0:00:02 > 0:00:07The art world, where paintings change hands for fortunes.
0:00:07 > 0:00:09Selling at 95 million.
0:00:09 > 0:00:13But for every known masterpiece there may be another
0:00:13 > 0:00:15still waiting to be discovered.
0:00:16 > 0:00:18Oh, my word.
0:00:18 > 0:00:20They're known as "sleepers".
0:00:20 > 0:00:23International art dealer Philip Mould hunts them down.
0:00:23 > 0:00:25In the past, we looked AT pictures.
0:00:25 > 0:00:28Now, almost, you can look THROUGH them.
0:00:28 > 0:00:31Using cutting-edge science and investigative research,
0:00:31 > 0:00:35we've teamed up to find long lost works by the great masters.
0:00:36 > 0:00:38Wow.
0:00:38 > 0:00:41The problem is, not every painting is quite what it seems.
0:00:41 > 0:00:44When these paintings were thought to be genuine,
0:00:44 > 0:00:46- how much were they worth? - Millions.
0:00:46 > 0:00:49It's a journey that can end in joy...
0:00:49 > 0:00:51- Isn't that great? - Yes, it is.
0:00:51 > 0:00:53..or bitter disappointment.
0:00:53 > 0:00:56I can't get my head round it, I really can't.
0:00:56 > 0:01:00In this episode, could a chance find in a country sale room
0:01:00 > 0:01:06be a long lost masterpiece by celebrated French artist Edouard Vuillard?
0:01:06 > 0:01:10We're up against experts who are notoriously tough to convince.
0:01:11 > 0:01:15- We have come across them before. - Right.- That's not going to be easy.
0:01:15 > 0:01:19Our investigation takes us back to Jazz Age Paris.
0:01:19 > 0:01:24To Geneva, where we gain access to a secret art vault.
0:01:24 > 0:01:26Wow, the veil is lifted.
0:01:26 > 0:01:30And to Amsterdam, to unearth the unexpected.
0:01:30 > 0:01:34- I'm almost lost for words, to be honest!- Speechless.- Yes, I am!
0:01:34 > 0:01:37But will we succeed where others have tried and failed?
0:01:37 > 0:01:39- Ready? - I think so.
0:01:39 > 0:01:42Keith, you're looking pretty nervous.
0:02:00 > 0:02:04We've come to a country sale room in the town of Diss, Norfolk.
0:02:04 > 0:02:07All manner of curiosities are on offer here.
0:02:10 > 0:02:14You never know what treasures might turn up in a place like this.
0:02:16 > 0:02:18This is a bit different from the swanky West End galleries
0:02:18 > 0:02:20you usually inhabit, Philip, isn't it?
0:02:20 > 0:02:25I have to say, I love coming round auctions like this at the weekend.
0:02:25 > 0:02:27Yeah, but it's in places like this
0:02:27 > 0:02:30that some of the great art discoveries have been made.
0:02:30 > 0:02:33Well, I always hope I'm going to find some kind of hidden gem
0:02:33 > 0:02:35at an auction. I haven't yet, I have to say.
0:02:35 > 0:02:39I mean, it's certainly true that the paintings we read about
0:02:39 > 0:02:41that make huge sums of money are normally sold
0:02:41 > 0:02:46in the major auction rooms, London, Paris, New York and what have you.
0:02:46 > 0:02:50But occasionally, things have slipped through the net
0:02:50 > 0:02:54and really good paintings can end up in places like this
0:02:54 > 0:02:56and that's when fortunes can be made.
0:02:57 > 0:03:00Writer Keith Tutt hoped he'd discovered a treasure here
0:03:00 > 0:03:05back in 2007 when he saw a painting for sale by an artist
0:03:05 > 0:03:09whose works normally only grace the big name auction houses.
0:03:10 > 0:03:14- Hello, Keith. - Hi there.
0:03:14 > 0:03:15The picture was thought to be
0:03:15 > 0:03:19by celebrated French painter Edouard Vuillard,
0:03:19 > 0:03:22whose works usually sell for hundreds of thousands of pounds.
0:03:22 > 0:03:24Well...
0:03:24 > 0:03:26And yet here it was in a country sale room,
0:03:26 > 0:03:28at a fraction of the price.
0:03:28 > 0:03:30It's lovely.
0:03:32 > 0:03:37So, two, what, three ladies sitting on a banquette,
0:03:37 > 0:03:41on a bench seat at what looks like a Parisian cafe table
0:03:41 > 0:03:42enjoying their coffee.
0:03:44 > 0:03:46It has a feel of Paris, doesn't it?
0:03:46 > 0:03:50It does, it does, a sort of 1920s Paris, maybe.
0:03:51 > 0:03:53Philip, what do you think?
0:03:53 > 0:03:55I'm already rather fascinated by this picture
0:03:55 > 0:03:58because it looks a bit of a mess in that top left corner
0:03:58 > 0:04:01when your eye goes to it, do you know what I mean?
0:04:01 > 0:04:04All these sort of fragmentary colours and shapes.
0:04:04 > 0:04:06But just in the last 20 seconds or 30 seconds,
0:04:06 > 0:04:07it's begun to take shape.
0:04:07 > 0:04:10It's begun to became rather more coherent.
0:04:12 > 0:04:14And is Vuillard a particular love of yours?
0:04:14 > 0:04:18Yes, he is. When I was at school, he was my favourite artist.
0:04:18 > 0:04:20I was doing Art A level and I loved painting
0:04:20 > 0:04:23and I loved Vuillard more than any other painter,
0:04:23 > 0:04:26and I always said to myself, that if it were possible to get hold of a Vuillard,
0:04:26 > 0:04:29if the opportunity arose, then I would love to take it.
0:04:29 > 0:04:32I never thought that it would actually happen.
0:04:33 > 0:04:36Keith is not alone in his esteem for Vuillard.
0:04:36 > 0:04:41He's one of the leading lights of the French post-Impressionist movement.
0:04:41 > 0:04:44Inspired by Degas and Gauguin, Vuillard's work spans
0:04:44 > 0:04:48five decades from the late 19th century to the early 20th century,
0:04:48 > 0:04:54when a new generation of painters experimented with colour and form.
0:04:56 > 0:04:59Vuillard is best known for his intimate snapshots
0:04:59 > 0:05:01of middle-class life.
0:05:01 > 0:05:03His mother in her dressmaking shop.
0:05:03 > 0:05:06Her seamstresses at work.
0:05:06 > 0:05:08His friends at play.
0:05:08 > 0:05:13After his death in 1940, Vuillard was overlooked for decades.
0:05:13 > 0:05:16But in recent years, his name has been back on the rise.
0:05:16 > 0:05:17At £4 million.
0:05:17 > 0:05:21In 2009, this painting, The Dressmakers,
0:05:21 > 0:05:26sold for a phenomenal £5.1 million. which could bode well for Keith.
0:05:31 > 0:05:34So, what did you think, when you saw it in the auction?
0:05:34 > 0:05:36I thought, "Wow."
0:05:36 > 0:05:39My first question was, "Is it really a Vuillard?"
0:05:39 > 0:05:41because it seemed very unlikely.
0:05:41 > 0:05:45All I had to go on at this point was the style of the picture which,
0:05:45 > 0:05:47I thought I knew Vuillard fairly well,
0:05:47 > 0:05:50and it has a signature and it has a little plaque
0:05:50 > 0:05:53that says "E Vuillard" and it looks very authentic.
0:05:53 > 0:05:56- But how much did you pay in the end? - About 11,000.
0:05:56 > 0:06:01Which would be a very painful amount to have spent on a bad mistake,
0:06:01 > 0:06:04but, of course, a fraction of what it's worth
0:06:04 > 0:06:07- if you can prove it's by Vuillard. - Yeah.
0:06:07 > 0:06:09So, what's the snag then? Why was it so cheap?
0:06:11 > 0:06:14Well, I guess the reason I discovered was the fact
0:06:14 > 0:06:18that it isn't currently in the catalogue raisonne of Vuillard's work.
0:06:18 > 0:06:22So, the official list of his works, and that painting's not in it.
0:06:22 > 0:06:25- Not in it, no.- Yeah, but I mean in art-world terms, that's like...
0:06:25 > 0:06:27It's like a car without the engine.
0:06:27 > 0:06:30I mean, you've got to have the paperwork to go with it.
0:06:30 > 0:06:36If you can prove it, if the evidence can be marshalled for this,
0:06:36 > 0:06:40it's surely worth a quarter of a million pounds.
0:06:40 > 0:06:42It's a very attractive picture, it's got impact.
0:06:42 > 0:06:45Or as they say in the trade, it's got "wall power".
0:06:47 > 0:06:51Hopefully, Keith's £11,000 gamble was one worth taking.
0:06:51 > 0:06:55The question is, is this a genuine Vuillard?
0:06:59 > 0:07:01Looking at the brushstrokes here,
0:07:01 > 0:07:05I think Keith just may have made a very astute purchase.
0:07:06 > 0:07:09Now, we need to do tests,
0:07:09 > 0:07:13but I just feel in my bones that this picture is right.
0:07:15 > 0:07:17That's just my view,
0:07:17 > 0:07:21but, for Keith, there's only one opinion that counts.
0:07:21 > 0:07:25After I bought it, I contacted Christies and they gave me
0:07:25 > 0:07:29an e-mail of someone who belonged to the committee that decides
0:07:29 > 0:07:32the authenticity of Vuillard works
0:07:32 > 0:07:35and works at the Wildenstein Institute.
0:07:35 > 0:07:39- At the Wildenstein Institute? - Mm.
