1 00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:05,360 At 42 million... The art world, where paintings change hands for fortune. 2 00:00:06,060 --> 00:00:07,360 Thank you very much. 3 00:00:07,600 --> 00:00:11,620 But for every known masterpiece, there may be another still waiting to be 4 00:00:11,620 --> 00:00:14,220 discovered. That is massively encouraging. 5 00:00:14,700 --> 00:00:19,340 International art dealer Philip Mould and I have teamed up to hunt for lost 6 00:00:19,340 --> 00:00:20,600 by great artists. 7 00:00:21,220 --> 00:00:26,060 We use old -fashioned detective work and state -of -the -art science to get to 8 00:00:26,060 --> 00:00:27,060 the truth. 9 00:00:27,080 --> 00:00:30,120 Science can enable us to see beyond the human eye. 10 00:00:30,340 --> 00:00:31,860 I don't believe it. 11 00:00:32,159 --> 00:00:36,800 Every case is packed with surprise and intrigue. Like a challenge. 12 00:00:37,000 --> 00:00:37,919 Who am I? 13 00:00:37,920 --> 00:00:41,100 But not every painting is quite what it seems. 14 00:00:41,500 --> 00:00:43,260 Someone has put a signature on top. 15 00:00:43,460 --> 00:00:46,920 Here. Dastardly. It's a journey that can end in joy. 16 00:00:47,200 --> 00:00:49,040 You have an original thing. 17 00:00:49,240 --> 00:00:51,820 Or bitter disappointment. 18 00:00:52,480 --> 00:00:54,020 Depressing end to the day. 19 00:00:54,240 --> 00:00:55,240 Sorry. 20 00:00:57,070 --> 00:01:02,250 This time, could the pioneer of abstract art, Piet Mondrian, have created this 21 00:01:02,250 --> 00:01:03,870 gorgeous little flower painting? 22 00:01:04,510 --> 00:01:09,230 Through his lifetime, the flower has always been an important topic for him. 23 00:01:09,510 --> 00:01:13,790 It looks the part, it's got his signature, and was once owned by several 24 00:01:13,790 --> 00:01:16,030 prominent Dutch collectors and art dealers. 25 00:01:16,230 --> 00:01:21,210 We have your picture, described as being by Piet Mondrian. Exactly. 26 00:01:21,510 --> 00:01:23,070 No ifs, no buts. Exactly. 27 00:01:23,820 --> 00:01:25,820 But all is not as it seems. 28 00:01:26,100 --> 00:01:30,740 The leaf looks more like a dahlia. The trouble is, Mondrian's work is known to 29 00:01:30,740 --> 00:01:34,640 have been faked, and his flower pictures have been a favourite of the forger's. 30 00:01:35,220 --> 00:01:38,800 I have a file here that contains a couple of dozen. 31 00:01:39,800 --> 00:01:42,140 Will scientific analysis help our case? 32 00:01:43,260 --> 00:01:47,100 Goodness me, that's an extraordinary sort of firework, isn't it, really? 33 00:01:47,420 --> 00:01:49,520 Or could there be a more sinister explanation? 34 00:01:50,280 --> 00:01:54,040 The first thing that struck me was the F in Skidam. 35 00:01:54,280 --> 00:01:58,320 As the scales tip one way, then the other, can we find out the truth? 36 00:01:59,520 --> 00:02:02,500 Did your picture hang in that house? Well, of course it did. 37 00:02:11,740 --> 00:02:15,580 In this episode, we're heading to Warwickshire in the West Midlands. We're 38 00:02:15,580 --> 00:02:17,120 the heart of Shakespeare country. 39 00:02:25,480 --> 00:02:29,600 This splendid Jacobean house is the family home of Jeffrey Kroll. 40 00:02:31,500 --> 00:02:32,500 Hi, Jeffrey. 41 00:02:32,660 --> 00:02:37,700 Hi there. Hi. Hi. Lovely to see you. He's an artist from the U .S. with 42 00:02:37,700 --> 00:02:39,760 roots here. Nice to see you. Come on in. 43 00:02:39,980 --> 00:02:44,360 Great. Jeffrey would like our help because he's inherited a mysterious 44 00:02:44,360 --> 00:02:48,980 he hopes might be the work of one of the most celebrated artists of the 20th 45 00:02:48,980 --> 00:02:51,180 century. So here's the painting. 46 00:02:51,580 --> 00:02:52,580 Aha. 47 00:02:57,440 --> 00:03:00,540 It's rather beautiful, isn't it? So delicate. 48 00:03:01,140 --> 00:03:02,140 Yeah. 49 00:03:06,860 --> 00:03:13,720 A portrayal of a single flower and, boldly signed in the 50 00:03:13,720 --> 00:03:20,220 bottom left -hand corner, P. Mondrian, that great icon of 20th -century modern 51 00:03:20,220 --> 00:03:24,420 art. I'm familiar, of course, with Mondrian's, you know, renowned works of 52 00:03:24,420 --> 00:03:25,480 geometric lines. 53 00:03:26,520 --> 00:03:28,300 But I had no idea he did flower pictures. 54 00:03:29,220 --> 00:03:33,460 So he began life as a figurative painter, painting landscapes and 55 00:03:33,740 --> 00:03:35,820 And you believe this to be by Mondrian? 56 00:03:36,380 --> 00:03:38,860 In my gut as an artist, I do. 57 00:03:40,880 --> 00:03:47,720 Born in 1872, Piet Mondrian was a Dutch painter and a pioneer of 20th -century 58 00:03:47,720 --> 00:03:48,720 abstract art. 59 00:03:49,160 --> 00:03:54,280 He's famed for his abstract geometric paintings, characterised by straight 60 00:03:54,280 --> 00:03:56,200 lines, grids and... 61 00:03:56,430 --> 00:03:57,430 primary colors. 62 00:03:57,750 --> 00:04:03,510 His bold, striking style had seeped into popular culture, inspiring fashion, 63 00:04:03,730 --> 00:04:05,750 architecture, and advertising. 64 00:04:07,050 --> 00:04:11,770 Lesser known is that Mondrian also made naturalistic works. 65 00:04:12,230 --> 00:04:16,110 Throughout his career, he created more than a hundred flower pictures. 66 00:04:16,450 --> 00:04:19,730 Could Geoffrey's picture be one of them? 67 00:04:20,370 --> 00:04:21,850 Where did you get this painting? 68 00:04:22,150 --> 00:04:24,590 I inherited it from my mother. 69 00:04:25,320 --> 00:04:31,620 who was gifted it many years ago, probably over 25 years ago, by a friend 70 00:04:31,620 --> 00:04:33,600 hers, rather eccentric friend. 71 00:04:34,500 --> 00:04:37,940 And do you know where the eccentric friend got it from then? We don't know. 72 00:04:38,500 --> 00:04:42,660 So have you done anything yourself to try and prove that this might be by 73 00:04:42,660 --> 00:04:48,370 Montreal? Yes, I have, indeed. I did some research and found that it was 74 00:04:48,370 --> 00:04:52,650 rejected by the catalogue résumé. So before your mother had it, it had been 75 00:04:52,650 --> 00:04:55,910 rejected by the catalogue résumé in the 1990s. 76 00:04:58,430 --> 00:05:04,050 The Mondrian catalogue résumé, the definitive list of works by Mondrian, 77 00:05:04,050 --> 00:05:08,510 originally compiled by two authorities, Robert Welsh and Joachim Jutten. 78 00:05:10,800 --> 00:05:15,300 Jeffrey discovered that when they published it in 1998, they decided not 79 00:05:15,300 --> 00:05:16,980 include the white chrysanthemum. 80 00:05:19,620 --> 00:05:23,740 The authors have since died, and there's now a new authority on Mondrian, Vita 81 00:05:23,740 --> 00:05:24,740 Coppice. 82 00:05:26,700 --> 00:05:30,720 I decided to photograph and send it to Dr. Vitsa Kopes. 83 00:05:30,960 --> 00:05:35,460 He wrote me a very polite letter back saying, Jeffrey, I am afraid to say that 84 00:05:35,460 --> 00:05:41,420 cannot go against the judgment of my esteemed colleagues. He just slammed the 85 00:05:41,420 --> 00:05:42,379 door shut, did he? 86 00:05:42,380 --> 00:05:47,700 No, he said, if new things come to light, I have an open mind and a 87 00:05:47,700 --> 00:05:48,559 to learn. 88 00:05:48,560 --> 00:05:52,880 And there was one footnote to that. He did say that in all the pieces submitted 89 00:05:52,880 --> 00:05:56,120 to me, yours is the only piece that sticks in my mind. 90 00:05:57,000 --> 00:06:03,200 So he shut the door, but then thrillingly, the door has now been 91 00:06:03,280 --> 00:06:05,780 ajar, hopefully to walk through. 92 00:06:06,440 --> 00:06:12,920 If this is by Mondrian, what would it be worth? If this is by Mondrian, it's a 93 00:06:12,920 --> 00:06:14,720 profoundly desirable thing. 94 00:06:15,220 --> 00:06:18,980 His more naturalistic images like this are in vogue. 95 00:06:19,320 --> 00:06:24,040 And I can see collectors being really taken by this. 96 00:06:25,430 --> 00:06:28,290 £250 ,000 up to that amount, I would say. 97 00:06:29,190 --> 00:06:30,190 Extraordinary, really. 98 00:06:30,450 --> 00:06:31,490 And if it isn't? 99 00:06:31,710 --> 00:06:36,570 Well, if it isn't, somewhere in the region of £200. 100 00:06:38,210 --> 00:06:40,330 Sorry. Had to ask. 101 00:06:40,610 --> 00:06:43,510 I know. Well, let's see if we can prove it's more than that. 102 00:06:43,890 --> 00:06:44,890 Let's hope so. 103 00:06:48,110 --> 00:06:53,570 There are several tantalising labels, inscriptions and stamps on the back. 104 00:06:53,930 --> 00:06:55,510 that will need further investigation. 105 00:06:56,330 --> 00:07:01,970 But first, I want to see whether the picture itself bears the hallmarks of a 106 00:07:01,970 --> 00:07:03,150 genuine Mondrian. 107 00:07:04,550 --> 00:07:10,830 So at first glance, this looks like a really well -executed horticultural 108 00:07:11,190 --> 00:07:16,330 But there's something else going on here, and it makes it really 109 00:07:16,690 --> 00:07:20,390 You can see just the suggestion of a vase. 110 00:07:20,810 --> 00:07:25,920 And the effect is, to give the flower, the appearance that it's hovering 111 00:07:25,920 --> 00:07:30,200 weightlessly in some type of ethereal space. 