Authentication Opinions

Questions of authenticity rarely turn on a single piece of evidence. Attribution, provenance, stylistic consistency, materials, technique, documentary history and established scholarship may all contribute to the assessment, but their relevance and weight differ from one work to another. A responsible opinion therefore depends on the convergence of evidence rather than on any isolated test, document or visual impression.

The examination begins with the object itself and the claims made about it. Signature, inscriptions, materials, construction, condition and known interventions may be considered alongside provenance, exhibition history, archival references and comparison with securely documented works. Where necessary, scientific analysis, imaging or specialist technical examination may provide additional evidence, particularly where questions of chronology, materials or later alteration cannot be resolved visually.

Authentication also requires careful attention to the limits of available knowledge. Catalogue raisonné inclusion, expert opinions, certificates, previous attributions or longstanding market descriptions may be relevant, but none should be treated as conclusive without regard to their basis and context. Where appropriate, recognised scholars, institutions, laboratories or other qualified specialists may be consulted as part of a broader assessment.

An authentication opinion should express the strength of the evidence with precision and avoid creating certainty where the record does not justify it. The conclusion may support an attribution, identify inconsistencies, exclude certain possibilities or determine that the available material remains insufficient for a reliable finding. What matters is that the reasoning is transparent, the evidential limits are stated clearly and the opinion remains independent of the commercial interests of any party involved.