Virtual restoration of the Old Summer Palace during the Qing Dynasty, 1644-1911. (Copyright: Asianewsphoto)
Over two thousand years ago, the Jade Emperor, Supreme God of the Heavens in Taoism mythology, launched what is now known as the Great Race. The invitation was extended to every animal species in the Empire but, because of prior engagements or travel restrictions, only twelve (the Pig, Rooster, Sheep, Horse, Dog, Monkey, Snake, Rabbit, Dragon, Tiger, Rat, and Ox) attended the event. In gratitude, the Jade Emperor promised each participant it would be attributed a zodiac year and two hours of the day. The first to reach the finish line would become the first zodiac sign and the first two hours of the day, and so on. The race crossed all terrains, with its climax being a river crossing. Rat, the group’s smallest member, feared for its life; until it spied Ox. The bovine was known to have poor vision so Rat offered to direct it through the river by riding on its back. Ox agreed and they began the final leg of the journey. Yet once the pair grew close to the opposite bank, Rat jumped off Ox’s head and won the race. To this day, Rat remains the first sign in the Chinese zodiac and it symbolizes hours 11:00pm to 1:00am.
Under the Qing dynasty in the 18th century, Emperor Qianlong commissioned the creation of the Old Summer Palace in Beijing. Reigning over 715 acres of utopian hills and gardens, the palace hosted the empire’s formal and recreational stays. Within this land, hidden in the Garden of Eternal Spring, was the Haiyantang water-clock fountain. Giuseppe Castiglione, an Italian painter, designed the fountain to include twelve bronze heads in the shapes of the zodiac animals, which sprouted water at the hours to which the creatures were assigned in the Great Race myth. Water speared out of Rat’s mouth at midnight and Rabbit rose with the sun from 5:00 to 7:00am.
In 1856, the British declared the Second Opium War against the Qing government. The French joined soon after. Four years into the war, British High Commissioner to China, James Bruce, the Eight Earl of Elgin entered the picture. The son of the Thomas Bruce (known for removing from marble frieze from the Parthenon), James Bruce ordered the burning and looting of the Old Summer Palace. Like his father, James has faced the ire of history due to his destruction and theft of a nation’s heritage. He knew that amongst the Chinese Palace’s treasures, the fountain’s bronze heads were no small catch. The French and British soldiers likely traded some of the loot amongst themselves. We now know most of the bronze heads were sent to Europe.
World-renowned French fashion designer Yves Saint Laurent and his partner Pierre Bergé spent years acquiring an enviable art collection. From their first acquisition of a wooden bird sculpture, Oiseau Sénoufo, originating from Côte d’Ivoire in 1960, animals became a central theme in their collection. When Saint Laurent died in 2008, Bergé auctioned off a large part of their collection with Christie’s Paris the following year. Up for auction were the rat and rabbit heads. They may have gone unnoticed, but the Republic of China had had its eyes out for the bronzes for nearly a decade. Back in 2000 the tiger, the monkey, and the ox were the first zodiac heads to reappear on the public art market. At the time, they were featured in Christie’s and Sotheby’s auction catalogues for their upcoming sales. The Chinese State Bureau of Cultural Relics promptly wrote to the auction houses demanding the withdrawal of the bronze heads from the sales. The Chinese government did not formulate an official restitution request because international conventions were viewed as inapplicable to lootings that occurred over 140 years ago. As a result, the auction houses rejected the State’s request. In an unexpected turn of events, however, China Poly Group Corp. Ltd.placed its live bids on all three heads, and won them for a total of $4 million dollars. The sculptures were placed in this state-owned corporation’s Poly Art Museum in Beijing, which is dedicated to Chinese heritage. Three years later, the same museum acquired the pig head from Chinese billionaire Stanley Ho, who had bought it from a New York collector. Finally, in 2007, Ho purchased the horse head from Sotheby’s Hong Kong for $8.9 million dollars.
Jackie Chan wrote, directed, and starred in a film about the stolen zodiac bronzes.
