South West Hidden Paintings

Two paintings that appear to be by one of Britain's most famous

artists. If they are real they are worth a small fortune. If they are

fake they are practically worthless and I'm on a mission to find out

the truth. I want to know how Alfred Wallis, a humble Cornish

fisherman, became one of the country's most celebrated painters

but also one of the most faked. It's like Aladdin's cave for anyone

interested in art, a place like this.

In my quest, I'll be uncovering genuine works by Wallis in hidden

collections. Wow, look at that. Getting scientific tests on our

pictures... And before we go to auction, I'll

ask the experts if they think they're worth up to �30,000 pounds

each. First impressions? Too soon. Or whether the dealer who bought

them has made a very expensive Ask anyone why St Ives has become a

mecca for artists and they'll tell you it's the clarity of the light.

you it's the clarity of the light. And being here on a slightly cloudy

And being here on a slightly cloudy day you can almost feel that the

light is being reflected back at you. Add in cobbled streets and

unique people, and you can see why St Ives is still a thriving art

community today. Artists have been coming here since

the 1880s, when the railway finally linked this Cornish town with the

rest of the country. And they made the small fishing harbour and its

people the subject of thousands of paintings.

But it wasn't a creative urge that Born in Devonport near Plymouth, as

a young man Wallis went to sea as a Then, in 1887, aged 32, he and his

wife came to St Ives to run a scrap Wallis was just the sort of

character that artists wanted to paint in their scenes of Cornish

life. Little did they know that he'd be beating them at their own

By the early 1920's Wallis had retired and, after the death of his

wife, he took up painting to fill He never claimed to be an artist.

He just wanted to record his life at sea and his home town, using

leftover pots of boat and house paint, scrounged from friends and

Wallis may not have started to paint until he was 70, but he was

prolific. And he painted most of his works here in this cottage at

the table. His work was rather unorthodox as well, so he'd be

painting on cardboard boxes, old pieces of wood. In fact anything he

could lay his hands on, even the table itself some say he would

paint up to six pictures a day and as a tourist you could turn up at

this door and for a few shillings take away a momento of your holiday.

-- a memento. Today, the art world celebrates the pictures that remain

in big collections but there must in big collections but there must

others out there we've never seen. The problem is Wallis rarely dated

his paintings, and didn't always sign them, so every time a new one

surfaces, it presents the art world with a puzzle if you can't trace it

directly back to the artist, how do Now a dealer has discovered two

more possible Wallis's, but with no provenance proof that they're by

I get asked to authenticate art I get asked to authenticate art

because I'm totally independent and I have been known in the past to

spot fakes and forgeries just at a glance, but these two paintings

could be quite difficult. They've already sold for about �1,000, so

somebody thinks they're worth something, but if they're genuine

Wallis's though they could be worth 20 or 30 times that.

I want to take these paintings to auction, but the first thing I need

Well, here they are. What we're looking at here is sensitivity of

perception and that's really just trying to get an immediate feeling

of what these pictures are to you. I mean, of course I expected them

to look like Wallis's and by saying that I think they're certainly the

right palette. We see a signature in the corner here the style and

the subject matter is exactly what we expect to see, and one thing

that I straight away look at here is the sea. Even artists who

thought he was a very childlike painter at the time said his

perception of painting the sea was fantastic, so that's got to be an

immediate thought. What is the sea like? The boats in the harbour of a

Wallis were always very, very finely painted. Is it the case

here? See the little holes? Wallis was notorious for nailing his

pictures to the wall after he painted them in his cottage, so yes,

they look like Wallis's, but let's Well this one has definitely been

painted on some sort of cardboard advertising box, but that's easy to

fake. This one's quite a plain back. Straight away, oddly, this kind of

feels quite contrived. So let's try to make an immediate judgement. Are

they real, are they fake, which one I have concerns about this one

because it seems to tick too many boxes and for some reason I kind of

feel that it's trying very hard this one I feel, even though the

sea isn't as strong as this, that this one potentially could be the

real thing. What I need to do now, though, is to get these paintings

next to provenanced, genuine Wallis's and start picking out some

Established St Ives artists of the time called Wallis's paintings

"childish" and never took him seriously. But a group of young

modern artists began to find his work inspiring.

When Ben Nicholson and Christopher Wood discovered Wallis in August,

1928, they were stunned. Here was an entirely self taught man,

breaking all the rules of their formal art school training - and

They encouraged him to send bundles of his pictures to London, where he

sold them for a few shillings each to some of the first collectors of

Some of his early paintings, dating from about 1935, are hidden away

here in a vault at The Dorset They're rarely seen, but at least

I think they're very steeped in personal resonance and it seems to

me that in these pictures he's calling together all sorts of local

knowledge, but also his memories. I think this one has some resonance

of his Newfoundland travels. You have this sort of very cold sea.

