All language subtitles for Fake.or.Fortune.S12E01.Mondrian.XviD-AFG

At 42 million... The art world, where
paintings change hands for fortune.

Thank you very much.

But for every known masterpiece, there
may be another still waiting to be

discovered. That is massively
encouraging.

International art dealer Philip Mould
and I have teamed up to hunt for lost

by great artists.

We use old -fashioned detective work and
state -of -the -art science to get to

the truth.

Science can enable us to see beyond the
human eye.

I don't believe it.

Every case is packed with surprise and
intrigue. Like a challenge.

Who am I?

But not every painting is quite what it
seems.

Someone has put a signature on top.

Here. Dastardly. It's a journey that can
end in joy.

You have an original thing.

Or bitter disappointment.

Depressing end to the day.

Sorry.

This time, could the pioneer of abstract
art, Piet Mondrian, have created this

gorgeous little flower painting?

Through his lifetime, the flower has
always been an important topic for him.

It looks the part, it's got his
signature, and was once owned by several

prominent Dutch collectors and art
dealers.

We have your picture, described as being
by Piet Mondrian. Exactly.

No ifs, no buts. Exactly.

But all is not as it seems.

The leaf looks more like a dahlia. The
trouble is, Mondrian's work is known to

have been faked, and his flower pictures
have been a favourite of the forger's.

I have a file here that contains a
couple of dozen.

Will scientific analysis help our case?

Goodness me, that's an extraordinary
sort of firework, isn't it, really?

Or could there be a more sinister
explanation?

The first thing that struck me was the F
in Skidam.

As the scales tip one way, then the
other, can we find out the truth?

Did your picture hang in that house?
Well, of course it did.

In this episode, we're heading to
Warwickshire in the West Midlands. We're

the heart of Shakespeare country.

This splendid Jacobean house is the
family home of Jeffrey Kroll.

Hi, Jeffrey.

Hi there. Hi. Hi. Lovely to see you.
He's an artist from the U .S. with

roots here. Nice to see you. Come on in.

Great. Jeffrey would like our help
because he's inherited a mysterious

he hopes might be the work of one of the
most celebrated artists of the 20th

century. So here's the painting.

Aha.

It's rather beautiful, isn't it? So
delicate.

Yeah.

A portrayal of a single flower and,
boldly signed in the

bottom left -hand corner, P. Mondrian,
that great icon of 20th -century modern

art. I'm familiar, of course, with
Mondrian's, you know, renowned works of

geometric lines.

But I had no idea he did flower
pictures.

So he began life as a figurative
painter, painting landscapes and

And you believe this to be by Mondrian?

In my gut as an artist, I do.

Born in 1872, Piet Mondrian was a Dutch
painter and a pioneer of 20th -century

abstract art.

He's famed for his abstract geometric
paintings, characterised by straight

lines, grids and...

primary colors.

His bold, striking style had seeped into
popular culture, inspiring fashion,

architecture, and advertising.

Lesser known is that Mondrian also made
naturalistic works.

Throughout his career, he created more
than a hundred flower pictures.

Could Geoffrey's picture be one of them?

Where did you get this painting?

I inherited it from my mother.

who was gifted it many years ago,
probably over 25 years ago, by a friend

hers, rather eccentric friend.

And do you know where the eccentric
friend got it from then? We don't know.

So have you done anything yourself to
try and prove that this might be by

Montreal? Yes, I have, indeed. I did
some research and found that it was

rejected by the catalogue résumé. So
before your mother had it, it had been

rejected by the catalogue résumé in the
1990s.

The Mondrian catalogue résumé, the
definitive list of works by Mondrian,

originally compiled by two authorities,
Robert Welsh and Joachim Jutten.

Jeffrey discovered that when they
published it in 1998, they decided not

include the white chrysanthemum.

The authors have since died, and there's
now a new authority on Mondrian, Vita

Coppice.

I decided to photograph and send it to
Dr. Vitsa Kopes.

He wrote me a very polite letter back
saying, Jeffrey, I am afraid to say that

cannot go against the judgment of my
esteemed colleagues. He just slammed the

door shut, did he?

No, he said, if new things come to
light, I have an open mind and a

to learn.

And there was one footnote to that. He
did say that in all the pieces submitted

to me, yours is the only piece that
sticks in my mind.

So he shut the door, but then
thrillingly, the door has now been

ajar, hopefully to walk through.

If this is by Mondrian, what would it be
worth? If this is by Mondrian, it's a

profoundly desirable thing.

His more naturalistic images like this
are in vogue.

And I can see collectors being really
taken by this.

£250 ,000 up to that amount, I would
say.

Extraordinary, really.

And if it isn't?

Well, if it isn't, somewhere in the
region of £200.

Sorry. Had to ask.

I know. Well, let's see if we can prove
it's more than that.

Let's hope so.

There are several tantalising labels,
inscriptions and stamps on the back.

that will need further investigation.

But first, I want to see whether the
picture itself bears the hallmarks of a

genuine Mondrian.

So at first glance, this looks like a
really well -executed horticultural

But there's something else going on
here, and it makes it really

You can see just the suggestion of a
vase.

And the effect is, to give the flower,
the appearance that it's hovering

weightlessly in some type of ethereal
space.

