My mother has purchased several Chagall lithographs at auctions held
by Somerset Auctions in the San Francisco area over the past 9 years.

I am questioning what these really are. The ones she purchased in the
mid 1990s have "Certificate of Authenticity" papers signed by mystery
people generally with no name of gallery or other way of contacting
them.

One, for DANSEUSE AU FLUTISTE states it is plate signed by the artist
and numbered in a total edition of 500 and the plate cancelled.  It
also states "This edition contains no unsigned, unnumbered, prior
state, posthumous, restrike or reworked impressions." It was signed by
a hard to make out set of initials on 9-1-94.

Another, for LE VIOLINIST ET L'ACROBATE has a fancier certificate from
the Metropolitan Art Association, a division of Metro Art Sales. The
edition numbers (of a total 300) are noted in Roman numerals on the
print.

LES LUPINS BLEU states it is "Facsimile signed by Marc Chagall." It is
a "Photomechanical graphic" published in 1994 in an "edition size of
500 Arabic, 100 roman numeral all with facsimile signature" by Gallery
25, Ltd; Atelier Jalorcolor; plate destroyed; edition 300/500. It is
signed by a Christpher Coffaus (?).

She recently bought 3 more. One, RED BOUQUET, had a certificate with a
biography of Chagall, this shortened title and the following
description: "Limited Edition Facsimile Signed Collectible Offset
Lithograph." The edition number space was left blank though the litho
has   on it. At the bottom of the certificate is the following:  "The
Graphic herein described is an Interpretation of a Marc Chagall
Painting. It has been Re-Created by a Master Artisan and bears a
Facsimile Signature of the Artist."   (The capitalization is as it
appears.).

The other two, REVERIE and ARTIST WITH LOVERS came without
"Certificates" though listed in the catalog and stated by the
auctioneers as having them.  When she got home she noticed this and 
called them. They apologized and said they would take care of it. Two
days later the "original dealer," Basil R. Collier of Encino,
California sent her 3 "Certificates." There was a replacement
certificate for RED BOUQUET now with the full title RED BOUQUET WITH
LOVERS and no statement about it being an interpretation by a master
artist. They seem worthless to me, not attributed to anyone, no format
of printing, statement of edition, signature or anything that could
hold anyone to "authenticity."

An internet search finds a listing for "Basil R. Collier, Fine Art
Publisher" within the www.askart.com site but nowhere else.

She is paying in the $300-500 range. They are nicely framed. My
internet research shows pieces like this selling in a similar price,
range, $100-150 less unframed.

Of course there are other types of prints in numerous formats at various prices.

How do we learn more about the pieces she purchased, if she got fair
value and should she be asking for more documentation or a refund?

We'd also like to know the differences between "signed in the plate",
"facsimile signed" and other terms she may encounter.  Interent
searches have not revealed answers to these questions.

Thanks you.

Gary Meyer

---

Clarification of Question by garymey-ga on 31 May 2004 15:54 PDT

But I am still looking for some distinctions bteween different kinds
of prints, lithos, signed in plate, signed facisimile....

I know originals are expensive. But can these prints be legitimized as
not jusy being some 40 art print?

Hi, Gary

I don't know anything about your Mother's stuff but a couple of weeks
ago I went into a shop that specialises in modern reproductions of
valuable old paintings.

I started chatting to the woman in charge and she told me that, whilst
most of their business went to Corporate customers, a lot also went to
dealers who 'aged' the paintings and added the appropriate signatures.

Evidently, there are a lot of crooks in the Art World so you are right
to be suspicious.

Bryan

Searching for Chagaal, I found this page:
URL: http://www.rogallery.com

Chagall's copy prints are about $500, originals cost much more, up to $24000.

A typical "genuine" Chagall lithograph will have been published in his
lifetime (ie before 1985), in a relatively small edition (probably
less than 100), and be individually signed by Chagall (usually in
pencil); such a print would almost certainly not go for less than
$2000 or $3000. That said, there are lithographs, issued during
Chagall's lifetime, which were not individually signed by him (ie
simply unsigned or signed in the stone), which might sell for less
than $1000. However, I would guess that the prints bought by your
mother do not fall into either of these categories, but have been
produced since Chagall's death, in relatively large editions. Given
that all prints, strictly speaking, are reproductions, I think it
would be hard to call such prints "fakes" unless they are being passed
off as something they are not - and here the dealer's description and
the various "certificates of authenticity" are clearly important.
Somehow, I doubt if the dealers involved will have laid themselves
open to this sort of accusation. You also state that your mother
bought thise prints at auction, and presumably she had a chance to
inspect the prints herself before she bid for them; this might make it
even harder to claim that she was misled by the vendor or auctioneer.
(I don't want to sound patronising; but if your mother bought these
prints because she liked them, not as an investment - then why not let
her enjoy them, without worrying too much about their value?)

Thanks Geof-ga. Very informative. Yes she looked at them. The auction
company   comes around regularly and their catalog and the auctioneer
clearly represents them as lithos signed in thr stone and all with
"Certificates of Authenticity."
So when two were missing and a third claimed to be a reinterpretation
by a "master artist" this was disturbing to her and she asked for my
help.  She loves them and bought them for her own pleasure and to give
each child and gorwn grandchild one as well.

But you can understand that she'd be upset if she thought she have
been cheated. That is bad for the soul and pocketbook.

It's funny how folk can love something when they believe it to be
genuine; and hate it when they discover it's a fake.

This happened to a pal of mine who bought what he believed was a
genuine Tag-Heuer watch for a very attractive price.

I examined the watch and envied him. 'Can you get one for me at that
price?' I asked.

He couldn't but he then found out that it was a fake and he didn't
want it any more, so he offered it to me for the price that he had
paid for it.

And, guess what?

I didn't want it either.

Maybe it's better not to know.