Portraits Fake or Fortune?

The art world, where paintings change hands for fortunes.

Selling at $95 million.

But for every known masterpiece,

there may be another still waiting to be discovered.

That's it! That's it, isn't it?

That is it. That is our painting.

International art dealer Philip Mould and I have teamed up

to hunt for lost works by great artists.

We use old-fashioned detective work and state-of-the-art science to get to the truth.

Science can enable us to see beyond the human eye.

Da-da! Oh! Wow!

The problem is, not every painting is quite what it seems.

You successfully faked Lowrys while you were at school, didn't you?

Yes. It's a journey that can end in joy...

Oh, dear.

Isn't that great?

It's wonderful. ..or bitter disappointment.

I can't cope with this roller-coaster.

What a nightmare.

In this episode, a first for Fake Or Fortune,

we're going to investigate three paintings,

each one a bewitching portrait with a mystery behind it.

I'd just like to know who painted it.

Can we find answers to the questions that have obsessed their owners?

Who is it? Somebody's daughter, and we want to know.

We'd love to know. It's a journey that takes us

from the south coast of England to the east coast of America,

and plunges us into the dark days of the Second World War.

That's a time when fakers and criminals were very busy.

It's an art world whodunnit with three key suspects.

We could be talking about either a real Willem de Kooning, or a really good old fake.

A very good fake. But as we unlock long-held secrets and carry out

in-depth scientific research, how many stories will have a happy ending?

If the people who sold it to you did not have the right to sell it...

..you don't own it.

Every year, we receive hundreds of requests for help from viewers,

and out of all the pictures we receive,

nothing captures the imagination quite like a portrait.

We're sorting the contenders from the pretenders with our specialist

researcher, Dr Bendor Grosvenor.

This is one of the most copied pictures that we ever see.

So, a copy, or a lesser artist?

Not quite as dynamic as it should be.

And we're going to choose three of the most promising to investigate further.

We want to know who the subject of the painting is,

and who painted it.

Starting with this striking portrait of a child holding a ball.

It's edgy, it's captivating.

I like its rather sort of abstract qualities, its strong blast of red.

The owners are from Belgium. They are called Jan and Chris Starckx.

And does the owner have any idea who it might be by?

The suggestion is that it's actually an original work by Willem de Kooning,

an early painting.

Wow! Well, that would be something.

Willem de Kooning, I think, one of the great names of 20th-century art,

contemporary of Jackson Pollock.

His paintings sell for hundreds of millions.

As an early figurative work, this would be an extremely rare thing.

I mean, there's just a handful of them known.

We've got our first candidate,

a portrait of a child attributed to Willem de Kooning.

As an early work, it could be worth over ?50,000.

Next up, a portrait that's been hand-delivered for examination.

I really like this picture. It's by, or purports to be by,

a great German 19th-century artist called Adolph von Menzel,

who in the 19th century in Germany was big news.

He is a fascinating figure, a sort of self-taught genius.

I've got an e-mail here from the owner.

It's from a chap called Lance Miller, who worked in advertising,

and actually, his e-mail reads like a brilliantly concise bit of

advertising copy.

"My German grandfather bought what we all have known to be a Menzel just after the war.

"Documentation was lost in the annals of time.

"If not a Menzel, then who?"

You know, I really like this.

It's swift and certain in the handling.

I like the characterisation.

It rather grabs you.

And if we can actually prove that this is by Menzel,

it's a picture that's also very valuable.

We've got our second picture -

Portrait Of An Old Gentleman attributed to Adolph von Menzel.

Another ?50,000 for this chap if it's genuine.

Just one more to find.

Take a look at this one, which caught my eye, this rather charming young lady looking down at us

through the centuries.

She belongs to a retired couple, Jenny and Richard Williams,

who live down on the south coast,

and they think it could be by an artist called Mercier.

I've always really liked Philippe Mercier, actually.

He's one of those French artists who comes to Britain in the 18th century

and sort of brings a cultural infusion of French work.

I've handled a number of Merciers in my time.

He's an artist who is actually worth proving.

He is represented in a number of art galleries and museums throughout Britain.

I think this has got a real chance.

Our final contender - Portrait Of A Lady, attributed to Philippe Mercier.

Worth ?5,000-?10,000 if right.

The challenge has been set - three mystery paintings: Portrait Of A Lady,

the Old Gentleman, and Portrait Of A Child,

believed to be by three important artists.

Can we get to the truth?

It's a good three-horse race, then. I want to get going.

We've contacted the owners of all three paintings to find out more about

their works, starting with two viewers in Belgium, Jan Starckx,

the retired head of youth services in the town of Turnhout, and his wife, Chris.

They want us to examine Portrait Of A Child,

a painting they bought online at the end of 2015,

so they've travelled to London to meet me in person.

Jan, how nice to meet you.

Nice to meet you. Chris, very good to meet you as well.

So, you've just brought this over on the train from Brussels?

Yes. Could they have discovered a lost work by one of the most celebrated

and valuable modern artists, Willem de Kooning?

So, this is a portrait of a child.

Looks like a boy,

but it's not your normal sentimental type of painting of a young person of that date.

The way that it's all structured is so interesting.

It's quite angular.

It's quite tough.

Look at the sharpness of the fringe of the child.

I mean, could it...

Could it just be the beginnings of an artist who turns into one of the

great abstract painters?

De Kooning is best known as a leader of the abstract expressionist

movement that emerged in America after the war,

renowned for his spontaneous approach and bold use of colour,

as seen in Interchange, reportedly sold in 2015 for $300 million.

