FAKE OR FORTUNE SEO3EO3 MARC CHAGALL

In 1992, a property developer seized the chance to invest £100,000 in a work by one of the 20th century's greatest artists - Marc Chagall. The picture had surfaced in Russia after the fall of communism, and was offered at a fraction of its full value. There was just one catch - it hadn't been fully authenticated by the Chagall Committee in Paris. Twenty years later, the owner wants to find out if he made a shrewd investment - or an expensive mistake.
The search for clues leads Fiona to Chagall's hometown of Vitebsk in the former Russian republic of Belarus, where she makes connections between the painting and the artist's life story, but events take a more sinister turn when she discovers a news report about the sale of a fake Chagall in the city of Minsk.
With scientific testing raising more questions than answers, Philip travels to Los Angeles to consult a notorious forger called Tony Tetro who specialized in faking the work of Chagall. As the team grapple with the shadowy world of the modern Russian art market, everything hinges on a critical test to determine the date of a suspicious pigment as the investigation threatens to turn into a 'whodunnit'.
And when the dust settles, there is one more shocking and unexpected twist that leaves the owner with a difficult decision.

[@mulemule]

A work with no provenance ... sourced from the former Soviet Union ... from an unknown private collector. (What could possibly go wrong?)

[@davidroosa4561]

nothing....................... i have many priceless works from Russia. i paid with money borrowed upon my expected riches from a nigerian prince

[@johnkochen7264]

Why nothing of course. Russians are renowned for their scrupulous honesty when dealing with people from the West.

[@stalkek]

@@johnkochen7264 While westerners are of course known for their scrupulous honesty in dealing with everyone else, as are people from every other nation. Except Russians.

[@melindawakley7859]

@John Kochen 😂 so funny

[@thedarksage328]

The thing that really hooked the buyer was seeing his picture "in a book." This gave it an air of authenticity that it didn't deserve. I'm almost certain that if he hadn't seen the book with his picture that he wouldn't have bought the painting.

[@ajones747]

To be fair, it was in a leading catalogue raisonné of the time, and was bought from an apparently trusted source. It's not really the buyers fault so much.

[@phoenixrising2268]

Fake or Fortune is always an emotional rollercoaster. I feel sick to my stomach after this one.

[@americanpro6980]

fake or fortune: perhaps the best produced series ever produced for viewing on the inet ...

[@monkeytennis8861]

It's TV programme broadcast on BBC1. It's a spinoff of Antiques Roadshow.

[@monkeytennis8861]

Ludicrous claim

[@johnnock6685]

I agree with you . Though I'm late to discovering this masterpiece , it's an absolute joy to watch . The detective work is outstanding ! When I look at Fiona and her input into this series , I see a lady who has found her calling in life .

[@celtoloco788]

@@monkeytennis8861 people are so out of it. Every art and history programme on these hack youtube pages is either a BBC show or Channel 4 show from 20 years ago, none of these internent people have ever created a show in their lives. They just wait for the 15 yr copywrite to run out. The new ones on TV are far better, but the internet crowd wont see them until 2035, cuz TV is apparantly so hard to watch

[@adamknopp6631]

The art dealers name made me laugh. Shlepyanov: in Polish Ślepy means blind; ie. he turned a blind eye when he sold it 😂

[@benediktmorak4409]

sa me, with the -h- not written, in Russian language. слепой.... ( he was) blind...

[@Gayle339]

That's an awful lot of Monet Toulouse for Chagall.

[@SeanMcGuire92]

Dan Fone I just snorted with laughter. Well played, sir!

[@zappawoman5183]

Bravo!

[@ericaf7945]

😆😆😆 good one

[@u.v.s.5583]

'Toulouse or not to lose, das ist hier die Frage' was the greatest 3 languages encompassing pun by a German soccer reporter.

[@chrispark8713]

I love you

[@panaceiasuberes6464]

That forger freaked me out... he can imitate anything. He immediately knew it was a fake.

[@dadodydo]

37:07 Impeccable taste, indeed.

[@carolynmcpherson2667]

The forger was a fascinating resource. Very interesting and discouraging outcome.

[@louiseoliver3453]

I'd like to hear more from forgers, they have a unique perspective and their stories are fascinating

[@fatimamatar4710]

I read the forger's memoir, a fascinating read titled Con/Artist by Tony Tetro

[@MrsKuhn.2]

This episode had me on pins and needles. Close to tears , but the incredible character of this man left me in awe. Great program

[@elipotter369]

The people involved who owned it and sold it to Martin "can't remember" the name of the private collector- well, that seems to be rather the important point that was skipped over in this sorry saga.

[@mylesgarcia4625]

Trumpinski!

[@michaelbarton8370]

Investment tax?

[@51WCDodge]

The dealear was perfectly frank 'It has no provinence'. He still bought it? At best he was niave, not that I''d use that to describe him.

[@sg639]

@@51WCDodge In fact, the buyer made an ill-advised and ignorant purchase. I'm curious as to whether the interior decorator contact/referral source knew the truth or was unaware of this.

[@stephaniemontor1567]

It is called Buyer Beware! I wonder if the woman who sold the painting knew it was fake?

[@xavierandradev]

They should have removed the signature, put an obvious mark that the picture is not by Chagall and returned it.

[@HaploBartow]

Or compensated the owner for the full price of what they paid for it. Absolutely ridiculous that they can seize a painting, destroy it, and not compensate the owner in any way.

