Dickinson wins $9.1m Chardin case
Dickinson wins $9.1m Chardin case December 13 2022 Picture: Mail The London dealer Simon Dickinson (inset, above) has won a court case in which he was sued by the owner of a Chardin he had sold on their behalf. The owner, the Countess of Wemyss & March (right, above), maintained that a painting sold by her privately through Dickinson to another dealer, Verner Amell, as Chardin & Studio for £1.4m, should have fetched a higher sum, closer to the £9.1m it made when Amell then sold it to his client, as a fully attributed Chardin, just over six months later. The judge found in favour of Dickinson on all counts. I think, from what I've seen of the case, that this was a likely outcome. There was a curious passage in the judgement which seemed to imply that Lady Wemyss' lawyer wanted to argue the case on the basis of the painting being either "autograph" or "non-autograph" - in other words, as Judge Simon Gleeson said in his judgement - 'that the art market as a whole would divide Chardin paintings as falling into only two classes – autograph and third party copies' - whereas Simon Dickinson's lawyers argued that it was better to think in terms of "wholly autograph" or "partially autograph". The latter is of course (as the judge agreed) correct, when we're dealing with so many artists who relied on studio assistants, and I'm surprissed the Wemyss' legal team tried to argue the case on this apparently flawed basis. Moreover, the final £9.1m figure for the painting could be said to reflect Verner Amell's skills as an art dealer as much as the merits of the painting itself, and was even described by Judge Gleeson as 'grossly inflated'. Much of the decision came down to the question of value, about which Judge Gleeson said; 'this is an exercise of the most unscientific and speculative nature imaginable'. Which I think is worth remembering, next time somebody confidently tells you what a picture is or is not worth. Anyway, the main takeaway in all these cases is; think very, very hard about going to law about a painting. The second takeaway is, if you consign a painting to a dealer for private sale, make sure - if you don't want the shock of seeing it again for a different price - they sell it to a private collector, or, better yet, a museum. You can read a summary of the case by barrister Michael Bowner at the Institute of Art and Law here, and the full judgement here.
ChinaGoSmart CGS 
Dickinson wins $9.1m Chardin case
December 13 2022
Picture: Mail
The London dealer Simon Dickinson (inset, above) has won a court case in which he was sued by the owner of a Chardin he had sold on their behalf. The owner, the Countess of Wemyss & March (right, above), maintained that a painting sold by her privately through Dickinson to another dealer, Verner Amell, as Chardin & Studio for £1.4m, should have fetched a higher sum, closer to the £9.1m it made when Amell then sold it to his client, as a fully attributed Chardin, just over six months later.
The judge found in favour of Dickinson on all counts. I think, from what I've seen of the case, that this was a likely outcome. There was a curious passage in the judgement which seemed to imply that Lady Wemyss' lawyer wanted to argue the case on the basis of the painting being either "autograph" or "non-autograph" - in other words, as Judge Simon Gleeson said in his judgement - 'that the art market as a whole would divide Chardin paintings as falling into only two classes – autograph and third party copies' - whereas Simon Dickinson's lawyers argued that it was better to think in terms of "wholly autograph" or "partially autograph". The latter is of course (as the judge agreed) correct, when we're dealing with so many artists who relied on studio assistants, and I'm surprissed the Wemyss' legal team tried to argue the case on this apparently flawed basis. Moreover, the final £9.1m figure for the painting could be said to reflect Verner Amell's skills as an art dealer as much as the merits of the painting itself, and was even described by Judge Gleeson as 'grossly inflated'.
Much of the decision came down to the question of value, about which Judge Gleeson said; 'this is an exercise of the most unscientific and speculative nature imaginable'. Which I think is worth remembering, next time somebody confidently tells you what a picture is or is not worth. Anyway, the main takeaway in all these cases is; think very, very hard about going to law about a painting. The second takeaway is, if you consign a painting to a dealer for private sale, make sure - if you don't want the shock of seeing it again for a different price - they sell it to a private collector, or, better yet, a museum.
You can read a summary of the case by barrister Michael Bowner at the Institute of Art and Law here, and the full judgement here.
