0:00:02 > 0:00:03£18,500,000...
0:00:03 > 0:00:08The art world - where paintings change hands for fortunes.
0:00:08 > 0:00:11Selling at 95 million.
0:00:11 > 0:00:15But for every known masterpiece, there may be another waiting to be discovered.
0:00:15 > 0:00:18- Hello.- Fiona. Nice to meet you. Oh, my word!
0:00:18 > 0:00:22They're known as sleepers. International art dealer
0:00:22 > 0:00:23Philip Mould hunts them down.
0:00:23 > 0:00:28In the past we looked AT pictures. Now, almost, you can look THROUGH them.
0:00:28 > 0:00:32Using cutting-edge science and investigative research, we've teamed
0:00:32 > 0:00:37up to find long-lost works by the great masters.
0:00:37 > 0:00:38Wow!
0:00:38 > 0:00:42The problem is, not every painting is quite what it seems.
0:00:42 > 0:00:47- When these paintings were thought to be genuine, how much were they worth?- Millions.
0:00:47 > 0:00:49It's a journey that can end in joy...
0:00:49 > 0:00:52Isn't that great!
0:00:52 > 0:00:54..or bitter disappointment.
0:00:54 > 0:00:56I can't get my head round it, I really can't.
0:00:58 > 0:00:59In this episode,
0:00:59 > 0:01:02we meet a family from Leeds who seized the chance to invest
0:01:02 > 0:01:07in a painting that could be by a master of modern art - Marc Chagall.
0:01:07 > 0:01:09What did you pay for it?
0:01:09 > 0:01:10I paid about £100,000 for it.
0:01:10 > 0:01:12Gosh.
0:01:12 > 0:01:15But it comes with a warning. It's never been officially
0:01:15 > 0:01:17accepted as a genuine work.
0:01:20 > 0:01:24Our quest to prove that it's authentic plunges us into Chagall's Russian past
0:01:24 > 0:01:27and the most shadowy corners of the art market.
0:01:29 > 0:01:32How many fakes would you say are out there in the market?
0:01:32 > 0:01:3490%. Actually, I think it's more than that.
0:01:34 > 0:01:37Is this picture the bargain of a lifetime...
0:01:37 > 0:01:40If it's by Chagall, well, that could turn out to be rather cheap.
0:01:40 > 0:01:45..or a very expensive gamble on the notorious Russian art market?
0:01:45 > 0:01:49- Feeling confident?- We've come this far. We're going to go to the bitter end.
0:01:59 > 0:02:02In the sleepy village of Tudeley in Kent,
0:02:02 > 0:02:05there is a little church with rather a special feature.
0:02:07 > 0:02:08- Hi there.- Hi.
0:02:08 > 0:02:10A complete set of stained glass windows
0:02:10 > 0:02:15designed by one of the 20th century's greatest artists, Marc Chagall.
0:02:15 > 0:02:20- Wow.- It's like an ocean of colours, isn't it?
0:02:25 > 0:02:30Picasso famously says that when Matisse dies, Chagall will be
0:02:30 > 0:02:34the only one left who truly understands colour
0:02:34 > 0:02:37and I have to say, it's quite extraordinary to encounter
0:02:37 > 0:02:44such an explosion of modern design in a country Kent church.
0:02:44 > 0:02:47These memorial windows were commissioned by a local family
0:02:47 > 0:02:51but Chagall's works, from stained glass and murals
0:02:51 > 0:02:54to oil paintings and watercolours, are more usually found
0:02:54 > 0:02:58in the world's great opera houses, cathedrals and art galleries.
0:02:58 > 0:03:02A pioneer of modern art, Chagall spent a large part of his life in France.
0:03:02 > 0:03:07His pictures have a childlike dream quality and a playful
0:03:07 > 0:03:13sense of the surreal, like this airborne depiction of his beloved wife Bella.
0:03:13 > 0:03:17His work is almost always inspired by memories of his Jewish upbringing
0:03:17 > 0:03:21in Russia, where he was born in 1887.
0:03:21 > 0:03:26So, a Russian Jew creating a window in an Anglican church
0:03:26 > 0:03:30in the Garden of England. It's incredible...contrast, isn't it?
0:03:30 > 0:03:32And actually, I've read about this window,
0:03:32 > 0:03:35though I've never seen it before, and it was commissioned because
0:03:35 > 0:03:39the daughter of a very wealthy local family, she died age 21 -
0:03:39 > 0:03:42tragically, she drowned - and that's her.
0:03:42 > 0:03:46See that floating in a swell of blue there?
0:03:46 > 0:03:49And her mother grieving up on the left.
0:03:49 > 0:03:52And then she is climbing up the ladder to Christ,
0:03:52 > 0:03:57heavenwards, presumably, and that's the story there.
0:03:57 > 0:04:03I mean, despite its modernity, it's a genuinely affecting image, isn't it?
0:04:03 > 0:04:07He was a really visionary artist.
0:04:07 > 0:04:12Chagall's colourful, emotional works are highly prized in the art market
0:04:12 > 0:04:17and we've received an intriguing e-mail from an English family in Leeds.
0:04:17 > 0:04:19- Have a look at this.- Hang on.
0:04:19 > 0:04:22"Hi, I believe I have a Chagall in my possession.
0:04:22 > 0:04:24"From my research, it is known as
0:04:24 > 0:04:28"the Nude, 1909-1910, private collection, Moscow.
0:04:28 > 0:04:32"Please see attached picture of the painting." Which is that, I presume, is it?
0:04:32 > 0:04:37"Would your programme be interested in pursuing the authentication of this work by a popular artist?
0:04:37 > 0:04:38"Kind regards, Frazer Lang."
0:04:38 > 0:04:42I mean, as usual it's very difficult to tell just from a photograph
0:04:42 > 0:04:45but it's sort of got the appearance of a Chagall.
0:04:45 > 0:04:48These lovely blues as well - look.
0:04:48 > 0:04:50And there'd be a huge amount to play for.
0:04:50 > 0:04:55I mean, last year, I think, a Chagall made 13 million at auction
0:04:55 > 0:05:00in New York. If we could get this through, that would be thrilling.
0:05:00 > 0:05:01That WOULD be something.
0:05:04 > 0:05:08We're keen to find out more about the possible Chagall picture
0:05:08 > 0:05:11so Philip and I have travelled to the suburbs of Leeds to meet
0:05:11 > 0:05:15property developer Martin Lang, his wife, Jackie, and son, Frazer.
0:05:19 > 0:05:23- Hi, there.- Hello, there. - Pleased to meet you. - We've come to see your Chagall.
0:05:23 > 0:05:25Please come in.
0:05:25 > 0:05:28Could they really have a major piece of modern art
0:05:28 > 0:05:30hanging in their hallway?
0:05:30 > 0:05:33I saw a documentary on Chagall,
0:05:33 > 0:05:36and I realised we've got one of those hanging on the wall.
0:05:36 > 0:05:38I looked in Dad's paperwork
0:05:38 > 0:05:42and I realised we haven't got a provenance on it,
0:05:42 > 0:05:47so I thought, "I'll phone Fake Or Fortune up. I'm sure they can help out!"
0:05:47 > 0:05:52Well, at first glance from where I'm standing, it looks like a Chagall, doesn't it?
0:05:52 > 0:05:57And you can't miss the boldness of that signature, can you - Chagall!
0:05:57 > 0:06:02And there's all sorts of symbolism going on in there with
0:06:02 > 0:06:05the faces on the left and the candelabra.
0:06:05 > 0:06:08Jackie, what do you make of it?
0:06:08 > 0:06:10Your eyes go straight to the picture and you see this lady
0:06:10 > 0:06:13but then as you look deeper into it, there's lots going on.
0:06:13 > 0:06:15It's almost like a mystery.
0:06:15 > 0:06:18And the way it all floats around in that dreamlike,
0:06:18 > 0:06:22discombobulated way. I mean, that's Chagall, and the colours as well.
0:06:22 > 0:06:28I mean, those very strident, quite almost shocking colours.
0:06:28 > 0:06:32The picture is one of several the family bought in the early '90s
0:06:32 > 0:06:36when they were putting the finishing touches on the decoration of their new home.
0:06:36 > 0:06:38Martin was interested in art that had begun to
0:06:38 > 0:06:41emerge from Russia after the fall of Communism
0:06:41 > 0:06:46and his interior designer knew how to get hold of it.
0:06:46 > 0:06:51We had an interior designer and she had a daughter, Debbie Hatchwell,
0:06:51 > 0:06:53a fine art consultant.
0:06:53 > 0:06:57And Debbie led us into Russian art.
0:06:57 > 0:07:01She explained to me what was happening with perestroika,
0:07:01 > 0:07:07that there was an opportunity to get hold of new art coming to the west from Russia
0:07:07 > 0:07:11that basically has never been on the market before - never been shown before.
0:07:11 > 0:07:12- Under the Communist regime. - That's right.
0:07:12 > 0:07:16It was all pent up. All hidden away.
