0:00:02 > 0:00:04- £18,500,000. £19 million... - The art world -
0:00:04 > 0:00:08glamour, wealth, intrigue.
0:00:08 > 0:00:1195... Selling at 95 million dollars.
0:00:13 > 0:00:18Beneath the surface, there's a darker place - a world of high stakes and gambles.
0:00:20 > 0:00:24International art dealer Philip Mould knows the risks.
0:00:24 > 0:00:26He hunts down sleepers -
0:00:26 > 0:00:29paintings that hide secrets.
0:00:29 > 0:00:33In the past, we looked AT pictures. Now, almost, you can look THROUGH them.
0:00:33 > 0:00:37Paint almost acts like blood at a crime scene.
0:00:39 > 0:00:40I'm Fiona Bruce,
0:00:40 > 0:00:43and I have over 20 years' experience as a journalist.
0:00:44 > 0:00:48Every picture tells its own story, and it's up to us to try and uncover it.
0:00:49 > 0:00:52We're teaming up to investigate human dramas
0:00:52 > 0:00:55and mysterious tales locked in paint.
0:00:59 > 0:01:04It's a world of great beauty and ugly deceptions.
0:01:04 > 0:01:05How many fakes are out there?
0:01:05 > 0:01:10- Some law-enforcement agencies suggest 40 to 50% of the art market could be fakes.- Nearly half?!
0:01:11 > 0:01:15In this episode, we go on the trail of a painting which hides the story
0:01:15 > 0:01:19of one of the greatest scandals the art world has ever seen.
0:01:19 > 0:01:22These are like your dirty little secret, aren't they?
0:01:22 > 0:01:26Could it be by the most daring forger of modern times?
0:01:26 > 0:01:31We're not just dealing with an artistic mind, we're dealing with a sophisticated criminal mind.
0:01:31 > 0:01:37Controversially, it's part of the collection at one of our leading art establishments.
0:01:37 > 0:01:41After 50 years, they're about to find out
0:01:41 > 0:01:43whether their painting is genuine or fake.
0:01:58 > 0:02:00Sneaking a peek!
0:02:00 > 0:02:04'As an art dealer, Philip Mould operates in a world
0:02:04 > 0:02:07'where paintings exchange hands for millions of pounds...'
0:02:07 > 0:02:08Put it down!
0:02:08 > 0:02:12'..but he has to be constantly on his guard.
0:02:12 > 0:02:15'Fakes are one of the biggest problems in the art world.
0:02:15 > 0:02:20'We're on our way to see a painting which has been foxing art specialists.'
0:02:20 > 0:02:24The picture I'm going to take you to see now has caused real controversy.
0:02:24 > 0:02:28Opinion is divided amongst experts as to whether it's genuine or fake.
0:02:28 > 0:02:32And are there still a lot of fakes out there, even now?
0:02:32 > 0:02:36There are. I've been taken in. Others have been taken in. But there was one faker
0:02:36 > 0:02:39in the 20th century who left all the other fakers standing.
0:02:39 > 0:02:43His name was Han van Meegeren and, believe it or not,
0:02:43 > 0:02:47he conned the art world out of about £65 million in modern money.
0:02:47 > 0:02:51Wow. So, a very successful faker.
0:02:51 > 0:02:54And it's possible that the picture we're going to see now is by him.
0:02:57 > 0:03:01In the 1940s, van Meegeren caused a scandal when it was discovered
0:03:01 > 0:03:06he'd swindled the art world with his forgeries of Dutch old masters,
0:03:06 > 0:03:10among them a series of paintings faking the work of Johan Vermeer.
0:03:13 > 0:03:20When he was caught, it emerged that the world's most prestigious art galleries and respected experts
0:03:20 > 0:03:22had been duped by van Meegeren's fakes.
0:03:24 > 0:03:27During his trial in 1947,
0:03:27 > 0:03:32van Meegeren confessed to forging seven old masters,
0:03:32 > 0:03:33but he didn't own up to ALL his work.
0:03:35 > 0:03:3921 of his fakes have now been identified,
0:03:39 > 0:03:41and I suspect there are more lurking out there.
0:03:44 > 0:03:48So you think van Meegeren is still causing trouble? After all these years?
0:03:48 > 0:03:50Yes, and in one of the last places you'd expect.
0:03:54 > 0:03:57We're heading to the Courtauld Institute in London,
0:03:57 > 0:04:00a centre of excellence for the study of art.
0:04:02 > 0:04:05Here, the next generation of art world experts are trained,
0:04:05 > 0:04:10but hanging inside this highly respected establishment
0:04:10 > 0:04:14is a picture causing confusion and controversy.
0:04:14 > 0:04:17Recent press reports have raised awkward questions
0:04:17 > 0:04:20about the attribution of this work of art,
0:04:20 > 0:04:23which has hung in the Courtauld since 1960.
0:04:24 > 0:04:28Leading experts can't agree when it was painted and by whom.
0:04:29 > 0:04:35Dr Aviva Burnstock is their head of conservation, and teaches the scientific study of paintings.
0:04:35 > 0:04:39She's keen for us to help solve the mystery surrounding the picture,
0:04:39 > 0:04:42which is causing such disagreement amongst the art establishment.
0:04:42 > 0:04:43So here it is.
0:04:43 > 0:04:47This is a painting that is riddled with mystery.
0:04:47 > 0:04:50- It represents... The Procuress, it's called, isn't it?- Yes.
0:04:50 > 0:04:55There's a madam on the right, handing over one of her girls
0:04:55 > 0:04:58to a rather lascivious-looking client in the middle, right?
0:04:58 > 0:05:01- Is she the madam or is she the tart? - She's the tart.
0:05:01 > 0:05:03Oh, I see. So who's the procuress?
0:05:03 > 0:05:06- Is that a woman?! - This is a woman, yeah.
0:05:06 > 0:05:10- And she's pointing to her hand where she wants money.- Oh, I see.
0:05:10 > 0:05:15Now, the question is, is this a genuine 17th-century canvas,
0:05:15 > 0:05:21a work done in the studio of an artist called Dirck van Baburen?
0:05:21 > 0:05:24If it is, then it's an interesting picture in itself.
0:05:24 > 0:05:28Or - and this is where it gets exciting - could this be a work
0:05:28 > 0:05:33by the most notorious faker of the 20th century, Han van Meegeren?
0:05:33 > 0:05:35What do you make of it?
0:05:35 > 0:05:37Well, it was given to the Courtauld in 1960
0:05:37 > 0:05:41and it's hung here for the last 18 years as far, as I know,
0:05:41 > 0:05:45and experts really are undecided. It's gone back and forward
0:05:45 > 0:05:51- between being a fake by van Meegeren or a genuine 17th-century painting. - So people keep changing their mind?
0:05:51 > 0:05:56- Yes, the experts are divided. Everyone has a different view. - I love that it's in the heart
0:05:56 > 0:06:00of the institute of excellence about art history and art conservation,
0:06:00 > 0:06:04you've been walking past it all these years, and we still don't know.
0:06:04 > 0:06:09- Do you think we can get to the bottom of it?- What makes this project so exciting is that,
0:06:09 > 0:06:11finally, we WILL be able to get to the bottom of this
0:06:11 > 0:06:16and find out whether this is a fake or a genuine 17th-century painting.
0:06:16 > 0:06:20And presumably, if it is a 300-year-old painting, that'll make it much more valuable
0:06:20 > 0:06:25- than if it's a Han van Meegeren done a few decades ago. - Funnily enough, the reverse.
0:06:25 > 0:06:29If it is by van Meegeren, he's got a sort of cult following,
0:06:29 > 0:06:33there are people out there who'd want to buy it. Just any 17th-century artist
0:06:33 > 0:06:38copying the work of a great painter of the period does not necessarily mean people pay money.
0:06:38 > 0:06:44- Really?- But a name, a big name, a dark name like van Meegeren... - A notorious name.- Absolutely.
0:06:44 > 0:06:47What would you prefer? Would you prefer it to be by van Meegeren?
0:06:47 > 0:06:51- I find that really odd, here of all places. - He certainly is a famous forger
0:06:51 > 0:06:54and to have a painting by a famous forger such as van Meegeren
0:06:54 > 0:06:58would be more exciting in some ways. As long as there's only one of them here!
0:06:58 > 0:07:04- You'd enjoy having one, wouldn't you? - I just wonder if I'm ever going to understand your world, Philip.
0:07:11 > 0:07:14Philip's head of research, Dr Bendor Grosvenor,
0:07:14 > 0:07:18has years of experience uncovering secrets behind paintings.
0:07:19 > 0:07:24He's been tracing the provenance of The Procuress - who owned the painting and when.
0:07:24 > 0:07:27How did The Procuress end up at the Courtauld?
0:07:27 > 0:07:32Well, it was given to them in 1960 by this man, called Geoffrey Webb.
0:07:32 > 0:07:36Now, Geoffrey Webb had a really important role at the end of World War II.
0:07:36 > 0:07:43It was his job to track down all the paintings the Nazis had stolen, particularly from Holland,
0:07:43 > 0:07:47and that's how he played a part in the arrest of Han van Meegeren in 1945.