There also seems to be a really strong
character to it, as if it's almost

expressing itself to you.

The way those two leaves fan out, almost
like arms of someone with a rather

elaborate hat.

And then it is signed in the bottom left
-hand corner.

So the double A was the Dutch way of
spelling it, but that J is a deny.

It's a bit strange. It's definitely
something we need to return to. But

no doubt, if this is by Mondrian, that
clear signature is one of a job done.

It's a completed picture.

And wouldn't it be wonderful if this
flower could live again as a work by

Mondrian?

To find out a bit more about this
intriguing picture...

I'm joining Geoffrey in his artist's
studio.

Oh, wow!

Whoa!

This is fantastic!

Thank you very much.

I want to cast my eyes over some
evidence he's uncovered, dating from

mother's friend must have owned the
picture.

What have you managed to find out?

Well, I found that it had been sold, if
I may show you, at Bonham in 1993.

Oh, wow!

OK.

So Bonham's major auction house, Pitt
Mondrian, White Chrysostom,

estimate £12 ,000 to £18 ,000.

Now it sold for £6 ,000, which is a lot
less.

Yeah. But nonetheless, this is
brilliant.

In 1993, we have your picture described
as being by Pitt Mondrian. Exactly.

No ifs, no buts. Exactly.

If we do manage to establish it in your
picture, is by Mondrian. Yes.

What would that mean for you?

Well, I think it will be a vindication
of what I felt aesthetically about the

painting in my gut that this is a
Mondrian.

Well, if it is by Mondrian, it's going
to be a theoretically valuable picture.

Yeah. What do you think you'll do with
it?

I'm just not sure.

Don't want to jinx it?

Don't want to jinx it.

Back in London, we're regrouping in the
gallery for a closer look at the

provenance trail for Geoffrey's picture.

So I've got here a copy of the Bonhams
catalogue. We've got a list of the

provenance here.

Yeah, and on the face of it, a nice
dense and rich provenance.

According to the sales catalogue, the
first owner was Harry Prince.

Then it says it went to Kunsthandel
Kruger.

Then Bernard Hautacker.

And the most recent owners listed are
Jacob... And this is Jan de Groot.

Well, what we want to do is try and
compare those names. There's a wealth of

labels and writing on the back of the
picture.

So let's start with the furthest back we
can go, which is Harry Prince Skidam in

Holland. And I'm wondering if that is AP
for Harry Prince there.

I think it is. I think that's the
collector's mark.

Then we've got Kunsthandel Kruger &
Company.

And there's lots of Kunsthandel. Look,
these two labels here.

What does that say there?

Well, it's in Dutch, so I don't know
what it says.

I thought you were a colleague lot.

You could read every language.
Absolutely.

Vertabling, whatever that means.

Harry Prince.

Then LJ, maybe? Kruger.

Yes. Schiedam.

And this looks like a price. So,
Florence, a thousand.

So, this looks to me like an art dealer.

So, it's gone from a collector to a
dealer.

And then we've got this name, Bernard
Houtaker, and a name here and an address

in Amsterdam.

So I presume that's another dealer.

Yeah, it would seem logical, wouldn't
it?

And then this funny little stamp here in
the corner.

I wonder whether that could relate to
Houtaker. Yeah.

And then we have the most recent names
in the Bonhams auction catalogue, which

is Jakob de Groot and Mrs Jan de Groot.

So we need to work out who they are.

I mean, on the face of it...

They're really rich provenance, lots of
labels and intriguing sort of scribbles

and stamps.

And yet still, this was rejected in a
letter.

Why?

Yes, I suppose the first thing we've got
to do, as wonderful as this looks, is

drill into all of these names and see if
we can find some corroborative evidence

that they did indeed own or the picture
passed through them.

And then the other thing we need to do
is have a look at that letter that

rejected it.

There must have been a reason.

I've come to The Hague, capital of the
Netherlands, on the hunt for stylistic

evidence that might help prove
Geoffrey's picture is indeed authentic.

Piet Mondrian.

was born here in 1872 and spent the
early part of his career painting the

landscape, buildings and flowers of his
homeland.

Could Geoffrey's picture be one of
those?

I'm heading to the Kunstmuseum Den Haag.
It holds the world's largest collection

of works by Mondrian from every stage of
his career.

Despite Mondrian's evolution into
abstract art, he never completely turned

back. on one of his earliest subjects.

It seems extraordinary in a way that one
of the most famous figures to do with

the history of abstract art should have
had such a soft spot for flowers.

And there's a lovely example here.

Simply as a piece of drawing, I think
this is marvellous.

You feel that he's thought entirely
round a flower head.

He's looked incisively into the petals.
He's describing it perfectly.

The big question is, the brilliant scene
here, is it to be found in Geoffrey's?

This, I think, sets a very high bar.

To look for a link between Geoffrey's
picture and these genuine works, I'm

enlisting the help of a man who's
profoundly familiar with Mondrian's

paintings. Hello, Duda. Hello, Philip.

The Kunstmuseum's Head of Collections,
Doda Hardeman.

So, Doda, why were flowers so important
to Mondrian?

Well, they represented life, so the
birth of life, and then the blossoming,

the wilting.

