ajr
New Member
🗨️ 325
👍🏻 342
February 2018
|
TateWard • Art Auctions 🇬🇧, by ajr on Mar 27, 2021 10:29:48 GMT 1, They could not have put through so many fakes without knowing.....the list is just too long and over too much time.
As people have said, I do agree it's up to the buyer to do their due diligence, BUT the reason you go to an auction house and pay the premium is because you would HOPE that they would have done some already. Otherwise take your chances on eBay.
The lesson here is to stick to the legacy houses.
They could not have put through so many fakes without knowing.....the list is just too long and over too much time.
As people have said, I do agree it's up to the buyer to do their due diligence, BUT the reason you go to an auction house and pay the premium is because you would HOPE that they would have done some already. Otherwise take your chances on eBay.
The lesson here is to stick to the legacy houses.
|
|
toshspice
New Member
🗨️ 676
👍🏻 878
January 2006
|
TateWard • Art Auctions 🇬🇧, by toshspice on Mar 27, 2021 10:31:32 GMT 1, They could not have put through so many fakes without knowing.....the list is just too long and over too much time. As people have said, I do agree it's up to the buyer to do their due diligence, BUT the reason you go to an auction house and pay the premium is because you would HOPE that they would have done some already. Otherwise take your chances on eBay. The lesson here is to stick to the legacy houses.
(See: news.artnet.com/art-world/seller-must-repay-sothebys-fake-old-master-1391008)
They could not have put through so many fakes without knowing.....the list is just too long and over too much time. As people have said, I do agree it's up to the buyer to do their due diligence, BUT the reason you go to an auction house and pay the premium is because you would HOPE that they would have done some already. Otherwise take your chances on eBay. The lesson here is to stick to the legacy houses. What makes you think the legacy houses are immune? (See: news.artnet.com/art-world/seller-must-repay-sothebys-fake-old-master-1391008) |
|
Cocteau 101
Junior Member
🗨️ 3,508
👍🏻 1,227
January 2007
|
TateWard • Art Auctions 🇬🇧, by Cocteau 101 on Mar 27, 2021 10:42:14 GMT 1, I refer you to Knoedler one of the oldest auction house in NYC.
If you do a search you'll find a documentary about them somewhere. Ongoing disputes to this day.
I refer you to Knoedler one of the oldest auction house in NYC.
If you do a search you'll find a documentary about them somewhere. Ongoing disputes to this day.
|
|
daniel3886
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,250
👍🏻 995
October 2006
|
TateWard • Art Auctions 🇬🇧, by daniel3886 on Mar 27, 2021 10:50:19 GMT 1, A large number of people on here have had a positive experience selling and buying with Tate Ward and let's face it, they will happily accept consignments that many other auction houses wouldn't (and get some decent results). A similar number of people here have an axe to grind when they see people like Danny making a success of their business. Clearly mistakes have been made (Petrol Bomb-gate, non-editioned Warhol's, etc) but unless I have missed something, Danny has provided a clear level of detail around resolution and has followed this through? so that’s it? they get a pass? cause they paid back, at cost, most of the money they defrauded ppl out of? so the PB i bought in 2018 that would b worth 4k now (a real version at least) they gave me back my buy price of 650£ n that’s that? no harm no foul? they get 2 reinvest all that stolen money into real banksy, watch it appreciate, sell at massive profit, then refund some ppl n we’re good 2 go? business as usually? man i should move 2 the UK, things run wayyyyyyyyyyy different in nyc, but in UK ppl who own, co-own, whatever, auction houses r allowed 2 rob hundreds of thousands of pounds thru trackable public auction house n private sales, the same ppl, n there’s ZERO repercussions? sounds like the fkn wild west 2 me.... plus the fact u guys that know this 4 fact, live out there right next 2 these guys, see these ppl in the real world, n still chose 2 do business with them? wow, just.... wow.
Matt I can see you are unhappy with this situation and acknowledge it has left you out of pocket. As you can see from the article Toshspice posted Sotheby’s refunded their buyer the price he paid as we have done for you. We also went above that to refund your framing costs.
So whilst I understand it’s frustrating and the only place that frustration can be directed is at us, I believe we have acted in good faith in our efforts to resolve the situation for you and others in the same position.
As a final point I’d like to ask if the value of the PB was now below your purchase price would you have accepted a refund at that level? I assume the answer to that is no.
A large number of people on here have had a positive experience selling and buying with Tate Ward and let's face it, they will happily accept consignments that many other auction houses wouldn't (and get some decent results). A similar number of people here have an axe to grind when they see people like Danny making a success of their business. Clearly mistakes have been made (Petrol Bomb-gate, non-editioned Warhol's, etc) but unless I have missed something, Danny has provided a clear level of detail around resolution and has followed this through? so that’s it? they get a pass? cause they paid back, at cost, most of the money they defrauded ppl out of? so the PB i bought in 2018 that would b worth 4k now (a real version at least) they gave me back my buy price of 650£ n that’s that? no harm no foul? they get 2 reinvest all that stolen money into real banksy, watch it appreciate, sell at massive profit, then refund some ppl n we’re good 2 go? business as usually? man i should move 2 the UK, things run wayyyyyyyyyyy different in nyc, but in UK ppl who own, co-own, whatever, auction houses r allowed 2 rob hundreds of thousands of pounds thru trackable public auction house n private sales, the same ppl, n there’s ZERO repercussions? sounds like the fkn wild west 2 me.... plus the fact u guys that know this 4 fact, live out there right next 2 these guys, see these ppl in the real world, n still chose 2 do business with them? wow, just.... wow. Matt I can see you are unhappy with this situation and acknowledge it has left you out of pocket. As you can see from the article Toshspice posted Sotheby’s refunded their buyer the price he paid as we have done for you. We also went above that to refund your framing costs. So whilst I understand it’s frustrating and the only place that frustration can be directed is at us, I believe we have acted in good faith in our efforts to resolve the situation for you and others in the same position. As a final point I’d like to ask if the value of the PB was now below your purchase price would you have accepted a refund at that level? I assume the answer to that is no. |
|
daniel3886
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,250
👍🏻 995
October 2006
|
TateWard • Art Auctions 🇬🇧, by daniel3886 on Mar 27, 2021 10:52:10 GMT 1, I refer you to Knoedler one of the oldest auction house in NYC. If you do a search you'll find a documentary about them somewhere. Ongoing disputes to this day.
