The irony in that comment is that one of the Soprano actors is actually an artist (painter) and big art buff and scored big on finding a painting at a dealer that "didn't know what he had"..

https://news.artnet.com/art-world/sopranos-actor-discovers-1...

That's funny. I know it shouldn't be, but it is always surprising when actors turn out to be very unlike those they portray. Infamous villains played by famously kind people, violent goons played by erudite and talented members of the arts community, etc.

I don't know, being a baroque Italian art collector sounds just like Furio to me!

This is the plot of _From the Mixed Up Files of Ms Basil E Frankweiler_

All I remember from that book was that the kids botched seperating their laundry. It was a real snoozer, but it planted a persistent seed of doubt whenever I have to do laundry.

(the actor that played Furio Giunta)

It's not that easy to sell counterfeit artwork. Anyone who's paying millions for an artwork will have the painting examined by a specialized consultant. The easiest way to spot a fake is to examine the pigments and whether a particular one was available by the time the artist lived. This is how the Rosales scandal was exposed in 2013.

Where are you going to find a specialized consultant expert enough to judge if its fake who also doesn't know that the painting he is looking at was recently stolen from a museum?

I don't think it's that hard to buy discretion if you're willing to pay a hefty fee. Besides how could anyone prove that you actually own the painting? I hire you, I fly you half the way around the world to a remote place where you're to examine the painting for a couple of weeks, you're paid and bye-bye.

I'm not saying that I know for a fact that this is how it's happening, but it doesn't seem far-fetched. What I do know is that a lot of what's happening in the art world is shrouded by a veil of secrecy.

The consultant doesn't need to prove it. The prosecutor does, if it gets to that point – but first there would be a police investigation, and the police have a variety of investigative techniques at their disposal.

Unusually tricky right now. Plus the number of people who can validate authenticity is quite limited and easily identifiable. A Van Gogh would be hard to forge but not that hard. There's recipes for paint/pigment manufacture going back centuries.

Are you implying that if they do recognize the original, they would report it as stolen?

It's an interesting question, and there are rewards for recovery so it's probably under the same trust calculus of any other criminal venture: pay enough that they don't.

Why do they need to not know that it was recently stolen from a museum?

Their ignorance is not required, they certainly should be aware it was stolen if they're any good at their job. All you need is someone who's willing to accept cash.

These are oil paintings. I don't have much expertise in that but I think it'll be impossible to counterfeit the smallest details.

With High res imaging of much major art a la google art project now, it's going to be literally impossible for many of them.

Can't fake the inorganic chemist that the museum hires to date paint compositions.

Thank you for posting this - I'd had pretty much the exact thought about creating a market for multiple copies earlier today when I first saw this story, and presumed (in my typically arrogant and self-regarding human fashion) that I'd had a somewhat novel thought.

Of course I hadn't! :)

Couldn’t museums and other art holders create their own authenticated market of accurate clones by giving copiers access?

Nobody wants to pay a million bucks for an authenticated accurate clone. The entire idea of the fraud described above is that people think they're buying the original.

Prints already exist, but nobody is paying big bucks for one.

Well people pay large sums for prints of the Great Wave, of which many thousands were made and are still being made. (Of course the trick is to know which prints are the earliest ones)

The trick is convincing people that earlier prints should be somehow worth more.

I think there's a genuine reason for them to be worth more since they are closer to the original painting. There's a fantastic (and long) series on Youtube about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAhiMCSvtCc

Some museums do sell prints of public domain art, or licensed reproductions including oil painting reproductions. https://shop.famsf.org/collections/monet-the-late-years-art-...

Not quite the same thing as an accurate clone

You can get 3D printed reproductions, too:

- https://gizmodo.com/heres-how-to-get-your-own-picasso-for-un...

- https://www.digitalmeetsculture.net/article/van-gogh-museum-... (probably a bit higher in quality and price, but I can’t find a link for it)

- https://www.vangoghmuseum.nl/en/business/van-gogh-museum-edi... (probably even better, but likely also very pricey)

Interesting that Starry Night is a bestseller for the start-up, but not available from the Van Gogh Museum in either collection.

The ethics of such a practice would be dubious at best.

If the original is now public domain and the replica is not advertised as the original, I'm not sure what the ethical issue is?

I do see a financial issue though, cheap clones are CHEAP - and if you want something that can nearly pass as authentic (which I'd argue is a work of art on it's own) you'd be looking at a very narrow market of buyers.

Again, as long as replicas/clones are labeled as such and the original is in the public domain.

Why? This is just like selling high-quality prints of the paintings, which is already done and nobody complains about.

Perfect reproductions are a goal both for museums and researchers. See, for example: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337848225_Gloss_Col...

I don’t see why if they’re clearly indicated as clones.