112 00:07:31,360 --> 00:07:36,640 There also seems to be a really strong character to it, as if it's almost 113 00:07:36,640 --> 00:07:38,160 expressing itself to you. 114 00:07:38,500 --> 00:07:44,200 The way those two leaves fan out, almost like arms of someone with a rather 115 00:07:44,200 --> 00:07:45,200 elaborate hat. 116 00:07:45,660 --> 00:07:49,120 And then it is signed in the bottom left -hand corner. 117 00:07:49,850 --> 00:07:54,730 So the double A was the Dutch way of spelling it, but that J is a deny. 118 00:07:55,330 --> 00:07:59,090 It's a bit strange. It's definitely something we need to return to. But 119 00:07:59,090 --> 00:08:04,970 no doubt, if this is by Mondrian, that clear signature is one of a job done. 120 00:08:05,170 --> 00:08:06,690 It's a completed picture. 121 00:08:07,110 --> 00:08:11,710 And wouldn't it be wonderful if this flower could live again as a work by 122 00:08:11,710 --> 00:08:12,710 Mondrian? 123 00:08:14,570 --> 00:08:17,730 To find out a bit more about this intriguing picture... 124 00:08:17,950 --> 00:08:19,970 I'm joining Geoffrey in his artist's studio. 125 00:08:20,650 --> 00:08:21,650 Oh, wow! 126 00:08:22,510 --> 00:08:23,510 Whoa! 127 00:08:24,510 --> 00:08:25,870 This is fantastic! 128 00:08:26,850 --> 00:08:28,030 Thank you very much. 129 00:08:28,450 --> 00:08:33,230 I want to cast my eyes over some evidence he's uncovered, dating from 130 00:08:33,230 --> 00:08:35,030 mother's friend must have owned the picture. 131 00:08:35,549 --> 00:08:37,770 What have you managed to find out? 132 00:08:37,970 --> 00:08:43,610 Well, I found that it had been sold, if I may show you, at Bonham in 1993. 133 00:08:44,470 --> 00:08:45,470 Oh, wow! 134 00:08:45,790 --> 00:08:46,790 OK. 135 00:08:47,360 --> 00:08:53,980 So Bonham's major auction house, Pitt Mondrian, White Chrysostom, 136 00:08:54,140 --> 00:08:56,180 estimate £12 ,000 to £18 ,000. 137 00:08:56,920 --> 00:09:00,840 Now it sold for £6 ,000, which is a lot less. 138 00:09:01,100 --> 00:09:04,360 Yeah. But nonetheless, this is brilliant. 139 00:09:04,660 --> 00:09:11,240 In 1993, we have your picture described as being by Pitt Mondrian. Exactly. 140 00:09:11,520 --> 00:09:13,060 No ifs, no buts. Exactly. 141 00:09:13,460 --> 00:09:18,670 If we do manage to establish it in your picture, is by Mondrian. Yes. 142 00:09:19,550 --> 00:09:20,590 What would that mean for you? 143 00:09:21,130 --> 00:09:25,290 Well, I think it will be a vindication of what I felt aesthetically about the 144 00:09:25,290 --> 00:09:28,650 painting in my gut that this is a Mondrian. 145 00:09:28,910 --> 00:09:31,710 Well, if it is by Mondrian, it's going to be a theoretically valuable picture. 146 00:09:31,890 --> 00:09:33,510 Yeah. What do you think you'll do with it? 147 00:09:33,710 --> 00:09:34,710 I'm just not sure. 148 00:09:34,850 --> 00:09:35,850 Don't want to jinx it? 149 00:09:35,870 --> 00:09:36,870 Don't want to jinx it. 150 00:09:41,260 --> 00:09:44,860 Back in London, we're regrouping in the gallery for a closer look at the 151 00:09:44,860 --> 00:09:46,660 provenance trail for Geoffrey's picture. 152 00:09:47,700 --> 00:09:51,480 So I've got here a copy of the Bonhams catalogue. We've got a list of the 153 00:09:51,480 --> 00:09:52,480 provenance here. 154 00:09:52,500 --> 00:09:55,640 Yeah, and on the face of it, a nice dense and rich provenance. 155 00:09:56,420 --> 00:10:00,100 According to the sales catalogue, the first owner was Harry Prince. 156 00:10:01,600 --> 00:10:04,500 Then it says it went to Kunsthandel Kruger. 157 00:10:05,960 --> 00:10:07,300 Then Bernard Hautacker. 158 00:10:08,040 --> 00:10:11,850 And the most recent owners listed are Jacob... And this is Jan de Groot. 159 00:10:13,310 --> 00:10:17,690 Well, what we want to do is try and compare those names. There's a wealth of 160 00:10:17,690 --> 00:10:20,490 labels and writing on the back of the picture. 161 00:10:20,730 --> 00:10:23,990 So let's start with the furthest back we can go, which is Harry Prince Skidam in 162 00:10:23,990 --> 00:10:29,870 Holland. And I'm wondering if that is AP for Harry Prince there. 163 00:10:30,270 --> 00:10:32,630 I think it is. I think that's the collector's mark. 164 00:10:33,390 --> 00:10:35,610 Then we've got Kunsthandel Kruger and Company. 165 00:10:35,870 --> 00:10:38,530 And there's lots of Kunsthandel. Look, these two labels here. 166 00:10:40,300 --> 00:10:41,920 What does that say there? 167 00:10:42,460 --> 00:10:44,660 Well, it's in Dutch, so I don't know what it says. 168 00:10:44,880 --> 00:10:47,040 I thought you were a colleague lot. 169 00:10:47,300 --> 00:10:49,320 You could read every language. Absolutely. 170 00:10:49,820 --> 00:10:50,900 Vertabling, whatever that means. 171 00:10:51,220 --> 00:10:52,220 Harry Prince. 172 00:10:52,840 --> 00:10:55,760 Then LJ, maybe? Kruger. 173 00:10:55,960 --> 00:10:57,280 Yes. Schiedam. 174 00:10:57,720 --> 00:11:00,480 And this looks like a price. So, Florence, a thousand. 175 00:11:01,600 --> 00:11:05,100 So, this looks to me like an art dealer. 176 00:11:05,680 --> 00:11:08,840 So, it's gone from a collector to a dealer. 177 00:11:09,579 --> 00:11:13,560 And then we've got this name, Bernard Houtaker, and a name here and an address 178 00:11:13,560 --> 00:11:14,479 in Amsterdam. 179 00:11:14,480 --> 00:11:15,980 So I presume that's another dealer. 180 00:11:16,280 --> 00:11:17,900 Yeah, it would seem logical, wouldn't it? 181 00:11:18,220 --> 00:11:20,440 And then this funny little stamp here in the corner. 182 00:11:20,900 --> 00:11:24,360 I wonder whether that could relate to Houtaker. Yeah. 183 00:11:24,640 --> 00:11:29,260 And then we have the most recent names in the Bonhams auction catalogue, which 184 00:11:29,260 --> 00:11:30,980 is Jakob de Groot and Mrs Jan de Groot. 185 00:11:31,200 --> 00:11:33,660 So we need to work out who they are. 186 00:11:34,540 --> 00:11:36,620 I mean, on the face of it... 187 00:11:37,000 --> 00:11:41,520 They're really rich provenance, lots of labels and intriguing sort of scribbles 188 00:11:41,520 --> 00:11:42,520 and stamps. 189 00:11:42,620 --> 00:11:46,820 And yet still, this was rejected in a letter. 190 00:11:47,540 --> 00:11:48,540 Why? 191 00:11:49,220 --> 00:11:54,240 Yes, I suppose the first thing we've got to do, as wonderful as this looks, is 192 00:11:54,240 --> 00:11:58,280 drill into all of these names and see if we can find some corroborative evidence 193 00:11:58,280 --> 00:12:02,800 that they did indeed own or the picture passed through them. 194 00:12:03,310 --> 00:12:06,310 And then the other thing we need to do is have a look at that letter that 195 00:12:06,310 --> 00:12:07,310 rejected it. 196 00:12:07,390 --> 00:12:08,850 There must have been a reason. 197 00:12:18,250 --> 00:12:23,350 I've come to The Hague, capital of the Netherlands, on the hunt for stylistic 198 00:12:23,350 --> 00:12:27,730 evidence that might help prove Geoffrey's picture is indeed authentic. 199 00:12:29,350 --> 00:12:30,350 Piet Mondrian. 200 00:12:30,670 --> 00:12:35,870 was born here in 1872 and spent the early part of his career painting the 201 00:12:35,870 --> 00:12:39,490 landscape, buildings and flowers of his homeland. 202 00:12:40,370 --> 00:12:43,350 Could Geoffrey's picture be one of those? 203 00:12:44,490 --> 00:12:50,430 I'm heading to the Kunstmuseum Den Haag. It holds the world's largest collection 204 00:12:50,430 --> 00:12:53,390 of works by Mondrian from every stage of his career. 205 00:12:54,250 --> 00:12:59,830 Despite Mondrian's evolution into abstract art, he never completely turned 206 00:12:59,830 --> 00:13:02,240 back. on one of his earliest subjects. 207 00:13:04,300 --> 00:13:10,040 It seems extraordinary in a way that one of the most famous figures to do with 208 00:13:10,040 --> 00:13:14,840 the history of abstract art should have had such a soft spot for flowers. 209 00:13:15,340 --> 00:13:17,080 And there's a lovely example here. 210 00:13:22,120 --> 00:13:25,060 Simply as a piece of drawing, I think this is marvellous. 211 00:13:25,260 --> 00:13:29,160 You feel that he's thought entirely round a flower head. 212 00:13:29,840 --> 00:13:35,240 He's looked incisively into the petals. He's describing it perfectly. 213 00:13:36,000 --> 00:13:41,840 The big question is, the brilliant scene here, is it to be found in Geoffrey's? 214 00:13:42,000 --> 00:13:45,280 This, I think, sets a very high bar. 215 00:13:50,260 --> 00:13:55,930 To look for a link between Geoffrey's picture and these genuine works, I'm 216 00:13:55,930 --> 00:14:00,010 enlisting the help of a man who's profoundly familiar with Mondrian's 217 00:14:00,010 --> 00:14:02,310 paintings. Hello, Duda. Hello, Philip. 218 00:14:02,590 --> 00:14:06,110 The Kunstmuseum's Head of Collections, Doda Hardeman. 219 00:14:06,370 --> 00:14:09,870 So, Doda, why were flowers so important to Mondrian? 220 00:14:10,110 --> 00:14:16,690 Well, they represented life, so the birth of life, and then the blossoming, 221 00:14:16,770 --> 00:14:19,050 the wilting. 222 00:14:19,760 --> 00:14:24,060 You see that, for example, in the dying sunflowers, that he depicted these 223 00:14:24,060 --> 00:14:26,820 flowers in several stages in life. 224 00:14:28,020 --> 00:14:30,460 So when did he particularly paint flowers? 225 00:14:30,900 --> 00:14:37,720 He made them throughout his life, from around 1900 until the 1930s. But most of 226 00:14:37,720 --> 00:14:41,240 them were painted and drawn around 1908. 