Painting Attributed to George Luks?
Hello,
I just picked up this painting which doesn't have signature.
On the back it says it's attributed to American Painter George Luks.
The document on the back says it was sold by B. Lewin Galleries in Palm Spring.
If you have any information or know anybody I can contact to have it appraised would be much appreciated.
Thanks,
27 comments
bouchan52
OP3 years agoThank you so much for your time and research. This community is amazing.
I'm still going to enjoy this piece.
maeday76
·3 years agoYou should. Regardless the artist, it's real paint on real canvas, well executed and in a nice frame. What's not to like?
maeday76
·3 years ago@bouchan52
I was looking to find a reason for this to be authentic. COAs are a garbage form of provenance, true, but it wouldn't be the first time an enthusiastic seller gilded their legitimate lily by adding flourishes like a COA or even adding a signature, hoping to boost sale price. I was hoping to give you some good news.
Sadly, I can't.
Below you can see a comparison of a B. Lewin label for Luks. It's possible that the label on the COA piece is from a different time, and gallery location (P.Springs) explaining the label differences I see:
Artist Geo. vs George
Media Oil vs Oil/Canvas
BOLDED Artist, Media, Size & Title prompts
Merel/Brandon vs Helvetica font for the above prompts the fonts are different (look at the M in Media.)
Also there is a real art to making copy look like it came off a real typewriter. The ink transfer is seldom very even when authentic. Letters appear lighter or darker and can be "blown out." When a printer is used to imitate real type, it's crisp, homogeneous and easy to spot. The Beverly Hills label shows what you'd expect from a typewriter.
Additionally, the Palm Springs paper is bright and new while still being nearly worn through. Prior to the 1980s, acidic paper was standard - causing yellowing, curling and brittleness over time.
Lastly, the lack of the gallery location doesn't freak me out, but the missing line for provenance/origin does. See the line on Beverly Hills that reads EISS? That's a note to the gallery staff indicating the collection/auction house/or imports company it came from before they had it.
Taking a second to appreciate the effort (failed though it may be) that went into the reproduction of this label, notice they nailed the weight and font of the gallery header and even perfectly mimicked the # symbol (above right) that's not a wingding you can get in a font suite. That's tedious & meticulous work.
 
 
 
 
I'd be upset with the person or auction this came from. I'm very curious (if you're willing to share) how it came into your hands, for academic and future reference. This was a simultaneously half-а$$еd and elaborate endeavor to create "authenticity." And I'd like to know how to avoid being in this position.
Terribly sorry. Please let us know what else you can share and what you are considering doing next.
Mae
maeday76
·3 years agoAnd the typed portions of the Palm Springs label uses upper and lower cases, where Beverly Hills is all caps'd.
nopi1956
·3 years agoThat's a heck of an eye you have. I wouldn't have noticed any those things.
lacemaker3
·3 years agoOh my ...
For some reason, this thread popped up again in my feed, and I took another look and did another google search.
This time I found this result:
sonomabarn67
·3 years agoAt least we now know that it is purporting to be "a hand painted reproduction" by someone who calls himself "George Luks".
I'm still wary. 🙄
sonomabarn67
·3 years agoTaking a second look at all this I wanted to mention that even if a rep from Lewin came on here and said the attribution holds up... I still would not believe all this as being an authentic Luks. Top authenticators don't rely on hokey COAs like we see here, they go much deeper in a hunt for facts. And forgers go to extreme measures to dress up their wares. There is no proof that this is what is being purported but we do see glaring evidence that someone was just mucking about on this one.
bouchan52
OP3 years agoOk,
Here are the photos of the back.
Let me know what you think.
There is a label attached. It's damaged. Maybe it was on the old frame?
sonomabarn67
·3 years agoIt's a linen canvas and looks to be from the 50's-80's so just that makes me think not Luks. It's a decent work, maybe a later follower/copyist but not a period piece given his dates.
sonomabarn67
·3 years agoAnd as Luks was an American and that the stretcher looks to be European, I would look elsewhere for an attribution.
melda58
·3 years agoThe label may be from a different painting entitled simply "Nude." It's oddly placed. I can't make it out but there looks like what could be a signature to the left of the metal piece. Does your canvas exactly match the measurements given on the label?
Rita
rokkworks
·3 years agoHi!
The gallery seems to have decent credibility. Here’s a link to a Christie’s page about their eventual specialization in Mexican Modernism. Link
If I were you, send pics to Christie’s for evaluation. They’ll let you know if it’s worth their time, with no obligation to list with them at all.
Also, maybe, reality-check the age of back via any stretcher markings/materials. Luks died in 1933.
Hope this helps!
maxine*j
·3 years agoOh, indeed! The Lewins were well-known and rather important collectors. But we have no proof this ever was in Lewin's gallery, because the COA has no info as to who produced the COA. "Certified" by whom? And guaranteed to be an "Authentic" what?
I suggested Bonham's but Christie's is a good idea, too. Like Bonham's their initial response will say a lot about whether or not this could be something good.
George Luks was born about 55 miles from where I live, and as a key member of the "Ashcan School," his works fetch fine prices.
And you're right that a good look at the back will help date it, and dating it will be a big clue as to whether or not it might be one of Luk's.
Another thing I will add is that many of Luk's works are being done as replica paintings by various of the Chinese painting factories. Nice oils on canvas, available in various sizes, and framed or unframed.
