The Park West Gallery "Marc" Chagall Swindle:

The Financial Rape of Victim Tom Ungar

Tom Ungar is one of the more egregious cases of financial rape and victimization by Park West Gallery. We won’t bother going to the trouble of setting forth the process of how Park West Gallery sacks its victims as Fine Art Registry has reported ad nauseam on the subject of the snake oil sales tactics employed by Park West Gallery, including the issuing of bogus Certificates of Authenticity and its extortionate and worthless self-appraisals.

It is sufficient to know that after years of investigation, purchasers of Park West Gallery artwork are typically (and with rare exception) first time or unsophisticated art buyers who have never purchased a serious artwork in their lives and have never attended a legitimate art auction. Our statistics reveal (with more than 500 Park West Gallery victims having contacted us over the last three and a half years) that the vast majority of Park West Gallery purchasers never even heard of Park West Gallery until they set sail on a cruise ship.

Below is an in depth analysis of Tom Ungar's Park West Gallery purchase. We have made an example of this specific crooked deal because it is instructive as a warning on a variety of levels. This article is meant to educate and inform the unsuspecting public and to bring to light that it's not just the faked and forged Dali inventory that Park West Gallery sells that is at issue. Rather, it is our opinion that it is every aspect of the Park West Gallery business model that is a plague to the art industry as a whole.

The entirety of the documents provided by Park West Gallery as it concerns the purported Chagall drawing purchased by Mr. Ungar are published here, so they can be reviewed, investigated, and studied by everyone and anyone that has an interest and with the hope that those reading this will learn something and perhaps save others from going down the same road. Mr. Unger's contact information has been redacted and withheld in order to protect his privacy and shield him from Park West Gallery retaliation.

Perpetrating the "Marc" Chagall Fraud

The faked, forged, or counterfeit drawing that Mr. Unger purchased from Park West Gallery is illustrated below. The artwork is housed in the typical Park West Gallery frame. There is a reason that Park West Gallery encourages framing to its buyers (save the cheesy give-away pieces). While there is no doubt a sizable profit is made from the framing, we believe there is a much more sinister reason for framing all works and especially those sold at exorbitant sums such as what was sold to Mr. Ungar. It is our opinion that when Mr. Ungar's artwork is finally removed from its frame, latent or hidden defects, abnormalities, and other discoveries as to the artwork’s lack of authenticity will be flagrant, perceptible, and abundantly apparent. Framing the artwork prior to delivery is a way to covertly hide anything and everything that may be considered suspect.

The Park West Gallery Certificate of Authenticity, Invoice and Appraisal

As part of Mr. Unger's purchase, he received a Park West Gallery invoice, a Park West Gallery Certificate of Authenticity (COA) and a Park West Gallery Appraisal—nothing more, which is a significant problem for Park West Gallery which we will address in more detail later in this article. With the exception of the invoice, the Park West Gallery COA and the Appraisal were not received by Mr. Ungar until he accepted delivery of the artwork, weeks after he purchased it. In most cases of Park West Gallery sales, the COA and appraisal are shipped and delivered separately from the artwork and long after the art purchase is made - in fact long after Park West Gallery has pocketed the victims' money. This practice is calculated and intentional. Park West Gallery does not want any of its meager, insufficient, inadequate, and dubious documentation (in essence a bunch of gobbledygook) in the hands of buyers prior to delivery of the artwork and before the sale of the artwork, all in violation of the "Michigan Multiples Sales Act." Park West Gallery is required to disclose relevant and material facts concerning artwork multiples or prints that it sells prior to sale and prior to any money changing hands.

The so-called "drawing" Mr. Ungar purchased which was represented to have been made on the reverse of a Chagall color lithograph and removed from a book edition is, according to the COA, titled: "Figures and Donkey." This title was completely fabricated by Park West Gallery as the drawing makes no reference to a title. The more appropriate title would have been "Five Figures and a Donkey," for it is a fact that Mr. Ungar paid the extreme north end of five figures, or nearly $85,000, for a "Donkey" of a rip off.