227 00:14:42,080 --> 00:14:47,260 Around this point, Mondrian became influenced by a movement called 228 00:14:47,840 --> 00:14:53,160 which believes that everything is interconnected, and his work took on a 229 00:14:53,160 --> 00:14:54,380 spiritual dimension. 230 00:14:55,020 --> 00:14:57,760 This is a beautiful example of that. 231 00:14:58,840 --> 00:15:03,380 You really see in the background the resonance of the space around it. 232 00:15:03,640 --> 00:15:05,780 Yes, I see that. He's painted the energy. 233 00:15:08,440 --> 00:15:14,900 It's very obvious in this genuine lily, but Geoffrey's picture also has movement 234 00:15:14,900 --> 00:15:16,540 and colour in its background. 235 00:15:17,520 --> 00:15:22,200 And Jeffrey's picture has something else going for it. It's called white 236 00:15:22,200 --> 00:15:27,180 chrysanthemum, and the chrysanthemum was one of Mondrian's favorite flowers. 237 00:15:28,000 --> 00:15:34,040 The chrysanthemum was a very important flower for him, and this was a 238 00:15:34,040 --> 00:15:40,460 flower. So in a sense it was designed by man, and it was a product of modernity. 239 00:15:40,500 --> 00:15:45,540 He preferred to draw them as single flowers, not in a bouquet. 240 00:15:46,860 --> 00:15:51,940 Looking at Geoffrey's picture, you can see all these individual elements. 241 00:15:52,260 --> 00:15:56,020 A single white chrysanthemum on an energetic background. 242 00:15:56,480 --> 00:16:00,180 It fits neatly within Mondrian's oeuvre. 243 00:16:05,100 --> 00:16:08,740 Geoffrey and I have also come to the Netherlands, where we hope his picture 244 00:16:08,740 --> 00:16:09,740 started its life. 245 00:16:14,160 --> 00:16:18,020 Here in The Hague, the Netherlands Institute for Art History, known by its 246 00:16:18,020 --> 00:16:23,120 initials, the RKD, holds the largest archives in the world relating to 247 00:16:23,280 --> 00:16:28,080 including correspondence and records of the catalogue Redene writers, Robert 248 00:16:28,080 --> 00:16:29,400 Welsh and Joop Joosten. 249 00:16:30,300 --> 00:16:34,260 We're meeting the man in charge of the picture's fate, the world's current 250 00:16:34,260 --> 00:16:37,240 authority on Mondrian, Wietse Koppers. Hi, Wietse. 251 00:16:37,800 --> 00:16:38,820 Nice to meet you. 252 00:16:39,400 --> 00:16:40,400 It's a pleasure. 253 00:16:40,480 --> 00:16:41,520 Nice to meet you, Geoffrey. 254 00:16:42,410 --> 00:16:46,430 What would it take to convince Wietse to give Jeffrey's picture a second look? 255 00:16:47,590 --> 00:16:53,610 What I am missing at the moment is information on the provenance of the 256 00:16:53,670 --> 00:16:58,550 And also technical analysis can, of course, be really important if you were 257 00:16:58,550 --> 00:17:02,090 to compare this one with other works by Mondrian of flowers. 258 00:17:02,990 --> 00:17:07,290 Then, you know, maybe the same technique, the same material is found in 259 00:17:07,290 --> 00:17:09,690 works and it can be attributed. 260 00:17:10,150 --> 00:17:11,150 Which is encouraging. 261 00:17:11,589 --> 00:17:12,589 Yes. 262 00:17:13,210 --> 00:17:17,130 Wietse has offered to help us and has dug out a pile of documents from the 263 00:17:17,130 --> 00:17:20,550 archives relating to the original rejection of Jeffrey's picture. 264 00:17:21,089 --> 00:17:26,050 And this is the file, and it contains several letters of rejection, I'm 265 00:17:26,450 --> 00:17:29,670 Several? I think it's up to five, even. 266 00:17:31,350 --> 00:17:32,390 Did you know that? 267 00:17:32,650 --> 00:17:33,850 No. Wow. 268 00:17:34,190 --> 00:17:40,210 So the first one, 2008, from Joep Joosten, who co -wrote the... 269 00:17:40,520 --> 00:17:41,520 Catalogue resume. 270 00:17:41,540 --> 00:17:45,880 Indeed. As I wrote already to your colleague, this is not a work by Peter 271 00:17:45,880 --> 00:17:46,880 Mondrian. 272 00:17:47,640 --> 00:17:48,640 2006. 273 00:17:49,340 --> 00:17:52,840 Enough of your letter. I enclosed copies of a few letters I sent already. 274 00:17:53,880 --> 00:17:58,180 It appears that Geoffrey's picture was submitted to Welsh and Euston a number 275 00:17:58,180 --> 00:18:01,640 times over many years, and each time they rejected it. 276 00:18:01,900 --> 00:18:05,100 The correspondence paper trail dates back to 1992. 277 00:18:06,740 --> 00:18:08,640 It's hardly readable anymore. 278 00:18:09,180 --> 00:18:12,420 But I did manage to make a transcript of the letter. 279 00:18:13,320 --> 00:18:19,560 I have alas come to the conclusion that it is not at all likely to have been 280 00:18:19,560 --> 00:18:20,640 produced by the artist himself. 281 00:18:22,220 --> 00:18:24,180 That's pretty categorical. 282 00:18:25,300 --> 00:18:30,660 The letter goes on to make stylistic comparisons with Mondrian's known works. 283 00:18:31,180 --> 00:18:36,080 So he's basically saying it doesn't look like an early Mondrian or a late 284 00:18:36,080 --> 00:18:37,080 Mondrian. 285 00:18:37,770 --> 00:18:40,190 But that isn't the only issue the letter highlights. 286 00:18:41,110 --> 00:18:45,930 Given the high prices which the flower pieces by Piet Mondrian of any period 287 00:18:45,930 --> 00:18:50,330 currently attract, we may expect greater numbers of dubious flower pieces to 288 00:18:50,330 --> 00:18:53,930 appear on the market, whether or not possessed by honestly believing owners. 289 00:18:54,330 --> 00:18:58,090 I think what he's saying in a rather sort of highfalutin way is... It could 290 00:18:58,090 --> 00:19:00,730 fake. Are there a lot of fake flower pictures? 291 00:19:01,240 --> 00:19:06,560 I mean, I have a file here that contains a couple of dozen. You can glance 292 00:19:06,560 --> 00:19:07,600 through it if you like. 293 00:19:13,080 --> 00:19:15,460 Oh, you can see that's not Mondrian immediately. 294 00:19:18,000 --> 00:19:19,100 Oh, God, no. 295 00:19:19,760 --> 00:19:20,760 Dreadful. 296 00:19:22,600 --> 00:19:26,600 With Mondrian being widely faked, we're clearly going to have to tread 297 00:19:26,600 --> 00:19:28,920 carefully. I have to say this. 298 00:19:29,230 --> 00:19:33,550 One thing in particular worrying me about Jeffrey's picture, the signature 299 00:19:33,550 --> 00:19:35,150 the I looking like a J. 300 00:19:35,550 --> 00:19:37,950 I'm nervous to hear Wieter's assessment. 301 00:19:39,690 --> 00:19:45,630 It seems incredibly weird that somebody would misspell his own name. But there 302 00:19:45,630 --> 00:19:52,310 is one other example that shows the same, the I that has been turned into a 303 00:19:52,310 --> 00:19:55,550 almost. And that word is in the catalogue, doesn't it? 304 00:19:57,630 --> 00:20:01,690 Another misspelled signature, but fully accredited as genuine. 305 00:20:02,250 --> 00:20:04,010 How does Wiese explain that? 306 00:20:05,450 --> 00:20:10,130 Robert Wiese says in the catalogue resume, between brackets, signed later, 307 00:20:10,390 --> 00:20:11,390 question mark. 308 00:20:12,430 --> 00:20:17,690 But we don't know what that means. It is known to have been the case that he 309 00:20:17,690 --> 00:20:22,810 signed pieces later himself, but he also had a couple of friends to sign for 310 00:20:22,810 --> 00:20:28,460 him. It usually referred to pieces he had done before leaving for Paris that 311 00:20:28,460 --> 00:20:33,580 were left unsigned. And of course, somebody after Mondrian became a bit 312 00:20:33,580 --> 00:20:36,500 famous, they wanted to have the signature on their work. 313 00:20:36,720 --> 00:20:38,140 You've got to love the guy. 314 00:20:39,400 --> 00:20:41,800 Might that explain why this is spelled wrong then? 315 00:20:42,260 --> 00:20:43,600 Could be an explanation. 316 00:20:44,640 --> 00:20:51,320 So it sounds like you've got a reasonably open mind at this stage and 317 00:20:51,320 --> 00:20:52,320 some work to do. 318 00:20:52,590 --> 00:20:53,590 Sounds like it. 319 00:20:57,630 --> 00:21:02,830 While Fiona and Geoffrey look into the painting's history, back in London, I'm 320 00:21:02,830 --> 00:21:07,450 heading to the Courtauld Institute, renowned across the world as the centre 321 00:21:07,450 --> 00:21:10,190 excellence for the scientific study of art. 322 00:21:11,370 --> 00:21:16,730 We've arranged for paper specialist Dr Nicholas Burnett to carry out a forensic 323 00:21:16,730 --> 00:21:18,870 analysis of Geoffrey's picture. 324 00:21:19,390 --> 00:21:20,410 He's starting. 325 00:21:20,810 --> 00:21:22,510 by removing the perspex backing. 326 00:21:25,030 --> 00:21:26,030 Hello Nicholas. 327 00:21:26,050 --> 00:21:26,849 Hi Philip. 328 00:21:26,850 --> 00:21:28,830 So what are your first impressions? 329 00:21:29,190 --> 00:21:33,010 Well, there's plenty of potential provenance to get your teeth into. 330 00:21:33,530 --> 00:21:36,210 But see though, what we've got. 331 00:21:38,150 --> 00:21:39,830 Now we see the whole sheet. 332 00:21:42,870 --> 00:21:46,350 The back of the picture is covered with more plastic. 333 00:21:46,930 --> 00:21:48,290 We need to remove it. 334 00:21:48,600 --> 00:21:51,580 to get a better look at those stamps and inscriptions. 335 00:21:53,360 --> 00:21:57,720 Look, there's some more information you've just revealed. Now, what does it 336 00:21:58,280 --> 00:22:02,080 It looks like number 171 AP. 337 00:22:03,420 --> 00:22:08,260 AP. So, possibly in reference to Harry Prince, the collector. 