1
   

HELP! Ossobuco? Someone?

 
 
dvd
 
Reply Mon 7 Jan, 2008 02:25 pm
I am copying an article which appeared here a few years ago. I own three original John P. O'Brien paintings and was attempting to have them valued for insurance a few weeks ago, that's when I learned of his death and the turmoil this article references. I have seen many reproductions/posters on sale at places like art.com, etc., and see my originals for sale in those formats. Any idea's as to how to determine a reasonably "true" value of my originals? I don't believe a regular appraisal can adequately do justice given the situation. Any thoughts are greatly appreciated.

Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 10:47 am Post: 2492044 -

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And a fine mess this is -

Link to LA Times article by J. Michael Kennedy, and photos


January 18, 2007
Not a pretty picture
By J. Michael Kennedy, Times Staff Writer

THEY met in Paris in the shadow of the Eiffel Tower. He was a struggling painter with a tiny apartment in Greenwich Village; she was a ballerina who lived in Marin County and danced in San Francisco.

They married and had two daughters. He became successful enough to make a living with brush and easel. They moved to a tiny farm in Petaluma, where she taught ballet and he painted pricey Irish landscapes and Paris street scenes.

His name was John O'Brien, and cancer took him two years ago at age 53.

Her name is Martha O'Brien, and she was left with a mountain of debt in the aftermath of what law enforcement authorities contend was a widespread fraud. She often wakes up wondering how she will keep her home on the crumbs a ballet teacher makes.

In Martha's view, everything probably would have been different if a woman hadn't come to see John six years ago and persuaded him that there was a fortune to be made in selling high-end prints of his work. As Martha put it, the woman practically guaranteed that "everyone would live happily ever after."

The woman was Kristine Eubanks, and she ran a printing business in Los Angeles. According to O'Brien, Eubanks proposed to take advantage of a new technology called giclee (pronounced zhee-CLAY), which reproduces art without the telltale dots of color printing. Originals and copies are difficult to tell apart without close examination.

The term derives from the French verb gicler, which means "to squirt" or "to spray." It's most commonly used to describe a high-resolution digital process employed in the reproduction of fine art.

John O'Brien was enthusiastic. Martha recalled that Eubanks said she would produce and market high-quality limited edition prints of her husband's work, which he would sign, and perhaps bring in six figures a year. In the spring of 2000, he began shipping his work south to Eubanks' print shop.

For a while, it all seemed to be working. The checks arrived on a regular basis, a much-needed steady income.

Then, less than two years later, John began to think that something was amiss. He thought he had signed and numbered each of the prints produced by Eubanks, but nagging little incidents began to make him wonder, Martha said.

A friend called to say he'd seen one of O'Brien's works for sale on EBay, the huge auction website. But it wasn't one he'd signed, numbered and embellished, Martha said. To O'Brien's dismay, cheap knockoffs were finding their way into the art market. Then, according to Martha, he heard that his prints were being sold on Princess Cruise Lines.

In Martha's retelling, John was quickly losing control of his work. He decided to buy a giclee printing press and have a personal hand in everything, right down to the marketing of his paintings and prints. Essentially, O'Brien was getting rid of Eubanks and starting over.

"Then he started getting sick," Martha said.

What followed was two years of treatment for melanoma ?- the chemotherapy, the crashing headaches, the withering health. In October 2004, John died at his Petaluma home. He left behind what should have been a source of income for years to come: the ability to reproduce more than 100 original oil paintings.

But as Martha would discover, she didn't have much. More unauthorized copies surfaced, she said, and sales languished because the market was flooded with reproductions of her husband's work. As time went on, it became clear to her that there would be little, if any, money coming in from the art left behind.

"John's worst nightmare has happened," she said. "We're completely broke."

Then, four months ago, the phone rang. Bob Lauson was on the other end.

Lauson is a lawyer whose office is in the same Manhattan Beach complex where the TV show "CSI: Miami" is filmed. He asked Martha if she knew Kristine Eubanks. And he asked if she knew that hundreds of John O'Brien giclees were being sold on Princess Cruise Lines.