Unfortunately for Tom Ungar, he crossed paths with the infamous art dealer on December 27, 1999, when he purchased what he thought was an "original" Chagall drawing from a Park West Gallery salesman or "auctioneer," while sailing onboard the Royal Caribbean ship, Grandeur of the Seas. The Park West Gallery Certificate of Authenticity represented and described the piece as follows:

"12 1/4" x 9 1/2" - Mixed media drawing in oil pastel, crayon and ink wove [sic] on paper—Signed, dated [1971], and inscribed "Pour Dr. Frederic Schoni Zurich" in ink. This work is drawn on the verso [reverse] of an original Chagall lithograph, 'Frontispiece' (M. 578, 1969) which was printed for release in 'Chagall Lithographs Vol. III'. A unique work."

The remainder of this article will focus on key points of concern as it relates to the Park West Gallery COA, the appraisal, and the invoice as they are all important to demonstrate how the gallery uses these crude and ineffectual pieces of paper to snow or dupe the average consumer.

Phony Surcharges - The Wicked Park West Gallery "Buyer's Premium"

1. Note that the bogus Park West Gallery Certificate of Authenticity (COA) and Appraisal are both conveniently signed by the CEO of Park West Gallery, Albert Scaglione, who also owned or held title to the artwork before it was sold to Mr. Ungar. Why is this important? Just take a look at Mr. Ungar's invoice and reference the 12.5% commission that was charged to Mr. Ungar - a massive so called "Buyer's Premium" (an unexplained and unbelievable surcharge) of nearly $10,000. This is a fortune charged for nothing more than the privilege of Park West Gallery selling the piece to Mr. Ungar, and you'll see why as we continue to analyze the Park West Gallery documents below.

Commissions are charged by auction houses for "consigned" works of art that are NOT owned by, and do not belong to the auction house. There is usually a Buyer's Commission (or Buyer's Premium) and Seller's Commission that is charged. In other words, valid title to (or ownership of) the artworks that are consigned by private individuals to a legitimate auction house is usually always held by the owners of the artwork prior to and up to the time of final sale of the artwork at auction. When the art is sold to the highest bidder, the hammer is struck by the auctioneer, and the title to (or ownership of) the work of art passes to that bidder in accordance with the Uniform Commercial Code. Earning commissions on the "buy" and "sell" of a piece of art is how legitimate auction houses make a profit. It is how they stay in business.

Park West Gallery art inventory on the other hand is not consigned by private sellers. Park West Gallery already owns the artwork - just as a retail store purchases inventory for resale - Park West Gallery has warehouses in Michigan and in Florida full of inventory it has pre-purchased whether by wholesale or at auction for the purpose of selling at retail. Park West Gallery also self-appraises its inventory based on its own retail market, otherwise known as a "closed market," which no one but Park West Gallery is privy to.

What Park West Gallery doesn't want you to know is that unlike legitimate auction houses:

• Park West Gallery is NOT an auction house at all. It is a retail store selling, for the most part, commercial industrial grade "product" primarily on cruise ships and at hotels. The bulk of its retail sales revenue is generated at these venues.
• Park West Gallery does not employ licensed auctioneers on cruise ships or elsewhere.
• Park West Gallery does not issue pre-printed auction catalogs with Lot Nos., descriptions, or estimates of value, nor do they disclose material information or provenance documentation sufficient to prove authenticity to prospective buyers prior to sale or prior to conducting their pseudo auctions, or dog and pony shows.
• It is impossible to perform adequate due diligence on any of the artwork Park West Gallery offers at their bogus sales events.

Get the picture? So, based on the above, while it may not be a crime to unfairly gouge victims like Mr. Ungar, and take advantage of buyers in such a deceitful, slimy way, it is most certainly, completely corrupt and immoral to charge a phony and extreme "Buyer's Premium" - while pretending to be an auction house when it is not, and is especially outrageous when it is later determined that the artwork on which such a "Buyer's Premium" is charged is found to be utterly misrepresented as to authenticity and value, faked and/or forged. Wouldn't we all like to appraise our own home in order to sell it? Checks, balances, and regulations in the real estate market are in place to help prevent all sorts of fraud that exists in the real estate market, including wildly disparate appraisals. The same is true for automobiles - lemon laws exist today for car purchasers. Conversely, the art market is completely unregulated which automatically provides companies like Park West Gallery license to commit highway robbery with no accountability and no one the wiser, that is until others, like Fine Art Registry started focusing on complaints received from Park West Gallery victims. Make no mistake, Park West Gallery is not the only one that practices these deceptive sales tactics, but by Park West Gallery's own admission - they are the self-proclaimed "largest art gallery on the planet" and therefore they are by far the greatest offender.