338 00:22:08,920 --> 00:22:12,760 Seems an awful lot of trouble for a forger to go to, just to... 339 00:22:13,160 --> 00:22:17,840 add and then conceal another bit of information like that. Yeah, if it's a 340 00:22:17,920 --> 00:22:21,140 someone's gone to a lot of trouble to give a lot of evidence of provenance. 341 00:22:23,140 --> 00:22:28,840 For this to be authentic Mondrian, we're hoping it's going to be datable to the 342 00:22:28,840 --> 00:22:31,140 first two and a half decades of the 20th century. 343 00:22:31,400 --> 00:22:34,680 Looking at the paper, can you give us some reassurance that it might be of 344 00:22:34,680 --> 00:22:35,680 date? 345 00:22:35,920 --> 00:22:37,140 Well, um... 346 00:22:37,400 --> 00:22:41,580 It's got a bit of shive in it, which is little bits of vegetable matter. 347 00:22:41,960 --> 00:22:44,180 I can see them catching the light, sort of impurities. 348 00:22:44,580 --> 00:22:45,580 They're impurities. 349 00:22:45,700 --> 00:22:47,460 Things like bits of bark. 350 00:22:48,060 --> 00:22:53,260 Wouldn't really expect those in modern paper, but it's typical of the period. 351 00:22:53,500 --> 00:22:55,260 The first two and a half decades of the 20th century. 352 00:22:55,540 --> 00:22:56,339 Just so. 353 00:22:56,340 --> 00:22:57,340 That's progress. 354 00:22:58,500 --> 00:23:02,560 While Nicholas takes a closer look, back in the Netherlands, just a few miles 355 00:23:02,560 --> 00:23:05,280 from The Hague, in the picturesque town of Schiedam. 356 00:23:05,790 --> 00:23:09,230 Jeffrey and I have been doing some research into the labels on the back of 357 00:23:09,230 --> 00:23:13,190 picture, trying to piece together more information about the former owners, 358 00:23:13,430 --> 00:23:18,570 starting with Harry Prince, a well -respected Dutch author, who the 359 00:23:18,570 --> 00:23:21,110 suggests was the first owner of the picture. 360 00:23:23,450 --> 00:23:28,770 So this is the man, Harry Prince. Yeah. And he lived there, in that house there. 361 00:23:29,150 --> 00:23:30,550 What a beautiful house. 362 00:23:31,270 --> 00:23:34,530 And was your picture, did it belong to Harry Prince? 363 00:23:34,940 --> 00:23:37,000 Did it hang in that house? Well, of course it did. 364 00:23:38,960 --> 00:23:43,260 Prince's old house is not open to the public, but we have an appointment a 365 00:23:43,260 --> 00:23:44,260 walk away. 366 00:23:44,640 --> 00:23:46,880 Did Prince own Geoffrey's picture? 367 00:23:47,740 --> 00:23:52,020 Unfortunately, there's no known inventory of Prince's collection, but 368 00:23:52,020 --> 00:23:56,760 the beautiful Shkidam Library, local art historian Carlynde Young has picked out 369 00:23:56,760 --> 00:23:57,820 some documents for us. 370 00:24:00,040 --> 00:24:03,290 Hi. Colin Piena, nice to meet you. Nice to meet you. 371 00:24:03,510 --> 00:24:05,010 Hello. Lovely to meet you. 372 00:24:06,930 --> 00:24:10,490 Here is Arai Prins with his wife Nellie. 373 00:24:10,690 --> 00:24:11,690 What a mustache. 374 00:24:12,010 --> 00:24:13,010 What a mustache. 375 00:24:14,010 --> 00:24:15,490 We know that he was a writer. 376 00:24:16,330 --> 00:24:20,090 What else can you tell us about him? Well, he was a writer and of some 377 00:24:20,310 --> 00:24:25,730 He wrote several novels and he contributed to a number of literary 378 00:24:26,090 --> 00:24:29,870 He was also the director of a candle factory here in Schiedam. 379 00:24:30,360 --> 00:24:35,200 And he really loved art and he built up this huge art collection. 380 00:24:35,560 --> 00:24:36,560 Aha. 381 00:24:36,940 --> 00:24:42,380 I found this article and it describes this art collection and it mentions 382 00:24:42,380 --> 00:24:43,380 a few painters. 383 00:24:43,740 --> 00:24:49,440 So Prince loved old masters. So he collected works by Pieter Bruegel the 384 00:24:49,440 --> 00:24:51,840 Younger, Rembrandt. Wow. 385 00:24:52,300 --> 00:24:58,320 So what about more modern artists? He was also interested in the 386 00:24:58,320 --> 00:24:59,560 and I found this. 387 00:25:00,170 --> 00:25:05,790 Artwork by the Dutch artist George Henrik Breitner, who was a friend of 388 00:25:06,130 --> 00:25:08,110 So he was a serious art collector then. He was. 389 00:25:08,510 --> 00:25:13,950 So in this article all about Harry Prince's collection, does it mention 390 00:25:13,950 --> 00:25:15,450 Geoffrey's picture here? 391 00:25:15,950 --> 00:25:17,190 I'm afraid not. 392 00:25:17,530 --> 00:25:23,930 Oh. But the article does say that there are two rooms containing 393 00:25:23,930 --> 00:25:28,570 a number of drawings and works on paper by modern masters. 394 00:25:29,210 --> 00:25:33,210 It names a few names, it just doesn't mention all of them. 395 00:25:35,090 --> 00:25:40,010 There is no record of Prince ever owning a Mondrian, let alone a specific 396 00:25:40,010 --> 00:25:41,510 mention of Geoffrey's picture. 397 00:25:42,070 --> 00:25:46,090 And since there are no stock books or catalogue for Prince's collection, it's 398 00:25:46,090 --> 00:25:49,690 also impossible for us to find a reference to that handwritten number 399 00:25:49,690 --> 00:25:51,290 found on the back of the paper. 400 00:25:53,010 --> 00:25:57,050 But has Carlin at least found a connection between Prince and Mondrian? 401 00:25:58,540 --> 00:26:00,300 There is a link to Mondrian. 402 00:26:01,060 --> 00:26:02,120 Sounds promising. 403 00:26:03,000 --> 00:26:09,420 And that link is Jan Toorop. Jan Toorop was a Dutch modern artist and he was 404 00:26:09,420 --> 00:26:11,600 best friends with Arai Prins. 405 00:26:13,960 --> 00:26:19,880 And Jan Toorop was also very good friends with Piet Mondrian. 406 00:26:20,180 --> 00:26:21,180 Aha. 407 00:26:22,820 --> 00:26:28,980 Mondrian... visited Jan Torop from 1908 every summer in Domburg, which was a 408 00:26:28,980 --> 00:26:30,860 seaside town and an artist colony. 409 00:26:31,720 --> 00:26:36,220 They'd paint together, they'd exhibit together. They even founded the Moderne 410 00:26:36,220 --> 00:26:37,920 Kunstkring, the Modern Art Circle. 411 00:26:38,480 --> 00:26:43,120 Gosh. So, I mean, this is a great connection, Jeff. Yes. 412 00:26:44,400 --> 00:26:46,580 He's an art collector, he's an artist. 413 00:26:46,940 --> 00:26:48,740 I mean, how likely is it that they met? 414 00:26:49,020 --> 00:26:52,660 They would have met, don't you think? Yes, very likely. Isn't it, Caroline, 415 00:26:52,660 --> 00:26:54,010 think? I think it's possible. 416 00:26:54,350 --> 00:26:59,030 I'll buy a work on paper from Andrean. What is it? Some few guilders? 417 00:26:59,330 --> 00:27:00,330 Whatever. 418 00:27:01,630 --> 00:27:05,670 I love the way you just construct these meetings and conversations in your head. 419 00:27:05,730 --> 00:27:07,590 But this is how things work. 420 00:27:07,990 --> 00:27:11,730 Well, we haven't got cast iron proof of that, but I think this is very good, 421 00:27:11,790 --> 00:27:14,050 though. Well, Caroline, thank you so much. 422 00:27:14,290 --> 00:27:15,290 You're welcome. 423 00:27:18,450 --> 00:27:20,310 Back at London's Courtauld Institute. 424 00:27:20,920 --> 00:27:25,560 Head of Conservation, Professor Aviva Burnstock, has been forensically 425 00:27:25,560 --> 00:27:26,600 Geoffrey's picture. 426 00:27:27,560 --> 00:27:32,200 She's getting to grips with how it was painted and its multiple layers. 427 00:27:33,220 --> 00:27:38,120 I'm hoping she can find evidence that shows Mondrian's hand at work. 428 00:27:40,400 --> 00:27:44,560 So, I know you could, generally speaking, call this a watercolour, but 429 00:27:44,560 --> 00:27:46,340 to me riddled with complexities. 430 00:27:46,800 --> 00:27:48,800 I mean, what is going on here? 431 00:27:49,260 --> 00:27:50,280 Well, it is really complicated. 432 00:27:50,520 --> 00:27:52,720 I think it's made of quite a few different materials. 433 00:27:53,260 --> 00:27:58,660 I think it started with a graphite pencil, which was used to make the neck 434 00:27:58,660 --> 00:28:02,180 bottle. It was kind of rubbed out a bit. You can see that down here. But it's 435 00:28:02,180 --> 00:28:05,180 also used elsewhere underneath some of the other materials. 436 00:28:06,240 --> 00:28:09,860 So you think that this flower might have started as a simple pencil drawing? 437 00:28:10,120 --> 00:28:14,040 Yes. And on top of that, there's been watercolour. It looks like the 438 00:28:14,040 --> 00:28:18,900 washes of... Lots of different colours. And then on top of that, you've got 439 00:28:18,900 --> 00:28:21,600 other thicker paint that looks like gouache. 440 00:28:21,920 --> 00:28:25,500 There's also other coloured pencils or crayons. 441 00:28:25,760 --> 00:28:30,760 And on top of that, you see reworking of the outline using different coloured 442 00:28:30,760 --> 00:28:33,320 chalks or pastels or crayons. 443 00:28:33,560 --> 00:28:37,780 OK, so properly mixed media. This is a real melange. 444 00:28:38,300 --> 00:28:41,980 And a detail in the flower's head has caught Aviva's eye. 445 00:28:42,510 --> 00:28:45,210 It looks like there are two different sorts of white here, sort of opaque 446 00:28:45,210 --> 00:28:48,130 gouache white and then a more transparent white. 