[@louiseoliver3453]

It seems so unfair. Why not just let them enjoy the painting as a painting?

[@leavingitblank9363]

@@louiseoliver3453 Especially when the owner was perfectly happy even if it was a fake.

[@Flying0Dismount]

I would pay the forger to make another copy to show the finger to the committee...

[@jlasf]

I recently sold a Chagall at auction for over $1,000,000, so I have some rather strong opinions about this. 1: In addition to our painting having an impeccable provenance, we had Bella Meyer, Chagall's grand-daughter, come to our home to examine the work. She verified what we already knew: it was a study for one of Chagall's most famous works. The finished oil painting has two variants - one in the Pompidou and one in the Tate. Ms. Meyer carefully examined the work and then it was granted an approval letter from the Comite' Chagall. She was charming and it was a pleasure to meet her. 2: I don't recall if we agreed to any conditions from the Comite' Chagall. But, to be honest, we had no doubts. So, it never occurred to us worry about it. I suspect the owner of this work had to agree to the harsh conditions of the Comite' in order to get an authentication. The show probably streamlined this issue for time. 3: Appearing in the old catalogue of Chagall's work probably strengthened the Comite' Chagall's reason for its destruction. That seeming provenance might entrap someone in the future, despite whatever markings they made to it. In fact, they are protecting someone from being swindled in the future. 4: Just on visual inspection, this picture looks "off" to me. While I realize that's very subjective, after having looked at hundreds of Chagall's works, one gets a sense of what looks right. My sentiment is echoed by others on this show. 5: Martin bought this painting because he wanted to make a profit. Let's be honest. He gambled and lost. I feel sorry for anyone who loses money, but he knew he was taking a risk. He might have asked himself, if the dealer thought it was real, why would she sell it at a loss? Why wouldn't she want to do the research to authenticate it? I stand by the old rule: if something appears too good to be true, it probably is.

[@annethayer3444]

Thank you for being the voice of reason and not emotion.

[@user-ql7hu9mj1o]

you say it looked off - you were absolutely right - it is not subjective; the off-ness comes from the lack of any Chagall like structure of the drawing, as the American forger/expert said. I saw it as fake when I saw the lack of circular structure in the drawing of the arms

[@jlasf]

@@RPMarland Yes, I recall that episode. You may be correct, but the Constable seems like a very unusual circumstance.

[@marquamfurniture]

1) Martin was out of his depth. 2) But I do believe the work was sold to him in good faith. 3) Chagall committee (his granddaughters) were within their rights. What's wrong here is not to inform buyer/owners of artworks in advance that any work deemed to be fake will be seized and destroyed.

[@carolelerman9686]

I have doubts about the designer's daughter.

[@51WCDodge]

She told him clearly 'There is no provinence' She only 'Suggested; it may be a Chagall. Caveat Emptor.

[@amp9930]

You would think before spending £100,000 on an artwork that you would want to see it's acceptance as genuine by the Chagall committee. The buyer was a fool not to thouroughly check it's originality. Or perhaps he has so much money that £100,000 is just a little gamble. I can now see why there are so many forgeries about. I guess these days email scams and the like are musch easier for the criminals than forging art.

[@benediktmorak4409]

@@amp9930 -greed- is always a big factor in these things. and special after the fall of the CCCP, as both presenters explained, many people thought they can get a - bargain -, выгодная сделка, from out there...

[@leavingitblank9363]

@@amp9930 He wasn't a fool-- he expressed early in the episode he was fine with its being a fake, and had no regrets. As they say, "Don't gamble with more than you can afford to lose." Obviously, the gamble was worth it (which he actually stated) and presumably not of serious financial consequence to him.

[@terrymccann2937]

Despicable! How do you take someone's property away from them, when it's legally bought and paid for, and there is no dispute of ownership? These people have no empathy, so caught up in themselves and their vein unproductive lives, living off the reputation of their forefathers without bringing anything to the current day table themselves!

[@sg639]

If the piece is a forgery, then it stands to do harm if it re-enters circulation (e.g., if it is sold to another unknowing buyer). It is subject to seizure.

[@jessicamartinez3613]

Unfortunately that is the direction our own government is headed in.

[@RustyShackleford-ji8mz]

@@sg639 now everyone knows it is fake , you are an idiot

[@ciarache]

​@@sg639 the likelihood of that happening with this painting is slim to none. Especially since this was vetted on TV to be a fake. This could have been the exception. 😢

[@LANixon]

Do you feel the same way about art that was stolen from Jewish families by Nazis during WWII? There are families now who don’t know the artwork on their walls was forgery because they were purchased ‘legally.’ But if it’s found to be the case that art can be is taken from them and returned to the rightful owner. It doesn’t matter how you acquired it. Every country is different (and the show should have done better due diligence to find out if this was an option and the institue also should have disclosed this as a possibility). The problem is that a lot of countries (including the USA and others) have had laws on the books that if someone tries to sell something they do not have the right to sell then that transaction is fraudulent and can (and should be) undone at any point. These laws are not new or shocking and for you to falsely assert, ‘that’s where this country is heading,’ is both untrue and inflammatory.

[@javwildman]

Clearly property developers who can afford to stump up 100 grand for a painting with no real provonance are good for it. They are chancers who come unstuck when they move in circles they know nothing about.Easy come easy go.

[@ts121084]

Agreed. I was shocked to see so much sympathy for him in the comments. On the trip to Belarus, he seemed wholly uninterested in the supposed backstory of the painting-almost completely self-removed from the experience. I had the sense that only its authenticity (i.e., value) was on his mind.

