0:00:02 > 0:00:0318,500,000...
0:00:03 > 0:00:06The art world, where paintings change hands for fortunes.
0:00:06 > 0:00:08Selling at 95 million.
0:00:08 > 0:00:10'But for every known masterpiece,
0:00:10 > 0:00:12'there may be another still waiting to be discovered.'
0:00:12 > 0:00:14- That's it! - Well, that's it, isn't it?
0:00:14 > 0:00:16That is it! That is our painting.
0:00:17 > 0:00:20International art dealer Philip Mould and I have teamed up
0:00:20 > 0:00:23to hunt for lost works by great artists.
0:00:23 > 0:00:27We use old-fashioned detective work and state-of-the-art science
0:00:27 > 0:00:28to get to the truth.
0:00:28 > 0:00:31Science can enable us to see beyond the human eye.
0:00:32 > 0:00:34- Da-na!- Oh, wow!
0:00:34 > 0:00:38'The problem is, not every painting is quite what it seems.'
0:00:38 > 0:00:40You successfully faked Lowrys,
0:00:40 > 0:00:42- even while you were at school, didn't you?- Yes.
0:00:42 > 0:00:44'It's a journey that can end in joy...'
0:00:44 > 0:00:48- Oh-h! Isn't that great? - That's wonderful.
0:00:48 > 0:00:50'..or bitter disappointment.'
0:00:50 > 0:00:52I can't cope with this roller coaster.
0:00:52 > 0:00:53What a nightmare.
0:00:56 > 0:00:57In this episode, we take on
0:00:57 > 0:01:01one of the 20th century's most important painters.
0:01:01 > 0:01:03Lot number 31, the Lucian Freud.
0:01:03 > 0:01:06Madam, you have it at 50 million.
0:01:08 > 0:01:09Sold.
0:01:09 > 0:01:11Famed for his distinctive nudes,
0:01:11 > 0:01:14Lucian Freud was the most valuable living artist
0:01:14 > 0:01:16until his death in 2011.
0:01:18 > 0:01:21Could we have discovered a lost work?
0:01:21 > 0:01:24One of the first portraits Freud ever painted.
0:01:24 > 0:01:26It's a very mature-looking painting.
0:01:26 > 0:01:28It's got power and presence.
0:01:28 > 0:01:31The market love him at the moment.
0:01:31 > 0:01:33'But we're facing almost impossible odds,
0:01:33 > 0:01:36'because the artist himself denied ever painting it.'
0:01:38 > 0:01:41- Other experts believe that it is a Freud.- Even if Freud himself...
0:01:41 > 0:01:44- A lot of experts... - ..says it's not by him?- Exactly.
0:01:45 > 0:01:49'When we're trying to prove an artist wrong, we need hard facts.'
0:01:49 > 0:01:53It's possible that we could have, embedded in this picture,
0:01:53 > 0:01:56a piece of DNA, perhaps.
0:01:56 > 0:01:58'This is our most incredible challenge yet...'
0:02:00 > 0:02:03- Have I got it?- I'm not joking. - That's extraordinary!
0:02:03 > 0:02:07'..disputing the word of Lucian Freud himself.'
0:02:07 > 0:02:09We've not taken on a task like this before.
0:02:21 > 0:02:23There's no doubt that Lucian Freud
0:02:23 > 0:02:26was one of the most extraordinary characters of British art.
0:02:26 > 0:02:31I never think about technique in anything, I think it's...
0:02:31 > 0:02:33It holds you up.
0:02:34 > 0:02:36You have to take paint on trust.
0:02:37 > 0:02:40Born in Germany in 1922,
0:02:40 > 0:02:43he was softly spoken, but with an iron will.
0:02:43 > 0:02:47As his fame as an artist grew, he gained a reputation as a gambler,
0:02:47 > 0:02:50a lothario, the magnetic personality
0:02:50 > 0:02:53at the centre of controversy and feuds.
0:02:53 > 0:02:57Yet he moved effortlessly between low and high society -
0:02:57 > 0:02:58he even painted the Queen.
0:03:01 > 0:03:03But it was his work that obsessed him.
0:03:03 > 0:03:06Each painting could take thousands of hours,
0:03:06 > 0:03:10creating intensely observed portraits, sometimes beautiful,
0:03:10 > 0:03:12sometimes disturbing.
0:03:13 > 0:03:19At his death in 2011, he left an estate worth almost £100 million.
0:03:20 > 0:03:23Freud is one of the most important figures in modern art
0:03:23 > 0:03:25and we've been contacted by a man
0:03:25 > 0:03:29who believes he has one of the first portraits he ever painted.
0:03:32 > 0:03:35So we're going to go and see a man called John Turner,
0:03:35 > 0:03:39who said he's got a work by Lucian Freud.
0:03:39 > 0:03:42- Does he?- And the art market absolutely love him.
0:03:42 > 0:03:45But from everything I've heard about Freud in the past...
0:03:46 > 0:03:48..he's quite a tricky character,
0:03:48 > 0:03:51so I think we might have our work cut out. Oh, look, here we are.
0:03:53 > 0:03:54And there's John.
0:03:56 > 0:03:59John Turner has had a successful career in retail design
0:03:59 > 0:04:02and before that, he trained at the Royal College of Art.
0:04:03 > 0:04:06He has an impressive collection of pictures,
0:04:06 > 0:04:08but one is particularly special.
0:04:09 > 0:04:13He inherited it and was told it was painted by Lucian Freud
0:04:13 > 0:04:14as a teenager in 1939.
0:04:16 > 0:04:19Well, it's, you know, certainly a painting you notice, isn't it?
0:04:20 > 0:04:23It is. I mean, that's...
0:04:23 > 0:04:26I'm glad to see - if it's a Freud - he's got his clothes on!
0:04:26 > 0:04:29I was wondering what we were going to be presented with!
0:04:29 > 0:04:31But it's got a real drama to it, hasn't it?
0:04:33 > 0:04:37Few of Freud's juvenile pieces ever appear on the market.
0:04:37 > 0:04:40It's unsigned, but if this really is by him,
0:04:40 > 0:04:44it could be a rare and valuable survivor.
0:04:44 > 0:04:45Have you shown this to anybody?
0:04:45 > 0:04:49I've shown it to other experts and interestingly,
0:04:49 > 0:04:53they have all immediately said this is a very interesting,
0:04:53 > 0:04:55very important picture by Freud...
0:04:55 > 0:04:57until they spoke to Freud.
0:04:57 > 0:04:59Hang on, tell me more about that.
0:04:59 > 0:05:01In 1985, it was taken to Christie's
0:05:01 > 0:05:05and Christie's initially said, "Yes, this is a Freud,"
0:05:05 > 0:05:07and put it into the catalogue
0:05:07 > 0:05:12and then they spoke to Lucian Freud himself and he denied it.
0:05:12 > 0:05:14These are the letters from Christie's.
0:05:14 > 0:05:17So Christie's accepted it as a genuine Freud, then they, what,
0:05:17 > 0:05:19- spoke to Freud?- Yes.
0:05:19 > 0:05:22"I sent a photograph of your painting attributed to Lucian Freud
0:05:22 > 0:05:24"to the artist and he's now replied.
0:05:24 > 0:05:27"I'm afraid he says this is not one of his works."
0:05:27 > 0:05:29So... What are we doing here?
0:05:29 > 0:05:31Other experts believe that it is a Freud.
0:05:31 > 0:05:34- What, even if Freud himself... - A lot of experts...
0:05:34 > 0:05:36- ..says it's not by him?- Exactly.
0:05:36 > 0:05:38'It's a pretty extraordinary challenge.
0:05:38 > 0:05:43'If we take on this picture, we're taking on Lucian Freud himself.'
0:05:43 > 0:05:48- Yeah, it's obviously deeply annoying if the artist...- I'll say!
0:05:48 > 0:05:50..himself has said it's not by him,
0:05:50 > 0:05:54but we're dealing with Lucian Freud and he was a tricky,
0:05:54 > 0:05:59unpredictable man and it's not necessarily the end of the story.
0:06:01 > 0:06:05The mystery surrounding this painting dates back to 1939,
0:06:05 > 0:06:08when Lucian, seen here with grandfather Sigmund,
0:06:08 > 0:06:10and brother Stephen, arrived aged 16
0:06:10 > 0:06:13to study at the East Anglian School of Painting and Drawing.
0:06:15 > 0:06:17There, Freud is believed to have painted the portrait,
0:06:17 > 0:06:20which somehow came into the hands of a fellow student,
0:06:20 > 0:06:23Denis Wirth-Miller, the man who was to give John the painting.
0:06:26 > 0:06:29So how did you acquire this painting
0:06:29 > 0:06:31and is there anything about the acquisition of it
0:06:31 > 0:06:34that gives a reason why Lucian Freud would turn it down?
0:06:34 > 0:06:37I was given it by an artist called Denis Wirth-Miller,
0:06:37 > 0:06:40who was a student with Lucian Freud
0:06:40 > 0:06:42at the East Anglian School of Painting and Drawing,
0:06:42 > 0:06:45very young, 18, 19, 20.
0:06:45 > 0:06:49And Freud was younger than Denis and they hated each other.
0:06:49 > 0:06:51They hated each other for their lifetime.
0:06:51 > 0:06:54So why did Denis end up with a painting by Freud, then,
0:06:54 > 0:06:56if they hated each other so much?
0:06:56 > 0:07:00The story that I first heard was that Lucian Freud had allowed Denis
0:07:00 > 0:07:04to have it to use the reverse of the canvas to paint on,
0:07:04 > 0:07:06because you couldn't get canvas during the war
0:07:06 > 0:07:08and it was a luxury to have the canvas.
0:07:08 > 0:07:11The other possibility is that it was stolen.
0:07:12 > 0:07:15'If the painting is stolen, that could be a problem.