The answer to the first question was yes; the answer to the second was no.

He told Martha that he had been retained by another artist who had done business with Eubanks. There was, he alleged, a larger criminal game afoot.



CHARLENE Mitchell was the one who had called Lauson. She lives with her retired husband, Pat, in a well-kept, unpretentious house just outside the mountain town of Lake Arrowhead. On days when she paints, Mitchell sets up her easel in the sunny living room.

She specializes in animals, gardens and beach settings. She is particularly noted for her horse-racing art, which takes longer to produce because of the complexity of depicting so many animals in motion.

For years, she simply sold what she painted in galleries or to people who commissioned her work. But she, like O'Brien and so many other artists, was realizing that there was money to be made in the giclee technique. In 2003, while looking through a copy of Art Business News ?- a popular trade publication ?- Mitchell came across an ad for giclee copying in Van Nuys. One of the owners of the print shop was Eubanks.

Mitchell said she found Eubanks nice enough, and, more to the point, she liked the woman's ideas about making money. Mitchell said the pitch she heard was much the same one given to O'Brien ?- all she had to do was paint and Eubanks would make the copies and market them. And as Mitchell was quick to point out: "Artists are notoriously naive, and I'm no different from the rest. We wanted to mass-produce these things."

But not only was Eubanks reproducing art, she was also beginning a television show called "Fine Art Treasures Gallery" on the Dish Network and DirectTV satellite services.

And because Mitchell was well-known within certain circles ?- her art has been on display in Las Vegas' Caesars Palace, for instance ?- she became one of the artists whose original work Eubanks auctioned on her show, along with Picassos, Chagalls and Dalis.

Mitchell, 68, said some weeks she received $10,000 from the televised auctions.

But she too began to hear rumblings that prints were being sold without her knowledge, including aboard the Princess line. And then, she recalled, she got a call from a man who said he'd become so enamored of her work while on a Princess cruise that he wanted her to do a portrait of his fiancee and her daughters.

The trouble was, Mitchell said she told the man, she didn't know her prints were being sold on board the cruise ships. Yes, the man replied, many were being auctioned off.

The giclees were being sold on the television auction show as well, attorney Lauson said. But Mitchell said no money for those was ever paid to her. Further, she said, Eubanks' pleasant disposition became less so in the face of more questioning about money.

But it wasn't only the artists who say they were discovering the difficulties involved in doing business with Eubanks. So were the customers.

Ron Kyle, a then-out-of-work computer technician, discovered the auction program while channel surfing one night. He thought the prints were being sold at a bargain and could be resold for profit. He used a credit card to buy five prints ?- two Picassos, two Icarts and a Chagall ?- for $9,533.76, though he said they were touted as being worth a little less than $200,000.

It didn't take Kyle long to surmise that his purchases were fake. For one, he couldn't find a trace of the art dealer in Britain who supposedly signed the certificates of authenticity that came with the pieces. For another, he said, the Chagall was signed on the wrong side of the print.

Kyle tried unsuccessfully to get his money back. He has filed suit against "Fine Arts Treasures Gallery" and Eubanks' firm of the same name in an attempt to recoup his losses. Lauson also sued Eubanks on behalf of O'Brien and Mitchell. The cases are making their way through the courts. Among other things, a hearing will be held Monday on a motion for a default judgment against Eubanks in the Mitchell case.

Longtime art collectors Tom and Mary Ann Cogliano of Santa Rosa, Calif., said they spent more than $50,000 for six pieces on Eubanks' show. They donated one of the prints, ostensibly by Salvador Dali, to a charity fundraiser, only to have an appraiser declare it phony. Tom checked, and told law enforcement authorities that the rest of the prints were bogus as well.

For him, the worst part was not the money.

"It made me look foolish, especially with these folks who are my friends ?- and here I am with a fake piece of art," he said. "You'd have to give me a check for a million bucks to go through that kind of embarrassment again."

Indeed, so many people complained to the Better Business Bureau about Fine Art Treasures Gallery that the consumer agency gave it an F rating.