[@MossyMozart]

@@ts121084 - I agree. Mr Martin really seemed to want the painting to have accrued in value. He sent it to the Chagall Committee already knowing all evidence was against him. He demonstrated magical thinking, like a little kid. On the other hand, the Committee should have been explicit about the consequences he faced.

[@pdruiz2005]

This guy was clearly pretty young in 1992, when he squandered 100,000 pounds. He was no successful property developer in his early to mid 20s. I bet he inherited a tidy fortune and because he didn’t earn the money, he was fine gambling with it. A self-made man would’ve been far more careful about buying a quite suspect painting. He would’ve demanded ironclad provenance and all the bells and whistles that comes with that before he parted with such a princely sum.

[@Jen39x]

Have been binge watching these and think the committee is crazy. Why would private individuals submit anything after this unless they are doing some extremely risky investment scheme? I would think that’s the exact mess that encourages more fakes and leads to more of those rare pieces of unknown real art being destroyed.

[@chloeuntrau4588]

was fake!

[@racheledington5447]

So sorry Martin! They should have at least removed the signature and returned it to you.

[@sheilastahl633]

I love Chagall and this has been another great examination of art in a scientific way.

[@richardhunter132]

I'm troubled by this episode. all the evidence they gathered suggested that the work was a fake, including pretty damning technical evidence, so why did they take it before the Chagall committee when they knew they had such a weak case? why didn't they ask the opinion of a Chagall expert beforehand, particularly since neither Phillip or Bendor are Chagall experts? did they really not realise that the destruction of the painting was on the cards? it's pretty obvious that a lot of what goes on on this show is set up beforehand: could this also have been?

[@dollimelaine]

I thought I heard her say the Chagall institute asked to see it....

[@leavingitblank9363]

Destruction is rare (if ever), and if you watched the entire show, they all say they didn't know that destruction was a possibility.

[@richardhunter132]

it's apparently the policy of the Chagall committee, so it seems remiss of Phillip and Bendor not to have been aware of that@@leavingitblank9363

[@NyanyiC]

I love how James chooses his words!

[@davidfanning1600]

If they had done the pigment test at the very beginning, this programme need only have been 10 minutes long,

[@DavidMillsSeven]

Than you're not interested in art. It happens.

[@ianrutherford878]

But the only way the producers would get involved is to make an episode to the same formula and duration as all the others. If Lang had paid (and it would cost) for such an analysis you would never have known about it. This way he gets to participate in a classy programme all at the BBC's expense and the BBC's licence payers got the kind of entertainment they like.It has a very similar feel and rhythm to the archaeology series Time Team in that way. They spin out the story and cut back and forth to add tension.

[@Annie1962]

The rest of the history etc is interesting. If you don't like the investigation.. skip to the end.

[@DriftinDoug]

You get a lot of flack for stating the obvious.

[@kathrynhurst7210]

The art world constantly changes it’s mind, so no way should a work be destroyed

[@chipwalter4490]

Oh Katlyn you sweet summer child....these people are vampires. They. Do. Not. Care

[@debl9957]

It's a fake being peddled as genuine. If you were the artist, what would you do ...

[@otto1630]

I would like a show featuring Tony....fascinating

[@celtoloco788]

there's an old Canadian doc, Masterminds, about all kinds of fakers. Art, sport memorabilia, documents. All are utterly fascinating. One guy made 'real' babe ruth balls, faked the signature, buried them in dirt for patina, and made millions. Completely tanked the market for signed balls to this day

[@WakeupYourMakeup]

Martin’s attitude is awesome ... the Chagall committee is NOT! I get that they need to protect the works but I think they should inform all submissions that if it is found to be fake what action that would be taken prior to submission. They could remove the signature or mark the back and give it back. I think the world knows it’s a fake now no matter what. it’s still a lovely painting to be enjoyed no matter who painted it ... I bet if Chagall was alive he would laugh and say give it back!

[@AlMoxtar]

How do you know they don't? No one just up and submits pictures for authentication, there are legal releases and forms and insurance documents etc. Also, it is the law, it is no secret, and if it was not explained to the family it is the fault of the experts. Someone did not read the documents, or more likely the producers chose to frame the story this way because it is more dramatic. They could have done the tests first be done, but, for the sake of TV they went to Belarus for no reason, and sent the painting to Paris knowing full well it to be a forgery.

[@SleutherStrode]

Do you want some other poor smuck do get ripped off.... it is the way it works.

[@WakeupYourMakeup]

Sarah Barber ... oh Hi Sarah, of course I don’t want anybody to be ripped off and I really don’t know how it all works...I just think the painting is lovely regardless and I appreciate Martins attitude...great show ⭐️

[@philgray7320]

It's all meant to create a bit of "drama" within the episode, of course the owner would have been aware of or made aware of the ruling prior to handing it over.

[@leavingitblank9363]

@@AlMoxtar What are you talking about? It's not the law to destroy forged art work. And the paperwork is standard for any time you're handing over valuable property.

[@bruceaisher]

It's a bit ridiculous and fishy that his granddaughters are the committee. Just because you are related to someone does not make you the expert. They should have just marked the work as fake and returned it to him.

[@SantaBarbaraBiking]

bruceaisher I must believe that they have a committee of experts that work with them to review.