447 00:28:48,590 --> 00:28:51,870 But unfortunately, under the microscope, I can't tell the difference between 448 00:28:51,870 --> 00:28:53,350 different whites. I don't know what they are. 449 00:28:53,850 --> 00:28:56,350 I'll have to do some other analysis to work that out. 450 00:28:56,630 --> 00:29:01,510 And to my eye, that white is so defining. It's such a significant part 451 00:29:01,510 --> 00:29:06,050 painting. I feel if we can get closer to understanding that, we could possibly 452 00:29:06,050 --> 00:29:08,190 get closer to Mondria. OK, well, I'll try. 453 00:29:09,520 --> 00:29:14,200 While Aviva takes a look beneath the surface, I'm focusing on the 454 00:29:15,160 --> 00:29:19,320 Mondrian was very precise in his approach and could capture things with 455 00:29:19,320 --> 00:29:20,420 impressive accuracy. 456 00:29:21,800 --> 00:29:26,360 The auction catalogue referred to Geoffrey's picture as the White 457 00:29:26,740 --> 00:29:31,020 But does it bear all the characteristics of that particular flower? 458 00:29:31,740 --> 00:29:36,160 I've come to New Covent Garden Market in London to ask Darren French. 459 00:29:36,720 --> 00:29:38,940 who buys and sells them every day. 460 00:29:41,320 --> 00:29:42,320 Hello, Darren. 461 00:29:42,360 --> 00:29:43,360 Hi, Phil. 462 00:29:43,740 --> 00:29:48,280 So, I know you're a go -to man for chrysanthemums. First off, what do you 463 00:29:48,280 --> 00:29:49,280 of ours? 464 00:29:49,500 --> 00:29:54,440 Well, it's quite a spectacular painting, but I'm not completely sure it's a 465 00:29:54,440 --> 00:29:55,440 chrysanthemum. 466 00:29:55,860 --> 00:30:00,520 OK, so what concerns you about it, then? 467 00:30:00,900 --> 00:30:04,740 Normally the chrysanthemums, the leaves are slightly alternate and they look as 468 00:30:04,740 --> 00:30:05,719 though they're... 469 00:30:05,720 --> 00:30:11,800 exactly opposite can i use this as an example as an example with a yeah 470 00:30:11,800 --> 00:30:17,200 alternate and in that picture they're completely opposite to each other and 471 00:30:17,200 --> 00:30:22,280 there's more of them and they're shinier and they're more uniform the leaf looks 472 00:30:22,280 --> 00:30:28,700 more like a dahlia so is the flower head then more like a dahlia 473 00:30:28,700 --> 00:30:33,780 so there's those types of dahlia There is those types of dahlia in the flower 474 00:30:33,780 --> 00:30:38,240 head, but they're going back years. I do remember chrysanthemum bloom, which 475 00:30:38,240 --> 00:30:40,180 looks like that, but not the leaf. 476 00:30:42,400 --> 00:30:46,140 Thank you, Darren. Your thoughts have been illuminating on chrysanthemums, but 477 00:30:46,140 --> 00:30:49,160 you've raised some slightly complicated issues here. 478 00:30:49,480 --> 00:30:52,100 OK, well, I do apologise for that. 479 00:30:56,400 --> 00:31:00,540 To be honest, this wasn't quite what I was expecting, and we know that Mondrian 480 00:31:00,540 --> 00:31:05,640 was an exquisite draftsman. He could brilliantly portray what was in front of 481 00:31:05,640 --> 00:31:10,420 him. But there are a few anomalies here to do with the leaves and the flower 482 00:31:10,420 --> 00:31:11,420 head. 483 00:31:12,000 --> 00:31:17,420 Could it be that this picture was not in fact painted from life, but rather a 484 00:31:17,420 --> 00:31:19,600 pastiche, an imagined image? 485 00:31:20,080 --> 00:31:25,280 If so, that would make it harder to argue that this is a genuine Mondrian. 486 00:31:26,350 --> 00:31:30,450 With the science investigation well underway, I'm keen to find out more 487 00:31:30,450 --> 00:31:34,710 the second name that appears on the back of Jeffrey's picture, handwritten as L 488 00:31:34,710 --> 00:31:39,010 .J. Kruger, and on two labels, Kunsthandel Kruger. 489 00:31:40,790 --> 00:31:45,290 We know that Kruger was an art dealer, and Kunsthandel was his gallery, based 490 00:31:45,290 --> 00:31:46,290 The Hague. 491 00:31:46,650 --> 00:31:52,050 The gallery ceased trading in 1930, but at the RKD archives they hold the stock 492 00:31:52,050 --> 00:31:54,530 books for every transaction the gallery handled. 493 00:31:56,180 --> 00:31:58,420 Jeffrey's picture should be listed there. 494 00:32:00,700 --> 00:32:05,100 I've asked the researchers at RKD to look at Kruger's stock book, and they've 495 00:32:05,100 --> 00:32:06,100 come back with their findings. 496 00:32:06,380 --> 00:32:11,640 And unfortunately, they can't find any mention of Jeffrey's picture in Kruger's 497 00:32:11,640 --> 00:32:12,559 stock book. 498 00:32:12,560 --> 00:32:16,500 And in fact, in all Kruger's many years of trading, they can't find any 499 00:32:16,500 --> 00:32:20,120 reference to him handling any Mondrian pictures at all. 500 00:32:21,080 --> 00:32:23,660 So it's disappointing to say the least. 501 00:32:23,960 --> 00:32:26,280 that I've drawn a blank with the first few names I've looked into. 502 00:32:27,080 --> 00:32:29,420 Hopefully, I'll have better luck with the next one. 503 00:32:31,980 --> 00:32:35,460 It's worrying that the provenance trail is proving tricky. 504 00:32:35,740 --> 00:32:40,300 But back in London, I'm hoping that Aviva's analysis might provide more 505 00:32:40,300 --> 00:32:45,260 news. She's using imaging techniques to reveal what the eye can't see. 506 00:32:45,780 --> 00:32:50,340 The infrared camera can penetrate the layers of paint to highlight carbon 507 00:32:50,340 --> 00:32:53,260 materials beneath, including graphite. 508 00:32:54,090 --> 00:32:57,210 It's almost as if you can see the skeleton of the drawing now. 509 00:32:57,490 --> 00:32:58,490 Yes. 510 00:32:58,670 --> 00:33:04,250 And using ultraviolet light, those two whites Aviva spotted with a microscope 511 00:33:04,250 --> 00:33:05,830 are accentuated. 512 00:33:06,590 --> 00:33:11,890 These purpley areas are what I think is associated with the glossier, glass 513 00:33:11,890 --> 00:33:12,890 -looking white. 514 00:33:13,030 --> 00:33:17,850 And these matte areas, which look very bright in ultraviolet light, are 515 00:33:17,850 --> 00:33:19,590 associated with another kind of white. 516 00:33:19,850 --> 00:33:23,370 It's properly idiosyncratic. I mean, this feels like something that is... 517 00:33:23,660 --> 00:33:25,180 begging to be analysed. 518 00:33:25,660 --> 00:33:30,420 We need to be sure that all the pigments in Geoffrey's picture, including those 519 00:33:30,420 --> 00:33:32,900 two whites, could have been used by Mondrian. 520 00:33:33,360 --> 00:33:39,120 A handheld X -ray fluorescent spectrometer can detect the elements 521 00:33:39,120 --> 00:33:45,180 pigments, and the MAXRF scanner creates maps of where those elements are 522 00:33:45,180 --> 00:33:46,180 distributed. 523 00:33:46,540 --> 00:33:51,120 Now Aviva can estimate the pigments used and whether they would have been 524 00:33:51,120 --> 00:33:57,540 available. During Mondrian's lifetime, at last, it's the moment of truth. 525 00:34:00,440 --> 00:34:04,540 Here are the element maps, and they're indicative of certain pigments, and I 526 00:34:04,540 --> 00:34:05,900 explain what I think is there. 527 00:34:07,520 --> 00:34:12,760 First, iron, the brown, orange and yellow washes, corresponding to earth 528 00:34:12,760 --> 00:34:13,760 pigments. 529 00:34:14,340 --> 00:34:17,580 Then manganese, indicating umber pigment. 530 00:34:19,100 --> 00:34:20,940 Calcium, used for Prussian blue. 531 00:34:21,480 --> 00:34:27,719 and also as a gouache thickener, and barium found in a variety of pigments. 532 00:34:28,980 --> 00:34:31,840 So all things so far that you would have expected. 533 00:34:32,120 --> 00:34:35,460 Absolutely. So what about the flower head? What about the two whites? 534 00:34:35,940 --> 00:34:38,300 OK, so what you see here is the distribution of zinc. 535 00:34:39,280 --> 00:34:42,679 You can see in the flower head here, zinc white was used. 536 00:34:43,060 --> 00:34:45,219 And has zinc been used for many years? 537 00:34:45,520 --> 00:34:49,340 Yeah, from all through the 19th century and into the 20th century, so nothing 538 00:34:49,340 --> 00:34:50,620 unusual about that. 539 00:34:51,050 --> 00:34:53,530 Okay. However, I did find something a little bit unusual. 540 00:34:55,290 --> 00:34:56,290 Titanium. 541 00:34:58,950 --> 00:34:59,950 Goodness me. 542 00:35:00,210 --> 00:35:03,210 That's an extraordinary sort of firework, isn't it, really? 543 00:35:03,690 --> 00:35:09,550 Yes, well, this is unusual and a bit surprising because titanium white was 544 00:35:09,550 --> 00:35:11,750 available until the 1920s. 545 00:35:12,050 --> 00:35:13,670 Titanium white was not available? 546 00:35:14,150 --> 00:35:19,030 So this painting has got to have been done early 1920s at the earliest. 547 00:35:19,330 --> 00:35:20,330 That's right. 548 00:35:20,400 --> 00:35:25,080 Whilst we know that Mondrian painted flowers into the 1920s and beyond, the 549 00:35:25,080 --> 00:35:29,900 stamp on the back of Geoffrey's picture suggests it was with Harry Prenz before 550 00:35:29,900 --> 00:35:32,400 he died, which was in 1922. 551 00:35:33,280 --> 00:35:37,860 Mondrian would have had to paint it and sell it to him just before that date, 552 00:35:37,980 --> 00:35:42,460 and have used what would have been a very new pigment, titanium white. 553 00:35:43,320 --> 00:35:46,020 It's a narrow window, but not impossible. 554 00:35:51,470 --> 00:35:54,430 The discovery of titanium white is not great news. 555 00:35:54,970 --> 00:35:59,210 So I've come to Amsterdam City Archives on the hunt for positive leads. 