Provenance

I thought the insurance company valued expensive items before adding them to a policy?

Potty wrote:Regarding the insurance, surely if the owner has paid to insure it for the sum of $3000, then that is what should be paid out?

Usually they would pay the cost of a replacement. If you've overpaid for something and break it and get a pay out for $3000 and buy a replacement for $250 you'd end up pocketting $2750, which is not really what you'd insured for. You've insured the item, not a lump sum of cash.

Similarly, your buildings insurance covers the cost of rebuilding the house if it burns down, not the value of the house if you sold it, which can often be twice what it would cost to rebuild it.

studio-pots wrote:

big ed wrote:I agree with all that John , it's the Bonhams Provenance I would question , from "the prof's collection" isn't worth a toss to me , I wouldn't bid on it anyway as it's not that good an example of anyone's work , just a bit surprised they catalogued it as such .

I understand why you are questioning it and from my own point of view I would not sell anything based solely on what an auction house had stated. For example I bought four nice studio pots at auction the other week by a studio potter called William Murray but I will be selling them as being by William Marshall.

It is interesting to note the price that it was bought for from Bonhams and what the Ebayer seller's starting price was. I think that must tell you something.

Interesting. What auction house was it?

It wouldn't really be fair to single them out but with a little knowledge it doesn't take you too long when trawling through saleroom.com to find completely wrong attributions all over the country.

In this case it was "south of London" but I did see a signed lithograph of a leaping salmon vase apparantly to "Bruno Leach" in a London auction house recently.

Bruno leach pots are very rare John , as are the pots of his son Danny, did the auction have any Henry Coper pots ?

big ed wrote:Bruno leach pots are very rare John , as are the pots of his son Danny, did the auction have any Henry Coper pots ?

There were Henry Copers splashed all over - it really was a brute of an auction.

Naomi is correct with regard to the insurance cover; insurers' obligation is to put the insured back in the position they were before the event giving rise to the claim. Of course, had the item been purchased for £250 and subsequently valued and insured at £3,000, then £3,000 would have been an appropriate settlement.

As regards which expert's opinion counts, the claimant would be at liberty to counter with their own expert's opinion (they didn't), which we would have had to consider on its own merits. If no agreement can be reached as to value there is always the option of going to mediation!

To counter the impression it was one-sided in favour of insurers, I always remember a claim for a pair of Staffordshire pottery dogs. From photos of the damaged pieces I was convinced they were just modern reproductions/fakes that I knew were about. Of course this was not based on any real expertise on my behalf, but the look of them just did not match with the antique description and knowing there were fakes about I put two and two together. So sure was I of my position that I set out my arguments fully in my request for our expert's opinion, confident that the response would confirm my opinion (and compliment me on such a discerning eye!). In fact their response totally confirmed the claimant's description, and went further to point out the obvious ignorance of my own observations. I never pronounced on subjects of which I had no real knowledge after that.

I'm also reminded of another claim arising from (understandable) lack of knowledge. The claim centre was part of an international removal company, and this claim involved the loss of a maquette (scale model) by the artist Alexander Calder which disappeared during a move. Unfortunately the model was made primarily from plywood and wire, and it transpired that the crew member who had been tasked with the job of collecting and disposing of the waste materials at the end of the move thought it was just part of the rubbish and took it to the tip. If I remember correctly the settlement was £12,000.

Anyway, I'm moving away from the topic - time for a cup of tea....

we could easily set up a separate thread for your insurance tales

It'd drive everyone away Dan!

Learn something new everyday :)

The auction with the William Murray attribution for Bill Marshall,was Stride & Sons of Chichester on 25th January. They were selling the Norman Smith collection as a deceased sale. It was a fantastic collection.Probably one of the best and widest single owner collections to come up for auction in quite some time.
Trouble is,they had no knowledge. There were lots of big group lots with pieces by major potters in them. But not attributed.
Its quite fun watching all said items coming up on Ebay now,and seeing what money is,or is not made. Still the sale got reasonable prices. The Bill Marshal mis-attributed lot had a hamer price of £650.
Personally,I would never paid very large money for a piece on Ebay. You can only tell so much from a photo. All potters have their bad days.and even the best,produced some pretty ghastly work at times!