La Skelves Appraisal Of An Original Painting

La Skelves’ approach to appraising an original painting is meticulous, document-heavy, and aligned with established professional standards. This article walks appraisal enthusiasts through a full, end-to-end workflow as applied in a representative case: an early-20th-century oil on canvas, privately held, with partial provenance and a contested attribution. While the specifics of each painting differ, the structure below outlines the repeatable steps, evidence thresholds, and reasoning that lead to credible value conclusions.

1) Assignment and Scope: What the Appraisal Is (and Isn’t)

Every credible appraisal begins with a clear definition of intent and scope. In this case, the client requested a written appraisal for two purposes: (1) insurance scheduling and (2) estate planning. Those purposes necessitate different value definitions and different market perspectives.

• Intended use and users: Owner and insurance carrier (insurance schedule); owner and tax advisor (estate planning).
• Value definitions:
  • Retail Replacement Value (RRV): The cost to replace the painting with another of like kind and quality within a reasonable time in the appropriate retail market. Used for insurance.
  • Fair Market Value (FMV): The price a willing buyer and willing seller would agree upon, neither under compulsion, both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts. Often used for estate and charitable contribution contexts.
• Effective date: The valuation date must be explicit and locked (e.g., as of the inspection date).
• Assumptions and limiting conditions: For instance, the opinion of value is contingent on the painting being original and the condition as observed; scientific testing results, if pending, are noted as extraordinary assumptions.

This set-up keeps the appraisal on track and ensures the final opinion matches the needs of the client and the expectations of any third-party reviewers.

2) Object Description and Condition: Building the Factual Core

La Skelves builds a granular, standardized object record before making any value statements. The description phase is neutral and observational.

• Identification
  • Title: Unknown (landscape with figures)
  • Medium: Oil on canvas
  • Support: Linen canvas, relined (evidence of a secondary support)
  • Dimensions: 24 x 30 in (61 x 76.2 cm) canvas; 31 x 37 in framed
  • Signature: Lower right, indecipherable monogram, possibly “M—”
  • Inscriptions/labels: Old dealer label on stretcher; inventory stencil fragment
• Physical examination
  • Under normal light: Moderately yellowed natural resin varnish; even craquelure pattern consistent with age; scattered inpainting detectable by sheen.
  • Magnification: Monogram reveals partially abraded strokes; pigments include cadmium yellow, ultramarine, and likely viridian; brushwork crisp where original.
  • Raking light: Confirms plane distortions minimized by relining; some cupping pronounced in mid-tones.
  • UV fluorescence: Retouching present along the sky and a figure’s garment; varnish fluoresces greenish, consistent with natural resin.
  • Structural condition: Stable relining executed decades ago; original tacking margins removed; stretcher appears later than the painting.
• Condition grading (narrative rather than a single letter grade)
  • Overall structurally sound. Cosmetic condition fair-to-good with scattered retouching and aged varnish. The relining and lost tacking margins affect historical integrity but do not necessarily preclude strong market interest if the attribution is upheld.

In reports, La Skelves includes annotated condition maps, but the essential point is to establish, with evidence, how the work exists today—before discussing authorship or value.

3) Authentication and Attribution: Layering the Evidence

Attribution probability is built from concordant evidence. In this case, the owner believed the painting to be by a regional impressionist active 1900–1930. La Skelves pursued parallel lines of inquiry:

• Provenance reconstruction
  • Documentary chain: Family ownership since at least the 1960s; prior dealer label suggests a mid-century gallery known for European imports. No invoice located; a partial stock number matches a pattern used by that gallery in the 1950s.
  • Negative evidence: No listing in the artist’s primary catalogue raisonné, though the catalogue is known to be incomplete for landscapes from the 1910s.
• Signature and inscriptions
  • Monogram analysis: Comparison to authenticated signatures indicates formal similarities in letter construction but differences in terminal strokes. The signature appears original, not later-added, based on varnish stratigraphy and fluorescence behavior.
• Stylistic and connoisseurial assessment
  • Composition, palette, and handling of mid-distance figures match the artist’s workshop traits. The sky passages and tree foliage show atypical brush rhythm; this may indicate studio collaboration or a period outside the artist’s most characteristic phase.
• Technical testing (screening level)
  • IR imaging: Sketch pentimenti align with the artist’s known working method (blocked contours revised at early stage).
  • XRF spot readings: Pigments consistent with an early 20th-century palette; no modern synthetic pigments that would postdate the artist’s life were detected in original layers. Some retouch uses later pigments, as expected.
• Comparative inquiry
  • La Skelves consulted image archives and two independent scholars familiar with the artist’s circle. Both deemed the attribution “plausible, pending fuller documentation.”

Conclusion on authorship for valuation purposes:

• Attributed to [Artist Name], with moderate confidence, subject to confirmation. For the valuation scenarios, the appraisal uses two attribution cases:
  • Case A: “Attributed to [Artist]” (primary scenario).
  • Case B: “Circle of [Artist]” (more conservative scenario). This dual-scenario approach brackets value risk and makes the appraisal resilient if later scholarship adjusts the attribution.