He achieved his greatest success in America,

where he spent most of his life,

yet he was born in Rotterdam in 1904 and raised in Holland.

And in 1924, just before he emigrated to the USA,

he spent several months in the Belgian capital, Brussels.

Could Jan's painting be a lost portrait of a child he encountered during

this little-known period of his early life?

One thing I did notice, though, is that it's signed.

It looks like Wim Kooning.

Wim Kooning, yes.

But not Willem de Kooning. No.

The signature is carved into the wet paint.

It must have been done by the back of a brush or something with a point to it.

That's rather key to me,

because it would appear that the signature has been put on at the same

date that the picture was created.

And it looks like an old painting,

so we could be talking about either a real Willem de Kooning or a really good old fake.

Yes, a very good fake.

How did you come by it?

Each evening, I spend my time scanning the internet,

looking for small artworks.

I came across this and I was struck by the portrait in its totality,

so we decided to go to Brussels.

We met the vendors.

They also sold a bike and a sewing machine and some other portraits.

It could have been a bike, a sewing machine or a de Kooning.

So, Chris, how much did you have to pay for it?

450 euros.

And did you at that point ask where the owner may have got the picture from?

I asked him, and he told me it was from a friend of his,

and that it was his friend's father when he was eight.

And have you managed to confirm that?

No. If we could prove that this was by Willem de Kooning,

it would be a real achievement.

Now, it's not, of course,

a late work of the type that people spill blood for at auction

in America, but it is still a significant work.

So, there's a lot to fight for here.

Fight for, yes.

If Jan and Chris' portrait is a genuine work by Willem de Kooning,

it would be valuable in terms of art history as so little of his early

work survives.

The only in-depth study of de Kooning's time in Europe was made by

historian Dr Judith Wolfe in 1996, and our specialist researcher,

Dr Bendor Grosvenor, is hoping it might contain vital evidence.

This dissertation gives us a fascinating insight into the short time that

de Kooning spent in Belgium, and it describes how, in 1924,

he went to Brussels with his friend and a fellow artist,

someone called Wimpy Klop.

Who am I to make a comment about someone's unusual name?

But apparently, they work for a decorating firm called van Genechten,

and what's really good for us is that when he was working for the van Genechtens,

de Kooning left a number of works.

Some of these were signed Wim Kooning.

That's the same signature we find on Jan's picture.

The dissertation also reveals that de Kooning also painted one portrait

in oil during his time in Brussels.

It depicts the young niece of a member of the van Genechten family,

and it's known as Portrait Of Renee.

By a stroke of luck, that Portrait Of Renee actually came up for sale at auction recently.

It was sold at Christie's in New York in 2014 and it made

$50,000.

It was actually seeing this picture online that prompted Jan to buy his

picture, and I've got to say, it does bear a striking resemblance to his painting.

So, this is a fully accepted,

published work by de Kooning from the same period as Jan and Chris' picture.

It's absolutely crucial in terms of helping to authenticate our picture.

And I think the question is, where is it now?

While Bendor continues his research,

I'm heading to Eastbourne on the south coast of England to begin my

investigation into Portrait Of A Lady, believed to be by Philippe Mercier,

an 18th-century artist who specialised in painting high society families.

Born in Berlin in 1689 to French Huguenot parents,

Philippe Mercier made his name in England,

where he became a court painter to the Prince and Princess of Wales in the 1720s.

His pictures were dubbed "fancies" for the way

they heightened scenes of everyday life with imaginative touches.

Mercier left London after he fell out of favour,

and settled in York in 1740,

where he continued painting portraits of the local gentry.

Could one of his handsome portraits now be hanging in the living room of

retired salesman Richard Williams and his wife, Jenny?

This is a beautiful young woman gazing down on us.

Where did you acquire her?

I went to an auction in '72, '73.

And do you mind me asking how much you paid for her?

?50. When Jen said she spent ?50 on a painting...

"How much? ?50?"

But as soon as I saw it, I thought...

I could see the attraction.

It just keeps on looking at you all the time, not scarily,

but she's a person in the room.

And years later, we adopted a little girl.

As she grew, she looked remarkably like her.

Did you find out anything about her?

What we decided to do is,

take a picture and send it to the National Portrait Gallery.

And they came back to us and said,

we think it's by someone called Philippe Mercier.

And judging by the style of the dress, it's probably about 1730-40.

He sent a copy of the picture to John Ingamells, who is an expert in York.

And he came down and looked at it, did he?

Yeah, he came, yeah.

And he had this great big lamp with him...

We're familiar with those. Philip's got one of those.

He shone it up the picture.

What did he find? He found a signature, PH Mercier, fecit, 1742.

So, Philippe Mercier, fecit - made it, in Latin.

And he, he said, oh, yes, it says it there.

But we can't see it.

We've looked and looked and looked, but we can't see it.

When was this? This was probably '74, '75.

We don't know whether he's...

..put any documents or anything like that.

We didn't get anything.

You didn't get anything in writing? No. And you've not heard from him?

No, not heard from him since.

Richard and Jenny's anecdotal evidence isn't enough for the art market.

Can we turn up anything more substantial?

So what would you like to know? How can we help you? Who is it?

It's just, it's somebody, not just a painting.

It's somebody's daughter, and we want to know.

Love to know. So, you'd like to know, is it definitely by this artist, Philippe Mercier?

Yes, we would.

And who is she?