[@SleutherStrode]

what rubbish you are talking

[@mylesgarcia4625]

Wait until you hear about the composition of the Trump Fake Art Committee!! LOL!

[@ivorytower99]

"Just because you are related to someone does not make you the expert." I would somewhat disagree with this statement. If one has grown-up with a family member who is an artist, they are going to know the hand quite well. It's just a feeling inside when you look at the work. The work itself is the signature.

[@dr.barrycohn5461]

The families of famous artists are almost always involved as they have control over the estates. This is not unique.

[@Benjaminwolf]

I really like the Fake or Fortune series--and here comes the "but." But I am surprised that this painting was chosen for the series. I am not a Chagall expert, but I have seen many many of Chagall's works of art over the years. It was no surprise that it was declared a fake. To me it lacked the freedom and whimsey of Chagall. Sorry, I just had to post this. I do, however, think that destroying the work is not the answer. It should have been returned to the owner.

[@_wesleyhome_]

Quite agree. The eyes are absolutely not those of Chagall. The opinion of the forger was the most illuminating of all. I'm sure they have many enquiries coming in, and frankly this was not the best choice to focus on. I don't know what would be the harm in letting the family keep it, though. Certainly after the publicity of a BBC program they can't possibly sell it to anyone as genuine.

[@vanjaw1146]

the painting is chosen and the episode made to show how forgers work. this painting was in a Chagall book and had provenance but it is fake. The episodes shows well how to prove that it is fake

[@stephanemami]

Agreed, it’s one of the few in the series where it’s quite obvious it’s a fake from the beginning. Destroying it is rough but also… it’s a “real” fake, made to deceive. That is very illegal and actually dangerous for the art world. It’s one of the reasons the expert comities are always so hesitant when it comes to accept new works.

[@MrWillAndersen]

The Chagall committee has just ensured that people will be hesitant to submit their paintings for authentication, real or not. This does nothing to rid the world of the fakes.

[@dinacox1971]

It was pretty glaring that they were not able to meet with the art consultant from which the piece was purchased and somehow she just could not remember the private collector!! Debbie Hatchwell indeed!

[@jacquigriffin5973]

They should not have taken the painting to the Chagall Committee after finding the pthalo blue paint, as it was then dead in the water, then Martin could have kept it.

[@MrGino714]

What are your thoughts on: 1/ A fake is a valuable piece of evidence to decipher other fakes done by the same con-artist. Destroying it is similar as removing pieces of evidence at a crime scene, which by all means is very illegal. 2/ As Arts goes by, they were asked for an opinion, they did not have ownership and the owner did not transfer ownership of the asset. I see other committees work differently, like stamping "not from" or "Fake". During the series, we see also plenty of painting refused, then accepted as genuine. In the Article 10.3, the Directive provides that “in considering a request for corrective measures, the need for proportionality between the seriousness of the infringement and the remedies ordered, as well as the interests of third parties, shall be taken into account”. One thing is sure, a destroyed painting does not have a second chance. 3/ At least, this committee would never destroy the owner's first class attitude. And this BBC show managed to reveal a genuine gentleman, which is priceless.

[@SuperNinger]

They said something about a old French Law, maybe the BBC should have checked with a lawer before hand.

[@QuantumEffectResidue]

I would say have it permanently "marked" in a way that no one could ever fix it and pass it off as the real thing ever again.

[@Gershwin48]

Well put.

[@carolynmcpherson2667]

I loved that painting. The colors and execution were beautiful.

[@englishrose4388]

That’s too much power for a committee to have. The owner should have been able to keep it-losing $100k was punishment enough.

[@deborahthomas3475]

It shows you that you must not submit a work for evaluation unless you have a good case to make.

[@garywilloughby6893]

I was surprised that they sent it to France. There were other episodes where they said France destroys fakes.

[@leavingitblank9363]

Not sure about France destroying fakes. There was an early episode with someone trying to get his painting authenticated by a notoriously persnickety Commission (I can't remember which artist, but it was a big name-- based on another comment on this page, I think it was the Wildensteins, who control Monets), and they refused it as a fake, even though there was an abundance of evidence it was authentic. Even the production team was shocked. The Commission had previously made a determination on the same painting and stuck to their earlier decision, but the painting was never destroyed.

[@artlessons1]

I am an artist and former teacher. I immediately said it was fake. It was infantile ( meaning compressed) compared to bold and specific. The eyes were not confident artists' eyes. Even Picasso large eyes are confident, though simple. . Back in the day forgers would never have thought of pigments being analyst through today's modern high teck devices . so they did not worry about it. Has been a lot of money made and lost in the art business .

[@wildandbarefoot]

If you're going to be more cavalier than Charles 1st, you must expect the chop

[@MrRowangela]

He took a gamble... and he acknowledges it with a good attitude

[@donoverstreet3210]

Agreed. Whether it was greed or not you couldn't help but appreciate his attitude.

[@jonrutherford6852]

I so admire the positive outlook of the unfortunate purchaser and his son. Bravo.

[@kristapreston5760]

Who knew there was a death penalty for art?

[@ladybarbarapinsonartist4052]

One of your best episodes, a real cliff hanger!

[@loganjohnson3589]

In my opinion this art committee has made a huge error in judgment to destroy this fake it should have been marked as such and returned to the owner for 3 reasons 1 he owned it 2 as a warning too others . 3 if another shows up it can be used to compare it to the other suspect painting .this committee has done a disservice to themselves and to the whole world of art as a whole .