0:07:39 > 0:07:44- Oh, we have come across them before. - Right.
0:07:44 > 0:07:46That's not going to be easy.
0:07:46 > 0:07:50The Wildenstein Institute is in charge of authenticating
0:07:50 > 0:07:53the work of many of the world's most celebrated artists.
0:07:53 > 0:07:56They publish catalogues raisonnes,
0:07:56 > 0:08:00official lists of every genuine work by a particular artist.
0:08:00 > 0:08:03If a painting isn't included in the Wildenstein catalogue,
0:08:03 > 0:08:05its authenticity is questioned,
0:08:05 > 0:08:10and the major auction houses won't touch it, vastly reducing its value.
0:08:11 > 0:08:15Back in 2010, Philip and I thought we'd put together
0:08:15 > 0:08:17enough evidence to prove that a painting
0:08:17 > 0:08:21was by the most famous Impressionist artist of all, Claude Monet.
0:08:23 > 0:08:25Despite compelling forensic analysis,
0:08:25 > 0:08:29exhaustive research into the painting's history,
0:08:29 > 0:08:32plus the support of the world's leading Monet experts,
0:08:32 > 0:08:36the Wildenstein Institute insisted the work was fake.
0:08:36 > 0:08:39Guy Wildenstein has said no.
0:08:40 > 0:08:44In his opinion, it is not by Monet.
0:08:44 > 0:08:47- The man's mad. - I can't believe it.
0:08:47 > 0:08:49I'm so sorry, I'm so, so sorry.
0:08:50 > 0:08:54It was heart-breaking for the owner, David Joel.
0:08:54 > 0:08:57I hope, for Keith, that history doesn't repeat itself.
0:08:57 > 0:09:00Well, I've already written to one of the authors
0:09:00 > 0:09:03of Vuillard's catalogue raisonne five or six times.
0:09:03 > 0:09:07- Didn't get any response to any of my e-mails.- Six times and no response?
0:09:07 > 0:09:11No, I later rang him and had a very awkward phone call,
0:09:11 > 0:09:15and he said, "No, no, we don't think it is by Vuillard."
0:09:17 > 0:09:20I've got to say, of all the names you could have mentioned,
0:09:20 > 0:09:23I wish you hadn't mentioned Wildenstein.
0:09:26 > 0:09:29If we're to convince the Wildenstein Institute
0:09:29 > 0:09:33that Keith's painting is genuine, we'll need to build a robust case,
0:09:33 > 0:09:35so, I'm sending it for forensic analysis.
0:09:39 > 0:09:42I've come to the Courtauld Institute in London,
0:09:42 > 0:09:46a centre of excellence for the scientific study of art.
0:09:46 > 0:09:49Head of the lab is Aviva Burnstock,
0:09:49 > 0:09:53one of the world's leading conservation scientists.
0:09:53 > 0:09:56Her years of experience in the forensic study of paintings
0:09:56 > 0:09:59will be a huge asset to our investigation.
0:09:59 > 0:10:02- Hi, Aviva, how are you? - Nice to see you.
0:10:02 > 0:10:05Aviva has agreed to undertake a series of tests which could
0:10:05 > 0:10:08help determine the authenticity of Keith's painting.
0:10:08 > 0:10:11- So, what do you think? - I think it's really interesting.
0:10:11 > 0:10:15Lovely surface, very matte and freely painted.
0:10:15 > 0:10:18Yeah, I'm looking forward to looking at this more closely
0:10:18 > 0:10:21and seeing how it's made and what it's made with.
0:10:23 > 0:10:28The first stage is to use imaging techniques to examine the painting.
0:10:37 > 0:10:41Different wavelengths of light can help unlock clues
0:10:41 > 0:10:43hidden within the canvas.
0:10:45 > 0:10:47The forensic process is now beginning.
0:10:47 > 0:10:51Science can reach things, tell you things, that the human eye can't.
0:10:51 > 0:10:55The history of the picture, the processes by which it's made,
0:10:55 > 0:10:59its very beginnings. It could provide the evidence
0:10:59 > 0:11:04to help prove whether this painting is genuine or fake.
0:11:13 > 0:11:16At Philip's gallery, our head of research,
0:11:16 > 0:11:19Dr Bendor Grosvenor, has been hunting down the evidence.
0:11:22 > 0:11:24So, here is the man at the centre of our mystery.
0:11:24 > 0:11:28The celebrated post-Impressionist, Edouard Vuillard.
0:11:28 > 0:11:30So, we need to prove to the Wildenstein Institute
0:11:30 > 0:11:32that this man created Keith's painting,
0:11:32 > 0:11:36but so far they've rejected it as a fake. What leads have we got?
0:11:36 > 0:11:38Well, as usual, I've been rootling around the back of the picture
0:11:38 > 0:11:41and I've come across some rather fascinating clues.
0:11:41 > 0:11:44There's some mysterious writing that says "Hessel."
0:11:44 > 0:11:46- Previous owner?- Quite possibly.
0:11:46 > 0:11:48I'll have to look into that.
0:11:48 > 0:11:51But there's also another label, a printed one this time,
0:11:51 > 0:11:54- that says "A Robinot". - We've seen in the past, haven't we,
0:11:54 > 0:11:55how useful these labels can be
0:11:55 > 0:11:58in telling us about the previous life of the painting.
0:11:58 > 0:12:00- Maybe this one can help us as well.- Yeah.
0:12:00 > 0:12:03But first, I think we need to look into some of the compelling research
0:12:03 > 0:12:07that Keith has done into the picture, because although his painting
0:12:07 > 0:12:08is not in the catalogue raisonne,
0:12:08 > 0:12:11he thinks it can be linked to a picture which is,
0:12:11 > 0:12:14and that's this painting, which is a large oval called
0:12:14 > 0:12:17Le Grand Teddy.
0:12:17 > 0:12:20And this is accepted as a genuine Vuillard.
0:12:20 > 0:12:23Yes, this picture is fully accepted as a Vuillard in the catalogue raisonne,
0:12:23 > 0:12:26which tells us that Vuillard was commissioned to paint the scene,
0:12:26 > 0:12:30as part of the interior decorative scheme of a new cafe in Paris
0:12:30 > 0:12:33which opened in 1919, called Le Grand Teddy.
0:12:33 > 0:12:36Now, Keith thinks that his oval relates to this
0:12:36 > 0:12:38larger oval by Vuillard.
0:12:38 > 0:12:40And is there any evidence for that?
0:12:40 > 0:12:42Well, there's only some circumstantial evidence.
0:12:42 > 0:12:45The catalogue raisonne tells us that the same time as Vuillard
0:12:45 > 0:12:48was doing the larger oval, he was working on two smaller ones,
0:12:48 > 0:12:50but these have always been thought to be lost.
0:12:50 > 0:12:53And Keith thinks that his painting could be one of those lost ovals.
0:12:53 > 0:12:54Mm-hm.
0:12:54 > 0:12:56So, here's the plan.
0:12:56 > 0:13:00If we can prove that Keith's picture was painted at the same time
0:13:00 > 0:13:04as this other fully-accepted Vuillard, for the same cafe,
0:13:04 > 0:13:06then we'll have enough evidence
0:13:06 > 0:13:09to go back to the Wildenstein Institute.
0:13:17 > 0:13:21I'm heading to Switzerland on our quest to solve this mystery.
0:13:21 > 0:13:25I'm going to see the genuine Vuillard which may hold the key
0:13:25 > 0:13:28to unlocking the truth about Keith's painting.
0:13:29 > 0:13:33Welcome to Geneva, one of the most affluent cities in the world.
0:13:36 > 0:13:40Here, money, opulence and fine art go hand in hand.
0:13:43 > 0:13:46I've asked our expert scientist Aviva Burnstock
0:13:46 > 0:13:49to join me at a secret underground vault
0:13:49 > 0:13:52where this privately owned work is stored.
0:13:53 > 0:13:57We've been given special access to see the painting Vuillard created
0:13:57 > 0:13:59for Le Grand Teddy cafe.
0:14:05 > 0:14:07This is an incredibly exciting moment.
0:14:07 > 0:14:10Inside this box could lie the evidence that will decide
0:14:10 > 0:14:12whether Keith's picture is genuine or not.
0:14:15 > 0:14:18We're incredibly privileged to have such intimate access
0:14:18 > 0:14:21to a privately owned work of art.
0:14:21 > 0:14:23The painting is rarely on display.
0:14:23 > 0:14:27This is so thrilling. It's like opening the doors of a tomb.
0:14:30 > 0:14:32The collector who owns Vuillard's Le Grand Teddy
0:14:32 > 0:14:37has granted us permission to study and analyse his painting.
0:14:38 > 0:14:41If Keith's picture is genuine, then it should
0:14:41 > 0:14:46be similar in style and technique to this larger Vuillard work.
0:14:48 > 0:14:50Wow, the veil is lifted.
0:15:00 > 0:15:05It's such a chic and genuinely beautiful object.
0:15:05 > 0:15:08I mean, you can just imagine it there, can't you, in the cafe,
0:15:08 > 0:15:11the sort of, the height of Parisian fashion.
0:15:11 > 0:15:13You could see how it would catch the eye
0:15:13 > 0:15:16and you can see how it would also set the atmosphere.
0:15:16 > 0:15:19I mean, because it is acting a bit like Keith's image,
0:15:19 > 0:15:22as a sort of reflection of what's going inside.
0:15:22 > 0:15:25Yes, in fact there are passages of paint that look
0:15:25 > 0:15:29closely similar, in design at least, in composition to Keith's painting.