If we are going to help Richard and Jenny solve the mystery of the

Portrait Of A Lady, we'll need to find out if John Ingamells,

the art expert who saw the painting in the 1970s, kept any records.

Ingamells died in 2013,

but Bendor has come to the library of the Courtauld Institute in London to look

through his papers in search of evidence.

I've got here a copy of Ingamells' catalogue of Mercier pictures,

so it contains everything that Ingamells thought was definitely by Mercier.

And there is indeed an entry which sounds very like the Williams' painting.

It describes a half-length young lady who is facing to the left,

in a blue dress with a yellow wrap within a painted oval.

And it says, signed and dated Philippe Mercier, fecit 1742.

But unfortunately, the catalogue is not illustrated,

and the ownership information just says private collection,

so we can't be absolutely sure that Ingamells is referring to our picture here.

The library also holds several boxes of loose photographs of

Mercier's paintings and a guide to an exhibition that may help us narrow

the search for our mystery young lady.

When you're looking into a portrait like this, you always want to try and identify the sitter,

because it makes the picture more interesting and also more valuable.

If the Williams' painting is indeed signed and dated 1742,

then that means it was painted while Mercier was working in York,

where he was based from 1739 to 1751.

And I've got here a list of some of the important families that

Mercier was working for.

They include the Irwins of Temple Newsome,

the Rockinghams of Wentworth Woodhouse, and the Worsleys of Hovingham.

In fact, I've got a photograph here of one of those Worsley portraits,

and in the oval surround and the date,

it matches exactly the Williams' painting.

So, could it be that the Williams' sitter is actually a member of one of these families?

Finding a description of a painting that seems to match our Portrait Of A Lady

is encouraging,

but it's vital that we prove that the portrait was indeed signed and dated

by the artist, Philippe Mercier.

I've arranged for Simon Gillespie, a specialist art conservator,

to examine the picture in his London studio.

And owners Richard and Jenny Williams are joining us for a closer look.

Let's talk about the condition for a moment, because she looks as if she's hung in a smoky pub.

When we bought it, we hung it on the wall.

We were looking at it and looking at it, and we thought,

this deserves to be restored.

And we told a friend of ours, who said, "Don't bother with restoration, I'll do it for you.

"There's nothing to this restoration."

She did, honestly.

So, she took it away, brought it back, and she was pleased with it,

but it's obviously not done it any good.

I say she brought it back - she brought most of it back.

The rest was in the sink, I think.

It's got, you know, a lot of cracking on the surface,

and then there is this rather unfortunate hole here.

Did this come with the painting?

No. Somebody borrowed it for an art talk, and it came back like that.

These days, we can repair this sort of thing quite easily.

But in terms of the signature, it makes it all the more important,

I think, since we're not quite there, to prove it.

Simon, you've had your UV light over this painting.

I put all sorts of different lights on it.

At the moment, it's very difficult to see, because it is very dirty,

and he signs in dark black paint.

It's not very helpful, is it? Not very helpful at all, no.

We've got a replica signature here of how he signs.

So, he signs really quite large.

Simon's hoping that the portrait might reveal its secrets

if he applies a light wash of solvent to the area where he thinks the signature should be.

Will that all-important name, Philippe Mercier, magically reappear?

So this allows us to see.

It's a little bit like wetting a pebble on the beach so you can see the colours come alive

and actually it allows one to see through the dirty varnish.

Very obvious now.

Philippe Mercier fecit.

And then this funny little inscription down here.

Little black numbers and letters.

Great. So we're getting closer to the mystery woman...

Yes. In your sitting room.

Yes. After all these years.

And the great thing is, there's clearly a signature there.

Yes. Which looks like a Philippe Mercier signature so it's looking

increasingly like a genuine look.

Ah, wonderful. Yeah. Love it.

Finding the signature is a major breakthrough.

But Simon is hoping that photographs taken under infrared and ultra-violet

light might also reveal the date it was painted,

which could then lead us to the identity of the sitter.

Back in Philip's gallery,

we've all gathered together to take stock of the latest developments.

Let's talk about the Portrait Of A Young Lady to begin with.

Have we heard anything back from Simon Gillespie?

They've just sent us this enhanced infrared photograph of the signature

and I think it's quite encouraging.

It says, PH Mercier

and then we can zoom in on the date, which says 1744.

Hang on, cos that's different to the date that the owners, Rich and Jenny,

were told by the late John Ingamells.

He told me it was 1742.

I don't think we need to get too hung up on that.

You can see how it might have happened, easy mistake, dirty picture,

blurry signature, very easy to misread.

I think it would be quite good just to clean it a bit more.

Just freshen it up so we can see what we're dealing with.

In view, particularly of that date issue,

it would be worth getting another expert opinion on it.

With Portrait Of A Lady heading for a makeover,

we're shifting our focus to our other two paintings,

starting with Portrait Of A Child, believed to be by Willem de Kooning.

I've been having a look at the label that's on the back of the de Kooning, which relates to a company

called Mommen in Brussels and they were making artist supplies.

Here, in fact, is one of the brochures from 1921.

So, in terms of the time period when we want de Kooning to have painted

this in Belgium, we're right in the right zone.

It says Maison Mommen, fabrique des couleurs, tolies, panneaux et vernis.

So, makers of paints, canvases,

panels and varnish so they did the whole kit and caboodle.

I guess the question is, did they supply Willem de Kooning?

Do you know, I'm getting really excited about the research prospects

for this picture because we've come across another image done by de Kooning

and it is unquestionably very close to Jan and Chris'.

