Setting the record straight on provenance

It often seems that provenance is just a bulleted list of dead people that appears as a formality when completing art transactions. However, the list is only one piece of the provenance puzzle. 

A comprehensive understanding of an artwork's ownership history can shed light on clean title, authenticity, condition issues, opinions of value, and even current art-historical interpretations. Without such information, an artwork may not be considered saleable by the relevant marketplace. 

With services such as fine art title insurance, art fair vetting committees and commercial databases at our disposal, many of us do not pause to contemplate the implications of buying an artwork with little to no provenance. Yet these services are not catch-alls; rather, they are due diligence tools that can contribute to your provenance research efforts. As such, this article endeavours to shed light on some of the most common questions valuation specialists may face when reviewing the provenance records of an artwork or collection.

This example leads directly to the second most common question I face: 'When should I do more research into a gap in ownership?' The answer: always. 

Verifiable documentation is documentation that proves or corroborates the bulleted list of previous owners, exhibitions orand literature entries tied to a specific artwork. In other words, it is documentation that specifically references the artwork or collection being researched – examples include original bills of sale and archival records. Notably, the definition excludes provenance entries such as 'Private Collection' or 'Private Dealer' that are not corroborated by supporting documentation. Such entries should not be considered a reliable or verifiable record of the transfer of clean title or authenticity. 

Historical research can, by definition, be quite unbounded, as researchers endeavour to learn about a particular subject, person or question. They may scour archives and libraries looking for an answer. However, even if researchers do not find the specific answer they were seeking, analysis can often be crafted out of their findings, or lack thereof. 

At the same time, the scope of fine art provenance research is singular. Researchers are looking for concrete results: verifiable documentation that references the artwork or collection being researched. Without this, the scope of work cannot be met, and accurate assessments of the artwork's clean title, authenticity or ownership history cannot be made. While historical research may greatly bolster your understanding of the period for which you are conducting provenance research, it is the verifiable documentation that will help trace the artwork(s) in question.

Proof of authenticity is vital to accurate valuations and an artwork's life on the market. As such, CoAs are often issued in conjunction with an artwork to establish that the piece in question matches sales-floor advertisements. These documents often list the artwork's identifying specifications, such as artist, title, medium and dimensions, and an assertion of authenticity. 

However, CoAs rarely, if ever, touch on clean title or ownership histories. For example, the antiquities market is rife with pieces that are sold with guarantees of authenticity but lack the appropriate documentation to support clean titles. As such, researchers should verify what documentation the source countries require for items to be exported and sold legally. In many cases, a CoA will not be enough to prevent an item's seizure and the owner's subsequent loss of investment. This assertion applies to objets d’art of all mediums, eras and price points.

At the same time, appraisal reports can be informative starting points for provenance research. However, when assessing the validity of the ownership information included therein, it is important to note that most valuation reports that comply with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP)  and RICS Valuation – Global Standards (Red Book Global Standards)  will often indicate that the appraiser is not an authenticator. Furthermore, these reports often indicate that the valuation specialist will not comment on 'authenticity, attribution, clean title, provenance, etc.' unless there is a specific reason for them to do so in assigning an opinion of value.

From this perspective, the provenance information included in such appraisal reports should not be taken at face value. For provided provenance information to be deemed credible, it should be accompanied by verifiable primary-source documentation that traces an artwork from its point of creation to the present day. This rule should encompass any secondary source listing provenance information such as written reports, auction catalogues, or catalogues raisonné.

Accepting unverified provenance information at face value can have wide-ranging impacts, including a loss of investment or saleability. For example, if an artwork does not meet market requirements for saleability, valuation specialists should adjust their opinion of value to reflect the appropriate marketplace. Opinions of value do not stop with an appraisal report – they can influence insurance premiums, estate taxes, or even transactions. And it is the comprehensive review of provenance that will effectively enable valuation specialists to assess questions of clean title and authenticity when assigning opinions of value.