0:07:47 > 0:07:50And how did van Meegeren get caught?
0:07:50 > 0:07:52He made one catastrophic mistake.
0:07:52 > 0:07:58He allowed one of his fake Vermeers to end up in the hands of Hermann Goering,
0:07:58 > 0:08:02Hitler's right-hand man and the Nazis' most prolific thief.
0:08:02 > 0:08:05Not the sort of man you'd describe as the ideal client.
0:08:05 > 0:08:07No. Not someone you'd want to con, either.
0:08:07 > 0:08:11No, and the situation got even worse for van Meegeren.
0:08:11 > 0:08:15When the picture was found in Goering's private art collection -
0:08:15 > 0:08:18here it is with the American soldiers who discovered it -
0:08:18 > 0:08:21they were able to trace the paper trail back to van Meegeren
0:08:21 > 0:08:25and, as a result, he was arrested in 1945
0:08:25 > 0:08:29not for selling Goering a fake painting
0:08:29 > 0:08:32but for selling him what they thought was a real Vermeer,
0:08:32 > 0:08:36a piece of priceless Dutch national heritage.
0:08:36 > 0:08:42So this laid himself open to be charged with the repugnant crime of being a collaborator.
0:08:42 > 0:08:46Yes. There was a very, very stiff jail sentence that he faced,
0:08:46 > 0:08:51and possibly, worst of all, he faced a charge of treason,
0:08:51 > 0:08:55for which, of course, the sentence was death.
0:08:55 > 0:08:58Now, the only way that van Meegeren could get off these charges
0:08:58 > 0:09:01and get himself out of the hole that he'd dug himself into
0:09:01 > 0:09:08was by admitting that he hadn't sold Goering a real Vermeer but he'd sold him one of his fakes.
0:09:08 > 0:09:12What an incredible story. It must have been an amazing trial.
0:09:12 > 0:09:18It was, it was extraordinary, and he later confessed to producing seven fake old masters.
0:09:18 > 0:09:22Seven! It must have been so humiliating for the experts.
0:09:22 > 0:09:24And then what about the Courtauld's painting?
0:09:24 > 0:09:28What about The Procuress? Did he confess to that one?
0:09:28 > 0:09:32Crucially, the Courtauld's picture was not amongst them.
0:09:32 > 0:09:35I guess what we need to do now is find out more about van Meegeren,
0:09:35 > 0:09:37and to do that, we need to go to Holland.
0:09:37 > 0:09:40And I want to get really close to a van Meegeren or two.
0:09:40 > 0:09:46I want to get so close that I can see the signature brushstrokes of the great faker at work.
0:09:54 > 0:09:59Our first stop - Amsterdam, scene of the crime.
0:09:59 > 0:10:05Van Meegeren managed to convince the world's most respected art galleries that his works were genuine.
0:10:05 > 0:10:08Among them, Holland's famous Rijksmuseum.
0:10:08 > 0:10:13It's home to the world's greatest collection of paintings from the golden age of Dutch art,
0:10:13 > 0:10:17including works by the artist van Meegeren dared to forge,
0:10:17 > 0:10:21the 17th-century master Johan Vermeer.
0:10:21 > 0:10:27His paintings are among the most iconic and the most valuable in the world.
0:10:31 > 0:10:35Now, this is the artist who inspired van Meegeren
0:10:35 > 0:10:38in his ultimate crime, Johan Vermeer.
0:10:38 > 0:10:40What do you think of it?
0:10:40 > 0:10:43Wow. Just beautiful, isn't it?
0:10:43 > 0:10:47It's very gentle, very intimate.
0:10:47 > 0:10:49Stunning.
0:10:51 > 0:10:54It is so powerful, it's so introspective.
0:10:54 > 0:10:59It's also just got a kind of humble subject, humble setting,
0:10:59 > 0:11:06- so domestic, so ordinary and so absolutely exquisite as well, you know?- Hmm.
0:11:06 > 0:11:09You don't have to be able to appreciate art or know anything about art
0:11:09 > 0:11:12to know that that is fantastic.
0:11:12 > 0:11:14I agree with you.
0:11:14 > 0:11:19I mean, the audacity of van Meegeren, thinking that he could take on this painter.
0:11:19 > 0:11:21Now, just look at this.
0:11:21 > 0:11:25I mean, frankly, he could not have chosen higher goalposts.
0:11:25 > 0:11:32This is a variant of that picture, so what van Meegeren's done is he's taken half of the picture
0:11:32 > 0:11:34and created a new composition.
0:11:34 > 0:11:38I can't believe that van Meegeren thought he'd get away with it,
0:11:38 > 0:11:44imitating Vermeer in the heart of the land where Vermeer is most known about and most appreciated.
0:11:44 > 0:11:48- But he did. - But that's where he's so damn clever.
0:11:48 > 0:11:53People really wanted more Vermeers, more works by the great artist,
0:11:53 > 0:11:56the sort of Shakespeare, as it were, in paint, of his time.
0:11:56 > 0:11:59I mean, there are only 35 works known at the period.
0:11:59 > 0:12:05But the other thing was, van Meegeren had the skills of a magician. He had a whole panoply of tricks.
0:12:05 > 0:12:08In fact, there are some examples here of what he could do.
0:12:13 > 0:12:17The Rijksmuseum has its own chapter in this story of shame.
0:12:17 > 0:12:22Conservator Michel van de Laar takes us deep into the museum vaults
0:12:22 > 0:12:24where, hidden away from view,
0:12:24 > 0:12:28is a collection of paintings by van Meegeren himself.
0:12:28 > 0:12:31My hope is that these forgeries might help us
0:12:31 > 0:12:35solve the mystery of the Courtauld's painting.
0:12:35 > 0:12:37On this rack is a painting which for a long time
0:12:37 > 0:12:42used to be a big embarrassment for the Rijksmuseum, like an open wound.
0:12:42 > 0:12:44A painting painted by Han van Meegeren
0:12:44 > 0:12:48and bought in 1943 as a genuine Vermeer.
0:12:48 > 0:12:53- What did they pay for it? - They paid 1,168,000 Dutch guilders,
0:12:53 > 0:12:57which would be today something like £12 million.
0:12:57 > 0:12:59Hard to believe for such an ugly painting.
0:12:59 > 0:13:02- An astonishing amount of money. - An expensive mistake!
0:13:02 > 0:13:06That must have been a record. Had the gallery paid as much for anything else?
0:13:06 > 0:13:09- It was a record amount of money at that moment.- Wow.
0:13:09 > 0:13:14- Staggering.- Yeah.- That must hurt. - Particularly when you look at it.
0:13:14 > 0:13:18- Every time you get that painting out, that must hurt. - Is that why it's got holes in it?
0:13:18 > 0:13:21The holes were made in the court case of van Meegeren,
0:13:21 > 0:13:25to see if it this indeed is a forgery or an original painting.
0:13:25 > 0:13:30- It seems to be done with anger and vengeance. - You have visions of...eek, eek, eek!
0:13:30 > 0:13:33Obviously, it was a useless painting of no value.
0:13:33 > 0:13:37- What do you think of it, Fiona? - Looking at it, I'm no expert,
0:13:37 > 0:13:39- but it looks a bit rubbish. - It does, it does.
0:13:39 > 0:13:42- A BIT rubbish?! - What happened is that...
0:13:42 > 0:13:44- Look at the face on the left.- Yeah.
0:13:44 > 0:13:49But art historians of the time wondered, "Aren't there more paintings by Vermeer?
0:13:49 > 0:13:51"There must be religious work."
0:13:51 > 0:13:56That's what Han van Meegeren anticipated on by making these paintings.
0:13:56 > 0:14:02- So he was trying to produce a sort of lost but primitive early work... - Right.
0:14:02 > 0:14:05- ..which no-one had anything to compare it with?- Right.
0:14:05 > 0:14:10- So he could just sort of dream up, in a sense, a whole new type of Vermeer.- Yeah.
0:14:10 > 0:14:13- She looks familiar, doesn't she? - Yeah, I was just looking at her.
0:14:13 > 0:14:18- This painting was used as a piece of evidence in the court case.- Really?
0:14:18 > 0:14:22- It's more convincing than the other one. - Would that have taken YOU in?
0:14:22 > 0:14:25- Go on!- Shame on you! - Put aside your professional pride.
0:14:25 > 0:14:29Come on, 'fess up. If you'd been in the '40s and had seen that...
0:14:31 > 0:14:34Well, in the '40s, I might well have actually doubted my eye.
0:14:34 > 0:14:38Many people did, many people believed this was a Vermeer,
0:14:38 > 0:14:41and the richest people in the world bought them.
0:14:41 > 0:14:47It became easier to understand how van Meegeren duped the world's experts
0:14:47 > 0:14:50when Michel showed us the tricks of his trade.
0:14:50 > 0:14:52- So these are all by van Meegeren? - Yes.
0:14:52 > 0:14:57And we can see on the, on the back, that he used an old painting,
0:14:57 > 0:15:02- an old 17th-century painting, with patches and everything. - The old goat!
0:15:02 > 0:15:06- Would he have put these cracks in and this damage to the canvas?- Yeah.