0:07:15 > 0:07:17'John was told a rather mischievous story
0:07:17 > 0:07:19'about how it may have happened.'
0:07:19 > 0:07:22'The students at Benton End were exhibiting their work
0:07:22 > 0:07:25'in the art tent of a county fair, the Tendring Show.
0:07:25 > 0:07:28'Lucian Freud was showing the portraits in competition
0:07:28 > 0:07:29'with work by Denis Wirth-Miller.'
0:07:31 > 0:07:34I heard from the story that in the morning,
0:07:34 > 0:07:36as the sun rose and the tent was opened,
0:07:36 > 0:07:39that there was an empty easel where this had sat the night before.
0:07:41 > 0:07:43So, hang on a minute. So, while Denis was alive,
0:07:43 > 0:07:46he told you two different stories as to how he might have acquired
0:07:46 > 0:07:50this painting, which doesn't fill me with huge confidence, I have to say.
0:07:50 > 0:07:52It doesn't, but whatever the root,
0:07:52 > 0:07:56what is interesting is they were all there at the scene of the crime -
0:07:56 > 0:08:01Freud was there, they knew Freud, so however the route...
0:08:02 > 0:08:05..it's pretty exciting as a potential provenance.
0:08:05 > 0:08:08It is, but the route is pretty damn important
0:08:08 > 0:08:10and if you've got the person who owned it
0:08:10 > 0:08:15giving two different versions of how he came to acquire it,
0:08:15 > 0:08:16we have to look into that.
0:08:16 > 0:08:18Yes, there lies my problem.
0:08:18 > 0:08:20We've not taken on a task like this before.
0:08:22 > 0:08:27No. And yeah, it's not often that we have to arm-wrestle a dead artist
0:08:27 > 0:08:29who says it's not by him.
0:08:31 > 0:08:35The original owner of John's picture also left him a huge archive -
0:08:35 > 0:08:4080 years of photos, diaries, documents and accounts.
0:08:40 > 0:08:42I'm going to see if there are any clues there,
0:08:42 > 0:08:45while Philip examines the portrait in more detail.
0:08:45 > 0:08:49What this artist is doing, and let's hope it's Freud,
0:08:49 > 0:08:53is he's latching upon an aspect of the face that appeals to him
0:08:53 > 0:08:54and he's exaggerating it.
0:08:54 > 0:08:58He's doing what an artist does in the mid-20th century.
0:08:58 > 0:09:02You know, modern art at that time is so much about breaking rules.
0:09:03 > 0:09:07As a young man, Freud was attracted to new ideas coming from Europe,
0:09:07 > 0:09:11experimenting with an almost grotesque style of portraiture.
0:09:11 > 0:09:14We know he took a particular approach to the face -
0:09:14 > 0:09:20he's trying to reach in and pull out a fresh and original style
0:09:20 > 0:09:24of characterisation that can be called Freud.
0:09:24 > 0:09:27How long have you been trying to get this Freud authenticated?
0:09:27 > 0:09:29Since 1997, when I was given it.
0:09:29 > 0:09:32- Did you ever feel like giving up? - I've frequently given up!
0:09:32 > 0:09:34It goes back in the attic
0:09:34 > 0:09:37and it's usually somebody else who starts it off.
0:09:37 > 0:09:39And the whole journey begins again.
0:09:39 > 0:09:41- "Come look at my Freud!" - Yes. Exactly, exactly, exactly.
0:09:43 > 0:09:45'The two men at the centre of this mystery
0:09:45 > 0:09:48'are John's friends, Denis Wirth-Miller
0:09:48 > 0:09:52'and his lifelong partner Richard Chopping, both now dead.
0:09:52 > 0:09:55'They were students at art school with Lucian Freud.'
0:09:55 > 0:09:57Tell me about Denis Wirth-Miller and Richard Chopping.
0:09:58 > 0:10:00They were both artists.
0:10:00 > 0:10:03Richard Chopping, also known as Dickie,
0:10:03 > 0:10:07was probably best known for the covers that he did for Ian Fleming
0:10:07 > 0:10:09and for the James Bond novels.
0:10:10 > 0:10:15And Denis Wirth-Miller was a painter - and a painter of note,
0:10:15 > 0:10:18he was selling well in top London galleries.
0:10:20 > 0:10:24'Dickie and Denis mixed with some of the big names in modern art.'
0:10:24 > 0:10:27So they were close, then - Dickie, Denis and Francis Bacon.
0:10:27 > 0:10:28They were incredibly close.
0:10:28 > 0:10:30For the last 45 years of Bacon's life,
0:10:30 > 0:10:33these three spent masses of time together.
0:10:33 > 0:10:36Also, he was friends with Lucian Freud as well, but then he fell out.
0:10:36 > 0:10:40He was. That's the story of the normal lifetime
0:10:40 > 0:10:41of this group of artists.
0:10:41 > 0:10:46Constant rows, constant falling out, but that was all part of the game.
0:10:46 > 0:10:49If this turns out to be a genuine Freud...
0:10:50 > 0:10:52- ..what will you do with it? - If this was authenticated,
0:10:52 > 0:10:56this would be the one painting that I would take to auction
0:10:56 > 0:10:58just to see this journey through
0:10:58 > 0:11:01after having spent so much time on it.
0:11:01 > 0:11:06Doing a valuation of the work of a 16-year-old isn't particularly easy,
0:11:06 > 0:11:08but actually, it's a very mature-looking painting.
0:11:08 > 0:11:10It's got power and presence,
0:11:10 > 0:11:13so let's just think about that and the name of Lucian Freud.
0:11:13 > 0:11:16If we can attach that magical name,
0:11:16 > 0:11:18and the market love him at the moment...
0:11:20 > 0:11:22..we must be talking...
0:11:22 > 0:11:23half a million pounds.
0:11:23 > 0:11:25Perhaps more.
0:11:28 > 0:11:31Throughout his career, Freud painted family and friends.
0:11:31 > 0:11:34The sitter in this portrait, according to John's records,
0:11:34 > 0:11:36was a man called John Jamieson.
0:11:36 > 0:11:38We'll need to find out more about him.
0:11:38 > 0:11:41But like everything associated with this picture,
0:11:41 > 0:11:42evidence is hard to come by.
0:11:44 > 0:11:46It's a portrait with a dubious past,
0:11:46 > 0:11:50for the artist has denied painting it - why go on?
0:11:51 > 0:11:54But I've been looking into the character of the artist
0:11:54 > 0:11:56and I think I might be onto something.
0:11:58 > 0:12:01The great conundrum at the heart of this investigation is why would
0:12:01 > 0:12:05Freud deny a painting was by him if in fact he did paint it.
0:12:05 > 0:12:07Why would he do that?
0:12:07 > 0:12:09Is it because it's an early work and he's ashamed of it,
0:12:09 > 0:12:11doesn't want to be associated with it?
0:12:11 > 0:12:13Certainly in all the research that I've done about Freud,
0:12:13 > 0:12:16it's clear that when it comes to his own work...
0:12:16 > 0:12:20being out there on people's walls or on the open market,
0:12:20 > 0:12:22he was very, very controlling.
0:12:23 > 0:12:26I've come across one interesting example.
0:12:26 > 0:12:30A still life from 1942, called Basket And Fruit,
0:12:30 > 0:12:33that was sold as a genuine Freud in the 1970s.
0:12:34 > 0:12:38Yet when the painting was due to be exhibited in Israel, 20 years later,
0:12:38 > 0:12:40trouble began.
0:12:40 > 0:12:43Lucian Freud said actually the painting had been tampered with,
0:12:43 > 0:12:45someone else had painted part of it
0:12:45 > 0:12:48and therefore he couldn't acknowledge it as a work of his own.
0:12:49 > 0:12:52Freud insisted that the picture be withdrawn,
0:12:52 > 0:12:55claiming that although the original line drawing was by him,
0:12:55 > 0:12:59the watercolour had been added later by another artist,
0:12:59 > 0:13:02a man called John Craxton, who Freud had fallen out with.
0:13:04 > 0:13:07The gallery that had handled the original sale didn't believe Freud
0:13:07 > 0:13:11and engaged in a heated exchange of letters with him.
0:13:11 > 0:13:14John Craxton even took a test to show that his fingerprints
0:13:14 > 0:13:17were not on the picture, but Freud wouldn't back down.
0:13:18 > 0:13:20Despite Freud's protests,
0:13:20 > 0:13:23when Basket And Fruit was put on the market two years later,
0:13:23 > 0:13:26complete with all those indignant letters,
0:13:26 > 0:13:29it was sold as a work by Lucian Freud anyway.
0:13:38 > 0:13:41Finding out the truth about our painting will be challenging.
0:13:41 > 0:13:43We're going to have to dig into Freud's past.
0:13:45 > 0:13:49Fake Or Fortune's specialist art researcher Dr Bendor Grosvenor
0:13:49 > 0:13:52has come to meet the team in Soho at the French House,
0:13:52 > 0:13:55a regular haunt of artists and writers in post-war London.
0:13:56 > 0:13:58- Hello.- Hi, there.- Hi. - I've got to say,
0:13:58 > 0:14:01I think alarm bells start ringing if someone summons me to a pub
0:14:01 > 0:14:03and says, "Here's a Lucian Freud."
0:14:03 > 0:14:06But it's a crucial part of this murky story,
0:14:06 > 0:14:11because it was here in this pub that Lucian Freud used to come and drink.
0:14:11 > 0:14:16And other artists came here - Dickie Chopping and Denis Wirth-Miller
0:14:16 > 0:14:18were also here from time to time.
0:14:18 > 0:14:20We're talking about the 1950s and 1960s
0:14:20 > 0:14:22and people were making alliances,
0:14:22 > 0:14:24they were falling out, there were jealousies, there were rivalries...
0:14:24 > 0:14:27We're talking about unreliable witnesses -
0:14:27 > 0:14:28that's part of the problem here.