www.netflix.com/title/81406333?s=i&trkid=13747225
|
|
|
|
TateWard • Art Auctions 🇬🇧, by huddleforrest on Mar 27, 2021 10:57:01 GMT 1, I refer you to Knoedler one of the oldest auction house in NYC. If you do a search you'll find a documentary about them somewhere. Ongoing disputes to this day.
The documentary is called "Made You Look", it's on Netflix and well worth a watch:
I refer you to Knoedler one of the oldest auction house in NYC. If you do a search you'll find a documentary about them somewhere. Ongoing disputes to this day. Knoedler was a gallery, not an auction house, but the point about the art-world and fakes still stands. The documentary is called "Made You Look", it's on Netflix and well worth a watch: |
|
|
|
Matt
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,357
👍🏻 3,449
September 2014
|
TateWard • Art Auctions 🇬🇧, by Matt on Mar 27, 2021 12:19:01 GMT 1, so that’s it? they get a pass? cause they paid back, at cost, most of the money they defrauded ppl out of? so the PB i bought in 2018 that would b worth 4k now (a real version at least) they gave me back my buy price of 650£ n that’s that? no harm no foul? they get 2 reinvest all that stolen money into real banksy, watch it appreciate, sell at massive profit, then refund some ppl n we’re good 2 go? business as usually? man i should move 2 the UK, things run wayyyyyyyyyyy different in nyc, but in UK ppl who own, co-own, whatever, auction houses r allowed 2 rob hundreds of thousands of pounds thru trackable public auction house n private sales, the same ppl, n there’s ZERO repercussions? sounds like the fkn wild west 2 me.... plus the fact u guys that know this 4 fact, live out there right next 2 these guys, see these ppl in the real world, n still chose 2 do business with them? wow, just.... wow. Matt I can see you are unhappy with this situation and acknowledge it has left you out of pocket. As you can see from the article Toshspice posted Sotheby’s refunded their buyer the price he paid as we have done for you. We also went above that to refund your framing costs. So whilst I understand it’s frustrating and the only place that frustration can be directed is at us, I believe we have acted in good faith in our efforts to resolve the situation for you and others in the same position. As a final point I’d like to ask if the value of the PB was now below your purchase price would you have accepted a refund at that level? I assume the answer to that is no.
Sorry but you don’t get a pass, you need to accept you fully deserve all the flack and 100% of the suspicion that you can’t be trusted.
You are an auction house through which a HUGE volume of OBVIOUS fakes were sold.
You either
- lack the basic skills to do your job (spotting a terrible fake)
- or you are complicit (especially since the fakes all come from one of your directors)
Refunds are reparation, not absolution
so that’s it? they get a pass? cause they paid back, at cost, most of the money they defrauded ppl out of? so the PB i bought in 2018 that would b worth 4k now (a real version at least) they gave me back my buy price of 650£ n that’s that? no harm no foul? they get 2 reinvest all that stolen money into real banksy, watch it appreciate, sell at massive profit, then refund some ppl n we’re good 2 go? business as usually? man i should move 2 the UK, things run wayyyyyyyyyyy different in nyc, but in UK ppl who own, co-own, whatever, auction houses r allowed 2 rob hundreds of thousands of pounds thru trackable public auction house n private sales, the same ppl, n there’s ZERO repercussions? sounds like the fkn wild west 2 me.... plus the fact u guys that know this 4 fact, live out there right next 2 these guys, see these ppl in the real world, n still chose 2 do business with them? wow, just.... wow. Matt I can see you are unhappy with this situation and acknowledge it has left you out of pocket. As you can see from the article Toshspice posted Sotheby’s refunded their buyer the price he paid as we have done for you. We also went above that to refund your framing costs. So whilst I understand it’s frustrating and the only place that frustration can be directed is at us, I believe we have acted in good faith in our efforts to resolve the situation for you and others in the same position. As a final point I’d like to ask if the value of the PB was now below your purchase price would you have accepted a refund at that level? I assume the answer to that is no. Sorry but you don’t get a pass, you need to accept you fully deserve all the flack and 100% of the suspicion that you can’t be trusted. You are an auction house through which a HUGE volume of OBVIOUS fakes were sold. You either - lack the basic skills to do your job (spotting a terrible fake) - or you are complicit (especially since the fakes all come from one of your directors) Refunds are reparation, not absolution |
|
ubl
New Member
🗨️ 362
👍🏻 301
November 2019
|
TateWard • Art Auctions 🇬🇧, by ubl on Mar 27, 2021 12:32:11 GMT 1, so that’s it? they get a pass? cause they paid back, at cost, most of the money they defrauded ppl out of? so the PB i bought in 2018 that would b worth 4k now (a real version at least) they gave me back my buy price of 650£ n that’s that? no harm no foul? they get 2 reinvest all that stolen money into real banksy, watch it appreciate, sell at massive profit, then refund some ppl n we’re good 2 go? business as usually? man i should move 2 the UK, things run wayyyyyyyyyyy different in nyc, but in UK ppl who own, co-own, whatever, auction houses r allowed 2 rob hundreds of thousands of pounds thru trackable public auction house n private sales, the same ppl, n there’s ZERO repercussions? sounds like the fkn wild west 2 me.... plus the fact u guys that know this 4 fact, live out there right next 2 these guys, see these ppl in the real world, n still chose 2 do business with them? wow, just.... wow. Matt I can see you are unhappy with this situation and acknowledge it has left you out of pocket. As you can see from the article Toshspice posted Sotheby’s refunded their buyer the price he paid as we have done for you. We also went above that to refund your framing costs. So whilst I understand it’s frustrating and the only place that frustration can be directed is at us, I believe we have acted in good faith in our efforts to resolve the situation for you and others in the same position. As a final point I’d like to ask if the value of the PB was now below your purchase price would you have accepted a refund at that level? I assume the answer to that is no.