0:15:06 > 0:15:11He liked those things because he knew that no painting would survive the centuries without cracks.
0:15:11 > 0:15:14It's like the cracking on someone's face. It's an indication of age.
0:15:14 > 0:15:19Sometimes it's the only evidence that one has that the picture is old.
0:15:19 > 0:15:24- Here we can see he over-cleaned his own work.- Yeah, look at this. - That's astonishing, isn't it?
0:15:24 > 0:15:28So he knackered his own pictures in order to give them
0:15:28 > 0:15:32the appearance of a picture that has come down through the ages and has been over-cleaned.
0:15:32 > 0:15:35I mean, this does look pretty realistic, doesn't it?
0:15:35 > 0:15:41- I mean, to have this evidence of the process is such an insight, isn't it? - Yeah.
0:15:41 > 0:15:44I'm beginning to think we're not just dealing with an artistic mind,
0:15:44 > 0:15:48- we're dealing with a sophisticated criminal mind, don't you think?- Hm.
0:15:48 > 0:15:51I also think these are like your dirty little secret, aren't they?
0:15:51 > 0:15:54You have a past, though, cos you worked at the Courtauld
0:15:54 > 0:15:58where the picture is that we're looking into.
0:15:58 > 0:16:03- What's your view?- It's hard to say, because I haven't studied the painting close up,
0:16:03 > 0:16:07but I think it's older than van Meegeren's time.
0:16:07 > 0:16:09- You don't think it's a 20th-century painting?- No.
0:16:09 > 0:16:13It's only on the basis of technical analysis that we will find out.
0:16:13 > 0:16:17- But your hunch is that it's not a van Meegeren?- OK, yeah.
0:16:17 > 0:16:20- You want to know, though, don't you? - I want to know.
0:16:20 > 0:16:22- This is important to you?- Yeah!
0:16:27 > 0:16:33I'm keen to learn more about the man who wreaked havoc in the art world.
0:16:36 > 0:16:38I've managed to track down the last person alive
0:16:38 > 0:16:43who knew van Meegeren - his nephew, Pim Polman-Tuin.
0:16:43 > 0:16:48- Hello!- Hi.- Glad to meet you, come in.- Thank you.
0:16:48 > 0:16:50Tell me about this photograph.
0:16:50 > 0:16:55TRANSLATION:
0:17:00 > 0:17:02- Did you ever see your uncle paint? - Yeah.
0:17:11 > 0:17:13So, this is you?
0:17:16 > 0:17:23What do you remember of the trial and the whole scandal of it?
0:17:57 > 0:18:00What do you think he would think now
0:18:00 > 0:18:05if he knew that even today his paintings are still causing
0:18:05 > 0:18:09arguments and disagreements? What would he think of all that?
0:18:21 > 0:18:26I have a picture here where your uncle's still causing trouble.
0:18:26 > 0:18:29Do you think your uncle painted this?
0:18:41 > 0:18:46So you mean you think there are paintings still out there, in Holland and around the world,
0:18:46 > 0:18:50that are undiscovered forgeries by your uncle?
0:18:57 > 0:19:00So your uncle might have the last laugh, then?
0:19:00 > 0:19:03Oh, ja, absolut. Absolut, I'm sure.
0:19:03 > 0:19:05FIONA LAUGHS
0:19:07 > 0:19:10Before I came here, I assumed that van Meegeren
0:19:10 > 0:19:14was a kind of stain on the national honour of Holland.
0:19:14 > 0:19:17But actually having met van Meegeren's nephew,
0:19:17 > 0:19:20I can see that not only is he really rather proud of him,
0:19:20 > 0:19:22but it's also a bit more complex than that,
0:19:22 > 0:19:25because he's not the only one to be proud of van Meegeren.
0:19:25 > 0:19:29They still, here in Holland, feel that, OK, he was a forger,
0:19:29 > 0:19:33but he was a really good forger, and they're rather proud of that.
0:19:40 > 0:19:43I've been doing some digging and I've been told
0:19:43 > 0:19:47that the Rijksmuseum conservation lab holds some vital evidence.
0:19:48 > 0:19:53This state-of-the-art facility is devoted to the scientific analysis
0:19:53 > 0:19:57and conservation of some of the world's most treasured works of art.
0:19:58 > 0:20:05In a corner of the studio is a cupboard full of the most fascinating collection of artefacts,
0:20:05 > 0:20:09all seized from van Meegeren's studio at the time of his arrest in 1945.
0:20:09 > 0:20:11Wow!
0:20:11 > 0:20:15Although this evidence was examined during van Meegeren's trial,
0:20:15 > 0:20:18it has never undergone the scrutiny of modern forensic tests.
0:20:18 > 0:20:23Oh, look, this one says, "Han van Meegeren, October 1945."
0:20:23 > 0:20:25- So this is a tag used in the trial. - Yeah.
0:20:25 > 0:20:28- This is one of his props in his paintings.- Must've been.
0:20:28 > 0:20:33Yeah, that's a 17th-century piece of glass. He went to infinite pains, this man, didn't he?
0:20:33 > 0:20:36- Now, this is a dream.- Fantastic.
0:20:36 > 0:20:37Look at this.
0:20:37 > 0:20:41Now, these are all samples of the pigments
0:20:41 > 0:20:43that were discovered in his studio.
0:20:43 > 0:20:46So these are the pigments he used in his paintings, in his fakes?
0:20:46 > 0:20:49These are the actual ingredients for his pictures.
0:20:49 > 0:20:51Wow, look at them.
0:20:51 > 0:20:54Cinnabar... Oh, look, lapis lazuli.
0:20:54 > 0:20:56What a gift, eh?
0:20:56 > 0:20:59I mean, I can't think of another comparison of an artist
0:20:59 > 0:21:03being able to be discovered, or re-discovered, so precisely in this way.
0:21:03 > 0:21:09Analyse these and we'll be able to find out exactly what was in his pictures,
0:21:09 > 0:21:10and we'll be able move forward.
0:21:18 > 0:21:22Before we returned home, I was shown one last piece of evidence
0:21:22 > 0:21:26that could help us date the Courtauld's painting.
0:21:26 > 0:21:29Several versions of The Procuress are known to exist.
0:21:29 > 0:21:31This is quite common for 17th-century works of art,
0:21:31 > 0:21:35as paintings were often replicated or copied by apprentices
0:21:35 > 0:21:38who were learning their master's craft.
0:21:38 > 0:21:43One of these versions has hung in the Rijksmuseum since 1898.
0:21:43 > 0:21:46If van Meegeren did forge the Courtauld's painting,
0:21:46 > 0:21:51he would've made his copy from this work, which is known to have been painted nearly 400 years ago
0:21:51 > 0:21:55by an apprentice of the old master, Dirck van Baburen.
0:21:57 > 0:22:01I asked Michel to take paint samples from this 17th-century work
0:22:01 > 0:22:04to compare them to the Courtauld's Procuress.
0:22:04 > 0:22:08The flecks of paint are so tiny it'll cause minimal damage.
0:22:08 > 0:22:13I also convinced him to make another hole, albeit a microscopic one,
0:22:13 > 0:22:16in their mutilated van Meegeren fake.
0:22:17 > 0:22:20Would the paint from the Courtauld's picture
0:22:20 > 0:22:23match up to the genuine work or the 20th-century forgery?
0:22:25 > 0:22:28This is getting really exciting, this is REAL progress.
0:22:28 > 0:22:31We've got the Rijksmuseum, the great institution, to allow us
0:22:31 > 0:22:35to remove, and it's happening now, two flecks of paint,
0:22:35 > 0:22:38two bits of paint, from two of their works of art.
0:22:38 > 0:22:42It's quite a big ask. We are actually taking something off their paintings
0:22:42 > 0:22:44and taking it over the Channel.
0:22:45 > 0:22:49Paint almost acts like blood at a crime scene.
0:22:49 > 0:22:51As a result of analysing the material,
0:22:51 > 0:22:55we can establish things that were never formerly establishable.
0:22:55 > 0:22:59We can work out whether the painting could've been done at that date.
0:22:59 > 0:23:01If the pigment's not around then, it can't be.
0:23:01 > 0:23:04We can establish sometimes what the actual artist used,
0:23:04 > 0:23:09whether the likelihood is that it was that artist because of what they used.
0:23:09 > 0:23:11All sorts of questions that the scientist,
0:23:11 > 0:23:15that the microscope, that the scalpel can now answer.
0:23:18 > 0:23:22So you're preparing here the samples of The Procuress
0:23:22 > 0:23:25from the Rijksmuseum, and also van Meegeren.
0:23:25 > 0:23:31That's right. I'm doing a final polish and they're ready to go to the Courtauld Institute.
0:23:32 > 0:23:35My hope is that these samples hold the answer
0:23:35 > 0:23:39to whether the Courtauld's painting is genuine or fake.
0:23:39 > 0:23:42- How exciting. Thank you very much. - OK, you're welcome.
0:23:50 > 0:23:53We've left Amsterdam confident in the knowledge that we've gathered
0:23:53 > 0:23:57enough evidence to solve the mystery of the Courtauld's painting.
0:24:01 > 0:24:04While we've been away, Bendor has been studying documents
0:24:04 > 0:24:08relating to van Meegeren's interrogation and trial.
