« Daniel Pearl Memorial Violin Awarded to Fiddler Ruby Jane Smith | Home | Re:“Made In China” »
Re: Aspects of Violin and Art Fraud and the Criminal Law
Being in violin business for more than 10 years I got a habit of collecting distinct stories about violins and everything connected with violins. It became my hobby. My interest in violin fraud wouldn’t be so big had I less occasions to say for “poor” customers – “don’t trust the label”. I think that fraud phenomenon couldn’t exist if there wasn’t mutual interest.
In 1992 the Vienna Dorotheum fanfaronaded the auctioning of a `rare master violin’ in a specially printed flyer accompanying their catalogue, complete with glossy colour pictures.22 The violin was labelled Joseph Guarneri filius Andreae, Cremona 1714. The bidding for this `Altitalienische Meistergeige’ was to start at 800 000 Austrian schillings (400 000 pounds sterling), representing one third of its value, and was expected to reach two million schillings (a million pounds).
To confirm the identification of the violin, experts were brought in; all were in agreement — that is, all but one. Violin-maker Jacob Saunders identified the `1714′ old Italian master violin as a new instrument by the hand of British violin-maker Roger Hargrave who specialises in copies. When Hargrave heard about this, he offered to fly over and confirm Saunders’s identification. The so-called Guarneri was withdrawn from the auction. It was indeed a modern Hargrave copy of Guarneri; Hargrave himself (of course) had never intended any fraud or deception. Despite Hargrave’s testimony, some of the experts remained obstinate in their original confirmation! Unanswered questions remain: What was that label doing there? And why were no criminal charges laid and investigated?
The other story highlights new names but still has the same subject-matter.
The Werro trial Another notorious example of the difficulties inherent in a criminal case is the trial of the well-known and previously highly respected violin dealer and expert Henry Werro in Bern in 1958.103 Werro was accused of fraud in the course of his work committed through the sale of old stringed instruments. He was charged with having sold nineteen violins, one cello and three bows that were either completely or partly fake.
The Italian Chamber of Commerce constituted a commission of experts charged with the investigation of old stringed instruments. The Association of Swiss Violin Makers also formed a commission of experts. The experts of both commissions investigated a number of violins that had been sold for 100 000 Swiss francs or more and that appeared to be fakes. Werro’s objections to the experts led the jury to appoint another five experts that had to give `Oberexpertisen’.
One of the highlights of the trial was the performance by one Albert Phillips-Hill, a very famous violin expert of the old and prestigious firm W. E. Hill and Sons in London. (The firm sadly `folded’ in 1992.) He stated in court that Werro was a first class violin-maker, trader and expert, and was highly esteemed throughout the realm of violin expertise and trade. Phillips-Hill himself of course also qualified as an expert witness. When asked about a violin that was ascribed to Ruggieri, Hill said that certain characteristics of the instrument pointed to the master. A violin that Werro had sold for 120 000 Swiss francs as a 1716 Stradivarius was acknowledged by Hill to be the work of Stradivarius but subject to the reservation that the top could possibly be of a later date. Another violin which Werro had sold for 80 000 Swiss franks as a violin by Carlo Bergonzi, and which had been labelled a fake by the `Oberexperten’, was described by Hill as an original by the master from the year 1732. Hill later admitted that determining the specific year of manufacture in the first place rests on the date on the label!
Later in the trial Hill was heard again. Hill’s opinions conflicted with those of the experts appointed by the bench. The experts were of the opinion that a certain violin was a Cappa that had been `promoted’ to a Guarneri. Having previously held the opinion that the instrument was definitely a Cappa possessing all the characteristics of an instrument built by the master, Hill could now not remember ever having seen the violin. The so-called Bergonzi was also an object of conflict. The experts appointed by the bench furnished evidence that the violin was a fake; the varnish had been artificially given an old appearance with black dye; the f-holes had been `corrected’; and the bottom showed a superficial and hasty finish, not expected from the meticulous craftsman that Bergonzi had been. The value of the instrument, in their appraisal, would at the very highest be a twentieth of the selling price of 80 000 Swiss francs. Hill persisted that the violin was the work of Carlo Bergonzi.
5 CONCLUSION: WHAT NOW? AND WHY?
The number of fake works of art and violins on the market is increasing and one can expect this trend to continue104 — the market forces of supply and demand will see to that. For various reasons the dupe or victim of art and violin- related crimes is not always eager to lodge a complaint. It is also clear that our criminal justice system is not ideally suited to curb the growing incidence of these crimes — the difficulty of proving one’s case, especially when having to rely on the precarious opinion-based evidence of experts, is but one of many obstacles facing the prosecution. Where then should one turn for an answer? And why?
The purchaser could buy only from reputable dealers and thus minimise the risk of buying a fake, although even experts can be (and often are) deceived. If the artist is still alive, the buyer could contact the artist to authenticate the artefact. Knowledge is a very important weapon; buyers should become inquisitive and should do their homework before investing in any work of art. The expert, the academic, the dealer, the museum industry and, very important, the media (TV) could all play a major role in the fight against art and violin-related crimes of dishonesty, by informing and educating the public.
L C Coetzee & Jan-Hendrik van Rooyen
Topics: violin | 2 Comments »
August 10th, 2008 at 2:49 am
800.000 Austrin schillings were worth about 40.000 pounds sterling, not 400.000! The answers to your retorical “questions” are pretty obvious
January 28th, 2012 at 5:03 am
We did try to prosecute but the Dorotheum asked us not to because they had loaned a considerable sum of money on this violin. In spite of several requests no-one has ever told me what happened to this violin.