Showing posts with label John Daab. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Daab. Show all posts

November 21, 2012

The Journal of Art Crime, Fall 2012: "The Lord Byron Forged Letter: Where's the Questioned Document Analysis (QDE)?" by John Daab

In the Fall 2012 issue of The Journal of Art Crime, regular contributor John Daab writes on "The Lord Byron Forged Letter: Where's the Questioned Document Analysis (QDE)?":
Lloyd Smith was an avid collector of rare books and letters amassing thousands of works upon his death.  In 1957 the Morristown National Historical Park Museum was elated to find that they were the recipient of 300,000 of Smith's works from his estate.  Contained with these artifacts was a letter from Lord Byron, the poet.  Over the last 40-50 years the letter was exhibited on occasion but, for the most part, it lay in storage (Pfister, 2011).  In 2010 the letter was scanned and brought to the attention of nearby Drew University scholars, who suspected that the work was not genuine (Appendix exhibit B). The evidence supporting the forgery call was that there were anomalies in signature, date, type of address to Captain hay (the receiver of the letter), and wording used.  The scholars argued that the signature was not that of Lord Byron, the dating of the months did not match Byron's dating, the word "affectionately" was not typical for Byron, and the use of "My dear Hay" to address Captain Hay his friend was not appropriate (Fischer, 2012 Appendix C).
To confirm the conclusion found by Drew Scholars, the National Historic Park Museum enlisted the services of Doucet Devin Fisher from the New York Public Library, a Byron scholar and member of the Byron Society.  Fisher compared the letter with the notes of a Rutgers University Byron scholar Leslie Marquand, and found that the letter was a forgery.  Fisher noted that the Byron letter under review matched a similar forgery.  What is not apparent from the various narratives and media accounts found regarding the announcement of the forgery, is a clear description of how the forgery was determined.  The fundamental rule in scholarly research and forensic examination is that another researcher may carry out the research in similar fashion and reach the same conclusion.  Verification informs reliability and, without it, specious conclusions may emerge.  What seems to be problematic and a serious issue is that those carrying out the process of document determination, in terms of authenticity, is the extent that the process establishing the forgery followed proper QDE, or Questioned Document Examination (FBI, 2009).  Before we engage in the QDE process ourselves, let us first define and discuss some of the concepts presented in the account of the latest Byron fake and those lacking in the examination.
John Daab was formerly a NYCTP Police Officer and an NYU Professor.  John holds the following designations: Certified Fraud Examiner, Certified Forensic Consultant, Certified Criminal Investigator, Certified Instructor, Diplomate American Board of Forensic Examiners, Certified Homeland Security, and Certified Intelligence Analyst.  He holds the degrees of Ph.D. MA, MPS, MA, MBA, and BA.  He writes regularly for The Journal of Art Crime.

July 1, 2012

The Spring/Summer 2012 Issue of The Journal of Art Crime is now available to download by subscription

The PDF edition of the Spring/Summer 2012 issue of The Journal of Art Crime can now be downloaded by subscribers. This seventh issue is edited by Noah Charney and published by ARCA.
Academic articles: "Bordering on Alchemy: A Nation of Counterfeiters" by Stephen Mihm; "Daubertizing the Art Expert" by John Daab; "Looting History: An Analysis of the Illicit Antiquities Trade in Israel" by Aleksandra Sheftel; "The Beltracchi Affair: A Comment on the "Most Spectacular" German Art Forgery Case in Recent Times" by Duncan Chappell and Saskia Hufnagel; and "The Forger's Point of View" by Thierry Lenain.

Regular columns: Donn Zaretsky's Art Law and Policy on "When Photography Might be Illegal"; Ton Cremers on "Rise in Thefts from Museums: Due to Economic Crisis?"; David Gill's Context Matters on "Princeton and Recently Surfaced Antiquities"; and Noah Charney's Lessons from the History of Art Crime on "Mark Landis: the Forger Who Has Yet to Commit a Crime".

Editorial Essays: Joshua Knelman on "Headache Art"; Noah Charney on "Appendix on Forensics of Forgery Investigation"; and Noah Charney on "Art Crime in North America".