0:24:08 > 0:24:12I've got here a copy of van Meegeren's statement
0:24:12 > 0:24:14he made when he was arrested in 1945.
0:24:14 > 0:24:18It is, if you like, his confession, where he admits to everything
0:24:18 > 0:24:21and it contains a reference to the Courtauld's Procuress.
0:24:21 > 0:24:24- What, to our painting? - Indeed.- Good news.
0:24:24 > 0:24:28But don't get too excited, because I've had the document translated
0:24:28 > 0:24:30and he says, not that he painted The Procuress
0:24:30 > 0:24:37but that his former wife bought it in 1938, and he even says here,
0:24:37 > 0:24:41for about 600 francs in an antiques shop in Nice.
0:24:41 > 0:24:45Well, there we are, aren't we? I mean, that's it.
0:24:45 > 0:24:50He didn't...fake this painting - his wife bought it -
0:24:50 > 0:24:51and there it is, in black and white.
0:24:51 > 0:24:54You see, I just don't believe it, I just don't believe it.
0:24:54 > 0:24:56This man was a liar.
0:24:56 > 0:25:00He lied in paint, he was a forger and he twisted the truth as well.
0:25:00 > 0:25:03I think this picture is by van Meegeren.
0:25:03 > 0:25:06- I'll put my neck on the line. - But he confessed. Hang on,
0:25:06 > 0:25:10because he confessed to painting seven other fakes, or seven fakes, in court.
0:25:10 > 0:25:13Why would he not confess to this one? Doesn't make sense.
0:25:13 > 0:25:18Cos we know he didn't confess to everything. I'll tell you why I think it's a van Meegeren.
0:25:18 > 0:25:24This is one of Vermeer's most famous pictures, The Concert. You probably recognise it.
0:25:24 > 0:25:27You probably haven't looked that carefully at the background.
0:25:27 > 0:25:31- You may have done. But lave a look. What can you see?- Oh, right.
0:25:31 > 0:25:32The Procuress?
0:25:32 > 0:25:35- It's our picture, isn't it?- Mm. - Or it's the image.- Mm.
0:25:35 > 0:25:36Take a look at the next picture.
0:25:37 > 0:25:41Again, a really famous work by Vermeer,
0:25:41 > 0:25:43Young Woman At The Virginal.
0:25:43 > 0:25:46But have a look at the painting in the background.
0:25:47 > 0:25:50Oh, yes! It's The Procuress again, yeah.
0:25:51 > 0:25:58Now, we know that Vermeer had a version of this picture in his studio.
0:25:58 > 0:26:02We know that van Meegeren was obsessed by Vermeer.
0:26:02 > 0:26:06My theory is, and it's a circumstantial theory, but I think it's a strong one,
0:26:06 > 0:26:10I think that he was producing a prop to use in his fakes.
0:26:10 > 0:26:15- What, props like he had in the cupboard?- Exactly. The ones we saw. - Yes. We know that van Meegeren
0:26:15 > 0:26:20had a whole range of props, perhaps the most famous was this little white jug
0:26:20 > 0:26:23that he used repeatedly in his fake Vermeers.
0:26:23 > 0:26:28In fact, this is fascinating footage from the auction of van Meegeren's studio effects
0:26:28 > 0:26:30after the whole scandal was exposed.
0:26:30 > 0:26:33Don't forget that van Meegeren was wildly popular,
0:26:33 > 0:26:37because he was the man who ripped off Goering. As you can see from the audience,
0:26:37 > 0:26:41there was great demand to have a little piece of van Meegeren action.
0:26:41 > 0:26:42Amazing.
0:26:42 > 0:26:47Well, it's an interesting theory, and it's quite a seductive theory, but that's all it is.
0:26:47 > 0:26:51- It's a theory, it's your hunch. - We have these samples. I'm going to the Courtauld.
0:26:51 > 0:26:52Let's see what they tell us.
0:26:56 > 0:26:59The more I learn about how ambitious van Meegeren was
0:26:59 > 0:27:03in plotting his fakes, the more I wonder to what extent
0:27:03 > 0:27:06forgers are getting away with it today.
0:27:06 > 0:27:09The thing is, there have been forgers since time immemorial
0:27:09 > 0:27:13and, for sure, there'll be forgers and fakers out there now,
0:27:13 > 0:27:16who are conning people, conning experts, who knows?
0:27:22 > 0:27:25To find out more, I contact Scotland Yard.
0:27:25 > 0:27:28I'm instructed to travel to a secret store
0:27:28 > 0:27:30where the spoils of art crime are held.
0:27:34 > 0:27:39Head of the Art and Antique Squad, Detective Sergeant Vernon Rapley,
0:27:39 > 0:27:41agrees to show me the extent of the problem today.
0:27:41 > 0:27:43It's like Fort Knox in here.
0:27:43 > 0:27:45Even the location of this place is secret,
0:27:45 > 0:27:48so why all the secrecy about this building?
0:27:48 > 0:27:50Not only do we have our fakes and forgeries here
0:27:50 > 0:27:53but also a lot of stolen artworks and antiquities
0:27:53 > 0:27:56recovered from all over the world that are of very high value.
0:27:56 > 0:27:59- So you don't want anyone to know where we are?- Not really, no.
0:27:59 > 0:28:01- In here?- In here.
0:28:01 > 0:28:06- Wow, look at this lot. So these are all fakes, are they? - Yes, they are, yeah.
0:28:06 > 0:28:07Wow.
0:28:07 > 0:28:10What's happened to these paintings, how have you come by them all?
0:28:10 > 0:28:15They've all been seized in our investigations by the art and antiques unit.
0:28:16 > 0:28:20- This is, what, a Banksy?- Yeah, that's a limited-edition print by Banksy,
0:28:20 > 0:28:23something we're having a great deal of problems with now.
0:28:23 > 0:28:27- Very easy to produce, and also, you have... - It's just a stencil, isn't it?
0:28:27 > 0:28:30It's just a stencil with a false signature applied
0:28:30 > 0:28:34- but they sell for a considerable amount of money.- Like what?
0:28:34 > 0:28:38A limited-edition print like that's probably £1,500, £2,000 at least,
0:28:38 > 0:28:43and then a smaller...something like a stencil painting, that run to tens of thousands of pounds.
0:28:43 > 0:28:47Now looking at these... This is, what, a fake Lowry?
0:28:47 > 0:28:50Indeed.
0:28:50 > 0:28:55..there aren't old masters here, as such. Is that because the old masters are much harder to fake?
0:28:55 > 0:28:59Indeed. What we're finding increasingly is that artists are preferring
0:28:59 > 0:29:02to go for contemporary artworks. The checks that are done on them
0:29:02 > 0:29:07are not so exacting as you would... If, for example, you were looking to buy a Vermeer,
0:29:07 > 0:29:09you would conduct every check.
0:29:09 > 0:29:12How many fakes and forgeries are out there in the art market?
0:29:12 > 0:29:16Some law-enforcement agencies suggest 40 or 50% of the art market
0:29:16 > 0:29:20- could be fake and forgeries. - Nearly half?- Nearly half, yes.
0:29:20 > 0:29:23So, what does that say about the state of the art market,
0:29:23 > 0:29:26or anyone who wants to go out and buy a painting,
0:29:26 > 0:29:29if nearly half of them could be fakes? That's astonishing.
0:29:29 > 0:29:32Well, there are without any doubt at all thousands of fakes out there
0:29:32 > 0:29:35being produced on a daily basis by a number of artists,
0:29:35 > 0:29:41and people need to consider that when they're making purchases and to act more carefully.
0:29:46 > 0:29:50The thing that strikes me is that if up to half the paintings out there,
0:29:50 > 0:29:53in the art market generally, could be fake,
0:29:53 > 0:29:55there must be little time bombs
0:29:55 > 0:29:58planted in galleries and museums around the world,
0:29:58 > 0:30:01which in 5, 20, 100 years' time, people will come to realise
0:30:01 > 0:30:03are not genuine works of art,
0:30:03 > 0:30:06but they are fakes and therefore valueless.
0:30:06 > 0:30:09And I'd quite like to learn a bit more about the people
0:30:09 > 0:30:13who are planting these little time bombs, these forgers. Who are they?
0:30:17 > 0:30:20While Fiona hunts down today's forgers,
0:30:20 > 0:30:23I'm trying to nail one from the past.
0:30:23 > 0:30:26I'm at the Courtauld, with the paint samples from the Rijksmuseum
0:30:26 > 0:30:30and the box of pigments that van Meegeren used,
0:30:30 > 0:30:32eager to start scrutinising the evidence.
0:30:32 > 0:30:33- Hi there.- Hello.
0:30:33 > 0:30:38'Aviva Burnstock, expert in the scientific study of paintings, has agreed to help me.
0:30:41 > 0:30:45'Forgers are often caught by their careless use of modern materials,
0:30:45 > 0:30:49'so in order to make sure his fakes weren't spotted by scientific tests,
0:30:49 > 0:30:53'van Meegeren used the techniques of a 17th-century painter.