It came as no surprise when Christie’s Paris received a letter from the Chinese government in February 2009 asking that the rat and rabbit heads be removed from the Yves Saint Laurent-Bergé sale. It was also to be expected that the auction house would refuse. In protest, the “Association pour la protection de l’art chinois en Europe” (the Foundation for the protection of Chinese art in Europe) along with eighty other Chinese lawyers, filed a complaint with the “juge des référés” whose role in France is to deliver temporary restraining orders in time-sensitive situations. Two days before auction, the tribunal rejected the foundation’s request to enjoin the sale.
THE PROVENANCE: In its press release on the three-day Saint Laurent estate sale, Christie’s described the zodiac bronze heads as the “two main pieces” amongst the works for sale. The sculptures’ provenance revealed that Saint Laurent had acquired them from the Kugel brothers at their famous Galerie Kugel in Paris. The Kugels bought the bronze heads from the marquis de Pomereu in 1986 who had attained them from the Spanish painter José María Sert.
On the closing day of the sale, February 25, 2009, the rat and rabbit bronzes sold for the equivalent of nearly $40 million. A few days later, the winning bidder refused to pay for them. Cai Mingchao, a self-described Chinese patriot, explained his act was a national duty. “This money,” he claimed, “should not be paid.” The Chinese government publicly supported Mingchao’s fraud and, in addition, placed tighter trade restrictions on Christie’s art trades, ordering local law enforcement officials to report any artifact that might have been looted and trafficked. Following Mingchao’s refusal to pay for the sculptures, Pierre Bergé eventually sold the lots to French billionaire François Pinault, the owner of Christie’s.
Rabbit bronze for auction at Christie’s (Copyright: Agence France-Presse)
However, the story was not over. In 2013, Pinault announced that the rat and rabbit heads would return to Beijing. But the animals’ race home came at a price. Curiously, this donation occurred only a few days after Christie’s was granted a license to conduct business on mainland China. Most recently, in December 2020, China’s National Cultural Heritage Administration launched the return of the horse head. The Summer Palace was restored in 1886, twenty-six years after its destruction. However, the dragon, dog, sheep, snake, and rooster have yet to reach to finish line and return home.
Last week, our founder Leila Amineddoleh spoke at an event hosted by the Art Law Foundation titled Non-Fungible Tokens in the art market: the beginning of a digital art boom? The event was organized and moderated by attorney Anne-Laure Bandle, Director of the Art Law Foundation and co-founder of the Responsible Art Market initiative. Other panelists included Gabriel Jaccard, a legal scholar in the field of smart contracts and Co-Chair of the Regulatory Working Group Crypto Valley, and Garrett Landolt, a Postwar and Contemporary Art Specialist at Christie’s auction house. This multidisciplinary group of speakers presented varying perspectives on NFTs and the art market, demystifying this new asset class for the audience.
After Gabriel explained the technological aspects of NFTs, Leila stressed the importance of understanding and drafting contractual terms relating to them. As digital assets, NFTs fall outside traditional frameworks of property law and art sales agreements. In conventional transactions, a buyer will purchase a work from an artist or on the secondary market and receive a tangible object. With NFTs, it is not always immediately clear what the collector is buying or what rights they will be allowed to retain and exercise. A digital token can exist separately from a physical work of art or contain rights to a unique digital artwork that does not have a physical counterpart. Each situation will carry different rights for the creator, the seller, and the purchaser. For instance, a variety of options are available for the protection of artists’ moral and intellectual property rights, although this is complicated by the fact that such rights vary between countries. (A prior blog post examines moral rights and NFTs.) As this is a rapidly developing field, contracts will need to adapt to the rapidly changing technology and art market.
