Buying Fine Art: Due Diligence Checklist for Provenance, Attribution and Hidden Repairs
Gaps in provenance do not necessarily imply deception; however, discrepancies in ownership timelines necessitate confirmation. It is advisable for buyers to obtain purchase documentation, prior catalog entries, and exhibition records. The value of a certificate of authenticity diminishes without the credibility of the issuer. The language used for attribution can vary in its level of certainty, and signatures may be forged. Condition reports should detail any repairs and damage, which may not be visible in photographs; thus, a qualified conservator should assess valuable pieces. Online purchasers should ask for comprehensive images, verify measurements, and consider independent evaluations. Pricing ought to reflect similar sales, factoring in differences in medium and condition. Sellers must validate ownership, and purchase contracts should specify return timelines and dispute resolution processes, including total costs with shipping and insurance.
Key facts
- Provenance gaps are not automatically problematic, but conflicting ownership dates warrant closer scrutiny
- A certificate of authenticity does not by itself prove an artwork's identity; the issuer's expertise in the artist matters
- Signatures alone are not decisive because artists sometimes left works unsigned and signatures can be imitated
- Condition reports should disclose prior repairs, canvas tears, lifting paint and discoloration hidden in photographs
- Buyers should compare prices with sales of similar works by the same artist, accounting for medium and condition
- Deposits demanded before basic information is shared are described as a reason to walk away
- Higher-value purchases warrant checks of stolen-art records and advice on unresolved ownership claims
- Total costs include shipping, installation, insurance and future conservation
Entities
—