0:30:54 > 0:30:59'By comparing the paint samples from the Rijksmuseum with the Courtauld's painting,
0:30:59 > 0:31:04'we should be able to identify how The Procuress was painted and with what.'
0:31:04 > 0:31:08What can we deduce from what you're looking at now?
0:31:08 > 0:31:13What I'm looking at under the microscope and what I've captured on the screen here
0:31:13 > 0:31:15are samples from the three different paintings
0:31:15 > 0:31:17that you've brought samples from.
0:31:17 > 0:31:20One is the Rijksmuseum 17th-century Procuress,
0:31:20 > 0:31:23the second is the Rijksmuseum van Meegeren
0:31:23 > 0:31:25and here is the sample from the Courtauld picture.
0:31:25 > 0:31:27So we've got all three lined up.
0:31:27 > 0:31:31We're in a pretty strong position to then make some comparisons.
0:31:31 > 0:31:35Yes, we have the 17th-century painting, which has a classical structure.
0:31:35 > 0:31:38The sort of technique you'd expect from a 17th-century painter in Holland.
0:31:38 > 0:31:40- Exactly.- Right.
0:31:40 > 0:31:44The most important thing to look at is the first two layers.
0:31:44 > 0:31:48The first reddish paint layer that was applied to smooth the canvas,
0:31:48 > 0:31:51to fill up the canvas weaves, then a second grey layer,
0:31:51 > 0:31:52mixture of black and white,
0:31:52 > 0:31:56mixed together to create the smooth painting grey surface
0:31:56 > 0:31:58that was very popular in the 17th century.
0:31:58 > 0:32:02Now let's have a look at the van Meegeren from the Rijksmuseum.
0:32:02 > 0:32:04- It's a similar technique. - Closely similar technique.
0:32:04 > 0:32:08- The only difference is the thickness of the layers.- Fascinating.
0:32:09 > 0:32:12Ok, we've got a 17th-century version,
0:32:12 > 0:32:15we have got the van Meegeren version, showing a similar technique.
0:32:15 > 0:32:17Let's compare it with the Courtauld version.
0:32:17 > 0:32:21This is our picture from the Courtauld, which has a very similar structure.
0:32:21 > 0:32:24The red layer followed by the grey layer. Here.
0:32:24 > 0:32:27So what we know about van Meegeren is that he aped,
0:32:27 > 0:32:30as far as possible, the exact techniques of the 17th century.
0:32:30 > 0:32:33So, if this is a van Meegeren, this is exactly what you'd expect?
0:32:33 > 0:32:35It rules him in, it definitely rules him in.
0:32:35 > 0:32:39The structure is one thing. What about the materials?
0:32:39 > 0:32:42What you can see is that the materials that have been used
0:32:42 > 0:32:45are all consistent with 17th-century paintings
0:32:45 > 0:32:48and we know that van Meegeren was very meticulous about choosing
0:32:48 > 0:32:5217th-century materials or materials that could have been used then,
0:32:52 > 0:32:56but what's really striking is that the box of pigments you gave me
0:32:56 > 0:32:59from the Rijksmuseum are closely similar in colour and tonality
0:32:59 > 0:33:03to some of these pigments that we're seeing in the Courtauld picture.
0:33:03 > 0:33:06- You can tell that already? - They just seem compellingly similar.
0:33:06 > 0:33:08I can only tell so much from microscopy.
0:33:08 > 0:33:11I need to do more sophisticated analytical techniques.
0:33:14 > 0:33:18I feel we're making progress, but it's still frustrating.
0:33:18 > 0:33:22We know The Procuress was painted in a 17th-century technique,
0:33:22 > 0:33:26using 17th-century pigments, and we know that van Meegeren painted
0:33:26 > 0:33:29in a 17th-century technique and used those pigments.
0:33:29 > 0:33:31We have them here in this box,
0:33:31 > 0:33:34the actual pigments that he applied to his paintings.
0:33:34 > 0:33:38So that rules him in, but equally it could be a 17th-century picture.
0:33:38 > 0:33:43But there's one sample in here that's not a 17th-century pigment
0:33:43 > 0:33:46and it's marked "artificial resin".
0:33:46 > 0:33:50I have a hunch what this might be, but if we can analyse it
0:33:50 > 0:33:53and find out for certain, we can move forward.
0:33:58 > 0:34:02The cunning tricks of the forger's hand are intriguing enough,
0:34:02 > 0:34:05but I'm eager to get inside the forger's mind.
0:34:05 > 0:34:08John Myatt served four months in prison in 1998
0:34:08 > 0:34:12for painting and selling hundreds of fakes.
0:34:12 > 0:34:16Today, he legally produces copies by declaring that he's the real artist.
0:34:16 > 0:34:20But back then, he wasn't so upfront, and Scotland Yard said
0:34:20 > 0:34:23he'd committed the biggest art fraud of the 20th century.
0:34:27 > 0:34:29Wow. What a glory hole, look at all these.
0:34:29 > 0:34:33And all these are done by you?
0:34:33 > 0:34:38- Yeah, yeah.- So this, this is in the manner of Monet?- Yeah.
0:34:38 > 0:34:40What else have we got here? This...
0:34:40 > 0:34:43That's a Monet, Avenue Of Flowers, another Monet down there.
0:34:43 > 0:34:46- Now what have we got across there? - A Miro?
0:34:46 > 0:34:49At the end there we've got a couple of Henri Matisse.
0:34:49 > 0:34:54Umberto Giacometti and this is another Monet, Nicholson.
0:34:54 > 0:34:57Just take me back to the beginning then, John,
0:34:57 > 0:34:59because you were, what an art teacher?
0:34:59 > 0:35:03Originally I was an art teacher. Later, about ten years after that,
0:35:03 > 0:35:08- when I was looking after two youngsters...- Your two children.
0:35:08 > 0:35:10My two children, I was looking after them by myself,
0:35:10 > 0:35:15I had to stop my teaching job because I had to be with them,
0:35:15 > 0:35:20so I put an advert in Private Eye, "Genuine fakes from £250".
0:35:20 > 0:35:22So you were offering to do fakes of paintings,
0:35:22 > 0:35:25but being completely upfront about it, that they were fakes,
0:35:25 > 0:35:27and these were ones that you've done.
0:35:27 > 0:35:29How did that change?
0:35:29 > 0:35:32One of the customers just took one of my paintings
0:35:32 > 0:35:36into one of the auction houses and they said,
0:35:36 > 0:35:39"We will put a reserve on that of £25,000."
0:35:39 > 0:35:42He'd just paid me 250 quid for it
0:35:42 > 0:35:46and he called me up and he said, "You can either keep the 250,
0:35:46 > 0:35:48"or I'll give you £12,500, what's it going to be?"
0:35:48 > 0:35:53And, um...I just said, "Yes, yes, yes, yes, let's do it."
0:35:53 > 0:35:56And then from that moment on, you were churning them out.
0:35:56 > 0:35:59Churning them out. Rolling away, yes.
0:35:59 > 0:36:05I probably turned out about 200 fakes over a six, seven year period.
0:36:05 > 0:36:09- You were committing fraud on a grand scale.- Mm.
0:36:09 > 0:36:10Did that not trouble you?
0:36:10 > 0:36:15No. I remember thinking, no-one's being bashed over the head here,
0:36:15 > 0:36:19everybody's still alive at the end of it, it's only painting.
0:36:19 > 0:36:21But people were losing a lot of money.
0:36:21 > 0:36:25I mean, did you...the paintings they bought then turned out to be fakes,
0:36:25 > 0:36:28absolutely, I mean, it's not a victimless crime.
0:36:28 > 0:36:31- Did you...were you troubled by that? - No.- You weren't?
0:36:31 > 0:36:34No. Not until afterwards.
0:36:34 > 0:36:39Not until about halfway through, I started feeling rotten about who I was and what I was doing
0:36:39 > 0:36:42but I didn't get to that place soon enough.
0:36:42 > 0:36:45- I guess the money was too tempting. - Yeah.
0:36:45 > 0:36:50- How many of your fakes are still out there now?- 120.
0:36:50 > 0:36:52120. Why don't you go out and identify them?
0:36:52 > 0:36:56- I had that question before...- It's an obvious question, isn't it?
0:36:56 > 0:37:00You put some fakes in the market, only you can identify them. Why don't you?
0:37:00 > 0:37:03- If you're really penitent, that's what you'd do, surely?- No.
0:37:03 > 0:37:08Supposing you'd paid £30,000 and I come along and say, "I did that."
0:37:08 > 0:37:11Well, you know, you've just lost a whole mass of money.
0:37:11 > 0:37:16- Do you regret what you did, creating these?- Oh, yes, yes. Oh, yes.
0:37:16 > 0:37:19You chose to fake the modern end of painting
0:37:19 > 0:37:22because it was easy to recreate these.
0:37:22 > 0:37:26What's the hardest thing about creating a forgery like van Meegeren did?
0:37:26 > 0:37:28The major problem is using the right materials
0:37:28 > 0:37:33and materials that will withstand scientific analysis,
0:37:33 > 0:37:37and that was his major achievement.
0:37:37 > 0:37:39Do you think you could do it?
0:37:39 > 0:37:43- Er...- Recreate a 17th-century Vermeer?- Yes, I do.
