Skip to main content

The Medici Dossier: Unresolved Issues

Later today at 10 am Christie's will be holding a sale of antiquities in the Rockefeller Plaza, New York. Readers will be aware that concerns have been raised about three lots (104, 112, 139) that appear to be close to objects that feature in the Medici Dossier seized in the Geneva Freeport. Are they the same? What due diligence searches have been undertaken by the staff at Christie's to ensure that they are not selling ex-Medici material? What reassurances can be given to potential buyers? Why did Christie's fail to mention the Sotheby's London collecting history for one of the pieces when the catalogue first appeared?

Christie's has made it clear that the sale of the objects would "proceed" in spite of a call for the three lots to be "repatriated" by an Italian prosecutor closely linked to the return of some 130 objects from North American collections. It was added, "Christie's has undertaken its own research into this matter and has found no evidence to support the need to withdraw these lots". What is the nature of this research? Who has been contacted?

What is the full "provenance" (or more accurately collecting history) for these three pieces? At the end of May 2010 Max Bernheimer of Christie's reminded us that provenance was "paramount". If that is the case, what is the full "provenance" for these three pieces? Has it been established how the three pieces entered the market?

The last word must rest with the spokesperson for Christie's commenting on the issue in May 2010: "we do not sell works that we have reason to believe are stolen".

Image
Three objects from the Medici Dossier (courtesy of Christos Tsirogiannis).

Bookmark and Share so Your Real Friends Know that You Know

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Getty Kouros: "The moral is, never ever buy a piece without a provenance"

In the wake of the 1992 Athens conference to discuss the Getty kouros (85.AA.40), one of the delegates, a "distinguished" American museum curator, was quoted ("Greek sculpture; the age-old question", The Economist June 20, 1992):
The moral is, never ever buy a piece without a provenance.
The recent discussions about the return of antiquities from North American museums to Italy and Greece may seem far removed from the acquisition of what appears to be a forged archaic Greek sculpture in the 1980s. However, there are some surprising overlaps.

The statue arrived at the Getty on September 18, 1983 in seven pieces. True (1993: 11) subsequently asked two questions:
Where was it found? As it was said to have been in a Swiss private collection for fifty years, why had it never been reassembled, though it was virtually complete?
A similar statue surfacing in the 1930s
A decision was taken to acquire the kouros in 1985. The official Getty line at the time (and reported in Russell…

Symes and a Roman medical set

Pierre Bergé & Associés of Paris are offering a rare Roman bronze medical set (16 May 2018, lot 236). Its recorded history is: "Ancienne collection Hishiguro, Tokyo, 1992". The catalogue entry helpfully informs us that the set probably came from a burial ("Cette trousse de chirurgien a probablement été découverte dans une sépulture ...").

The set appears to be the one that has been identified by Dr Christos Tsirogannis from an image in the Schinousa archive thus linking it to Robin Symes.

Given that the catalogue entry suggests that this piece came from a funerary context and that the history of the piece can only be traced back to 1992 (and not to 1970), questions are being raised about the set's origins.

What due diligence was conducted on the medical set prior to offering it for sale? Did Symes sell the set to Hishiguro? How did Symes obtain the set? Who sold it to him?

I understand that the appropriate authorities in France are being informed about the …

The Minoan Larnax and the Michael C. Carlos Museum

I was recently asked to comment on the acquisition of recently surfaced antiquities in Greece as part of an interview. One of the examples I gave was the Minoan larnax that was acquired by the Michael C. Carlos Museum. Although this piece has been discussed in the Greek press, the museum has not yet responded to the apparent identification in the Becchina archive.

Is the time now right for the Michael C. Carlos Museum or the wider authorities at Emory University to negotiate the return of this impressive piece so that it can be placed on display in a museum in Greece?