Caravaggio's lost 'Card Sharps'? (ctd.)
January 16 2015
Picture: TAN
The man suing Sotheby's over the apparent mis-attribution of a 'Caravaggio' has lost his case. Lancelot Thwaytes consigned his 'Cardsharps', above, to Sotheby's in 2006, where it was sold as a copy for £46,000. The picture was bought by the late Sir Denis Mahon - a Caravaggio collector and scholar - who announced to the world that it was by Caravaggio. It is now hanging in a small museum in London, as a 'Caravaggio', and insured for about £10m.
Sotheby's stuck to their guns - rightly, I think - and said the picture was indeed a copy; they had therefore not been negligent in selling it as 'follower of Caravaggio'. For more background on why Mr Thwaytes could only sue Sotheby's on grounds of negligence, and not simply because they might have got the attribution wrong, see my earlier post here (where I also forecast that Mr Thwaytes would likely lose).
Today, The Telegraph reports that Sotheby's arguments won the day:
Mrs Justice Rose, sitting in London, ruled there had been no negligence by Sotheby's, which disputed the claim that the work was by Caravaggio.
The judge ruled Sotheby's experts had reasonably come to the view that the quality of the painting "was not sufficiently high to indicate that it might be by Caravaggio". [...]
A judge found that the auction house was "entitled to rely on the connoisseurship and expertise of their specialists", who were " highly qualified and examined the painting thoroughly".
"They reasonably came to the view on the basis of what they saw that the quality of the painting was not sufficiently high to indicate that it might be by Caravaggio," she added.
After the ruling, a Sotheby's spokesman said: "Sotheby's is delighted that today's ruling dismisses all claims brought against the company and confirms that Sotheby's expertise is of the highest standards.
"After a four-week trial in which five witnesses for Sotheby's and three independent experts gave testimony, the judge concluded that Sotheby's was not negligent and that the Sotheby's Old Master Painting specialists who assessed the work were 'highly qualified,' examined the painting 'thoroughly,' and reasonably came to the view that the quality of the painting was 'not sufficiently high' to merit further investigation."
Where this leaves the picture I'm not sure, and I will get hold of a copy of the judgment as soon as I can. I'll be interested to hear whether the judge came to any opinion on the attribution.
Update - there's an interesting 'PS' in this article in The Art Newspaper, which quotes Mr. Thwaytes' lawyer as saying:
Thwaytes's lawyers at Boodle Hatfield released a statement saying he "is extremely disappointed with the decision delivered this morning and maintains that Sotheby’s failed to spot the painting’s potential". The legal team added that they "have concerns regarding the approach taken by the Judge in relation to the duties of Sotheby’s to their consignors, not least in view of the upcoming auction of an early Caravaggio by Christie’s at the end of January".
The 'early Caravaggio' they mention is this curious picture I discussed on the blog a couple of weeks ago. I've no idea how Christie's practices can be considered at all relevant to this case. But maybe the lawyers are saying, 'if Christie's can call that painting a Caravaggio, when only a few people say it is, why could not Sotheby's have accepted that 'The Cardsharps' is a Caravaggio, which was similarly 'endorsed'?' To which the answer is [answer deleted pending legal advice].
Update - a reader writes:
[...] barmy is the word; a 97 year old millionaire art collector was able to afford £50,000 simply to annoy Sotheby. Does Mr Thwaytes not understand that dealers & collectors view auctions every day of the week in the vanishingly-small hope of acquiring a life-changing bargain?
Actually, towards the end Sir Denis somewhat ran out of money (as I suppose any centenarian is entitled to do), and to avoid having to sell the paintings he had promised to bequeath to the National Gallery, the Gallery agreed to pay his rent.