0:07:16 > 0:07:18I got a phone call from Debbie and she said, "Martin,
0:07:18 > 0:07:20"would you be interested in a Chagall?"
0:07:20 > 0:07:22That knocked me back a bit.
0:07:22 > 0:07:23As it would!
0:07:23 > 0:07:28Yeah, very much. And I said to her, I said, "Bring it along,
0:07:28 > 0:07:31"let's have a look at it," and I looked at it and I thought, wow!
0:07:31 > 0:07:38She said don't get too excited - it hasn't got a provenance at this stage that has been verified.
0:07:38 > 0:07:42Although Debbie Hatchwell had made clear that there was no proof that it was authentic,
0:07:42 > 0:07:46it did have a compelling piece of evidence in its favour.
0:07:46 > 0:07:49There's a book by a gentlemen called Kamensky,
0:07:49 > 0:07:52who wrote about this, who was a friend of Chagall.
0:07:52 > 0:07:54THAT Chagall painting was in this book by Kamensky?
0:07:54 > 0:07:57Yes, and also the interesting thing to see is that
0:07:57 > 0:08:00if you look very closely you'll notice there's a crease.
0:08:00 > 0:08:04That's in the painting and if you look at the book by Kamensky,
0:08:04 > 0:08:06the same crease is in that book.
0:08:06 > 0:08:09Actually, from time to time, I find damage on an old picture
0:08:09 > 0:08:11can be rather reassuring.
0:08:11 > 0:08:12What did you pay for it?
0:08:12 > 0:08:15I paid about £100,000 for it.
0:08:15 > 0:08:19- Gosh.- That is a lot, if it's a fake.
0:08:19 > 0:08:20I mean, it's worth a fraction of that.
0:08:20 > 0:08:25But, of course, if it's by Chagall, well, that could turn out to
0:08:25 > 0:08:28be rather cheap cos it might be worth three, four, five times that.
0:08:28 > 0:08:31And if it's fake, how will you feel about it?
0:08:31 > 0:08:34We take it...we take it...we take it as it is.
0:08:34 > 0:08:37But hang on - it's a big loss!
0:08:37 > 0:08:40- I'll be singing on the streets of London!- Yes.
0:08:40 > 0:08:43No, I think...we're prepared to take that risk.
0:08:43 > 0:08:45You take a risk in life on everything you do.
0:08:47 > 0:08:51After meeting the Lang family, Philip and I head back to London on
0:08:51 > 0:08:55the train. It's a chance to compare notes on what we've seen and heard.
0:08:55 > 0:08:57So what do you think?
0:08:58 > 0:09:01I...you know, I really like Martin and I really like the family
0:09:01 > 0:09:03and I want to make it work for them
0:09:03 > 0:09:07but there's a few issues with this picture.
0:09:07 > 0:09:09I mean, I'm not quite sure about the age of the picture, I'm not
0:09:09 > 0:09:15a Chagall specialist, but it needs to be, what, 100 years or more old.
0:09:15 > 0:09:19If I spent that kind of money on a painting with next to no provenance,
0:09:19 > 0:09:24it would keep me awake at night, but then, you know, I love his style!
0:09:24 > 0:09:27Risk taker. Seize the day.
0:09:27 > 0:09:32But then, you know, the Russian art market is...well, it's not too much of an exaggeration
0:09:32 > 0:09:36to say it is awash with fakes - and there was a big London
0:09:36 > 0:09:40auction house not very long ago got sued for £2 million, I think it was,
0:09:40 > 0:09:43because they sold a Russian painting that turned out to be a fake.
0:09:43 > 0:09:47If we're going to progress this picture, we've got to find out as much as we can about its history.
0:09:50 > 0:09:55We need to get our head of research on the case, Dr Bendor Grosvenor.
0:09:55 > 0:10:00First port of call - the Courtauld Institute Library, a vast collection
0:10:00 > 0:10:04of art-related documents, including many books on Marc Chagall.
0:10:04 > 0:10:08I've got here a copy of the book that Martin said his picture is in,
0:10:08 > 0:10:11and it's published in 1989, so it's three years before he bought it.
0:10:11 > 0:10:15It's called Chagall - The Russian Years, and it's by a chap called
0:10:15 > 0:10:20Aleksandr Kamensky, who's a pretty eminent Soviet art critic and art historian.
0:10:20 > 0:10:24In fact, there's rather a nice little photo here of Chagall
0:10:24 > 0:10:28with Kamensky and apparently they were quite close - so on the surface
0:10:28 > 0:10:32it would seem that this Kamensky book is a very good authority.
0:10:32 > 0:10:38And here on page 28 is Martin's picture.
0:10:38 > 0:10:44And we can even see the crease that is still visible in Martin's painting today.
0:10:44 > 0:10:46So it's definitely one and the same thing.
0:10:46 > 0:10:51"Nude, 1909-10, private collection, Moscow."
0:10:51 > 0:10:55So that would appear to be pretty conclusive.
0:10:55 > 0:10:58So it would be really nice to know how this picture
0:10:58 > 0:11:01got into Kamensky's very respected book.
0:11:01 > 0:11:04Someone must have given him a photograph, or perhaps he even saw it.
0:11:04 > 0:11:08And Kamensky was convinced we were dealing with a genuine Chagall.
0:11:10 > 0:11:12Chagall's Russian years spanned some of the most dramatic
0:11:12 > 0:11:14events of the early 20th century,
0:11:14 > 0:11:17from the First World War to the Russian Revolution.
0:11:20 > 0:11:24He learned his craft in his hometown of Vitebsk in Russia, depicted
0:11:24 > 0:11:27here with the figure of a beggar from Jewish folklore floating above
0:11:27 > 0:11:31the rooftops, but I'm intrigued by the years he spent in Paris
0:11:31 > 0:11:36between 1910 and 1914, when he created a rather familiar-looking picture.
0:11:37 > 0:11:39I've also got an exhibition catalogue of Chagall's works
0:11:39 > 0:11:45from an exhibition in Germany in 1921 in Potsdam
0:11:45 > 0:11:52and that includes this very similar watercolour of a reclining nude.
0:11:52 > 0:11:56Painted in 1911, its stark lines and geometric patterns reveal the
0:11:56 > 0:12:00influence of the Cubist artists that Chagall was rubbing shoulders with.
0:12:00 > 0:12:03But how does it relate to Martin's picture?
0:12:03 > 0:12:06The one we're dealing with here in the exhibition in Germany is totally genuine.
0:12:06 > 0:12:09It's got a provenance that goes all the way back.
0:12:09 > 0:12:11We can be certain about this being by Chagall.
0:12:11 > 0:12:14So is Martin's picture a preparatory study, is it a second version,
0:12:14 > 0:12:17did Chagall do two versions of the same subject?
0:12:17 > 0:12:21Or is it something that came after the event?
0:12:21 > 0:12:23Is it a copy of this genuine work?
0:12:29 > 0:12:32Bendor's been busy, and we're all meeting up in Philip's gallery.
0:12:34 > 0:12:38Martin has been digging up all the paperwork relating to his painting,
0:12:38 > 0:12:42and he's got one rather interesting letter - it's from Debbie Hatchwell,
0:12:42 > 0:12:45who was the fine art agent who brokered the sale of the painting
0:12:45 > 0:12:48in the first place - and I quite like the look of this paragraph here.
0:12:48 > 0:12:51"This painting has been in the hands of a private collector
0:12:51 > 0:12:53"for the last 20 years.
0:12:53 > 0:12:57"Before this, it was owned by a lady dancer called Kavarska..." Kavarska!
0:12:57 > 0:13:01"..who was a very good friend of Chagall's first wife in Russia."
0:13:01 > 0:13:04Chagall's first wife was called Bella Rosenfeld - I've got
0:13:04 > 0:13:07rather a nice photograph of him painting her here. They were married
0:13:07 > 0:13:12in 1915 and she came from Vitebsk, which was Chagall's home town.
0:13:12 > 0:13:14This Kavarska sounds interesting, though,
0:13:14 > 0:13:17because if that is true, she was the first owner
0:13:17 > 0:13:20of the painting and that's a really good lead in terms of provenance.
0:13:20 > 0:13:25Kavarska gets another mention in this letter a bit further on here.
0:13:25 > 0:13:30"This painting was given to Kavarska before the Revolution
0:13:30 > 0:13:34"and before Chagall emigrated to the West."
0:13:34 > 0:13:36That's actually very helpful, isn't it?
0:13:36 > 0:13:38Because we know the painting is purported to have been
0:13:38 > 0:13:45done 1909-1910 and this gives us a provenance to back it up.
0:13:45 > 0:13:50It was owned prior to 1917, the date of the Revolution.
0:13:50 > 0:13:52We've been in touch with this Debbie Hatchwell
0:13:52 > 0:13:54and she has said that the painting originally
0:13:54 > 0:13:58came from a Russian art dealer, a guy called Alexander Shlepyanov,
0:13:58 > 0:14:02who was working in London for an auction house called Phillips.
