Fine Art/Picasso Lithograph
Thanks for the info. I found additional documentation while going through some other items. The additional info shows:
Edition: Picasso Two Hundred Drawing Special Edition
Publisher: Hal Horowitz
Description: Lithograph signed in pencil; numbered 64/200
The other information indicates that the original was an oil on canvas. The place and date date below (Mougins, 1971) seems to be the creation date of the original work, not the signature date of this particular piece.
I appreciate all the information you have given me. Any follow-up thoughts?
The text above is a follow-up to ...
In going through art that I have acquired recently, I have come across a Picasso lithograph titled Couple Assis II with a COA from New York Galleria Acquisitions at 1500 2nd Ave, NYC. The COA is signed by James Spiner and indicates that the piece was signed on 7/28/71 in Mougins. The current location of the original is listed as Private Collection. The catalog info is provided as:
OPP.71:32 Z.XXXIII:121 PP.71:226 PS.01:49
This is a pencil signed lithograph numbered 64/200. There is an embossed capital "P" slightly tilted to the right in the lower left corner next to the marking 64/200.
Should I be concerned about the authenticity of this piece. Reading posts from others about James Spiner has made me question this validity of this piece. If there is a question, I will not frame and display it in my collection.
Any help you can provide would be appreciated.
Stephen--there are a number of issues: first, the numbering/ID system is nothing remotely similar to any system used to identify Picasso graphics. Second, Picasso created no original lithographs in the 70s. Third, and this ties to #2, the COA states that the "original" is in a private collection, which means that the lithograph is an 'after' based on the original, rather than being an original lithograph created by Picasso. Could it still have been signed by Picasso? Not sure--but not likely. It could have value, and is valid as an 'after,' so you can decide if you want to display it. If you love it, why not? Alan Klevit.
Stephen--as I thought, it is not an original lithograph, but derived from a painting, known as a 'd'apres' [French for 'after']. There are such editions out there, worth, of course, significantly less than graphics created by the Master [VERY unlikely he had anything to do with the creation of the plates/stones]. I am not familiar with Mr. Horowitz and have no idea as to authenticity of signature. I did search international auction records with I service I belong to, and no litho. with that title has gone up for auction in the past few years, which could mean no auction house considered it 'original' enough to offer it. Still, it could be valid, as I said, so even if you are never sure about the signature or size of edition, if you love it, hang it and enjoy it. Alan.
Check out Alan's latest book, ART COLLECTING 101, at www.booklocker.com.