You see that, for example, in the dying
sunflowers, that he depicted these

flowers in several stages in life.

So when did he particularly paint
flowers?

He made them throughout his life, from
around 1900 until the 1930s. But most of

them were painted and drawn around 1908.

Around this point, Mondrian became
influenced by a movement called

which believes that everything is
interconnected, and his work took on a

spiritual dimension.

This is a beautiful example of that.

You really see in the background the
resonance of the space around it.

Yes, I see that. He's painted the
energy.

It's very obvious in this genuine lily,
but Geoffrey's picture also has movement

and colour in its background.

And Jeffrey's picture has something else
going for it. It's called white

chrysanthemum, and the chrysanthemum was
one of Mondrian's favorite flowers.

The chrysanthemum was a very important
flower for him, and this was a

flower. So in a sense it was designed by
man, and it was a product of modernity.

He preferred to draw them as single
flowers, not in a bouquet.

Looking at Geoffrey's picture, you can
see all these individual elements.

A single white chrysanthemum on an
energetic background.

It fits neatly within Mondrian's oeuvre.

Geoffrey and I have also come to the
Netherlands, where we hope his picture

started its life.

Here in The Hague, the Netherlands
Institute for Art History, known by its

initials, the RKD, holds the largest
archives in the world relating to

including correspondence and records of
the catalogue Redene writers, Robert

Welsh and Joop Joosten.

We're meeting the man in charge of the
picture's fate, the world's current

authority on Mondrian, Wietse Koppers.
Hi, Wietse.

Nice to meet you.

It's a pleasure.

Nice to meet you, Geoffrey.

What would it take to convince Wietse to
give Jeffrey's picture a second look?

What I am missing at the moment is
information on the provenance of the

And also technical analysis can, of
course, be really important if you were

to compare this one with other works by
Mondrian of flowers.

Then, you know, maybe the same
technique, the same material is found in

works and it can be attributed.

Which is encouraging.

Yes.

Wietse has offered to help us and has
dug out a pile of documents from the

archives relating to the original
rejection of Jeffrey's picture.

And this is the file, and it contains
several letters of rejection, I'm

Several? I think it's up to five, even.

Did you know that?

No. Wow.

So the first one, 2008, from Joep
Joosten, who co -wrote the...

Catalogue resume.

Indeed. As I wrote already to your
colleague, this is not a work by Peter

Mondrian.

2006.

Enough of your letter. I enclosed copies
of a few letters I sent already.

It appears that Geoffrey's picture was
submitted to Welsh and Euston a number

times over many years, and each time
they rejected it.

The correspondence paper trail dates
back to 1992.

It's hardly readable anymore.

But I did manage to make a transcript of
the letter.

I have alas come to the conclusion that
it is not at all likely to have been

produced by the artist himself.

That's pretty categorical.

The letter goes on to make stylistic
comparisons with Mondrian's known works.

So he's basically saying it doesn't look
like an early Mondrian or a late

Mondrian.

But that isn't the only issue the letter
highlights.

Given the high prices which the flower
pieces by Piet Mondrian of any period

currently attract, we may expect greater
numbers of dubious flower pieces to

appear on the market, whether or not
possessed by honestly believing owners.

I think what he's saying in a rather
sort of highfalutin way is... It could

fake. Are there a lot of fake flower
pictures?

I mean, I have a file here that contains
a couple of dozen. You can glance

through it if you like.

Oh, you can see that's not Mondrian
immediately.

Oh, God, no.

Dreadful.

With Mondrian being widely faked, we're
clearly going to have to tread

carefully. I have to say this.

One thing in particular worrying me
about Jeffrey's picture, the signature

the I looking like a J.

I'm nervous to hear Wieter's assessment.

It seems incredibly weird that somebody
would misspell his own name. But there

is one other example that shows the
same, the I that has been turned into a

almost. And that word is in the
catalogue, doesn't it?

Another misspelled signature, but fully
accredited as genuine.

How does Wiese explain that?

Robert Wiese says in the catalogue
resume, between brackets, signed later,

question mark.

But we don't know what that means. It is
known to have been the case that he

signed pieces later himself, but he also
had a couple of friends to sign for

him. It usually referred to pieces he
had done before leaving for Paris that

were left unsigned. And of course,
somebody after Mondrian became a bit

famous, they wanted to have the
signature on their work.

You've got to love the guy.

Might that explain why this is spelled
wrong then?

Could be an explanation.

So it sounds like you've got a
reasonably open mind at this stage and

some work to do.

Sounds like it.

While Fiona and Geoffrey look into the
painting's history, back in London, I'm

heading to the Courtauld Institute,
renowned across the world as the centre

excellence for the scientific study of
art.

We've arranged for paper specialist Dr
Nicholas Burnett to carry out a forensic

analysis of Geoffrey's picture.

He's starting.

by removing the perspex backing.

Hello Nicholas.

Hi Philip.

So what are your first impressions?

Well, there's plenty of potential
provenance to get your teeth into.

But see though, what we've got.

Now we see the whole sheet.

The back of the picture is covered with
more plastic.

We need to remove it.

to get a better look at those stamps and
inscriptions.

Look, there's some more information
you've just revealed. Now, what does it

It looks like number 171 AP.