0:37:43 > 0:37:46- Very confident. - I am very confident.
0:37:46 > 0:37:48Well, you know, I'm in my comfort zone.
0:37:51 > 0:37:54Well, John seems very confident, scarily confident,
0:37:54 > 0:37:57that he can reproduce a 17th-century masterpiece
0:37:57 > 0:38:00using van Meegeren's techniques. We shall see.
0:38:00 > 0:38:02I mean, the interesting thing is,
0:38:02 > 0:38:05we don't know exactly the precise details of what van Meegeren did
0:38:05 > 0:38:08and this is one way hopefully, we're going to find out.
0:38:12 > 0:38:17Van Meegeren managed to fool the experts by his painstaking use
0:38:17 > 0:38:21of 17th-century materials, so I need to buy the authentic ingredients
0:38:21 > 0:38:23for John to paint our fake.
0:38:23 > 0:38:27I'm heading to one of the last surviving traditional pigment shops,
0:38:27 > 0:38:31to meet Dr David Cranswick, an expert in painting techniques.
0:38:31 > 0:38:34- Hello.- All right?- Hi there. - Nice to meet you.
0:38:34 > 0:38:38We've set ourselves a rather ambitious task
0:38:38 > 0:38:42of trying to recreate Vermeer's great masterpiece,
0:38:42 > 0:38:43The Girl With The Pearl Earring.
0:38:43 > 0:38:47What about that glorious blue in the scarf, how do we recreate that?
0:38:47 > 0:38:50That's one of the most precious of all the colours,
0:38:50 > 0:38:53that's lapis lazuli, which we have up here on a shelf.
0:38:53 > 0:38:57It's made from the rock. This is a piece of lapis.
0:38:57 > 0:39:00- It's a gorgeous blue, isn't it? - Absolutely.
0:39:00 > 0:39:03Once the pigment is drawn out of the rock, washed and purified,
0:39:03 > 0:39:06- then, weight for weight, it's the same price as gold.- Really?
0:39:08 > 0:39:11And what about her gorgeous red lips there?
0:39:11 > 0:39:14They would have been painted with vermillion
0:39:14 > 0:39:18and it's made by mixing together mercury and sulphur.
0:39:18 > 0:39:21If it's got mercury in it, it's presumably pretty dangerous stuff.
0:39:21 > 0:39:23It is, you need to be very careful with it.
0:39:23 > 0:39:27- What about the yellow in her scarf and clothing?- Lead tin yellow,
0:39:27 > 0:39:30this one here. Mixed with yellow ochre,
0:39:30 > 0:39:35it gives this very beautiful bright yellow colour, which he would have used.
0:39:35 > 0:39:39- Here in the material down below, we have orpiment.- Orpiment.
0:39:39 > 0:39:42Made from arsenic, this is a sample of it, so I wouldn't touch it.
0:39:42 > 0:39:45- This is what arsenic looks like? - That is what arsenic looks like.
0:39:45 > 0:39:49- It's amazing that something so beautiful can be so deadly.- Mm.
0:39:49 > 0:39:54- The white of her pearl earring? - Now, that's a very ancient colour.
0:39:54 > 0:39:59- They'd get firstly stale urine... - It had to be stale, had it?
0:39:59 > 0:40:02Had to be stale, absolutely, the staler the better.
0:40:02 > 0:40:05- Have a sheet of lead, bury the whole thing into a dung heap.- In dung?
0:40:05 > 0:40:08- Absolutely.- It gets better! - It gets better.
0:40:08 > 0:40:11So out of wee and poo effectively
0:40:11 > 0:40:14and one of the most toxic substances, lead,
0:40:14 > 0:40:17comes this pristine white.
0:40:21 > 0:40:25In the 17th century, these vivid powders would have been
0:40:25 > 0:40:28transformed into paint by mixing them with oil.
0:40:28 > 0:40:30What we're looking for is,
0:40:30 > 0:40:35in the end, the final result should be like butter at room temperature.
0:40:35 > 0:40:38It should be soft, shiny, glistening, but not runny at all.
0:40:39 > 0:40:42- Can I have a go?- Yeah, go ahead.
0:40:42 > 0:40:43Ooh, it feels lovely.
0:40:49 > 0:40:53We knew that van Meegeren followed the same traditional methods to make his paint,
0:40:53 > 0:40:57but he added a special ingredient to the mix.
0:40:57 > 0:41:01He confessed to adding to his recipe something he called artificial resin.
0:41:02 > 0:41:06Basic tests undertaken during van Meegeren's trial
0:41:06 > 0:41:09revealed what this resin was, but methods of identifying chemicals
0:41:09 > 0:41:13have moved on considerably in the last 60 years.
0:41:13 > 0:41:18Just to be sure, and with all the advances of modern science,
0:41:18 > 0:41:20we reanalysed the sample.
0:41:21 > 0:41:25Do you remember those test tubes that we picked up in Amsterdam,
0:41:25 > 0:41:28that been taken from van Meegeren's studio?
0:41:28 > 0:41:32Well, one of them, if you recall, had written on it "artificial resin".
0:41:32 > 0:41:35- The one with the brown stuff in. - Absolutely.
0:41:35 > 0:41:37We've had it analysed and I've got the results. Bendor.
0:41:37 > 0:41:41Yes, the analysis confirms that van Meegeren used to mix his paints
0:41:41 > 0:41:45with a special ingredient called phenol formaldehyde.
0:41:45 > 0:41:50- Phenol what?- Phenol formaldehyde is better known as Bakelite.- Bakelite?
0:41:50 > 0:41:52- So van Meegeren used Bakelite?- Yes.
0:41:52 > 0:41:57So the kind of stuff that was used for old radios and for hairdryers.
0:41:57 > 0:41:59Yes, you could take your pick really.
0:41:59 > 0:42:03We've got some particularly hideous-looking examples from the 1940s here.
0:42:04 > 0:42:07It was a type of resin that you could pour into a mould
0:42:07 > 0:42:13for any shape that you like and when it's set it was extremely hard.
0:42:13 > 0:42:16And it was that hardness that appealed to van Meegeren.
0:42:16 > 0:42:20Traditional oil paint takes hundreds of years to dry sometimes,
0:42:20 > 0:42:23and in his day, in van Meegeren's day, they used a test
0:42:23 > 0:42:26to establish whether the painting was completely hard,
0:42:26 > 0:42:32whether the paint had gone completely solid. They'd use something like acetone, which I've got here.
0:42:32 > 0:42:34- Like nail varnish remover? - Exactly.
0:42:34 > 0:42:37And they used that to see if a painting was genuinely old
0:42:37 > 0:42:39- or a modern fake?- Certainly.
0:42:39 > 0:42:42You're not going to put nail varnish remover on that painting?
0:42:42 > 0:42:45I am, and it was very simple.
0:42:45 > 0:42:49If the paint is old, and I believe this to be old, at least 300 years old,
0:42:49 > 0:42:52nothing will come off onto the swab.
0:42:54 > 0:42:59If it's modern, there'll be pigment on this piece of cotton wool.
0:42:59 > 0:43:00Have a look.
0:43:00 > 0:43:03That was lucky. Well, it's clean.
0:43:04 > 0:43:09Cor! So van Meegeren put Bakelite on his paintings
0:43:09 > 0:43:12so that when someone put a swab over it, it wouldn't come off,
0:43:12 > 0:43:16- it would be that hard that even something like this wouldn't remove it.- Exactly.
0:43:16 > 0:43:18Bakelite was his unique fingerprint.
0:43:18 > 0:43:23That means, then, that the Courtauld's Procuress,
0:43:23 > 0:43:27if it's by van Meegeren, will have Bakelite in it.
0:43:29 > 0:43:33While Philip heads off to test the Courtauld's painting for Bakelite,
0:43:33 > 0:43:36I have to try and find some to paint our fake with.
0:43:39 > 0:43:43But it turns out the chemical it's made from, phenol formaldehyde,
0:43:43 > 0:43:45is pretty hazardous stuff.
0:43:45 > 0:43:49Certainly not something that should be handled in an artist's studio,
0:43:49 > 0:43:51like van Meegeren did.
0:43:51 > 0:43:55But John has agreed to follow van Meegeren's methods as closely as possible
0:43:55 > 0:43:57and so we have to take precautions.
0:43:57 > 0:44:00It means he's going to have to paint our fake
0:44:00 > 0:44:03in a rather unconventional setting -
0:44:03 > 0:44:07the chemistry lab of Imperial College, London.
0:44:07 > 0:44:10Hiya. You need these just to be in the room. There's a coat for you.
0:44:10 > 0:44:13- Very attractive. - And a coat for you.
0:44:13 > 0:44:17'Head of department, Tom Weldon, is on hand to ensure our safety.'
0:44:19 > 0:44:23- There you go.- How do I look? - Excellent!
0:44:27 > 0:44:30I'm ready. What are we dealing with here?
0:44:30 > 0:44:34We're going to mix some phenol with some formaldehyde to make the Bakelite.
0:44:34 > 0:44:38And what is it about these, either separately or together,
0:44:38 > 0:44:42that makes them so dangerous we have to get kitted up like this?