0:15:29 > 0:15:31Superficially, I must say it's compelling
0:15:31 > 0:15:33that the texture of the paint,
0:15:33 > 0:15:35the way the brush work's been applied,
0:15:35 > 0:15:38even the canvas texture
0:15:38 > 0:15:41looks closely similar to the smaller oval.
0:15:41 > 0:15:44If Keith's painting is genuine,
0:15:44 > 0:15:47then it must have been painted at the same time, you know,
0:15:47 > 0:15:50in the same studio, using the same pigments,
0:15:50 > 0:15:53so, surely from a forensic point of view,
0:15:53 > 0:15:55we've got a huge advantage here.
0:15:55 > 0:15:58Well, this is actually a gift. I mean, we are going to be able
0:15:58 > 0:16:00to compare the pigments used for the painting
0:16:00 > 0:16:04and the binding medium, to see whether, indeed, both pictures
0:16:04 > 0:16:06have been made using the same materials.
0:16:06 > 0:16:09I have to say, it's another egg from the same nest.
0:16:11 > 0:16:14Rather like Keith's painting, it's catching the mood.
0:16:14 > 0:16:16You can feel the heat of the bodies,
0:16:16 > 0:16:19you can hear the clatter of the china,
0:16:19 > 0:16:21you can smell the smoke.
0:16:23 > 0:16:25Paris 1919,
0:16:25 > 0:16:28the year Le Grand Teddy cafe opened for business.
0:16:29 > 0:16:33Owner Keith and I have travelled here to see if we can find the place
0:16:33 > 0:16:36where his painting may once have hung.
0:16:39 > 0:16:42The First World War had ended at last
0:16:42 > 0:16:45and the city was ready to put on its dancing shoes.
0:16:45 > 0:16:48The place was buzzing with American soldiers who were listening
0:16:48 > 0:16:51to a new kind of music from New Orleans.
0:16:51 > 0:16:53they called it "jazz".
0:17:03 > 0:17:08It wasn't long before American bars started to spring up everywhere.
0:17:08 > 0:17:10Le Grand Teddy was one of them,
0:17:10 > 0:17:13named after US president Teddy Roosevelt.
0:17:13 > 0:17:17It was on Rue Caumartin, known as the Broadway of Paris.
0:17:21 > 0:17:25Well, this is Rue Caumartin and back just after the First World War,
0:17:25 > 0:17:30this was the place to be seen, you know, up until the 1920s.
0:17:30 > 0:17:33Fitzgerald, Hemingway would hang around here.
0:17:33 > 0:17:36A bit later, Josephine Baker, you know, with her banana skirts
0:17:36 > 0:17:40and dancing naked under a fur coat.
0:17:40 > 0:17:45Now, we've managed to find a photograph of what it looked like.
0:17:45 > 0:17:47Oh, you're kidding.
0:17:47 > 0:17:53"24 Rue Caumartin. Restaurant, American bar. Teddy"
0:17:53 > 0:17:57So, somewhere down here will be number 24.
0:17:59 > 0:18:02Have you ever thought to come here and look for it yourself?
0:18:02 > 0:18:08Yes, I've wanted to, but partly a question of resources
0:18:08 > 0:18:11and I just wasn't sure what I would find.
0:18:11 > 0:18:14Well, also you didn't know what you were looking for.
0:18:14 > 0:18:15You didn't have the picture.
0:18:15 > 0:18:18The street lamps have gone but we might see this balustrade.
0:18:18 > 0:18:22There's a balustrade over there. Shall we cross the road?
0:18:22 > 0:18:24Let's go and have a look.
0:18:27 > 0:18:29I think the balustrade's just up there.
0:18:29 > 0:18:31There's number 24 on the door there.
0:18:31 > 0:18:34And then this bit is this side here,
0:18:34 > 0:18:36where it says "Teddy" over the door.
0:18:39 > 0:18:41Restaurant Pizza Firenze.
0:18:41 > 0:18:44Florence has come to Paris.
0:18:44 > 0:18:46- Do you want to go inside? - Yeah, let's.
0:18:46 > 0:18:48See what remains, if anything.
0:18:48 > 0:18:50Right.
0:18:55 > 0:18:58- Well, obviously, it's changed a lot. - Yeah.
0:18:58 > 0:19:00I mean, it's still got pictures on the walls,
0:19:00 > 0:19:03- obviously, scenes of Italy. - Slightly different.
0:19:03 > 0:19:07But big areas of wall where clearly there could have been art works.
0:19:07 > 0:19:09And the banquette seating there.
0:19:09 > 0:19:12Yeah, banquette seating, that's quite distinctive.
0:19:12 > 0:19:15I can imagine, takes quite a lot of imagination,
0:19:15 > 0:19:18- but your oval, say, over there.- Yeah.
0:19:18 > 0:19:21You can just imagine ladies sitting along that banquette seating,
0:19:21 > 0:19:23- having their coffee.- Yeah.
0:19:23 > 0:19:26I wonder if there's any old photographs of it.
0:19:26 > 0:19:28- Monsieur, vous etes le patron ici? - Oui.
0:19:28 > 0:19:31- Bonjour, bonjour.- Enchante.
0:19:31 > 0:19:34Vous avez... des photos du restaurant..
0:19:34 > 0:19:37J'avais une seule photo.
0:19:43 > 0:19:46So, the most recent picture we've got is 15 years ago.
0:19:46 > 0:19:49- And we're talking about... - Monsieur, merci beaucoup.
0:19:51 > 0:19:53We've got a bit of work to do,
0:19:53 > 0:19:56cos this is only, yeah, this is only taking us so far.
0:19:58 > 0:20:02Yeah, sure. But interesting, interesting to be here, very.
0:20:04 > 0:20:06Back in Geneva, I've asked the art handlers to remove
0:20:06 > 0:20:09Le Grand Teddy from its frame and protective glass
0:20:09 > 0:20:13so that Aviva can access the paint surface and begin to make
0:20:13 > 0:20:16scientific comparisons with Keith's painting.
0:20:20 > 0:20:24OK, now we're in front of the picture, one can really feel
0:20:24 > 0:20:27and see the texture. I mean, whatever he's used
0:20:27 > 0:20:28is quite extraordinary.
0:20:28 > 0:20:31This is not like oil painting at all.
0:20:31 > 0:20:34- It just, it just feels different. - No, it's very, very different.
0:20:34 > 0:20:38A lovely matte, unsaturated surface and it looks like it's made
0:20:38 > 0:20:41in a very similar way to Keith's painting.
0:20:43 > 0:20:47In order to find out exactly how this genuine Vuillard was made,
0:20:47 > 0:20:50Aviva is removing tiny flecks of paint which contain
0:20:50 > 0:20:55a vast amount of information about the materials the artist used.
0:20:55 > 0:20:58She can compare these samples with Keith's picture,
0:20:58 > 0:21:01to see if the paint mix is the same.
0:21:01 > 0:21:06The back of the canvas can also provide vital clues in our quest
0:21:06 > 0:21:10to prove Keith's painting is genuine.
0:21:10 > 0:21:13So, we're looking here at the original canvas.
0:21:13 > 0:21:15Are you able to relate it to Keith's canvas?
0:21:15 > 0:21:18Well, that would be a very interesting and useful thing to do.
0:21:18 > 0:21:20What I can try to do is to measure the weave count.
0:21:20 > 0:21:22That's the density of threads
0:21:22 > 0:21:24that were used to weave this canvas
0:21:24 > 0:21:27and then compare them with the other canvas.
0:21:27 > 0:21:29- I can show you if you like. - Go ahead.
0:21:31 > 0:21:35If you just look through there. Can you see?
0:21:36 > 0:21:38Yes, it's like a sort of chess board.
0:21:38 > 0:21:40They're going across and down.
0:21:40 > 0:21:44Exactly. You just count the number of threads in one direction
0:21:44 > 0:21:49and then we'll turn around the ruler and count them in the vertical direction.
0:21:49 > 0:21:51Got it. And I can see
0:21:51 > 0:21:55possibly now how every canvas could be slightly different.
0:21:55 > 0:21:59- That's right.- So, if you measure the ups and the downs,
0:21:59 > 0:22:03the crosses, on Keith's picture and they're the same,
0:22:03 > 0:22:06we could be talking about the same manufacturer,
0:22:06 > 0:22:10the same roll of canvas that could have been used for Keith's picture?
0:22:10 > 0:22:12Well, it's certainly another piece of evidence
0:22:12 > 0:22:16and it might add weight to their origins from the same studio
0:22:16 > 0:22:18and painted at the same time.
0:22:22 > 0:22:25Back in Paris, we've come to the Bibliotheque Nationale,
0:22:25 > 0:22:27the National Library of France.
0:22:28 > 0:22:30- Hi, Bendor.- Hi.
0:22:30 > 0:22:32How are you? Nice to see you.
0:22:32 > 0:22:35Bendor has joined us to help in our hunt for images
0:22:35 > 0:22:36of Le Grand Teddy cafe.
0:22:36 > 0:22:41A photograph of Keith's painting on the wall would clinch our case.
0:22:43 > 0:22:47There's an extensive design library here and the archivist
0:22:47 > 0:22:50has pulled out a box containing plans of decorative schemes
0:22:50 > 0:22:52for Jazz Age Parisian bars.
0:22:55 > 0:22:58Oh, oh my.
0:22:59 > 0:23:03- What is this? - Oh, my.
0:23:04 > 0:23:06Is this it?
0:23:06 > 0:23:10Does it look like a cafe?