Gabriel noted that NFT sales are governed by smart contracts embedded within the purchased tokens that are programmed to operate automatically. (These contracts work similarly to a vending machine, which is programmed to release an item when a buyer inserts payment). However, as NFTs are a recent addition to the legal world and are usually more expensive than chips and soda, parties are still struggling with how to draft contractual terms that program the tokens effectively. Without clear legal precedent to inform these agreements, questions have arisen as to how the trade in these assets will develop. Depending upon the limitations the seller wishes to place on the NFT (such as commercial use and publicity restrictions), the parties may approach sales as straightforward exchanges of goods, as more complex licensing agreements, or even as hybrid contracts that incorporate these two forms. In any case, the parties’ rights should be clearly specified and memorialized in an agreement in order to avoid future legal challenges. Another critical matter to consider is the potential conflict between private contract provisions and the terms of services on an NFT platform. Although it is unclear which terms will prevail in the event of a dispute, including protections in the agreement will help safeguard the parties and help enforce their rights.
Source: Christie’s
As a complement to the legal discussion, Garrett provided an exclusive account of the now famed March 2021 Beeple sale, which drew 22 million visitors to Christie’s website during the final minutes of the auction. This unprecedented traction perhaps suggests that NFTs are a more desirable (or at least more accessible) asset class for Millenials than the traditional art market sphere: bidders for Beeple’s “Everydays” averaged 36 years old. Garrett also indicated that while Christie’s had an excellent start, this sale was a learning experience for future transactions. The auction house plans to pursue NFT sales and will offer blockchain-embedded works called Cryptopunks in an upcoming auction. It remains to be seen whether NFTs will be treated as a luxury asset, but Christie’s will remain selective with the items chosen for auction.
As part of the event, Anne-Laure then moderated audience questions. The first question concerned recommendations for potential purchasers. All the panelists agreed that purchasers should perform due diligence in advance of transactions to ensure that they fully understand what is being purchased, their respective rights, liabilities, and potential legal implications. Proceeding with caution is necessary to avoid pitfalls. Gabriel further noted that purchasers should verify whether the relevant contract addresses their needs, depending on the purpose of the transaction (investing versus collecting). Another question concerned the reception of NFTs by financial institutions as collateral for loans. Gabriel stated that NFTs currently represent a high-risk ratio and as such, financial institutions are hesitant to use them as collateral. However, this could change in the future if NFT-related transactions become more common, and smart contracts could potentially be used as collateral. It is worth noting that financial institutions must also comply with anti-money laundering (AML) regulations, which were recently extended to antiquities dealers in the US and already apply to art market participants in the EU and UK. If financial institutions apply the new regulations to NFT transactions, these institutions will need to conduct diligence regarding the identity of the work’s ultimate beneficial owner. This requirement might mitigate the anonymity provided by the Internet and ultimately discourage certain NFT buyers.
The legal landscape surrounding NFTs continues to develop. Collectors, artists, and other art market participants are wise to obtain legal counsel from experienced professionals with an understanding of this new asset class. At Amineddoleh & Associates, we have a strong track record representing artists, collectors, and galleries at all stages of art transactions. We have served as legal advisors on a number of high-profile NFT transactions, and we are currently working with Nifty Gateway and Monax, as well as with artists and their estates. We relish the opportunity to continue work in this developing area. We are proud to be at the forefront of legal work for this exciting new asset in the digital, artistic, and legal fields.
Finding of the Sybilline Books and the Tomb of Numa Pompilius, ca. 1524–1525, workshop of Giulio Romano with Polidoro Caldara da Caravaggio. Bibliotheca Hertziana. Courtesy of the Getty Museum.
Like with fine art, it is important to look at the provenance of antiquities. But understanding the history of antiquities involves more than just provenance (the ownership history). It is also essential to examine the provenience (the work’s findspot). A work’s provenience includes more than where it was excavated, it describes the context in which the item was found, providing scholars with essential information about its origin, use, and importance. For instance, the same object might be understood differently if it is found at an altar than if it were found relegated to a corner. Because objects moved across ancient trade routes, their findspots are important to our understanding about exchanges between cultures. Unfortunately, when looters strip an archaeological site of its valuables, scholars lose this context and we are denied access to important knowledge. Plunder and illegal export of antiquities from around the world pose the threat of irreparable harm to mankind’s cultural heritage.