0:44:42 > 0:44:45They're not so ridiculously dangerous to us.
0:44:45 > 0:44:48We're used to handling lots of far more toxic things than this.
0:44:48 > 0:44:51But both of these are cancer-causing agents.
0:44:52 > 0:44:56They're both toxic and they're both corrosive.
0:44:56 > 0:44:59So cancer is the thing that everybody gets really scared about.
0:44:59 > 0:45:05But actually, of these, the thing I'd be most worried about immediately is the corrosive nature.
0:45:05 > 0:45:10If you get these on your skin, it's likely to cause blistering and hurt and it gets worse...
0:45:10 > 0:45:14You're listening carefully, John, aren't you?!
0:45:14 > 0:45:16..because the formaldehyde is volatile
0:45:16 > 0:45:18and we're going to heat it up,
0:45:18 > 0:45:21which means that we'll get gaseous formaldehyde,
0:45:21 > 0:45:24so we need to protect ourselves from that as well.
0:45:24 > 0:45:28- What, from breathing that in? - Yes. That's why we're going to do it in a fume hood.
0:45:28 > 0:45:31The air will blow over it and it will take all the fumes away
0:45:31 > 0:45:35so you can't expose yourself, so you'll be all right.
0:45:35 > 0:45:37Can I just ask you, because our faker, van Meegeren,
0:45:37 > 0:45:40used these without any of these precautions.
0:45:40 > 0:45:42How dangerous would that have been?
0:45:42 > 0:45:45Given that he did it over years and years and years,
0:45:45 > 0:45:49it almost certainly would've affected his health in some way.
0:45:49 > 0:45:51Probably bad lungs. Ulceration of the skin.
0:45:51 > 0:45:54- Well, he certainly died quite young. - There you go.- Late 50s.
0:45:56 > 0:45:59I've never had it so good.
0:45:59 > 0:46:01You'll be all right, we'll sort you out.
0:46:01 > 0:46:04- You're really looking forward to it now, aren't you?- Wow.
0:46:09 > 0:46:13Well, shall we start our journey into the unknown?
0:46:13 > 0:46:15That's a very good way of putting it.
0:46:15 > 0:46:20Paint, phenol formaldehyde, canvas.
0:46:23 > 0:46:27Van Meegeren never revealed precisely
0:46:27 > 0:46:30how he mixed phenol formaldehyde with traditional pigments
0:46:30 > 0:46:33but in later years, his son recalled seeing him
0:46:33 > 0:46:37loading his brush with paint, then dipping it into the toxic solution.
0:46:41 > 0:46:43Now how does it feel?
0:46:43 > 0:46:47It feels as though it leaves the brush, um...
0:46:47 > 0:46:51- very quickly.- So you can't push it around the canvas.- Exactly.
0:46:51 > 0:46:54You can't cover up the canvas.
0:46:54 > 0:46:57So, what are you trying to do first,
0:46:57 > 0:47:00- just sort of paint in the big blocks of colour?- Exactly that.
0:47:00 > 0:47:04What I'm doing is what all 17th-century painters would do,
0:47:04 > 0:47:08is to block the painting, to get rid of this white and establish
0:47:08 > 0:47:11the basic shapes, the shape of the face, the yellow ochre here,
0:47:11 > 0:47:13the blue here and the slightly lighter colours.
0:47:13 > 0:47:17- This is how Vermeer would have done it and how van Meegeren?- Yes.
0:47:19 > 0:47:22You see, it's coming, isn't it? I mean, it's...
0:47:22 > 0:47:26It is, there's something quite impressive about your whack-it-on technique, John.
0:47:27 > 0:47:31So this is ultramarine blue,
0:47:31 > 0:47:34extracted from the lapis lazuli, worth its weight in gold.
0:47:34 > 0:47:37- Worth its weight in gold. - Have you used it before?- No.
0:47:37 > 0:47:40It's very hard to get hold of these days.
0:47:40 > 0:47:43When you think about the works you did when you were faking paintings,
0:47:43 > 0:47:46all those years ago, and what you're doing now...
0:47:46 > 0:47:49I took absolutely no... I paid no regard
0:47:49 > 0:47:53to the authenticity of materials or of canvases or anything, none.
0:47:53 > 0:47:55I painted with household emulsion paint,
0:47:55 > 0:47:59KY Jelly and yet they were still authenticated.
0:47:59 > 0:48:03This is interesting because we're actually using 17th-century pigments
0:48:03 > 0:48:07and the whole thing is as authentic as we can do it
0:48:07 > 0:48:09under these strange circumstances.
0:48:09 > 0:48:12What's happening here? Do you see how this paint's clouding over?
0:48:12 > 0:48:14Look at that.
0:48:14 > 0:48:17It looks sort of cloudy, as if it's coagulating.
0:48:17 > 0:48:21No, there's something happening. It's kind of just doing strange things now.
0:48:21 > 0:48:25- Is that the phenol formaldehyde making it look so weird?- Can't be anything else, can it?
0:48:25 > 0:48:27It's a reaction.
0:48:27 > 0:48:29What are you going to do about that, then?
0:48:29 > 0:48:31Well, I've got another two or three days!
0:48:33 > 0:48:37'To be fair to John, it took van Meegeren four years of experiments
0:48:37 > 0:48:39'to perfect his techniques.
0:48:39 > 0:48:42'He never wrote down the exact proportions
0:48:42 > 0:48:45'of his paint and phenol formaldehyde mix.'
0:48:45 > 0:48:50The thing is, when I was standing next to John, I thought,
0:48:50 > 0:48:53actually, even I could do that, slap the paint on,
0:48:53 > 0:48:55and it looked a bit rubbish, but coming back here,
0:48:55 > 0:48:58it looks brilliant. I completely see what he's doing.
0:48:58 > 0:49:01The structure of the face is taking shape
0:49:01 > 0:49:04and I think he might know what he's doing. The only thing is,
0:49:04 > 0:49:06this phenol formaldehyde is messing things up a bit.
0:49:06 > 0:49:11You know, no-one has done this since van Meegeren.
0:49:11 > 0:49:14No-one has tried this, this is a first, so will it work?
0:49:17 > 0:49:19I genuinely have no idea.
0:49:22 > 0:49:23At the Courtauld Institute,
0:49:23 > 0:49:28analytical chemist Klaas Jan van den Berg has flown from Amsterdam
0:49:28 > 0:49:33to take samples from The Procuress to test for phenol formaldehyde.
0:49:34 > 0:49:40So we know that van Meegeren used phenol formaldehyde, Bakelite,
0:49:40 > 0:49:45in his pictures, and if we can prove there's that element in this picture,
0:49:45 > 0:49:49- then we've got the most unequivocal proof we need. - That's absolutely right.
0:49:49 > 0:49:53What we have to do now is be very careful just to take
0:49:53 > 0:49:55the top layer of paint or the top layers of paint
0:49:55 > 0:49:58because we think van Meegeren re-used canvases,
0:49:58 > 0:50:01so the top layers are definitely going to be his paint and we hope,
0:50:01 > 0:50:05or think, they might be bound in phenol formaldehyde resin.
0:50:05 > 0:50:10If you strike lower you could go to an earlier, more honest, even 17th-century layer, possibly.
0:50:10 > 0:50:14That's right. If he re-used a canvas and scrubbed the top paint layers down,
0:50:14 > 0:50:18- then those first layers will be typical of the 17th century.- Uh-huh.
0:50:18 > 0:50:21In your mind, how crucial is this test?
0:50:21 > 0:50:25This is the absolute proof. This test will tell us, for sure,
0:50:25 > 0:50:28whether this is by van Meegeren or not.
0:50:28 > 0:50:30- You wouldn't have a hesitation? - Not a hesitation.
0:50:30 > 0:50:34It hasn't been used by any other forger we know of.
0:50:38 > 0:50:43Back at the lab, John is finding that forging an old master is no easy task.
0:50:44 > 0:50:47Van Meegeren's toxic mix of paint and phenol formaldehyde
0:50:47 > 0:50:49is proving tough to handle.
0:50:56 > 0:51:00- John.- Fiona.- Let's have a look.
0:51:00 > 0:51:02Well, it certainly looks like her.
0:51:02 > 0:51:03Yeah.
0:51:03 > 0:51:06- The paint looks a bit...- Yes. - ..weird, doesn't it?
0:51:06 > 0:51:11The paint is... It's a bit like painting with ground-up cornflakes.
0:51:11 > 0:51:14There's a whole area here where the paint's actually dropped off.
0:51:14 > 0:51:18Oh, yes. Yes, I can see, there's a little gap in her scarf.
0:51:18 > 0:51:21- How have you found it, frustrating? - Very, very.
0:51:21 > 0:51:25What's it make you think about Van Meegeren and the way he worked?
0:51:25 > 0:51:27It was pretty clever stuff, wasn't it?
0:51:27 > 0:51:30It's enormously clever, it's very hard to understand
0:51:30 > 0:51:36that degree of commitment to a strange process.
0:51:36 > 0:51:37It's something very...
0:51:37 > 0:51:40To go to such great lengths to recreate something
0:51:40 > 0:51:42- from the 17th century? - Yeah.
