RSS Feed
March 2nd, 2012 
FAKE NEWS for the Zionist agenda
Suspect painting … Big Blue Lavender Bay.
More evidence is emerging in the case of the mysterious trio of allegedly fake Whiteleys, writes Gabriella Coslovich.
NSW POLICE will be asked to investigate an alleged scam involving paintings that appear to have been passed off as the work of the late Australian artist, Brett Whiteley, after two of the buyers compared notes on the almost identical paintings.
One of the buyers, as revealed in the Herald two weeks ago, is Sydney investment banker Andrew Pridham, who is suing Melbourne art dealer Anita Archer who he alleges sold him what he claims is a fake Big Blue Lavender Bay for $2.5 million.
Mr Pridham has had the work tested by the University of Melbourne’s forensic art expert, Robyn Sloggett, and alleges it is a fake. The banker also alleges Ms Archer acquired the painting from controversial Melbourne art dealer, the bankrupt Peter Gant.
Sold a fake … investment banker Andrew Pridham. Photo: Rob Homer
The other man seeking answers in the case of the problematic Whiteleys is Sydney luxury car dealer Steven Nasteski, who first raised concerns about the paintings in 2010, after buying Orange Lavender Bay for $1.1 million from Melbourne art dealer John Playfoot, who was acting as an agent for Mr Gant.
The emergence of Mr Pridham has buoyed Mr Nasteski’s resolve to have the suspect Whiteleys investigated. In his opinion, the paintings are fake. He has vowed to take his case back to the NSW police for investigation.
”It’s strength in numbers … I have always been waiting for this guy with the blue fake to get involved. I have been trying to contact him for 18 months. Nobody would tell me who he was,” said Mr Nasteski, who has been in contact with Mr Pridham’s lawyer about the paintings.
”Just because we didn’t prosecute a year and a half ago, doesn’t mean that we can’t do it now. I am picking up all my information in relation to the painting and I will be handing it over to the police.”
Mr Nasteski went to the police in July 2010 after concerns were raised about the painting’s authenticity but withdrew his complaint when Mr Playfoot refunded the money.
Mr Nasteski had suspicions that other people had been unwittingly sold problematic Whiteleys because his painting was one of three listed on a consignment note that was faxed to him by Mr Playfoot.
The note is dated June 28, 1988 and consigns three art works to ‘Chris Quintas’, Whiteley’s then studio assistant: Big Blue Lavender Bay, Orange Lavender Bay and Lavender Bay through the Window (which was given to a Melbourne restaurateur by Mr Gant in lieu of debts).
”I have seen the blue fake now and it’s very similar to my fake, except it’s blue … it’s extraordinary how similar they are. One person has painted the lot of them,” Mr Nasteski said.
A University of Melbourne forensic report into Orange Lavender Bay, commissioned by Mr Nasteski, concludes that the painting, which is signed ”brett whiteley 88”, ”cannot be ascribed to the oeuvre of Brett Whiteley ”without further evidence”.
It finds that the paint does not behave like paint from 1988 and that the painting is likely to be ”less than five years” old. The report also states that the painting ”does not have the loose, calligraphic, painterly qualities of works of this subject, Sydney Harbour, that are securely attributed to Brett Whiteley” and that the painting’s motifs ”appear to be a pastiche from a number of other Sydney Harbour works that are by Brett Whiteley and have secure provenance”. The report notes that the painting is particularly similar to Whiteley’s authentic Big Orange (sunset), from 1974, which is in the collection of the Art Gallery of NSW.
Another concern is a Peter Gant Fine Art exhibition catalogue from 1989, called A Private Affair, that Mr Playfoot gave Mr Nasteski in support of Orange Lavender Bay‘s provenance – the painting is featured in the catalogue.
But Neil Holland, of Scientific Document Services, who conducted tests on the catalogue, said that in his opinion, ”the catalogue could not have been printed at that time [the late 1980s] because the technology and the resolution [exhibited by the catalogue] just wasn’t available at that time”. The origin of the suspect catalogue is unclear.
The case has also entangled high-profile businessman Robert Le Tet, a non-executive director of Village Roadshow. Mr Pridham’s court documents allege Ms Archer bought Big Blue Lavender Bay from Mr Le Tet and that the artwork ”had always sat in Robert Le Tet’s office in North Sydney”. Mr Pridham alleges in his court documents that Ms Archer told him that Mr Le Tet had purchased Big Blue Lavender Bay directly from Brett Whiteley in 1988.
In her defence document, Ms Archer denies that Big Blue Lavender Bay is a forgery or that she verified the provenance – or history of sale – of the painting. She did not return calls, nor did Mr Le Tet or Mr Gant. Stephen Nall, who was involved in a Victorian Supreme Court case last year against Mr Gant over the sale of three fakes – one purportedly by his stepfather Robert Dickerson – is heartened that Mr Pridham is taking his case to the Supreme Court of NSW.
Mr Nall said it was about time someone had the guts to take the issue on.
”It’s something that the arts industry should have done some time ago in an organised fashion. But it appears vested interests make this difficult and that’s the reason why new legislation is necessary.”
Views: 0
Posted in 
Tags: 
