For those that doubt the merits of the American legal system, rejoice, Congress may still be shut down (good) but at least at the state level in Massachusetts, the claim brought on behalf of a likely Ken Perenyi forgery was dismissed. In a strange turn of events last week a Kaminski Auctions spokesman one Chris Ferriole denied knowledge of a court claim had ever been filed, let alone the results of one adjudicated. Perhaps Kaminski Auctioneers owner, Frank Kaminski did not tell his own employee the whole of this story. Until paperwork surfaced, neither could we as that would be just speculation. Today came not only a copy of the initial complaint, hand written, but the judges decision to dismiss the case entirely. Kaminski never showed up to court. After last weeks feverish comments people naturally wondered what plaintiff might have said, would his representative asked, “Your honor is it right a customer should have the right to walk away from a purchase even if the painting is a clear forgery?”
“Do we have the right to bad mouth said client for walking away from a Ken Perenyi forgery?”
Somehow all of these notions or questions going unanswered leaves a sour taste in ones mouth as throughout all of this story, Kaminski never addressed the subject of Ken Perenyi forgeries. Worse than that somehow the painting that went through their sale (Click here to see an image of the Perenyi Fugazi) remains listed on artfact.com as a known Sanford Robinson Gifford: Click here to see the painting and the description on Artfact’s site. The question remains, who owned the painting? Who told artfact.com it was a Sanford Robinson Gifford from 1863 when indeed it was a brand new forgery? Frank Kaminski has not given the answers people want to hear. When he does we will be glad to print them word for word, In the meanwhile one wag suggested artfact.com should be renamed artfib.com
The person Kaminski should have a grudge with would be the consignor who may have misrepresented the canvas as a period work. One reader guessed the auctioneer owned it, which is why the reluctant buyer received three calls a day for six months. By any standards “Manner of” suggests age, maybe not one hundred and fifty years old, but certainly not brand new. Publishing a condition report that the painting was cleaned and lined, is misleading, particularly when the canvas is brand new. A noted restorer in New York City told this writer that if acetone doesn’t melt a Ken Perenyi painting, then xylene or toluene should make it move fast. If a painting fails this q-tip test, it really should not be on the market as anything except a brand new fugazi.