556 00:36:01,070 --> 00:36:04,870 The next owner on the back of Jeffrey's picture is Bernard Houtaker. 557 00:36:07,090 --> 00:36:11,630 I'm meeting archivist Mark Ponte and Ineke Hellingman, who worked for the 558 00:36:11,630 --> 00:36:16,110 Houtaker family in the hope of proving Houtaker did indeed own Jeffrey's 559 00:36:16,110 --> 00:36:18,450 picture. Hi, nice to meet you. I'm Fiona. 560 00:36:18,650 --> 00:36:19,970 Nice to meet you. I'm Mark. Hi there. 561 00:36:22,510 --> 00:36:27,530 Well, this is Bernard Houtenacker, and he was a very important art dealer here 562 00:36:27,530 --> 00:36:29,410 in Amsterdam in the early 20th century. 563 00:36:29,890 --> 00:36:34,910 He had a shop here in Nieuwezijds Voorburgwal, which is the address that 564 00:36:34,910 --> 00:36:35,970 on that stamp. 565 00:36:36,230 --> 00:36:42,350 Ah, I see. Nieuwezijds Voorburgwal 332, and traded mostly in old masters' 566 00:36:42,490 --> 00:36:44,910 drawings, paintings, but also old books. 567 00:36:45,290 --> 00:36:50,150 And if you look closely, you see a man looking into the window, seeing what 568 00:36:50,150 --> 00:36:51,150 of art's on display. 569 00:36:51,690 --> 00:36:53,770 Fantastic, looking into Bernard's gallery. 570 00:36:54,790 --> 00:36:59,810 We know that Geoffrey's picture must have left Kruger's gallery before 1930 571 00:36:59,810 --> 00:37:00,810 it closed. 572 00:37:00,910 --> 00:37:03,870 Was it in Bernard Hautacker's gallery by then? 573 00:37:04,830 --> 00:37:08,850 Mark has scoured Hautacker's archives to try and find a record of Geoffrey's 574 00:37:08,850 --> 00:37:09,850 picture. 575 00:37:10,850 --> 00:37:15,870 The stock books, do they show Geoffrey's picture in Bernard's possession? 576 00:37:16,350 --> 00:37:20,650 No, I checked all the stock books and no Mondrian at all in there. 577 00:37:21,050 --> 00:37:26,570 Well, he was a dealer in old masters, and there are occasionally some modern 578 00:37:26,570 --> 00:37:30,190 paintings, drawings, but I haven't seen anything like it in the books. 579 00:37:30,410 --> 00:37:37,030 Ah, another dead end. I've got one more stamp left to investigate, a small oval 580 00:37:37,030 --> 00:37:38,490 one with the initials BH. 581 00:37:39,250 --> 00:37:42,630 Is this proof that Hautaker once owned Geoffrey's picture? 582 00:37:43,170 --> 00:37:44,810 Can you tell me anything about this one? 583 00:37:45,370 --> 00:37:46,390 Yes, definitely. 584 00:37:47,110 --> 00:37:49,450 That stamp I have here. 585 00:37:50,440 --> 00:37:51,880 Oh, and that's it? And that's it. 586 00:37:53,320 --> 00:37:54,320 Oh, wow. 587 00:37:54,940 --> 00:37:56,140 How brilliant. 588 00:37:57,620 --> 00:37:59,560 That's the stamp of his private collection. 589 00:38:00,060 --> 00:38:01,060 I see. 590 00:38:01,440 --> 00:38:02,840 And were there several of these? 591 00:38:03,080 --> 00:38:04,360 No, only one. 592 00:38:04,740 --> 00:38:05,740 Only one. 593 00:38:06,300 --> 00:38:10,200 So if this stamp means that Jeffrey's picture was in Hautaker's personal 594 00:38:10,200 --> 00:38:14,000 collection, that could explain why it's not mentioned in his gallery's stock 595 00:38:14,000 --> 00:38:14,959 book. 596 00:38:14,960 --> 00:38:19,240 But we need to be sure that Hautaker himself, or someone with the authority 597 00:38:19,240 --> 00:38:22,610 do so, Use that stamp to make the mark on Geoffrey's picture. 598 00:38:24,750 --> 00:38:28,870 Could someone have come and used it without the family's knowledge, do you 599 00:38:28,870 --> 00:38:32,870 think? I don't think so, no. It was guarded very protectively by the family. 600 00:38:33,430 --> 00:38:35,410 Someone could try and copy it, I suppose. 601 00:38:36,110 --> 00:38:39,410 I don't think so. It's very, very detailed. 602 00:38:40,350 --> 00:38:42,730 And does this look a genuine stamp to you? 603 00:38:44,670 --> 00:38:45,930 I think it's genuine. 604 00:38:46,350 --> 00:38:47,350 So this is good? 605 00:38:47,590 --> 00:38:48,590 Yeah. 606 00:38:49,360 --> 00:38:53,920 At last, a positive endorsement of one of the stamps on Geoffrey's picture. 607 00:38:54,320 --> 00:38:59,040 But what I'm really hoping for is a mention somewhere in the archives of the 608 00:38:59,040 --> 00:39:00,040 work itself. 609 00:39:02,080 --> 00:39:05,840 Did Bernard Althacker have a list of his private collection? 610 00:39:06,700 --> 00:39:12,740 The only list which exists is from 1963 of the usage of Bernard. 611 00:39:13,000 --> 00:39:15,660 And there's no mentioning of his drawing. 612 00:39:16,020 --> 00:39:18,720 Right. We've got a lot of work to do still. 613 00:39:23,050 --> 00:39:25,610 Back in London, I'm meeting Philip at the gallery. 614 00:39:26,670 --> 00:39:30,550 Normally, the detailed provenance and labels would be a cause for optimism. 615 00:39:31,230 --> 00:39:33,910 But this time, not so much. 616 00:39:35,630 --> 00:39:37,870 So I'm afraid I'm not having much luck with the provenance. 617 00:39:38,530 --> 00:39:43,830 So, Ari Prince, the collector, can't find any evidence that Ari Prince 618 00:39:43,830 --> 00:39:45,030 owned Geoffrey's picture. 619 00:39:45,810 --> 00:39:50,250 Then it went through two dealers, Conferndal Kruger and Company and Bernard 620 00:39:50,250 --> 00:39:54,880 Hautacker. Looking through their doc book, there's no reference to Geoffrey's 621 00:39:54,880 --> 00:39:55,880 picture there either. 622 00:39:56,600 --> 00:39:57,900 Nothing? Nothing. 623 00:39:58,740 --> 00:40:01,940 I mean, to have a complete back with all three is concerning. 624 00:40:02,380 --> 00:40:06,400 And then we're left with these two names, Jacob de Groot and Mrs Jan de 625 00:40:06,400 --> 00:40:09,600 And according to the Bonham sale catalogue, they owned it prior to 1981. 626 00:40:10,060 --> 00:40:13,660 Those are the most recent names. I mean, presumably that's an obvious place to 627 00:40:13,660 --> 00:40:14,660 go. It is. 628 00:40:15,070 --> 00:40:19,190 The RKD archives in the Netherlands hold a document with an address for Mrs. 629 00:40:19,290 --> 00:40:23,550 Yandergroot, 1402 Sweetwater Drive, Arizona. 630 00:40:24,070 --> 00:40:25,630 Bingo. I thought, sure. 631 00:40:25,970 --> 00:40:31,710 But neither the Phoenix City Library nor the Arizona State Archive have any 632 00:40:31,710 --> 00:40:37,730 record of that address existing or of a Jacob or Yandergroot living in the area 633 00:40:37,730 --> 00:40:38,730 at the time. 634 00:40:39,750 --> 00:40:43,510 So bit by bit, you've been annihilating this provenance. 635 00:40:44,000 --> 00:40:47,000 I mean, you're meant to build it up. You've gone into reverse. 636 00:40:47,540 --> 00:40:49,720 I know, but I'm really trying. 637 00:40:49,960 --> 00:40:54,340 I mean, we've got another name to go on, because it looks like a bill of sale, 638 00:40:54,400 --> 00:41:00,140 and it looks like the mysterious Mrs Yandergrove has sold the picture to the 639 00:41:00,140 --> 00:41:03,820 Sidney Janis Gallery in New York. Now, does that ring any bells with you? It 640 00:41:03,820 --> 00:41:06,320 does. Prominent gallery. Now, that must be a route. 641 00:41:06,980 --> 00:41:10,540 Well, certainly, I'm going to look into it and see if I can finally get some 642 00:41:10,540 --> 00:41:11,540 kind of result with that. 643 00:41:12,360 --> 00:41:16,220 And, you know, I wish I could say I had better news, but this painting is made 644 00:41:16,220 --> 00:41:18,280 with titanium white. 645 00:41:18,580 --> 00:41:21,300 You can see it boldly fluorescing here. 646 00:41:21,840 --> 00:41:28,180 Now, what we know is that it wasn't introduced until the very early 1920s. 647 00:41:28,260 --> 00:41:31,680 the first part of that provenance that we've been looking at, Harry Prince, 648 00:41:31,940 --> 00:41:34,440 well, Harry Prince, he dies in 1922. 649 00:41:34,660 --> 00:41:37,920 So, therefore, we've only got barely a year's window. 650 00:41:38,480 --> 00:41:42,540 for this picture to have been painted by Mondrian, and that is squeezing the 651 00:41:42,540 --> 00:41:43,540 plausibility. 652 00:41:45,620 --> 00:41:49,900 I'm returning to the Netherlands for one last throw of the dice. 653 00:41:50,180 --> 00:41:55,160 We've asked experts here to analyse some of Mondrian's flower pictures from the 654 00:41:55,160 --> 00:42:00,120 Kunstmuseum Den Haag's collection in order to identify key components of 655 00:42:00,120 --> 00:42:01,120 authentic works. 656 00:42:01,440 --> 00:42:06,080 We've also asked them to subject Geoffrey's picture to the same tests. 657 00:42:06,800 --> 00:42:12,520 A favourable comparison might offer a lifeline, but any anomalies in 658 00:42:12,520 --> 00:42:14,120 work could be damning. 659 00:42:15,020 --> 00:42:20,620 This is the first time that Mondrian's works on paper have been looked into 660 00:42:20,620 --> 00:42:22,500 such scientific rigour. 661 00:42:23,440 --> 00:42:30,180 The question, however, is will what they discover also be found in Geoffrey's 662 00:42:30,180 --> 00:42:31,180 picture? 663 00:42:32,710 --> 00:42:37,450 I'm meeting Ines van der Werf and Birgit Reisland from the Cultural Heritage 664 00:42:37,450 --> 00:42:42,730 Agency of the Netherlands to discuss their findings, starting with the paper 665 00:42:42,730 --> 00:42:43,730 the underdrawings. 666 00:42:44,030 --> 00:42:50,910 The originals are carried out on a typical early 20th century drawing 667 00:42:51,130 --> 00:42:56,630 We found black chalk, gouache, as well as on one drawing also coloured crayons. 