But if we can actually put the two together, put them side by side,

it could be transformative in getting an insight into this picture.

The question is, though, can we get the owners to agree?

We've got to go via an auction house and I know full well that that can

be really tricky.

For now, we'll have to wait for further information,

which leaves us with our final painting -

the formidable looking old gentleman - attributed to German artist, Adolph von Menzel.

We've been comparing the initials in the bottom corner

with those on other known works and there are encouraging similarities.

I think we should take a really close look at those initials.

If we can prove that they were put on at the same date as the picture,

and the picture has to be 19th century, it just looks it,

it could be a really significant advance in trying to prove the Menzel attribution.

I want to talk to the owner as well,

this Lance Miller who sent us the e-mail.

I want to find out more about how his grandfather did come to acquire

a painting by one of Germany's most revered artists in the trauma of the

years straight after the Second World War.

I've arranged to meet owner Lance Miller,

managing director of a marketing firm,

to find out more about the intriguing painting that belonged to his German

grandfather, Erik von Rinckwitz.

So tell us how this painting came into your family?

It came from my mother.

She's had it all her life in the family,

we call it the Old General and her father, Erik von Rinckwitz, who lived in Bad Honnef am Rhein,

bought it, we think, in about 1947.

We've got photo albums around us. Have you got a picture of him?

Yeah, he's in here. I mean, actually, I've got his wedding photograph,

which is very old and Edwardian.

There he is with my grandmother.

My grandmother was English.

His name, Rinckwitz, came from Leipzig, I believe.

So he's Prussian.

So was he a collector of art and would he have had the means

to buy a painting by someone as important as von Menzel?

Oh, I think he definitely had the means. They were quite wealthy.

A picture by Adolph von Menzel would have been quite a trophy for any collector.

Born in 1815,

Menzel was a precocious talent who exhibited his first drawing at the age of 12.

Renowned for his attention to detail

and ability to evoke Germany's 18th-century past.

Even his rough sketches are highly prized,

with a study for suits of armour selling for almost ?3 million in 2015.

Could the Old General be a sketch like this?

There is a letter that we found that my grandfather wrote to my mother and my father.

He said, "I'm just about to buy two very important paintings."

And when was this written? This is '47, so he died in '48.

We'll need to scour any records relating to Lance's grandfather -

a prominent industrialist - for clues about the origins of the painting.

But it won't be easy. Among the family photos are stark reminders

of the chaos and upheaval of the Second World War.

The fact that your grandfather may have acquired this painting around

1947, so after the Second World War,

does ring some alarm bells because obviously so much art in Germany had

been stolen from Jewish families, appropriated by the Nazis.

It's a very dark time.

I did some homework and I've written to the Art Loss Register,

I showed them a picture of the painting and they said...

So the Art Loss Register is where paintings that were stolen from many

Jewish families have been, sort of, catalogued?

Yep, and they wrote back to me and said there's no trace,

this is definitely your painting, it's in your family.

Has anyone ever examined this painting? Have you asked anyone to give an opinion on it?

The National Gallery had an exhibition of Menzel and an expert said,

"This looks good.

"But you'll have to take it to Germany because that's where all the big Menzel experts are, there."

And if it does turn out to be a von Menzel, will you continue passing it down the family or will you look at

it rather differently?

I think I would like to.

I think they would turn round to me and say, "Sell it, Dad, and get the money."

But, hey, I will educate them, I will educate them.

What, this is your family heritage? Well, yeah, absolutely in a way and, you know,

I'd just like to know who painted it.

It's very interesting talking to Lance and hearing about

his family's links to that painting,

the Anglo-German connections in his family.

Clearly to investigate if this is a Menzel,

we're going to have to dig deep

into one of the darkest periods in German history.

That's a time when fakers and criminals were very busy.

Our best hope of finding answers to Lance's questions lies in Germany.

So Bendor has travelled to Berlin in search of evidence.

He's arranged to meet Lance at the city's old National Gallery,

where many of Menzel's most important works are on display.

Menzel was fascinated by the life of Frederick the Great,

who ruled Prussia in the 18th century

and evoked his military campaigns in epic oil paintings.

Could Lance's picture be a sketch for one of these historical figures

in the paintings?

These are two pictures from Menzel's Frederick II series. Mm-hm.

In the 1850s, he was slightly obsessed with Frederick II

and he did a whole series of large pictures looking back

to events in the mid-18th century. Right.

This one is Frederick II meeting the Emperor, Joseph II, in 1769.

And I think with your picture, we've got, have we not,

a picture that's obviously painted in the 19th century

but looking back to the 18th century

in terms of the costume and the hair and everything.

Well, we call him the Old General,

so I'm looking at this and I'm thinking,

well, he could be in there somewhere.

It's the same sort of uniforms.

This seems unfinished, this one, this huge painting.

Yes, this is... I love unfinished paintings, but actually,

what's interesting about this one is it shows us a scene outdoors

and they're not in the formal court dress, so with your picture,

we've got someone who's not in the wig.

The hair is all blown back so he looks quite casual.

Yes, I wonder that it's someone

from a more military outdoors type setting.

You can imagine him being dropped into one of these scenes, can't you?

Yeah, absolutely.

The similarities between the Old General

and some of Menzel's characters would seem to support

our working theory that Lance's picture could be a sketch

for a more elaborate work.

Unless that's exactly what a forger wants us to believe.

Can we be sure Lance's portrait was painted in the mid-19th century

when Menzel was working on precisely this kind of subject?

I've arranged to meet Aviva Burnstock,

head conservator at the Courtauld Institute in London.

