Mask sells for 4.2 Million

[Kmaddock]

Hi
I am just wondering what makes this mask so valuable

https://www.rte.ie/news/2022/0327/1288733-france-mask/

text of article below

Regards

Ken



A carved mask from Central Africa, dating from the 19th Century, has been sold in France for €4.2 million, despite Gabonese protesters in the auction house calling for the item's "'restitution".

The rare wooden "Ngil" mask, used in ceremonies by the Fang ethnic people of Gabon, smashed its estimate of 300,000-400,000 euros at the auction in the southern French city of Montpellier.

"It's a case of receiving stolen goods," a man describing himself as a member of the Gabonese community in Montpellier exclaimed from the back of the auction room, surrounded by half a dozen compatriots.

"We'll file a complaint. Our ancestors, my ancestors, from the Fang community, we will recover this object", the protester added, describing the mask as a "colonial ill-gotten gain".

Auctioneer Jean-Christophe Giuseppi said the auction was "entirely legal", as far as he was aware.

Accompanied by security guards, the demonstrators left the auction hall calmly, but continued their protest against the sale of African works of art.

Yesterday's auction also included a Congolese chair which sold for €44,000.

With added costs and fees, the total paid by the successful bidder for the Fang mask was €5.25m, close to a record for such an item.

In 2006 a similar Fang mask brought in €5.9m at a Paris auction

[Bob A]

More than one party with plenty of money wanted it.

[Jim McDougall]

Thanks for posting this!! It IS astounding to see something like this, and compelled to search to learn more. It seems that these Fang masks are kind of a 'holy grail' of African art.
the 'NGIL' masks as this one were worn in ceremonies in the Fang tribes to this secret society, a religious/judicial group who sought and dealt with sorcerers. There is also a key element of ancestor worship .

These elongated, concave face masks, apparently were often destroyed by slave trade proponents, as well as French colonial activity which outlawed these groups, masks etc. by 1920s.

Picasso was intrigued by these, and inspired his 'Tete de Femme" (1908), so the artistic connection as well as the deep spiritual and metaphysical aspects are factors in their being sought.

[Kmaddock]

Thanks Jim
All very interesting.
For the sake of keeping information together here is picture of the mask that recently sold.
Regards,
Ken

(PS if one of our members now discovers they have one of these masks in their shed and sells it for 4.2 Million , I would appreciate a10% for assistance in letting you know what you have ;-)

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Kmaddock

Thanks Jim
All very interesting.
For the sake of keeping information together here is picture of the mask that recently sold.
Regards,
Ken

(PS if one of our members now discovers they have one of these masks in their shed and sells it for 4.2 Million , I would appreciate a10% for assistance in letting you know what you have ;-)

Thanks for adding the image Ken, apparently another of these sold in 2006 for 5.2 million!
Apparently Picasso was drawn to these African masks, and it would be interesting to know more on how these influenced him etc. This is the 'head of a woman' ("Tete de Femme") of 1908-1909 which reveals the similarity.

[Richard G]

The catalogue may give some explanation for its value. It is my observation that with these types of masks, and much ethnographica, provenance is all important. Firstly, because it establishes age and authenticity, but equally, or even more importantly, if it establishes a valued association. If, for example, a mask such as this had been owned by such as Picasso or his circle the value is multiplied extraordinarily.
Best wishes
Richard
PS. Sorry Jim, that's what you've already said.

[ALEX]

Ken, Very interesting indeed. Thanks for posting it.

[asomotif]

What was the provenance ?

[Kmaddock]

A bit more info on the back story.



In Montpellier in the South of France, protesters disrupted an auction right before a 19th century carved mask was sold for €4.2 million, despite accusations that it was “stolen goods”.

The protesters were part of the local Gabonese community, and they were calling for the return of the wooden ‘Nigil' mask.

Historically, the Fang people of Gabon used it in ceremonies. And it is extremely rare, with only around 10 similar masks in the world.


"We and all the people here are contesting this sale,” said Ange Mbougou, secretary-general of the association of Gabonese in Montpellier.

“We have taken the necessary legal action to ensure that these works are returned, as is the case everywhere in Africa."