IN September, a team of investigators from the FBI, the IRS and the Los Angeles Police Department seized 15 bank accounts connected to Eubanks and the art auction show. A source close to the investigation said several million dollars was frozen.

Eubanks was arrested and held without bail. She was already on probation after pleading no contest to using the credit cards of a dead business partner to rack up $144,000 in charges. Tuppence McIntyre, the prosecutor who handled the case, said Eubanks was given probation after agreeing to repay the money. She did so, but one stipulation for staying out of jail was that her record remain spotless.

The arrest in the art fraud case was enough to revoke the probation. In December, Eubanks was moved to the California Institute for Women in Corona, where she began serving a three-year sentence in the credit card case.

Meanwhile, Princess Cruise Lines spokeswoman Julie Benson said via e-mail that Princess bought the prints "in good faith, believing them to be properly authorized."

"If these allegations are true," she wrote, "Princess was victimized, as were the artists in question." She added that the company would "accept any art returned by dissatisfied customers."

In a legal document submitted in response to a suit filed by Mitchell, Princess lawyer Brooke Oliver said the cruise line may not have made any money at all because of costs associated with framing, shipping, storage and insurance. And she contended that distribution of the fakes "has enhanced plaintiff's prestige and reputation and the value of her artwork."

Calvin J. Goodman, Los Angeles-based author of the widely used Art Market Handbook, described the investigation as "a very important case." He wondered how Princess was selling the paintings so cheaply without taking note that something might be amiss.

"Shouldn't they have been suspicious that the price of the art was so low?" he asked. "They should have known at once."

Christopher Calarco, a Los Angeles-based FBI agent specializing in art crime, said that the case is continuing and that there is more evidence that investigators cannot yet discuss. He said charges against Eubanks have been unnecessary so far, because she is already in prison. Her lawyer, Donald C. Randolph, said there would be no comment about the allegations.

Investigators said they are hoping they can expand their inquiry to encompass similar alleged scams while spreading the word that buyers should use caution when purchasing art. But even with the warnings, Calarco worries that buyers could go for years not knowing they have fakes on the wall.

He also described art scams as a "target-rich environment" that's growing worldwide because of television and the Internet.

"This is a kind of hidden crime with people who have no idea they are victims," Calarco said. "I couldn't even hazard a guess as to the number of victims."



LAST month, Martha O'Brien was preparing her ballet students for the traditional Christmas performance of "The Nutcracker" in Petaluma. She recently had to take out a loan to cover some basic expenses, but she remains resolute that she can fix this problem and that her husband's paintings will again be worth something.

"It's his whole lifetime of work that has been damaged," she said. "I've got to clean it up."

*

[email protected]
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,253 • Replies: 14
No top replies

 
dvd
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jan, 2008 02:51 pm
Bump
0 Replies
 
shewolfnm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jan, 2008 07:42 pm
I cant help you.

Im just helping bump up your post.

Osso usually posts about this time of night..
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jan, 2008 07:57 pm
I'll yell for her :wink:
0 Replies
 
dvd
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jan, 2008 07:59 pm
thank you, greatly appreciated.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jan, 2008 08:06 pm
What a twisted tale!

Joe(and such colors... .)Nation
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jan, 2008 08:08 pm
Hi, dvd. I'm much the fool on this myself, although at a quick glance, that all kind of rings a bell. After I post this, I'll read your post more fully.

The one person who knows about these matters here is Lightwizard, and he doesn't post all the time.

I'll pm him for you, as, as a newbie, you can't, and he may or may not have recommendations having to do with appropriate appraisal and related matters.

In any case, good luck, and welcome to a2k.




Also, thanks for the pm, rockhead.
0 Replies
 
dvd
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jan, 2008 08:16 pm
that is very kind of you and once again, thank you all. I'm just really totally confused by the situation. I did speak with Martha O'Brien, John's widow, and a truly delightful lady. It would appear much litigation to follow, and I know it appears a "me me" question, yet I do desire to know where three copied originals fall in all this mess. I own "Recollections", "Summers Day", and "Castle View", all which appear as Victorian Lady in some form or another in the reproductions. It appears to be a real mess, yet I'm certainly no expert.