It is also important to note that the COA and Appraisal are exactly the same in text, but for the dollar amount referenced on the appraisal. (Read the article on Worthless Park West Gallery Appraisals for more on this subject.).

Signed and Dated? By Whom? When and Where is the Proof?

2. Note that the COA simply states the word "signed" but does not state the name of who signed it. The buyer mistakenly and to his detriment assumes that the reference to the word "signed" in the COA means it is "signed" by Marc Chagall when it could mean just about anything. Park West Gallery wants, hopes, and expects the novice buyer or the victim to make a leap here, to make a psychological connection from the stated word "signed" to "signed by Marc Chagall." The same can be said of the stated year, "1971". We have yet to see a COA issued by Park West Gallery that states definitively that any of the artwork they sell is "signed by the hand of the artist" who was to have created or authored the work of art. In our opinion, this is deliberate and intentional. According to the COA, for all we know, the bogus drawing could have been "signed" and "dated" by "Joe-Schmagall-the-Rag-Man" the day before, or six months, or even two years before Mr. Ungar purchased the piece on the ship. The drawing is also simply signed "Marc". This could have been any "Marc" on the globe or any Tom, Dick or Harry, signing the name "Marc." What we do know is that there is nothing, not a scintilla of evidence from Park West Gallery or otherwise that proves that the work was signed by THE Marc Chagall as will be further illustrated in detail below.

So a buyer is forced, deceived and/or tricked into assuming by the content of the COA alone (or by what is omitted from the COA) that the drawing was produced and signed in the year "1971," even though the drawing could have been produced in 1989, 1991 or as stated above, the day before Mr. Ungar's cruise in 1999. Note that no where on the COA does it state plainly and unambiguously that the so-called drawing was actually "produced in the year 1971" and it makes no statement that the "drawing is by the hand of Marc Chagall," or that "it was signed by the hand of Marc Chagall." Read the COA carefully. It makes NO such representation even remotely close. Look for what is not stated, rather than what is stated. The COA is incredibly deceptive and misleading and a complete bunch of pretentious baloney.

Even if one assumes that the drawing was actually produced in 1971 (which is clearly what Park West Gallery needs and is hoping that the buyer believes), it is a tremendously strained stretch to believe that as successful as Chagall was, he would be compelled to mutilate a bound volume of his own lithographs, separate the lithograph from the book, and so soon after its publication in 1969, to scribble a drawing on the reverse and then inscribe a general dedication to some obscure person who is most probably fictitious and then sign the drawing with his first name only which is, by a cursory study of the artist and his habits, not at all consistent with his practice.

The Park West Gallery web site states that every artwork they sell is "reviewed and researched by our extensive network of definitive experts and art scholars". And their certificate "GUARANTEES the artwork is absolutely genuine." The Park West Gallery web site also states that all "Chagalls" are subject to their own thorough research and authentication. So if these statements are indeed true, where is the research or evidence from any expert or art scholar, including a certification from the official Marc Chagall committee that proves authenticity of the subject Chagall? Where is it Park West Gallery and why wasn't it produced to Mr. Ungar prior to sale?

In addition to the complete absence of any reliable and/or verifiable documentation or provenance documents supporting the authenticity of the piece, is the complete failure to disclose the entity or the individual from where Park West Gallery acquired the piece. There is also no reference to a line of descent (a record of the change in ownership) of the piece, nor any explanation of any kind concerning the circumstances surrounding the production of what would most certainly be considered in the Chagall circles as an "important work" (that is if in fact the drawing were a legitimate drawing which it is not) which makes this piece particularly and extraordinarily suspicious and therefore is most probably a counterfeit, a fake, a completely inauthentic work.

The bottom line: without genuine, undeniable certification from the Comité Chagall, the piece is worthless and can never be declared authentic. Simply stated, the burden is on Park West Gallery to prove unequivocal authenticity and the proof must be tangible and from the recognized authority on Chagall. In other words, the authenticity must be based on much more than the unreliable word of Albert Scaglione who has a vested interest in the artwork he peddles.