0:14:28 > 0:14:31Well, actually, I've got a very interesting document here
0:14:31 > 0:14:33which gives us a glimpse into the enmities and hostilities
0:14:33 > 0:14:36that we're dealing with in that world. It's, er...
0:14:36 > 0:14:40written by Dickie Chopping at 4.50am one morning.
0:14:40 > 0:14:43He woke up and he wrote a list of reasons that he was really cross
0:14:43 > 0:14:48with Lucian Freud and it's actually quite useful for us, I think.
0:14:48 > 0:14:51"Lucian comes, age 16, expelled from Bryanston, to Benton End.
0:14:51 > 0:14:54"His anger," this is Lucian Freud's anger, I assume,
0:14:54 > 0:14:57"at Mr Green's Textile Competition and the addition to his design.
0:14:57 > 0:14:59"My anger," Dickie's anger,
0:14:59 > 0:15:02"at Lucian's addition to my flower painting."
0:15:02 > 0:15:05This is a fantastic rant in the small hours,
0:15:05 > 0:15:08almost 50 years after they were at art school together.
0:15:08 > 0:15:11I think it's interesting that they're talking about tampering
0:15:11 > 0:15:13with each other's pictures and you just get a sense
0:15:13 > 0:15:16of how much they disliked each other, so, you know,
0:15:16 > 0:15:18could that explain some of the contradicting stories
0:15:18 > 0:15:22- we've been given so far?- You know, I wonder, with this fabulous feud
0:15:22 > 0:15:23between the three of them,
0:15:23 > 0:15:28could Dickie and Denis, just out of spite, try to pass off a fake,
0:15:28 > 0:15:31make some money out of it and embarrass him while they're at it?
0:15:31 > 0:15:34Yeah, I'm not sure I'd go for the financial motive.
0:15:34 > 0:15:38I mean, when this picture was presented for sale in 1985,
0:15:38 > 0:15:42it was before Lucian Freud had had a retrospective exhibition
0:15:42 > 0:15:46and he wasn't making money. The estimate was £2,500 to £4,000.
0:15:46 > 0:15:48Now, if you're going to fake an artist,
0:15:48 > 0:15:50you're going to choose bigger game.
0:15:50 > 0:15:53Of course, Dickie and Denis had original paintings by Francis Bacon
0:15:53 > 0:15:56that were worth far more, so why would they bother?
0:15:56 > 0:16:00Yes, and also it would be an odd thing to do, wouldn't it, with
0:16:00 > 0:16:03the full exposure of the art world, to put your fake into auction?
0:16:03 > 0:16:05I mean, everyone would be able to see it, discuss it,
0:16:05 > 0:16:07including of course Lucian Freud himself.
0:16:14 > 0:16:18'This story risks being one man's word against another's -
0:16:18 > 0:16:21'what we need is hard evidence.
0:16:21 > 0:16:23'I'm taking the picture to Libby Sheldon,
0:16:23 > 0:16:26'expert in the scientific analysis of paintings.'
0:16:26 > 0:16:29So, Libby, you know what we want from you -
0:16:29 > 0:16:33can you help us prove that this is an early work by Lucian Freud?
0:16:34 > 0:16:37So, what date are you looking at?
0:16:37 > 0:16:42So 1939 or 1940, when he's at school and he's a 16-year-old.
0:16:42 > 0:16:47Goodness, it's a sort of time when everybody experimented, didn't they?
0:16:47 > 0:16:49'The first thing for Libby to do
0:16:49 > 0:16:52'is investigate the unusual backdrop to the portrait.'
0:16:52 > 0:16:54There's a sort of battered,
0:16:54 > 0:16:57almost attacked feeling to the background.
0:16:57 > 0:17:00And the suggestion of something else coming through?
0:17:00 > 0:17:04Yes, it certainly looks as if there's another composition,
0:17:04 > 0:17:07doesn't it, underneath? Let me turn it...
0:17:09 > 0:17:10..that way.
0:17:11 > 0:17:14There's these trees, aren't there?
0:17:14 > 0:17:16Actually, when you place it like that,
0:17:16 > 0:17:21it's evident that we're dealing with a landscape behind, with two trees,
0:17:21 > 0:17:22a mountain...
0:17:23 > 0:17:26..but done the other way round.
0:17:26 > 0:17:32Yes. Well, that of course would be typical of somebody reusing a canvas
0:17:32 > 0:17:35is to negate that landscape by doing that,
0:17:35 > 0:17:40but you'd think in some ways that somebody would have made
0:17:40 > 0:17:42more of an effort to cover it over.
0:17:42 > 0:17:45It has been rubbed down using white spirit or something.
0:17:47 > 0:17:50'Libby's next step is to put the painting under the microscope
0:17:50 > 0:17:52'and she makes a fascinating discovery.'
0:17:55 > 0:17:56But what's that?
0:17:58 > 0:18:02Actually, it looks like a hair, but is it a brush hair, or...?
0:18:02 > 0:18:05I think it's an actual hair.
0:18:05 > 0:18:09It goes on into the black paint.
0:18:09 > 0:18:10- So...- It's quite long.
0:18:10 > 0:18:15So... So...not necessarily a paintbrush hair, but a human hair?
0:18:15 > 0:18:18- Human hair. - How absolutely fascinating.
0:18:18 > 0:18:21Yeah, it does seem to be so, quite a long hair.
0:18:23 > 0:18:28So... So it's possible that we could have embedded in this picture...
0:18:30 > 0:18:33..a clue, a piece of DNA, perhaps.
0:18:34 > 0:18:37Yes, actual DNA.
0:18:37 > 0:18:40- Um...- So even if we can't get to the hand of the artist,
0:18:40 > 0:18:43we might be able to get to his scalp.
0:18:43 > 0:18:44That's true!
0:18:50 > 0:18:53Bendor, meanwhile, is trying to establish
0:18:53 > 0:18:55who the subject of the portrait is.
0:18:55 > 0:18:59Tate Britain's archives hold the papers of many important artists.
0:18:59 > 0:19:04Bendor's hoping information found here will help to confirm evidence
0:19:04 > 0:19:06he's found in John's own archive.
0:19:06 > 0:19:10I've got here one of the key bits of evidence about our picture.
0:19:10 > 0:19:12It's a note in Denis's handwriting,
0:19:12 > 0:19:15which apparently identifies the sitter in the portrait
0:19:15 > 0:19:17as someone called John Jamieson.
0:19:17 > 0:19:19He goes on to say that a fellow student
0:19:19 > 0:19:23of the East Anglian School of Painting remembers the picture
0:19:23 > 0:19:26being painted after the fire which destroyed the school,
0:19:26 > 0:19:28that was July 28th, 1939,
0:19:28 > 0:19:32and before the outbreak of war, that was September 3rd, 1939.
0:19:32 > 0:19:35So really only a two-month window.
0:19:35 > 0:19:37At the moment, we don't know a great deal about John Jamieson,
0:19:37 > 0:19:40we've just been told he had two particular interests,
0:19:40 > 0:19:43one of which was sailors in Ipswich and the other was black magic,
0:19:43 > 0:19:45which is quite a combination.
0:19:47 > 0:19:49Amongst the papers of Cedric Morris,
0:19:49 > 0:19:51the founder of the East Anglian School of Painting,
0:19:51 > 0:19:54there are letters from John Jamieson.
0:19:54 > 0:19:56And they make it very clear
0:19:56 > 0:19:59that not only did he know Lucian Freud quite well -
0:19:59 > 0:20:02it talks about meeting him on a number of occasions -
0:20:02 > 0:20:06but that he had been down to the East Anglian School of Painting
0:20:06 > 0:20:09at some point before December 1939.
0:20:09 > 0:20:11And it's very likely, reading the dates,
0:20:11 > 0:20:14that he's talking about going there in the summer of 1939.
0:20:15 > 0:20:19This puts Jamieson in the right place at the right time.
0:20:19 > 0:20:22For me, I find it quite heartening, because we can begin to trust
0:20:22 > 0:20:24some of the evidence that we've been given.
0:20:25 > 0:20:28I suppose what we need to do now is find a photograph
0:20:28 > 0:20:30to see if it really is him in our painting.
0:20:33 > 0:20:37My next step is to visit the place at the heart of this mystery -
0:20:37 > 0:20:40the East Anglian School of Painting and Drawing,
0:20:40 > 0:20:43which was based at Benton End House in Hadleigh in Suffolk.
0:20:47 > 0:20:49I'm going with John, the owner of the picture,
0:20:49 > 0:20:52to try to understand the world his painting emerged from.
0:20:54 > 0:20:57What I love about this story is it's so full of intrigue and deception,
0:20:57 > 0:21:01so it seems only fitting we should go back to where it all began...
0:21:01 > 0:21:03which is at Benton End House
0:21:03 > 0:21:07- and which is where the drawing school was for 42 years.- Exactly.
0:21:07 > 0:21:08And it's somewhere I've wanted to see
0:21:08 > 0:21:10ever since I knew Dickie and Denis.
0:21:10 > 0:21:14But to be able to compare the old photographs and the old paintings
0:21:14 > 0:21:17and look at the studios and the barns, I can't wait to do it.
0:21:28 > 0:21:33'Lucian Freud came to East Anglia in the summer of 1939 at the age of 16,
0:21:33 > 0:21:37'having been expelled from his last school for disruptive behaviour.
0:21:37 > 0:21:40'Here he found an idiosyncratic art school,
0:21:40 > 0:21:43'where young artists were largely given a free rein
0:21:43 > 0:21:45'to develop their own talent.'
0:21:45 > 0:21:47So here we are in Benton End,
0:21:47 > 0:21:51which was like a little bubble of bohemian living in wartime Britain
0:21:51 > 0:21:54and it was run by Cedric Morris.
0:21:55 > 0:21:57A talented artist in his own right,
0:21:57 > 0:22:00Cedric Morris was perhaps the most important figure
0:22:00 > 0:22:03in Lucian Freud's artistic development.