668 00:42:57,010 --> 00:42:59,950 They are comparable to this picture. 669 00:43:00,810 --> 00:43:06,430 Good. Well, it seems we're making some progress. OK, let's move on to the 670 00:43:06,430 --> 00:43:12,990 controversial subject of the white. Have you found titanium in any of Mondrian's 671 00:43:12,990 --> 00:43:18,790 works? As we now know, titanium white wasn't available to artists until the 672 00:43:18,790 --> 00:43:20,450 early 1920s. 673 00:43:20,650 --> 00:43:25,490 Its presence in Geoffrey's picture means it can't have been painted before then, 674 00:43:25,630 --> 00:43:29,790 narrowing down the chances that Mondrian himself painted it. 675 00:43:30,120 --> 00:43:35,200 If we can show that he used titanium white in similar genuine pictures, that 676 00:43:35,200 --> 00:43:36,900 could greatly boost our case. 677 00:43:37,660 --> 00:43:43,560 So in two of them there is definitely lead white, and in others we have zinc 678 00:43:43,560 --> 00:43:48,800 white. But in all these works on paper we didn't find any titanium white. 679 00:43:49,140 --> 00:43:50,700 That's disappointing. 680 00:43:54,160 --> 00:43:58,300 While the technical analysis continues in the Netherlands, back in London... 681 00:43:58,540 --> 00:44:01,180 I'm taking a closer look at the more recent provenance. 682 00:44:01,780 --> 00:44:07,100 The person who offered Jeffrey's picture for sale in 1993 claimed it had once 683 00:44:07,100 --> 00:44:10,480 belonged to the de Groot family, of whom there's no trace. 684 00:44:11,080 --> 00:44:14,760 But I've come across some intriguing paperwork held in the Dutch archives. 685 00:44:15,120 --> 00:44:20,180 In a letter to a prominent Mondrian expert, Professor Henkels, the seller 686 00:44:20,180 --> 00:44:25,640 that the de Groot sold him the picture via the Sydney Janis Gallery in New York 687 00:44:25,640 --> 00:44:26,640 in 1981. 688 00:44:27,080 --> 00:44:29,320 and they claim the gallery even exhibited the picture. 689 00:44:30,440 --> 00:44:33,560 Paperwork from the Sydney Janus Gallery appears to prove it. 690 00:44:34,760 --> 00:44:36,140 This all looks great. 691 00:44:37,060 --> 00:44:38,340 There's one problem, though. 692 00:44:38,900 --> 00:44:44,800 Having contacted the Sydney Janus Gallery, they have no record of ever 693 00:44:44,800 --> 00:44:48,640 exhibiting this picture or buying or selling it. 694 00:44:49,020 --> 00:44:50,020 None. 695 00:44:50,380 --> 00:44:55,060 So what this looks like is a fake provenance for Geoffrey's picture. 696 00:44:57,040 --> 00:45:00,280 And that sounds massive alarm bells. 697 00:45:04,780 --> 00:45:09,180 All the evidence at this stage is pointing towards a rather worrying 698 00:45:09,580 --> 00:45:14,140 Back in the Netherlands, Innes and Burget have been able to add to Aviva's 699 00:45:14,140 --> 00:45:17,900 analysis of the pigments using the studio's specialised equipment. 700 00:45:18,300 --> 00:45:21,020 They have an important discovery to reveal. 701 00:45:21,770 --> 00:45:28,170 In the green leaves, we found this telocyanine pigment, which was 702 00:45:28,170 --> 00:45:31,690 artist's paints, 1938 -40. 703 00:45:32,110 --> 00:45:34,690 Late 30s? Yes, that's correct. 704 00:45:36,130 --> 00:45:41,730 The thing is that the white here under the leaves is on top of the green paint. 705 00:45:42,790 --> 00:45:49,690 So a pigment that was not available until the very late 30s is to be 706 00:45:49,690 --> 00:45:51,790 found... In the body of this picture? 707 00:45:52,030 --> 00:45:53,030 Yes. 708 00:45:55,670 --> 00:46:01,750 As a result of this discovery of phthalocyanine green, the dating band 709 00:46:01,750 --> 00:46:06,250 to be Mondrian is now so much smaller, perhaps four years at the end of his 710 00:46:06,250 --> 00:46:07,250 life. 711 00:46:07,730 --> 00:46:12,190 And all that provenance now is redundant because the pigment wasn't around. 712 00:46:13,910 --> 00:46:20,010 It now seems to me that we have entered the murky realm of... 713 00:46:20,280 --> 00:46:23,060 potentially deliberate forgery. 714 00:46:24,420 --> 00:46:27,420 Things are looking pretty grim for Geoffrey. 715 00:46:31,780 --> 00:46:35,540 I need to update Geoffrey with this troubling development. 716 00:46:36,100 --> 00:46:41,920 This, therefore, throws serious doubt over all the early provenance and likely 717 00:46:41,920 --> 00:46:44,720 has some very troubling implications. 718 00:46:45,680 --> 00:46:47,140 It's not good news. 719 00:46:47,460 --> 00:46:48,940 It's not good news. 720 00:46:50,640 --> 00:46:52,320 I don't know what to make of it, really. 721 00:46:54,620 --> 00:46:59,500 It's very hard to figure that one out. But I do know that he painted flowers 722 00:46:59,500 --> 00:47:02,860 entire life, right into the 1940s, actually. 723 00:47:04,440 --> 00:47:11,420 So... Despite Geoffrey's determined optimism, we now have to take seriously 724 00:47:11,420 --> 00:47:15,660 possibility that the picture is a fake Mondrian with a sophisticated forged 725 00:47:15,660 --> 00:47:20,280 provenance. The picture first definitely emerged on the market at Bonhams in 726 00:47:20,280 --> 00:47:21,280 July 1993. 727 00:47:21,840 --> 00:47:26,020 This was a period when several high -profile art forgers were at work. 728 00:47:26,420 --> 00:47:31,000 The jury took just five and a half hours to convict Drew of forgery, theft and 729 00:47:31,000 --> 00:47:32,000 fraud. 730 00:47:32,220 --> 00:47:36,560 John Drew and his accomplice were convicted in the mid -1990s for creating 731 00:47:36,560 --> 00:47:38,000 works by famous painters. 732 00:47:38,820 --> 00:47:42,340 Sean Greenhouse and his elderly parents were convicted in 2007. 733 00:47:43,440 --> 00:47:46,260 for creating hundreds of fake works over many years. 734 00:47:47,260 --> 00:47:48,460 And there were others. 735 00:47:49,980 --> 00:47:53,780 During this period, the Metropolitan Police operated a specialist unit 736 00:47:53,780 --> 00:47:56,820 investigating art crime run by Dick Ellis. 737 00:47:59,060 --> 00:48:03,340 Now retired from the force, Dick has agreed to review the file on Geoffrey's 738 00:48:03,340 --> 00:48:06,300 picture and he's coming to the gallery to reveal his findings. 739 00:48:09,840 --> 00:48:12,300 Hello, Dick. Hi, Philip. Nice to see you. 740 00:48:13,009 --> 00:48:14,830 Dick, you've crossed paths many times before. 741 00:48:15,310 --> 00:48:17,210 This is Geoffrey. Geoffrey, hello. 742 00:48:17,690 --> 00:48:22,810 Pleasure to meet you. So you've had the opportunity to look at all the evidence. 743 00:48:23,110 --> 00:48:24,110 What do you think? 744 00:48:24,270 --> 00:48:29,430 Well, I was immediately struck by the fact I thought I was looking at an old 745 00:48:29,430 --> 00:48:30,430 friend. 746 00:48:30,730 --> 00:48:36,510 In 1990 onwards, over a three -year period, I investigated a huge art fraud. 747 00:48:36,930 --> 00:48:40,730 It was coins and medals, automobilia and art. 748 00:48:41,760 --> 00:48:43,760 The perpetrator was a man called John Fairchild. 749 00:48:43,980 --> 00:48:46,240 Right. He wasn't the artist. 750 00:48:46,540 --> 00:48:48,420 He had other people manufacture. 751 00:48:48,640 --> 00:48:54,220 So he would come up with the concept and he'd create this mass provenance around 752 00:48:54,220 --> 00:48:57,120 the paintings or the objects, the coins. 753 00:48:58,000 --> 00:49:03,060 And sometimes he would have his daughters take him to the auction house 754 00:49:03,060 --> 00:49:04,120 would use false names. 755 00:49:04,480 --> 00:49:05,480 Fairchild was... 756 00:49:05,880 --> 00:49:07,680 finally arrested in Los Angeles. 757 00:49:08,240 --> 00:49:13,780 And we extradited him back to the UK where he went on trial. And he pleaded 758 00:49:13,780 --> 00:49:20,700 guilty to about 14, I think it was, counts of art fraud, deception, fraud. 759 00:49:20,900 --> 00:49:24,100 Right. And he received a term of imprisonment. 760 00:49:24,320 --> 00:49:27,960 And what makes you think specifically that Geoffrey's picture is connected to 761 00:49:27,960 --> 00:49:28,960 the work of Fairchild? 762 00:49:29,500 --> 00:49:32,560 Well, when I saw the back of the picture, I... 763 00:49:32,990 --> 00:49:38,230 got up a slide that I have of a letter of provenance that purported to support 764 00:49:38,230 --> 00:49:42,610 another of the forgeries that were produced, which were Hawaiian medals. 765 00:49:43,050 --> 00:49:48,990 And the first thing that struck me was the S in skidam. 766 00:49:49,290 --> 00:49:55,310 The slant of it. Yes, it's sort of teetering at an angle slightly, and yet 767 00:49:55,310 --> 00:50:00,850 there's this great curve of the S. And if you look at the S... 768 00:50:01,440 --> 00:50:06,820 that appears here in this Hawaiian consulate document that is actually a 769 00:50:06,820 --> 00:50:09,400 forgery, you have exactly the same S. 770 00:50:10,220 --> 00:50:14,120 And Dick has found other examples on the back of Geoffrey's picture of letters 771 00:50:14,120 --> 00:50:16,600 worryingly similar to the forged document. 772 00:50:17,020 --> 00:50:21,680 The A, the L and the M. 773 00:50:23,220 --> 00:50:25,020 What about all the stamps on the back? 774 00:50:25,700 --> 00:50:28,340 This is another aspect of the Fairchild forgeries. 