A painting believed to be a Picasso which is due to be auctioned this afternoon has been claimed at the last minute by another owner who says it was sold by accident.
The Seated Bather was first listed by Brighton and Hove Auctions last month after Philip Stapleton brought it in after buying it at a boot sale.
Since then, prolific forger David Henty claimed it was a fake, as he had painted it himself two years ago.
But now another owner, Francis Kiss, has come forward to say that he bought the painting in 2006 from an antique shop in Chichester.
And he says it was later sold at Ford Market due to a miscommunication with friends without his knowledge about two years ago, and he’s been trying to find it ever since.
Mr Kiss said: “It cannot be a forgery by David Henty, I have always believed it to be an original – the hard part has been trying to get it authenticated.”
Brighton and Hove Auction’s General Manager, Rosie May, said: “Our Picasso of a smaller version of The Seated Bather, has been on quite a journey since Mr Stapleton brought it into our auction house a few months ago.
“After national coverage of our findings including the message that seems to suggest this piece was a gift from Picasso to his good friend Roland Penrose, we have had international interest on the piece and have received commission bids ahead of tomorrows sale.
“Two days ago a gentleman walked into the auction house claiming that he is in fact the rightful owner of the Picasso. The plot thickens…
“Mr Kiss went on to produce photographic evidence and receipt of purchase of owning the piece since buying the painting back in 2006.
“Mr Kiss explains he witnessed a lady in her 50’s-60’s bring in the painting to Peter Hancock’s Antiques in Chichester, along with some other items she wanted to sell. Mr Kiss saw the painting and purchased the piece for £150.
“Mr Kiss went about the infuriating task of trying to get the painting authenticated, a friend attempted to take the painting directly to the Picasso family in order to have it investigated and researched – however the friend was unable to make contact with the family and returned the painting back to the UK with no further evidence to its authenticity.
“The painting was placed in the hands of of a mutual friend with the intention for it to be passed back to the Mr Kiss.
“A miscommunication between the three friends led to the painting being accidentally sold at Ford Market without Mr Kiss’ knowledge and he has been trying to locate his painting ever since.
“The fact that the artwork spent several years in the possession of Mr Kiss disproves Henty’s claim that he painted it himself a few year ago and gave it to a friend. Mr Stapleton unbeknown to him purchased the painting in good faith from the market and eventually brought it to us for further investigation.
“Mr Stapleton has been made aware of this last minute revelation and very is grateful to Mr Kiss for coming forward with the background information and even more so the evidence to prove that infamous art forger David Henty’s claim to painting is complete nonsense and merely a attempt for national press coverage for his own artwork.
Why would you take a Picasso to a small Auction House.I feel there is more to this story than meets the eye.It will be interesting to see how it is described.Why has it not been sent to London or a Picasso expert.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyGqrqd9Peg
the following lot of self-portrait by rolf harris was more interesting ….
Why is it still being sold (as per the article) if its true owner has claimed ownership?
A real Picasso would have had international art experts at rushing to Brighton to examine it with such high values at stake.
There are also many dealers who have a very good idea of what is real or fake too.
All to much of a debacle and somewhat suspicious.
Why go to a small provincial auction who’s prices of sold items average a tenner.
Fairly sure they would have tried all other avenues and came to this auction firm because it is small and has limited knowledge.
All good publicity for the auction though?!
The realised price of £8,000 reflects what the painting really is in my opinion.
My view only.
I don’t know if it says here or in the other story I read but the person that bought it for £230 thought it was a good fake. And he knew the people at that auction house. They are the ones that unframed it and found the inscription on the back etc and valued it much higher. It also said someplace else that they would need to spend thousands more money for an art expert to fully authenticate it so he decided to just take his chances…with the auction. That’s when the claims from the other owner and the guy who said he faked it came up. It had already been consigned by this point.
In mid May this year there was an article in The Times about an unsigned Picasso appeared on the market and it was categorically stated that it was painted over 40 years ago!
It was thought that the painting was a copy of a painting by Picasso which was dated (I cannot remember the title of the painting & do not have a copy of the article).
I assumed that there was forensic evidence of the date of this so called copy which predated the original so I concluded that it was possibly a sketch by Picasso for the later painting!
I read this article on a train from Glasgow to Penzance in mid May to see a fellow artist Ken Spooner where I referred to this article and he showed me a copy of The Times from a few days earlier with the article (I had disposed of my copy).
I said that I would be willing to pay £20,000 for it with out even seeing it assuming that the article in the times was Truthful and Accurate… Ken said it would sell hundreds of thousands if not millions… We both concluded it was most likely an Original Picasso!
I shall be back in Penzance in a few weeks as the plot thickens…
In the ART-WORLD nothing is as it seems!