She's been examining the painting under the microscope

and under infrared lights and is ready to share her findings with us.

We think that von Menzel painted this portrait

in the mid to late 19th century.

Now, what have you found out about the pigments?

Do they come from that time?

There's quite a limited palette, but all the pigments,

which include zinc and lead white and vermillion,

are all available from the middle of the 19th century

through to the 20th century so, yes,

I would say that the pigments indicate that date period.

What about the signature? What can you tell us about that?

Was that done at the same time as the portrait?

I think the black signature was put on top of the paint

when it was pretty much dry,

but there's a little flick of the A which drags into the wet paint,

and you can see it's blended in so it was applied just as the paint

was drying. So it couldn't be that someone had done this painting

and then years later put a fake signature on it?

It seems very unlikely.

Aviva is confident that the Old General was signed by the artist who

painted it and it could have been done during Menzel's lifetime.

But is there a risk that it's just a good quality copy

of a lost original work?

In terms of it being a copy or a genuine work,

what can you tell us about the way that it's been painted

that would suggest one way or the other?

A copy would normally be controlled and meticulously worked out.

Maybe there would be a detailed drawing underneath

and there isn't any detailed drawing in this case,

just a few strokes of something that looks like pencil or graphite.

And secondly, you would expect the brushstrokes to be quite small and

careful, whereas... Very controlled.

Very controlled, but this is actually very freely painted.

It's clear that it's been done very quickly and with somebody who knows

how to apply paint directly to get the effects he wants.

Aviva's appraisal is encouraging,

but it will fall to experts in Germany to determine whether Lance's

picture bears the hallmarks of Adolph von Menzel.

We're preparing a series of high resolution photographs

for them to examine and to give their first impressions.

While we wait for news from Germany,

there's an exciting development with our Portrait Of A Child,

believed to be by Willem de Kooning.

We've finally tracked down the early de Kooning portrait that sold in

2014, but it's in Miami, Florida.

I'm accompanying owners Jan and Chris Starckx on a pilgrimage

to see the painting that might hold the key

to proving theirs is the genuine article.

We've managed to persuade the owner of the painting,

art historian Mary Frank, to let us examine her picture,

Portrait Of Renee, painted by de Kooning in Brussels in 1924.

We've arranged to meet her at a conservation studio

and we've brought Jan and Chris's portrait with us

to see how it compares to a genuine early work

by Willem de Kooning.

Mary, hello, very nice to see you.

Very nice to meet you.

Jan. Hello. And Chris.

Nice to meet you, Chris.

And this is the picture we've crossed the Atlantic to see.

How does it look in the flesh?

I've seen it already a thousand times on a picture,

but to see it in real,

it's very exciting.

Well, Mary, as you know,

we've come over here to see your painting

and we've got to find out, how did it come into your life

and how do you know that it's actually by de Kooning?

Well, I spotted it at Christie's in New York in 2014

and she immediately caught my eye.

De Kooning was a great draughtsman and looking at the way

that the hands are drawn and outlined,

they're outlined in charcoal and then painted in

and this is something that de Kooning did throughout his career.

So, stylistically, you're very comfortable,

but presumably you had provenance because isn't this in the literature?

Well, it came directly from the van Genechten family,

painted in Belgium.

At the same time that yours might have been.

So this is a solid copper-bottomed de Kooning

of the sort of date that we think yours might have been painted. Yes.

This is the moment Jan and Chris have been waiting for.

How does their picture look when placed side by side

with a genuine work?

Staggering.

I think... I'm more sure now I see the other painting

than I was before, because looking on a picture

is different because you don't see the depth of the paint.

It's lovely to see them together.

It's what we were waiting for for weeks now.

At a glance, it's so clear to me that these appear to be

by the same artist.

The line of the hair in both cases and the sort of design quality

of the shapes, they're like mannequins and, actually,

there's also another aspect of this - it's the expressions.

Both of them have got slightly unsettling, aloof,

rather distant feelings about them.

There's a photograph of Renee as a child and she has the same

rather obstinate, determined look on her face in the photograph.

It's very interesting.

And the big distinction that one can immediately notice is that yours,

Jan and Chris, is signed and yours isn't.

My theory on that as an art historian

is that this painting was made for the van Genechten family as a gift.

He was staying with them,

little Renee was in the house so he painted her as a thank you.

Perhaps someone saw this painting and commissioned him

to do a painting of their child,

in which case there's a material value associated with it

and he would sign it. It's more logic that he would sign it, yes.

Shall we have a look at the backs to see if there's any further clues?

Yes. OK.

Oh, my goodness!

The same label!

The same artist's supplier!

It's Mommen's, from Brussels.

Same design of label.

This looks a slightly lighter colour.

That shows that whoever painted this picture used the same supplier,

the same materials and we know de Kooning used one lot

so why not de Kooning the other?

Even with evidence mounting in favour of Jan and Chris's painting,

convincing the art world that it's a genuine work by Willem de Kooning

is fraught with difficulty.

The American modern art market

is still reeling from the forgery scandal

that saw art dealer Glafira Rosales plead guilty in 2013 to her part in

the sale of fakes, said to be by artists such as Mark Rothko,

Jackson Pollock and Willem de Kooning.

Organisations that might once have authenticated

newly discovered works of art have shut up shop

so I've arranged to meet Collette Loll,

an art detective who specialises in the authentication of modern art,

to see where Jan and Chris stand.

So, what we've discovered so far I think is really encouraging.