0:14:02 > 0:14:07Ah, Phillips, I remember it well. Together with the two main
0:14:07 > 0:14:11auction houses, Sotheby's and Christie's, they were major
0:14:11 > 0:14:14players until they were taken over by Bonhams in 2001.
0:14:14 > 0:14:16The only auctioneers, I gather, who actually managed to hold
0:14:16 > 0:14:18a sale within Buckingham Palace.
0:14:18 > 0:14:22But this is reassuring, because that auction house had status.
0:14:22 > 0:14:25Someone who worked for them thus had it as well
0:14:25 > 0:14:28and it lends a bit more credence to the attribution.
0:14:28 > 0:14:32Well, let's take stock for a minute. The painting is owned my Martin Lang at present.
0:14:32 > 0:14:35He bought it from the art consultant Debbie Hatchwell.
0:14:35 > 0:14:39SHE got the painting from this Russian Alexander Shlepyanov,
0:14:39 > 0:14:41who worked for Phillips at the time.
0:14:41 > 0:14:44He obtained the painting from a private collector,
0:14:44 > 0:14:46we don't know who, in Moscow.
0:14:46 > 0:14:50Before that, we think it was owned by this Russian dancer, Kavarska,
0:14:50 > 0:14:52and presumably before that, if all this is true,
0:14:52 > 0:14:54it was in the hands of Chagall himself.
0:14:54 > 0:14:58If we can make all this add up, then we can take the picture to
0:14:58 > 0:15:02the only people who can authenticate a Chagall painting - the Chagall Committee,
0:15:02 > 0:15:05which is run in Paris by the artist's two granddaughters.
0:15:05 > 0:15:10But as we know, those academic committees are no pushover.
0:15:10 > 0:15:12And we've also got this other problem with this picture.
0:15:12 > 0:15:15It comes from a dark period in Russian history.
0:15:15 > 0:15:18Anything so associated with the Russian art world,
0:15:18 > 0:15:20I have to say, does come with a health warning.
0:15:20 > 0:15:24But what I want to do more than anything else is have a good look at those pigments,
0:15:24 > 0:15:26work out what the paint is.
0:15:26 > 0:15:30What I'd like to do is dig a bit more into the painting's history and see what I can find there.
0:15:34 > 0:15:39The hunt for evidence starts in the former Russian Republic of Belarus,
0:15:39 > 0:15:42where Chagall was born and raised at the turn of the 20th century.
0:15:42 > 0:15:46I've brought Martin here in search of information about his picture
0:15:46 > 0:15:49and how it might fit into the story of the artist's life.
0:15:53 > 0:15:57One of the most important leads we can follow up lies in the very
0:15:57 > 0:15:59title of Martin's painting -
0:15:59 > 0:16:03Nude, 1909-10.
0:16:03 > 0:16:06That very specific set of dates places the picture at a key moment
0:16:06 > 0:16:11in Chagall's life, when he left art school in St Petersburg
0:16:11 > 0:16:14and returned to his hometown of Vitebsk.
0:16:17 > 0:16:21We've joined up with local journalist Ilya Kuzniatsou.
0:16:21 > 0:16:23He's brought us to the outskirts of town
0:16:23 > 0:16:27for a glimpse of the world Chagall grew up in.
0:16:27 > 0:16:29So, we've stopped here on the outskirts of Vitebsk
0:16:29 > 0:16:32because I wanted to show you the houses.
0:16:32 > 0:16:38Um, this is the shape of houses they would have in Vitebsk in the end of 19th century.
0:16:38 > 0:16:41Back then it was mainly a Jewish town.
0:16:41 > 0:16:44More than half of the people were Jewish.
0:16:44 > 0:16:47And they were traders.
0:16:47 > 0:16:51Yes, because Chagall's father was in the herring trade, wasn't he?
0:16:51 > 0:16:53- Right.- He was a labourer.- Yes.
0:16:53 > 0:16:56And Chagall talked about his father coming home with his clothes
0:16:56 > 0:17:00glistening with herring brine, which is quite an image.
0:17:00 > 0:17:02And then his mother ran a grocery shop.
0:17:02 > 0:17:04- Right.- I mean, this, I imagine, is a bit more picturesque
0:17:04 > 0:17:08than the poor side of town that Chagall lived in
0:17:08 > 0:17:10with all the houses crowded together,
0:17:10 > 0:17:12everyone living on top of each other.
0:17:12 > 0:17:16In fact he described his paintings...he said,
0:17:16 > 0:17:19every painting is the spirit and reflection of Vitebsk.
0:17:19 > 0:17:21The thriving Jewish community
0:17:21 > 0:17:23Chagall depicted in I And The Village
0:17:23 > 0:17:27was almost was almost completely destroyed in the Second World War.
0:17:27 > 0:17:29But you can easily picture the mournful fiddlers
0:17:29 > 0:17:32and toiling peasants he drew inspiration from
0:17:32 > 0:17:35and immortalised in works such as The Green Donkey.
0:17:37 > 0:17:42Could Martin's picture be another of Chagall's scenes of Vitebsk?
0:17:42 > 0:17:45If you look at the houses and the roofs...
0:17:45 > 0:17:48Now, look at this place in particular,
0:17:48 > 0:17:51and then look at his picture here. Let's turn it upside down.
0:17:51 > 0:17:55The roofs, there. And the shapes of those roofs.
0:17:55 > 0:17:58- You get a real sense of that, don't you? What d'you think?- Very much.
0:17:58 > 0:18:00I do as well. It's... The colours stand out as well.
0:18:00 > 0:18:04You look at the colours as we walk past these properties.
0:18:04 > 0:18:07- These blues.- They're vibrant. Just vibrant colours.
0:18:07 > 0:18:10And these churches here are very much typical of the area.
0:18:10 > 0:18:16Back then in Vitebsk, there was, I think, 30 Orthodox churches,
0:18:16 > 0:18:17and 60 synagogues.
0:18:17 > 0:18:21So this looks like one of the Orthodox churches,
0:18:21 > 0:18:24maybe Uspensky Cathedral.
0:18:24 > 0:18:28Because they have these kind of shapes in the domes and architecture.
0:18:28 > 0:18:30And these are what Chagall talks about
0:18:30 > 0:18:33when he was in his attic room that he shared with his brother
0:18:33 > 0:18:36- and he would look out of the window...- Yes, yes.
0:18:36 > 0:18:40..and he would see the stars and the roofs and the fences and the beams and the courtyards,
0:18:40 > 0:18:43and he would wonder what was going on in the world within.
0:18:43 > 0:18:46Does this make a bit more sense to you?
0:18:46 > 0:18:49- It does.- Seeing it here in situ? - Oh, very much.
0:18:49 > 0:18:52Before I came here, I wouldn't have got the picture in my mind
0:18:52 > 0:18:54with how he lived his life.
0:18:54 > 0:18:57But since I came here, I've looked around,
0:18:57 > 0:19:01I've seen the properties, I've seen the people themselves,
0:19:01 > 0:19:03everything's coming together.
0:19:03 > 0:19:06Martin, I've brought along the letter that you were given
0:19:06 > 0:19:09when you bought this painting, which talks about the provenance of it.
0:19:09 > 0:19:15And it mentions in particular that it was owned by a lady dancer called Kavarska...
0:19:15 > 0:19:18- That's right.- ..who was a good friend of Chagall's first wife.
0:19:18 > 0:19:21Ilya, you've been doing a bit of work into it, into Kavarska.
0:19:21 > 0:19:23What have you found out?
0:19:23 > 0:19:27In this spelling, this doesn't seem right.
0:19:27 > 0:19:29It could be slightly different.
0:19:29 > 0:19:31It could be misspelt.
0:19:31 > 0:19:35Because if it was "Kovarskaya", then it sounds more or less...
0:19:35 > 0:19:40- "Kovarskaya."- Kovarskaya. It sounds more or less correct.
0:19:40 > 0:19:43- So we need to cast our net a bit wider, Martin.- I think so.
0:19:43 > 0:19:47- Because in Belarus, it's clearly not a name that belongs here.- Yes.
0:19:55 > 0:20:00At the end of our day in Vitebsk, Martin and I head for a cafe to take stock.
0:20:09 > 0:20:11I've been researching Chagall's life
0:20:11 > 0:20:16and I've got a theory about the possible identity of the mysterious nude.
0:20:16 > 0:20:21I've been having a little think about who this woman could be,
0:20:21 > 0:20:22if this is by Chagall.
0:20:22 > 0:20:26Now, 1909-1910, when Chagall was here in Vitebsk,
0:20:26 > 0:20:29he had girlfriend called Thea Brachmann.
0:20:29 > 0:20:35Her house was full of congeniality and music and laughter.
0:20:35 > 0:20:38Now, he painted her nude a number of times.
0:20:38 > 0:20:41I guess, well, it's an artistic tradition but also
0:20:41 > 0:20:43if you're a young man and you can get away with it, I'm sure you would!
