A routine document at the core of a major lawsuit
Exhibit A
How well does the report document the loss of “pop” and “spark” claimed by the collector? How do you document “oomph”?
This image taken from the New York Times article.
The insurers claim that any damage to the works in question predated the 2018 fire, and that they were sued before they could even complete their investigation.
I have so many questions about this Ronald Perelman lawsuit as noted in this Artnet News article. Collections management sits at the heart of the issue.
In summary, a prominent collector’s house caught on fire which damaged several ultra-high value pieces. Insurers claim that this specific group works (which just happen to be the highest valued works) did not suffer any damage after already paying out $141,000,000 in fire-related damages. Insurers further claim that damages in those works predate the 2018 fire. Check the condition report.
Exhibit B
I hope this condition report has some high-quality images to accompany this text. Lawsuits like this demonstrate the need for an image-based condition report in my opinion.
Further, now with articles and publicity about the case, this will help to replace some of the value of the pieces by making them, in some respect, infamous. The narrative around the works influences the value.
Recall how Steve Wynne damaged his own Picasso work, La Rêve, with his own elbow (read this article because the whole story will surprise you more than you would expect). Anyway, he bought it for $40-some million and sold it for $139 million to Steve Cohen. The work, in essence, became even more famous because of the damage.
While Perelman’s damaged Cy Twombly will not become as known for its scars as the Wynn Picasso, notoriety will certainly help its case and provide a new twist in the narrative arc of the work’s life.