0:23:10 > 0:23:11You've been in it, you know.
0:23:11 > 0:23:15Well it's, no, well, there's a banquette seat here.
0:23:15 > 0:23:16Now what have we got here?
0:23:16 > 0:23:19Oval picture on the wall.
0:23:19 > 0:23:20And there's something else here.
0:23:20 > 0:23:24Possibly another oval picture smaller, opposite.
0:23:24 > 0:23:26How can we tell if this is it or not?
0:23:26 > 0:23:29It doesn't say anything on it, does it?
0:23:29 > 0:23:34Oh, hang on, what's this? The interior of Le Grand Teddy.
0:23:34 > 0:23:37- Oh, my.- Bingo.
0:23:37 > 0:23:39That's the American bar.
0:23:39 > 0:23:42Wow, gosh, so this is the actual drawing of the interior.
0:23:42 > 0:23:45- Fascinating.- Do you think that's a space for the big picture.
0:23:45 > 0:23:49That's definitely the right size for the large Grand Teddy painting
0:23:49 > 0:23:54and this is the small oval. It looks like the size of my painting.
0:23:54 > 0:23:57But we're looking for TWO smaller ovals, not just one?
0:23:57 > 0:23:59We are looking for two smaller ovals.
0:23:59 > 0:24:01Yes, but we can't see everything here, this is just one view.
0:24:01 > 0:24:05- The thing that's really frustrating, is they're blank.- Yeah.
0:24:07 > 0:24:10I mean, who'd have thought that nearly 100 years on,
0:24:10 > 0:24:13the original designs for Le Grand Teddy would still exist
0:24:13 > 0:24:18and there we are, we've got the oval and then another oval,
0:24:18 > 0:24:21of course empty, because Vuillard had yet to do his work.
0:24:21 > 0:24:28Closer, but it's still just out of reach, just out of reach.
0:24:32 > 0:24:34Paris in springtime, who'd have thought it?
0:24:36 > 0:24:39I'm taking shelter in a famous cafe called La Rotonde,
0:24:39 > 0:24:43one of the places Vuillard sought inspiration
0:24:43 > 0:24:45for his Grand Teddy ovals.
0:24:46 > 0:24:50In Vuillard's time, this was a favourite haunt of artists.
0:24:50 > 0:24:52Up and coming painters would gather here.
0:24:52 > 0:24:54Picasso, Chagall,
0:24:54 > 0:24:58hard-up Modigliani was known to exchange a painting for a hot meal.
0:24:58 > 0:25:02Vuillard, too, once sat here, looking for subjects
0:25:02 > 0:25:04and making notes in his journal.
0:25:05 > 0:25:08I know Vuillard was obviously wonderful with a paintbrush,
0:25:08 > 0:25:09he was hopeless with a pen.
0:25:09 > 0:25:13I mean, his writing. It's taken me ages to decipher it.
0:25:13 > 0:25:19"21st February, 1918. Preoccupation with restaurant decor.
0:25:19 > 0:25:24"American, floral borders, effects of mirrors.
0:25:24 > 0:25:28"Daylight and artificial lighting."
0:25:28 > 0:25:35"July, 1918. Public amusing, the men on their own,
0:25:35 > 0:25:40"young soldiers and young women, brunettes and blondes.
0:25:40 > 0:25:43"Still preoccupied with subject."
0:25:46 > 0:25:50"17th December, sketches and maquette
0:25:50 > 0:25:54"for la grand oval" - for the large oval -
0:25:54 > 0:26:00"and also designed the small ovals to complete the decor."
0:26:00 > 0:26:05So, there we are, the three ovals. I wonder if there's anything more
0:26:05 > 0:26:08about the small ovals. Hang on a minute.
0:26:08 > 0:26:12"Les Huitres et Le Cafe."
0:26:12 > 0:26:17So, these are the names of the small ovals, The Oysters and The Cafe!
0:26:17 > 0:26:20And the cafe certainly bodes well for Keith's painting,
0:26:20 > 0:26:23because Keith's painting obviously is of a cafe.
0:26:23 > 0:26:25Bingo.
0:26:25 > 0:26:28Back in Geneva, Aviva has called in scientists
0:26:28 > 0:26:32from the Fine Art Expert Institute to help us reveal
0:26:32 > 0:26:36an elusive clue on the back of the canvas.
0:26:36 > 0:26:40An old label could provide information about the past life
0:26:40 > 0:26:44of this genuine Vuillard that might connect it to Keith's painting.
0:26:44 > 0:26:47There's some writing, but it's difficult to make out.
0:26:48 > 0:26:51Dr Killian Anhauser and his team
0:26:51 > 0:26:53try to shed some light on the problem,
0:26:53 > 0:26:55using infrared photography.
0:26:56 > 0:26:58We have a result.
0:26:58 > 0:27:02Unfortunately, it's not quite what we wanted to see.
0:27:02 > 0:27:05You can see they used different inks there on the label
0:27:05 > 0:27:08and 564, the number, features very clearly,
0:27:08 > 0:27:12and this was a carbon-based ink but what we wanted to see
0:27:12 > 0:27:15- doesn't feature at all. - It's disappeared.
0:27:15 > 0:27:16Yes, it has disappeared,
0:27:16 > 0:27:20because it's an ink that is invisible in the infrared.
0:27:20 > 0:27:22Our research has gone backwards.
0:27:22 > 0:27:26Killian has another go, this time using ultraviolet light.
0:27:30 > 0:27:33Now, that to me looks much more like a result,
0:27:33 > 0:27:36- it's far more vivid. - That's a really clear result.
0:27:36 > 0:27:39I mean, it's very interesting, that sometimes where infrared
0:27:39 > 0:27:42doesn't work, ultraviolet light does show the writing more clearly.
0:27:42 > 0:27:45OK, so, we can see that there's a printed area at the top.
0:27:45 > 0:27:47- This is an exhibition label. - Yes.
0:27:47 > 0:27:51And then, well, that says "Vuillard", doesn't it?
0:27:51 > 0:27:54But there's a name beneath, you can read that much more clearly.
0:27:54 > 0:27:57That's H... That says "Hessel".
0:27:57 > 0:28:00Hessel is a name that means something to us.
0:28:02 > 0:28:04This is a really exciting advance.
0:28:04 > 0:28:07We've found, on the back of the picture, a name,
0:28:07 > 0:28:10the name "Hessel," and Hessel appears,
0:28:10 > 0:28:13I've got it here, on the back of Keith's picture.
0:28:13 > 0:28:16This man... Who is this man that connects the two pictures?
0:28:20 > 0:28:23We head back to London with a string of new leads.
0:28:25 > 0:28:29At Philip's gallery, we've gathered to piece together the evidence.
0:28:29 > 0:28:32So, here is the plan of Le Grand Teddy which we found in Paris
0:28:32 > 0:28:35and I've had a bit of a play around on the computer,
0:28:35 > 0:28:38so, we can imagine what it might have been like in its day.
0:28:38 > 0:28:39Have a look at this.
0:28:41 > 0:28:42Oh, look at that.
0:28:42 > 0:28:44Brilliant.
0:28:44 > 0:28:46And Keith's picture is exactly the right size
0:28:46 > 0:28:49and shape to fit that frame.
0:28:49 > 0:28:52And I've got something else here which is really exciting.
0:28:52 > 0:28:55These were given out as sort of promotional material
0:28:55 > 0:28:57for when the Grand Teddy opened in 1919.
0:28:57 > 0:29:01It comes from the National Fan Museum in Greenwich, would you believe?
0:29:01 > 0:29:02Oh, wow!
0:29:02 > 0:29:07Look, it's the whole scene going on at the Grand Teddy.
0:29:07 > 0:29:10All the ladies in their finery and there's an orchestra playing
0:29:10 > 0:29:15back here and everyone's looking at this lady being hoisted in the air
0:29:15 > 0:29:19- by her partner.- What a unique glimpse it is into that world.
0:29:19 > 0:29:22But what's even more interesting is if I put the fan image
0:29:22 > 0:29:26up on the screen here, and we zoom in on the top right hand corner,
0:29:26 > 0:29:28let's have a look at what emerges.
0:29:29 > 0:29:34Oh, that's superb. That is exactly the right shape for Keith's picture.
0:29:34 > 0:29:36Yeah, and it's the right sort of colour scheme too.
0:29:36 > 0:29:39You can imagine how it might just have sat in there
0:29:39 > 0:29:41with the tablecloth strip of white.
0:29:41 > 0:29:44That's never going to cut at the Wildenstein Institute, though.
0:29:44 > 0:29:46No, but another piece of evidence might.
0:29:46 > 0:29:49The trip to Geneva threw up an interesting link between
0:29:49 > 0:29:52the Grand Teddy, the accepted picture,
0:29:52 > 0:29:57and Keith's. On the back of both was written the name "Hessel".
0:29:57 > 0:30:00Now, does that mean anything to you, Bendor?
0:30:00 > 0:30:03It does indeed. Jos Hessel was Vuillard's close friend
0:30:03 > 0:30:07and his dealer. There's a portrait of him here by Vuillard,
0:30:07 > 0:30:08which was painted in 1905,
0:30:08 > 0:30:11and this man, Hessel, had a nice gallery in Paris
0:30:11 > 0:30:13and he sold many of Vuillard's works.
0:30:13 > 0:30:16- Sounds promising.- It was a very interesting relationship,
0:30:16 > 0:30:21because Vuillard was having an affair with Jos Hessel's wife, Lucie,
0:30:21 > 0:30:25and he painted her a number of times over the four decades
0:30:25 > 0:30:29that their relationship lasted from 1899 until about 1940.