0:20:43 > 0:20:46- Yes!- So you've got Chagall, Red Nude, 1909.
0:20:46 > 0:20:49And this is Thea Brachmann here and she's...
0:20:49 > 0:20:52she's the colour of borscht, isn't she?
0:20:52 > 0:20:53A nice bit of beetroot soup!
0:20:53 > 0:20:58And she's always described, Thea Brachmann, as broad-shouldered and big-boned.
0:20:58 > 0:21:00She is there.
0:21:00 > 0:21:05She is there. Now it's possible that this could be her.
0:21:07 > 0:21:10Since the dates of Martin's picture coincide with Chagall's relationship
0:21:10 > 0:21:14with Thea Brachmann - could this be a lost portrait of her?
0:21:19 > 0:21:23While Fiona and Martin spend more time exploring Vitebsk,
0:21:23 > 0:21:27his son Frazer and I are on our way to the University College, London,
0:21:27 > 0:21:30to meet Dr Libby Sheldon, an art historian
0:21:30 > 0:21:34who specialises in the forensic analysis of fine art.
0:21:34 > 0:21:38She's going to examine our possible Chagall to see how it was created.
0:21:42 > 0:21:44- Hi. This is Frazer.- Hello.
0:21:44 > 0:21:47Ah, and here is the picture.
0:21:47 > 0:21:50OK, Libby, so, what do you make of it?
0:21:50 > 0:21:56It seems to me fairly confident and the colours are rather beautiful,
0:21:56 > 0:21:59and rather well harmonised.
0:21:59 > 0:22:04Whoever put this together has made changes of mind
0:22:04 > 0:22:06about what colour to use.
0:22:06 > 0:22:09Looking at it more closely under the microscope,
0:22:09 > 0:22:13I can see that there are quite a lot of differences in texture,
0:22:13 > 0:22:15and that's quite a good thing.
0:22:15 > 0:22:21Around the left-hand edge there's a red, bright red underneath
0:22:21 > 0:22:26- one of the greens, so...entirely covered...- That's fascinating.
0:22:26 > 0:22:32..so that that's not really the sort of thing you might expect of a copyist or a pasticher.
0:22:32 > 0:22:37OK. So nothing stands out that could be an obvious problem.
0:22:37 > 0:22:42No, no, and there's a confidence about it that's rather charming.
0:22:42 > 0:22:49Um, so if it is wrong, then it's a very clever, um...later pastiche.
0:22:49 > 0:22:52Libby's initial impressions are encouraging
0:22:52 > 0:22:56but I'm keen to know more about the medium - the paint itself.
0:22:56 > 0:23:00It looks like gouache, a kind of watercolour thickened with
0:23:00 > 0:23:04gum arabic that Chagall frequently used - but is it?
0:23:04 > 0:23:06What is this - what is it made from?
0:23:06 > 0:23:11My impression of it is that it's a gouache, which is water soluble.
0:23:11 > 0:23:16OK, so it might be a watercolour but not watercolour that we're
0:23:16 > 0:23:21used to - the transparent look - but a more pasty version of it.
0:23:21 > 0:23:22Exactly.
0:23:22 > 0:23:25On the surface, Martin's picture looks to have been painted
0:23:25 > 0:23:29with the same materials Chagall used in other works of this period
0:23:29 > 0:23:33but Libby wants to test a sample to check that it's old enough to
0:23:33 > 0:23:37have been done between 1909 and 1910.
0:23:37 > 0:23:39OK, you've got a lot of bottles there.
0:23:39 > 0:23:41What's the first test you're going to do?
0:23:41 > 0:23:44The first test we could do is for acrylic,
0:23:44 > 0:23:47because that's critical in terms of date.
0:23:47 > 0:23:48And if it is an acrylic paint?
0:23:48 > 0:23:52Then that would be wrong, because it would be later,
0:23:52 > 0:23:56because such acrylic paints were only manufactured after the Second World War.
0:23:56 > 0:23:59- I see.- So it would be a fake.- Yes.
0:23:59 > 0:24:02If acrylic paint IS present, it will dissolve when rubbed
0:24:02 > 0:24:07with a solvent called xylene - and we'll see paint on the swab.
0:24:07 > 0:24:11OK, Frazer, so we really don't want this to dissolve.
0:24:12 > 0:24:17Right, so I'll just do a test on the very edge
0:24:17 > 0:24:19at this damaged corner.
0:24:20 > 0:24:25And now I'm just rolling it very gently on the edge of the painting
0:24:25 > 0:24:31so that I can see whether the paint is being taken up by this solvent.
0:24:34 > 0:24:37And it isn't.
0:24:37 > 0:24:41And I don't know if you can see that there's no pigment on there.
0:24:41 > 0:24:43It's having no effect at the moment.
0:24:43 > 0:24:46Yeah. I mean, we're looking anxiously at your swab.
0:24:46 > 0:24:49It's still white, it hasn't turned blue - which is presumably
0:24:49 > 0:24:51what would happen if it was acrylic.
0:24:51 > 0:24:53Er, yes.
0:24:53 > 0:24:57The absence of acrylic is a relief. Next, a swab with saliva.
0:24:57 > 0:25:01It's an art-world trick to confirm the presence of watercolour
0:25:01 > 0:25:04without dissolving and spreading the paint, but it also reveals
0:25:04 > 0:25:08tiny particles of blue pigment that Libby is concerned about.
0:25:08 > 0:25:12Now, the problem is that the blue
0:25:12 > 0:25:15looks a very stainy sort of blue.
0:25:15 > 0:25:17Sorry - stainy blue?
0:25:17 > 0:25:20It doesn't have individual particles,
0:25:20 > 0:25:27so it's either Prussian Blue, which would be fine for this period,
0:25:27 > 0:25:34or it's Phthalocyanine Blue, which is a new blue that came in in the 1930s.
0:25:34 > 0:25:36Which we so don't want it to be.
0:25:36 > 0:25:43No, so we'd have to do further tests on that to find out what it was.
0:25:43 > 0:25:47So far, so good. I mean, we've established that it's painted
0:25:47 > 0:25:50in gouache, we've established that it's painted
0:25:50 > 0:25:57in layers, so whoever the artist is, is thinking carefully how to do it.
0:25:57 > 0:26:01But there are pigments which if they prove to be wrong,
0:26:01 > 0:26:03if they prove to be later than they should be,
0:26:03 > 0:26:07it would shoot the Chagall attribution out of the sky.
0:26:11 > 0:26:14Back in Belarus, Martin and I have arrived in the capital,
0:26:14 > 0:26:19Minsk, for our return flight, but journalist Ilya has turned up
0:26:19 > 0:26:23an old article he felt he had to share with us before we leave.
0:26:23 > 0:26:26I was doing my research and the first thing that popped out,
0:26:26 > 0:26:31a story in 2006. There's an English version of it.
0:26:31 > 0:26:36- You might be interested. - Pravda, the old Soviet news agency, there's a name to conjure with.
0:26:36 > 0:26:42"Marc Chagall's painting auctioned for 650,000 is a fake."
0:26:42 > 0:26:44So, this is back in 2005.
0:26:44 > 0:26:47"A scandal broke out in the capital of Belarus following the sale
0:26:47 > 0:26:52"of a previously unknown painting by Marc Chagall at auction in Minsk.
0:26:52 > 0:26:55"The painting was purchased for 650,000 by an individual
0:26:55 > 0:26:59"who remained anonymous.
0:26:59 > 0:27:04"The painting had been kept in Russia for the last 80 years."
0:27:04 > 0:27:06How long has your painting been kept in Russia for?
0:27:06 > 0:27:08I would say the same. 80 years.
0:27:08 > 0:27:12About 80 years. "The auction house representatives are reluctant to give away
0:27:12 > 0:27:15"any details as to the painting's previous owner.
0:27:15 > 0:27:17"They just say the painting is an heirloom.
0:27:17 > 0:27:21"They claim the authenticity of the painting was verified by a private expert.
0:27:21 > 0:27:23"It was allegedly painted by Marc Chagall
0:27:23 > 0:27:29"while he was in the town of Vitebsk, sometime during 1915 and 1920.
0:27:29 > 0:27:33"Although Marc Chagall's paintings are not forged as frequently
0:27:33 > 0:27:38"as other famous Russian artists, art crooks are no stranger to his works."
0:27:38 > 0:27:41It's a worry, isn't it, when you see that?
0:27:41 > 0:27:45Only for the faint-hearted.
0:27:45 > 0:27:47I like your style!
0:27:47 > 0:27:49Nothing's going to deter you, is it?
0:27:49 > 0:27:51No.
0:27:51 > 0:27:54We've come this far, we're going to go to the bitter end.
0:27:54 > 0:27:57When you're in Vitebsk, it's easy to get caught up
0:27:57 > 0:28:00in the romance of Marc Chagall's life story.
0:28:00 > 0:28:04The atmosphere of the town, the streets in which he lived,
0:28:04 > 0:28:08and just begin perhaps to imagine the story of Martin's painting.