AP. So, possibly in reference to Harry
Prince, the collector.

Seems an awful lot of trouble for a
forger to go to, just to...

add and then conceal another bit of
information like that. Yeah, if it's a

someone's gone to a lot of trouble to
give a lot of evidence of provenance.

For this to be authentic Mondrian, we're
hoping it's going to be datable to the

first two and a half decades of the 20th
century.

Looking at the paper, can you give us
some reassurance that it might be of

date?

Well, um...

It's got a bit of shive in it, which is
little bits of vegetable matter.

I can see them catching the light, sort
of impurities.

They're impurities.

Things like bits of bark.

Wouldn't really expect those in modern
paper, but it's typical of the period.

The first two and a half decades of the
20th century.

Just so.

That's progress.

While Nicholas takes a closer look, back
in the Netherlands, just a few miles

from The Hague, in the picturesque town
of Schiedam.

Jeffrey and I have been doing some
research into the labels on the back of

picture, trying to piece together more
information about the former owners,

starting with Harry Prince, a well
-respected Dutch author, who the

suggests was the first owner of the
picture.

So this is the man, Harry Prince. Yeah.
And he lived there, in that house there.

What a beautiful house.

And was your picture, did it belong to
Harry Prince?

Did it hang in that house? Well, of
course it did.

Prince's old house is not open to the
public, but we have an appointment a

walk away.

Did Prince own Geoffrey's picture?

Unfortunately, there's no known
inventory of Prince's collection, but

the beautiful Shkidam Library, local art
historian Carlynde Young has picked out

some documents for us.

Hi. Colin Piena, nice to meet you. Nice
to meet you.

Hello. Lovely to meet you.

Here is Arai Prins with his wife Nellie.

What a mustache.

What a mustache.

We know that he was a writer.

What else can you tell us about him?
Well, he was a writer and of some

He wrote several novels and he
contributed to a number of literary

He was also the director of a candle
factory here in Schiedam.

And he really loved art and he built up
this huge art collection.

Aha.

I found this article and it describes
this art collection and it mentions

a few painters.

So Prince loved old masters. So he
collected works by Pieter Bruegel the

Younger, Rembrandt. Wow.

So what about more modern artists? He
was also interested in the

and I found this.

Artwork by the Dutch artist George
Henrik Breitner, who was a friend of

So he was a serious art collector then.
He was.

So in this article all about Harry
Prince's collection, does it mention

Geoffrey's picture here?

I'm afraid not.

Oh. But the article does say that there
are two rooms containing

a number of drawings and works on paper
by modern masters.

It names a few names, it just doesn't
mention all of them.

There is no record of Prince ever owning
a Mondrian, let alone a specific

mention of Geoffrey's picture.

And since there are no stock books or
catalogue for Prince's collection, it's

also impossible for us to find a
reference to that handwritten number

found on the back of the paper.

But has Carlin at least found a
connection between Prince and Mondrian?

There is a link to Mondrian.

Sounds promising.

And that link is Jan Toorop. Jan Toorop
was a Dutch modern artist and he was

best friends with Arai Prins.

And Jan Toorop was also very good
friends with Piet Mondrian.

Aha.

Mondrian... visited Jan Torop from 1908
every summer in Domburg, which was a

seaside town and an artist colony.

They'd paint together, they'd exhibit
together. They even founded the Moderne

Kunstkring, the Modern Art Circle.

Gosh. So, I mean, this is a great
connection, Jeff. Yes.

He's an art collector, he's an artist.

I mean, how likely is it that they met?

They would have met, don't you think?
Yes, very likely. Isn't it, Caroline,

think? I think it's possible.

I'll buy a work on paper from Andrean.
What is it? Some few guilders?

Whatever.

I love the way you just construct these
meetings and conversations in your head.

But this is how things work.

Well, we haven't got cast iron proof of
that, but I think this is very good,

though. Well, Caroline, thank you so
much.

You're welcome.

Back at London's Courtauld Institute.

Head of Conservation, Professor Aviva
Burnstock, has been forensically

Geoffrey's picture.

She's getting to grips with how it was
painted and its multiple layers.

I'm hoping she can find evidence that
shows Mondrian's hand at work.

So, I know you could, generally
speaking, call this a watercolour, but

to me riddled with complexities.

I mean, what is going on here?

Well, it is really complicated.

I think it's made of quite a few
different materials.

I think it started with a graphite
pencil, which was used to make the neck

bottle. It was kind of rubbed out a bit.
You can see that down here. But it's

also used elsewhere underneath some of
the other materials.

So you think that this flower might have
started as a simple pencil drawing?

Yes. And on top of that, there's been
watercolour. It looks like the

washes of... Lots of different colours.
And then on top of that, you've got

other thicker paint that looks like
gouache.

There's also other coloured pencils or
crayons.

And on top of that, you see reworking of
the outline using different coloured

chalks or pastels or crayons.

OK, so properly mixed media. This is a
real melange.

And a detail in the flower's head has
caught Aviva's eye.

It looks like there are two different
sorts of white here, sort of opaque

gouache white and then a more
transparent white.

But unfortunately, under the microscope,
I can't tell the difference between

different whites. I don't know what they
are.

I'll have to do some other analysis to
work that out.