It's actually almost as if he's identifying himself with the ship,

as if he's on a journey travelling through the choppy waters. I find

that a very personal observation. This is a landscape, we're not

quite sure where it is, perhaps St Ives or Hayle, but in a sense it

doesn't really matter he's stamping out, making a mark about the

In this one he's using the support, it shines through. He's not

bothering to cover the whole surface in paint so it's quite

interesting to see. As he's working, you kind of begin to see how his

mind is putting the ship down on Wallis's paintings look simple and

that's one of the reasons forgers think they're easy to copy. But the

more you study them, the more you appreciate that these are the works

of a man who spent years at sea there's an energy and detail here

To compare my two pictures to one we know is genuine, I've tracked

down another Wallis painting, tucked away in another vault, this

Good, it's under loack and key, It's like an Aladdin's Cave for

anyone interested in art, a place like this. We know that this Wallis

is genuine because Barbara Hepworth donated it. Barbara Hepworth was a

famous St Ives sculptor who was introduced to Wallis by her husband,

Ben Nicholson, so it's got a cast There's something striking

immediately for me. The paintwork is laid on the sail, because my

first impressions of one of our paintings was, I was just being

over cautious I guess but I wasn't happy with the way it was painted

but all of a sudden I look at this sail and I can almost see the same

hand, so I need really to get mine I'm going to put the harbour scene

to one side for now, because that's the one I liked the most, and I'm

going to get out the one that I was genuinely concerned about. Now,

it's not the front of the painting that I pick up this kind of hand,

it's at the back. And if you look very, very closely where this has

been painted out, it almost feels like eactly the same as this sail.

I think what I'm trying to get from this is the feeling of the form

with which he's creating his art work. The one thing I keep coming

back to his water. The sea in our two pictures, naive, painted

slightly differently to each other but almost painted in a very

similar way to the sea in the genuine Wallis. The more I look at

the three, I'm starting to get a really good feeling about the two

we actually do have and the more you look it's easy to say these

could be by the same hand and in this case I'm hoping that same hand

I'm starting to believe that these could make serious money at auction

for our dealer, but before I get too carried away, it's time for

Fisherman-turned-artist Robert Jones has written extensively about

how and what Wallis painted. I'm expecting him to spot things only

another experienced mariner, like Wallis, would know details a forger

would not think to include. Hello there, nice to meet you.

I've got these paintings to show What's your first impressions?

not dismissing this painting, but I don't feel it's right somehow.

There are features in this painting which have the life and energy that

you'd expect to see in a Wallis, and that is maybe in the stern of

that ship, but I think it's mainly that ship, but I think it's mainly

to do with the separate incidents in the painting. They don't fit

together as I would have expected a Wallis to do. OK. There is also the

fact that in most of his paintings of sailing ships there is what is

known as rattlings. We don't have those. Wallis would have had to

climb those in order to get to the masts to make sail adjustments,

they are missing. Oh, look, look, I didn't see those. They were there,

this person had started to put these things in and then stopped,

as though he hadn't quite made up his mind. OK, let's move on to this

First impressions? Really the same. And we have a feature here which I

think is very odd. If this is St Ives Bay, Smeaton's Pier, the

lighthouse, the look out. Here's the other pier on the other side.

There's obviously the other lighthouse. That's right, Godrevy

lighthouse, with the wall around and the stones and we've got all of

that. But then, what's that? I think that that is a foreign

lighthouse. I know he painted from memory,

would he have created this mythical world?

No, I don't think he would. I don't think he would have included that

feature which is so specific along with a St Ives scene.

So are we any nearer to the truth? Or are we still lost at sea with

these pictures? I mean, what is your final conclusion on them?

Well, whether I think they're genuine or not, my verdict would be

that they're not, but it's only an opinion and I'm quite willing to be

proved wrong. Have you got any bets on it?

If I have they are going to be very small ones I can tell you.

Joking aside, to be honest I'm gutted. I was really hoping at

least one of these pictures was the real thing. And while you should

never rely on just one opinion, Robert is a recognised expert.

But after a good night's sleep and a full Cornish, I'm feeling a bit

more positive. I've been thinking overnight about

what Robert was saying and I wonder if we've approached this in a

slightly cynical fashion. Wallis must have painted thousands of

pictures and only a small percentage have been documented, so

maybe these are real genuine Wallis's. I just want to give these

pictures a chance to be real, so my next opinion is going to be a bit

My next step is to give our paintings to an art restorer and

conservator. Her analysis should get us a bit closer to finding out

if they really are by the hand of Alfred Wallis. Fingers crossed

Jennifer Ridd doesn't have the same There they are. First impressions?