Is there any guarantee that this wont happen again? What are you guys doing internally to make sure this won't happen again? I understand everyone got paid back, but there doesn't seem to be reason to believe this won't happen over and over again. Especially because a lot of these works are very hard to authenticate.
so that’s it? they get a pass? cause they paid back, at cost, most of the money they defrauded ppl out of? so the PB i bought in 2018 that would b worth 4k now (a real version at least) they gave me back my buy price of 650£ n that’s that? no harm no foul? they get 2 reinvest all that stolen money into real banksy, watch it appreciate, sell at massive profit, then refund some ppl n we’re good 2 go? business as usually? man i should move 2 the UK, things run wayyyyyyyyyyy different in nyc, but in UK ppl who own, co-own, whatever, auction houses r allowed 2 rob hundreds of thousands of pounds thru trackable public auction house n private sales, the same ppl, n there’s ZERO repercussions? sounds like the fkn wild west 2 me.... plus the fact u guys that know this 4 fact, live out there right next 2 these guys, see these ppl in the real world, n still chose 2 do business with them? wow, just.... wow. Matt I can see you are unhappy with this situation and acknowledge it has left you out of pocket. As you can see from the article Toshspice posted Sotheby’s refunded their buyer the price he paid as we have done for you. We also went above that to refund your framing costs. So whilst I understand it’s frustrating and the only place that frustration can be directed is at us, I believe we have acted in good faith in our efforts to resolve the situation for you and others in the same position. As a final point I’d like to ask if the value of the PB was now below your purchase price would you have accepted a refund at that level? I assume the answer to that is no. Is there any guarantee that this wont happen again? What are you guys doing internally to make sure this won't happen again? I understand everyone got paid back, but there doesn't seem to be reason to believe this won't happen over and over again. Especially because a lot of these works are very hard to authenticate. |
|
u%hdjfka c
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,005
👍🏻 1,132
January 2021
|
|
|
Cocteau 101
Junior Member
🗨️ 3,508
👍🏻 1,227
January 2007
|
TateWard • Art Auctions 🇬🇧, by Cocteau 101 on Mar 27, 2021 14:35:19 GMT 1, I refer you to Knoedler one of the oldest auction house in NYC. If you do a search you'll find a documentary about them somewhere. Ongoing disputes to this day. Knoedler was a gallery, not an auction house, but the point about the art-world and fakes still stands. The documentary is called "Made You Look", it's on Netflix and well worth a watch:
I refer you to Knoedler one of the oldest auction house in NYC. If you do a search you'll find a documentary about them somewhere. Ongoing disputes to this day. Knoedler was a gallery, not an auction house, but the point about the art-world and fakes still stands. The documentary is called "Made You Look", it's on Netflix and well worth a watch: Yes my point being that even the most long standing and reputable art establishments can get caught up in this. I think as Daniel has alluded to earlier they have tried to rectify the situation as best they can. I have no personal experience of Tate Ward but they do seem to have at least tried to rectify the situation and have noted the required due diligence improvements required. |
|
Pootle
New Member
🗨️ 130
👍🏻 55
September 2007
|
|
|
Dive Jedi
Junior Member
🗨️ 6,194
👍🏻 9,453
October 2015
|
Yes, hammer price was GBP 83 K. So with buyer fees, VAT and ARR it was about 110 K. |
|
Pootle
New Member
🗨️ 130
👍🏻 55
September 2007
|
Yes, hammer price was GBP 83 K. So with buyer fees, VAT and ARR it was about 110 K. Thanks - I got confused as the link said inc premium for the 83k |
|
Dive Jedi
Junior Member
🗨️ 6,194
👍🏻 9,453
October 2015
|
TateWard • Art Auctions 🇬🇧, by Dive Jedi on Mar 27, 2021 17:32:02 GMT 1, Yes, hammer price was GBP 83 K. So with buyer fees, VAT and ARR it was about 110 K. Thanks - I got confused as the link said inc premium for the 83k 
Yes, hammer price was GBP 83 K. So with buyer fees, VAT and ARR it was about 110 K. Thanks - I got confused as the link said inc premium for the 83k Here you go |
|
|
|
Pattycakes
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,379
👍🏻 423
June 2007
|
TateWard • Art Auctions 🇬🇧, by Pattycakes on Mar 27, 2021 18:26:53 GMT 1, Knoedler was a gallery, not an auction house, but the point about the art-world and fakes still stands. The documentary is called "Made You Look", it's on Netflix and well worth a watch: Yes my point being that even the most long standing and reputable art establishments can get caught up in this. I think as Daniel has alluded to earlier they have tried to rectify the situation as best they can. I have no personal experience of Tate Ward but they do seem to have at least tried to rectify the situation and have noted the required due diligence improvements required.
