622afaba13128

Collectors and appraisers encounter cryptic strings—stencils on a crate, graphite on a stretcher, pen on a label—that look like 622afaba13128. Whether it’s an inventory code, a dealer stock number, or a museum accession, that fragment can unlock provenance and, ultimately, value. This guide explains how to turn a code like 622afaba13128 into research leads, how to weigh condition and authenticity evidence, and how to convert findings into a defensible valuation.

What a code like 622afaba13128 can tell you

Marks, labels, and numbers fall into families. Identifying which family you’re dealing with guides your next steps.

• Museum/Institution accession numbers: Typically structured (year.collection.sequence). Example forms: 1962.28.131, 62.2.131, or alphanumeric. Found on stretcher, verso, base, or an old catalog tag.
• Dealer stock numbers: Often alphanumeric, sometimes with dashes or periods. Can repeat across multiple artworks in a shipment. Located on tags, frames, or old invoices.
• Auction house lot/stock numbers: Shorter numbers, sometimes stenciled on the stretcher or underside, accompanied by sale date stickers or colored dots.
• Shipper or customs numbers: Stencils on crates; can include routing codes, consignor initials, or destination abbreviations. Useful for dating movement between countries.
• Foundry or printer marks: For sculpture/prints, often with edition numbers (e.g., 13/125) plus foundry stamps or chop marks.
• Collection and gallery labels: Named labels with addresses, phone numbers, or logo variants that help date a period of ownership.

Initial triage steps:

• Record exact transcription, including spacing, punctuation, font style, and color. Photograph in context with scale.
• Note location and substrate: handwritten on canvas verso differs in weight from a tape tag on a frame.
• Check for palimpsest: earlier crossed-out numbers can signal previous owners and repair history.
• Consider pattern logic. 622afaba13128 might be parsed as 622a-faba-13128 (shelf-location-sequence) or a continuous dealer code. Don’t force a fit; list plausible families.

Evidence weighting:

• Tied to a known institutional system with corroborating marks (e.g., a registrar stamp)? High reliability.
• Matches a known dealer coding style and label design? Moderate to high.
• Isolated handwritten numbers with no corroboration? Low; treat as leads, not proof.

From mark to provenance: building a chain of custody

Provenance is the backbone of authenticity and risk assessment. Start from what you see on the object and radiate outward.

• Assemble a timeline scaffold: current owner → prior sale (invoice, auction catalog) → dealer/collector labels → shippers/customs → institutional notes. Plot known dates and identify gaps explicitly.
• Align marks with documentary evidence: If 622afaba13128 appears on a frame and the family retains an invoice with a similar code or dealer name, you’ve anchored that segment of provenance.
• Cross-reference catalogues raisonnés, artist monographs, and exhibition checklists. Look for matching dimensions, medium, inscriptions, and photographs. Verify whether numbers on the object correspond to checklist numbers or internal control numbers.
• Photograph all labels and inscriptions under raking and UV light. Inconsistent fluorescence around a number may indicate overpainting or alteration.
• Red flags: erased or rewritten numbers, conflicting dimensions between labels and object, labels applied to a later frame rather than the artwork proper, mismatched materials (e.g., a 1920s dealer label on a frame molding type introduced in the 1970s).

Grading provenance strength:

• Primary, contemporaneous documents (invoices, exhibition labels with dates) tied directly to the object’s unique descriptors carry the most weight.
• Secondary references (oral histories, memoirs) can support but should not stand alone.
• An orphan code like 622afaba13128 is a lead—valuable only when triangulated with other evidence.

Provenance and risk:

• Pre-1946 European works need WWII-era scrutiny for gaps and forced sales.
• Archaeological and ethnographic items require cultural property due diligence.
• Wildlife materials (ivory, tortoiseshell) invoke species-protection rules.

Condition and authenticity: technical work that changes value

Condition isn’t cosmetic; it’s financial. Worn gilding on a frame, an overcleaned sky, or an unstable bronze patina can swing value by double digits.