Now, normally what we would do is we would package up this information

and we would present it to a catalogue raisonne writer,

to a foundation, but, in this instance,

I think we've got a problem, have we not?

The de Kooning Foundation no longer render an opinion

about the authentification of a given work of art.

Unfortunately, in this litigious environment in the United States,

what worries people is being sued.

You can be sued if you say something is right

and it turns out to be wrong, and you can be sued if you say

it's wrong and it turns out to be right.

It's really a no-win situation for many experts

and many just don't want to take the risk of giving an opinion publicly.

There must be some other way round this because the evidence

as it's mounting, I think, is extremely convincing.

Right. I find it convincing. I'm in the art world.

So, is there some other way round this if the bodies themselves

are fearful of being sued?

I'm afraid stylistically it could be perfect,

but you don't have a body or...

That says it is.

Right. You need an authoritative body to say,

"This is or is not,"

and when you don't have the body, like a foundation,

then you need one expert that's going to step up and say,

"I will take the risk of rendering an opinion,"

and if you don't have that, then you really are handcuffed

and this picture might just be held hostage.

We call it painting purgatory.

Sometimes these pictures can sit in purgatory, in limbo,

for decades before the market finally accepts them as authentic.

Collette's sobering assessment of how difficult it might be

for Jan and Chris to have their painting accepted as a genuine work

has come as a bit of a blow after the excitement of comparing it

to Portrait Of Renee,

so I'm eager to discuss their next steps before they return to Europe.

We really have made some wonderful progress in Miami.

I mean, we've proved your picture stylistically

looks pretty well exactly like another known painting by de Kooning

from that date, but, as you've heard,

the art world can be a cynical and political place.

How do you feel about that? In the beginning,

I had this gut feeling that this was a de Kooning

and it's still not proved, but it's going in a good direction, I think.

And what difference would it make to you if we could prove it?

If it's proved to be a genuine Willem de Kooning,

I think we have found a very interesting work,

which could be a part of the puzzle in his very young life

and his work in Brussels.

The question is now can we find out more provenance?

Can we take that picture back to the day it was painted?

We hope to ask the vendor again to give us some information.

He is the guy who found it.

While Jan and Chris return to Belgium to continue their enquiries,

I want to take advantage of the unique opportunity we have in Miami

for detailed scientific analysis.

Scientist Dr Bruce Kaiser and conservator Emily MacDonald-Korth

are using a portable X-radiograph gun to identify

the chemical elements within the oil paint.

First, they analyse Portrait Of Renee to precisely identify

the unique ingredients in each pigment that Willem de Kooning used.

The red dress worn by the young girl in Portrait Of Renee

contains a distinctive blend of vermillion,

so how does the robe in Jan and Chris's picture compare?

Next, we're going to do the red of his robe.

I'm ready when you are.

Could there possibly be a matching pigment?

Ready.

And...away we go.

So you've analysed the elements of the real de Kooning picture

and now we're trying to establish

if it's shared in any way by our picture.

That's exactly what we're doing.

So, what we're seeing is the elemental pattern

and so it's going to show us

basically the identity of the elements present

in each of the pigments,

and it shows them very quickly, within 30 seconds.

And we'll see it on the graph.

You'll see it on the graph.

Vividly. As a matter of fact,

I've already looked and the two pigments match.

Two already? It's vermillion?

Yes. Wow!

Well, that's a heartening beginning.

Two of the elements match.

Yes.

And the amount of vermillion he's using in the paint

would have been very expensive, which means that he had access

to enough vermillion to be able to mute it down

and not even use it for what it's known for,

which is its bright red saturation.

And what's really interesting, this is a little brighter red,

so the intensity of mercury is higher, and this is

a little muted and, indeed, this does look a little more orange.

So, this expensive trait can be found in both pictures.

It is definitely a correlation between the two.

A shared profile?

A shared profile and something that I would not have expected.

We'll have to wait for Bruce to process the full results,

but the discovery of an identical pigment in both paintings

is a thrilling development.

While Philip has been making good progress in Miami,

specialist conservator Simon Gillespie

has been busy working on the 18th-century

Portrait Of A Young Lady that we believe to be by Philippe Mercier.

The old layer of discoloured varnish has been removed,

that unsightly hole patched up

and the final touch-ups are being applied.

The picture will now be inspected by Dr Brian Allen,

a specialist in 18th-century portraiture.

Will he confirm that the painting is indeed the work of Philippe Mercier?

With Philip back from Miami,

we've invited owners Richard and Jenny Williams

to come to the gallery to hear the verdict.

Hi, Jenny and Richard, this is Philip.

How do you do? Very nice to meet you both.

Nice to meet you. So, here's the painting back from Simon Gillespie -

patched, repaired and a little cleaned as well.

I think she looks just perfect.

Do you remember this bit here?

Yes, the famous hole!

The hole? Yes! So, look, you can hardly see that now. No.

It's not only this bit that's changed.

The date, if you remember, the signature of the date over here

that was so hard to see and still is quite hard to see, it's not 1742,

which is what you understand it to be.

It actually says 1744,

so you've got the signature of Philippe Mercier

and the date 1744.

So, we decided to engage the services

of a much-respected scholar in 18th and early 19th-century

British art, whose name is Brian Allen,

and I have here the letter of his response.

"I'm pleased to confirm that, in my opinion,

"the charming Portrait Of A Lady is indeed by Philippe Mercier."

Thanks! Great!

"As it happens, I edited John Ingamells' manuscript catalogue

"of Mercier's work for publication.