Knoedler was a gallery, not an auction house, but the point about the art-world and fakes still stands. The documentary is called "Made You Look", it's on Netflix and well worth a watch: Yes my point being that even the most long standing and reputable art establishments can get caught up in this. I think as Daniel has alluded to earlier they have tried to rectify the situation as best they can. I have no personal experience of Tate Ward but they do seem to have at least tried to rectify the situation and have noted the required due diligence improvements required. There is still some suggestion that Ann Freedman of Knoedler who was the reason the whole thing happened was complicit in the fraud. It's clearly never been proven and she denies it, but many in the industry feel she had to have known what was going on. |
|
tab1
Full Member
🗨️ 8,519
👍🏻 3,679
September 2011
|
TateWard • Art Auctions 🇬🇧, by tab1 on Mar 27, 2021 18:29:13 GMT 1, so that’s it? they get a pass? cause they paid back, at cost, most of the money they defrauded ppl out of? so the PB i bought in 2018 that would b worth 4k now (a real version at least) they gave me back my buy price of 650£ n that’s that? no harm no foul? they get 2 reinvest all that stolen money into real banksy, watch it appreciate, sell at massive profit, then refund some ppl n we’re good 2 go? business as usually? man i should move 2 the UK, things run wayyyyyyyyyyy different in nyc, but in UK ppl who own, co-own, whatever, auction houses r allowed 2 rob hundreds of thousands of pounds thru trackable public auction house n private sales, the same ppl, n there’s ZERO repercussions? sounds like the fkn wild west 2 me.... plus the fact u guys that know this 4 fact, live out there right next 2 these guys, see these ppl in the real world, n still chose 2 do business with them? wow, just.... wow. You're never 100% safe from fake art anywhere in the world, at all levels of the game, whatever tier auction house you're dealing with. In 2014 Switzerland’s Fine Art Expert Institute (FAEI) claimed that at least half of the artwork circulated in the market is fake. When the big names get caught out they tend to sue the consignor.
The point here that stands out in relation to just the banksy posters is on release original purchasers were only permitted to purchase 5 posters.
With the source of the fake posters being one individual would it not raise suspicions about the volume of posters that were being supplied by one individual? Even with out the limited purchase release would it not be suspect having so many limited edition items from one person?
As stated the auction house usually sues the consignor, would expect the same here considering the volume of fake posters sold and the loss to the auction house, tens of thousands of pounds over the years?
Add to this issue other items are now told to be suspect
so that’s it? they get a pass? cause they paid back, at cost, most of the money they defrauded ppl out of? so the PB i bought in 2018 that would b worth 4k now (a real version at least) they gave me back my buy price of 650£ n that’s that? no harm no foul? they get 2 reinvest all that stolen money into real banksy, watch it appreciate, sell at massive profit, then refund some ppl n we’re good 2 go? business as usually? man i should move 2 the UK, things run wayyyyyyyyyyy different in nyc, but in UK ppl who own, co-own, whatever, auction houses r allowed 2 rob hundreds of thousands of pounds thru trackable public auction house n private sales, the same ppl, n there’s ZERO repercussions? sounds like the fkn wild west 2 me.... plus the fact u guys that know this 4 fact, live out there right next 2 these guys, see these ppl in the real world, n still chose 2 do business with them? wow, just.... wow. You're never 100% safe from fake art anywhere in the world, at all levels of the game, whatever tier auction house you're dealing with. In 2014 Switzerland’s Fine Art Expert Institute (FAEI) claimed that at least half of the artwork circulated in the market is fake. When the big names get caught out they tend to sue the consignor. The point here that stands out in relation to just the banksy posters is on release original purchasers were only permitted to purchase 5 posters. With the source of the fake posters being one individual would it not raise suspicions about the volume of posters that were being supplied by one individual? Even with out the limited purchase release would it not be suspect having so many limited edition items from one person? As stated the auction house usually sues the consignor, would expect the same here considering the volume of fake posters sold and the loss to the auction house, tens of thousands of pounds over the years? Add to this issue other items are now told to be suspect |
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
TateWard • Art Auctions 🇬🇧, by Deleted on Mar 27, 2021 18:52:44 GMT 1,
actually thats exactly what it is... its pending
Here you go "COA Pending" Shameful how misleading they are
actually thats exactly what it is... its pending Here you go "COA Pending" Shameful how misleading they are |
|
henryc
New Member
🗨️ 225
👍🏻 302
December 2020
|
TateWard • Art Auctions 🇬🇧, by henryc on Mar 27, 2021 19:12:59 GMT 1, i’ll keep retouching n keep jogging my man lol, supporting them in any way shape or form is bad business, n all that does is breed more of the same!!!! People still support Ben Eine after he punched his girlfriend. The art world is very fickle
Is that the Godwin point for art??
Just checking.
i’ll keep retouching n keep jogging my man lol, supporting them in any way shape or form is bad business, n all that does is breed more of the same!!!! People still support Ben Eine after he punched his girlfriend. The art world is very fickle Is that the Godwin point for art?? Just checking. |
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
TateWard • Art Auctions 🇬🇧, by Deleted on Mar 27, 2021 19:29:31 GMT 1, nah, this can be checked with PCO, i have before when i bought a banksquiat
nah, this can be checked with PCO, i have before when i bought a banksquiat
|
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
TateWard • Art Auctions 🇬🇧, by Deleted on Mar 27, 2021 19:30:57 GMT 1, lots of bad vibes here. lots of people think they know it all as well. who does really? i know i dont
lots of bad vibes here. lots of people think they know it all as well. who does really? i know i dont
|
|
gross
New Member
🗨️ 180
👍🏻 93
January 2020
|
Yes, hammer price was GBP 83 K. So with buyer fees, VAT and ARR it was about 110 K. It said 83k included premium |
|
LJCal
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,983
👍🏻 4,523
December 2019
|
TateWard • Art Auctions 🇬🇧, by LJCal on Mar 27, 2021 20:08:55 GMT 1, People need to chill out, you bought a fake poster? so what, it happens. They offered a refund to all involved, no auction house covers any appreciation in value, read their terms and conditions. No one has any evidence that they were complicit, and everything else is conjecture. If you believe Tate Ward are not trustworthy don’t buy from them or consign to them, for me personally I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and deal with them in the same way I deal with everyone, with my eyes wide open and diligently.