And to my eye, that white is so
defining. It's such a significant part

painting. I feel if we can get closer to
understanding that, we could possibly

get closer to Mondria. OK, well, I'll
try.

While Aviva takes a look beneath the
surface, I'm focusing on the

Mondrian was very precise in his
approach and could capture things with

impressive accuracy.

The auction catalogue referred to
Geoffrey's picture as the White

But does it bear all the characteristics
of that particular flower?

I've come to New Covent Garden Market in
London to ask Darren French.

who buys and sells them every day.

Hello, Darren.

Hi, Phil.

So, I know you're a go -to man for
chrysanthemums. First off, what do you

of ours?

Well, it's quite a spectacular painting,
but I'm not completely sure it's a

chrysanthemum.

OK, so what concerns you about it, then?

Normally the chrysanthemums, the leaves
are slightly alternate and they look as

though they're...

exactly opposite can i use this as an
example as an example with a yeah

alternate and in that picture they're
completely opposite to each other and

there's more of them and they're shinier
and they're more uniform the leaf looks

more like a dahlia so is the flower head
then more like a dahlia

so there's those types of dahlia There
is those types of dahlia in the flower

head, but they're going back years. I do
remember chrysanthemum bloom, which

looks like that, but not the leaf.

Thank you, Darren. Your thoughts have
been illuminating on chrysanthemums, but

you've raised some slightly complicated
issues here.

OK, well, I do apologise for that.

To be honest, this wasn't quite what I
was expecting, and we know that Mondrian

was an exquisite draftsman. He could
brilliantly portray what was in front of

him. But there are a few anomalies here
to do with the leaves and the flower

head.

Could it be that this picture was not in
fact painted from life, but rather a

pastiche, an imagined image?

If so, that would make it harder to
argue that this is a genuine Mondrian.

With the science investigation well
underway, I'm keen to find out more

the second name that appears on the back
of Jeffrey's picture, handwritten as L

.J. Kruger, and on two labels,
Kunsthandel Kruger.

We know that Kruger was an art dealer,
and Kunsthandel was his gallery, based

The Hague.

The gallery ceased trading in 1930, but
at the RKD archives they hold the stock

books for every transaction the gallery
handled.

Jeffrey's picture should be listed
there.

I've asked the researchers at RKD to
look at Kruger's stock book, and they've

come back with their findings.

And unfortunately, they can't find any
mention of Jeffrey's picture in Kruger's

stock book.

And in fact, in all Kruger's many years
of trading, they can't find any

reference to him handling any Mondrian
pictures at all.

So it's disappointing to say the least.

that I've drawn a blank with the first
few names I've looked into.

Hopefully, I'll have better luck with
the next one.

It's worrying that the provenance trail
is proving tricky.

But back in London, I'm hoping that
Aviva's analysis might provide more

news. She's using imaging techniques to
reveal what the eye can't see.

The infrared camera can penetrate the
layers of paint to highlight carbon

materials beneath, including graphite.

It's almost as if you can see the
skeleton of the drawing now.

Yes.

And using ultraviolet light, those two
whites Aviva spotted with a microscope

are accentuated.

These purpley areas are what I think is
associated with the glossier, glass

-looking white.

And these matte areas, which look very
bright in ultraviolet light, are

associated with another kind of white.

It's properly idiosyncratic. I mean,
this feels like something that is...

begging to be analysed.

We need to be sure that all the pigments
in Geoffrey's picture, including those

two whites, could have been used by
Mondrian.

A handheld X -ray fluorescent
spectrometer can detect the elements

pigments, and the MAXRF scanner creates
maps of where those elements are

distributed.

Now Aviva can estimate the pigments used
and whether they would have been

available. During Mondrian's lifetime,
at last, it's the moment of truth.

Here are the element maps, and they're
indicative of certain pigments, and I

explain what I think is there.

First, iron, the brown, orange and
yellow washes, corresponding to earth

pigments.

Then manganese, indicating umber
pigment.

Calcium, used for Prussian blue.

and also as a gouache thickener, and
barium found in a variety of pigments.

So all things so far that you would have
expected.

Absolutely. So what about the flower
head? What about the two whites?

OK, so what you see here is the
distribution of zinc.

You can see in the flower head here,
zinc white was used.

And has zinc been used for many years?

Yeah, from all through the 19th century
and into the 20th century, so nothing

unusual about that.

Okay. However, I did find something a
little bit unusual.

Titanium.

Goodness me.

That's an extraordinary sort of
firework, isn't it, really?

Yes, well, this is unusual and a bit
surprising because titanium white was

available until the 1920s.

Titanium white was not available?

So this painting has got to have been
done early 1920s at the earliest.

That's right.

Whilst we know that Mondrian painted
flowers into the 1920s and beyond, the

stamp on the back of Geoffrey's picture
suggests it was with Harry Prenz before

he died, which was in 1922.

Mondrian would have had to paint it and
sell it to him just before that date,

and have used what would have been a
very new pigment, titanium white.

It's a narrow window, but not
impossible.

The discovery of titanium white is not
great news.

So I've come to Amsterdam City Archives
on the hunt for positive leads.

The next owner on the back of Jeffrey's
picture is Bernard Houtaker.

