Word: duveen
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: all
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...back his money. But despite this material satisfaction, the world of Art remained troublous for Mr. Fisher. What about the rest of the score of paintings which he had employed Galleryman Young to buy for him? How could one ever be sure of the genuine? Even expert Sir Joseph Duveen, in a similar case, had proved nothing (TIME, Feb. 18, et seq.). Row upon row of glistening Cadillacs, or Mr. Fisher's new and magnificent Fokker (see p.14), are logical, congenial objects of thought. But two paintings, placed side by side for comparison, may jeopardize the reason...
This painting was sold, last week, by Sir Joseph Duveen to Manhattan Banker Jules Semon Bache for $600,000.* It had been owned by Florentines, Russians, Roman royalty, and had been missing for a period of 300 years. In 1925 Sir Joseph bought it from Oscar Huldschinksy, a Berlin collector. Banker Bache will not hang it in a serried gallery, but in his Fifth Avenue home. There, as private decoration, are three Titians, three Rembrandts, four Holbeins, a Hals, a Watteau, a Fragonard, and many another picture of rank. The collection is among the finest...
...Joseph Duveen, international art tycoon, has emerged unscathed if not triumphant from three $500,000 libel suits. In 1915 Art Dealer Edgar Gorer failed to prove that Sir Joseph's opinionizing had spoiled the sale of a Kang Hsi vase to the late, great collector Henry Clay Frick. In 1921 Mrs. Harry Hahn of Kansas City brought a suit which only last fortnight came to a bootless halt (TIME, Feb. 18 et seq.). In 1923 suit was brought by the late Art Dealer George Joseph Demotte of Manhattan, which ceased when Mr. Demotte was accidentally shot to death while...
Thus the bland Sir Joseph may well believe in an angelic guardian. But he must have felt twinges of both chagrin and resentment, last week, when it was announced that the Duveen opinions which had caused the Demotte suit had been sharply repudiated...
...statuette fascinated the late Michael Dreicer, famed Manhattan jeweller. Shortly before his death he arranged to buy it for 350,000 francs. After he died, the bank handling the Dreicer estate engaged Sir Joseph Duveen to pass judgment on the authenticity of the statuette, for which 100,000 francs had already been paid. Sir Joseph called it a modern fake, and the bank promptly refused further payments. Mr. Demotte brought suit. Sir Joseph insisted that he had libeled no one, but had merely expressed a solicited opinion. Mr. Demotte's death kept the affair from the courts...