0:30:29 > 0:30:32So, Hessel's wife was Vuillard's mistress for 40 years.
0:30:32 > 0:30:36I mean, presumably, Hessel must have known about that.
0:30:36 > 0:30:38A rather fabulous menage a trois.
0:30:38 > 0:30:40Well, it seemed to have worked for the three of them
0:30:40 > 0:30:44because they went on holidays together, spent time together.
0:30:44 > 0:30:48And, in fact, Vuillard spending time with Lucie Hessel allowed Jos Hessel
0:30:48 > 0:30:49to go off and do his own womanising.
0:30:49 > 0:30:52How marvellously French, and given that the name Hessel
0:30:52 > 0:30:54appeared on the back of Le Grand Teddy
0:30:54 > 0:30:57and on the back of Keith's painting, can we speculate then
0:30:57 > 0:31:00that both paintings passed through Hessel's gallery?
0:31:00 > 0:31:04No, for that we need solid documentary evidence,
0:31:04 > 0:31:06ledgers, something written down, a receipt.
0:31:06 > 0:31:08Bendor, have you found anything?
0:31:08 > 0:31:11Unfortunately not, cos the Hessel archive seems to have disappeared
0:31:11 > 0:31:15or at least I can't find it. But the catalogue raisonne does tell us
0:31:15 > 0:31:19that Jos Hessel bought the large picture, the Grand Teddy,
0:31:19 > 0:31:22from the cafe when it closed in 1922.
0:31:22 > 0:31:25Then the question is, what happened to the other two ovals?
0:31:25 > 0:31:27Well, I think the answer could lie
0:31:27 > 0:31:31in one of these labels on the back of Keith's picture.
0:31:31 > 0:31:33There's a fragment of one which says "A Robinot".
0:31:33 > 0:31:36Now, A Robinot was a specialist art courier.
0:31:36 > 0:31:38He used to take pictures to and from exhibitions.
0:31:38 > 0:31:40The only problem is, we're missing the crucial bit
0:31:40 > 0:31:43of paper which tells us which exhibition the picture went to.
0:31:43 > 0:31:45How frustrating!
0:31:45 > 0:31:48If we knew where that exhibition took place, we might be able
0:31:48 > 0:31:51to prove that Keith's painting is a genuine Vuillard.
0:31:51 > 0:31:55We badly need to know what was written on that label.
0:32:01 > 0:32:04I'm on the hunt for this missing piece of the jigsaw,
0:32:04 > 0:32:08the location of the exhibition on the courier label.
0:32:08 > 0:32:11I've come to Ipswich where I've tracked down the people
0:32:11 > 0:32:15who put the painting up for auction, back in 2007.
0:32:15 > 0:32:17Art consultant Robert Warren and his wife Hayley
0:32:17 > 0:32:20have their own chapter in this story.
0:32:22 > 0:32:26It began back in 1999, when Robert was asked to clear
0:32:26 > 0:32:29the contents of a country house in Suffolk.
0:32:29 > 0:32:34It was once owned by an artist named Doris Zinkeisen who passed away,
0:32:34 > 0:32:37leaving her collection of paintings.
0:32:38 > 0:32:43There were a number of paintings to dispose of,
0:32:43 > 0:32:47and amongst them were two Vuillard cafe scenes.
0:32:47 > 0:32:49There were two paintings?
0:32:49 > 0:32:51Yes, they're here.
0:32:53 > 0:32:56One of two ladies
0:32:56 > 0:33:01and one a lady and a gentleman eating oysters in a cafe interior.
0:33:01 > 0:33:04So, THIS is the other painting!
0:33:04 > 0:33:07This belongs to Keith at the moment, but this was the big mystery.
0:33:07 > 0:33:09I didn't know you had this photograph.
0:33:09 > 0:33:13Gosh! What were you able to find out about the paintings?
0:33:13 > 0:33:15Before Doris Zinkeisen,
0:33:15 > 0:33:18they were owned by Charles Cochran,
0:33:18 > 0:33:21the theatrical impresario.
0:33:21 > 0:33:25This is a wonderful picture of him here surrounded by all the showgirls who were there.
0:33:25 > 0:33:30He did all kinds of wonderful revues and theatrical performances in London.
0:33:30 > 0:33:33Is there any documentation to prove that Charles Cochran
0:33:33 > 0:33:36ever actually owned these specific two paintings?
0:33:36 > 0:33:38- Oh, no, no, no, no. - All we've got is word of mouth
0:33:38 > 0:33:41from the family that this is where they came from.
0:33:41 > 0:33:44But, it isn't actually specifically documented.
0:33:44 > 0:33:49It's remarkable to see an image of the pair to Keith's painting.
0:33:49 > 0:33:52But can the Warrens help with another mystery?
0:33:52 > 0:33:55What was written on that damaged label?
0:33:55 > 0:33:59"A Robinot" it says, who was a courier.
0:33:59 > 0:34:01"Exposition" - exhibition.
0:34:01 > 0:34:04But the crucial bit is missing cos it's damaged here.
0:34:04 > 0:34:08We had the pictures restored and when they came back to us,
0:34:08 > 0:34:11the label was taken off the back
0:34:11 > 0:34:14and put into a little envelope
0:34:14 > 0:34:18and bits and pieces had gone completely.
0:34:18 > 0:34:20Labels were taken off, I can't believe that!
0:34:20 > 0:34:23The rest of that was "Pays Bas".
0:34:23 > 0:34:26Well, "Pays Bas" means, means Netherlands, it means Holland.
0:34:26 > 0:34:30- Yeah, yeah.- And did it have a date on it?- 1926.
0:34:30 > 0:34:35This painting was shown at an exhibition in the Netherlands in 1926.
0:34:35 > 0:34:38But it didn't say where it was.
0:34:38 > 0:34:42Despite a lengthy and costly search around Europe,
0:34:42 > 0:34:46the Warrens failed to find any evidence of a 1926 exhibition.
0:34:46 > 0:34:50Sadly, the Wildenstein Institute rejected the two ovals.
0:34:51 > 0:34:54But it was exciting, you don't understand.
0:34:54 > 0:34:57- It's the chase, it is exciting. - You can't stop!
0:34:57 > 0:34:59"I've got a Vuillard, it's Vuillard."
0:34:59 > 0:35:02"No, it's not." "Yes, it is." So, you go somewhere else.
0:35:02 > 0:35:04"No, it's not," "Yes, it is!"
0:35:04 > 0:35:07You still have that faith that you're right
0:35:07 > 0:35:10- and everyone else is wrong. - We just failed.
0:35:10 > 0:35:14After four years, I became sort of rather bruised.
0:35:14 > 0:35:19I'd come to the end... I'd really come to the end of my tether with it.
0:35:19 > 0:35:22- We just got rid of them.- Gosh.
0:35:22 > 0:35:26The cafe scene was put up for auction and bought by Keith.
0:35:26 > 0:35:30But what became of the other painting, The Oysters?
0:35:30 > 0:35:32- So, how did you sell this painting? - On eBay.
0:35:32 > 0:35:34- You sold it on eBay. - We sold it on eBay.
0:35:34 > 0:35:36I think it was sold on eBay.
0:35:36 > 0:35:39Gosh, after all the time and money you spent trying
0:35:39 > 0:35:43to authenticate these paintings and failing,
0:35:43 > 0:35:45if we succeed, how will you feel?
0:35:45 > 0:35:50Very happy, because I was right all the time.
0:35:50 > 0:35:54- Hayley? - I would be absolutely gutted.
0:35:54 > 0:35:57That's the difference between Bob and I.
0:35:57 > 0:36:01He's the purist. I enjoyed the chase,
0:36:01 > 0:36:06but I would have liked to have had a good end result and to win.
0:36:06 > 0:36:08I think most people would.
0:36:10 > 0:36:14What a lovely couple and it's just a bit heartbreaking
0:36:14 > 0:36:18to hear how much effort and time and money they have spent
0:36:18 > 0:36:21trying to authenticate the two paintings they had.
0:36:21 > 0:36:25You know, traipsing all round Europe and they got nowhere.
0:36:26 > 0:36:30But, on the positive side, we've got two great leads now.
0:36:30 > 0:36:32We've got the label on the back of the painting
0:36:32 > 0:36:35and now, we know it was an exhibition in the Netherlands.
0:36:35 > 0:36:38So, that's something to chase up.
0:36:38 > 0:36:41And then a photograph, a photograph of the other oval
0:36:41 > 0:36:45of The Oysters and someone's got it somewhere,
0:36:45 > 0:36:46and if it is genuine,
0:36:46 > 0:36:50they're sitting on a bit of a lottery ticket.
0:36:56 > 0:36:58At the Courtauld Institute in London,
0:36:58 > 0:37:01the forensic investigation is continuing.
0:37:01 > 0:37:05Armed with samples of paint from the genuine Vuillard in Geneva,
0:37:05 > 0:37:09Aviva is now going to remove tiny flecks of paint
0:37:09 > 0:37:13from Keith's painting to see if the materials are the same.
0:37:14 > 0:37:17I believe the key to solving this mystery
0:37:17 > 0:37:20is in the type of paints that Vuillard used.
0:37:20 > 0:37:22Now, both Keith's picture and the Grand Teddy
0:37:22 > 0:37:27have the same granular, chalky, matte surface
0:37:27 > 0:37:29but there's a reason for that.