It should be remembered that it is very common in art fraud and art crime to make nebulous references to dates and names on documents and artwork that can never be substantiated or verified; the more general the references by the unscrupulous art dealer the less chance of getting caught or anyone becoming the wiser. A prospective buyer must at all times be vigilant and perform due diligence in the art market - especially when the artwork is priced at such a substantial sum.

Sloppy, Simplistic, and Substandard

3. Note too the careless and amateurish screw up on the COA where it states: "crayon and ink wove [sic] on paper." What? There is no such thing as "crayon and ink wove on paper." You would think if a buyer is paying nearly the price of a brand new Mercedes for a piece of art, Park West Gallery could at least get the text correct in its bogus COA. The term "wove" refers to a substrate on which the artwork is applied, drawn, or painted (a type of paper), and most certainly not the type of ink or the crayon. This reflects a shoddy, lack of attention to detail that is not representative of a professional fine art gallery. Fly by night comes to mind when reading the simplistic, unsophisticated, and extraordinarily unprofessional Park West Gallery COA.

Deliberate Omissions

4. Note the statement: "This work is drawn on the verso of an original Chagall lithograph, 'Frontispiece' (M. 578, 1969)...." Why in the world didn't Park West Gallery identify the name of the title of the "Frontispiece" or lithograph by name? Park West Gallery is banking on the fact that in omitting titles or omitting words from titles, or in changing titles, a buyer wishing to research the piece likely won't be able to locate it and thus the buyer won't be able to definitively determine the authenticity and value, thereby preventing the discovery that he was the butt end of a royal rip off. Remember, the vast majority of Park West buyers are not by any means sophisticated collectors. The Park West Gallery prey is the tenderfoot - the amateur collector who would not know any better.

The title of the "Frontispiece" that Park West Gallery opportunely omitted from the COA is: "Harlequin with Flowers". It is a color lithograph published in 1969. There were 75 numbered impressions + 10,000 unsigned impressions for the frontispiece of Chagall Lithographe III. Note that Park West Gallery also curiously omits from the COA, the number in the edition, again, in direct violation of The Michigan Art Multiples Sales Act. An image of the frontispiece appears below and it is interesting to note that it is currently advertised at a gallery that specializes in Chagall prints for a mere: $1,075.00. The suggested retail price of this frontispiece lithograph is a range of $800 to $1400, so this offering is mid range. Shockingly, that's a mere tenth of the $10,000 Buyer's Premium that Mr. Ungar paid to Park West Gallery and a tad over 1% of the total sale price of $84,375. Incredible! This particular Chagall lithograph is not signed and it is not considered rare with 10,000 copies in circulation which is probably why Park West Gallery omitted the reference to the number in the edition. At $84,375, it is more than a colossal rip off - it is thievery at a premium. For more on value of legitimate Chagall pieces at auction, see the section below from certified appraiser and gallery owner, Roy Saper.

Who the Heck is Dr. Frederic Schoni? Shady European Designations and Sources

5. The drawing is inscribed "Pour Dr. Frederic Schoni-Zurich." Who the heck is Dr. Frederic Schoni? Does he even exist or is he completely fictitious? This is typical of Park West Gallery. There are many sources that Fine Art Registry has never been able to verify as it concerns the Park West Gallery Dali inventory. Why should Chagall be any different? Dr. Schoni - yet another completely unidentifiable European reference that can't at all be verified and for which Park West Gallery has provided the buyer with ZERO provenance documents or any other supporting documentation to show what association this Schoni character had with Chagall. This inscription begs questions. Where did Park West Gallery acquire this bogus artwork from and why didn't Park West Gallery disclose the former owner to Mr. Ungar? Did Park West Gallery acquire it from yet another shady European source, just as they have done with their Dali inventory? Why is it always European references and sources that Park West Gallery uses? And why didn't Park West Gallery provide any proof or provenance documents to Ungar? I think we already know the answers to these questions, don't we? One only has to look to the forged Dali inventory Park West Gallery has been selling over the years. It has been impossible to verify any of the sources and claims Park West Gallery has made concerning the forged Dali signatures on prints they have sold to scores of victims. We expect that further discovery in the litigation will shed some light on subject.