0:51:42 > 0:51:45- So, baking next then. - Baking next.
0:51:45 > 0:51:47Have you had a go to see how that works?
0:51:47 > 0:51:49We have. It's been a catastrophe.
0:51:49 > 0:51:51Oh! I can hardly wait to see it.
0:51:51 > 0:51:56Van Meegeren's final, and bizarre stage, was to bake his fakes.
0:51:56 > 0:52:00Heat should cause the phenol formaldehyde to harden,
0:52:00 > 0:52:04giving the painting the texture and appearance of an old master.
0:52:04 > 0:52:08This, distressingly, is white paint!
0:52:08 > 0:52:10- That's white paint? - That's white paint, I baked it.
0:52:10 > 0:52:14- And you got chocolate mousse. - And we got chocolate mousse!
0:52:14 > 0:52:17Chocolate eclair! I mean it's... It's very worrying.
0:52:20 > 0:52:23Well, the moment has come. Shall we put her in the oven?
0:52:23 > 0:52:26How long are we going to leave her in here for?
0:52:26 > 0:52:28Two hours at 110.
0:52:29 > 0:52:32Who knows what we'll find when we come back.
0:52:38 > 0:52:40It's going to be an agonising wait.
0:52:40 > 0:52:45As John's test samples have shown, if we get the temperature
0:52:45 > 0:52:47or the timing wrong, our fake might be ruined.
0:52:47 > 0:52:52It could come out a complete charred mess.
0:52:52 > 0:52:56It could actually burst into flames in that oven so, um,
0:52:56 > 0:52:59it'll be a real shame after all this effort.
0:53:01 > 0:53:04Well, can only wait and see really, see what happens.
0:53:06 > 0:53:08I'm also waiting anxiously
0:53:08 > 0:53:11while the Courtauld painting is undergoing its final, crucial test.
0:53:12 > 0:53:17The job requires a state-of-the-art machine which the Courtauld isn't equipped with,
0:53:17 > 0:53:22so the samples were sent to the lab in Amsterdam where Klaas Jan got to work.
0:53:23 > 0:53:28Under intense heat, the paint sample breaks down into its component chemicals,
0:53:28 > 0:53:31to reveal whether Van Meegeren's unique ingredient,
0:53:31 > 0:53:35phenol formaldehyde, is present in the Courtauld's painting.
0:53:40 > 0:53:43But what has a spell in the oven done to John's painting?
0:53:43 > 0:53:45Have we overcooked our fake?
0:53:50 > 0:53:52Da-dah! It looks pretty good, doesn't it?
0:53:52 > 0:53:54Actually it's smoothed out, hasn't it?
0:53:54 > 0:53:57- We've really learned something from this.- We have.
0:53:57 > 0:54:00Because when we put it in the oven, it looked...
0:54:00 > 0:54:03- you know, in the nicest possible way, a bit ropey.- Yeah.
0:54:03 > 0:54:08And...it has vastly improved with two hours in the oven.
0:54:08 > 0:54:10Right, so what do we do next?
0:54:10 > 0:54:13Well, I think we try and get some cracking.
0:54:15 > 0:54:19Van Meegeren would age his fakes by causing the paint surface to crack.
0:54:22 > 0:54:25But when we try it, things start to go badly wrong.
0:54:25 > 0:54:27Oh, no! Cracking here, look.
0:54:27 > 0:54:31- The only thing is it's cracking and it's actually... - There she goes, look.
0:54:31 > 0:54:33- It's coming off.- It is.
0:54:33 > 0:54:35- That would lift off now. - Hang on!
0:54:35 > 0:54:36BOTH LAUGH
0:54:36 > 0:54:39- Oh, no.- Oh, God! - Oh, no! Look, it's...
0:54:39 > 0:54:43Well, I think we've taken this lady as far as we can go really.
0:54:43 > 0:54:45Probably a bit too far.
0:54:45 > 0:54:47Yes, it's rather sad, isn't it?
0:54:47 > 0:54:50I think Van Meegeren has trounced us.
0:54:50 > 0:54:51Yes.
0:54:51 > 0:54:54- He got over the final hurdle and we didn't quite get there.- Yes.
0:54:59 > 0:55:01- Hi, Philip.- Hey.
0:55:01 > 0:55:03I have here our attempt
0:55:03 > 0:55:06at reproducing van Meegeren's techniques.
0:55:06 > 0:55:08What do you think?
0:55:08 > 0:55:11Well, I'd say it's sort of convincingly...knackered.
0:55:11 > 0:55:13It is, now watch this as well.
0:55:13 > 0:55:14What do you mean?! Don't do that!
0:55:14 > 0:55:18I know, but that's the thing, we baked it, bits started falling off.
0:55:18 > 0:55:20I mean, it's not a bad attempt
0:55:20 > 0:55:22but I have to say I wouldn't be taken in, are you?
0:55:22 > 0:55:24No, obviously, cos it's falling apart.
0:55:26 > 0:55:29At last it's here - news from the lab in Amsterdam.
0:55:29 > 0:55:33We shall find out once and for all whether Van Meegeren painted The Procuress.
0:55:33 > 0:55:37- Hi, Klaas Jan.- Klaas Jan, hi.- Hi.
0:55:37 > 0:55:38What have you discovered?
0:55:38 > 0:55:41Well, a team has done the analysis of the sample
0:55:41 > 0:55:44that I took from The Procuress at the Courtauld
0:55:44 > 0:55:51and the result is that the painting was painted
0:55:51 > 0:55:56with phenol formaldehyde resin, which is very similar to Bakelite.
0:55:56 > 0:55:59- That's it! That is it. - That's what we're looking for.
0:55:59 > 0:56:03So we know definitely... Cor, that's brilliant!
0:56:03 > 0:56:05We know definitely that The Procuress was painted
0:56:05 > 0:56:08by Van Meegeren cos it has Bakelite in it.
0:56:08 > 0:56:10That is correct, yes.
0:56:10 > 0:56:15So it's as black and white as that. It is Van Meegeren, it can only be by Van Meegeren.
0:56:15 > 0:56:19Yes, because this is a modern synthetic resin
0:56:19 > 0:56:22which was only invented in the 20th century
0:56:22 > 0:56:25and Van Meegeren was the only artist,
0:56:25 > 0:56:28to our knowledge, who has been using this material.
0:56:28 > 0:56:31- Fantastic!- That's the finding in the studio.
0:56:31 > 0:56:34This is going to be so interesting from the point of view
0:56:34 > 0:56:37of not only the Courtauld Institute but the Rijksmuseum.
0:56:37 > 0:56:40We've added another picture to the famous faker's oeuvre.
0:56:40 > 0:56:43So how do you feel about that?
0:56:43 > 0:56:46Well, I'm as excited as you are.
0:56:46 > 0:56:49It's really a nice find,
0:56:49 > 0:56:52I wouldn't have expected it myself, but there it is.
0:56:52 > 0:56:56Also some of the most prominent experts in this country have...
0:56:56 > 0:56:59- Speculated that this is a 17th-century picture.- Absolutely.
0:56:59 > 0:57:01And it's made with Bakelite.
0:57:01 > 0:57:03Here we are, and we've cracked it. Fantastic!
0:57:08 > 0:57:12It was with great delight that I called Aviva
0:57:12 > 0:57:16at the Courtauld Institute finally to reveal the news.
0:57:16 > 0:57:20All our hard work has paid off and this long-overlooked painting
0:57:20 > 0:57:22is now going to be proudly displayed
0:57:22 > 0:57:24in the Courtauld's Old Master gallery,
0:57:24 > 0:57:26as part of a special exhibition.
0:57:31 > 0:57:35- Hi, there.- Hello. - Hi, Aviva, how are you?
0:57:35 > 0:57:36Very well.
0:57:37 > 0:57:39- Well...- Da-dah!
0:57:39 > 0:57:43Gosh, how amazing to see it here in the Courtauld!
0:57:43 > 0:57:45Yes, it's great to see it here.
0:57:45 > 0:57:47I mean, there can't be many examples of where you get
0:57:47 > 0:57:50such a clear attribution as this, I mean, there's just no doubt.
0:57:50 > 0:57:53I don't think I've ever seen such an unequivocal result.
0:57:53 > 0:57:56This is absolutely and clearly Van Meegeren.
0:57:56 > 0:57:59- D'you feel differently about it? - It does make you think differently.
0:57:59 > 0:58:03It makes you feel more sure about its place in history.
0:58:03 > 0:58:06- What will you do with it? - It'll be very useful for teaching
0:58:06 > 0:58:09and we're going to use it to show students about a case
0:58:09 > 0:58:13that's so clearly and distinctively a forgery.
0:58:20 > 0:58:25I think Van Meegeren would've liked this, hanging amongst all these Old Masters.
0:58:25 > 0:58:28Yes, probably not quite what he imagined, being hung as a forgery,
0:58:28 > 0:58:32but, he's in one of the most august art institutions in the world
0:58:32 > 0:58:34and he'll be studied by generations to come.
0:58:45 > 0:58:48Subtitles by Red Bee Media Ltd
0:58:48 > 0:58:51E-mail subtitling@bbc.co.uk