[@WillN2Go1]

The dealer who said that 34-1/2 out of 35 photos he's sent are 'worthless, said something very intelligent and worth being aware of. 'They try doing everything they can to convince themselves.' I've personally seen this with fakes, one of which was a fake Chagall. I showed the image of that piece to a woman who knew Chagall really well in France, she had Chagall's hanging on her walls-- she just started laughing. There's a lot of money in art, so it's up to the money to pay for the expertise to protect their investment. But keep in mind, no matter what it is, when someone keeps going on and on about a suspect work of art, some stock they're losing money on, a house they're about to buy that they really can't afford. Stop and ask, "Are you just trying to convince yourself?" If so, they probably shouldn't do it. Should we ask ourselves this question? Absolutely, it's just we've all seen people who can't seem to even fathom that they're doing this. (I'm as guilty as anyone.) Love this show, it's brilliant.

[@gdhse3]

It's the same thing in the horse world. Have thrb horse vet checked before you write the check!

[@stonew1927]

I would have liked to have seen other paintings by Chagall from the same period. We are presented with one from 1915. Close, but still a bit later. The reason I say this is because by my untrained eye I could see that it didn't resemble the typical style that Chagall was known for. This painting was much more heavy handed in style, with more solid lines and more somber colors, something the forger in Los Angeles pointed out. Based on this alone, I would have ruled it out as an authentic Chagall, unless, of course, that was his style at the time the painting was purported to have been painted. .... This was a fascinating episode, as so many of them are. The owner gambled, and lost. Yet he managed to be rather stoic about it. I do think it's a huge shame that the painting should be destroyed. I understand the logic of the Chagall committee. I sympathize with their position. However, I think if someone buys any kind of item for 100,000 pounds, it should be theirs regardless if it's authentic or not. But I guess it's no different than all the other pirated items on the market, from watches, to fake designer bags, etc. If the government confiscates them they'll be destroyed.

[@SleutherStrode]

it is obviously a fake, end of

[@nineteenfortyeight6762]

It's muddy as heck. Also poorly composed, crowded, and the floating faces lack all earnestness. I'm no expert but I love Chagall and nothing I Iove was in this. I almost feel insulted by this forger. He or she is dead inside.

[@chloeuntrau4588]

Look on the net!

[@mellie4174]

​@@nineteenfortyeight6762 LMAO i love all the art critics on here who've never been to art school and don't work in the field. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I liked the painting too. Go take your presumptuous ass back to your day job...😂

[@Earth098]

It's so unfair that the law allows the art authorities to claim other's paintings and destroy them. Who know, they might keep the paintings hidden somewhere. Shame on the law and the Chagall committee!!!

[@sg639]

Not so. If their job is to authenticate, then they would have a moral obligation to ensure no fakes are in circulation. Otherwise, the piece could change hands and dupe yet another party.

[@chloeuntrau4588]

It's a fake and above all the commitee is composed of the grand daughters of the painter! of course they want to destroy it!

[@chipwalter4490]

S.G. you are in the thralls of sheer paranoid psychosis. The painting is in their possession and they can alter it an unmistakable and unremovable way forever branding it as judged to be a fake. They do not need to destroy it. This gesture is histrionic and as we've all seen these panels have been wrong on more than one occasion. So in the future there will be without a doubt a case where a genuine work is destroyed by a misguided committee.

[@kyleanuar9090]

Copyright perhaps?

[@Lambert7785]

- I think in some ways, that it's rather refreshing that the committee would want the painting destroyed - at source, it seems good to burn up the lie, rather than have it pollute the atmosphere for centuries to come... :)

[@soozzyq992]

I understand the Chagall Committee pronouncing it as a fake and I believe measures should be taken to remove fakes from the public view. Pieces found to be fake should be marked as such. But, my problem is with destroying art....any art! We have seen this happen time and time again for many reasons, such as political or religious reasons. So much of history has been lost or destroyed. Even though this particular piece is not a Chagall, it is the work of an artist. As an artist myself, I abhor any destruction of art.

[@donoverstreet3210]

Lol, I understand and respect your view, I just got finished posting the opposite however. I am not sure fakes should be considered art, I would in this case if the painter had signed their own name however. This is a tough call. The hosts of the show obviously agreed with you.

[@AlMoxtar]

This painting was NEVER a work of Art, it is not even a reproduction, it is a forgery made for the simple purpose to defraud someone, and it filed its purpose to the tune of 100 000 pounds. Unless it can forensically convict the forger, It should be destroyed, and the estate of the Artist are best morally placed to ask for its destruction.

[@lindyashford7744]

Have to say, if the faker had NOT put the signature on, then the outcome would have been quite different, obviously the Chagall committee would still have found it to not be genuine, but an intent to forge could not have been proven, it could have been a student or enthusiast copy. It is the signature that makes it the work of a criminal forger because the intent is there to mislead. It did not look like a genuine Chagall to me, the double heads seem lifted direct from later printed works and not consistent and as stated the outlining was not fluent and rather leaden. Otherwise the forger did at lest understand some of the techniques of gouache, the underpainting of green with red for instance this is a valid technique. Was it actually destroyed or is it still being litigated over, I wonder. I also think it a shame a fuller story did not emerge. Exactly who got the very large sum of money paid for it? Someone did, so that is a story in its own right that did not get told.