0:28:08 > 0:28:12I know as well as anybody that Chagalls are faked many times over,
0:28:12 > 0:28:15but that report is a reality check.
0:28:15 > 0:28:18It certainly gives you pause for thought.
0:28:18 > 0:28:21I mean, hopefully, that's where the similarities end.
0:28:26 > 0:28:31Back in Philip's gallery, we all meet up to take stock.
0:28:31 > 0:28:34Looking at Martin's picture in Vitebsk, it was very interesting,
0:28:34 > 0:28:37it all began to make a lot more sense, but we drew a complete
0:28:37 > 0:28:40blank with the dancer, Kavarska, didn't get anywhere with her.
0:28:40 > 0:28:43Well, I've been having a look at the other end of the evidence trail,
0:28:43 > 0:28:46trying to find out more about this Russian art dealer
0:28:46 > 0:28:51who's supposed to have had Martin's painting before he bought it, Alexander Shlepyanov.
0:28:51 > 0:28:56Now, I've got some video footage of him here which was shot quite recently in April 2012.
0:28:56 > 0:29:00It's a programme about Russian expatriates living in London, called Moscow On Thames.
0:29:00 > 0:29:03Anyway, here he is talking about his passion for Russian art
0:29:03 > 0:29:05and collecting Russian art.
0:29:05 > 0:29:08Schlepyanov still lives in London, but he can't talk to us
0:29:08 > 0:29:13about Martin's picture because he's been rather unwell
0:29:13 > 0:29:17but he does remember something about a dancer called Kovarskaya.
0:29:17 > 0:29:19That's interesting, because Kavarska doesn't appear to be
0:29:19 > 0:29:22a genuine name in Belarus according to our researcher,
0:29:22 > 0:29:27but Kovarskaya is a genuine Russian name, he thought.
0:29:27 > 0:29:29So did you get anywhere with trying to find out
0:29:29 > 0:29:33- if anyone actually has that name? - We have a researcher in Russia who's looking into both
0:29:33 > 0:29:36variants of Kovarskaya and Kavarska as the name of a dancer,
0:29:36 > 0:29:38and so far we've got nothing.
0:29:38 > 0:29:40- So you've drawn a blank? - Drawn a blank.
0:29:40 > 0:29:42Hmm, I wonder if that's a bit ominous.
0:29:42 > 0:29:47Because when I was in Belarus I came across this article in Pravda
0:29:47 > 0:29:51and that was a very expensive fake and its provenance was
0:29:51 > 0:29:54scarily similar to that of Martin's painting.
0:29:54 > 0:29:59I agree with you but let's not forget the scientific tests
0:29:59 > 0:30:02have not disproved it yet, in fact there's still hope
0:30:02 > 0:30:05that they could prove positive.
0:30:05 > 0:30:09But we are definitely moving into darker, less charted waters,
0:30:09 > 0:30:13and there are experts out there who I think might be able to help us.
0:30:15 > 0:30:17While Martin's picture awaits further tests,
0:30:17 > 0:30:19I've arranged to meet a London art dealer
0:30:19 > 0:30:23who specialises in the Russian market, James Butterwick.
0:30:23 > 0:30:27I first went to the Soviet Union in 1985.
0:30:27 > 0:30:31He was buying art from Russia at the time Martin's picture
0:30:31 > 0:30:33came on the market, but after 30 years in the business
0:30:33 > 0:30:36he's learned to be exceedingly cautious.
0:30:36 > 0:30:41When it comes to Russian modern art, or avant-garde art, as it's sometimes called,
0:30:41 > 0:30:45how many fakes are there out in the market compared to genuine works of art, would you say?
0:30:45 > 0:30:50In a week's work, I will be sent quite a lot of pictures
0:30:50 > 0:30:52for my expert opinion
0:30:52 > 0:30:57and I would say that during a month,
0:30:57 > 0:31:04I will be sent maybe 30-35, you know, photographs, of which,
0:31:04 > 0:31:0634.5 are worthless.
0:31:06 > 0:31:10After the fall of Communism, art from Russia flooded onto
0:31:10 > 0:31:14the market, with collectors snapping up works by famous
0:31:14 > 0:31:17names like Chagall and artists previously unknown in the West.
0:31:17 > 0:31:19As demand grew and prices rose,
0:31:19 > 0:31:23forgers infiltrated the market on an unprecedented scale.
0:31:23 > 0:31:27How come there are so many out there and so many people are taken in?
0:31:27 > 0:31:31They are convinced that they can buy a picture for half a million pounds
0:31:31 > 0:31:34and then sell it tomorrow for 20. They can't.
0:31:34 > 0:31:38It just doesn't happen, so that's number one - greed.
0:31:38 > 0:31:43Secondly, people want to believe it's genuine, and they
0:31:43 > 0:31:49sort of convince themselves in every way, shape or form that it is genuine, without taking
0:31:49 > 0:31:53a huge step back and analysing why it's genuine.
0:31:53 > 0:31:57We're looking at a painting that purports to be by Chagall.
0:31:57 > 0:32:03And it comes with some kind of provenance. What would sound
0:32:03 > 0:32:05alarm bells for you?
0:32:05 > 0:32:09First of all, if it had been purported to have been
0:32:09 > 0:32:14a gift from Chagall to somebody, for example, in Vitebsk.
0:32:14 > 0:32:16It's awfully difficult to prove that.
0:32:16 > 0:32:21What if the painting had appeared in a book by a Russian art historian?
0:32:21 > 0:32:24This is an extremely moot point,
0:32:24 > 0:32:30because the incidences of works by Russian painters appearing
0:32:30 > 0:32:36in books that are purported to be genuine are, regrettably, legion.
0:32:36 > 0:32:39- And these works then turn out to be fake?- Oh, yes.
0:32:39 > 0:32:43They were faked before they were even put in the book, it's
0:32:43 > 0:32:48a really moot point, it's a big, big problem.
0:32:48 > 0:32:51What's going on there? Is that because the art historians
0:32:51 > 0:32:53don't know, are they complicit in some way?
0:32:53 > 0:32:57They are complicit sometimes, on other occasions I think
0:32:57 > 0:33:00they're just simply extremely bad at their jobs.
0:33:00 > 0:33:06How naive would you have been, then, to buy a Russian work of art,
0:33:06 > 0:33:09in the early 1990s?
0:33:09 > 0:33:12A lot of people looked upon Russia and Russia's culture,
0:33:12 > 0:33:15slightly through rose-tinted spectacles,
0:33:15 > 0:33:19because it was glasnost, it was perestroika, it was a time
0:33:19 > 0:33:23of enormous optimism, so I don't think it's necessarily that naive.
0:33:24 > 0:33:27From the way James describes the quantity of fakes out
0:33:27 > 0:33:31there in the market, and the difficulties of buying a genuine
0:33:31 > 0:33:35work, it's clear that if you're even thinking of buying a Russian
0:33:35 > 0:33:38art work without its full provenance, you might as well just plunge
0:33:38 > 0:33:42your hand into a tank of piranhas - it's that difficult and it's that risky.
0:33:42 > 0:33:45And even now there's an investigation going on,
0:33:45 > 0:33:49that stretches from Germany to Israel, where there is faking
0:33:49 > 0:33:53going on on an industrial scale of modern Russian artists.
0:33:53 > 0:33:56James doesn't know about Martin's painting in particular,
0:33:56 > 0:33:58and we've still got a lot of work to do on it
0:33:58 > 0:34:05and tests to come back, but it does give you a bit of a sinking feeling.
0:34:09 > 0:34:13Those words of warning make our quest
0:34:13 > 0:34:16for evidence in support of Martin's painting more urgent than ever.
0:34:16 > 0:34:20So Bendor is researching the important art collector who
0:34:20 > 0:34:22helped to arrange the sale.
0:34:25 > 0:34:27I've been trying to find out a little bit more
0:34:27 > 0:34:29about Alexander Shlepyanov.
0:34:29 > 0:34:31And I've got an article here written in 1989.
0:34:31 > 0:34:34He was quite a famous scriptwriter
0:34:34 > 0:34:37and film-maker in the Soviet Union and then came to live in London,
0:34:37 > 0:34:40and he brought with him his quite important collection of Russian art,
0:34:40 > 0:34:44and in fact he lent some pictures to the first significant exhibition of
0:34:44 > 0:34:48Russian art held in London in 1989 at the Barbican. There's one here
0:34:48 > 0:34:51by an artist called Bogomazov, and the picture is listed as
0:34:51 > 0:34:57Portrait Of The Artist's Wife from the collection of AI Shlepyanov.
0:34:57 > 0:35:01Anyway, I think the most significant thing is that he says in this
0:35:01 > 0:35:05article that his passion now, as before, is Russian art of the 1910s
0:35:05 > 0:35:08and 1920s, so this is exactly the period
0:35:08 > 0:35:11that Martin's painting is supposed to have been painted.
