The following communications describe my tale. I begin with the gist of my communication with the vendor. I've deleted the name of my credit card company, since i have no quarrel with them.
Dear Sir or Madam:
This is to notify you that I refuse to accept item 4080B (purported "original lithograph" by Picasso). I see that the invoice indicates "no refunds", something that was not mentioned on the air during the television auction, and which is patently unfair. Art cannot be authenticated over the TV set. Consequently, I am beginning the disputation of the charge of $5,064.95 process with (CREDIT CARD COMPANY) by informing you by phone as well as via this letter sent by USPS.
Key facts include:
X The Certificate of Authenticity (COA) that accompanies the artwork is full of mistakes, including an obviously bogus and deceptive signature, if one can call it that, (the number 2 followed by a capital letter R) by a purported art authenticator. This renders the piece essentially worthless. (Details below.)
X The artwork is not an "original lithograph" — instead it's a copy produced using a mass production technique called offset lithography (the small dots are visible to the naked eye). The artwork might as well have been cut out of an old magazine and framed.
X The Picasso signature — in pencil — below the image of the artwork bears no resemblance whatsoever to the signature in the artwork.
X The $5,000-plus item arrived damaged (chipped frame and holes punched through protective backing).
X Unfortunately your firm has an "F" rating with the Better Business Bureau.
Some details concerning the above points:
X There are many fundamental errors in the all-important "Certificate of Authenticity" that accompanied the artwork. The COA is crucial because it promises the artwork is not counterfeit or fake. Here are just a few important errors:
- The title of the artwork in the COA, "News and Wine", is both incorrect and deceptive. The title should read: "Verre, bouteille de vin, paquet de tabac, journal" or, in English, "Glass, bottle of wine, pack of tobacco, newspaper". It took me many hours of research to find a visual match to the artwork that, in turn, revealed the true title.
In fact, nowhere else in the world does the title "News and Wine" appear in connection with any work by Picasso. (I consulted a 20th Century Masters specialist with Christie's auction house in New York City who searched various fine arts data bases for me and found nothing by that title.) Because your title for the work does not exist, it makes the piece you sold nearly impossible for a buyer to research and verify. That fact begs the question: Why was the wrong title used on the COA, an authenticating document that the art profession agrees must be scrupulously accurate and verifiable?
- In the Comments section of the Certificate, it claims the artwork you sent me is based on an oil painting "executed in 1939." However, in the "offset lithography" copy of the original you sent me, one can see the work was dated 1914 (lower right corner). Furthermore, the original artwork was not an oil painting (as stated in the COA), but a collage done with pasted papers, gouache and charcoal on paper — no oils whatsoever (see attached documentation from the "On-line Picasso Project", all content of which is validated by the Picasso Estate). I respectfully ask you: Why do such fundamental and easily avoided inaccuracies appear on the Certificate of Authenticity (wrong date of execution and wrong media)? This too serves to make the piece difficult to trace and verify — not to mention bring the entire COA's contents into question, including its relationship to the artwork.
- I should add that an "original lithograph"— as the COA claims the artwork you sent me is — does not have the tiny dot patterns one finds in pictures that appear in newspapers and magazines. Those are the distinguishing characteristic of offset lithography — a very inexpensive, low quality, mass production process, according to fine art standards.in other words, it's the way newspapers and magazines are printed by the thousands, and we all know what a picture snipped from a magazine is worth — even if it's the Mona Lisa.
Incidentally, I showed the artwork you sent me to a highly regarded art dealer and appraiser, who handles Picassos, and she was appalled by the fact that it was "an obviously cheap mass-produced reproduction" — not an original lithograph. She advised me to get a refund at once. (I was going to do so for the reasons stated above and others.) Describing such a mass produced piece as an "original lithograph" on the COA is tantamount to fraud and not unlike counterfeiting currency, in terms of copying an original and passing off the copies as authentic legal tender.
- The COA is "signed" with the number 2 and the letter R instead of a legible signature that obviously should resemble the signatory's name: " (NAME DELETED HERE)" who purportedly prepared the COA. Additionally, according to art experts (i.E., dealers, appraisers and major collectors), the COA needs to have clear contact information pertaining to the authenticator. You can see there is no such information — just St. Petersburg with no mention of even the state (Florida?) or country (Russia?). Also, the name of the gallery stated (St. Petersburg Gallery) does not turn up in any Internet searches for galleries in St. Petersburg Florida or Russia, yet (NAME DELETED) claims she worked there as recently as 1993.
Curiously, when your auctioneer was describing the artwork on TV, he implied a highly respected group (his word: "they") authenticated "this Picasso", "using microscopes". The authenticator's name on the COA, when searched on the Internet, reveals several citations for a person who sells christening gowns for children, but nobody with an art background. Again, one cannot help but wonder why the COA contains such blatant deceptions (i.E., the rather bizarre authenticator "signature", apparently bogus authenticator and name of a non existent art gallery) and omissions (i.E., vague contact information, mentioning nothing more than "St. Petersburg")?
How can you in good conscience handle such obviously defective merchandise?