Thanks again
0 Replies
 
dvd
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jan, 2008 09:44 am
I'm going to try and post photo's of my original O'Brien paintings if that will help, Thanks again-dvdhttp://s265.photobucket.com/albums/ii227/davedwiggins/?action=view&current=DSCN0697.jpg
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jan, 2008 09:47 am
I personally knew John O'Brien and was selling his work in a gallery in Sunset Beach, CA. in the early 2000's. Yes, his wife is really a sweetheart and the news reached me when I was at another gallery in Fashion Island, Newport Beach of his death. I knew about the cancer but we kind of lost contact when I moved on and was not selling his work.

It's really the same old story. Reproductions, regardless if they are on canvas and enhanced by the artist (unlike many artist, O'Brien did his own painting on the reproductions) very rarely hold any value. For insurance, you will only get what the original invoice states so that's what to insure them for. Your insurance company will likely tell you they are included in your home policy and no rider is required. I would photograph them as well as all possessions and keep the images, analog or digital, off the premises.

Sorry that there are still many people who don't realize when they buy a commercially marketed painting or reporductions, the chances of it appreciating are extremely slim. Most of them depreciate the second one walks out of the gallery door with the piece. They are nearly impossible to re-market which makes their value even lower.

That the artist has passed away can or cannot be a factor whether a professional appraiser would generate any documents with higher values than the original invoice. Often the custom picture frame can be over $500.00 and it's very difficult to sell as its basically garage sale merchandise.

These pieces of art are decorative arts -- they are traditional imagery meant to decorate homes and offices. They are not collectibles. I would hate to have to tell Mrs. O'Brien that there is virtually no chance any of the work will ever gain any value and because it all harks back to painting in the Romantic period, future art historians won't even look at it. They will become curiosities of the commercial upsurge of marketing in paintings and reproductions of the 1980's through present day and who knows how long people will overpay for this stuff. If I wanted to be blunt, they will be just barely this side of land fill.

There have been more than one Eubanks in the art industry -- it seems to draw this sort of person and I've alway known the ones to avoid. Lawsuits are not uncommon and criminal prosecution gets in the news but it doesn't tip off the general polulace that it is still caveat emptor.
0 Replies
 
dvd
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jan, 2008 10:03 am
Lightwizard,

Thank you for replying. The three paintings of John's that I own are all original oils, not reproductions, although I see my originals have been reproduced in many forms. All very large, approximately 50" X 60", each a little larger or a bit smaller. I purchased them in 1999 each painting had a average cost of $12,000 at that time. Martha told me that they are worth considerably more today. Given the legal issues surrounding the situation described in the LA Times article of old, and the fact that those issues are still unresolved I am very curious as to my paintings "real" value. It may be that until the dust settles the real value of these originals shall remain unknown. I sincerely appreciate your input, I am no expert by any means, just a fan. Thanks again. DVD
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jan, 2008 10:17 am
The original paintings, I'm afraid, are in the same boat. However, you'd be unlikely to get more than $1500.00 for one of his originals. Shocking? Did you purchase these from a gallery? If that gallery went through Eubanks to purchase them, the originals were likely marked up four times what O'Brien was paid. That's two times for wholesale for Eubanks' profit and then two times in the gallery, plus the two times on the custom frame. Art galleries often don't have their own framing facility and so must make a deal with a custom framer close by and mark it up 100%. I wouldn't confront Mrs. O'Brien with this because she's well aware of what all the commercial art marketers scheme is and John asked me several times about his dilemma of marketing himself, which effectively brought the prices down on the work, especially the originals. I don't want to tell you that I know what John would have been paid by Eubanks for those $ 12,000. originals but when I sold some at the gallery, I only marked them at $4,000.00.

Professional interior designers won't buy any of this commercially marketed art. They will generally frame up famous art images that fits into the decor, or maybe go to secondary market stores (like Lido Consignment in Newport Beach, a business that used to be next to mine on the Balboa Peninsula) and pick up pictures really cheap. Interior designers rarely run into a client who is an art collector and expert and they won't be buying any of this art.