Provenience is also instrumental in resolving ownership disputes, particularly in the application of national patrimony laws. In order for a nation to demand the return of an object originating from within its borders under the National Stolen Property Act, that country must have enacted a patrimony law that vests ownership of the property to the nation. If artifacts are excavated and removed in contravention to these laws, they become stolen goods. As in all matters of theft, the party demanding the return of property (here the nation), must establish rightful ownership. This can be a very challenging task in the case of looted antiquities as a nation might not become aware of a looted item’s existence for many years, and because looted objects typically are not accompanied by paperwork attesting to their pasts.
Very often, antiquities have huge gaps in provenance because these works remain underground–both literally and figuratively–for centuries. An item kept in a tomb for centuries is never exhibited nor passed from owner to owner, and so does not develop a provenance that helps to provide clear title to the artwork. In such cases, the modern provenance (the post-excavation record) of certain antiquities may be appealing to collectors. Generally, the longer a work has been in the public eye, the lower chance a nation might claim it was looted or exported illegally.
The Vatican Museums boast one of the most impressive art and antiquities collection in the world. For the past five centuries, Laocoön and His Sons has been one of its gems, depicting nearly life-size figures from the Trojan War. Laocoön, a priest of Apollo in the city of Troy, warned his fellow Trojans against taking in the wooden horse left by the Greeks outside the city gates. Athena and Poseidon, who favored the Greeks, sent two great sea-serpents to kill Laocoön and his two sons. From the Roman point of view, the death of these innocents was crucial to the decision of Aeneas, who heeded Laocoön’s warning, to flee Troy, leading to the eventual founding of Rome.[1]
Scholars categorize the work as being of the Hellenistic “Pergamene baroque,” a style that began in Greek Asia minor in the 3rd century BC (the best known work being the Pergamon Altar (circa 180-160 BC). In Hellenistic fashion, Laocoön and His Sons displays attention to the accurate depiction of movement: the three men desperately try to break free from the hold of the sinuous serpents. No matter how much they struggle, they remain tragically entangled.
Most historians believe that the marble sculpture is a copy of an earlier bronze. Due to its style and subject matter, art historians believe the original Laocoön and His Sons was sculpted around 200 BCE in Pergamon. This theory is supported by Pliny the Elder who admires the piece in Volume XXXVI of Natural History. He attributes the work to three sculptors from Rhodes, and places its location in the palace of the Emperor Titus, where it possibly remained until its modern discovery.
The statue group was found on the Esquiline Hill in Rome and immediately identified as the Laocoön as described by Pliny the Elder. The group was excavated in February 1506 in the vineyard of Felice De Fredis. At the request of Pope Julius II, Michelangelo and Giuliano da Sangallo were present at the unearthing. Sangallo’s son, only 11-years-old at the time, wrote an account about the excavation over sixty years later:
“The first time I was in Rome when I was very young, the Pope [Julius II] was told about the discovery of some very beautiful statues in a vineyard near Santa Maria Maggiore [on the Esquiline Hill]. The pope ordered one of his officers to run and tell Giuliano da Sangallo to go and see them. He set off immediately. Since Michelangelo Buonarroti was always to be found at our house, my father having summoned him and having assigned him the commission of the Pope’s tomb, my father wanted him to come along too. I joined up with my father and off we went. I had climbed down to where the statues were, when immediately my father said, ‘That is the Laocoon, which Pliny mentions.’ Then they dug the hole wider so that that they could pull the statue out. As soon as it was visible everyone started to draw, all the while discoursing on ancient things, chatting about the ones [ancient statues owned by the Medici] in Florence.”[2]
The exact spot of its finding was not clear for centuries, except for vague statements, such as “near Santa Maria Maggiore” or “near the site of the Domus Aurea.” The vineyard of Felice de Fredis, noted in the sales document to the Pope, was just inside the Servian Wall on the southern spur of the Esquiline, east of the Sette Sale (the cisterns) supplying the nearby imperial Baths of Titus and Trajan which were built over the reviled Domus Aurea of Nero. This area was once the site of the Gardens of Maecenas, where Tiberius later resided.[3] This information was ascertained from a document recording De Fredis’ purchase of the vineyard 14 months before the statue’s discovery. (De Fredis’ house survives today.)