0:35:11 > 0:35:14And then he goes on to say, "There are still many fine pieces to
0:35:14 > 0:35:17"be had in Britain." So this sounds like it's his area of expertise,
0:35:17 > 0:35:19and I think we need to get in touch with him to find out what else
0:35:19 > 0:35:23he can tell us about Martin's painting, in particular
0:35:23 > 0:35:27the name of the private collector who owned it before it came to England.
0:35:27 > 0:35:30I'm also getting in touch with our Russian researcher,
0:35:30 > 0:35:33Elena, to see if she's found any references to a dancer called
0:35:33 > 0:35:37Kavarska or Kovarskaya.
0:35:38 > 0:35:40'Zdravstvujte...'
0:35:40 > 0:35:43Elena? Hello, it's Bendor in London.
0:35:43 > 0:35:45'Oh, hi, how are you?'
0:35:45 > 0:35:47I'm all right, thank you for all your help.
0:35:47 > 0:35:50I wonder if you had any news about our mysterious dancer?
0:36:11 > 0:36:16- Thank you so much, Elena.- 'Cheery.' - Cheerio, bye.- 'Take care, bye.'
0:36:16 > 0:36:20I think that's a "nyet" on the dancer, isn't it?
0:36:25 > 0:36:27While Bendor continues his research,
0:36:27 > 0:36:30I've arrived in America on business,
0:36:30 > 0:36:34and whilst here I've managed to secure a meeting with one of
0:36:34 > 0:36:40the art world's most infamous characters, a forger called Tony Tetro.
0:36:40 > 0:36:43A highly skilled painter in his own right,
0:36:43 > 0:36:47he made a fast buck in the '70s and '80s by faking Rembrandts, Miros
0:36:47 > 0:36:52and Dalis to order, until he was jailed in the early '90s.
0:36:52 > 0:36:55I've come to seek his unique perspective on the work
0:36:55 > 0:37:00of an artist he faked scores of times in every medium - Chagall.
0:37:02 > 0:37:04Tony, good to meet you. Great cars.
0:37:04 > 0:37:06You have impeccable taste!
0:37:09 > 0:37:14You have history with Chagall, and you were at one point in
0:37:14 > 0:37:17the courts with Chagall,
0:37:17 > 0:37:22and you faked his work, or you created works...
0:37:22 > 0:37:27I faked his work. That was over 22 years ago.
0:37:27 > 0:37:311989 - longer - I'm losing track myself.
0:37:31 > 0:37:36So, you then had to get into the mind of Chagall...
0:37:36 > 0:37:38To do it properly, yes.
0:37:38 > 0:37:41How do you get the technique right to begin with?
0:37:41 > 0:37:44How do you go about painting a Chagall?
0:37:44 > 0:37:48People who know Chagall, even art dealers, they can see
0:37:48 > 0:37:53there's something wrong when the colours aren't just right. I did a Chagall one time, a gouache,
0:37:53 > 0:37:56and the red was wrong, and a guy picked up on it, an art dealer
0:37:56 > 0:38:01not an expert, and he said, "That red is wrong," and he was right,
0:38:01 > 0:38:06and from that point on, I made sure my colours were correct, they have to be correct.
0:38:06 > 0:38:11So, how many works by Chagall that actually you did are out there
0:38:11 > 0:38:13in museums and collections?
0:38:13 > 0:38:18Hundreds, and that's including lithographs and etchings, of course.
0:38:18 > 0:38:21So your hand is on all of these works
0:38:21 > 0:38:24and where do you think they are now - museums...?
0:38:24 > 0:38:27I have idea and I don't want to know.
0:38:27 > 0:38:29Of the hundreds of fake Chagall's
0:38:29 > 0:38:33that Tony produced in Los Angeles, few have ever been found.
0:38:33 > 0:38:38So, I have to ask a pressing question about Martin's picture.
0:38:38 > 0:38:43So this purports, and may indeed well be,
0:38:43 > 0:38:45a Chagall of 1909-1910.
0:38:46 > 0:38:49I never did anything in 1910, that old.
0:38:49 > 0:38:51Well, that's a relief.
0:38:51 > 0:38:55You know, I thought maybe I did it when they were telling me about this.
0:38:55 > 0:38:57One of my questions to you was...
0:38:57 > 0:38:58No, I didn't!
0:38:58 > 0:38:59HE LAUGHS
0:38:59 > 0:39:02You can anticipate my question, can't you?
0:39:02 > 0:39:03Tell me your thoughts about this.
0:39:03 > 0:39:09It lacks some Chagall-ness, and the perimeter lines around the body seem to be
0:39:09 > 0:39:16too thick, he would have done them thinner and more sporadic - see they're all connected,
0:39:16 > 0:39:22it's one flow. He would have done shorter, jerky movements
0:39:22 > 0:39:26The candelabra is nice, this is actually a nice piece.
0:39:26 > 0:39:29He developed his colour sense as time went by.
0:39:29 > 0:39:33In 1910, he didn't really have it. The colours he put together,
0:39:33 > 0:39:36the greens with purples and blues and everything...
0:39:36 > 0:39:40Here, he hasn't developed it yet, so this could be on par.
0:39:40 > 0:39:43'When Tony was faking Chagall's work,
0:39:43 > 0:39:47'he spent hours practising one key element, the signature.
0:39:47 > 0:39:50'Chagall would change the way he signed his name
0:39:50 > 0:39:52'depending on the type of work he was up to,
0:39:52 > 0:39:56'so what does Tony make of the signature on Martin's painting?'
0:39:56 > 0:39:58It's a gouache, it's a gouache signature,
0:39:58 > 0:40:01it's a different medium, so we'd have a different signature.
0:40:01 > 0:40:05The 'A's do not look correct to me, the 'L' Chagall could have
0:40:05 > 0:40:08done that way, too. I wouldn't be happy with those 'L's.
0:40:08 > 0:40:16Chagall would sometimes do a capital 'A' rather than a letter 'A' or handwritten A.
0:40:16 > 0:40:19And, because it's gouache, you can only get it right once?
0:40:19 > 0:40:23If I were to do this, to do a Chagall gouache, I would sit for hours
0:40:23 > 0:40:28and hours practising the signature and sometimes I would choke.
0:40:28 > 0:40:34What we've just seen has been a real revelation. I mean, we're no nearer
0:40:34 > 0:40:39knowing whether Martin's picture is real or fake, but what it has shown,
0:40:39 > 0:40:45in a rather worrying way, is just how easy it is to fake a Chagall.
0:40:45 > 0:40:49Tony makes it look like karaoke, he stands up there
0:40:49 > 0:40:53gets into the zone, into the spirit of the artist.
0:40:53 > 0:40:56Now, obviously, he's proficient, knows exactly how to paint and draw,
0:40:56 > 0:40:59but it makes you think.
0:41:02 > 0:41:05When Philip arrives home from America, we get together
0:41:05 > 0:41:09and head to the Chemistry Department in University College, London.
0:41:09 > 0:41:13It was really fascinating going to LA and meeting Tony Tetro,
0:41:13 > 0:41:17but it was also worrying because this is a man who knows what a fake
0:41:17 > 0:41:21looks like - he was after all doing them till the late 1980s.
0:41:21 > 0:41:25And he definitely had his doubts about the picture.
0:41:25 > 0:41:26Did he?
0:41:26 > 0:41:30Well, I met a chap, James Butterwick, who's an art
0:41:30 > 0:41:33dealer specialising in Russian art and he claims that 90%
0:41:33 > 0:41:36of the work out there in the Russian art market is fake.
0:41:36 > 0:41:3790%!
0:41:37 > 0:41:41So there is a lot riding on these scientific tests, that's for sure.
0:41:44 > 0:41:48We're meeting with Dr Tracey Chaplin. She's going
0:41:48 > 0:41:52to analyse Martin's picture with a brilliantly incisive tool
0:41:52 > 0:41:57that can pinpoint the exact pigments in a painting - a Raman laser microscope.
0:41:57 > 0:42:02Martin and Fraser are joining us to witness the results.
0:42:02 > 0:42:05When Libby looked at your picture, she homed in on that
0:42:05 > 0:42:08incredibly useful colour, blue.
0:42:08 > 0:42:12And she managed to establish that it was likely to be either
0:42:12 > 0:42:17Prussian Blue, invented in 1704, or Phthalocyanine, which is a slightly
0:42:17 > 0:42:25more problematic pigment because it was invented in the 1930s.
0:42:25 > 0:42:27Now, if we think about what we know about the history
0:42:27 > 0:42:32of your painting, you understand from the documentation you were given with your picture
0:42:32 > 0:42:35that it was painted by Chagall,
0:42:35 > 0:42:40probably in Vitebsk between 1909 and 1910, and then given to this
0:42:40 > 0:42:45mysterious dancer, Kavarska, before the Russian revolution in 1917,
0:42:45 > 0:42:47so if it is
0:42:47 > 0:42:52Phthalocyanine Blue, invented in the 1930s, then that's very problematic.
0:42:52 > 0:42:54Absolutely.
0:42:54 > 0:42:57So that's what we're not hoping to find.