0:22:03 > 0:22:05He's seen here painting the young Lucian.
0:22:08 > 0:22:09And Lucian, Denis and Dickie,
0:22:09 > 0:22:12Richard Chopping and Denis Wirth-Miller,
0:22:12 > 0:22:14from whom you inherited your picture,
0:22:14 > 0:22:16they were all students here together, weren't they?
0:22:16 > 0:22:17Yes, they were the youngest three.
0:22:17 > 0:22:20Were Dickie and Denis and Lucian friends while they were here?
0:22:20 > 0:22:22They were. They were very close together,
0:22:22 > 0:22:24but as with a lot of these people, as they get older,
0:22:24 > 0:22:26a lot of rivalry came into this,
0:22:26 > 0:22:29but they were definitely close at this stage.
0:22:32 > 0:22:36'A world away from drab wartime Britain and rationing,
0:22:36 > 0:22:40'there were long lunches of exotic Mediterranean food and wine
0:22:40 > 0:22:42'and a constant stream of visitors.'
0:22:43 > 0:22:46You can see in this photograph Lucian Freud is wearing a fez.
0:22:46 > 0:22:50I think the outfits worn by people here were pretty outlandish,
0:22:50 > 0:22:52and outlandish for their time.
0:22:52 > 0:22:55'The young artists cast aside the usual collar and tie
0:22:55 > 0:22:58'and wore open-neck shirts and cravats -
0:22:58 > 0:23:01'exactly like the subject of our painting.
0:23:03 > 0:23:07'The relaxed atmosphere meant there was very little record-keeping
0:23:07 > 0:23:10'that might help support our picture's authenticity,
0:23:10 > 0:23:13'but John has one piece of evidence which again links the man
0:23:13 > 0:23:16'we believe to be the sitter to Benton End.'
0:23:17 > 0:23:20This record you've got from your archive of Dickie and Denis is...
0:23:20 > 0:23:23This is a brief moment when someone was actually keeping a record!
0:23:23 > 0:23:26- That's true!- What does it show us about who was here?
0:23:26 > 0:23:30This was from 1941 and they kept these records -
0:23:30 > 0:23:32Dickie and Denis kept these records -
0:23:32 > 0:23:34and it shows who came as guests here,
0:23:34 > 0:23:38who was here as students, and shows us what money the people put in.
0:23:38 > 0:23:40So, very importantly, in...
0:23:40 > 0:23:44So this was contributing to the financial upkeep of the household.
0:23:44 > 0:23:47- Lucian.- Yeah.- And that can only be Lucian Freud.
0:23:47 > 0:23:51Yep. Then we've got Cedric and fascinatingly, John Jamieson.
0:23:51 > 0:23:54So that is a very important document for me.
0:23:54 > 0:23:56'It's another confirmation that John Jamieson,
0:23:56 > 0:23:59'the man that we believe is the subject of the painting,
0:23:59 > 0:24:02'visited Benton End when Lucian was there.'
0:24:09 > 0:24:12Bendor's next job is to prove, or disprove,
0:24:12 > 0:24:15the stories about how Dickie and Denis got the picture.
0:24:16 > 0:24:20If it was given to them by Lucian, or found by them at the art school,
0:24:20 > 0:24:22there won't have been a paper trail,
0:24:22 > 0:24:26but in the Suffolk County records office, Bendor can check out
0:24:26 > 0:24:28the story about the painting being stolen from an art tent.
0:24:28 > 0:24:32I'm trying to chase down one of the stories we've been told
0:24:32 > 0:24:34about where our painting comes from.
0:24:34 > 0:24:38Apparently, it was put into an art tent in a village fete
0:24:38 > 0:24:41in a place called Tendring in 1939
0:24:41 > 0:24:44and just at the moment when the tent was about to open,
0:24:44 > 0:24:48the artist went in and discovered Lucian Freud's painting was missing.
0:24:49 > 0:24:54The Tendring show did not run at all between 1932 and 1946,
0:24:54 > 0:24:56so if there was an art tent,
0:24:56 > 0:25:00it must have been at another show in 1939 or '40.
0:25:02 > 0:25:05The local papers are rather detailed about every aspect
0:25:05 > 0:25:07of these thrilling events.
0:25:08 > 0:25:11At the St John's fete here, we learn that they have a darts competition
0:25:11 > 0:25:14and even something called a pig-rolling competition,
0:25:14 > 0:25:16which was won by a lady called Mrs Death,
0:25:16 > 0:25:18and frankly, the mind boggles.
0:25:18 > 0:25:23However, I've been going through the whole of 1939 and I cannot find
0:25:23 > 0:25:25a single mention of anything like an art tent.
0:25:27 > 0:25:30And worse still, from 1940, after the war has broken out,
0:25:30 > 0:25:32all these events stopped completely,
0:25:32 > 0:25:35so I'm led to conclude that, unfortunately,
0:25:35 > 0:25:40the story about the painting coming from an art tent is not true.
0:25:40 > 0:25:43The alternatives, I suppose, is that Lucian Freud somehow
0:25:43 > 0:25:46gave the picture to someone else, possibly for reuse.
0:25:46 > 0:25:48Or that the painting was taken from some other place,
0:25:48 > 0:25:50maybe from Benton End itself.
0:25:50 > 0:25:54However, the alarming possibility now arises
0:25:54 > 0:25:56that if this story is fake,
0:25:56 > 0:25:58then maybe the picture is also fake.
0:25:59 > 0:26:01Given the lack of evidence,
0:26:01 > 0:26:03it seems unlikely that we'll ever be able to find out
0:26:03 > 0:26:06how Dickie and Denis came by the painting.
0:26:07 > 0:26:10Perhaps our best course of action now
0:26:10 > 0:26:13is to focus our attention on the canvas itself.
0:26:13 > 0:26:15I've been doing a little research
0:26:15 > 0:26:19and I've tracked down a genuine Freud, painted in 1940,
0:26:19 > 0:26:21just a year after our own picture.
0:26:21 > 0:26:26'The National Museum of Wales in Cardiff have agreed to let us
0:26:26 > 0:26:30'put both portraits side-by-side for a direct comparison
0:26:30 > 0:26:32'under the watchful eye
0:26:32 > 0:26:36'of the museum's Curator of Modern Art, Nick Thornton.'
0:26:36 > 0:26:40So this is a portrait by Lucian Freud when he was 17 years old
0:26:40 > 0:26:41of the man who taught him
0:26:41 > 0:26:46at the East Anglian School of Painting and Drawing, Cedric Morris.
0:26:46 > 0:26:49Yes, it's painted by Freud in 1940 when he was still a pupil
0:26:49 > 0:26:52at the East Anglia School of Painting and Drawing.
0:26:54 > 0:26:56Seeing them sitting next to each other,
0:26:56 > 0:27:00it's fascinating immediately to settle upon the brushstrokes
0:27:00 > 0:27:04and there seems to be a slightly hesitant, almost neurotic, way
0:27:04 > 0:27:05with little stabs of the brush
0:27:05 > 0:27:08that you see the contours of the face described
0:27:08 > 0:27:11and I can see it in the forehead of the Lucian Freud of Cedric
0:27:11 > 0:27:14and our possible Lucian Freud as well.
0:27:14 > 0:27:17Absolutely. I think the interesting thing,
0:27:17 > 0:27:19that this looks more immediate,
0:27:19 > 0:27:23slightly more naive than our work, but there is, er...
0:27:23 > 0:27:26There are interesting comparisons in terms of the choice of colour,
0:27:26 > 0:27:30they're almost mixing colours across the face to create form and tone.
0:27:30 > 0:27:33Let's just think about the face for the moment,
0:27:33 > 0:27:36because there's something to do with the asymmetry,
0:27:36 > 0:27:40the sort of wilful bending of the nose and the placing of the mouth
0:27:40 > 0:27:44slightly off centre that I can see is a feature shared by both.
0:27:44 > 0:27:48Absolutely. One thing that Freud learned from Morris at this time
0:27:48 > 0:27:53was creating a sort of psychological intensity within the relationship
0:27:53 > 0:27:55with the sitter and often he did that
0:27:55 > 0:27:58by kind of exaggerating certain features,
0:27:58 > 0:28:00so that it almost borders on caricature.
0:28:00 > 0:28:04And if our painting is going to be by Lucian Freud,
0:28:04 > 0:28:08it's probably going to be a year before this.
0:28:08 > 0:28:13If it was by Lucian Freud, it would be a painting by a teenager,
0:28:13 > 0:28:17so if there is some tentativeness around it,
0:28:17 > 0:28:19that's something perhaps you would expect.
0:28:24 > 0:28:26I'm so pleased we've done this,
0:28:26 > 0:28:30we have compared our picture now to a known Lucian Freud
0:28:30 > 0:28:32that he did when he was 17 years old.
0:28:34 > 0:28:38And to my mind, there are unquestionably characteristics,
0:28:38 > 0:28:43similarities, not just the characterisation - that edgy,
0:28:43 > 0:28:46slightly unsettling way that the face is done,
0:28:46 > 0:28:47but also the technique.
0:28:48 > 0:28:50The little sort of giveaway traits
0:28:50 > 0:28:55that of course come from Cedric Morris, the subject of the picture.
0:28:55 > 0:28:58So that's great, it takes us to where we want to be,
0:28:58 > 0:29:02to the person who's influencing him, but, of course,
0:29:02 > 0:29:05there's a whole load of other students there at the same time.
0:29:05 > 0:29:08You know, 15 or thereabouts,
0:29:08 > 0:29:10all of whom are going to be picking up on this style...
0:29:11 > 0:29:14..so we're certainly getting closer...
0:29:15 > 0:29:17..but we've got further to go.
0:29:21 > 0:29:25We're beginning to understand the world our picture came from.