0:37:29 > 0:37:31Instead of mixing his pigments with oil,
0:37:31 > 0:37:34like most painters did at that period,
0:37:34 > 0:37:37Vuillard instead used something different. He used glue.
0:37:39 > 0:37:43So, why did Vuillard use glue? He spent his early career designing
0:37:43 > 0:37:47theatre sets and learned to work with a special glue-based paint
0:37:47 > 0:37:52used by scenic artists. This had a huge impact on the direction
0:37:52 > 0:37:55of his work and he began to apply the same techniques
0:37:55 > 0:37:58to his own paintings.
0:37:58 > 0:38:01John Campbell creates backcloths for major productions
0:38:01 > 0:38:03on the stage and screen.
0:38:03 > 0:38:07- Philip.- Hello. - Nice to see you.- Nice to see you.
0:38:07 > 0:38:11He's one of the few scenic artists who still knows Vuillard's method
0:38:11 > 0:38:15of working with his peculiar paint mix known as glue distemper.
0:38:18 > 0:38:22Right, this is the glue used. Dry, this is dry.
0:38:22 > 0:38:24A bit like shot.
0:38:24 > 0:38:27We soak this in cold water, about that much cold water overnight
0:38:27 > 0:38:31and then it will end up in the morning like that.
0:38:31 > 0:38:33Tapioca. Frog spawn.
0:38:33 > 0:38:36- Yes.- And what does it smell of? - Oh, God, it's wretched.
0:38:36 > 0:38:41It's made of animal bone, horn, hooves, skin probably.
0:38:41 > 0:38:44Yeah, smells of very wet dog.
0:38:44 > 0:38:48It's a beautiful smell. I like it. It's whatever turns you on, right?
0:38:51 > 0:38:56The glue is mixed with hot water to produce a sticky, smelly liquid.
0:38:56 > 0:39:02This acts as the binding medium to which powdered pigment is added.
0:39:02 > 0:39:05This all seem very elaborate just for mixing paint.
0:39:05 > 0:39:09Well, we've got a tray filled with water on a small gas unit under here,
0:39:09 > 0:39:13which keeps the water warm. If I don't put it in the heat,
0:39:13 > 0:39:17it'll go like a jelly which you can't then put on a brush,
0:39:17 > 0:39:18you can't use it.
0:39:18 > 0:39:19It is like cooking, isn't it?
0:39:19 > 0:39:23It's a bit like, it is like cooking. It's exactly like cooking.
0:39:26 > 0:39:28Vuillard liked this peculiar paint recipe
0:39:28 > 0:39:32because it's quick drying, easy to spread across large areas
0:39:32 > 0:39:35with a matte surface that doesn't reflect the glare of lights.
0:39:39 > 0:39:42He used glue distemper to create many large scale decorative works
0:39:42 > 0:39:47to adorn the walls of houses of wealthy clients,
0:39:47 > 0:39:49as well as public spaces, theatre foyers,
0:39:49 > 0:39:53hotels, and of course, cafes and bars.
0:39:54 > 0:39:57Very few artists have used this combination of animal glue
0:39:57 > 0:40:00and pigment. Apart from anything else, it's incredibly tricky to do
0:40:00 > 0:40:03cos you've got to keep it hot all the time so that the glue
0:40:03 > 0:40:06doesn't go hard. I can't imagine that a forger
0:40:06 > 0:40:10is going to go to that trouble. Now, if we can prove that
0:40:10 > 0:40:15Keith's picture has used this unusual combination of pigment
0:40:15 > 0:40:18and glue, then we're much closer to proving
0:40:18 > 0:40:21that it's an original.
0:40:28 > 0:40:31Keith and I have come to The Cafe Royal Hotel in Piccadilly.
0:40:33 > 0:40:35In Vuillard's time, this was the centre of London's
0:40:35 > 0:40:38fashionable cafe society.
0:40:43 > 0:40:46Bendor has asked us here because he's been looking
0:40:46 > 0:40:50into the ownership of the two ovals after they left Le Grand Teddy cafe.
0:40:53 > 0:40:57Now, Keith, Fiona has sent me this very interesting picture which
0:40:57 > 0:41:00I'd like to show you and I want to see
0:41:00 > 0:41:02if that strikes any bells with you.
0:41:02 > 0:41:06Well, must be the third painting of Le Grand Teddy commission.
0:41:06 > 0:41:08So, this is the pair to your picture.
0:41:08 > 0:41:11Yeah. Man and woman with oysters.
0:41:11 > 0:41:14Now, the previous owner of this picture and of your picture,
0:41:14 > 0:41:17the Warrens, spent a great deal of time trying to nail down
0:41:17 > 0:41:20a story that they had belonged to a theatre manager called
0:41:20 > 0:41:22Charles Cochran, and they didn't get very far.
0:41:22 > 0:41:26That's been a little bit of a stumbling block
0:41:26 > 0:41:28on the provenance.
0:41:28 > 0:41:31However, I have found an article
0:41:31 > 0:41:35in something called the Windsor Magazine, from 1933.
0:41:35 > 0:41:38Look, it's got some glorious old-fashioned adverts.
0:41:40 > 0:41:44And in it, there is an article called - ta-da! -
0:41:44 > 0:41:47"A Day with Charles Cochran."
0:41:47 > 0:41:49There he is, CB at his office,
0:41:49 > 0:41:53and, if I show you this little paragraph here,
0:41:53 > 0:41:55because the journalist has been going round his house
0:41:55 > 0:41:58and looking at his pictures, and it says,
0:41:58 > 0:42:02"We turned to another wall where there were two canvases
0:42:02 > 0:42:05"of cafe scenes reminiscent of the Cafe Royal,"
0:42:05 > 0:42:07which is why I brought you here,
0:42:07 > 0:42:12- "by Vuillard."- Right.
0:42:12 > 0:42:16And then he quotes Mr Cochran who says, "'When Walter Sickert'" -
0:42:16 > 0:42:20the leading English Impressionist or Post-Impressionist artist of his day -
0:42:20 > 0:42:24"'came into this room and saw that,' remarked Mr Cochran pointing at one of them,
0:42:24 > 0:42:28"he said, 'if you have to sleep under a bridge on the Embankment, never sell it.
0:42:28 > 0:42:32"'It's the finest example of Vuillard's work I've seen,'
0:42:32 > 0:42:34- "Mr Sickert concluded." - That's brilliant,
0:42:34 > 0:42:39Fantastic. So, I'd like to think that Sickert was talking about your picture,
0:42:39 > 0:42:43as one of the finest Vuillards he's ever seen,
0:42:43 > 0:42:47and I think to have an endorsement from an artist like Sickert
0:42:47 > 0:42:50of your painting, and to have a fairly substantial hole
0:42:50 > 0:42:53on the provenance filled, is quite nice.
0:42:53 > 0:42:56That is brilliant. That is absolutely brilliant.
0:42:56 > 0:42:59Well, Bendor, I agree that is a wonderful advance.
0:42:59 > 0:43:03However, it doesn't take us back to the time
0:43:03 > 0:43:06when they left the restaurant, it leaves a gap
0:43:06 > 0:43:09in the provenance, and if we're going to convince
0:43:09 > 0:43:13the Wildenstein Institute, we don't want any gaps.
0:43:13 > 0:43:15Absolutely, absolutely.
0:43:17 > 0:43:20We need more hard evidence.
0:43:20 > 0:43:22Back at the Courtauld Institute,
0:43:22 > 0:43:24I'm hoping that the results of Aviva's comparisons
0:43:24 > 0:43:28between Keith's painting and Le Grand Teddy
0:43:28 > 0:43:30might just nail the forensics.
0:43:30 > 0:43:34First up - are the two works painted on the same type of canvas,
0:43:34 > 0:43:37perhaps even from the same supplier?
0:43:37 > 0:43:41Well, I can tell you that the thread count is 16 threads warp
0:43:41 > 0:43:42and 16 threads of the weft,
0:43:42 > 0:43:46which is exactly the same as the thread count for Le Grand Teddy.
0:43:46 > 0:43:48Wow, that's really good news.
0:43:50 > 0:43:53It's a match, but it only takes us so far.
0:43:54 > 0:43:57Aviva now looks closely at what materials were used
0:43:57 > 0:44:00in the manufacture of each canvas.
0:44:00 > 0:44:05What we're seeing here is fibres from the canvas from both pictures.
0:44:05 > 0:44:09This is from Le Grand Teddy and this is from Keith's picture.
0:44:09 > 0:44:13And what you see here is a mixture of linen, these ridged fibres,
0:44:13 > 0:44:16and cotton, these twisty fibres that you see here,
0:44:16 > 0:44:21and the same mixture is used in exactly the same way in both samples.
0:44:21 > 0:44:24So, does that mean they're actually from the same piece of cloth,
0:44:24 > 0:44:27the same roll? Can that be said about them?
0:44:27 > 0:44:30Well, I've taken it one step further and what you can see here is
0:44:30 > 0:44:32the priming that's supplied by the manufacturer in each case,
0:44:32 > 0:44:35and what I've done is I did an elemental analysis
0:44:35 > 0:44:38and I've identified both materials as being identical.
0:44:38 > 0:44:42They're alumina-silicates. So, it would seem likely that the canvases
0:44:42 > 0:44:44were supplied by the same manufacturer.
0:44:44 > 0:44:46- That's a result. - That is a result.
0:44:46 > 0:44:48That's good news, clearly.
0:44:48 > 0:44:51So, Keith, if a forger had painted your picture,
0:44:51 > 0:44:55he would have to be pretty inspired, pretty resourceful,
0:44:55 > 0:44:59to have gone to the lengths of finding the same manufacturer.