Pope Julius II immediately acquired the group and had it displayed in the Cortile delle Statue (Courtyard of the Statutes), making it the centerpiece of the collection. A base was eventually added in 1511. The Laocoön’s discovery influenced art into the Baroque period, with Michelangelo particularly taken by the piece. The sculptural group was depicted in prints and small models, becoming famous throughout Europe. The work is widely regarded as one of mankind’s greatest artistic achievements. Countless writers have mused about its qualities, with Johann Joachim Winkelmann writing about the paradox of admiring beautiful in a depiction of death and failure. Johann Goethe wrote of the work, “A true work of art, like a work of nature, never ceases to open boundlessly before the mind. We examine, — we are impressed with it, — it produces its effect; but it can never be all comprehended, still less can its essence, its value, be expressed in words.[4]
The statue faced an uncertain future toward the end of the 18th century. In July 1798 it was taken to France in the wake of the French conquest of Italy. It was displayed when the new Musée Central des Arts, later the Musée Napoléon, opened at the Louvre in November 1800. After Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo, when much of the art plundered by France was returned, the Laocoön returned to the Vatican in January 1816.
Few pieces in existence today can match the superb provenience of Laocoön and His Sons, typically leaving antiquities collectors with limited knowledge when making a purchase. In truth, some collectors have developed a tolerance for scant information, accepting that some degree of risk will always be present in the market. In such cases, collectors rely on the information that is available, namely the work’s provenance since it reemerged into the public’s awareness. One exemplary piece with a rich provenance is a 900-year-old large black stone carving of Lokanatha from India sold through Christie’s Auction House in 2017.
Leiko Coyle with the record-breaking antiquity. Courtesy of Christie’s.
Standing nearly five feet tall and carved from a single piece of stone, the work depicts a seated Lokanatha Avalokiteshvara, the Buddhist deity embodying compassion. Lokanatha is identified by a seated Buddha set in the center of his crown and a long, blooming lotus draped over his left shoulder. The piece also features plump, youthful feet typical of portrayals of divinity and interlocking coils of hair (not unlike the serpents entangling Laocoön and his sons). Although the statue has lost both arms, a common occurrence for Buddhist statues that have survived to modernity, Lokanatha retains a striking and illuminating presence.
The work’s power is due in part to its impressive size, a trait that sets it apart from other works made during the same era. The piece is dated to the Pala Period of the 12th century, which was named for the expansive empire that then controlled what is now West Bengal in India and Bangladesh. This empire produced remarkably detailed and sophisticated works of sculpture, making pieces such as the Lokanatha highly sought after by collectors.
The physical characteristics are not the only thing that attracted bidders to this piece: it has a sterling provenance. “The most remarkable thing about this sculpture, besides its quality and sheer size, is its provenance,” says Christie’s specialist Leiko Coyle in the weeks leading up to auction.[5] Ms. Coyle worked with the consignor to successfully investigate the provenance of the exquisite piece. The work first reappeared in 1922 as the centerpiece of one of America’s first collections of Indian art, established by the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston. The work then entered a private European collection in 1976, where it remained for 40 years before going up for sale.
The catalog entry for the piece recounts the following information:
“It was first acquired in the year 1922 for the Boston Museum by none other than Dr. Ananda Kentish Coomaraswamy (1877-1947)… In 1917, when the museum was already world famous for its rich collection of Chinese and Japanese art, it obtained a substantial assemblage of Indian art from Coomaraswamy who had begun amassing the material mostly in India under the British Raj around 1910. At the time there was no restriction in the movement of art among the various nations or from continent to continent. One of the greatest patrons and benefactors of the museum Dr. Denman Ross (1853-1935), a wealthy Bostonian and a professor of art and design at Harvard University (as well as a MFA trustee) had been steadily forming a vast private collection of art of global diversity, including India since the late 19th century... Ross and Coomaraswamy had met in London in the first decade of the 20th century and it was largely due to their cooperation that the museum had secured the famous Goloubew Collection of Indian and Persian paintings in 1914 which Coomaraswamy would publish a few years after joining the museum in 1917.”