0:29:25 > 0:29:27Now we're meeting at Phillips Gallery
0:29:27 > 0:29:29to see if we can take the next step
0:29:29 > 0:29:32and link the portrait directly to Lucian Freud himself.
0:29:34 > 0:29:35- Hi, Bendor.- Hi.
0:29:37 > 0:29:40Now, our early provenance I don't think is looking very good.
0:29:40 > 0:29:43The county fair story, well, I just can't make it work -
0:29:43 > 0:29:44I don't think it's true at all.
0:29:44 > 0:29:47And the other stories, well, even if they are true,
0:29:47 > 0:29:50they're not going to give us a paper trail,
0:29:50 > 0:29:51so we've got nothing tangible to go with.
0:29:51 > 0:29:54Let's just remind ourselves what those other theories were.
0:29:54 > 0:29:59Either Freud gave Denis the painting so that Denis could reuse it,
0:29:59 > 0:30:00he reused the canvas when they were at
0:30:00 > 0:30:03the East Anglian School of Painting and Drawing together,
0:30:03 > 0:30:07or Freud left it lying around and Denis picked it up.
0:30:07 > 0:30:10And certainly, having been there and seen the rather chaotic way
0:30:10 > 0:30:12in which people worked, I think it's very plausible...
0:30:12 > 0:30:15I mean, look at this picture here of Cedric Morris at Benton End.
0:30:15 > 0:30:18The canvases are just left stacked against the wall,
0:30:18 > 0:30:21so it's certain, I can imagine, that Denis picked it up
0:30:21 > 0:30:23possibly from the old barn.
0:30:23 > 0:30:26Yes, and I've come across accounts from other students who just say
0:30:26 > 0:30:29they left their artwork behind, but have a look at this,
0:30:29 > 0:30:32this is another early picture by Lucian Freud.
0:30:32 > 0:30:34In fact, it shows Dickie Chopping
0:30:34 > 0:30:38and we know that this picture was left at Benton End
0:30:38 > 0:30:39until at least the 1970s.
0:30:39 > 0:30:45See, that's another useful stylistic addition to our body of work
0:30:45 > 0:30:48in which I think our painting fits. Now, if you put the two together...
0:30:49 > 0:30:54..immediately you see what I think is a really compelling comparison.
0:30:54 > 0:30:58I mean, both lapels are rather floppy and sort of organic looking
0:30:58 > 0:31:01and the eyes, they're so specific, aren't they?
0:31:01 > 0:31:03They're both pencil-sharp
0:31:03 > 0:31:07and those highly sort of artificial looking drawn-in eyebrows above.
0:31:07 > 0:31:11I've got a drawing here from Freud's sketchbook of 1939, '40,
0:31:11 > 0:31:13so about the time that we think our picture was made
0:31:13 > 0:31:15and I think if you compare it to our picture,
0:31:15 > 0:31:18you can see the way Freud has sort of inserted
0:31:18 > 0:31:21these almost wilful distortions in the face.
0:31:21 > 0:31:25I guess what Freud is looking for here, in representing the sitter,
0:31:25 > 0:31:29whoever it may be, is the features that really struck him,
0:31:29 > 0:31:31so his eyebrows, the hair...
0:31:32 > 0:31:33..the slightly lopsided mouth.
0:31:33 > 0:31:36I mean, it would be fascinating if we managed to find a photograph
0:31:36 > 0:31:39of that chap, if those are the things that really stand out.
0:31:40 > 0:31:42So, stylistically, I think this picture
0:31:42 > 0:31:44is stacking up more and more.
0:31:44 > 0:31:46Now, when I was with Libby, I came across, in the paint,
0:31:46 > 0:31:49can you believe it, a human hair.
0:31:49 > 0:31:50Look at that, clear as day!
0:31:50 > 0:31:54Now, if we can get DNA from it,
0:31:54 > 0:31:59it's not impossible that we can prove that it's Lucian Freud's.
0:31:59 > 0:32:02That would be an astonishing piece of evidence for us.
0:32:06 > 0:32:11John has given Libby permission to remove the hair from the picture.
0:32:11 > 0:32:14It's being rushed to King's College London,
0:32:14 > 0:32:18whose forensic science lab regularly works with the Metropolitan Police.
0:32:21 > 0:32:25This job is a touch unusual for expert in DNA identification,
0:32:25 > 0:32:27Dr Denise Syndercombe-Court.
0:32:29 > 0:32:32So, Denise, we have a particular challenge.
0:32:32 > 0:32:36We found, in the picture that we hope to be by Lucian Freud, a hair.
0:32:37 > 0:32:40Now, it could well be a human hair
0:32:40 > 0:32:43and is it possible for us to extract DNA?
0:32:43 > 0:32:45Well, first of all we've got to make sure
0:32:45 > 0:32:49that we can get some reliable DNA out of it.
0:32:49 > 0:32:55Once that, then we need something or somebody to compare it with.
0:32:55 > 0:32:59Somebody who is either Lucian Freud, and I guess he's not around...
0:32:59 > 0:33:03erm, or somebody who is related to him.
0:33:03 > 0:33:07Hair contains a particular form of DNA
0:33:07 > 0:33:10which is only passed from mother to child.
0:33:10 > 0:33:13This means Freud's own children are no use for this test,
0:33:13 > 0:33:17but we've tracked down his mother's sister's daughter
0:33:17 > 0:33:20and she's agreed to give us a sample of her DNA.
0:33:20 > 0:33:23If the hair in our picture belonged to Lucian Freud,
0:33:23 > 0:33:25she should provide an exact match.
0:33:26 > 0:33:33So even if the hair has been encased in paint for what could be 80 years,
0:33:33 > 0:33:35we can still get at the DNA?
0:33:35 > 0:33:39Well, actually, the fact that it's been stuck on a painting
0:33:39 > 0:33:43might actually preserve it because it stops it...
0:33:43 > 0:33:47Stops the light getting to it, stops moisture getting to it,
0:33:47 > 0:33:50all these things preserve the hair and preserve the DNA in the hair.
0:33:52 > 0:33:56At the scene of a crime, hair is a poor source of DNA.
0:33:56 > 0:33:58Even with the most up-to-date techniques,
0:33:58 > 0:34:02it's not always possible to extract a meaningful sample.
0:34:02 > 0:34:06The painstaking process will take at least four days.
0:34:06 > 0:34:10But if the result brings our picture closer to Lucian Freud,
0:34:10 > 0:34:11it's worth the wait.
0:34:19 > 0:34:23'I'm in search of someone who spoke directly to Lucian Freud
0:34:23 > 0:34:24'about John's picture.
0:34:25 > 0:34:29'And I've managed to persuade Lucian's daughter, Rose Boyt,
0:34:29 > 0:34:32'to give us an interview. It's an important opportunity
0:34:32 > 0:34:34'as we understand she knows of John's picture
0:34:34 > 0:34:36'and may have discussed it with her father.'
0:34:36 > 0:34:39When did you first see the painting?
0:34:40 > 0:34:43I first saw the painting in 2006.
0:34:43 > 0:34:45John showed me the painting
0:34:45 > 0:34:48and then, at that time, I felt very strongly
0:34:48 > 0:34:50that I didn't want to take the painting round to my father's.
0:34:50 > 0:34:52I felt that if I did take it round there,
0:34:52 > 0:34:54he would probably put his fist through it.
0:34:54 > 0:34:56Thought he'd put his fist through it why?
0:34:56 > 0:34:58Because he hated the intrusion of people
0:34:58 > 0:35:01saying, "Did you do this?" and, "Didn't you do it?"
0:35:01 > 0:35:04and I felt that if he hadn't identified it
0:35:04 > 0:35:06in the normal course of things,
0:35:06 > 0:35:09that that meant he didn't want to,
0:35:09 > 0:35:10and the reason he didn't want to
0:35:10 > 0:35:13was probably because either because it was stolen
0:35:13 > 0:35:15or that it wasn't by him or that he hated it.
0:35:15 > 0:35:16I can completely understand
0:35:16 > 0:35:19that if you did something you didn't think was good,
0:35:19 > 0:35:21you wouldn't want anyone to see it,
0:35:21 > 0:35:23you certainly wouldn't want to sell it,
0:35:23 > 0:35:25wouldn't want it to be in a museum.
0:35:25 > 0:35:26So you didn't take it...
0:35:26 > 0:35:27- No.- ..to show to your father.
0:35:27 > 0:35:30- No.- You didn't dare, by the sounds of it.
0:35:30 > 0:35:33It wasn't that I didn't dare, it's just I thought the painting...
0:35:33 > 0:35:34He would destroy the painting.
0:35:34 > 0:35:37Whether it was by him or not, I thought he would destroy it,
0:35:37 > 0:35:38and then I'd have to say to John,
0:35:38 > 0:35:41"Oh, you know your Lucian Freud, it is no more."
0:35:41 > 0:35:43So did your father ever talk about Dickie and Denis?
0:35:43 > 0:35:45He didn't like them...
0:35:45 > 0:35:47for reasons of his own.
0:35:47 > 0:35:51But my father did used to enjoy disliking people,
0:35:51 > 0:35:53so that's not necessarily...
0:35:53 > 0:35:54He liked a good feud?
0:35:54 > 0:35:56Well, not necessarily a feud, but just...
0:35:56 > 0:36:00He would have a reaction to certain people,
0:36:00 > 0:36:03and some people he just wouldn't be able to stand.
0:36:03 > 0:36:05Tell me how your father would, um...
0:36:07 > 0:36:11..go to some pains to ensure that work that he...liked
0:36:11 > 0:36:13would be in the public domain,
0:36:13 > 0:36:16but work that he didn't might perhaps not be?
0:36:17 > 0:36:22He would have a "destroying his paintings that he didn't like
0:36:22 > 0:36:24"or wasn't going to finish" session,
0:36:24 > 0:36:29so he might get one of my brothers to go round to the studio and spend,
0:36:29 > 0:36:34um, six or seven hours destroying paintings
0:36:34 > 0:36:37that he didn't feel were working.