I'm meeting archivist Mark Ponte and
Ineke Hellingman, who worked for the

Houtaker family in the hope of proving
Houtaker did indeed own Jeffrey's

picture. Hi, nice to meet you. I'm
Fiona.

Nice to meet you. I'm Mark. Hi there.

Well, this is Bernard Houtenacker, and
he was a very important art dealer here

in Amsterdam in the early 20th century.

He had a shop here in Nieuwezijds
Voorburgwal, which is the address that

on that stamp.

Ah, I see. Nieuwezijds Voorburgwal 332,
and traded mostly in old masters'

drawings, paintings, but also old books.

And if you look closely, you see a man
looking into the window, seeing what

of art's on display.

Fantastic, looking into Bernard's
gallery.

We know that Geoffrey's picture must
have left Kruger's gallery before 1930

it closed.

Was it in Bernard Hautacker's gallery by
then?

Mark has scoured Hautacker's archives to
try and find a record of Geoffrey's

picture.

The stock books, do they show Geoffrey's
picture in Bernard's possession?

No, I checked all the stock books and no
Mondrian at all in there.

Well, he was a dealer in old masters,
and there are occasionally some modern

paintings, drawings, but I haven't seen
anything like it in the books.

Ah, another dead end. I've got one more
stamp left to investigate, a small oval

one with the initials BH.

Is this proof that Hautaker once owned
Geoffrey's picture?

Can you tell me anything about this one?

Yes, definitely.

That stamp I have here.

Oh, and that's it? And that's it.

Oh, wow.

How brilliant.

That's the stamp of his private
collection.

I see.

And were there several of these?

No, only one.

Only one.

So if this stamp means that Jeffrey's
picture was in Hautaker's personal

collection, that could explain why it's
not mentioned in his gallery's stock

book.

But we need to be sure that Hautaker
himself, or someone with the authority

do so, Use that stamp to make the mark
on Geoffrey's picture.

Could someone have come and used it
without the family's knowledge, do you

think? I don't think so, no. It was
guarded very protectively by the family.

Someone could try and copy it, I
suppose.

I don't think so. It's very, very
detailed.

And does this look a genuine stamp to
you?

I think it's genuine.

So this is good?

Yeah.

At last, a positive endorsement of one
of the stamps on Geoffrey's picture.

But what I'm really hoping for is a
mention somewhere in the archives of the

work itself.

Did Bernard Althacker have a list of his
private collection?

The only list which exists is from 1963
of the usage of Bernard.

And there's no mentioning of his
drawing.

Right. We've got a lot of work to do
still.

Back in London, I'm meeting Philip at
the gallery.

Normally, the detailed provenance and
labels would be a cause for optimism.

But this time, not so much.

So I'm afraid I'm not having much luck
with the provenance.

So, Ari Prince, the collector, can't
find any evidence that Ari Prince

owned Geoffrey's picture.

Then it went through two dealers,
Conferndal Kruger & Company and Bernard

Hautacker. Looking through their doc
book, there's no reference to Geoffrey's

picture there either.

Nothing? Nothing.

I mean, to have a complete back with all
three is concerning.

And then we're left with these two
names, Jacob de Groot and Mrs Jan de

And according to the Bonham sale
catalogue, they owned it prior to 1981.

Those are the most recent names. I mean,
presumably that's an obvious place to

go. It is.

The RKD archives in the Netherlands hold
a document with an address for Mrs.

Yandergroot, 1402 Sweetwater Drive,
Arizona.

Bingo. I thought, sure.

But neither the Phoenix City Library nor
the Arizona State Archive have any

record of that address existing or of a
Jacob or Yandergroot living in the area

at the time.

So bit by bit, you've been annihilating
this provenance.

I mean, you're meant to build it up.
You've gone into reverse.

I know, but I'm really trying.

I mean, we've got another name to go on,
because it looks like a bill of sale,

and it looks like the mysterious Mrs
Yandergrove has sold the picture to the

Sidney Janis Gallery in New York. Now,
does that ring any bells with you? It

does. Prominent gallery. Now, that must
be a route.

Well, certainly, I'm going to look into
it and see if I can finally get some

kind of result with that.

And, you know, I wish I could say I had
better news, but this painting is made

with titanium white.

You can see it boldly fluorescing here.

Now, what we know is that it wasn't
introduced until the very early 1920s.

the first part of that provenance that
we've been looking at, Harry Prince,

well, Harry Prince, he dies in 1922.

So, therefore, we've only got barely a
year's window.

for this picture to have been painted by
Mondrian, and that is squeezing the

plausibility.

I'm returning to the Netherlands for one
last throw of the dice.

We've asked experts here to analyse some
of Mondrian's flower pictures from the

Kunstmuseum Den Haag's collection in
order to identify key components of

authentic works.

We've also asked them to subject
Geoffrey's picture to the same tests.

A favourable comparison might offer a
lifeline, but any anomalies in

work could be damning.

This is the first time that Mondrian's
works on paper have been looked into

such scientific rigour.

The question, however, is will what they
discover also be found in Geoffrey's

picture?

I'm meeting Ines van der Werf and Birgit
Reisland from the Cultural Heritage

Agency of the Netherlands to discuss
their findings, starting with the paper

the underdrawings.