Core observations:

• Structure: For paintings, record support (linen, cotton, panel, board), stretcher type, keys, and any relining. For sculpture, note casting method (sand vs. lost-wax), seams, core pits, and chasing.
• Surface: Map craquelure types, abrasions, cupping, tenting, and retouching. For works on paper, note foxing, mat burn, and paper type/chain lines.
• Inscriptions and signatures: Assess execution relative to artist’s known hand. Check whether a signature sits atop later varnish (red flag).
• Frames and mounts: Period frames can add value; anachronistic frames can mislead. Label the frame separately as included or excluded in value conclusion.

Simple technical aids:

• UV light: Locates retouching and varnish differences. Note that not all pigments fluoresce consistently.
• Raking light: Reveals planar distortions and craquelure patterns.
• XRF/FTIR (via specialists): Identifies pigments and binders to confirm period plausibility. Example: titanium white suggests post-1916 usage; its presence in a “1800” painting is a concern.
• Dendrochronology (for panel paintings): Can date wood felling; a terminus post quem helps bracket possible creation time.

Condition to value translation:

• Stable, original surfaces command premiums; extensive overpaint or structural repairs warrant discounts.
• Typical adjustments for common categories might range from -5% for routine edge retouch to -30% or more for major overpaint or structural instability.
• Restoration can increase marketability but doesn’t always “add” value net of cost; it often reduces discount rather than creating a premium.

Authentication context:

• Connoisseurship and technical evidence complement each other. A plausible hand with implausible materials is a no-go.
• Attributions carry confidence levels (by artist, workshop of, circle of, follower of). Each tier corresponds to very different market bands.

Valuation methodology that anchors numbers

Start with scope: define the intended use and type of value.

• Fair Market Value (FMV): For tax and many estate contexts; willing buyer/seller, no compulsion.
• Retail Replacement Value (RRV): For insurance; cost to replace with a like item at retail in a reasonable time.
• Marketable Cash Value or Forced Liquidation Value: Reflects discounts for quick sale or limited market exposure.

Select the relevant market level:

• Primary (from the artist/gallery), secondary retail (dealers), or auction. Choose based on the object’s typical trade channel.

Comparable selection:

• Same artist or maker where possible; else same school/period/maker circle.
• Align medium, size, date, subject, signature status, and condition.
• Prefer sales within the last 3–5 years; include older comps only if the market is thin.

Adjustments (qualitative → quantitative):

• Size: Scale value nonlinearly; larger works often command disproportionately higher prices, but subject desirability can override.
• Medium: Oil on canvas vs. oil on board vs. watercolor vs. print; each has distinct price ladders.
• Date and period: Peak-period works vs. late or early period.
• Subject: Portrait vs. landscape vs. marine; iconic subjects carry premiums.
• Provenance/exhibition/publication: Named collections and exhibitions can add 5–25% depending on significance.
• Condition: Deduct per conservation burden and risk.
• Market timing: Uptrends/downtrends; bracket values rather than fixating on a single point.

Worked example (simplified):

• Subject work: Oil on canvas, 61 x 76 cm, stable original surface, minor edge retouch, plausible provenance chain including a 1970s dealer label with code similar to 622afaba13128.
• Comp A: Same artist, 55 x 70 cm, similar subject, sold 18 months ago at auction for 24,000 (hammer + premium). Smaller size (+10% to subject), slightly inferior condition (+5%), weaker provenance (+10%). Adjusted: 24,000 × 1.25 = 30,000.
• Comp B: Same artist, 65 x 81 cm, different but popular subject, sold dealer retail at 48,000 two years ago. Larger size (-8% to subject), stronger subject (-12%), similar condition (0%), gallery retail premium (-10% if valuing at FMV/auction level). Adjusted to auction-level equivalent: 48,000 × 0.70 = 33,600; then size/subject net -20%: 26,880.
• Comp C: Workshop piece, 61 x 76 cm, sold 10,000. Attribution difference (+60% to subject for full-artist status), better condition (-5%). Adjusted: 10,000 × 1.55 = 15,500.

Bracket and reconcile:

• Place subject between Comp C and A/B, weight A and B more heavily for attribution parity. A: 50% weight (30,000), B: 35% (26,880), C: 15% (15,500) → Indicated FMV ≈ 27,900. Round to 28,000 with a stated value range (e.g., 25,000–31,000) acknowledging market volatility and data limits.