[@chipwalter4490]

AlMoxtar you sound like a pompous maniac declaring what is and what was never a "work of art" ...as if you are in some kind of Salon in Paris in the 1860s. After over a hundred years of Art like Duchamp and Joseph Bueys and on and on and on how dare you step to this victimized famIly with such pompous pronunciations. This young man expressly said he grew up looking at this painting and it held great value to him. That is all an artwork can ever do, you idiot.

[@philipbloomquist1580]

Spoilers although this episode is referenced in many clips at the beginning of many episodes so if you watch enough of these fake or fortune you already know the outcome of this episode. I found it surprising they ordered the destruction of the painting but on reflection the book that featured the painting from a expert is why I think it was requested to be destroyed. It was clear that the inclusion of the painting in the book angered them. Hindsight is 20/20 but the evidence that is was a fake was significant enough it should not have been brought to the committee. nothing was to be gained by showing the committee a painting they knew was a fake. In the end they were forced to destroy the painting for that foolish mistake.

[@MossyMozart]

@Philip Bloomquist ---- ............ * The picture had such a dodgy, empty "provenance" from the get-go that just kept getting worse the more they looked into it. * The dealer in Russian art told them that 90% of pictures he sees are fakes and pointed out red flags to look for, some of which were built into this picture's "provenance" * The picture vanished from the art historian's book. * The experienced forger pointed out why he thought it was a forgery. * The spectrum exam showed that the paints used did not exist in 1910. * Nobody ever seemed to have looked at other of Chagall's works for comparison. Presumably they would have seen the picture the Chagall Committee thinks is the one that was copied. ........... Mr Martin knew all this, yet kept hoping, somehow irrationally, that all the evidence was wrong and persisted in approaching the Chagall Committee anyway. They certainly should have made everybody aware of the consequences of a finding of forgery, however.

[@cruisepaige]

Love how the forger guy is still loaded. Puts me in mind of Dennis Kozlowski. Out of jail, loaded.

[@winkieblink7625]

Seized and Destroyed. Interesting. Martin is not stupid, even with his purchase. He took a gamble. He lost.

[@lastchancemonicam3948]

What a pity! No winners in this one! This is why I much prefer to buy art that I like from completely unknown artists. I don't mind losing 25.00 on an original painting (and I know the artist), and spending 250.00 on the frame for it than gambling on someone well known. That way I've got something beautiful that I know I can keep forever, and even if no one else likes it, I DO!

[@michelepaccione8806]

It's sad that you value a frame 10 times more than a painting.

[@lastchancemonicam3948]

@@michelepaccione8806 Not true. Much of the time I"m paying 25.00 and a few meals or something else necessary for their survival. The 250.00 was figurative. I'm putting the art in a place where it can be appreciated and valued. If I gave the artists the money directly, most likely they'd just use it on intoxicants. With the artists I deal with, most likely the art itself would have been forgotten or destroyed. This way, everyone wins.

[@paulreilly3904]

You should pay them fairly for their work. And in cash. If they choose to spend it on " intoxicants" as you rather disapprovingly put it, then that's no business of yours.

[@flashladderacrobat]

Well, he must have risked and won in life to have such a good atitude, you win some , and you lose some!

[@GOLDVIOLINbowofdeath]

Greed

[@carolevonaarberg472]

property developer, a gambler

[@watchmedo635]

Thank you for sharing, another brilliant episode. Love hearing Bendor’s insights, and always fascinating hearing from a faker!

[@fromthepeanutgallery1084]

When any one says. "new works on the market never been shown before." watch out

[@petemc5070]

I love this series but can't understand why they gave this horribly inept pastiche more than a moment's consideration. FoF also failed in their duty of care to warn the owner when submitting to the Chagal committee, hence the shame-faced ending and grumbling over the law which tries to remove fakes from the art market.

[@SunriseWaterLily]

The Chagall committee should have taken the painting and locked it away to study the fake instead of taking it for destruction. That would have been a lot more productive!

[@CanChikMay]

I hope at least he gets the frame back!

[@lorilynnchristiansen2071]

Laughed out loud at that one!

[@leavingitblank9363]

Good point-- frames are ridiculously expensive! That said, I kept looking at that frame thinking I have the same one on something. Which made me wonder, "Is his frame a cheap one like mine, or is mine a cheap version of an expensive frame?" 😄

[@reginalawson3438]

Such a shame really. If they want it back I would insist that it be destroyed in front of me!

[@Tysknaden]

There is nothing wrong with destroying worthless fakes.

[@leavingitblank9363]

Yes, there is.

[@rustydevil7192]

Martin is by for the most positive person I have seen. His rewards are greater I'm sure.

[@luarena]

That was rather gripping... and I fully understand why it needs to be destroyed as a fake but i wonder if they could remove the signature and return the painting....with clear documents stating it a fake..but I do think its probably better to destroy ...

[@anonymousfellowindian]

Positive old fellow. I like him. 👍

[@aphrabenn3233]

The painting screamed fake from the first minute.

[@MossyMozart]

@Aphra Benn - Since I know nothing about Chagall, I thought it was a nice little painting, but I WAS appalled at the ridiculous "provenance" story the guy accepted before handing over his money! His mouth must have been watering at the thought of such a hot deal he was getting.

[@sreengleen]

I blame the hosts and producer of Fake or Fortune for the destruction. They establushed that it was a fake by the scientific evidence, which supported the observations of the LA forger and their inability to make any headway on the provenance. This knew about this law, and its exercise gave them a nice pop of drama for their show.

[@michelecarroll8168]

Love this father and son’s attitude on life!