0:44:59 > 0:45:01It seems pretty unlikely.
0:45:01 > 0:45:05The scientific evidence is stacking up.
0:45:05 > 0:45:07While Philip awaits more test results,
0:45:07 > 0:45:10I'm meeting Bendor to try and fill in the last gap
0:45:10 > 0:45:14in the past life of Keith's painting.
0:45:14 > 0:45:16So, we've managed to establish the previous ownership
0:45:16 > 0:45:22of Keith's painting, back through the Warrens to Doris Zinkeisen,
0:45:22 > 0:45:25the artist and then we know it was in the possession
0:45:25 > 0:45:28of the theatre producer Charles Cochran in 1933.
0:45:28 > 0:45:32Yes, but then we've got this crucial gap where we don't know what happened
0:45:32 > 0:45:35to the picture after Le Grand Teddy closed in 1922.
0:45:35 > 0:45:39The fact that it says Hessel on the back, it's tempting to assume
0:45:39 > 0:45:41that it was in the ownership of Hessel, Vuillard's dealer,
0:45:41 > 0:45:44but we've no documentary evidence for that, have we?
0:45:44 > 0:45:47Well, I might be able to help because I've been following up that lead
0:45:47 > 0:45:48you got from the Warrens.
0:45:48 > 0:45:51Do you remember the label said on the back, "A Robinot",
0:45:51 > 0:45:55which suggested that the picture had been at an exhibition in Holland in 1926.
0:45:55 > 0:45:58And the Warrens told me they went all over Europe trying to find out
0:45:58 > 0:46:00where that exhibition was and they got nowhere.
0:46:00 > 0:46:02Well, I did what we have to do in these situations,
0:46:02 > 0:46:05and I phoned a friend in the Holland Institute
0:46:05 > 0:46:09of Art Historical Research, and they came up with this.
0:46:11 > 0:46:14Art Contemporain Francais in 1926.
0:46:14 > 0:46:18So, this is a catalogue for an exhibition
0:46:18 > 0:46:22of contemporary French art 1926 in The Hague and Amsterdam.
0:46:22 > 0:46:26And if you look at this page, you can see something promising.
0:46:26 > 0:46:30"Vuillard Edouard, chez M Hessel, Au Restaurant."
0:46:30 > 0:46:34So, Vuillard had a painting in this exhibition called Au Restaurant,
0:46:34 > 0:46:37which is close, but that is not the title of Keith's painting, is it?
0:46:37 > 0:46:39Well, we've got two compelling things.
0:46:39 > 0:46:42The Hessel link is interesting and the "Au Restaurant" is interesting.
0:46:42 > 0:46:44I know the title is a bit different,
0:46:44 > 0:46:47but it's the same subject matter and titles change all the time.
0:46:47 > 0:46:51But what we really want is some sort of description or dimensions
0:46:51 > 0:46:53or something like that, to really firm it up.
0:46:53 > 0:46:57So, if we can find out more about this mystery catalogue entry,
0:46:57 > 0:46:59we might just be able to nail the attribution
0:46:59 > 0:47:02- of Keith's painting.- I think then it would be a done deal
0:47:02 > 0:47:06because what we would have is absolute proof
0:47:06 > 0:47:09the picture was exhibited as a Vuillard, in a prominent place,
0:47:09 > 0:47:11during Vuillard's lifetime, and this is just the sort of thing
0:47:11 > 0:47:15that the faker would never pull off. I mean, it's impossible to imagine.
0:47:16 > 0:47:20It's the final crucial scientific test to find out
0:47:20 > 0:47:22whether the paint mix used in Keith's painting
0:47:22 > 0:47:26is the same as the peculiar recipe used by Vuillard.
0:47:27 > 0:47:32Conservation scientist Brian Singer has the results for us.
0:47:32 > 0:47:34Brian, what have you found out?
0:47:34 > 0:47:38Well, we've obtained these two chromatograms.
0:47:38 > 0:47:40The top one is from Keith's painting,
0:47:40 > 0:47:43the lower one is from the Grand Teddy
0:47:43 > 0:47:46and you can see peaks in exactly the same places
0:47:46 > 0:47:49and they have roughly the same heights.
0:47:49 > 0:47:52So, those binding media are the same material,
0:47:52 > 0:47:56and on this graph we can see all samples are very high
0:47:56 > 0:47:59in an amino acid called hydroxyproline.
0:47:59 > 0:48:01So, that's indicative of animal glue.
0:48:01 > 0:48:04Which is one of the things that we know Vuillard used.
0:48:04 > 0:48:06This is hugely significant.
0:48:06 > 0:48:07It's remarkable.
0:48:12 > 0:48:14Philip has nailed the science,
0:48:14 > 0:48:18but there's still a gap in the past life of the painting.
0:48:18 > 0:48:22I've come to Amsterdam to try and find the last piece of the jigsaw.
0:48:22 > 0:48:25Did Keith's painting travel here in 1926 to be displayed
0:48:25 > 0:48:27in an exhibition of French art?
0:48:27 > 0:48:30The venue was a prestigious one.
0:48:31 > 0:48:32The Stedelijk Museum.
0:48:34 > 0:48:38It houses one of the richest collections of modern art in the world.
0:48:38 > 0:48:41The question is, did Keith's painting once hang on these walls
0:48:41 > 0:48:43as a genuine Vuillard?
0:48:43 > 0:48:47Willem Van Beek, the museum archivist,
0:48:47 > 0:48:49has been trying to find any information
0:48:49 > 0:48:52about the mystery catalogue entry, "Au Restaurant".
0:48:55 > 0:48:57- Hi, Fiona.- Hi, Willem. nice to meet you.
0:48:57 > 0:48:59Nice to meet you. How are you?
0:48:59 > 0:49:01What have you got?
0:49:01 > 0:49:04What we have here is a scrap book of the reviews of exhibitions
0:49:04 > 0:49:09in our museum and this one contains the reviews of 1926 until 1928.
0:49:09 > 0:49:11A-ha!
0:49:11 > 0:49:14So, that should be the reviews of the exhibition
0:49:14 > 0:49:17in which the Vuillard should have hung.
0:49:17 > 0:49:20You see, it was a rather important exhibition
0:49:20 > 0:49:23because the Queen Mother visited the exhibition.
0:49:23 > 0:49:25- Wonderful old photograph. - Yeah, really, it is.
0:49:28 > 0:49:31These are a few pictures of the exhibition
0:49:31 > 0:49:33but, unfortunately, not by Vuillard.
0:49:33 > 0:49:36But what we did find is this.
0:49:36 > 0:49:37This is...
0:49:37 > 0:49:39Oh, "Van Vuillard...
0:49:39 > 0:49:41"Au Restaurant..."
0:49:41 > 0:49:44That's as much as I can understand because it's all in Dutch.
0:49:44 > 0:49:46To make it easier for you, I had them translated for you.
0:49:46 > 0:49:49That's very kind of you, Dutch not being my strong point!
0:49:49 > 0:49:51OK, well.
0:49:51 > 0:49:55"By Vuillard we find here an interior, 'Au Restaurant'.
0:49:55 > 0:49:58"The warm colours, the animated picture,
0:49:58 > 0:50:00"the poetic interpretation of the scene.
0:50:00 > 0:50:04"A row of young women, seated at a long table in a cafe,
0:50:04 > 0:50:06"remind one of Renoir.
0:50:06 > 0:50:09"Its soft pink and soft yellow in the flowers on the damask
0:50:09 > 0:50:13"table cloth, a bottle, glasses and some colourful things,
0:50:13 > 0:50:17"elegant and fine." That sounds like Keith's picture!
0:50:17 > 0:50:19It seems to describe it, doesn't it?
0:50:19 > 0:50:22Wow, that's amazing.
0:50:22 > 0:50:23Isn't it!
0:50:23 > 0:50:26- Well, I have something more for you. - There's more?!
0:50:26 > 0:50:29Yeah, there is more. We have an article from the Telegraph,
0:50:29 > 0:50:33which was an important, still is an important newspaper in Holland,
0:50:33 > 0:50:36- also translated for you. - Oh, gosh, brilliant.
0:50:36 > 0:50:38"Edouard Vuillard, the poetic painter of interiors,
0:50:38 > 0:50:42"is also a painter after Impressionism.
0:50:42 > 0:50:45"The oval composition" - that sounds promising -
0:50:45 > 0:50:49"of a restaurant scene, a row of young women on a red couch
0:50:49 > 0:50:52"in front of a yellow background, sitting at a table decorated
0:50:52 > 0:50:55"with flowers is characteristic for this intimate painter of modern life
0:50:55 > 0:50:58"and one of the best works in the exhibition." Well that's it!
0:50:58 > 0:51:02- That's it, isn't it? - That is it, that is our painting!
0:51:02 > 0:51:03Wow.
0:51:03 > 0:51:08I never expected it would be that clear.
0:51:08 > 0:51:11So, Keith's painting was here in Amsterdam,
0:51:11 > 0:51:13in this museum in 1926.
0:51:13 > 0:51:18- I'm almost lost for words to be honest.- Speechless.- Yes, I am.
0:51:18 > 0:51:20Keith will be happy, like you.
0:51:20 > 0:51:24Keith will be happy and I'm hoping the Wildensteins will be happy as well.
0:51:24 > 0:51:26PHONE RINGS
0:51:26 > 0:51:28I couldn't wait to tell Keith the good news.
0:51:29 > 0:51:32"A row of young women, on a red couch in front of
0:51:32 > 0:51:37"a yellow background sitting at a table decorated with flowers."