"I am completely confident that the portrait owned

"by Mr and Mrs Williams is listed here as number 123."

So, there you are. It is...

It is a Philippe Mercier.

It is indeed.

God bless him!

So, what do you think of your lovely young lady now?

I think she looks great.

I do, yeah.

So, we now know it is a Mercier.

Yes. We've now got the date.

Yes. So, the only question that remains...

Who is she? Who is she?

Well, we know that Philippe Mercier was up in Yorkshire

painting the landed gentry at the time.

Your painting was done in the 1740s

and we know that he painted Sir Thomas Watson-Wentworth

so we wondered could this be one of Thomas' daughters?

It couldn't be his oldest daughter, Anne.

She was too old in 1744. Yes.

Could it be the next daughter in line, Mary?

If this is a portrait of Mary Watson-Wentworth,

how would it have ended up in Eastbourne?

One possible explanation lies with one of Mary's descendants,

who left Yorkshire in 1909 and moved to Dale Park,

50 miles from Eastbourne.

After the stock market crash of 1929,

the contents of the estate were sold off.

Maybe that is when it got dispersed into Eastbourne

and ended up, all these years later, in a local auction sale.

It sounds highly likely, actually.

It's only a theory, but it's our most likely theory at the moment.

Just remind us what date that auction was.

It was, I think, about 1973.

Oh, so quite a long time ago.

And what did you pay for the painting then? ?50. ?50.

Yes. A king's ransom!

Absolutely. Well, that's a happy price to pay.

Yes. Now, the valuation that I'm going to give you now

is not a life-changer, I have to say.

This is not what the market is particularly keen on at the moment,

so I'm going to put a valuation of ?5,000 on it.

Right, yes. But hang on - at least we've moved on from ?50.

Yes! That's true.

She can hang with pride in your sitting room.

Yes, she will indeed. She will indeed, that's lovely.

The first of the three pictures we chose has been accepted as a genuine

work by Philippe Mercier, but what about Lance Miller's picture,

known as the Old General,

and believed to be by German artist Adolph von Menzel?

I've been trying to find out where Lance's grandfather

acquired the painting in 1947 and Lance thinks there might have been

a connection to a museum in Cologne called the Wallraf-Richartz Museum.

From what I can see, the museum was so badly damaged during the war,

very few records survive, frustratingly.

There are several records, though,

that reveal more about Lance's grandfather -

that he ran a factory which produced a product to deal with rust.

He was succeeded by his English wife Irene as CEO in 1946.

He was able to continue to run his factory during the war.

He had stayed on the right side of the political system.

He would have been subject to what was called

the denazification process after the war.

He would have had to give a statement of his conduct

during those war years to the Allies.

It could be fascinating, if in this case a little unsettling,

when you start to dig down into the history of a picture

and sometimes you can find out more about a previous owner

than the painting itself.

With our research throwing up more questions than answers,

back in Berlin, vendor and owner Lance have arranged

to meet Claude Keisch,

one of the world's leading experts on the work of Adolph von Menzel.

He's been studying photographs of the Old General and he's offered

to share his initial impressions of the painting.

Have you formed an opinion already or...

Ja.

I'm going to ask this with some trepidation, but,

in all your years of studying Menzel pictures,

have you come across any fakes?

That's probably not the answer we were looking for.

Not really, but we have an answer, perhaps.

I don't know. Maybe the power of the painting when you see it

in the flesh, because photographs don't always deliver.

Naturally. Would you look at the painting in the flesh for us?

Ja, ja. That would be lovely.

Claude Keisch is reserving his final judgment

so our research continues, and we've made another

fascinating discovery about Lance's grandfather Eric Renkiewicz

that we felt we should share.

Our German researcher has located his denazification file

and it contains a sworn statement he made about his efforts

to save a Jewish employee, Richard Schrank,

from the clutches of the Gestapo.

Mr Schrank is the...

A Jewish employee. Jewish employee of his factory during the war, OK.

This rings bells.

Have you heard this name before?

Yeah, Herr Schrank was the foreman,

close family friends of my grandfather.

And I also have a translation here so you can have a look.

There's a particularly pertinent line here,

that he's saying how he had to put his own neck on the line

just to protect this employee of your family

who happened to be Jewish.

Your grandfather, it also says he had to give, as a sort of guarantee,

his entire fortune for the flawless behaviour

of the whole Schrank family.

So your grandfather actually did, by the look of it,

quite a serious amount on behalf of Mr Schrank and his family

and saved them from the Gestapo.

Well, forgive me, I know we're here to chase a painting,

but this is more meaningful to me.

Whoa, sorry...

Well, it does actually put it into perspective, doesn't it?

Whoa, sorry. That's all right.

These things...

Whoa, that just hit me. I don't know where that came from.

All his worldly goods?

Yep. To the protection of another man?

Yep. Isn't that amazing?

It's quite extraordinary how the trail of a painting,

a piece of canvas,

can lead you back into your own family's history like that.

This is remarkable because it shows about the man.

This is real life to me.

Whilst I love the painting and will keep it for a very long time,

this is a lot more meaningful to me, I have to say.

Yes. A lot more.

Although our research has revealed much about Eric Renkiewicz,

the grandfather Lance never knew,

we haven't turned up anything about the origins of the painting,

and, as we feared, there may be a simple explanation.

After examining the Old General in person,

Claude Keisch has contacted us to say that his initial suspicions

have been confirmed and the painting is a very clever forgery,

possibly created in the 1920s or '30s.

The signature, he feels, is a particular giveaway.