4) Market Analysis and Valuation: From Comparables to Conclusions

Valuation rests on relevant market data and reasoned adjustments. La Skelves organizes comparables by market tier, recency, size, subject, and condition.

• Market tier selection
  • For Retail Replacement Value: Primary retail dealers and reputable galleries that actively handle the artist and close analogs; also auction records where retail replacement would reasonably source.
  • For Fair Market Value: Auction sales (public and private-treaty outcomes where available), and dealer-to-collector sales data when well documented.
• Comparable selection criteria
  • Authorship status: Prioritize “Attributed to” or “Circle of” works unless fully authenticated examples are essential anchors for adjustment.
  • Format and size: Landscape, 20–32 inches on the long side to match the subject and scale.
  • Date/period: 1905–1925 for stylistic parity.
  • Condition: Include examples with relining, moderate retouch, or yellowed varnish to keep condition parity.
• Adjustments (illustrative)
  • Size: Use a non-linear adjustment; mid-size works often command disproportionately strong demand.
  • Subject appeal: Figures in landscape tend to outperform pure landscapes for this artist; modest upward adjustment.
  • Condition: Reline and scattered retouch warrant a deduction relative to untouched examples.
  • Provenance prestige: Lack of exhibition history or publication yields a modest downward adjustment.
  • Authorship certainty: “Attributed to” generally trades at a discount to “signed and documented”; “Circle of” carries a larger discount.

Data synthesis:

• Comparable range for “Attributed to” works, adjusted, indicates a FMV cluster around the mid–upper five figures, with outliers tied to exceptional subjects or recent marketing momentum.
• “Circle of” analogs, adjusted, cluster one band lower, reflecting market caution.

Value conclusions (as of the stated effective date):

• FMV (Case A: Attributed to): A reasoned single-point conclusion at [confidential figure], supported by three primary comps and two secondary comps after adjustments.
• FMV (Case B: Circle of): A lower single-point conclusion reflecting the same comps re-weighted by authorship discount.
• Retail Replacement Value: A higher figure reflecting retail sourcing costs, dealer margins, and time-to-replace risk.

The report explicitly narrates why certain comps were weighted more heavily and documents every adjustment so the reasoning is auditable.

Risk and sensitivity:

• A successful cleaning could improve market perception and narrow the discount for condition, though cleaning also risks revealing broader retouch.
• A definitive scholarly endorsement could move the work from “Attributed to” toward “By,” with a corresponding value lift; the reverse is also true.
• Market volatility for this artist’s category (regional impressionism) is moderate; shifts track broader demand for period landscapes.

5) Practical Checklist: Getting an Original Painting Appraised the La Skelves Way

• Define purpose and value type:
  • Insurance, estate, sale, or donation? Confirm FMV vs RRV at the outset.
• Gather documentation:
  • Bills of sale, old photos, exhibition records, conservation reports, labels, and any correspondence.
• Photograph methodically:
  • Front, back, raking light, signature, labels, condition issues; include measurements with a scale.
• Condition first:
  • Note structural issues (tears, relining, warped panel), surface issues (craquelure, yellowed varnish), and prior restorations.
• Plan testing appropriately:
  • UV for retouch, IR for underdrawing, XRF for pigment screening; escalate to lab testing only as needed.
• Build comps with discipline:
  • Match authorship status, size, subject, period, and condition; document every adjustment.
• State assumptions and limits:
  • Be explicit about attribution confidence, pending tests, and effective date.
• Keep versions:
  • Archive your working file, images, and notes; value conclusions should be reproducible from your record.

6) FAQ

Q: What’s the difference between Fair Market Value and Retail Replacement Value? A: FMV is the price a willing buyer and seller would agree to in the relevant open market, commonly anchored by auction data. RRV is what it would cost to replace the work promptly through the retail channel, accounting for dealer margins and sourcing difficulty. RRV is typically higher than FMV.

Q: How much does a relining affect value? A: Relining itself is not fatal but can reduce value if it compromised original edges, flattened impasto, or signals significant restoration. The magnitude of any deduction depends on market norms for the artist and the visibility of the intervention.

Q: Can an unsigned painting be appraised credibly? A: Yes. Attribution relies on a matrix of evidence: provenance, stylistic analysis, technical testing, and expert opinion. An unsigned piece may still achieve strong value if the attribution confidence is high and the market accepts comparable examples.

Q: Should I clean the painting before the appraisal? A: Not without advice. An aged varnish can mask color and detail, but cleaning can reveal unexpected retouch or losses. Appraisers can conduct UV screening first and, if warranted, incorporate a conservator’s pre-cleaning test patch and treatment plan into the appraisal’s risk discussion.

Q: How often should I update an appraisal? A: For insurance, every 3–5 years or after major market shifts, conservation treatment, or notable changes in attribution. For estate planning, update when ownership structures or tax considerations change, or at least on a similar cadence.

A La Skelves appraisal rests on disciplined observation, transparent assumptions, and verifiable data. The process is not about forcing a conclusion but about building a documented argument that withstands scrutiny—by collectors, insurers, and scholars alike. By defining scope, recording condition, triangulating attribution, and modeling the market with appropriate comps, the final value opinion is both credible today and resilient to tomorrow’s questions.