0:42:57 > 0:43:01- Let's keep our fingers crossed, then.- Let's find out.
0:43:01 > 0:43:04Tracey, you're going to be doing the tests for us, thank you.
0:43:04 > 0:43:06How does this work?
0:43:06 > 0:43:09We shine a very low-powered laser light onto the surface of the
0:43:09 > 0:43:12painting, and we look at the light that's scattered back, and that
0:43:12 > 0:43:15scattering will tell us exactly what material is present in the painting.
0:43:15 > 0:43:19Each pigment produces a unique spectrum of light,
0:43:19 > 0:43:22a Raman spectrum, that can be plotted on a graph.
0:43:22 > 0:43:27The blue pigments we're testing might look similar to the eye,
0:43:27 > 0:43:31but their Raman spectra are strikingly different when displayed on a graph.
0:43:31 > 0:43:36If it's Prussian Blue, we'll see a single sharp peak.
0:43:36 > 0:43:40If it's Phthaolcyanine Blue, we'll see many smaller peaks.
0:43:40 > 0:43:43So we definitely don't want the mountain.
0:43:43 > 0:43:45Not really.
0:43:45 > 0:43:46Shall we start?
0:43:49 > 0:43:52This is it - a single test that might mean
0:43:52 > 0:43:57the difference between £500,000 and nothing at all.
0:44:23 > 0:44:26Now, what are we seeing there?
0:44:26 > 0:44:29What we're seeing is a series of very sharp peaks
0:44:29 > 0:44:32which are indicative...
0:44:34 > 0:44:37..of Phthalocyanine Blue.
0:44:38 > 0:44:40Ah.
0:44:40 > 0:44:44So that means, doesn't it, that this can only have been
0:44:44 > 0:44:51painted after Phthalocyanine Blue was invented, effectively, which is the 1930s.
0:44:51 > 0:44:541930s, this is paint from the 1930s.
0:44:54 > 0:44:59So, Martin, I suspect that probably wasn't what you wanted to see.
0:44:59 > 0:45:01Not at all, no.
0:45:01 > 0:45:03How do you feel about that?
0:45:03 > 0:45:08Well, obviously I feel a bit knocked back on that.
0:45:08 > 0:45:10It wasn't what we were expecting or hoping for.
0:45:10 > 0:45:16That paint could not have been put on in Vetebsk between 1909, 1910.
0:45:16 > 0:45:22I'm in a turmoil at the moment. I keep thinking about Kamensky
0:45:22 > 0:45:26and his book, and the date on that.
0:45:27 > 0:45:31"Has he made a mistake?" I keep thinking.
0:45:31 > 0:45:33Where is the journey leading us to?
0:45:33 > 0:45:37What we do know is that Chagall is one of those target artists for fakers.
0:45:37 > 0:45:42I met this guy Tony Tetro who specialises in creating,
0:45:42 > 0:45:47in duping people with Chagalls, was doing it right up till the late '80s.
0:45:47 > 0:45:52So we have entered a very murky area of the art world.
0:45:57 > 0:45:59Back in Philip's gallery,
0:45:59 > 0:46:02we're coming to terms with the results of our scientific tests.
0:46:03 > 0:46:07I've had a more detailed breakdown of Tracy's pigment analysis
0:46:07 > 0:46:10of Martin's painting, and I'm afraid it doesn't look very good.
0:46:10 > 0:46:13Not only is the blue a modern pigment,
0:46:13 > 0:46:15but the green is a modern pigment as well, so out of period
0:46:15 > 0:46:20for the painting, and there's even dodgy pigments in the signature.
0:46:21 > 0:46:23This is getting worse and worse.
0:46:23 > 0:46:28We've hit the buffers on the actual materials used, and it
0:46:28 > 0:46:31looks as though we've got nowhere to go on the provenance as well.
0:46:31 > 0:46:35And neither Debbie Hatchwell nor Alexander Shlepyanov can recall
0:46:35 > 0:46:38the name of the private collector from whom Martin bought the picture
0:46:38 > 0:46:42so the provenance trail is finished.
0:46:42 > 0:46:43What about this book, though?
0:46:43 > 0:46:45Because we know that Martin's painting,
0:46:45 > 0:46:48complete with crease, was in this book by the Soviet art critic
0:46:48 > 0:46:52Alexander Kamensky, and Martin set enormous store by the fact
0:46:52 > 0:46:54that his painting is reproduced in this book.
0:46:54 > 0:46:57That was the key thing.
0:46:57 > 0:46:59I feel bad ruling out all this evidence
0:46:59 > 0:47:02but if you look in this later edition,
0:47:02 > 0:47:04published in 2005...
0:47:09 > 0:47:11So it's not here.
0:47:11 > 0:47:14I'm afraid it's entirely disappeared from the book.
0:47:14 > 0:47:17Which is deeply worrying.
0:47:17 > 0:47:21I've never come across that before, in the edition of one but not the other.
0:47:21 > 0:47:24And why would anyone do that, other than having doubts
0:47:24 > 0:47:28about the painting? Would there be other reasons why you'd take it out?
0:47:28 > 0:47:31I mean, Alexander Kamensky's dead so we can't ask him.
0:47:31 > 0:47:35We're at the point now where it seems we've got very few avenues
0:47:35 > 0:47:39to go down except there's the committee - let's see what they say.
0:47:39 > 0:47:41The Chagall Committee.
0:47:44 > 0:47:49The evidence against Martin's picture is stacking up. His last
0:47:49 > 0:47:52hope is that a mistake has been made in the provenance
0:47:52 > 0:47:57and Chagall actually painted it much later than we thought.
0:47:59 > 0:48:02And the only people who might have some answers
0:48:02 > 0:48:04are the Chagall Committee in Paris,
0:48:04 > 0:48:07led by his two granddaughters, Meret and Bella Meyer.
0:48:09 > 0:48:13They have asked us to submit the painting to them for examination
0:48:13 > 0:48:20and, with Martin's permission, Nude, 1909-10 makes the journey to France.
0:48:20 > 0:48:23But just days after it arrives, we receive a response
0:48:23 > 0:48:28from the Committee, and it's more shocking than we had ever imagined.
0:48:33 > 0:48:37It's vital that we speak to Martin immediately, but he's on holiday in
0:48:37 > 0:48:41a remote corner of Canada, so we'll have to contact him on-line.
0:48:44 > 0:48:47Martin, hi, this is Fiona
0:48:47 > 0:48:50and Philip. I'm sorry to disturb you on holiday. We've had some news,
0:48:50 > 0:48:53it's here in black and white from the Chagall Committee.
0:48:53 > 0:48:57We've only just had a cursory look but we need to give you now
0:48:57 > 0:49:01- the details cos there's some decisions we need to make.- 'OK.'
0:49:01 > 0:49:04Yes, Martin, I've got the letter here from the Chagall Committee.
0:49:04 > 0:49:11Having looked at your work, and they go into details about it, Nude, 1909-1910.
0:49:11 > 0:49:18And they are declaring that your painting is fake. I'm really sorry.
0:49:19 > 0:49:23'It's a shame, absolutely. That's a shock, actually.
0:49:23 > 0:49:24'I wasn't expecting that.
0:49:27 > 0:49:30'We've obviously been fooled same as everyone else but, you know,
0:49:30 > 0:49:33'it's very, very sad.'
0:49:34 > 0:49:39I'm really sorry, Martin. I mean, this is the conclusion they've
0:49:39 > 0:49:42come to and they go into details in this letter which, of course,
0:49:42 > 0:49:46we will share with you, but we've just had this in. I've literally just seen it.
0:49:46 > 0:49:50The Committee state that Martin's picture is an imitation
0:49:50 > 0:49:54of a genuine work done in 1911 called Reclining Nude.
0:49:54 > 0:50:00Their detailed analysis argues how a forger could have copied many of its elements.
0:50:00 > 0:50:03But this new information comes at a terrible price.
0:50:03 > 0:50:07The letter contains some truly devastating news.
0:50:07 > 0:50:11The Committee proposes to invoke an extraordinary measure under
0:50:11 > 0:50:12French law.
0:50:12 > 0:50:15Part of the reason why we wanted to get hold of you
0:50:15 > 0:50:19so urgently is there's a bit of a bombshell at the end of the letter.
0:50:19 > 0:50:22On the basis, they say, that your painting is
0:50:22 > 0:50:28fake in their opinion, "The heirs of Marc Chagall
0:50:28 > 0:50:34"request that it - your painting - be seized and then destroyed."
0:50:36 > 0:50:40'Right, we should talk about that further, in due course.'
0:50:40 > 0:50:43We weren't expecting that.
0:50:43 > 0:50:44'No.'
0:50:44 > 0:50:47Well, Martin, you've heard what they've said.
0:50:47 > 0:50:50There are options out there.
0:50:50 > 0:50:52We need to regroup, we all need to think about it,
0:50:52 > 0:50:53and you particularly,
0:50:53 > 0:50:55where we go from here.