0:36:37 > 0:36:41So that would be a very good and clear way of editing his work.
0:36:50 > 0:36:53So revealing, talking to Lucian Freud's daughter, Rose, there.
0:36:53 > 0:36:54She's given us plenty of reasons
0:36:54 > 0:36:56why he might have turned this painting down.
0:36:56 > 0:36:58He clearly loathed Dickie and Denis,
0:36:58 > 0:37:01he was very controlling about his output and what left his studio,
0:37:01 > 0:37:02she told me that as well.
0:37:02 > 0:37:04But that's all speculation.
0:37:04 > 0:37:06I need to know, if it is by Freud,
0:37:06 > 0:37:08why did he reject it?
0:37:08 > 0:37:10This painting has been bouncing around the art world
0:37:10 > 0:37:12for more than 30 years, so I think it stands to reason
0:37:12 > 0:37:15that Freud would have been approached about this work
0:37:15 > 0:37:16more than once in that time.
0:37:16 > 0:37:20Someone must have spoken directly to him about it,
0:37:20 > 0:37:22and I need to find whoever that person was
0:37:22 > 0:37:24and speak to him or her directly myself.
0:37:28 > 0:37:32'While Fiona goes in search of Freud's first-hand testimony,
0:37:32 > 0:37:35'I'm hoping science can give us a direct link
0:37:35 > 0:37:37'between the artist and John's painting.
0:37:37 > 0:37:40'The results of the DNA tests are in,
0:37:40 > 0:37:44'so John and I are off to see Denise Syndercombe-Court.'
0:37:44 > 0:37:46Well, so far, John, as you know,
0:37:46 > 0:37:49we've got nothing that physically connects this painting
0:37:49 > 0:37:51to Lucian Freud.
0:37:51 > 0:37:53My first question to you therefore, Denise,
0:37:53 > 0:37:57is have we managed to extract some DNA from the painting?
0:37:57 > 0:38:01- From the hair on the painting, yes. - From the hair on the painting.
0:38:01 > 0:38:03So the next question, I suppose,
0:38:03 > 0:38:06is have you managed to narrow that down?
0:38:07 > 0:38:11Yes, we have. The good-quality DNA from that
0:38:11 > 0:38:16has given us a group that we can place that maternal origin into.
0:38:16 > 0:38:20And have you been able to compare that group
0:38:20 > 0:38:22with the swab that was taken
0:38:22 > 0:38:25from the female relation of Lucian Freud?
0:38:25 > 0:38:28- Yes, we have.- It was a...
0:38:28 > 0:38:30Was it a human hair?
0:38:30 > 0:38:34- It was a human hair.- That's my Jack Russell out of the equation. Good.
0:38:34 > 0:38:37And...
0:38:37 > 0:38:39what was the result?
0:38:39 > 0:38:45Well, we got a particular type from Lucian Freud's maternal relative...
0:38:46 > 0:38:48..but it doesn't match
0:38:48 > 0:38:53with the sample from the painting, unfortunately.
0:38:54 > 0:38:55How do you feel, John?
0:38:56 > 0:39:00Well, it's one step forward, one step backwards.
0:39:00 > 0:39:02So as much as we would love it to be so,
0:39:02 > 0:39:04it's not Lucian Freud's.
0:39:04 > 0:39:07- I'm so sorry!- No! Thank you, it's fascinating to have done it,
0:39:07 > 0:39:09it's absolutely amazing to have done it.
0:39:09 > 0:39:12Oh, well, we're going to have to go back to other things.
0:39:12 > 0:39:14Back to the drawing board.
0:39:17 > 0:39:19I'm still trying to find someone
0:39:19 > 0:39:23who spoke directly to Lucian Freud about John's painting,
0:39:23 > 0:39:25and finally I've had a breakthrough.
0:39:28 > 0:39:32It seems an auction house may have consulted Freud about our picture
0:39:32 > 0:39:33just five years before his death.
0:39:37 > 0:39:39I've been looking into the most recent occasion
0:39:39 > 0:39:42Lucian Freud was shown our painting, and it appears to have been 2006.
0:39:42 > 0:39:46Now, he was an artist who guarded his privacy jealously -
0:39:46 > 0:39:48you didn't just ring him up about a picture,
0:39:48 > 0:39:51everything had to go through a third party.
0:39:51 > 0:39:55And back in 2006, that third party was his solicitor, Diana Rawstron,
0:39:55 > 0:39:57and she works here.
0:39:57 > 0:40:00And if anyone would have discussed our painting with Lucian Freud,
0:40:00 > 0:40:02it would have been her.
0:40:02 > 0:40:06'Diana has ordered her 2006 files from the archive.
0:40:06 > 0:40:08'Could they hold the answer?'
0:40:08 > 0:40:11Right. That looks intriguing.
0:40:11 > 0:40:15Diana, you have worked as a solicitor for Freud,
0:40:15 > 0:40:17while he was alive, for many years.
0:40:17 > 0:40:19How often would you be talking to him, then?
0:40:19 > 0:40:22I should think I spoke to him nearly every working day
0:40:22 > 0:40:23and occasionally at weekends.
0:40:23 > 0:40:25What was he like to deal with?
0:40:25 > 0:40:27He was delightful.
0:40:27 > 0:40:29He was very polite, courteous.
0:40:29 > 0:40:32He was phenomenally intelligent.
0:40:32 > 0:40:34Did you, um, ever...
0:40:35 > 0:40:36..discuss our painting with him?
0:40:36 > 0:40:38Yes, he telephoned.
0:40:38 > 0:40:41These were my files for 2006 for everything I did,
0:40:41 > 0:40:44but I had a fairly good idea it would be on this general file.
0:40:44 > 0:40:46And you made notes of the telephone conversation?
0:40:46 > 0:40:49Well, a scribbled note - I'd have written it better
0:40:49 > 0:40:51if I thought it was going to be on a television programme!
0:40:51 > 0:40:53But it was just for my purposes.
0:40:53 > 0:40:56- So the next day... - Here we go, 6th April...
0:40:56 > 0:40:58"LF," Lucian Freud...
0:40:58 > 0:41:01"Started by him but someone has completed."
0:41:05 > 0:41:08- But hang on, he's saying it is partly by him.- Yes.
0:41:11 > 0:41:15Well, this is... I have to say, this is a massive breakthrough for us.
0:41:15 > 0:41:19Because, so far, all we've had is Lucian Freud saying it's not by him,
0:41:19 > 0:41:24or his daughter not even really wanting to present it to him
0:41:24 > 0:41:26because she was so worried what his response would be.
0:41:26 > 0:41:31But here we have, as close to from the horse's mouth as we can get,
0:41:31 > 0:41:34that he's saying he did at least start it.
0:41:34 > 0:41:36- Yes.- "Shirt..."
0:41:36 > 0:41:39- You'll have to help me here! - "Shirt, body, neck by LF..."
0:41:39 > 0:41:42- By Lucian Freud. - "..and part of head."
0:41:43 > 0:41:45But he has actually done part of this painting.
0:41:45 > 0:41:48I think the main thing was, he knew it had been started by him,
0:41:48 > 0:41:51but he was sort of speculating a bit about which bits he might have done.
0:41:51 > 0:41:54And in terms of who finished it...?
0:41:54 > 0:41:55No.
0:41:55 > 0:41:59- No information about that?- No, he didn't make a comment about that.
0:41:59 > 0:42:01I don't think you can take this as definitive.
0:42:01 > 0:42:05And I think you should bear in mind that he's looking at this painting
0:42:05 > 0:42:08how many years later? 65 years later, I think.
0:42:08 > 0:42:09Just out of interest, why,
0:42:09 > 0:42:13when you replied to Christie's about whether Freud painted this or not,
0:42:13 > 0:42:16you just said, "I regret he is not able to authenticate
0:42:16 > 0:42:18"the work as by him." Why did you phrase it in that way,
0:42:18 > 0:42:21rather than saying, "He says he painted part of it,
0:42:21 > 0:42:22"but not all of it"?
0:42:22 > 0:42:24He didn't want that said.
0:42:24 > 0:42:28I mean, if they weren't by him, they weren't by him.
0:42:28 > 0:42:30So partly by him wasn't good enough...
0:42:30 > 0:42:32- No.- It was either all by him, or not at all.
0:42:32 > 0:42:33Either all by him, or not at all.
0:42:42 > 0:42:44Phil, I've some rather interesting news for you -
0:42:44 > 0:42:46what I think is a real breakthrough for us.
0:42:46 > 0:42:50I'm at the offices of Lucian Freud's former solicitor,
0:42:50 > 0:42:52and what she said is he painted some of it -
0:42:52 > 0:42:56he started the painting, but he didn't finish it.
0:42:56 > 0:42:58'So we have that, then, from the man himself?'
0:42:58 > 0:43:00We have it from the man himself
0:43:00 > 0:43:02via his solicitor and her contemporaneous notes.
0:43:02 > 0:43:05'That's a transformative nugget of information we've just got.'
0:43:05 > 0:43:08It is. It has just taken us such a massive step forward.
0:43:08 > 0:43:11'Oh, it's a triumph!'
0:43:11 > 0:43:12I'm very mindful, though, Phil,
0:43:12 > 0:43:15this is Freud musing about a painting
0:43:15 > 0:43:16decades after it was done.
0:43:16 > 0:43:19So I'm wondering if maybe he could have painted a little bit less
0:43:19 > 0:43:23than is written in this note? Maybe a little bit more?
0:43:23 > 0:43:26'It should be possible to analyse the picture now
0:43:26 > 0:43:29'and see whether or not there are different campaigns
0:43:29 > 0:43:30'by different hands.'
0:43:30 > 0:43:33Well, that sounds like just what we need.