I could go on with additional factors that indicate what certainly appears to be intentional, outright fraud. For now, suffice it to say that the COA is full of errors that misrepresent essential key facts about the work and consequently deceive potential buyers. That said, given the erroneous COA and true nature of the artwork itself, it is virtually worthless.
X Beyond the important factors listed above, it's at least noteworthy to add the work arrived damaged with several holes punched through the brown paper used to seal the backside of the framed art and a number of chips in the finish of the wood frame.
X Lastly, Fine Art Treasures Gallery has been given an "F" rating by the Better Business Bureau in its dealings with its customers (29 complaints reported), which is yet another troubling discovery.
Since sending the above letter to the vendor, they sent me another certificate of authenticity. This time it was from a gentleman i'll refer to as "y" and whose reputation has been alluded to in the national and international media, including the new york times (re: purported picasso fakes sold to costco). Here is the gist of my response to the vendor concerning the coa provided by mr. Y, which incidentally differed substantially from the one that accompanied the picasso (and which was described in detail above).
To: Fine Art Treasures
The information you provided is further evidence that the item your firm auctioned is problematic at best. Mr. Y has received a great deal of negative attention thanks to his connection to the Picasso sold by Costco in recent years. A Picasso family member called it a flat out fake. Reportedly Y bought the alleged fake in Europe (along with some other Picassos) and sold the alleged fake to a middleman who in turn sold it to Costco. (If you Google the name " (NOTE: Y'S NAME IS WITHHELD HERE)" you'll see what I mean.)
At this point, I want my money refunded in full. I have invested many hours in getting to the bottom of this. The Certificate of Authenticity that accompanied the artwork is full of errors, as I mentioned to you. Additionally, the C of A that you faxed me from Y's gallery (which suspiciously has their address and phone numbers covered up, by the way) conflicts greatly with the other C of A and lacks a signature attesting to its contents (no surprise there). The signature is a curved line.
In a letter to my credit card company and to your firm, I pointed out the problems with the original COA that accompanied the artwork as well as other issues including the chipped frame and holes in the brown protective paper covering the back
of the piece.
Note to consumer complaints reader: In response to the above communication, the vendor has essentially told me to pound salt. They're presently fighting my dispute with my credit card company.
Here now is the gist of one e-mail that i wrote to mr. Y, whose address i found only by doing an extensive internet search. You'll see that fine art treasures may shortly have more than my dispute on its hands, if the following facts are brought to light:
I'm still trying to get my money back from "Fine Arts Treasures" for a number of reasons including their "F" rating with the Better Business Bureau, the run-around they've given me from "day one" about the piece I purchased from them, and the following matter (explained in an e-mail below), which is very troubling — casting even further doubt on the integrity of "Fine Art Treasures".
At this point, I'm on the verge of taking the matter to the local police — something the Pasadena police advised me to do before they determine the action they'll take. (I'm still weighing all of my options, hoping "Fine Art Treasures" comes around before I find myself having to spend a lot more time and effort on this.)
After reading the following e-mail — and knowing what you know about my situation — what would you suggest I do? I should add that "Fine Art Treasures" has been absolutely adamant about refusing me a refund.
Here's the gist of the additional information i sent mr. Y that indicates yet another — perhaps systemic — problem with fine art treasures of pasadena. (he did not respond though i sent it twice and gave him plenty of time to respond):
Dear Sir or Madam:
"Fine Art Treasures" of Pasadena holds a weekend television auction each week during which they sell beautifully framed, hand-signed Picassos that are about 8.5 by 11 inches in size, embossed with the letter "P" in the lower left corner, numbered and artist-signed in pencil.in galleries, they claim they retail for anywhere from $38,000 to $60,000.interestingly, the exact same Picasso "Self Portrait" you sell on your site for $500 went for $6,000 on last weekend's show.in fact, the auctioneer distinctly said it "comes with a Certificate of Authenticity from your firm, attesting to the fact that this Picasso is a genuine original lithograph that was hand-signed by Picasso himself."
They also sold a couple of other Picassos from your firm that you sell for around $100-$120. For those they got around $5,000.
How is it that you are able to offer Picassos that are supposed to retail for tens of thousands, according to "Fine Art Treasures", for so little money? The reason I'm asking is I've unfortunately paid "Fine Art Treasures" over 5K for a Picasso that they refuse to take back.
I didn't hear from the aforementioned firm that has supplied fine arts treasures with "picassos" either.
I should point out that since my purchase of the 5K Picasso from Fine Art Treasures of Pasadena, they have added some vitally inmportant information to their website, pointing out they do not accept returns and that all sales are final. This is a very recent addition to their site. At the time I bought the Picasso, they mentioned nothing about their policies on air or on the website. Naturally, I am hoping that my credit card company will protect me from having to pay over $5,000 for an obviously misrepresented, cheap, mass-produced copy of a Picasso that — to add insult to injury — arrived damaged.
There's even more troubling information that i have yet to share publicly, though i will soon be contacting the proper agencies, including the california attorney general, new york attorney general and federal trade commission concerning it. I am hoping fine art treasures comes to its senses within the next 10 days and refunds my money, so this problem can be remedied without more dirty laundry being exposed.
0 comments