The originals are carried out on a
typical early 20th century drawing

We found black chalk, gouache, as well
as on one drawing also coloured crayons.

They are comparable to this picture.

Good. Well, it seems we're making some
progress. OK, let's move on to the

controversial subject of the white. Have
you found titanium in any of Mondrian's

works? As we now know, titanium white
wasn't available to artists until the

early 1920s.

Its presence in Geoffrey's picture means
it can't have been painted before then,

narrowing down the chances that Mondrian
himself painted it.

If we can show that he used titanium
white in similar genuine pictures, that

could greatly boost our case.

So in two of them there is definitely
lead white, and in others we have zinc

white. But in all these works on paper
we didn't find any titanium white.

That's disappointing.

While the technical analysis continues
in the Netherlands, back in London...

I'm taking a closer look at the more
recent provenance.

The person who offered Jeffrey's picture
for sale in 1993 claimed it had once

belonged to the de Groot family, of whom
there's no trace.

But I've come across some intriguing
paperwork held in the Dutch archives.

In a letter to a prominent Mondrian
expert, Professor Henkels, the seller

that the de Groot sold him the picture
via the Sydney Janis Gallery in New York

in 1981.

and they claim the gallery even
exhibited the picture.

Paperwork from the Sydney Janus Gallery
appears to prove it.

This all looks great.

There's one problem, though.

Having contacted the Sydney Janus
Gallery, they have no record of ever

exhibiting this picture or buying or
selling it.

None.

So what this looks like is a fake
provenance for Geoffrey's picture.

And that sounds massive alarm bells.

All the evidence at this stage is
pointing towards a rather worrying

Back in the Netherlands, Innes and
Burget have been able to add to Aviva's

analysis of the pigments using the
studio's specialised equipment.

They have an important discovery to
reveal.

In the green leaves, we found this
telocyanine pigment, which was

artist's paints, 1938 -40.

Late 30s? Yes, that's correct.

The thing is that the white here under
the leaves is on top of the green paint.

So a pigment that was not available
until the very late 30s is to be

found... In the body of this picture?

Yes.

As a result of this discovery of
phthalocyanine green, the dating band

to be Mondrian is now so much smaller,
perhaps four years at the end of his

life.

And all that provenance now is redundant
because the pigment wasn't around.

It now seems to me that we have entered
the murky realm of...

potentially deliberate forgery.

Things are looking pretty grim for
Geoffrey.

I need to update Geoffrey with this
troubling development.

This, therefore, throws serious doubt
over all the early provenance and likely

has some very troubling implications.

It's not good news.

It's not good news.

I don't know what to make of it, really.

It's very hard to figure that one out.
But I do know that he painted flowers

entire life, right into the 1940s,
actually.

So... Despite Geoffrey's determined
optimism, we now have to take seriously

possibility that the picture is a fake
Mondrian with a sophisticated forged

provenance. The picture first definitely
emerged on the market at Bonhams in

July 1993.

This was a period when several high
-profile art forgers were at work.

The jury took just five and a half hours
to convict Drew of forgery, theft and

fraud.

John Drew and his accomplice were
convicted in the mid -1990s for creating

works by famous painters.

Sean Greenhouse and his elderly parents
were convicted in 2007.

for creating hundreds of fake works over
many years.

And there were others.

During this period, the Metropolitan
Police operated a specialist unit

investigating art crime run by Dick
Ellis.

Now retired from the force, Dick has
agreed to review the file on Geoffrey's

picture and he's coming to the gallery
to reveal his findings.

Hello, Dick. Hi, Philip. Nice to see
you.

Dick, you've crossed paths many times
before.

This is Geoffrey. Geoffrey, hello.

Pleasure to meet you. So you've had the
opportunity to look at all the evidence.

What do you think?

Well, I was immediately struck by the
fact I thought I was looking at an old

friend.

In 1990 onwards, over a three -year
period, I investigated a huge art fraud.

It was coins and medals, automobilia and
art.

The perpetrator was a man called John
Fairchild.

Right. He wasn't the artist.

He had other people manufacture.

So he would come up with the concept and
he'd create this mass provenance around

the paintings or the objects, the coins.

And sometimes he would have his
daughters take him to the auction house

would use false names.

Fairchild was...

finally arrested in Los Angeles.

And we extradited him back to the UK
where he went on trial. And he pleaded

guilty to about 14, I think it was,
counts of art fraud, deception, fraud.

Right. And he received a term of
imprisonment.

And what makes you think specifically
that Geoffrey's picture is connected to

the work of Fairchild?

Well, when I saw the back of the
picture, I...

got up a slide that I have of a letter
of provenance that purported to support

another of the forgeries that were
produced, which were Hawaiian medals.

And the first thing that struck me was
the S in skidam.

The slant of it. Yes, it's sort of
teetering at an angle slightly, and yet

there's this great curve of the S. And
if you look at the S...

that appears here in this Hawaiian
consulate document that is actually a

forgery, you have exactly the same S.

And Dick has found other examples on the
back of Geoffrey's picture of letters

worryingly similar to the forged
document.

The A, the L and the M.

What about all the stamps on the back?

This is another aspect of the Fairchild
forgeries.