[@oldgeordiegeezer3086]

I hope the BBC compensated the owner for this. It's their show, Martin is guided by the BBC's "experts" as they recommend which actions are to be taken. Turns out he followed their advice and lost his investment because apparently they didn't know as much as they claimed. It's all very well Mould trying to deflect the blame but poor Martin has lost his hundred grand because he followed Mould's recommendations.

[@melanies.6030]

Bendor really slipped up on this one. How is it that he failed to turn up the more recent 2005 edition of Kamensky's Chagall reference book (until the very end) that no longer had the painting pictured? Did the Courtauld Institute really not have BOTH editions? Noting that the more recent edition omitted Martin's painting, he could have followed up with the author and the Chagall committee BEFORE they just sent the painting to them. They would have explained their reason for it's omission saving everyone some grief. Although they may have sued, there at least could have been a compromise, such as removing the Chagall signature. Seems to me the lesson here is to contact the verifying art committee FIRST just to make sure they're not dealing with a KNOWN fake.

[@donoverstreet3210]

My favorite episode yet. I was frankly surprised of the attitude by the hosts at the end however. The painting should have clearly been destroyed. I like the attitude of the man who purchased the painting, he clearly as money to burn though. Incredibly risky venture. I love this show!

[@franzrogar]

No artwork should ever be destroyed. Ever. That's why in Museums there are a section dedicated exclusively to falsifications. Using those, one can test materials, techniques, etc. from forgeries and check if other artworks are, indeed, originals or not. Not to mention the quality of some "forgeries" are even better than the "masterworks". What benefit comes from a pile of ash?

[@AlexiaDiniz]

Very impressive episode

[@lisafayepranger8561]

this will keep others from bringing their Chagalls forth to be assessed.

[@FreshGrey-pm4vw]

I dont think he meant to say: "how easy it is to fake art" in the way it came out. You have to have considerable skill in using a paintbrush and paints to do such a thing. I am not condoning forgery but to manage to fake such beautiful pieces does take amazing skill. You might be interested in knowing that Tetro had zero art training. "Tetro never received formal art lessons, but learned from books, by painting and experimentation. Over three decades, Tetro forged works by Rembrandt, Joan Miró, Marc Chagall, Salvador Dalí and Norman Rockwell and others. Tetro's paintings and lithographs, known for their perfectionism, were sold by art dealers and auction houses as legitimate works and hang in museums, galleries around the world. He was caught after Hiro Yamagata found a forgery of his own work for sale in a gallery. In 1991, Gary Helton, an investigator for a California district attorney, described Tetro as "one of the two major [art] forgers in the United States."[1]"

[@oldbrasso808]

Property developer gets stung. When I see his little boxes cluttering what was once pristine countryside I get a crumb of comfort remembering this programme. He can afford the loss- maybe a few less expensive holidays.

[@monkeytennis8861]

Bitter much

[@thebergbok8279]

Oh yes. As a group they have much to account for. My sympathies are with the son who grew up with it, but as a warning to him of entèring into dubious fields as forms of financial investment.

[@Elizabeth-yg2mg]

Same thought.

[@billsheddy6464]

I can see the Chagall committee's concern. Problem is that the painting could be evidence of fraud on the part of the dealer or worse. If the owner decided to report the matter to the police, they would have a much better chance of recovering the painting at least temporarily while the courts went after the dealer. If the work is destroyed, there goes evidence of the crime or at least the object of a civil suit.

[@chipwalter4490]

They could easily permanently alter this painting stamping it as a forgery for the art market going forward. But they want to be vindictive. In the art world some forgeries can go on and be sold and collected as known and widely acknowledged forgeries ...it's rare but it can happen. On the off chance of this fate be falling this painting, the Chagall Estate would not receive any part in revenue generated by that path. ...Therefore they torch it.

[@mrbutch308]

Wow. I found this fascinating! When my mother passed away several years ago I inherited her five Chagall lithographs - not terribly valuable as they are neither signed nor numbered; so if they turn out to be fake it's not a big deal. However I did take it to Freeman's Auction House in Philadelphia, the nation's oldest auction house and very reputable and venerable ... they verified the lithographs, made in the 50's and '60's were genuine. My main point is this: I hung them together in a dark hallway in my Victorian house and never cared for them at all - not an artist I liked (it was her taste not mine). However, through the years they have grown on me. Now I rather like them. I now understand he was a "colorist" and it's the relationship and combination of colors that make them intriguing.

[@brainfornothing]

22:55 - Gouache is watercolour with chalk as thickener; both, watercolur and gouache, use gum arabic as binder. Thanks for sharing !

[@izzy1563]

The face of the woman was not well conceived. I find it hard to believe they seriously considered this was possibly by Chagall.

[@wynwilliams6977]

He got double teamed / scammed by the art consultant back in the day

[@Nezumi66]

Property developer... renown tax dodgers... comeuppance?

[@annakowalenko7002]

😂

[@chrismalcomson7640]

He should get that forger from LA to run him off a replacement. I'd imagine they can prove the work is fake so it has no value. The guy took an expensive punt and it didn't pay off..

[@Schlei602]

What a wonderful window in the church. I love Chagall. PS: there are two kinds of watercolor for drawings: the transparent one, where you don't use white, because the paper got to be white. The white parts of the "aquarell" are no color, but the paper itself. The second watercolor is "guache". It's impasto, here the artist uses white as well.