0:50:59 > 0:51:01God, I feel sick about that, actually.
0:51:02 > 0:51:08I mean, poor Martin... I had no idea that that could happen,
0:51:08 > 0:51:09did you?
0:51:09 > 0:51:11I mean, you hear about it. It's one of those
0:51:11 > 0:51:14things you know that it exists in the art world,
0:51:14 > 0:51:17the power of certain individuals, particularly if you're contracted
0:51:17 > 0:51:21to be able to destroy a picture. But the reality is it's so rare.
0:51:21 > 0:51:24I've never known it personally, I don't know any colleagues
0:51:24 > 0:51:30of mine who've encountered this. I mean, the response is so extreme!
0:51:30 > 0:51:32You know, I keep thinking how Martin must be feeling.
0:51:32 > 0:51:35He looked devastated.
0:51:37 > 0:51:39Martin, whether it's fake or not,
0:51:39 > 0:51:44has spent £100,000 on this picture, and they're in a sort of cavalier
0:51:44 > 0:51:49way saying, '"We do not think it's right, we shall therefore
0:51:49 > 0:51:52"destroy the picture that you've just spent so much money on."
0:51:53 > 0:51:56I mean, what sort of system, what sort of justice is that?!
0:51:56 > 0:52:01The outcome is particularly shocking as the Chagall Committee's terms and
0:52:01 > 0:52:05conditions made no specific mention that the picture could be destroyed.
0:52:05 > 0:52:08They have issued Martin with an ultimatum. Either
0:52:08 > 0:52:13he agrees to the destruction or they fight him in the French courts.
0:52:13 > 0:52:17We need some expert advice, so we're meeting Pierre Valentin,
0:52:17 > 0:52:20a lawyer who specialises in art litigation.
0:52:20 > 0:52:24Pierre, in my experience and that of colleagues I've spoken to,
0:52:24 > 0:52:28this has not happened before, so what are the precedents?
0:52:28 > 0:52:32There were a couple of recent instances involving Joan Miro.
0:52:32 > 0:52:35On both occasions, these were two different owners,
0:52:35 > 0:52:41the Miro Committee decided these works were fakes, and they proceeded
0:52:41 > 0:52:45to have these works seized with a view to having them destroyed.
0:52:45 > 0:52:50The owners, as you can imagine, were not amused and they sued,
0:52:50 > 0:52:54but on those two occasions they lost.
0:52:54 > 0:52:57But it's a complete catch 22, isn't it?
0:52:57 > 0:53:00Because if you have a painting that you think might be by Chagall,
0:53:00 > 0:53:03the way to get it authenticated, or not, is by submitting
0:53:03 > 0:53:06it to the Chagall Committee, but then you run risk that they
0:53:06 > 0:53:10might destroy it - it's just an impossible situation there, surely?
0:53:10 > 0:53:13The problem, Fiona, is you don't really have a choice
0:53:13 > 0:53:20because the market will look to the Chagall Committee. They'll tell you
0:53:20 > 0:53:26if it's by Chagall or not, so if the Committee does not agree
0:53:26 > 0:53:31that it's by Chagall, what you have is virtually worthless.
0:53:31 > 0:53:36This power of destruction seems absolutely wrong on every level!
0:53:36 > 0:53:42I mean, they will say, of course, that they have a duty to protect
0:53:42 > 0:53:48to make sure that as few fakes circulate in the market as possible.
0:53:48 > 0:53:50Assuming the Committee are right and
0:53:50 > 0:53:55Martin's painting is a fake, what are his chances of getting it back?
0:53:55 > 0:53:58Almost none. In terms of the Chagall Committee,
0:53:58 > 0:54:00they will go ahead and destroy the painting,
0:54:00 > 0:54:04they have the right to do that, and not to do it would set a precedent
0:54:04 > 0:54:06which from their perspective would be very dangerous,
0:54:06 > 0:54:10so I fully expect that they will destroy it.
0:54:10 > 0:54:16And I think he would be losing his time, wasting his time, going to the French courts.
0:54:16 > 0:54:21I hardly dare ask, but how would they destroy Martin's painting?
0:54:21 > 0:54:23I think they would probably burn it.
0:54:25 > 0:54:27Goodness me.
0:54:31 > 0:54:35When Martin gets back from his holiday, we meet up with him and his son, Fraser,
0:54:35 > 0:54:40to discuss Pierre Valentin's advice, and their options.
0:54:44 > 0:54:46Martin, I was just wondering what's
0:54:46 > 0:54:51happened in the interim between us having that terrible conversation with you on Skype and giving you
0:54:51 > 0:54:56the awful news about your painting. What are your feelings now?
0:54:56 > 0:54:59We've written to the Committee asking them
0:54:59 > 0:55:02if they would please allow us to keep the painting.
0:55:02 > 0:55:05We don't even mind if they mark the back of the painting that
0:55:05 > 0:55:07it's been turned down by the Committee.
0:55:07 > 0:55:11But what we do want, you know, is to keep it as a memento.
0:55:11 > 0:55:16So, worst case scenario, the painting is destroyed,
0:55:16 > 0:55:19you've got nothing left, what next?
0:55:19 > 0:55:22I don't particularly want to bear grudges against committees
0:55:22 > 0:55:25or individuals, that's not my way of doing things.
0:55:25 > 0:55:31I wish to remain positive. I wish to look upon this as an experience.
0:55:31 > 0:55:35I mean, Fraser, what are your feelings towards it now,
0:55:35 > 0:55:37as a piece of art?
0:55:37 > 0:55:40I grew up with the painting on the wall.
0:55:40 > 0:55:43I might not have realised who it was at the time but...
0:55:43 > 0:55:45Do you still like it?
0:55:45 > 0:55:48Oh, yeah, I like it. Now, to me, it has a better story.
0:55:48 > 0:55:55You are remarkably sanguine about a hundred-grand loss...
0:55:56 > 0:56:00Yes, but what would it have been if it had been a success?
0:56:00 > 0:56:05You've got to weigh up. In life, you can't be negative all the time.
0:56:05 > 0:56:10It doesn't pay. Life is too short to be destructive. You want
0:56:10 > 0:56:14to be constructive, you want to say, "We've lost that,
0:56:14 > 0:56:15"let's move on to something else."
0:56:16 > 0:56:18The Chagall Committee won't decide
0:56:18 > 0:56:22on Martin's appeal until their next meeting, so Martin
0:56:22 > 0:56:26has a tense wait ahead of him... but it's time for us to say goodbye.
0:56:26 > 0:56:29This hasn't turned out how any of us would have wanted,
0:56:29 > 0:56:31but I hope it hasn't put you off paintings for life.
0:56:31 > 0:56:35No, not at all. I think we have to be more careful in future!
0:56:35 > 0:56:38So, you'll still buy a picture again?
0:56:38 > 0:56:39Oh, yes, of course.
0:56:39 > 0:56:41I salute your positive attitude!
0:56:41 > 0:56:44It's been so lovely getting to know you and working with you.
0:56:44 > 0:56:46- Thank you.- All the very best.
0:56:49 > 0:56:52Just before we are due to hear the final verdict from the Chagall Committee,
0:56:52 > 0:56:56we receive a letter from Debbie Hatchwell and Alexander Shlepyanov,
0:56:56 > 0:57:00who arranged the sale of the painting to Martin in 1992.
0:57:03 > 0:57:06They reaffirmed that the painting was sold in good faith
0:57:06 > 0:57:09and in the belief that it was genuine,
0:57:09 > 0:57:11and that Martin understood that the price paid was low, reflecting
0:57:11 > 0:57:15the fact that it had not been verified by the Chagall Committee.
0:57:17 > 0:57:20They say they spoke to Alexander Kamensky about its appearance
0:57:20 > 0:57:23in his book and they name two other Russian art dealers who helped
0:57:23 > 0:57:28to source the painting - information we passed on to the Committee.
0:57:28 > 0:57:30After examining this new information,
0:57:30 > 0:57:33and Martin's appeal for the return of the work, the Chagall Committee
0:57:33 > 0:57:37have reiterated their verdict that the picture is a fake and should be destroyed.
0:57:40 > 0:57:43They also reveal that a member of the Chagall family expressed
0:57:43 > 0:57:46extremely serious doubts about the painting to
0:57:46 > 0:57:50Alexander Kamensky as soon as his book was published,
0:57:50 > 0:57:53which led to it being removed from subsequent editions.
0:57:53 > 0:57:57Martin has chosen not to contest the case in the courts
0:57:57 > 0:58:02but has launched a last-ditch appeal and asked for a full refund
0:58:02 > 0:58:06if it should ever be proven that the picture is in fact genuine.
0:58:06 > 0:58:11He awaits the committee's answer in two days from now.
0:58:13 > 0:58:16This has been the most extreme outcome in four years
0:58:16 > 0:58:19of our Fake Or Fortune investigations.
0:58:19 > 0:58:22Martin and his family have encountered the international
0:58:22 > 0:58:24art world at its most ruthless.