The top of the A is just not round enough to be Menzel's hand.

Back in Philippe's gallery,

we've all gathered together to take stock of developments.

I had high hopes for the General,

but it looks as though he may have been deceiving us.

I know! So, Menzel expert Claude Keisch

felt that the characterisation wasn't quite right,

that the picture was almost a bit too theatrical for Menzel.

And as far as the provenance goes, we've hit a dead end.

Everything that could have helped us in terms of archives

and attributions in catalogues,

it's all been destroyed during the Second World War.

With that lack of documentation from that time period,

it's always going to raise questions, I think,

in an expert's mind, because it's the perfect smokescreen for a faker

to pass a work off.

So far, one painting has been turned down

and one has been proved genuine,

which leaves us with one last picture - Portrait Of A Child,

attributed to Willem de Kooning.

I have to say, I still have real high hopes for our little boy.

The scientific testing that we were doing in Miami

was looking really promising. Well, actually,

we've just had the full results in and I think you're going to like

the look of this e-mail.

It's from Bruce Kaiser, the man who did the testing.

So Bruce has compared painting A, he says here,

so painting A is the genuine certified de Kooning,

to our painting, which he refers to as painting B, and he says,

"All matching colours from painting A when compared to painting B" -

our painting - "are literally elementally identical.

"To be honest, I have done elemental analysis of many,

"many paintings and I have never seen such a close pairing.

"I would guess the probability of this occurring randomly

"approaches the same probability of someone winning the lottery.

"That is one in umpteen million."

I mean, this is just brilliant, isn't it?

You don't get a scientist going that far normally, do you?

He then goes on, "The exact same paint pigments and type

"were used to paint both paintings and even the same features

"in each painting." I mean, what more do we need?

I suppose you've got to ask what are the chances of someone else

painting it alongside him, perhaps,

using the same paint in exactly the same way?

What he does say at the end, slightly frustratingly, is,

"Whether it was the same artist is not provable directly

"by elemental analysis," for the reason that you're saying.

But the chances of that are so slim,

it HAS TO be a de Kooning, doesn't it?

What we really need to do now is get that provenance -

find out where that painting has been for the last 100 years.

If we can do that, we could be so much closer

to being able to produce an even stronger argument.

With the fate of our last painting finely poised,

we're travelling to Belgium in search

of one final piece of evidence.

We've arranged to meet Jan and Chris Starckx in their hometown

of Turnhout, not far from Antwerp.

They have news about the recent history of Portrait Of A Child

and we're eager to share the results

of the scientific analysis with them.

After our time in Miami,

it's wonderful to be here in your apartment,

surrounded by your objects and, of course, the picture itself.

Now, you recall we have not got the sign-off of the authorities,

the committee on de Kooning, but we have evidence which -

and I now speak as an art dealer - is so clear.

In fact, why not say it?

You have a work by de Kooning.

It's amazing. You can't get better.

I'm very proud of my husband.

Yes! He did it so well.

So, what's it worth, Philip?

Well, what we have the advantage of is that we know the other painting

that we compared it with, of Renee,

went for about $50,000.

I believe that your picture in many ways is superior.

The artistic impact, the characterisation of the child,

the condition is so good and, above all, you have,

carved into the wet paint, the signature of the artist,

this celebrated painter at the beginning of his career.

I therefore think it's worth in excess of ?50,000,

and given that you've paid, what, 450 euros for it,

I could see it making anything up to 100,000 euros.

However... Yes?

Where does it come from? Yes.

Because unless we can say where it comes from,

you've got a problem still.

So, what have you managed to find out about your painting

and its past?

After we went to Miami, we came back and I was contacted by the vendor.

He told me that the person depicted on the painting died three years ago

and left a lot of money and his belongings to his son.

This man, he managed to lose all the money

in a very short time and he became homeless.

At some point,

he was asked to clear his house because he didn't pay the rent.

This is the place in Brussels?

The place in Brussels.

So, he asked two friends...

..to get rid of all his belongings and so to sell them.

This is really important.

So, the man who owned the painting

asked his friends to get rid of it for him. Yes.

To sell all his belongings. That's what they're telling you?

Yes, that's what they're telling us.

Do they have any evidence?

Did he write that down? No.

Was there a written instruction of any kind?

No, I don't think so.

Uncertainty around the provenance raises a much bigger issue.

You know, the sad fact is you may not own this picture.

If the people who sold it to you did not have the right to sell it,

you don't own it. One day or another, we will try to sell it,

but we will start by exposing it.

By exposing it, you mean exhibiting it?

Hoping that this man will come forward.

Jan and Chris have been touched by the plight of the previous owner,

but hope he may yet provide proof of his connection to the painting.

It's a wonderful thought, though,

because even if there is confusion about the ownership,

at least the painting that he painted of a child

will again be out there and seen.

And that makes us very proud.

We started out with three mystery paintings - three unknown artists,

three unknown sitters.

Now, we've proved Portrait Of A Lady is by Philippe Mercier...

..and we've found out the truth about the Old General.

But when it comes to the de Kooning,

it's going to go on display here in Turnhout and it might flush out

the original owner, and if it does, if he comes forward,

he could provide the final missing piece of the jigsaw puzzle.

That's the poignant thing about portraits.

It's not just about art.

It's about people and, like people, their lives can get forgotten.

What was once vibrant and relevant can become obscured

by the passage of time, and it falls upon us,

people like us, to bring them back to life.

If you think you might have an undiscovered masterpiece

or other precious object, contact us at...