The work’s history and public display assured buyers with a level of confidence that the statue would likely not be subject to a repatriation claim. In a market with imperfect records, this is an ideal history.In the case of the Lokanatha, that confidence translated to a sale price of $24.6 million dollars, setting a record for South Asian art.
[2] Letter of Francesco da Sangallo, quoted in Leonard Barkan, Unearthing the Past: Archaeology and Aestheticsin the Making of Renaissance Culture (1999)
From a legal perspective, provenance is important for a number of reasons. A series of blog posts during the next couple weeks will examine a variety of objects with interesting provenances, discuss the importance of provenance in legal disputes, present the role of provenance for authentication matters, and provide guidance for collectors. This first post will examine the establishment of provenance, notable histories, and a few interesting objects.
Provenance is an ownership history– the life of an object and its owners, wrapped into one. A provenance may consist of documents related to a work’s sale, such as purchase and sales agreements, bills of sale, or receipts. Exhibition, auction or museum records also supply important details, as the objects may have been listed in a contract, a catalog, a magazine, a newspaper or an advertisement. Another valuable resource is documentation memorializing the transfer of ownership within a family, like through a trust or will. Similarly, information from insurance policies may provide important details about ownership and location.
Copyright: artemodernapordenone.it
Some provenance information can be more personal in nature. For example, letters or journal entries offer important information about an object’s movements through time; these writings also provide insights about the personal connections people had with their work. For example, Vincent van Gogh’s frequent correspondences with his brother shed light on the painter’s activities and processes. Famed collectors have also been known to record their purchases in letters, journals or scrapbooks. Photographs may also play an important role in tracing a work’s movements, and they have provided serendipitous proof in a number of art law matters (we will discuss some of these matters in future blog posts). Yet, even without other sources, a provenance can be ascertained from the object itself. An object may bear an artist’s signature and date, in addition to sales labels, museum stamps, collector’s marks, or other distinctive visual clues.
An ideal provenance traces a work back to the artist’s hand, to the moment when a work sprang to life. However, a complete provenance is atypical for works older than a century. Provenances can provide important context for objects. In some instances, provenances may be even more interesting than the objects themselves. Some objects have passed through the hands of famous dealers, respected collectors, celebrity personalities, and even royal families. With each movement or transaction, the owners become part of the artwork’s history.
Last year, an exhibition opened at the Met Cloisters entitled The Colmar Treasure: a Medieval Jewish Legacy. The individual items on display were not extremely costly, but the story of the trove is riveting, yet tragic. A cache of rings, brooches, and coins was hidden in the 14th century in the wall of a house in the idyllic French town of Colmar. While renovating a shop in 1863, on a street known as the rue des Juifs (the Street of Jews), workmen stumbled upon a small cache of medieval jewels and coins. Based upon the location of the treasure and the appearance of a Jewish Ceremonial Wedding Ring, historians were able to piece together a tragic tale. The collection tells the story of the Jewish minority community in the picturesque French town. When the Plague struck in 1345-1349, townspeople all along the Rhine accused Jewish citizens of poisoning wells. Colmar burned its Jewish citizens to death. Following the massacre, the emperor exploited the opportunity to claim ownership of Jewish assets. From this, historians presume that the owners of the treasure hid it behind a wall for safekeeping. Historians have not identified the owners. No one can be certain why the items were left there for centuries, the history of the town suggests that the owners were victims of the scapegoating or fled from Colmar before they could remove the property. The discovery behind the wall allows us to understand the treasure’s context and a bit of its past.