People need to chill out, you bought a fake poster? so what, it happens. They offered a refund to all involved, no auction house covers any appreciation in value, read their terms and conditions. No one has any evidence that they were complicit, and everything else is conjecture. If you believe Tate Ward are not trustworthy don’t buy from them or consign to them, for me personally I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and deal with them in the same way I deal with everyone, with my eyes wide open and diligently.
|
|
|
|
JFCC
New Member
🗨️ 390
👍🏻 394
May 2020
|
TateWard • Art Auctions 🇬🇧, by JFCC on Mar 27, 2021 20:35:55 GMT 1, Just my own view from the sideline is firstly, well done Daniel for his reply. TW were caught red handed selling fakes and worse also selling them secretly and surreptitiously to underbidders. Did they know they were fakes, I personally cannot believe they did not have suspicions, aside from the poor imagery but by the sheer volume from a couple of consignors. It is very probable that this fraud has extended beyond the Petrol Bomb but nobody knows for sure, only they do.
I agree with the point that reparation is not absolution, absolution can only come with complete disclosure and clear actions and words that they are not going to repeat it. But credit where credit is due, paying the selling price and the associated expenses back to the seller is all that can be realistically expected and is also the legal position.
I personally do not mind TW selling non COA pieces but please do not call it Banksy or Warhol. If doubt exists call it After Banksy or After Warhol so the buyer at least knows its origin is dubious. Be clear and unambiguous would be my preference so individuals can make up their own mind.
I do think TW should have brought the police in, that will always be a big negative to me and they also should now tell us how many fakes they sold and have been refunded and how many were genuine. It is then down to each individual to chose if they believe them and if they will support them again or not.
As to the GDP pieces without COA, PC will give pretty clear guidance if a COA will be issued or not. They quite rightly do this for all the main auctions houses, as understandably, they are more interested in maintaining their own excellent reputation than letting avoidable fakes enter the legitimate auction scene, even if they do not like TW for their selling tactics as is believed to be the case.
So again, my own view, COA pending etc is totally acceptable, selling non COA that has a hint of fake is not and should not be listed as being by the artist as in doing so gives positive affirmation of what it is purported to be.
TW have a long way to go to get a positive reputation back which is a shame, but with better disclosure and if they stop trying to make a £ regardless of everything else, they may move out of the lower divisions.
I'll put my hard hat on now!!
Just my own view from the sideline is firstly, well done Daniel for his reply. TW were caught red handed selling fakes and worse also selling them secretly and surreptitiously to underbidders. Did they know they were fakes, I personally cannot believe they did not have suspicions, aside from the poor imagery but by the sheer volume from a couple of consignors. It is very probable that this fraud has extended beyond the Petrol Bomb but nobody knows for sure, only they do.
I agree with the point that reparation is not absolution, absolution can only come with complete disclosure and clear actions and words that they are not going to repeat it. But credit where credit is due, paying the selling price and the associated expenses back to the seller is all that can be realistically expected and is also the legal position.
I personally do not mind TW selling non COA pieces but please do not call it Banksy or Warhol. If doubt exists call it After Banksy or After Warhol so the buyer at least knows its origin is dubious. Be clear and unambiguous would be my preference so individuals can make up their own mind.
I do think TW should have brought the police in, that will always be a big negative to me and they also should now tell us how many fakes they sold and have been refunded and how many were genuine. It is then down to each individual to chose if they believe them and if they will support them again or not.
As to the GDP pieces without COA, PC will give pretty clear guidance if a COA will be issued or not. They quite rightly do this for all the main auctions houses, as understandably, they are more interested in maintaining their own excellent reputation than letting avoidable fakes enter the legitimate auction scene, even if they do not like TW for their selling tactics as is believed to be the case.
So again, my own view, COA pending etc is totally acceptable, selling non COA that has a hint of fake is not and should not be listed as being by the artist as in doing so gives positive affirmation of what it is purported to be.
TW have a long way to go to get a positive reputation back which is a shame, but with better disclosure and if they stop trying to make a £ regardless of everything else, they may move out of the lower divisions.
I'll put my hard hat on now!!
|
|
Richy Rich
New Member
🗨️ 624
👍🏻 865
September 2020
|
TateWard • Art Auctions 🇬🇧, by Richy Rich on Mar 27, 2021 20:44:26 GMT 1, I stopped reading after you said “It’s clear” followed by “nobody knows for sure” in the same sentence. Haha
I stopped reading after you said “It’s clear” followed by “nobody knows for sure” in the same sentence. Haha
|
|
|
|
TateWard • Art Auctions 🇬🇧, by Coach on Mar 27, 2021 20:46:38 GMT 1, Just my own view from the sideline is firstly, well done Daniel for his reply. TW were caught red handed selling fakes and worse also selling them secretly and surreptitiously to underbidders. Did they know they were fakes, I personally cannot believe they did not have suspicions, aside from the poor imagery but by the sheer volume from a couple of consignors. It is clear that this fraud has extended beyond the Petrol Bomb but nobody knows for sure, only they do. I agree with the point that reparation is not absolution, absolution can only come with complete disclosure and clear actions and words that they are not going to repeat it. But credit where credit is due, paying the selling price and the associated expenses back to the seller is all that can be realistically expected and is also the legal position. I personally do not mind TW selling non COA pieces but please do not call it Banksy or Warhol. If doubt exists call it After Banksy or After Warhol so the buyer at least knows its origin is dubious. Be clear and unambiguous would be my preference so individuals can make up their own mind. I do think TW should have brought the police in, that will always be a big negative to me and they also should now tell us how many fakes they sold and have been refunded and how many were genuine. It is then down to each individual to chose if they believe them and if they will support them again or not. As to the GDP pieces without COA, PC will give pretty clear guidance if a COA will be issued or not. They quite rightly do this for all the main auctions houses, as understandably, they are more interested in maintaining their own excellent reputation than letting avoidable fakes enter the legitimate auction scene, even if they do not like TW for their selling tactics as is believed to be the case. So again, my own view, COA pending etc is totally acceptable, selling non COA that has a hint of fake is not and should not be listed as being by the artist as in doing so gives positive affirmation of what it is purported to be. TW have a long way to go to get a positive reputation back which is a shame, but with better disclosure and if they stop trying to make a £ regardless of everything else, they may move out of the lower divisions. I'll put my hard hat on now!!