Too soon. Oh, OK. Far too soon. How will you be

looking at it and what tests will you be doing to help me out?

I'm going to analyse the support, and analyse the paint, I'm going to

analyse the way the paint's been put on, I'm going to analyse the

pencil and other media that he's used and by looking at Wallis's

with very good provenance and his brush stroke, his particular

signature, his way of applying his paint, his way of working his

paintings.Wwe'll be able to see if they're the same handwriting. So,

at the end of all this, will we just be able to say it's conducive

with the period or will be able to find out whether these are genuine

Time will tell. I'm not going to commit myself but

I can see absolutely no reason why one can't say they are genuinely

Wallis. Wow. That's where I'd like to get

to. Just the truth really. That's all I want out of this.

That's all one wants, that's all While Jennifer's doing her bit of

the investigation, I've got more exploring to do in St Ives. I've

heard that the tides are exceptionally low today, giving me

a rare chance to see another piece I've taken a bit of a detour onto

Porthmore Beach, because the locals have told me that I can get a

really good view of the wreck of the Alba, which broke up here in

1938. Wallis normally painted from memory but this is one of those

rare occasions when he came down to the beach and went back to his

cottage and did some paintings of Washed on to the rocks, hundred of

locals helped survivors from the sea, but mid-rescue the St Ives

Lifeboat overturned and five members of The Alba's crew were

The tragedy had a big impact on Wallis, and all these years late,

seeing what's left of the wreck somehow brings his pictures to life

for me. It's great to stand here and look at something Wallis

actually saw. It's a tangible link to his paintings, and I think on

this journey I kind of think I Browsing galleries today, it's hard

to imagine just how unusual Wallis' naive work would have looked. Back

in the 1930s, the fashion was for Some of the better examples are

hidden away in The Guildhall, where The town clerk's popped out for

lunch, so that gives me a chance to look at the quite amazing

collection in the office here. Now, the first thing I see when I walk

in is two Park's on the wall. The early one, which is certainly

contemporary with Wallis, is the type of scene that we'd expect him

to paint - boats in a harbour on the sea, with that lovely dark sky

behind. One thing's for certain, it's such a very, very different

painting, and such a very very different execution of the painting

as well. And this one that's slightly later than Wallis is

exactly the type of painting you'd expect to see from the period as

well. This is painted from the land, wheareas Wallis would have painted

often from the sea, so not even a completely different style but a

completely different perspective as well. But when you stand here you

get a feeling that Wallis just ploughed his own furrow you know he

must have seen these pictures going up. There's a mark of strength to

say, yes, I can see you're painting like that, but I'm staying with the

way I'm doing it. That made Wallis unique.

But whether our two pictures are by the same hand or whether our dealer

has made a costly mistake will depend on Jennifer's findings and

our final round of tests. I've arranged to meet Jennifer in

London at the laboratories of Art Access and Research. We're going to

be joined by Nick Easthaugh who's scieftific tests made here later

will tell us exactly when the pictures were painted.

Well, it's been ten days since I left them with you, I'm intrigued

to know what you think. Remember, Robert Jones said he

thought they were not by Wallis. Will Jennifer disagree?

Now, taking it in order I find the support correct in age. Paint

layers - I find his signature in the way the paint's been put down.

I find it in the way he's used his pencil outlining things, I find it

in the composition and I find it in the whole feel. I think this is

nicotine staining, he was a smoker. Would you analyse?

We can have a go. It's difficult, I know.

There are things we can do. Do you think the signature's right

on this? The signature's the last thing I

look at. I've seen so many fake signatures.

But in this instance? I think it looks right.

So, on the whole? On the whole, I have no doubt at

all. OK, that's number one.

Now, this one's called Red Sails, St Ives Harbour. Again, totally the

signature of the way he's used his work, the way he's pencil worked it,

everything. He really loved working that one. So I have no doubts about

that. So you feel it's been painted the

way he typically paints? Oh yes, absolutely. I think the way

that paint's been put on, that's totally his signature.

So, do you think these two paintings are by the same hand?

Yes, I would say without any doubt. Nick?

I'm quite happy to have somebody prove otherwise but as far as I am

concerned they've got an awful lot to prove wrong. Over to you. Well,

I don't really know what to make of that. I've just had a very personal,

visual reading of those two She's pretty certain they're

Wallis's, but to be able to take them to auction with confidence

it's going to be Nick's technical tests that will probably win the

If our two paintings are real, they could go for up to �30,000 each at

auction, but crucially Wallis's work didn't start to command high

prices until the 1970s. That's critical for our investigation.

Since they weren't worth anything when Wallis was painting in the 30s

and 40s, no-one bothered to forge them. So, if they date from that

period, they're almost certainly genuine.