Recently, another work appeared from behind a wall. We reported on it last year when the New York Times featured an article about a 17th-century painting by Arnould de Vuez, discovered during the renovation of an Oscar de la Renta boutique in Paris. Read our earlier blog post to learn about the object’s identification. However, the work’s journey is still not clear.
On the other hand, some works have fully developed provenances that date back for many centuries. Titian’s Allegory of Marriage (also known as the Allegory of the Marchese del Vasto) has graced many important collections during its 480-year history. It has been owned by eleven different owners, originating in Italy before moving on to England and France. Titian painted the work in 1540 in Venice, and then it moved to the Palazzo Ducale for its commissioner, Alfonso d’Avalos. It then went to Vincenzo Gonzaga in 1627. Next, it moved to Murano with famed Flemish art dealer Daniel Nijs, before it transferred to Charles I, who displayed it at the Palace of Whitehall from 1639-1649. (The French King may have acquired it at auction in Spain). It remained at Whitehall until it was sold to Louis XIV in 1683 and then displayed at Versailles Palace. It was then owned by Duc d’Antin from 1715-1737, held at Hôtel d’Antin. The painting then returned to Versailles with Louis XV from 1737-1752. Finally, it was transferred into the Royal Collection in 1752, and then moved to the Louvre (perhaps in 1785) where it is still on display. The journey of this masterpiece is extraordinary because it changed so many hands, but we are still able to trace it directly back to the artist without any gaps. (This is also valuable for the authentication process– a topic we will address in a later blog post.)
Establishing a strong provenance is important not just for fine art, but for other collectibles and luxury items, including jewelry, musical instruments, and even carpets or furniture. In 2010, a set of playing cards was sold at auction for millions of dollars. The cards were not made for playing, but were created as works for a Kunstkammer, a collector’s cabinet. Although estimated to sell for $150,000 to $250,000, the item realized £2,421,123. The high price was due to the rarity of the set—it is one of only five sets of silver cards, and it is the only complete one. But making the set even more valuable is its extraordinary history. The parcel-gilt silver cards were created in Augsburg, Germany in 1616.
Legend has it that the cards were eventually in the possession of Infanta Carlota Joaquina of Spain, Princess of Portugal and Brazil, and the daughter of King Carlos IV. When Napoleon forced the Spanish King to abdicate, the princess became claimant to the throne of Spain and Spanish America. It is believed she took the set with her when she was exiled from Europe and fled to Brazil. It is thought that Princess Carlota gifted the cards to the wife of Felipe Contucci, a man who helped her try to take the Spanish crown after Napoleon forced her brother to abdicate. Contucci passed the cards down through the family. Although the provenance is hard to prove, when the cards were sold in 2010, they came in an early 19th-century leather box with a brass plate with this provenance engraved on it.
Carpets and tapestries are luxury items with prices greatly influenced by provenance. Persian carpets have been collected over the centuries and may command very high prices at auction. In 2019, Christie’s sold a pair of silk and metal-thread Polonaise carpets for millions of dollars. It is likely that the carpets have been together since their creation over four centuries ago. The carpets were woven under the instruction of the ruler of the Safavid Dynasty, Shah ‘Abbas I of Persia, with each carpet typical of the elegant designs produced in Isfahan during the shah’s reign. At the time, Isfahan was the capital of Persia; today it is a city still renowned for its elegant art and architecture.
Carpets and tapestries are luxury items with prices greatly influenced by provenance. Persian carpets have been collected over the centuries and may command very high prices at auction. In 2019, Christie’s sold a pair of silk and metal-thread Polonaise carpets for millions of dollars. It is likely that the carpets have been together since their creation over four centuries ago. The carpets were woven under the instruction of the ruler of the Safavid Dynasty, Shah ‘Abbas I of Persia, with each carpet typical of the elegant designs produced in Isfahan during the shah’s reign. At the time, Isfahan was the capital of Persia; today it is a city still renowned for its elegant art and architecture.