Key cautions:

• Don’t use asking prices as comps; rely on verified realizations.
• Include buyer’s premiums when comparing like-for-like; be consistent across comps.
• Adjust currencies and dates for inflation where relevant. Note assumptions.

Reporting, ethics, and risk management

A defensible appraisal is transparent about what is known, assumed, and limited.

Report essentials:

• Object identification: title/description, maker/attribution, date/period, materials, dimensions (H x W x D, unframed/framed), inscriptions, marks (including 622afaba13128), and distinguishing features.
• Photography: Overall and detail images of marks and condition issues, with scale.
• Provenance: Chronological list with citations and confidence levels.
• Methodology: Market level, comp selection criteria, adjustments rationale.
• Condition summary: Findings and their valuation impact; note any conservation recommendations not yet undertaken.
• Value conclusion: Type of value, effective date, range/point, and reconciliation logic.
• Assumptions and limiting conditions: Title, authenticity opinions, access limits, market exposure assumptions.
• Signatures and standards: Identify compliance (e.g., USPAP in the US; IVS internationally) and include qualifications.

Ethics and conflicts:

• Declare conflicts of interest (ownership, brokerage, contingent fees).
• Separate appraisal from any sale/brokerage activity to maintain independence where standards require.

Risk checks:

• Title: Review bills of sale and any liens.
• Stolen/cultural property: Compare identifiers against appropriate databases; document findings and date of search.
• Restricted materials: Note legal transfer limits; advise on permits when necessary for replacement valuations.

Record management:

• Keep workfile notes: photos, measurements, sources, correspondence summaries, and all comp data with dates and access paths. This protects you and supports future updates.

Practical checklist: turning 622afaba13128 into an appraisal

• Photograph the mark in situ with a scale and capture the entire verso/base.
• Transcribe the code exactly; note letter case, separators, color, and tool (pencil/paint/stencil).
• Map all labels and inscriptions; sketch a location diagram.
• Measure the object precisely (metric and imperial), unframed and framed; record stretcher/frame details.
• Conduct UV and raking-light examination; document retouch and surface anomalies.
• Draft a preliminary provenance timeline; list gaps and targeted research actions.
• Identify market level (auction/dealer/primary) appropriate to the object and value purpose (FMV/RRV/etc.).
• Select 5–8 comparables; narrow to 3–5 best after screening for medium, size, subject, and date.
• Normalize comp data (premiums, currency, inflation); apply and justify adjustments.
• Reconcile to a value conclusion with a clear range and effective date.
• List assumptions/limiting conditions and note any pending tests or verifications.
• Compile a concise report with photos, marks (including 622afaba13128), provenance, condition, comps, and signed certifications.

FAQ

Q: Is a code like 622afaba13128 proof of authenticity? A: No. It’s a lead. Only when a mark aligns with verified documentation (e.g., an accession system, dealer records) and matches the object’s specifics does it contribute to authenticity. Treat isolated codes as prompts for further research.

Q: How much value can provenance add? A: It depends on significance. Routine dealer ownership might have little impact; a documented exhibition history or notable collection can add 5–25% or more. Conversely, problematic or missing provenance in sensitive categories can depress value or make sale impossible.

Q: Should I restore before appraising? A: Usually no. Appraise as-is, then model post-conservation scenarios if needed. Restoration can improve marketability, but costs and risks must be weighed; over-restoration can reduce value.

Q: Can I use asking prices as comparables? A: Avoid them. Use realized prices from documented sales. If you must reference asking prices due to a thin market, disclose them clearly and apply a realistic negotiation discount, explaining your rationale.

Q: How long does a credible appraisal take? A: For straightforward objects with available comps, a few days. For complex attributions or significant provenance research, expect weeks. Build time for verification of marks, including codes like 622afaba13128, and for obtaining high-quality images and condition data.

By treating every code, including 622afaba13128, as a structured research opportunity—and by translating findings into transparent, market-grounded analysis—you build appraisals that stand up to scrutiny, serve clients, and protect your professional reputation.