Posted By:
Corey R. ShanusI believe who framed the image has a lot to do with it. My experience is that auction houses often (maybe even usually) do not take items out of frames when photographing for catalogs, and that statement applies to some of the most respected auctions houses in our hobby. If what happened here is that Sotheby's received the item framed from the consignor, photographed it as is and then cropped out the frame/matting, I simply do not see the fraud. Also, I raise the issue whether the act of photographing a photograph under glass (at least under the commercial standards by which auction houses do their photographing) could lessen the appearance of the creasing. Also, when I look at the image Sotheby's provided (and if you go onto their website to look at the image, they provide a zoom-in feature that allows close inspection of any desired specific area of the image), I CAN see the imperfections, though not as well as in Ryan's out-of-the frame images. So I don't believe photoshop manipulation was done.
As regards the issue whether the auction house should have taken the item out of the frame, even on this one I can sympathize with their reluctance, both for economic and legal reasons. In regard to the economic, it would substantially increase the photographing/cataloging costs to unframe each framed item and then reframe it. Also, many items are very fragile and are framed under strict conservation standards. Auction house would reasonably be reluctant to incur the risk of damaging a fragile item and/or reframing it in accordance with the precise standards under which it was originally framed. I think Ryan's best argument under a negligence cause of action would be the omission in the description that the item was framed. However, the more I reflect on it my view has gravitated now to believing that the disclaimer in the description that the item is sold as is subject to the terms and conditions of sale will give SCP/Sotheby's adequate legal shield.