Reviews: Stuart George reviews "Stealing Rembrandts: The Untold Stories of Notorious Art Heists" by Anthony M. Amore and Tom Mashberg; David Gill reviews "Museums Matter: In Praise of the Encyclopedic Museum" by James Cuno; Catherine Schofield Sezgin reviews "Hot Art: Chasing Thieves and Detectives Through the Secret World of Stolen Art" by Joshua Knelman; Noah Charney reviews "The Deceivers: Art Forgery and Identity in the Nineteenth Century" by Aviva Briefel; and John Kleberg reviews "Leonardo's Lost Princess" by Peter Silverman with Catherine Whitney.

Extras: Noah Charney's interviews with George H. O. Abungu; Ernst Schöller; Joris Kila and Karl von Habsburg; Ralph Frammolino and Jason Felch; Thierry Lenain; and a Q&A on "Art Crime in Canada".  

There is also a list of the 2012 ARCA Awards.

February 23, 2012

The Journal of Art Crime, Fall 2011: John Daab on "Flouting the Law through Fine and Decorative Art Appraising"

The Fall 2011 issue of The Journal of Art Crime features an academic article by returning contributor John Daab.
ABSTRACT: In appraising fine and decorative art, there are standards available in carrying out the process. The Uniform Standards for Professional Appraisal Practice were developed to protect the appraiser, client, and the public against bad appraisals. Over the last 5 years appraisals filed with the Internal Revenue Service have a hit rate of about 30-40%. That is, the 23 IRS Art Panel reviewers made up of experts in the field of art have found over the last 5 years the 500 or so appraisals filed for donations, estates, or capital gains/losses failed to satisfy USPAP or legal standards required for an IRS qualified appraisal in at least 6 to 7 out of every 10 cases. The significant point is that those bad appraisals, not reviewed, are costing the public millions of dollars in tax dollars. Further, appraisal violations not only cost the appraiser in terms of penalties, but the client has to pay unnecessary interest costs and penalties as well. This article looks at the history of the appraisal process, its structures, the expectations of an appraisal in violation of the standards, the liabilities associated with an appraisal in violation of the standards and laws, and those factors lending themselves in the promotion of fraudulent appraising. From the analysis the article offers suggestions to hold back the spate of poorly developed appraisals.
John Daab is a Certified Fraud Examiner specializing in art and forgery research through the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners. A Certified Forensics Consultant and Accredited Forensic Counselor, he is also a Registered Investigator with the American College of Forensic Examiners International. His academic credentials include a BA,/MA Philosophy, MBA Business, MPS/Industrial Counseling, MA Labor Studies and a PhD in Business Administration. John has also completed New York University’s Fine and Decorative Art Appraisal Program and is completing a docent program at Princeton University. He is a member of the National Sculpture Society, the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, the American College of Forensic Examiners Institute, Association for Research in Crimes Against Art, and The Fine Art Registry. In addition to his awards for teaching management and service to NYU, John has published more than 70 articles and authored, The Art Fraud Protection Handbook. Having recently completed a second book, Forensic Applications in Detecting Fine, Decorative, and Collectible Art Fakes and is now working on his third book on the Business of Art.

You may subscribe to The Journal of Art Crime through the ARCA website here.

June 25, 2011

The Business of Art Authentication

After reading the ARCA blog post about the Picasso Foundation's authentication of an electrician's hoard of Picasso art, John Daab, contributor to the Journal of Art Crime, sent a link to a series of his articles, Art Authentication Boards: Another Element of Chaos in the Fine Art Industry.

Dr. Daab writes in his introduction:
As technology takes many industries to the heights of efficiency, effectiveness and control, the fine art industry seems to be moving to greater levels of disorganization, inefficiency, and chaos. We observe works deteriorating and on the verge of collapse and disintegration being purchased for millions of dollars, families of artists being allowed to create and sign works of the dead, and art authentication boards offering authentication conclusions only to recant their original conclusions after buyers purchase the works. The consequences of the above processes result in law suits unnecessarily costing millions of dollars and rendering such works as specious and of questionable value. This article examines art authentication boards, how they operate, and how they could be made more efficient, and transparent.
Tom Flynn, an ARCA lecturer on the practices in the art market, recently wrote about "The Wildenstein Era will end and the art market will benefit."