775 00:50:28,830 --> 00:50:33,690 If I show you here, these are illustrations of stamps that he used on 776 00:50:33,690 --> 00:50:38,150 the forgeries that I saw. But if you look at that stamp and compare it again 777 00:50:38,150 --> 00:50:42,270 the dealer's stamp on the bottom left of your picture, Geoffrey, there are, 778 00:50:42,350 --> 00:50:43,350 again, similarities. 779 00:50:44,650 --> 00:50:49,290 Clearly, Fairchild was capable of creating a stamp to copy the original 780 00:50:49,290 --> 00:50:54,910 one. And worryingly for Geoffrey, Fairchild also created intricate 781 00:50:54,910 --> 00:50:59,680 stamps. with a level of detail comparable to the oval Hal Tucker stamp 782 00:50:59,680 --> 00:51:00,840 back of Geoffrey's picture. 783 00:51:04,720 --> 00:51:08,020 And what about, you know, Geoffrey's is a flower picture? 784 00:51:08,440 --> 00:51:11,600 I mean, is that the kind of thing that Fairchild did? 785 00:51:11,820 --> 00:51:12,820 Yes. 786 00:51:13,900 --> 00:51:19,480 This is a picture of the daughter, flat, and it was her boyfriend who was the 787 00:51:19,480 --> 00:51:24,200 artist. And if you look carefully at the back there... 788 00:51:24,680 --> 00:51:25,680 What do you see? 789 00:51:28,440 --> 00:51:29,440 What is that? 790 00:51:29,740 --> 00:51:32,660 I think that's a bottle with three flowers in the looks of it. 791 00:51:33,080 --> 00:51:36,180 Yes. Which are not dissimilar to your picture, Geoffrey. 792 00:51:39,160 --> 00:51:44,000 Now, this isn't evidence sufficient to convict somebody of producing a forgery, 793 00:51:44,120 --> 00:51:49,580 but my conclusion is that the weight, I believe, is coming down 794 00:51:49,580 --> 00:51:55,040 towards the fact that this must be one of the... Fatal forgeries. 795 00:51:55,260 --> 00:51:56,260 Yes. 796 00:51:59,800 --> 00:52:02,640 Sir Geoffrey, having heard all of this, how do you feel? 797 00:52:03,120 --> 00:52:05,620 Well, it's not a good look. 798 00:52:07,080 --> 00:52:10,060 Difficult, very difficult. I can see virtues in the painting. 799 00:52:10,740 --> 00:52:15,680 I've absorbed all of this and I feel that I'm fighting in a negative corner. 800 00:52:16,720 --> 00:52:17,720 Ultimately, 801 00:52:18,040 --> 00:52:19,340 it's not up to him. 802 00:52:20,140 --> 00:52:24,180 standing here, it's up to the world authority on Mondrian, Dr. Vitsakopis, 803 00:52:24,180 --> 00:52:25,640 he will ultimately make the decision. 804 00:52:29,080 --> 00:52:34,640 After Dick's dramatic allegations, the fate of Geoffrey's picture is hanging in 805 00:52:34,640 --> 00:52:35,638 the balance. 806 00:52:35,640 --> 00:52:40,720 We've invited eminent Mondrian expert Dr. Vitsakopis to examine the picture in 807 00:52:40,720 --> 00:52:45,400 person for the first time, as well as to review all of the material we've 808 00:52:45,400 --> 00:52:46,400 gathered. 809 00:52:48,200 --> 00:52:53,310 Just a few days later, His verdict has arrived, and we're returning to 810 00:52:53,310 --> 00:52:54,730 to share it with Geoffrey. 811 00:52:56,050 --> 00:53:00,170 It feels like ages since we've been back here, doesn't it? And it all started so 812 00:53:00,170 --> 00:53:01,170 positively. 813 00:53:01,590 --> 00:53:07,070 Well, we know that in 1993, in a major auction house, it was fully catalogued 814 00:53:07,070 --> 00:53:08,290 a work by Mondrian. 815 00:53:09,450 --> 00:53:12,070 And the labels on the back should have been so reassuring. 816 00:53:12,730 --> 00:53:16,850 It's also the sort of thing that Mondrian did. He was a flat painter as 817 00:53:18,000 --> 00:53:21,480 We also couldn't find any reference to Geoffrey's picture in any of the 818 00:53:21,480 --> 00:53:22,480 archives. 819 00:53:23,440 --> 00:53:27,780 Added to it, we've got those scientific anomalies, titanium white, 820 00:53:28,020 --> 00:53:32,820 phthalocyanine green, which means that the whole early provenance is invalid. 821 00:53:33,820 --> 00:53:39,860 And then, of course, the bombshell of the fake later provenance. I mean, that 822 00:53:39,860 --> 00:53:43,180 looks like active deception, a crime. 823 00:53:44,180 --> 00:53:47,440 I might be going too far here, but could it... 824 00:53:47,760 --> 00:53:52,380 be a sketch by Mondrian and someone else who's added the paint. 825 00:53:53,320 --> 00:53:55,200 That could be a glimmer of hope. 826 00:53:57,860 --> 00:54:02,420 It's the moment of truth. We're all about to discover if Geoffrey's little 827 00:54:02,420 --> 00:54:06,560 flower picture has been accepted as a genuine Mondrian or not. 828 00:54:09,540 --> 00:54:14,040 So, this is it, Geoffrey. I've got the letter here from Visa. 829 00:54:15,310 --> 00:54:17,110 Dare I ask how you're feeling about all this? 830 00:54:17,850 --> 00:54:22,430 Well, I believe in the painting, but I'm stoic at the moment. 831 00:54:23,790 --> 00:54:29,130 Well, let's remind ourselves then, if it is by Mondrian, how much is it worth? 832 00:54:29,410 --> 00:54:32,170 It could be worth £250 ,000. 833 00:54:32,590 --> 00:54:33,730 And what if it's not? 834 00:54:34,190 --> 00:54:37,630 Well, if it's not, it's just a very nice flower. 835 00:54:38,490 --> 00:54:40,710 A couple of hundred pounds at best. 836 00:54:41,130 --> 00:54:42,130 Ooh. 837 00:54:42,590 --> 00:54:43,590 Tough. 838 00:54:44,330 --> 00:54:46,330 Right, well, let's find out. Come on. Yeah. 839 00:54:50,290 --> 00:54:52,070 It's a long letter. Oh, my goodness. 840 00:54:54,290 --> 00:54:58,610 The early dismissal of the work by the valued and highly knowledgeable Mondrian 841 00:54:58,610 --> 00:55:03,830 experts, Euston and Welsh, may only have been overturned if new research had 842 00:55:03,830 --> 00:55:08,570 brought to light some indisputable verifications of, for example, the 843 00:55:08,570 --> 00:55:09,570 provenance. 844 00:55:10,210 --> 00:55:12,590 Unfortunately, this has not been the case. 845 00:55:12,970 --> 00:55:19,050 Therefore, the RKD at this moment sees no reason to add the watercolour to the 846 00:55:19,050 --> 00:55:20,710 Piet Mondrian catalogue raisonne. 847 00:55:24,710 --> 00:55:26,230 Oh, Jerry. 848 00:55:27,450 --> 00:55:28,610 C 'est la vie. 849 00:55:29,270 --> 00:55:30,270 Oh. 850 00:55:31,370 --> 00:55:35,610 Yeah, that's a shame. Yeah, it's a shame. 851 00:55:37,450 --> 00:55:41,590 The letter lists a number of reasons for the decision, including many points 852 00:55:41,590 --> 00:55:42,590 we've investigated. 853 00:55:43,090 --> 00:55:47,510 Bovica also notes the English spelling of the word chrysanthemum on one of the 854 00:55:47,510 --> 00:55:51,970 labels on the back, instead of the Dutch chrysanthe, as he would have expected. 855 00:55:52,730 --> 00:55:54,270 More evidence of foul play? 856 00:55:56,890 --> 00:56:01,410 I should tell you as well, actually, Geoffrey, that you remember the man that 857 00:56:01,410 --> 00:56:04,390 Kellis, the police officer you met, suggested may have done this picture? 858 00:56:04,960 --> 00:56:08,440 you know, of a forgery, we've had no response from him. 859 00:56:08,680 --> 00:56:10,000 Well, that doesn't surprise me. 860 00:56:10,860 --> 00:56:14,560 We asked Bonhams to comment on having handled Geoffrey's picture as a genuine 861 00:56:14,560 --> 00:56:16,480 work, and they replied with this statement. 862 00:56:16,820 --> 00:56:21,100 The painting was sold 30 years ago, and since that time, more information about 863 00:56:21,100 --> 00:56:22,920 Mondrian and his work has come to light. 864 00:56:23,140 --> 00:56:27,280 The arrival of the internet, availability of data, and access to 865 00:56:27,280 --> 00:56:31,260 means that across the board, there have been advances in researching works of 866 00:56:31,260 --> 00:56:32,500 art and their provenance. 867 00:56:33,380 --> 00:56:35,060 So what are you going to do with this picture? 868 00:56:36,260 --> 00:56:39,620 I'm going to eat my burger off of it. No, just kidding. 869 00:56:41,000 --> 00:56:44,100 I'll hang it up. It's a memory of a great experience. 870 00:56:44,480 --> 00:56:49,880 And I just look at it as one of the peculiar chapters in life. 871 00:56:50,680 --> 00:56:53,640 What can you do, you know? 872 00:56:56,480 --> 00:57:00,260 We come across fakes in the art business all the time, but I have to say... 873 00:57:00,520 --> 00:57:03,880 how rare it is potentially to identify the faker themselves. 874 00:57:04,620 --> 00:57:09,780 Of course, only the faker will know the truth and is unlikely to admit it. 875 00:57:10,020 --> 00:57:14,240 And the trouble that they went to. I never liked saying this about fakers 876 00:57:14,240 --> 00:57:15,600 because I don't admire them. 877 00:57:15,820 --> 00:57:18,480 But as fakes go, that is accomplished. 878 00:57:20,780 --> 00:57:25,440 If you think you have an undiscovered masterpiece or other precious object, 879 00:57:25,720 --> 00:57:28,380 contact us at bbc .co .uk. 880 00:57:29,720 --> 00:57:30,720 Fake or Fortune. 881 00:57:34,940 --> 00:57:39,420 Earlier this year, we lost a much -loved friend and colleague, Nicky Illith. 882 00:57:39,920 --> 00:57:44,880 Nicky was a brilliant TV director with a passion for art and was involved in 883 00:57:44,880 --> 00:57:46,580 Fake or Fortune from the very beginning. 884 00:57:46,860 --> 00:57:49,220 She will be so missed. 885 00:57:49,960 --> 00:57:51,060 OK, stand by. 886 00:57:51,600 --> 00:57:52,600 Keep smiling. 887 00:57:53,120 --> 00:57:54,120 Action!