If I show you here, these are
illustrations of stamps that he used on

the forgeries that I saw. But if you
look at that stamp and compare it again

the dealer's stamp on the bottom left of
your picture, Geoffrey, there are,

again, similarities.

Clearly, Fairchild was capable of
creating a stamp to copy the original

one. And worryingly for Geoffrey,
Fairchild also created intricate

stamps. with a level of detail
comparable to the oval Hal Tucker stamp

back of Geoffrey's picture.

And what about, you know, Geoffrey's is
a flower picture?

I mean, is that the kind of thing that
Fairchild did?

Yes.

This is a picture of the daughter, flat,
and it was her boyfriend who was the

artist. And if you look carefully at the
back there...

What do you see?

What is that?

I think that's a bottle with three
flowers in the looks of it.

Yes. Which are not dissimilar to your
picture, Geoffrey.

Now, this isn't evidence sufficient to
convict somebody of producing a forgery,

but my conclusion is that the weight, I
believe, is coming down

towards the fact that this must be one
of the... Fatal forgeries.

Yes.

Sir Geoffrey, having heard all of this,
how do you feel?

Well, it's not a good look.

Difficult, very difficult. I can see
virtues in the painting.

I've absorbed all of this and I feel
that I'm fighting in a negative corner.

Ultimately,

it's not up to him.

standing here, it's up to the world
authority on Mondrian, Dr. Vitsakopis,

he will ultimately make the decision.

After Dick's dramatic allegations, the
fate of Geoffrey's picture is hanging in

the balance.

We've invited eminent Mondrian expert
Dr. Vitsakopis to examine the picture in

person for the first time, as well as to
review all of the material we've

gathered.

Just a few days later, His verdict has
arrived, and we're returning to

to share it with Geoffrey.

It feels like ages since we've been back
here, doesn't it? And it all started so

positively.

Well, we know that in 1993, in a major
auction house, it was fully catalogued

a work by Mondrian.

And the labels on the back should have
been so reassuring.

It's also the sort of thing that
Mondrian did. He was a flat painter as

We also couldn't find any reference to
Geoffrey's picture in any of the

archives.

Added to it, we've got those scientific
anomalies, titanium white,

phthalocyanine green, which means that
the whole early provenance is invalid.

And then, of course, the bombshell of
the fake later provenance. I mean, that

looks like active deception, a crime.

I might be going too far here, but could
it...

be a sketch by Mondrian and someone else
who's added the paint.

That could be a glimmer of hope.

It's the moment of truth. We're all
about to discover if Geoffrey's little

flower picture has been accepted as a
genuine Mondrian or not.

So, this is it, Geoffrey. I've got the
letter here from Visa.

Dare I ask how you're feeling about all
this?

Well, I believe in the painting, but I'm
stoic at the moment.

Well, let's remind ourselves then, if it
is by Mondrian, how much is it worth?

It could be worth £250 ,000.

And what if it's not?

Well, if it's not, it's just a very nice
flower.

A couple of hundred pounds at best.

Ooh.

Tough.

Right, well, let's find out. Come on.
Yeah.

It's a long letter. Oh, my goodness.

The early dismissal of the work by the
valued and highly knowledgeable Mondrian

experts, Euston and Welsh, may only have
been overturned if new research had

brought to light some indisputable
verifications of, for example, the

provenance.

Unfortunately, this has not been the
case.

Therefore, the RKD at this moment sees
no reason to add the watercolour to the

Piet Mondrian catalogue raisonne.

Oh, Jerry.

C 'est la vie.

Oh.

Yeah, that's a shame. Yeah, it's a
shame.

The letter lists a number of reasons for
the decision, including many points

we've investigated.

Bovica also notes the English spelling
of the word chrysanthemum on one of the

labels on the back, instead of the Dutch
chrysanthe, as he would have expected.

More evidence of foul play?

I should tell you as well, actually,
Geoffrey, that you remember the man that

Kellis, the police officer you met,
suggested may have done this picture?

you know, of a forgery, we've had no
response from him.

Well, that doesn't surprise me.

We asked Bonhams to comment on having
handled Geoffrey's picture as a genuine

work, and they replied with this
statement.

The painting was sold 30 years ago, and
since that time, more information about

Mondrian and his work has come to light.

The arrival of the internet,
availability of data, and access to

means that across the board, there have
been advances in researching works of

art and their provenance.

So what are you going to do with this
picture?

I'm going to eat my burger off of it.
No, just kidding.

I'll hang it up. It's a memory of a
great experience.

And I just look at it as one of the
peculiar chapters in life.

What can you do, you know?

We come across fakes in the art business
all the time, but I have to say...

how rare it is potentially to identify
the faker themselves.

Of course, only the faker will know the
truth and is unlikely to admit it.

And the trouble that they went to. I
never liked saying this about fakers

because I don't admire them.

But as fakes go, that is accomplished.

If you think you have an undiscovered
masterpiece or other precious object,

contact us at bbc .co .uk.

Fake or Fortune.

Earlier this year, we lost a much -loved
friend and colleague, Nicky Illith.

Nicky was a brilliant TV director with a
passion for art and was involved in

Fake or Fortune from the very beginning.

She will be so missed.

OK, stand by.

Keep smiling.

Action!