0:43:40 > 0:43:43Bendor has a breakthrough of his own.
0:43:43 > 0:43:46He and John are on the trail of the possible subject of the painting,
0:43:46 > 0:43:47John Jamieson.
0:43:49 > 0:43:52Using clues from Jamieson's letters,
0:43:52 > 0:43:55we've managed to identify his old school as Winchester College,
0:43:55 > 0:43:59and it seems they may have photographs.
0:43:59 > 0:44:01So, John, I think, looking at Freud's picture,
0:44:01 > 0:44:03if it is by Lucian Freud...
0:44:04 > 0:44:07..it's difficult to judge a likeness from it, isn't it?
0:44:07 > 0:44:09I mean, in terms of a conventional portrait,
0:44:09 > 0:44:12but there are certain aspects of the face
0:44:12 > 0:44:15that I think we can assume that Freud featured
0:44:15 > 0:44:17because they struck him.
0:44:17 > 0:44:18So the slightly...
0:44:19 > 0:44:22..tilted mouth, the piercing eyes.
0:44:22 > 0:44:25We've got... The hairstyle is quite good to focus on.
0:44:25 > 0:44:28So we've got a side parting there and the hint of a widow's peak,
0:44:28 > 0:44:30and sort of dense, curly hair.
0:44:30 > 0:44:33- Long face... - Mm, slightly longer face, yes.
0:44:33 > 0:44:38So I've got some photographs here of Jamieson when he was here in 1933 -
0:44:38 > 0:44:39the year he left, so...
0:44:41 > 0:44:43If I... I'm sorry to test you like this,
0:44:43 > 0:44:46but it's probably quite a good exercise. If I cover up the names...
0:44:46 > 0:44:48I'll need glasses for this!
0:44:48 > 0:44:52Because that will be a good test as to whether, actually,
0:44:52 > 0:44:54we're spotting a likeness.
0:44:54 > 0:44:55See if you can...
0:44:55 > 0:44:58See if anyone in this photograph strikes you...
0:44:58 > 0:45:00as the sitter in your portrait.
0:45:00 > 0:45:03- Take your time. - JOHN LAUGHS
0:45:03 > 0:45:05OK, so this is the multimillion-dollar...
0:45:05 > 0:45:06choose-which-one...
0:45:10 > 0:45:12I think I might... I think I'm going to go there.
0:45:15 > 0:45:17Have I got it? No!
0:45:17 > 0:45:18I'm not joking, that's him.
0:45:18 > 0:45:19- No!- Yeah.
0:45:21 > 0:45:22That's extraordinary!
0:45:24 > 0:45:27There are definite details that match here.
0:45:27 > 0:45:30Eyes close together and those distinctive brows.
0:45:31 > 0:45:33The long nose and prominent ears,
0:45:33 > 0:45:35the off-centre mouth
0:45:35 > 0:45:37with the slight upward kink on the left,
0:45:37 > 0:45:39plus the thick hair with the side parting.
0:45:41 > 0:45:44What you've done here is - I'm really pleased about that.
0:45:44 > 0:45:46- Extraordinary!- I think it's a really valid demonstration,
0:45:46 > 0:45:48because these are the features
0:45:48 > 0:45:49that Freud has picked up on,
0:45:49 > 0:45:51and they've translated into that picture.
0:45:51 > 0:45:54But what really fascinates me about that as well
0:45:54 > 0:45:58is that so many people over the 20 years that I've owned this painting
0:45:58 > 0:46:01are saying, "Well, it's not a very good portrait, is it?"
0:46:01 > 0:46:02Well...
0:46:02 > 0:46:03it must be!
0:46:03 > 0:46:05It must be, exactly!
0:46:05 > 0:46:06That's such a telling point.
0:46:06 > 0:46:08Freud, as we know, was actually a brilliant portraitist.
0:46:08 > 0:46:14And at that point, a very, um, early precocious talent...
0:46:14 > 0:46:15- Yes.- ..for portraiture.
0:46:15 > 0:46:17It's got to be him, hasn't it?
0:46:17 > 0:46:19Yeah, yeah. I'm knocked out by that, I really am!
0:46:19 > 0:46:21- It's incredible.- Good. Good.
0:46:23 > 0:46:25This suddenly seems
0:46:25 > 0:46:28a more accomplished portrait than we thought.
0:46:28 > 0:46:32Building on Freud's own admission via his solicitor,
0:46:32 > 0:46:33I think we can go further
0:46:33 > 0:46:36and argue that more of the figure of Jamieson
0:46:36 > 0:46:38is in fact by Lucian Freud.
0:46:39 > 0:46:42I'm heading back to see Libby Sheldon.
0:46:42 > 0:46:45Can her scientific analysis help us to understand
0:46:45 > 0:46:47which parts Freud painted
0:46:47 > 0:46:50and which, if any, he did not?
0:46:52 > 0:46:55OK, Libby. The stakes are really getting higher.
0:46:55 > 0:46:59We have, recorded, the words of the artist himself when he was alive,
0:46:59 > 0:47:02that the body, the shirt,
0:47:02 > 0:47:03the neck
0:47:03 > 0:47:07and a part of the face is actually by him.
0:47:07 > 0:47:10Now, the question is, can we determine what the artist did
0:47:10 > 0:47:13and what someone else might have done?
0:47:13 > 0:47:15The neck, what does he mean by that?
0:47:15 > 0:47:17- Because...- I mean, that's a good point.
0:47:17 > 0:47:21Is he incorporating the skin up here, or is it just this cravat?
0:47:21 > 0:47:23Interestingly enough,
0:47:23 > 0:47:27this is one point which I've been looking at, and you can see...
0:47:27 > 0:47:31um, that the white and the black,
0:47:31 > 0:47:35or blackish-blue of the scarf,
0:47:35 > 0:47:38is very well integrated...
0:47:38 > 0:47:40with the white.
0:47:40 > 0:47:42Yes. So in other words, the shirt,
0:47:42 > 0:47:44the wet paint of the shirt,
0:47:44 > 0:47:46is going into the wet paint of the scarf.
0:47:46 > 0:47:49Yes, there's absolutely no time difference,
0:47:49 > 0:47:51I wouldn't say that this was put on top.
0:47:51 > 0:47:53So I suppose the big question, therefore,
0:47:53 > 0:47:55is can we find something similar
0:47:55 > 0:47:57to the treatment of that scarf in the face?
0:47:57 > 0:48:00It's interesting, because this black here
0:48:00 > 0:48:05and this browny-black of the hair are very closely related.
0:48:05 > 0:48:08Physically, in terms of the pigment make-up
0:48:08 > 0:48:11and the manner in which they've been applied.
0:48:11 > 0:48:14'Libby believes that if Freud painted the cravat,
0:48:14 > 0:48:16'he also painted the hair.
0:48:16 > 0:48:17'And her pigment analysis
0:48:17 > 0:48:20'can help link other parts of the head to Freud.
0:48:20 > 0:48:24'The white of the shirt and the forehead are the same pigment,
0:48:24 > 0:48:26'and we know he painted the shirt.
0:48:26 > 0:48:30'These areas of mixed pink and yellow match up
0:48:30 > 0:48:33'and feature the same distinctive brushwork.
0:48:33 > 0:48:35'The way the black and the white paint of the eyes
0:48:35 > 0:48:37'is worked in with the surrounding skin
0:48:37 > 0:48:40'shows they couldn't have been added later.
0:48:40 > 0:48:42'Lastly, the paint over most of the face
0:48:42 > 0:48:45'is a consistent one layer thick,
0:48:45 > 0:48:49'making it highly unlikely that a later hand completed it.'
0:48:49 > 0:48:51He's actually painted it
0:48:51 > 0:48:54using the underlying landscape.
0:48:54 > 0:48:57So, you see this green here?
0:48:57 > 0:49:00That just goes under the red of the lip.
0:49:01 > 0:49:04Actually, that's really interesting, isn't it?
0:49:04 > 0:49:06Because it shows it's not an unfinished picture -
0:49:06 > 0:49:10the artist is trying to use the scraped-down background
0:49:10 > 0:49:12with the landscape showing through
0:49:12 > 0:49:14as part of the overall composition.
0:49:14 > 0:49:17I don't think he minded that landscape,
0:49:17 > 0:49:20I think he was making the most of it.
0:49:21 > 0:49:26OK, so everything you point out seems to suggest
0:49:26 > 0:49:28that this painting came together
0:49:28 > 0:49:30in one thought process, in one campaign.
0:49:30 > 0:49:34Absolutely, I don't have any hesitation, really,
0:49:34 > 0:49:37in saying the links all over the painting
0:49:37 > 0:49:39really tie it into a single artist.
0:49:39 > 0:49:41It would be very surprising
0:49:41 > 0:49:45if somebody else took up exactly the same way of using the brush,
0:49:45 > 0:49:47exactly the same range of pigments...
0:49:47 > 0:49:50applying them in the same way.
0:49:52 > 0:49:55I'm absolutely certain that it's a single hand.
0:49:57 > 0:49:59Armed with Libby's scientific findings
0:49:59 > 0:50:01and the note from Freud's lawyer,
0:50:01 > 0:50:03we've come as far as we can.
0:50:03 > 0:50:07We've persuaded three leading authorities on Freud's work
0:50:07 > 0:50:10to now give their verdict on our picture.
0:50:12 > 0:50:16James Kirkman was Freud's art dealer for 30 years.
0:50:18 > 0:50:21Art critic William Feaver is Freud's biographer
0:50:21 > 0:50:22and was a close friend.
0:50:23 > 0:50:27And Toby Treves is currently compiling the catalogue raisonne -
0:50:27 > 0:50:30a complete list of Freud's authentic work.
0:50:30 > 0:50:32While we're confident of our evidence,
0:50:32 > 0:50:35it's quite another thing to ask three experts
0:50:35 > 0:50:37to put their reputations on the line
0:50:37 > 0:50:40and go against the opinion of the artist himself.