-
bouchan52
OP3 years agoI did not open the back but I have noticed the frame swap.
If you look at the document on the back the frame is different.
So it was removed at put in the actual frame.
I live in LA. Lewin's Gallery was in Palm Springs. Not too far from me.
maxine*j
·3 years agoYes, I can see the difference but you still do not know if the COA is legit, accurate, or meaningful in an way, so you do not know if that picture on the COA is a picture of what you have that was put in a different frame. The picture might have been grabbed off the internet, too, when the COA was being created on someone's home computer. You said you found others, yourself. What sort of frames were they in?
As Rokkworks said, a good look at the canvas and stretchers would be informative. Can you post some photos?
-
lacemaker3
·3 years agoI found several links to the same auction, dated Oct 23, 2010, where this piece was sold. Here's one in English, that still has the picture available. Unfortunately, there's no information about where it was sold, or by what gallery.
https://www.artnet.com/artists/george-benjamin-luks/seated-nude-facing-right-KwKS6soHPesd50uHiWUZuA2
This appears to be the picture that was used in the COA, because the frame seems to match. It gives the dimensions as 16" by 16", which might be the painting itself, or possibly the frame, I'm not sure how they measured it.
@bouchan52, you could do some homework by comparing the measurements to your painting, and enlarge the picture of the one that sold in 2010 as much as possible so you can check the small details in the paintings. Like the edges or corners of the abstract shapes in the background. Look for shapes, angles and brush marks, and see if your painting matches the one that sold in 2010 exactly or if there are slight differences.
maxine*j
·3 years agoI agree with doing that homework. And if everything matches up to make it the same painting, that's some sort of start.
BUT one still doesn't know much about it. Because we're still getting that "attributed to" thing with the vital bits missing: "Attributed to" by whom? When? Where? After all, the credibility of an attribution depends entirely upon who made the attribution, and with what degree of certainty s/he made it.
-
sonomabarn67
·3 years agoI have to say that is one hokey looking COA. with the flowery looking printing (you could buy partially filled in COA forms in a pad format and then print whatever you wanted.) My favorite passage reads FROM THE INTERNET. I can't see a major auction house hanging their hat on that.
Actual art authentications that I trust are usually done on house stationary on letterhead and hand signed.
Another vote to see the back/stretchers, etc.
maxine*j
·3 years agoOh, yes, that is definitely a COA template for general use by anyone for any reason. It's frankly a bit of a joke, to me. No name. No address. No date. No anything that that provides even the barest of essential information.
Get 'em while they're hot:
https://www.google.com/search?q=certificate+of+authenticity+template&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjr48Dsy6OAAxWsk4kEHX4WCfUQ0pQJegQIFxAB&biw=1138&bih=520&dpr=1.67
None of which is to say that this is not an unsigned work by Luks. It could be. He produced illustrations and fine art, and he worked in every style and medium there is, after all. But that COA is utterly useless for determining what this is, who might have painted it, what gallery or dealer, if any, might have handled it in the past, etc.
-
sonomabarn67
·3 years ago'Why do you have to bust chops with the facing left comment?
'
When people here make comments like this it is to help the conversation. If you are paying attention you would understand that she is offering a potential clue to solving the question accurately. Since when is offering a well thought out opinion reduced to "busting chops"?
We have to ask questions here in order give the best possible answer.
maxine*j
·3 years agoYes.
And I've seen this confusion in the naming (by the artist or others) of many paintings and photographs. Some will call this "facing right" because she is facing the viewer's right. Others will call it "facing left" because she's facing her own left.
Wouldn't life be easier if we always said, "Facing viewer's [right or left]" or "Facing subject's [right or left]."
Who knows what this one actually titled by the painter, if he titled it anything at all, or by Lewin's, assuming they did handle it, and titled it to do so.
But in researching, it always pay to search both ways -- by viewer's right or left and by subject's right or left.
No one ever said this stuff is easy. 😄
-
maxine*j
·3 years agoThat is a pretty dodgy COA, to my eye. B. Lewin Gallery is (or was, not sure if it's still in business) a reputable dealer, but this COA was not produced by the gallery.
In fact, nowhere does who state who made this COA, and that's a pretty important piece of info to be lacking.
The COA was made up by someone who claims the painting was sold by B. Lewin, at some point, to someone, unnamed, not necessarily the person who now owns the painting and did this COA.
The inference is that B. Lewin attributed the painting to George Luks, but is that really true?
The COA, as it states, just has some info grabbed off the internet about the supposed artist.
I could make 15 of these COAs for you in the next couple of hours. If I did it for anything less than free, I'd be overcharging you.
You need to do a lot more work with this. See if B. Lewin is still in business. If so, contact them and ask if they have a record of selling this. And so on.
Or, you could contact someone like Bonham's for a free auction estimate. Their response will be a big clue as to whether or not you may have something good:
https://sell.bonhams.com/
-
-
melda58
·3 years agoMy only comment is that she looks like she's facing left. I don't think it's correct to say she's facing (to our) right.
Rita
bidnessman
·3 years agoWhy do you have to bust chops with the facing left comment? Its titled Seated Nude Facing Right. I found (2) similar selling in CA in 2010 and then 2012 perhaps the same painting. I found it on Live Auctioneers site, past auctions. Hope that helps.
melda58
·3 years agoYes the title says she facing right. But she's facing left. So the COA seems a bit suspicious to me for that and other reasons.
Rita