The carpets made their way to the Polish court to the Elector of Saxony, Augustus the Strong (who would eventually serve as King of Poland). Interestingly, Augustus was known for his patronage of the arts. He built palaces in Dresden, including the Green Vault, one of the earliest public museums in Germany (and one that was recently the victim of a high-profile and devastating theft). After returning to Poland after a two-year sojourn through Italy and France, Augustus worked to amass a collection, including Persian carpets, to display his wealth and power.
Travelers during the 17th and 18th centuries noted the sophistication and beauty of carpets coming from Isfahan, and a number of the “Polonaise” style carpets ended up in Europe where they were popular with 17th century courts and gifted to high-ranking officials. They were particularly popular in Poland. (In fact, the Metropolitan Museum of Art has a Polonaise carpet on display.) In 1695, Augustus gave the carpets to Count Lothar Franz von Schönborn, Prince-Elector and Arch-Chancellor of the Holy Roman Empire. The Schönborn family commissioned beautiful Baroque buildings in southern Germany, including the Schloss Weißenstein (Weissenstein Palace). The summer palace came to house one of the largest collections of Old Master paintings in Germany, including works by Rubens, Titian, and Van Dyck. It was in this palace that the two Polonaise carpets remained for centuries. Interestingly, the original palace inventory labels remain on the carpets, bearing proof of their royal provenance. The two carpets sold at Christie’s were particularly coveted because of their pristine condition and vibrant colors. However, the royal provenance makes the items especially valuable. Each of the Polonaise carpets sold for nearly £ 4,000,000 last year.
It is a privilege to work with clients, including major collectors and dealers, to assist them with investigating their unique property. We work with some of the world’s leading provenance experts to examine works ranging from paintings, antiquities, illuminated manuscripts, photographs, automata, and even clothing. No two matters are alike, and we pair our extensive network of experts with our extensive expertise in art, cultural heritage, and intellectual property law. It is a pleasure to assist our clients in navigating the sometimes overwhelming art market.
This season’s record-breaking sale of Leonardo da Vinci’s “Salvator Mundi” at Christie’s reveals a great deal about the art market and raises many questions about the fluid nature of authenticity. Our founding partner wrote about the $450 million sale in an editorial in Live Science, available here.
In 1856, the British declared the Second Opium War against the Qing government. The French joined soon after. Four years into the war, British High Commissioner to China, James Bruce, the Eight Earl of Elgin entered the picture. The son of the Thomas Bruce (known for removing from marble frieze from the Parthenon), James Bruce ordered the burning and looting of the Old Summer Palace. Like his father, James has faced the ire of history due to his destruction and theft of a nation’s heritage. He knew that amongst the Chinese Palace’s treasures, the fountain’s bronze heads were no small catch. The French and British soldiers likely traded some of the loot amongst themselves. We now know most of the bronze heads were sent to Europe.
The Vatican Museums boast one of the most impressive art and antiquities collection in the world. For the past five centuries, Laocoön and His Sons has been one of its gems, depicting nearly life-size figures from the Trojan War. Laocoön, a priest of Apollo in the city of Troy, warned his fellow Trojans against taking in the wooden horse left by the Greeks outside the city gates. Athena and Poseidon, who favored the Greeks, sent two great sea-serpents to kill Laocoön and his two sons. From the Roman point of view, the death of these innocents was crucial to the decision of Aeneas, who heeded Laocoön’s warning, to flee Troy, leading to the eventual founding of Rome.
The statue group was found on the Esquiline Hill in Rome and immediately identified as the Laocoön as described by Pliny the Elder. The group was excavated in February 1506 in the vineyard of Felice De Fredis. At the request of Pope Julius II, Michelangelo and Giuliano da Sangallo were present at the unearthing. Sangallo’s son, only 11-years-old at the time, wrote an account about the excavation over sixty years later:
Carpets and tapestries are luxury items with prices greatly influenced by provenance. Persian carpets have been collected over the centuries and may command very high prices at auction. In 2019, Christie’s sold a pair of silk and metal-thread 