Regarding anyone selling pieces that don’t have a coa, I don’t agree that they have to be sold as “after Banksy”.
Provided that it is clear that a piece doesn’t have a coa, that’s fine to my mind. The buyer knows what they are getting.
There are offer forms of provenance. It’s up to the buyer as to whether they are content to buy items that don’t have a coa or where a coa isn’t yet in hand.
Just my own view from the sideline is firstly, well done Daniel for his reply. TW were caught red handed selling fakes and worse also selling them secretly and surreptitiously to underbidders. Did they know they were fakes, I personally cannot believe they did not have suspicions, aside from the poor imagery but by the sheer volume from a couple of consignors. It is clear that this fraud has extended beyond the Petrol Bomb but nobody knows for sure, only they do. I agree with the point that reparation is not absolution, absolution can only come with complete disclosure and clear actions and words that they are not going to repeat it. But credit where credit is due, paying the selling price and the associated expenses back to the seller is all that can be realistically expected and is also the legal position. I personally do not mind TW selling non COA pieces but please do not call it Banksy or Warhol. If doubt exists call it After Banksy or After Warhol so the buyer at least knows its origin is dubious. Be clear and unambiguous would be my preference so individuals can make up their own mind. I do think TW should have brought the police in, that will always be a big negative to me and they also should now tell us how many fakes they sold and have been refunded and how many were genuine. It is then down to each individual to chose if they believe them and if they will support them again or not. As to the GDP pieces without COA, PC will give pretty clear guidance if a COA will be issued or not. They quite rightly do this for all the main auctions houses, as understandably, they are more interested in maintaining their own excellent reputation than letting avoidable fakes enter the legitimate auction scene, even if they do not like TW for their selling tactics as is believed to be the case. So again, my own view, COA pending etc is totally acceptable, selling non COA that has a hint of fake is not and should not be listed as being by the artist as in doing so gives positive affirmation of what it is purported to be. TW have a long way to go to get a positive reputation back which is a shame, but with better disclosure and if they stop trying to make a £ regardless of everything else, they may move out of the lower divisions. I'll put my hard hat on now!! Regarding anyone selling pieces that don’t have a coa, I don’t agree that they have to be sold as “after Banksy”. Provided that it is clear that a piece doesn’t have a coa, that’s fine to my mind. The buyer knows what they are getting. There are offer forms of provenance. It’s up to the buyer as to whether they are content to buy items that don’t have a coa or where a coa isn’t yet in hand. |
|
|
|
TateWard • Art Auctions 🇬🇧, by Coach on Mar 27, 2021 20:50:16 GMT 1, Here you go "COA Pending" Shameful how misleading they are
Which bit?
Here you go "COA Pending" Shameful how misleading they are Which bit? |
|
JFCC
New Member
🗨️ 390
👍🏻 394
May 2020
|
TateWard • Art Auctions 🇬🇧, by JFCC on Mar 27, 2021 21:03:00 GMT 1, Just my own view from the sideline is firstly, well done Daniel for his reply. TW were caught red handed selling fakes and worse also selling them secretly and surreptitiously to underbidders. Did they know they were fakes, I personally cannot believe they did not have suspicions, aside from the poor imagery but by the sheer volume from a couple of consignors. It is clear that this fraud has extended beyond the Petrol Bomb but nobody knows for sure, only they do. I agree with the point that reparation is not absolution, absolution can only come with complete disclosure and clear actions and words that they are not going to repeat it. But credit where credit is due, paying the selling price and the associated expenses back to the seller is all that can be realistically expected and is also the legal position. I personally do not mind TW selling non COA pieces but please do not call it Banksy or Warhol. If doubt exists call it After Banksy or After Warhol so the buyer at least knows its origin is dubious. Be clear and unambiguous would be my preference so individuals can make up their own mind. I do think TW should have brought the police in, that will always be a big negative to me and they also should now tell us how many fakes they sold and have been refunded and how many were genuine. It is then down to each individual to chose if they believe them and if they will support them again or not. As to the GDP pieces without COA, PC will give pretty clear guidance if a COA will be issued or not. They quite rightly do this for all the main auctions houses, as understandably, they are more interested in maintaining their own excellent reputation than letting avoidable fakes enter the legitimate auction scene, even if they do not like TW for their selling tactics as is believed to be the case. So again, my own view, COA pending etc is totally acceptable, selling non COA that has a hint of fake is not and should not be listed as being by the artist as in doing so gives positive affirmation of what it is purported to be. TW have a long way to go to get a positive reputation back which is a shame, but with better disclosure and if they stop trying to make a £ regardless of everything else, they may move out of the lower divisions. I'll put my hard hat on now!! Regarding anyone selling pieces that don’t have a coa, I don’t agree that they have to be sold as “after Banksy”. Provided that it is clear that a piece doesn’t have a coa, that’s fine to my mind. The buyer knows what they are getting. There are offer forms of provenance. It’s up to the buyer as to whether they are content to buy items that don’t have a coa or where a coa isn’t yet in hand.
Art should be for "the people" and ownership should be open to all, albeit at a price. Not everyone will have your expertise and so they should be protected from the scurrilous seller. An Auction should not be club for "clever" Art people only, anybody should be able to go and expect not to get ripped off.
Interestingly Bonhams have started to call non COA works "After Banksy" and well done them in giving some more protection to the buyer!