The real value is if you can find any of the work for sale on E-Bay. The "real value" would be rather expensive to determine and will cost $500.00 or more to get an accredited appraiser to give you a document. In my opinion, not worth it. They will unlikely appraise them for more than 25% of what you paid for them, including the frame.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jan, 2008 10:30 am
Dark clouds gather over 'Painter of Light'
Thomas Kinkade is probably one of the biggest scumbags in art history. Doubly so, because he played on people's religion to sell his crap.---BBB

Dark clouds gather over 'Painter of Light'
Oliver Burkeman in New York
Saturday March 25, 2006
The Guardian

Entrepreneur artist who hangs in one in 20 US homes accused of fraud and drunken antics

'There's always been starter art, but Kinkade is the lowest form of starter art I've ever seen' ... Hometown Lake (1997) by Thomas Kinkade

"There's over 40 walls in the average American home," a business manager for the artist Thomas Kinkade once said, "and Thom says our job is to figure out how to populate every single wall in every single home and every single business throughout the world with his paintings."
Kinkade's luridly idyllic landscapes, full of quaint cottages and glowing firelight, already hang in an estimated one in 20 US homes. "In the often hurried, unsympathetic and complex world we live in, the images Thomas Kinkade paints offer a place of refuge," his company's literature purrs. "A place where the transient things of life give way to the things that matter most ... faith and family, a loving home and the people who know and love us."

Art critics have long dismissed his work as a kitsch crime against aesthetics. But now the world has grown even more "unsympathetic and complex" for the artist, who describes himself as a devout Christian and has trademarked his "Painter of Light" soubriquet. In court documents and other testimony, he has been accused of sexual harassment, fraudulent business practices and bizarre incidents of drunkenness including a habit of "ritual territory marking" that involves urinating in public places.

'Misleading picture'

A court-appointed arbitration panel has ruled in favour of two former owners of Kinkade-branded galleries, ordering his company to pay them $860,000 (£500,000) for breaching "the covenant of good faith and dealing" and failing to disclose pertinent business information.

The panel found that his firm "painted an unrealistic and misleading picture of the prospects of success for a dealer", while using religious language to foster an atmosphere of trust.

Kinkade won two other claims, but six more are pending, including one from a Michigan man who says he lost $3m in assets, along with his marriage and most of his possessions, after the galleries he owned went broke. Other former employees and associates of the artist - in court testimony and in interviews with the Los Angeles Times - recounted how he had fondled a woman's breasts at a company event, and lashed out at an ex-colleague's wife who tried to help him when he fell from a bar stool.

Two former employees, Terry Sheppard and John Dandois, told the panel of further examples of Kinkade's unpredictable behaviour: bringing disorder to a Las Vegas performance by the illusionists Siegfried and Roy by repeatedly yelling the word "codpiece" from his audience seat, and urinating in public - in an elevator and on a model of Winnie the Pooh at a Disneyland hotel. "This one's for you, Walt," Mr Sheppard claimed the artist said as he did so.

Business empire

The allegations threaten to destabilise a business empire that made Kinkade at least $53m in personal income between 1997 and 2005, thanks to a complex system of art marketing. The cost of a Kinkade print changes depending on whether it is on paper or on canvas, and unsigned or signed; certain versions are "retired" from the market at critical moments to give them scarcity value. A team of "master illuminators" at Kinkade's galleries charge yet more to add real paint to his prints, enhancing his trademark glowing light effect on works with names such as Sunset on Lamplight Lane and Cobblestone Christmas. The pictures are also available in numerous other forms, printed on teddy bears, cushions, lounger chairs, T-shirts and Bible covers. Three years ago a residential community modelled on his painted homes was opened in California.

The artist - who once said of Picasso that "he had talent but didn't use it in a significant way" - has acknowledged that he went through a bad period.