"A Unique Work" - Straight from the Park West Gallery Weasel Word Dictionary

6. No one really knows what Park West Gallery means by a "unique work". I don't think Park West Gallery even knows what they mean by this misleading and deceptive term as they have never been able to explain it at depositions or to anyone in the art industry that knows better, yet Park West Gallery uses this term as a sales tactic and it is used constantly in the pre-printed Park West Gallery COAs as is the case here with Mr. Ungar's purchase. For example, Park West Gallery will take the exact same print - same image, same everything and change the color of an object in the image of the print from the color red to the color purple and call it a "unique work." Again, they want the unsuspecting buyer to make the leap - to believe that if they change a color, or a size, it suddenly becomes "unique" in the sense that it is a "one-of-a-kind." This is absolute bunk, but it is nevertheless the way Park West Gallery dupes its victims. This is why the Michigan Multiples Sales Act exists - to prevent this type of abuse in the art market. But Park West Gallery believes it is above the law and defiantly ignores the Michigan Multiples Sales Act. In Mr. Ungar's case, the lithograph on which the counterfeit drawing is applied is not at all unique or rare as there are 10,000 in circulation. We will agree that the drawing on the reverse of the lithograph is "unique" in that it is most probably a poorly executed knockoff.

Just so we are clear, let's take a look at the definition of the word "unique". Dictionary.com defines the word as follows:

• existing as the only one or as the sole example; single; solitary in type or characteristics: a unique copy of an ancient manuscript.
• having no like or equal; unparalleled; incomparable
• limited in occurrence to a given class, situation, or area.
• not typical; unusual

Deceptive, manipulative, ambiguous, doublespeak is all part of the Park West Gallery charm.

The Bogus Fantasyland Appraisal

7. Finally, note the fantastical appraisal figure that Scaglione slapped on the Park West Gallery bogus appraisal for the drawing - a whopping $160,000. Isn't it interesting that it is nearly double what Mr. Ungar paid? Again, Park West Gallery is banking on the fact that the buyer who receives this appraisal will make the leap and put touching faith in the sham appraisal (which really is not a formal appraisal at all) and will actually believe that he has equity in the piece of artwork; and in Mr. Ungar's case, about $80,000 in equity. Assuming Mr. Ungar could sell the piece for $160,000 (which he couldn't come close to doing without certification from the Comité Chagall), he would make 100 percent on his money. Not a bad investment, right? If only it were true.

The proof of the trumped up appraisal comes to light when Park West Gallery is asked to buy the artwork back or the victim attempts to sell it. It is a certainty that Park West Gallery will refuse to buy the artwork back and it is a fact that the victim won't be able to sell it for a fraction of what he paid for it. The proof in a company's reputation is whether they stand behind what they sell. The bottom line: Park West Gallery will not eat its own dog food. This is to say, Park West Gallery and Albert Scaglione do not believe in the values they place on their artwork, or else they would jump at the chance to buy the artwork back and sell it at a profit. It is telling that in nearly every single case of Park West Gallery appraisals that we have reviewed, they are always at least double what the person paid for the artwork, or substantially more than what the victim has paid for the artwork, leaving victims with the fairytale belief that they have "equity" in the artwork which can be later liquidated for a profit or substantially more than they invested. What's even more deceiving is the Park West Gallery's practice of providing (for a charge of course) updated appraisals to keep their victims believing that the artwork they have purchased is indeed going up in value - when the appraisals are in fact baseless and without any authority or independent third-party values.

It is certainly more than mind numbing to contemplate the enormity of the wholesale financial rape this company (with the help of the cruise lines) has committed over the decades it has operated, and continues to commit on a regular basis with no accountability, no consequences, no remorse, and no apologies for its reprehensible behavior and conduct.

Park West Gallery Enabled by the Cruise Lines

It is critically important to note here that the invoice issued to Mr. Unger is co-branded with the Park West Gallery logo as well as Royal Caribbean's logo.

The cruise ships have consistently denied being in partnership and collusion with Park West Gallery, yet we know for a fact that Royal Caribbean and the other cruise lines share heavily in the proceeds from art sales revenues - in fact, it has been reported to us that out of all the concessionaries aboard cruise ships, art sales revenues were once considered the most significant revenue generator for the cruise lines and may still be as far as we know. The invoice is inculpatory evidence that Royal Caribbean and Park West Gallery were operating in agreement and as one - laughing and singing arm and arm all the way to the bank while Mr. Ungar is forced to file suit.