One week later and I'm back in London for the results of our final

tests. Fake or fortune? I'm about to find out.

Tiny samples from our pictures have been microscopically analysed to

look for specific elements that will help in the dating process.

There are a couple of key things that came out of this, one of which

is that we've got a lot of titanium there. Titanium is associated with

a very important 20th century pigment called titanium white, and

we didn't find something else which we expected which was lead white.

Lead white has been used by artists for centuries and so it was very

surprising not to find it. Digging deeper, Nick has also found

a specific blue pigment which means he can finally date our paintings.

What we found is that the titanium white and the thalacimine blue

really pushes the date of these paintings beyond the lifespan of

Alfred Wallis. That also becomes important that we haven't found any

lead because lead white, I think people are probably familiar that

lead has come out of paints over the last few decades and in the

1970s it was banned, so to not find it suggests that you've got

something that was relatively recent when lead was not being used

So one thing we can say for certain is these were not by Alfred Wallis.

I think that's the conclusion of But this isn't all Nick's found.

Jennifer asked him to test for nicotine or dirt and he's made a

surprising discovery. It's not nicotine, what we found is

that actually that it's mainly starch. We can actually see these

individual starch grains. You can see these bright particles with the

dark cross in them, classic starch. And this would have been done to

give a visual age to the painting, or would it have been for another

reason? It's very difficult to say at this point, there are different

things that it might come from, certainly one of the

interpretations is that somebody wanted to give it an aged

appearance. Detailed photographs have also

revealed a forger's hand - and confirm the suspicion Robert Jones

had about the ship's rigging. somebody who's copying or

immitating something, they tend to copy much more literally what they

see on a painting. What we see here is the rigging has been painted in,

but the cross strokes only go up to the mast and you would have

expected I think somebody like Wallis who was very concerned with

the accuracy of the ships to have painted the rigging correctly and

run it right through. So, what can we categorically say

about these two paintings? I think from the analysis we can be pretty

confident and say they are not by Wallis.

We can make some suggestions about the most likely time frame they

were produced, something towards the 1970's onwards would be a good

This is a huge disappointment but not the end of our story.

Whatever the results, the plan was to sell these pictures, but now the

auctioneer only has one option when it comes to listing them.

Well, I think the trouble is we have got to go through due

diligences really and if we know diligences really and if we know

that they're fake we can't catelogue them with anything other

than telling the public the than telling the public the

information that we've got. What are we going to be putting on

them as an estimate? I think low hundreds, as soon as

you start putting on more than 100- 150 on each one of them people are

then thinking, well, why such a high estimate if they are wrong?

This is the worst possible outcome for our dealer and now I have to

Hello, Dave, it's Curtis. Don't forget he spent around �1,000

each on these paintings, hoping that they might just turn out to be

the real thing. With the best will in the world,

Wallis could not have painted these. There's no lead in it, it's

conducive with the 70s. If we do go to auction he stands to make a big

loss, and the decision really has to be his.

To be honest, they're worth more than that to me, even as copies.

So, do you want me to leave you to ponder it?

Leave it with me overnight and I'll By 41, Wallis had become an

isolated figure, shunned by most of his neighbours and the St Ives art

community, who couldn't understand why he needed to paint. Unable to

look after himself, he ended up in the poor house near Penzance as

He died at the age of 87, and would have been buried in a pauper's

grave, if some of his loyal artist friends hadn't stepped in to help.

They brought him home to this spot, overlooking the sea that he loved

so much. A gravestone, made by the potter Bernard Leach, marks the

final resting place of a man now regarded as one of the forefathers

A week later, the auction in London is underway, but will our paintings

go under the hammer? The dealer's had a good think and

he's decided not to put them into auction, which is why I've got

these two blank spaces behind me. If they'd gone to auction today

they'd be catalogued as fakes, but who's to say that they wouldn't

surface in 12 months' time at an auction house near you, saying

they're real Wallis's with a completely different provenance?

It's exactly the right thing to do on this occasion, and it's not that

they just won't be going to auction today - they won't be going to

In time, the owner of our paintings might want to do his own research

and with big money at stake who can blame him? But for the moment, I'm

pleased that we're protecting Wallis's legacy by weeding out two

pictures that don't seem to fit with his remarkable body of work.

We set out to find the truth and I hope we've done that. Wallis would

be amazed at what his paintings can fetch at auction. But he was a man

who lived his life in relative poverty who didn't care how much

they sold for, he just cared about his art and I think there's a

lesson we can all learn from that.You shouldn't be buying

paintings just for investment. You should not be buying them because

you love them, and that way you're never going to feel ripped off and

you're always going to have something to treasure. -- and you