"If during this period I ever offended anybody, I am sorry. Anyone who knows me knows I always try my best to be loving ... the good news is I learned many valuable lessons from that phase of my life," he wrote in an email to gallery owners this month. He blamed "disgruntled ex-dealers" for launching "media attacks" on him, but acknowledged in a separate statement that "there may have been some ritual territory marking going on".

He denied the harassment allegation, but said in a deposition: "You've got to remember, I'm the idol to these women who were there. They sell my work every day, you know. They're enamoured with any attention I would give them. I don't know what kind of flirting they were trying to do with me. I don't recall what was going on that night."

In his email he said that long after "this absurd negativity" had subsided, "I will still be here, sitting in front of my easel, trying my best to share the light."

'Such insistent cosiness seems sinister'

The critics on Kinkade

"A Kinkade painting was typically rendered in slightly surreal pastels. It typically featured a cottage or a house of such insistent cosiness as to seem actually sinister, suggestive of a trap designed to attract Hansel and Gretel. Every window was lit, to lurid effect, as if the interior of the structure might be on fire. The cottages had thatched roofs, and resembled gingerbread houses. The houses were Victorian and resembled idealised bed-and-breakfasts ... "
Joan Didion

"[One painting] features mountains and quiet shadows and the purple cloak of sunset, but it could just as easily have featured a lavishly blooming garden at twilight, or maybe a babbling brook spanned by a quaint stone bridge, or a lighthouse after a storm; it's hard to distinguish one Kinkade from the next because their effect is so unvarying - smooth and warm and romantic, not quite fantastical but not quite real, more of a wishful and inaccurate rendering of what the world looks like, as if painted by someone who hadn't been outside in a long time."
Susan Orlean, the New Yorker

"There's always been starter art, but Kinkade is the lowest form of starter art I've ever seen."
San Francisco gallery owner

Kinkade on the critics

"The No 1 quote critics give me is, 'Thom, your work is irrelevant.' Now, that's a fascinating, fascinating comment. Yes, irrelevant to the little subculture, this microculture, of modern art. But here's the point: My art is relevant because it's relevant to 10 million people. That makes me the most relevant artist in this culture."
Kinkade

· Sources: Where I Was From, by Joan Didion; the New Yorker; the San Francisco Chronicle
0 Replies
 
dvd
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jan, 2008 10:51 am
Lightwizard, I purchased well before Eubanks became involved, although I did purchase from a gallery which I believe Martha has current issues with. I'm sure you are aware of the situation and the gallery with which I am referring, located in Baltimore. A friend of ours had one of John's earlier works and the gallery that they purchased from sent eleven of John's paintings down to Florida for us to view-we chose three, this was in 1999.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jan, 2008 11:35 am
Yes, it was a mistake to not self-publish but there are hundreds of giclee printers since the equipment has come down in price drastically. A printer isn't necessarily a good marketing person. Eubanks likely ran into problems in the distribution, the most daunting problem in marketing that art, and had to make deals with the cruise line auctions and overran the "limited edition" prints or did them in offset lithograph. To do this without reporting it to the artist is unforgivable and a good criminal case. It happens too many time in this sector of the art business. This is decorative art in that grey area between lithographed reproductions and serious art, when done in print is created by the artist themselves. The drawings, the plates, the inking and pulling of the print, not hired out "elves." Giclee is a sophisticated computer scanner and printer not much different than the technology of your computer printer, just more complicated and refined.

The unfortunate fact is that sometimes going into a more mass market with prints can actually devalue the original paintings.

The business aspect has always be anathema to artists, but many of them have become millionaires from that kind of marketing like Hiro Yamagata and Eyvind Earle. Yamagata once complained that he was now stuck with stigma of being a "mall artist." However, in the late 70's and early 80's an original was over $200,000.00. Now you'd be lucking to get $40,000.00.

There are also artist who were successfully marketed for maybe five years and then they have to find another way to make a living.

As far as "collectors" go, the people who pay a lot of bucks for this art with limited art knowledge are sometimes only driven by two of the seven deadly sins -- greed and pride.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » HELP! Ossobuco? Someone?
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/07/2026 at 04:13:58