In May of this year, after Fine Art Registry won a unanimous jury verdict against Park West Gallery in Michigan Federal Court, Royal Caribbean finally dumped Park West Gallery and decided not to renew its concessionaire contract. Holland America soon followed suit which was a move in the right direction for these cruise lines. However, Carnival, Norwegian, and Regent continue to turn a blind eye with the profits-before-people mentality and continue to embrace the Park West Gallery pillaging of the unsuspecting cruise passenger. No warning, no notice of any kind is given to the passengers that there is a venomous snake onboard ready to strike. Who can understand it?

The Chicago Appraiser's Association Report - Thumbs Down!

On May 12, 2009, R. Bruce Duncan, President of the Chicago Appraiser's Association issued the following written report concerning the drawing sold to Mr. Ungar. In addition to the problems already cited above, we could not agree more with his opinion. The report is posted below in its entirety. We respect Mr. Duncan for taking a position when so many others fear (understandably so) Park West Gallery's threats of suit if anyone even breaths a negative word about its art inventory or its bad business practices. I believe this report pretty much says it all. It reads in part:

"The drawing is typical in style and subject manner of Chagall's work, but there are several inconsistencies in the drawing that we feel the artist would not have done. We found no other examples of these techniques in any of his drawings. They are as follows:

1. We could find no examples where he [Chagall] just signs his first name only, even for close family members.

2. We find no examples where he practiced his signature and it incised itself into the piece.

3. We find no example where he used the back of one of his lithographs for a drawing.

4. All of his presentation drawings are much more carefully worked out than this piece. As this is inscribed to a collector, it is doubtful he would give away a piece with so many mistakes.

5. The drawing is on the back of a Chagall lithograph cut out from a book. It is doubtful the artist would deface a book to obtain a surface to draw upon. Chagall also had lithographs of this subject with wide margins, not from the book, he could have used more easily.

We are sorry the research was not more favorable."

After reading this report, a reasonable person might ask Albert Scaglione of Park West Gallery, who is ultimately responsible for the Park West Gallery COA and Appraisal, the following relevant and damning questions:

• Why didn't Park West Gallery, its so-called "Dedicated Research Department" reported to be managed and overseen by Morris Shapiro (the lead salesman) or Albert Scaglione himself perform the same research and investigation that Mr. Duncan did?
• Why didn't Park West Gallery come up with the same conclusion?
• Why didn't Albert Scaglione immediately refund Mr. Ungar after learning of Mr. Duncan's findings?
• Why didn't Park West Gallery provide Mr. Ungar any documentation or "provenance" documents concerning the drawing?
• Where is the Authentication certification or confirmation of authenticity of the drawing from the Official Source on Authentication for Marc Chagall – The Comité Marc Chagall?

There are dozens more questions Fine Art Registry could put to Albert Scaglione and Park West Gallery concerning what appears to be an out and out counterfeit sold to Mr. Ungar, none of which will be answered, of course. We have asked similar questions concerning the forged Dali inventory Park West Gallery has sold and continues to sell. Despite numerous depositions of the principals of Park West Gallery, we are still waiting for answers.

So what could Park West Gallery's excuse be for the obvious fraud perpetrated on Mr. Ungar?

There are really only three possibilities that can be true:

1. Park West Gallery, its principals and its agents are knowingly acquiring fake, forged, and counterfeit works of art, and with the intent to pull the wool over the eyes of victims (like Mr. Ungar), are selling these works for enormous and disparate sums of money that can never be supported by independent third-party values to unsuspecting victims; or
2. Park West Gallery and its principals, agents and/or employees are actually producing or assisting in the production of the fake, forged, and counterfeit works of art and are selling these works; or
3. Park West Gallery and its principals have acquired fake, forged and counterfeited works of art from unknown, shady, unreliable, and unverifiable sources and have carelessly and negligently failed to perform due diligence.