0:50:40 > 0:50:42This is not the usual Fake Or Fortune verdict,
0:50:42 > 0:50:44because normally when we find ourselves before a panel
0:50:44 > 0:50:46of august experts such as yourselves,
0:50:46 > 0:50:49we are asking, is the painting by a particular artist.
0:50:49 > 0:50:52But we already know, through Lucian Freud,
0:50:52 > 0:50:55from a conversation he had with his solicitor,
0:50:55 > 0:50:56that he painted at least...
0:50:58 > 0:51:01..the shirt, the body, the neck and part of the head.
0:51:01 > 0:51:03That much we already know.
0:51:03 > 0:51:06So, gentlemen, the opinion of you three combined
0:51:06 > 0:51:09will be extraordinarily important in relation to this picture.
0:51:09 > 0:51:12In fact, it will be make or break.
0:51:12 > 0:51:14Now, the more we've looked into this,
0:51:14 > 0:51:17the more we consider this whole work to be by Lucian Freud,
0:51:17 > 0:51:19but that is our view.
0:51:19 > 0:51:23We now need yours, we need to ask you the question -
0:51:23 > 0:51:28can we call this, can we baptise it, a work by Lucian Freud?
0:51:28 > 0:51:30I think one thing we've got to ask ourselves
0:51:30 > 0:51:34is why Lucian was unhappy about the picture, why he has...
0:51:34 > 0:51:36apparently rejected it.
0:51:36 > 0:51:40Every artist is unhappy with certain pictures that they've done,
0:51:40 > 0:51:42particularly what you've done when you were at school.
0:51:42 > 0:51:44I think being a schoolboy, basically,
0:51:44 > 0:51:46he just put it down at the end of the day
0:51:46 > 0:51:48and went on to something else later.
0:51:48 > 0:51:50But does he think it's finished?
0:51:50 > 0:51:53We're looking at this as a finished painting,
0:51:53 > 0:51:56it's hard to argue that the landscape itself
0:51:56 > 0:51:59is anything we've seen in any other Freud painting.
0:51:59 > 0:52:03I think it was a schoolboy's early attempt at a portrait,
0:52:03 > 0:52:07and it works pretty well in those respects, I think.
0:52:07 > 0:52:08Yes, I think it's good.
0:52:11 > 0:52:14Except for the cravat - the cravat is awful.
0:52:14 > 0:52:16Well, it's not finished.
0:52:20 > 0:52:23It's time for the experts to reach their verdict...
0:52:23 > 0:52:26behind closed doors!
0:52:26 > 0:52:28We're hoping that the combination of Libby's evidence -
0:52:28 > 0:52:31a single hand at work on the painting -
0:52:31 > 0:52:35and Freud's own admission that he at least started it, will be enough.
0:52:36 > 0:52:38When we found that note,
0:52:38 > 0:52:40kept by Freud's solicitor,
0:52:40 > 0:52:43in which he said that he had painted part of this painting,
0:52:43 > 0:52:46it felt like the smoking gun.
0:52:46 > 0:52:47But as it turns out,
0:52:47 > 0:52:49the truth is much more complicated than that,
0:52:49 > 0:52:51as ever, with this picture.
0:52:51 > 0:52:53I mean, what a test.
0:52:53 > 0:52:54Are they going to be able to say,
0:52:54 > 0:52:58after an artist has said it's not by him entirely, that it is?
0:52:59 > 0:53:01It's, frankly, a real conundrum.
0:53:07 > 0:53:08Hi, John.
0:53:08 > 0:53:12'After much deliberation, a verdict has been reached.
0:53:12 > 0:53:15'It's time to tell John whether or not he's the owner
0:53:15 > 0:53:17'of a half-million-pound Lucian Freud.'
0:53:17 > 0:53:20It's quite a while since we've all been together,
0:53:20 > 0:53:22here, with you, and your painting.
0:53:22 > 0:53:23- True.- How are you feeling?
0:53:23 > 0:53:26Er, I think, after 19 years,
0:53:26 > 0:53:29I can well and truly say...
0:53:29 > 0:53:30er, very, very apprehensive.
0:53:30 > 0:53:33Well, it's become more interesting since we last met.
0:53:33 > 0:53:38I had a conversation with Lucian Freud's lawyer, Diana Rawstron.
0:53:40 > 0:53:42As far as you knew,
0:53:42 > 0:53:44Lucian Freud had denied that this painting was by him.
0:53:44 > 0:53:47- That's right, yes. - She asked him about your picture.
0:53:47 > 0:53:49Freud said...
0:53:50 > 0:53:52..he did paint part of this picture.
0:53:52 > 0:53:54Now that's what he said in 2006.
0:53:54 > 0:53:58The fact that this was on Lucian Freud's radar,
0:53:58 > 0:54:00that he spoke to his lawyer about it,
0:54:00 > 0:54:02is absolutely incomprehensible to me.
0:54:02 > 0:54:04So this was a massive breakthrough.
0:54:04 > 0:54:06- Unbelievable!- And I have to say,
0:54:06 > 0:54:09we've analysed this picture really carefully
0:54:09 > 0:54:13and, personally, I'm entirely satisfied that it's by Lucian Freud.
0:54:13 > 0:54:18- Yes.- So that was the moment where we decided to convene
0:54:18 > 0:54:19a body of experts.
0:54:19 > 0:54:21And they discussed it...
0:54:22 > 0:54:24..and have some reactions.
0:54:24 > 0:54:26It's in here.
0:54:27 > 0:54:29This, after 19 years, is just...
0:54:29 > 0:54:32sort of happening in slow motion to me at the moment.
0:54:35 > 0:54:36So this is from the three of them.
0:54:38 > 0:54:42"We believe this to be a work Lucian Freud did at art school,
0:54:42 > 0:54:44"most probably in 1939.
0:54:44 > 0:54:47"There is a split decision regarding the landscape..."
0:54:48 > 0:54:50"..and the majority believe
0:54:50 > 0:54:53"that it is part of the original painting."
0:54:54 > 0:54:57OK, so my head's still spinning.
0:54:57 > 0:54:59It begs just one big question from me.
0:55:01 > 0:55:03And forgive me if I'm being thick.
0:55:03 > 0:55:05Is it, or isn't it a Freud, then?
0:55:05 > 0:55:07Well, the thing is, what you had
0:55:07 > 0:55:09- was doors slamming in your face for 19 years.- Exactly.
0:55:09 > 0:55:14What you've got now, is you've got three of the most august experts
0:55:14 > 0:55:16pronouncing on this painting,
0:55:16 > 0:55:18and you've got two who are happy to say -
0:55:18 > 0:55:20William Feaver and James Kirkman - it's a Freud.
0:55:20 > 0:55:23'Toby Treves, the more cautious voice,
0:55:23 > 0:55:26'is preparing the catalogue raisonne.
0:55:26 > 0:55:29'He concedes the figure is probably by Freud,
0:55:29 > 0:55:32'but argues that it can't be put into the full catalogue
0:55:32 > 0:55:34'because he feels the picture is unfinished
0:55:34 > 0:55:37'and the landscape behind not intended to be seen.
0:55:37 > 0:55:39'So, on current evidence,
0:55:39 > 0:55:42'he would only include the picture in the appendix,
0:55:42 > 0:55:45'but it would still have considerable appeal.'
0:55:45 > 0:55:50I can confidently say that this work is worth £200,000 to £300,000,
0:55:50 > 0:55:53because of the mixed response,
0:55:53 > 0:55:55and quite possibly more.
0:55:55 > 0:55:57It is by Lucian Freud, but the question is,
0:55:57 > 0:55:58how much is by him?
0:55:58 > 0:56:00And that's a nice problem to have at this stage.
0:56:00 > 0:56:02Wow.
0:56:02 > 0:56:03Wow!
0:56:03 > 0:56:05Well, I... I'm...
0:56:05 > 0:56:08I'm kind of speechless, because it's just been,
0:56:08 > 0:56:11as you know, standing here a few minutes ago,
0:56:11 > 0:56:13not knowing which way this was going to go,
0:56:13 > 0:56:17but it's just extraordinary that you've discovered this.
0:56:17 > 0:56:20I mean, it's just extraordinary that that's come out of it.
0:56:20 > 0:56:22- Are you happy with that result? - Thank you so much.
0:56:22 > 0:56:26Thank you very much. Yeah, I'm delighted. I mean, amazing.
0:56:26 > 0:56:31It's just... I just kind of feel, um, also, that I wasn't mad.
0:56:31 > 0:56:33Just when I got close to it, the lights,
0:56:33 > 0:56:37and just seeing the colours and the paint build-up and things like that,
0:56:37 > 0:56:38that I wasn't mad.
0:56:41 > 0:56:44Well, I don't know about you, but I think that's a result.
0:56:44 > 0:56:47I think it is. And also, we've broken new ground.
0:56:47 > 0:56:49I mean, never before have we had to prove
0:56:49 > 0:56:53that the picture is by an artist who has denied it.
0:56:53 > 0:56:57Not any old artist, but one of the great figures of British art
0:56:57 > 0:56:58in the 20th century.
0:56:58 > 0:57:00Yeah, and of course it's a reminder
0:57:00 > 0:57:02that this game isn't cut-and-dried, is it?
0:57:02 > 0:57:05Attribution is a human process,
0:57:05 > 0:57:08it's about different shades of response.
0:57:09 > 0:57:10And let's look at what we've got -
0:57:10 > 0:57:14we have a painting that is either by Lucian Freud now,
0:57:14 > 0:57:15or largely by him.
0:57:15 > 0:57:17And John couldn't be happier.
0:57:18 > 0:57:21If you think you have an undiscovered masterpiece
0:57:21 > 0:57:23or other precious object,
0:57:23 > 0:57:25we'd love to hear from you, at...