Just my own view from the sideline is firstly, well done Daniel for his reply. TW were caught red handed selling fakes and worse also selling them secretly and surreptitiously to underbidders. Did they know they were fakes, I personally cannot believe they did not have suspicions, aside from the poor imagery but by the sheer volume from a couple of consignors. It is clear that this fraud has extended beyond the Petrol Bomb but nobody knows for sure, only they do. I agree with the point that reparation is not absolution, absolution can only come with complete disclosure and clear actions and words that they are not going to repeat it. But credit where credit is due, paying the selling price and the associated expenses back to the seller is all that can be realistically expected and is also the legal position. I personally do not mind TW selling non COA pieces but please do not call it Banksy or Warhol. If doubt exists call it After Banksy or After Warhol so the buyer at least knows its origin is dubious. Be clear and unambiguous would be my preference so individuals can make up their own mind. I do think TW should have brought the police in, that will always be a big negative to me and they also should now tell us how many fakes they sold and have been refunded and how many were genuine. It is then down to each individual to chose if they believe them and if they will support them again or not. As to the GDP pieces without COA, PC will give pretty clear guidance if a COA will be issued or not. They quite rightly do this for all the main auctions houses, as understandably, they are more interested in maintaining their own excellent reputation than letting avoidable fakes enter the legitimate auction scene, even if they do not like TW for their selling tactics as is believed to be the case. So again, my own view, COA pending etc is totally acceptable, selling non COA that has a hint of fake is not and should not be listed as being by the artist as in doing so gives positive affirmation of what it is purported to be. TW have a long way to go to get a positive reputation back which is a shame, but with better disclosure and if they stop trying to make a £ regardless of everything else, they may move out of the lower divisions. I'll put my hard hat on now!! Regarding anyone selling pieces that don’t have a coa, I don’t agree that they have to be sold as “after Banksy”. Provided that it is clear that a piece doesn’t have a coa, that’s fine to my mind. The buyer knows what they are getting. There are offer forms of provenance. It’s up to the buyer as to whether they are content to buy items that don’t have a coa or where a coa isn’t yet in hand. I am sure that you are very able to spot fakes, but not everyone is and Auctions should not be a place to catch people out or trap the uninitiated? Art should be for "the people" and ownership should be open to all, albeit at a price. Not everyone will have your expertise and so they should be protected from the scurrilous seller. An Auction should not be club for "clever" Art people only, anybody should be able to go and expect not to get ripped off. Interestingly Bonhams have started to call non COA works "After Banksy" and well done them in giving some more protection to the buyer! |
|
daniel3886
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,250
👍🏻 995
October 2006
|
TateWard • Art Auctions 🇬🇧, by daniel3886 on Mar 27, 2021 21:44:25 GMT 1, Just my own view from the sideline is firstly, well done Daniel for his reply. TW were caught red handed selling fakes and worse also selling them secretly and surreptitiously to underbidders. Did they know they were fakes, I personally cannot believe they did not have suspicions, aside from the poor imagery but by the sheer volume from a couple of consignors. It is very probable that this fraud has extended beyond the Petrol Bomb but nobody knows for sure, only they do. I agree with the point that reparation is not absolution, absolution can only come with complete disclosure and clear actions and words that they are not going to repeat it. But credit where credit is due, paying the selling price and the associated expenses back to the seller is all that can be realistically expected and is also the legal position. I personally do not mind TW selling non COA pieces but please do not call it Banksy or Warhol. If doubt exists call it After Banksy or After Warhol so the buyer at least knows its origin is dubious. Be clear and unambiguous would be my preference so individuals can make up their own mind. I do think TW should have brought the police in, that will always be a big negative to me and they also should now tell us how many fakes they sold and have been refunded and how many were genuine. It is then down to each individual to chose if they believe them and if they will support them again or not. As to the GDP pieces without COA, PC will give pretty clear guidance if a COA will be issued or not. They quite rightly do this for all the main auctions houses, as understandably, they are more interested in maintaining their own excellent reputation than letting avoidable fakes enter the legitimate auction scene, even if they do not like TW for their selling tactics as is believed to be the case. So again, my own view, COA pending etc is totally acceptable, selling non COA that has a hint of fake is not and should not be listed as being by the artist as in doing so gives positive affirmation of what it is purported to be. TW have a long way to go to get a positive reputation back which is a shame, but with better disclosure and if they stop trying to make a £ regardless of everything else, they may move out of the lower divisions. I'll put my hard hat on now!!
I said in one of my posts and you may have missed it, that the matter was reported to the Metropolitan Police Art Fraud Squad by us. We are yet to hear the resolution of this but rest assured as soon as there is an update I will share that here.
We’ll be back in May with an Artsy only Online auction and the next live sale is scheduled for Jun.