There can be no other explanation, but for one of these three possibilities. If in fact Park West Gallery acquired these fake, forged, and counterfeit works and claim they were duped, then why haven’t they issued a recall of the offending artwork to all of its claimed "1.2 million customers" to put them on notice of the fraud? Why hasn't Park West Gallery returned to its suppliers of the fake, forged and counterfeit works of art to demand a refund, especially as it relates to its fake, forged and counterfeit Dali inventory?

Again, we are still waiting for answers to these very pointed questions.

Legitimate Chagall Works Compared to the Park West Gallery Fake

To add to the report and analysis by Mr. Duncan with the Chicago Appraiser's Association, we also sought consultation and analysis of Mr. Ungar's purchase from Roy Saper of Saper Galleries in East Lansing, Michigan. Mr. Saper is a well respected Gallery owner and a certified appraiser. Here is what Mr. Saper had to say with emphasis added:

"Chagall dedicated some works of art to friends and always signed them with his full name, Marc Chagall or, much less frequently, just "Chagall". In some cases he would sign the frontispiece or title page or "fly-leaf" of books or catalogs. Some periodicals, like the French Derriere le miroir and Verve contained unsigned lithographs (and some reproductions). Those images sometimes also appear on larger paper with "full" margins and those lithographs (on Arches paper) would be signed. Chagall did not sign the smaller lithographs from the periodicals or books. There are signed smaller lithographs being offered by sellers but those all bear false (fraudulent) signatures (just as there are many false Picasso and Calder signatures on art marketed to unsuspecting buyers).

Any Chagall with a drawn dedication should be accompanied by a confirmation of authenticity by "Comite Marc Chagall" in Paris, the official source for authenticating Chagall's work.

As an example, this drawing and dedication was sold by Christies in New York on 9/21/10 for $11,875 including buyer's premium. It is legitimate and was accompanied by the requisite confirmation of authenticity from "Comite Marc Chagall" and statement of full provenance (or prior ownership of the work).

This dedication (below) which sold 9/21/10 for $2,000 including buyer's premium, also had proper documentation and provenance:

When the value of signed, legitimate Picassos, Calders, and Chagalls started to go up years ago, less scrupulous sellers would find ways to add signatures to genuine lithographs, even though the works of art were never intended to have been signed manually by the artist. An unsuspecting buyer without full knowledge may fall for the bait and think they are buying a legitimate work of art -- and the lithograph may, in fact, be genuine -- but the signature is, in many cases, not.

Another problem, particularly with Calder and Miro lithographs is two-fold. There are a very large number of lithographs of images by those artists which were created to look like the originals but they are totally fake, unauthorized, not legitimate and, of course, bear false signatures. Most of those are annotated AP (or EA) suggesting it is a real "artist proof" when the work and signature are in reality fake. Those making fakes usually do not use edition numbers, but rather use AP annotations. Artist proofs are usually not designated by an edition number and are less likely to be suspect as problematic. In reality, an artist proof print by one of those artists should actually be a red flag that there is a high likelihood that the artwork and signature are fake.

A Chicago art seller recently pled guilty to selling totally fake Dalis, Chagalls, Miros, Picassos, and Calders. The problem of fake prints in the marketplace is much more prevalent than most people would think. Rather than trying to convince prosecutors of his innocence or sue his victims, he simply confessed he stole millions from buyers. When someone returned a fake for a refund he would simply wait a few months and resell it to someone else.

A second problem is when genuine lithographs, not intended to be signed, end up with fake signatures. Some times, ateliers store unsigned proofs beyond the number that were legitimately signed and numbered by the artist from the legitimate edition. Those unsigned prints some times slip outside of the atelier, a well-practiced signature is then added by a hand other than the artist, an AP annotation is added and they are then sold to unsuspecting galleries or collectors.

A presumed Chagall signature written only as "Marc" and on the back of a work of art would be highly suspect. A Chagall dedication on a lithograph from a book (usually printed in runs of 6,000 or more) would also be highly suspect.

The best guard against acquiring a fake, a falsified proof, a fraudulently-signed work of art, or any other work of art by an artist of significant international acclaim is to do due diligence.

• Seek out the catalog raisonné [the catalog of the artist's body of work] and investigate what the cataloger presents about the art and compare the artwork of interest with that in the catalog. Request and investigate the provenance of the artwork.

• Have experts examine the artwork outside of the frame or have it compared with known examples that appear in museum collections.

