someone in the artist’s studio: see
definition of terms in the catalog extract regarding the Batoni painting, attached on p.3
above and also here).
o Although we only had a pdf of the invoices, not the original, a close inspection of them raised
the possibility that the amounts on them had been altered. I.e. we suspected that the
invoices themselves may have been genuine but not the prices supposedly paid.
o With this background we contacted Sotheby’s by phone on April 12th. Sotheby’s would not
give any information, citing client confidentiality ; but on hearing that this was for a legal
investigation they passed us to their legal department. That department also was not willing
to disclose any information about the buyer that would enable us to know whether the
artwork was actually sold to the person named in the invoice (D.) and whether the invoices
were issued to him (in which case either the prices have been altered or the information in
Sotheby’s database is incorrect) or whether the artwork was sold to someone else (in which
case the entire invoice is fake). They did however consent to receive an email from us.
o On April 12, 2012 we forwarded the two invoices to Sotheby’s legal department and asked
them to inform us at least whether the prices and the name of the buyer on them is the
same as or different from their records, pointing out that the prices given in the archival
information for past sales via their website are considerably lower than those in the invoice.
o On April 13th we received a reply from Sotheby’s legal department; again they would not say
anything regarding the buyer, stating that such information “can only be disclosed with
client consent or a court order.” They did however relate to the price: “However, I can
confirm that the published sale prices indicated on our website are accurate.” This is enough
Page 16 of 22
to confirm that at the very least, the prices on the invoice have been altered so as to indicate
a price very considerably higher than that actually paid.
o They also said that they intended to “follow up” the matter further, and regarding this, we
sent them the following on April 15th: “Regarding your intention to look further into this
matter: we have of course no objection if your intention is to inform the police, but if you
intend to follow up with your original client and there is any possibility that he or she might
be connected somehow with the people/companies we have mentioned or who appear on
the invoice we sent you, please be advised that this matter is sub judice and such contact is
liable to be viewed as interference in, or perhaps even an attempt to influence the outcome
of, the legal issues in which my client is involved.
The correspondence with Sotheby’s was saved as Sothebys-emails-with-April-13-152012.pdf and is attached here.

Screenshot of the sale of the Vincent Laurenz painting, from Sotheby’s database via their website:
Page 17 of 22

Screenshot of the sale of the Van Asch painting, from Sotheby’s database via their website:
Artist:
Zacharias Blijhooft (d. 1680)
Work:
A mountainous landscap [sic]
Invoice from: Sotheby’s, referencing: Sale: Old Master drawings, 9th July 2003,
Sale number: L03040, lot no.: 098
Invoice to:
Mr. S D. [sic] directly, not via Globe
Price:
£16,706 total – no hammer price or buyer’s premium even though this was an
auction
And at same auction and on same invoice:
Artist:
Constantin Guys (1802 – 1892) – only C… Guys is readable on the invoice
Work:
Queen Victoria’s Carriage in…
Price:
£22,472 total – no hammer price or buyer’s premium
Associated correspondence:
Page 18 of 22

A note on S.E.D. informal notepaper (no real letterhead) from D. dated 27th July, to Globes
Services, telling him: “Please instruct Sotheby’s to send the paintings for safekeeping to
Israel”, but there is nothing but the coincidence of dates to link it with the works bought at
the above auction. (In the same pdf file as the invoice above)
Results of investigation:

Both paintings are recorded in art databases as having been sold by Sotheby’s, but Sotheby’s archive
appears to show that it did not sell them. This is certainly true for the Blijhooft painting. Regarding
the Guys one, Sotheby’s includes a description of the lots in that sale only if they were not sold, and
Lot 140 was, so it is possible the information is just not in the archive.

This was a sale of Old Masters Drawings. The Blijhooft work is a drawing but the Guys work is
variously described in different databases as a watercolor over pen and brown ink, or as an oil
painting on canvas; neither are a good fit for a sale of Old Master drawings.

The prices in the invoice are an order of magnitude below any of the prices recorded for this sale in
the art databases and/or Sotheby’s.
Blijhooft painting: such a painting exists.

According to the ArtValue database, it was auctioned as per the details in the invoice, but
the price paid was £1,000 or £1,200 depending on the database consulted, not £16,706 as
on the invoice. Screenshot of the auction sale according to the ArtValue database
(http://www.artvalue.com/auctionresult--blijhooft-jacques-zacharias-ca-a-mountainous-landscapewith-p-1304745.htm):
Page 19 of 22

However Sotheby’s archive lists Lot 98 as a work by Esaias van der Velde, a different painter
who influenced Blijhooft. It does not give the name of the painting and the initial estimate of
its value is the same as the record in ArtValue (£1,400 - £1,800) though the final price is
slightly different (£1,200 instead of £1,000; the price in ArtValue may not include the buyer’s
premium):

The Sotheby’s archive contains no record of a Lot 98 (from any auction) consisting of a work
by Blijhooft, and a search for all works by Blijhooft ever sold returns the information that
“there are no sold lots which match those criteria.” If the Sotheby’s archive record is
accurate (and Sotheby’s is after all the primary source; database receive the data either at
second-hand, from the dealers, or at third-hand or worse) then this painting was not sold by
Sotheby’s or at least not in the lot/on the date in the invoice. This raises the possibility that
the invoice is faked relying on data pulled from the ArtValue database.
Constantin Guys painting: such a painting exists. According to the ArtValue database, it was
auctioned as per the details in the invoice, but again the price paid was much lower:

Screenshot of the auction sale according to the ArtValue database: gives the price as £1,800
including buyer’s premium (http://www.artvalue.com/auctionresult--guys-constantin-ernestadolphe-queen-victoria-s-carriage-in-a-1304762.htm). Gives the medium as “watercolour over pen
and brown ink.”
Page 20 of 22

MutualArt, a sales database: record of sale: (to view the price requires an annual
subscription costing several hundred GPB, which seemed unjustified). Notes that the sale
was of “Old Master Drawings;” technically this work is a watercolor not a drawing.
Page 21 of 22

Sotheby’s archive’s own record of sale for Lot 140 at this auction confirms that this was a
sale of Old Master drawings. It gives no details of the picture but gives the price as £2,160
including buyer’s premium. This is still one-tenth of the £22,472 in the above invoice. But
since it gives no details of the artwork in Lot 140, it does not prove that this was the same
painting.

However, a search of Sotheby’s archive for Constantin Guys retrieves only eight paintings
ever sold by Sotheby’s by or attributed to this artist – and the above is not one of them. A
search for Guys and the name of the painting (Queen Victoria’s carriage), or for Guys and
the lot number, neither of them limited by date, both return the message “There are no sold
lots that match your search criteria.”

It is possible that Lot 140 was this painting, but the artist and name of the work were not
entered into the database, and that this explains why a search for the painting does not find
it. In fact the details of the artwork were entered for this auction only if the work was not
sold – none of the lots sold contain any information beyond the lot number and the price.

The findings suggest prima facie a case in which the invoice was faked on the basis of
information in one of the above art databases, but again using a price an order of magnitude
below the price recorded in the database.
On April 15th we sent Sotheby’s an enquiry (via the contact form for the Old Masters Paintings
and Drawings department on their website) asking whether Lot 140 of the July 9, 2003 sale was
in fact this work, and if not, whether they had ever sold this work. We are awaiting an answer.
Page 22 of 22