[@dekmusique]

We ww W Ww22 we 22w2😂 we2wwww22ww222ww

[@DutchCreekRanch1]

Destruction is untenable. The owners suggestion that it be marked on the back such that it did not pass the committee’s scrutiny was the most appropriate outcome. Fiona was correct in stating that it puts a real damper going forward on anyone submitting paintings for review and makes the committees, therefore, anachronistic.

[@J-Train]

46:02. Unrelated to the content of the episode, but I was pleasantly surprised to hear music by John Murphy in the background. It's actually from 28 Days Later. In the House, in a Hearbeat is the name of the track.

[@pdruiz2005]

Clearly this man was LOADED in the early 1990s, likely with money he inherited and didn’t earn. A random painting purporting to be a Chagall coming out of the chaos of an unraveling USSR? Why, yes! I will squander a small fortune on a hunch and a prayer. Though an heir being bad with money is a tale as old as time in ye merrie olde England.

[@toddaulner5393]

I highly discount your theory that an admitted forgery is worthless.

[@dollimelaine]

proof is in the ferrari outside the forgers flat.

[@jekalambert9412]

What's the point of destroying a painting that cannot be authenticated without the involvement of the Chagall Institute? The institute has absolutely nothing to loose if the painting is not destroyed. Grossly unfair!

[@MossyMozart]

@Jeka Lambert - Only the next buyer, eh?

[@54321Judith]

I think he should have witnessed the destruction of the painting! The Committee could have walked away with a genuine Painting.

[@robertgiles9124]

That is one ugly picture.

[@Geopholus]

No way that's Marc Chagall (in 1 second of seeing that piece of crap) at the beginning. What struck me 1st was the poor face, the disproportionate body, a poor composition, and the leaden heavy lines rather than the light whimsey of Chagall , but it certainly is an interesting story. So sorry to hear, that at the end, the committee demanded destruction, it would have been enough to label it fake on the back, and document the whole story to accompany the painting. So strange the internal dialogs that go on in peoples heads.... fake Chagall, but it is still a picture, worth whatever it is worth to those who enjoy looking at it or owning it !

[@serasmiles2]

Do these people sign a contract with the show that the show is not liable for any losses incurred? I think Chagall painted it later in life. Way to go showpeople. You created a great episode off this family's misfortune; pay up and keep us posted as to how you clean up your mess. Just a thought.

[@debl9957]

If I were the owner, I'd knock on the door of the designer who sold it to him and give her an ear full. She pocketed her commission from the sale, so she was unconcerned about provenance. Buyer beware.

[@jodimunoz4780]

He bought it in good faith and no one informed him that the painting was removed from the original book. So scrape the name off the front and return it. Greedy and despicable! To me it really doesn’t look like the supposed original at all! What are they afraid of!

[@heavenlywanderer]

Seizing is one way to deter from fraud...the image originally is owned by the Chagall family...

[@julianmetcalfe1070]

Bitter blow ,had they one day tried to have sold it ,things could have turned out much more costly for many people

[@ava4830]

They never should have submitted this. Their own evidence told them it was fake.

[@amygirl9534]

I thought that thing was hideous. They’re better off without it. lol The money’s a shame.

[@carlotta4th]

I actually agree with the insitution's right to say "this isn't legitimate" (when forensic evidence definitively proves it as such), but they are vastly overreacting with demanding to destroy it. The owner was right, they should have marked the painting and sent it back--it's ridiculous that anyone can send them a painting in good faith for verification only to have it confiscated and destroyed. Or, alternatively, if the establishment persisted in forcing its destruction they should absolutely sign a contract saying that if it is later proven they will pay restitution. After all, if they're 100% sure it's fake to the point of "needing" to destroy it then they should be 100% sure they'll never have to pay that money back. Put your money where your mouth is when you're confiscating and destroying someone else's property!

[@stonew1927]

But how exactly could they later prove that it was genuine if the painting was already destroyed?

[@carlotta4th]

@Stone because the forensic evidence of pigments used still exists.

[@bethbartlett5692]

Chagall: Overwhelmingly the ultimate point that comes to light and waves, like a flag, from the journey of efforts is: Human Ego, Power, at a Narcissistic level Perhaps that's much more easily observed by a Westerner, when an Eastern Country has been so constrained by a government for such a long period of time, then released while having a Western Culture of Hollywood as their idea of what reality is. The period of Adolescence is often never fully emerged from, only Physically, not in thought, or emotionally. ie: The Higher Mind aka Mature Mind isn't attained. The "Lower Mind, aka Ego Mind, aka Adolescent Mind" with adult physical form. Beth Bartlett Sociologist/Behavioralist and Historian The Owner is achieved in Thought Maturity.

[@lilliansanteix7117]

Not a semblance of credibility. Storytelling at its most evident. Sometimes I thought I was looking at a pastiche.

[@danhanqvist4237]

Dates of pigments.... Generally speaking, one should do something like Grosvenor did -- check more than one pigment. Originals can be retouched with more recent pigments.

[@1dkappe]

Why would you submit an obvious fake to the committee? “Our only hope…?” Hope to extend the program?

[@Dawn_Aramoana63]

Reimburse Martin. Give back his money. Those people that sold him the painting should be held accountable. Any updates on this episode?

[@leavingitblank9363]

I'm going to point the finger at his interior designer. Where did he find her/him??? I was already questioning the choice of decorating their home in that hideous mauve, and then when they end up with a forged painting via the designer "who knew someone"... Sketchy, for sure.