• Communicate with the known authorities on the artist's work, those who the major auction houses call on for authentication statements. There is never a reason to have to rush quickly to purchase a work of art, particularly if it is relatively expensive, as there is rarely a line waiting to buy such works of art, no matter what is told to you otherwise.

• Before buying an expensive work of art one should do their own research to see what similar works of art or artwork from the same edition is selling for by contacting galleries which sell works by the artist of interest.

• Finally, you should always be able to negotiate the right of a full refund within a certain period of time and have such an agreement in writing from the seller. If there is intent to pay as much for a work of art as one would for a car or a house, then there could also be value in contacting an attorney to ensure you proceed with adequate protection.

All that glitters is not gold.

There are also strange, puzzling aspects of the drawing.

It does not make sense that he [Chagall] would have done such a "detailed" (or complicated) drawing on the back of one of his own lithographs. That makes totally no sense at all.

If the subject of the dedication would have brought him the lithograph and requested a dedication, I cannot imagine the artist using so many colors and "detail" for a quick dedication. Compare that to known drawings and dedications to friends and one would observe they are much, much simpler and cleaner. In that there is no history as to who the subject is and where the drawing came from it cannot be attributed to Chagall. If the subject of the dedication [Dr. Frederic Schoni] came forward and proved its provenance, that would add credibility to the drawing.

Chagall was in Zurich in 1971 to dedicate his stained glass windows in the Fraumunster church and his lithographs were exhibited then in Zurich. So there are known facts that tie Chagall to Zurich in 1971. There is nothing that proves that a Dr. Frederic Schoni ever existed, however, or that Chagall dedicated a drawing to such a person. And who is this person who would earn a Chagall dedication signed simply "Marc" when other such authentic examples do not exist?

When in doubt, throw it out. Or seek the primary expert's determination of veracity.

Given the information provided so far there is not a basis for accepting this as an authentic Chagall drawing or signature."

Mr. Saper's analysis is spot on. It should be abundantly clear that the artwork sold to Mr. Ungar by Park West Gallery for the handsome sum of nearly $85,000 is more than highly questionable.

Tom Ungar Sues Park West Gallery for Fraud, Conspiracy and Consumer Protection Violations

Even after Tom Ungar confronted Park West Gallery with the findings of Mr. Duncan of the Chicago Appraiser's Association, he was flatly refused a refund by Park West Gallery, despite the fact that Mr. Ungar is named in the very same lawsuit with Park West Gallery victim, Bob Parda, who Park West Gallery very recently (clandestinely) settled with while refusing to refund the other Plaintiffs or victims that have the exact same or similar claims as Bob Parda. I recently reported on this interesting and curious development.

With no satisfaction or restitution coming from Park West Gallery or Albert Scaglione who claims that Park West Gallery has been in business for 40 years with "1.2 million satisfied customers," Tom Ungar filed suit against Park West Gallery, Albert Scaglione, Morris Shapiro, Albert Molina and Plymouth Auctioneering, Inc., on June 22, 2010, along with 26 other victims. He has alleged the following against Park West Gallery:

• Violation of Michigan's Warranty in Fine Arts Statute
• Violation of the Michigan Art Multiples Sales Act, MCLA 442.351
• Fraud
• Wrongful Conversion
• Violation of Michigan's Consumer Protection Act
• Breach of Contract
• Negligent Misrepresentation
• Conspiracy
• Unjust Enrichment

Read the entire complaint (PDF) filed in the Circuit Court of Oakland County, Michigan.

A Mass of Park West Gallery Victims Litter the Art Market Landscape

We are hopeful that this particular case study will assist in understanding Park West Gallery's deceptive and unfair trade practices, and we trust that Mr. Ungar, along with all victims, will one day receive well-deserved satisfaction from Park West Gallery, a company who cares little for its victims and whose paramount, gluttonous goal is to arrogantly stuff its coffers with the hard earned dollars from unsuspecting marks.

Tom Ungar's story is not unusual or unique. It is like hundreds and hundreds of others that have been reported to us over the last few years with seemingly no end in sight. There is no doubt many, many more potential victims have yet to discover the blistering financial scald of the Park West Gallery burn.

— by Theresa Franks  |  November 2, 2010

Print   |  

back to top