0:51:37 > 0:51:40- Is this beginning to sound familiar? - Yeah, it sounds like mine.
0:51:40 > 0:51:44- Fiona, this is incredible! - Hang on, let me keep going.
0:51:44 > 0:51:47It describes this painting as "one of the best works in the exhibition."
0:51:47 > 0:51:51- There you go. - Oh, that's nice. Well, that helps.
0:51:51 > 0:51:53Short of having a clip of film
0:51:53 > 0:51:56of Vuillard actually painting the damn thing,
0:51:56 > 0:51:58I mean, you cannot do better than that.
0:51:58 > 0:52:02Absolutely. I mean it gets to a point where the responsibility
0:52:02 > 0:52:05is really with the Wildenstein Institute.
0:52:05 > 0:52:07It's crunch time.
0:52:07 > 0:52:11We need to take our evidence to the Wildenstein Institute,
0:52:11 > 0:52:15so we've called in a Vuillard scholar to help present our case.
0:52:17 > 0:52:21Belinda Thomson is an honorary professor of art history
0:52:21 > 0:52:24at Edinburgh University. She's closely involved with Vuillard,
0:52:24 > 0:52:29having published his biography and curated exhibitions of his work.
0:52:29 > 0:52:31This is not the first time you've seen this painting, is it,
0:52:31 > 0:52:35because the previous owners, the Warrens, showed it to you as well, didn't they?
0:52:35 > 0:52:38Yes, Mr Warren showed it to me 12 years ago
0:52:38 > 0:52:41and, at that time, I saw it with its pair.
0:52:41 > 0:52:43And what was your impression of it then?
0:52:43 > 0:52:45In my opinion, I thought it was by Vuillard.
0:52:45 > 0:52:48To me, it seemed absolutely characteristic of his handling,
0:52:48 > 0:52:50his colour, the subject matter.
0:52:50 > 0:52:53So, why do you think the Wildenstein Institute rejected it?
0:52:53 > 0:52:56I suspect that the lack in the paper trail,
0:52:56 > 0:53:00the sort of gaps in the provenance, may have been a problem.
0:53:00 > 0:53:04Now those have been, I think, very satisfactorily, filled in
0:53:04 > 0:53:09with the new research, so I think it makes a very compelling case.
0:53:09 > 0:53:12Our evidence stands up to Belinda's scrutiny,
0:53:12 > 0:53:15but have we done enough to convince the Wildenstein Institute?
0:53:15 > 0:53:18They've agreed to reconsider the work,
0:53:18 > 0:53:21but they want to examine the painting in Paris
0:53:21 > 0:53:23before they make their decision.
0:53:23 > 0:53:25All we can do is wait.
0:53:31 > 0:53:33After ten agonising weeks,
0:53:33 > 0:53:37the Wildenstein Institute have reached a verdict.
0:53:37 > 0:53:41Keith is on his way to the gallery and we're all about to discover
0:53:41 > 0:53:44whether the painting has been accepted as a genuine work
0:53:44 > 0:53:46by Edouard Vuillard.
0:53:46 > 0:53:48When it comes to Keith's painting,
0:53:48 > 0:53:51I think this is the strongest case we've ever made
0:53:51 > 0:53:53to prove its authenticity.
0:53:53 > 0:53:55But we're dealing with the Wildenstein Institute.
0:53:55 > 0:53:59We approached them with a painting before, a painting by Monet,
0:53:59 > 0:54:02that we felt again, that we had made a very, very strong case for,
0:54:02 > 0:54:05and they turned it down.
0:54:05 > 0:54:07I'm convinced by this picture
0:54:07 > 0:54:10and we've done everything that we possible can.
0:54:10 > 0:54:11I mean, we've proved it on paper,
0:54:11 > 0:54:15I mean, we've pretty well taken it back, almost day by day,
0:54:15 > 0:54:16to the time it was painted.
0:54:16 > 0:54:19We've found that it has an exhibition history.
0:54:19 > 0:54:22We've looked at the chemical make-up of the paint,
0:54:22 > 0:54:25the very materials that we know that Vuillard used as well.
0:54:25 > 0:54:28I mean, we can't do better than that.
0:54:28 > 0:54:31We're feeling confident, but how about Keith?
0:54:33 > 0:54:36- How you doing? - OK. A little nervous, obviously.
0:54:36 > 0:54:38You look a little bit nervous.
0:54:38 > 0:54:41- Yeah, he looks a little bit pale, doesn't he?- Ah yes, I feel pale.
0:54:41 > 0:54:44It's been a long journey to get to this point.
0:54:44 > 0:54:48It still comes down to a relatively small number of people
0:54:48 > 0:54:51in Paris deciding whether they believe it to be
0:54:51 > 0:54:53part of the catalogue or not.
0:54:53 > 0:54:56If we can attach the magic name Vuillard,
0:54:56 > 0:54:59if it is rubber stamped in Paris,
0:54:59 > 0:55:04then I think we're talking about a figure quite likely
0:55:04 > 0:55:06- in excess of £300,000.- Right.
0:55:06 > 0:55:11But if it's not, well, even your initial investment's
0:55:11 > 0:55:14going to look horribly expensive. I mean, as a decorative image
0:55:14 > 0:55:17it may only be worth £1,000 to £1,500.
0:55:17 > 0:55:19- Mm.- And you bought it for?
0:55:19 > 0:55:21About 11.
0:55:21 > 0:55:24So, either a pretty substantial loss or a massive gain.
0:55:24 > 0:55:27Yes, it's pretty binary, really.
0:55:29 > 0:55:32The moment of truth has arrived.
0:55:32 > 0:55:34Belinda has returned from Paris
0:55:34 > 0:55:37where she's been lobbying hard for the painting.
0:55:37 > 0:55:39She's got news for us.
0:55:39 > 0:55:41- Hello.- Hello, again.
0:55:41 > 0:55:45I've been to Paris, I've had a few meetings with key people
0:55:45 > 0:55:48in the Vuillard world, in particular a meeting with Guy Cogeval,
0:55:48 > 0:55:51President of the Musee d'Orsay,
0:55:51 > 0:55:55but also, crucially, co-author of the Vuillard catalogue raisonne.
0:55:55 > 0:55:57So, this is it. Can I hand you this, yes.
0:55:59 > 0:56:00Ready?
0:56:00 > 0:56:02I think so.
0:56:03 > 0:56:06This never gets any easier.
0:56:11 > 0:56:13Gosh, it's short.
0:56:13 > 0:56:17"Dear Belinda, after having examined the oval painting representing
0:56:17 > 0:56:20"a scene in a cafe, the Vuillard Committee unanimously acknowledges
0:56:20 > 0:56:23"this work as a painting by Vuillard.
0:56:23 > 0:56:26"A certificate shall be issued within the next weeks to Keith Tutt.
0:56:26 > 0:56:29- "Kind regards, Matthias Chivot." - That's incredible.
0:56:29 > 0:56:31Fan-bloody-tastic.
0:56:31 > 0:56:33- Yeah, that's incredible. - Well done.
0:56:33 > 0:56:37- Thank you, thank you. - Aw! Isn't that great?
0:56:37 > 0:56:39It's wonderful. I can't believe I hear those words.
0:56:39 > 0:56:41When you say it.
0:56:41 > 0:56:44"Unanimously acknowledges this work as a painting by Vuillard."
0:56:44 > 0:56:46Oh, it's just so succinct, isn't it,
0:56:46 > 0:56:50it's just so neat and short and sharp. Conclusive.
0:56:50 > 0:56:52That's, that's extraordinary.
0:56:52 > 0:56:55That was a leap of faith you took at that auction house,
0:56:55 > 0:57:00it really was, and now you look at it and you've got that letter.
0:57:01 > 0:57:04Yes, what are you thinking about it now?
0:57:04 > 0:57:06It's still the same painting,
0:57:06 > 0:57:09it is really just a confirmation of what I felt
0:57:09 > 0:57:13and that may sound sort of arrogant in a way, but...
0:57:13 > 0:57:15Has it got a lovely rosy glow now?
0:57:15 > 0:57:17It's always had a rosy glow.
0:57:17 > 0:57:21I love it and I'm just so delighted that it's found its place.
0:57:21 > 0:57:23You've all managed to make it possible
0:57:23 > 0:57:26to put it in its rightful place, and that's justice.
0:57:28 > 0:57:31Keith's painting will now be added to the official record
0:57:31 > 0:57:33of Edouard Vuillard works.
0:57:33 > 0:57:36But that still leaves one painting to be found,
0:57:36 > 0:57:40because somebody has the other matching oval
0:57:40 > 0:57:44and it too will now be worth a fortune.
0:57:44 > 0:57:46You know, it's easy to forget Mr and Mrs Warren in all this
0:57:46 > 0:57:49because they went all round Europe trying to prove that this painting
0:57:49 > 0:57:52was a Vuillard before they put it up for auction,
0:57:52 > 0:57:54and, of course, Keith bought it and so, they're going to be...
0:57:54 > 0:57:58Well, I suspect they'll be a bit devastated, actually.
0:57:58 > 0:58:00That's the nature of this business.
0:58:00 > 0:58:03Fortunes are for ever shifting.
0:58:03 > 0:58:05Well, that other painting is out there somewhere
0:58:05 > 0:58:08and we should try and find it.
0:58:08 > 0:58:12If you think you have the missing Vuillard oval painting,
0:58:12 > 0:58:14or another undiscovered masterpiece,
0:58:14 > 0:58:17we'd love to hear from you, at...