Just my own view from the sideline is firstly, well done Daniel for his reply. TW were caught red handed selling fakes and worse also selling them secretly and surreptitiously to underbidders. Did they know they were fakes, I personally cannot believe they did not have suspicions, aside from the poor imagery but by the sheer volume from a couple of consignors. It is very probable that this fraud has extended beyond the Petrol Bomb but nobody knows for sure, only they do. I agree with the point that reparation is not absolution, absolution can only come with complete disclosure and clear actions and words that they are not going to repeat it. But credit where credit is due, paying the selling price and the associated expenses back to the seller is all that can be realistically expected and is also the legal position. I personally do not mind TW selling non COA pieces but please do not call it Banksy or Warhol. If doubt exists call it After Banksy or After Warhol so the buyer at least knows its origin is dubious. Be clear and unambiguous would be my preference so individuals can make up their own mind. I do think TW should have brought the police in, that will always be a big negative to me and they also should now tell us how many fakes they sold and have been refunded and how many were genuine. It is then down to each individual to chose if they believe them and if they will support them again or not. As to the GDP pieces without COA, PC will give pretty clear guidance if a COA will be issued or not. They quite rightly do this for all the main auctions houses, as understandably, they are more interested in maintaining their own excellent reputation than letting avoidable fakes enter the legitimate auction scene, even if they do not like TW for their selling tactics as is believed to be the case. So again, my own view, COA pending etc is totally acceptable, selling non COA that has a hint of fake is not and should not be listed as being by the artist as in doing so gives positive affirmation of what it is purported to be. TW have a long way to go to get a positive reputation back which is a shame, but with better disclosure and if they stop trying to make a £ regardless of everything else, they may move out of the lower divisions. I'll put my hard hat on now!! I said in one of my posts and you may have missed it, that the matter was reported to the Metropolitan Police Art Fraud Squad by us. We are yet to hear the resolution of this but rest assured as soon as there is an update I will share that here. We’ll be back in May with an Artsy only Online auction and the next live sale is scheduled for Jun. |
|
|
|
TateWard • Art Auctions 🇬🇧, by Coach on Mar 27, 2021 21:58:15 GMT 1, Regarding anyone selling pieces that don’t have a coa, I don’t agree that they have to be sold as “after Banksy”. Provided that it is clear that a piece doesn’t have a coa, that’s fine to my mind. The buyer knows what they are getting. There are offer forms of provenance. It’s up to the buyer as to whether they are content to buy items that don’t have a coa or where a coa isn’t yet in hand. I am sure that you are very able to spot fakes, but not everyone is and Auctions should not be a place to catch people out or trap the uninitiated? Art should be for "the people" and ownership should be open to all, albeit at a price. Not everyone will have your expertise and so they should be protected from the scurrilous seller. An Auction should not be club for "clever" Art people only, anybody should be able to go and expect not to get ripped off. Interestingly Bonhams have started to call non COA works "After Banksy" and well done them in giving some more protection to the buyer!
I am probably not the expert that you kindly suggest that I am.
Arguably to someone with less knowledge calling something “after Banksy” when it is blatantly genuine is unfair to the seller as, to someone with less knowledge, it might suggest that it isn’t by Banksy.
For example, I have various pieces that have solid provenance, some directly from pow, but which don’t attract a coa. I can happily guarantee their authenticity. Why should they not be described as “Banksy”.
As I’m sure you know, a time existed before PC, when if buying secondary, one would collect provenance, check existing ownership with pow, assess the quality of the provenance, and excersise one’s discretion. I think PC was intended to make the higher value pieces more securely bought, not to make lower value pieces more difficult to sell.
Regarding anyone selling pieces that don’t have a coa, I don’t agree that they have to be sold as “after Banksy”. Provided that it is clear that a piece doesn’t have a coa, that’s fine to my mind. The buyer knows what they are getting. There are offer forms of provenance. It’s up to the buyer as to whether they are content to buy items that don’t have a coa or where a coa isn’t yet in hand. I am sure that you are very able to spot fakes, but not everyone is and Auctions should not be a place to catch people out or trap the uninitiated? Art should be for "the people" and ownership should be open to all, albeit at a price. Not everyone will have your expertise and so they should be protected from the scurrilous seller. An Auction should not be club for "clever" Art people only, anybody should be able to go and expect not to get ripped off. Interestingly Bonhams have started to call non COA works "After Banksy" and well done them in giving some more protection to the buyer! I am probably not the expert that you kindly suggest that I am. Arguably to someone with less knowledge calling something “after Banksy” when it is blatantly genuine is unfair to the seller as, to someone with less knowledge, it might suggest that it isn’t by Banksy. For example, I have various pieces that have solid provenance, some directly from pow, but which don’t attract a coa. I can happily guarantee their authenticity. Why should they not be described as “Banksy”. As I’m sure you know, a time existed before PC, when if buying secondary, one would collect provenance, check existing ownership with pow, assess the quality of the provenance, and excersise one’s discretion. I think PC was intended to make the higher value pieces more securely bought, not to make lower value pieces more difficult to sell. |
|
LJCal
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,983
👍🏻 4,523
December 2019
|
TateWard • Art Auctions 🇬🇧, by LJCal on Mar 27, 2021 22:27:02 GMT 1, People need to chill out, you bought a fake poster? so what, it happens. They offered a refund to all involved, no auction house covers any appreciation in value, read their terms and conditions. No one has any evidence that they were complicit, and everything else is conjecture. If you believe Tate Ward are not trustworthy don’t buy for them or consign to them, for me personally I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and deal with them in the same way I deal with everyone, with my eyes wide open and diligently. u got blinders on bud, how else can u claim it was “conjecture”? they were selling fake banksy PB in 2018, probably before, up into late 2020 until they got busted by jamie, only then did they start paying ppl back... “no evidence that they were complicit”? i just gave u evidence.... selling fake banksy FOR YEARS with trackable private n auction sales.... good thing ur not a lawyer🙄
People need to chill out, you bought a fake poster? so what, it happens. They offered a refund to all involved, no auction house covers any appreciation in value, read their terms and conditions. No one has any evidence that they were complicit, and everything else is conjecture. If you believe Tate Ward are not trustworthy don’t buy for them or consign to them, for me personally I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and deal with them in the same way I deal with everyone, with my eyes wide open and diligently. u got blinders on bud, how else can u claim it was “conjecture”? they were selling fake banksy PB in 2018, probably before, up into late 2020 until they got busted by jamie, only then did they start paying ppl back... “no evidence that they were complicit”? i just gave u evidence.... selling fake banksy FOR YEARS with trackable private n auction sales.... good thing ur not a lawyer🙄 Good thing you’re not, they’re claiming they did so unwittingly, you can’t be complicit if you don’t have knowledge of the wrong doing. You’re claiming they did have knowledge and labelling them criminals without any proof, that’s conjecture. A fair claim on the available information is perhaps they were negligent but in paying back the money to the parties impacted they’ve at least tried to put that right. |
|