According to the auction house, the French colonial governor René-Victor Edward Maurice Fournier acquired the mask in 1917 under unknown circumstances, probably during a tour of Gabon.

It then stayed in his family house in Hérault from the 1920s until his descendants discovered it.


The auctioneer at the event, Jean-Christophe Giuseppi, said to the best of his knowledge, the auction was "entirely legal".

In recent years, European countries have started to make repatriate objects acquired during colonialism.

Last year, France returned 26 artefacts to Benin that colonial troops looted in 1892.


Regards

Ken

[gp]

Originally Posted by Richard G

The catalogue may give some explanation for its value. It is my observation that with these types of masks, and much ethnographica, provenance is all important. Firstly, because it establishes age and authenticity, but equally, or even more importantly, if it establishes a valued association. If, for example, a mask such as this had been owned by such as Picasso or his circle the value is multiplied extraordinarily.
Best wishes
Richard
PS. Sorry Jim, that's what you've already said.

sorry but there never is a decent explanation for a these kind of values: my late father always told me in a joking yet serious way, "the value is what a fool is willing to pay for it"

Van Gogh died in poverty, Rembrandt went bancrupt....
and their work is now being bought quite a lot of times by people as investments or show off objects to gain status.
It's all in the eyes of the beholder...

Look at cold weapons:

some were sold on catawiki for 20-60 Euro just 4 to 5 years ago...
now do cost you 150 to 200 or more.
Best examples are Congole daggers, Bosnian bichaqs from the Ottoman & Habsburgian era , Indonesian goloks and Tjikeroehs.
And perhaps we'll see a decline in a decade ...

Also location: sometimes I see prices in the good ol' U S of A versus the EU ( not talkking import taxes and such) which do show sometimes a huge difference ...even double or treble .
Be it swords, daggers, guns, revolvers...

But still with patience one might get a nice piece for an excellent and even cheap price...

[asomotif]

Ok, 1917 that is not extremely old but in line with the colonial history.
The provenance is also not very interesting, No Picasso or other artist that owned and/or painted the mask.
It looks like a case Indeed of 2 or more people with way too much money at the auction.

Personally I would not want this mask in my livingroom if it was for free.

I like the Fang statues, but the masks do not appeal to me.

The claim from the Gabonese people is interesting.
They where present at the auction, so they were not triggered by the end bid of 4,2 million.

I tend to over simplify such claims.
If it is very efident that the objects where looted, there is some bassis for the claim. But in this case, it could have been a gift, or maybe even purchased in 1917.

Thanks for sharing this weird auction.

Now back to the Etnographic arms section

Best regards,
Willem

[Kmaddock]

Hi all
as a follow on to this story new developments on the sale

https://news.artnet.com/art-world/fr...g-mask-2370870


An Elderly Couple Sold a ‘Worthless’ African Mask for $157. Now They Are Suing the Buyer Who Auctioned It for $4.4 Million
The couple has accused a local antiques dealer of cheating them out of a fair price for the rare object.

and here also is the text for when the link goes cold

A legal case making its way through the French court system is raising questions about whether a person who has sold an artwork or artifact later determined to have a much higher value can seek further compensation.

An unnamed 81-year-old woman and her 88-year-old husband came across an African mask while clearing out their second home. While most of the contents of the home went into a garage sale, they decided to sell the mask to a local antiques dealer, who agreed to buy the mask for €150, or about $157, in September 2021.

Months later, they discovered through reading the newspaper that their mask had just made €4.2 million ($4.4 million) at a specialized auction in Montpellier. As it turned out, it was a rare Fang mask used in rituals in an African secret society. The object was brought back from Gabon by the husband’s grandfather, who had been a colonial governer in Africa in the early 20th century.

The couple launched suit against the antiques dealer, who they believe cheated them. After several legal moves and counter moves, an appeals court in France determined on June 28 that their case against the dealer “appears to be well-founded in principle” and has frozen the proceeds of the sale as the case continues. The filing was made by the appeals court in Nimes and first reported by Le Monde. Artnet News has reached out to Frederic Mansat-Jaffre, the couple’s lawyer, for more information but did not hear back by press time.

The couple’s argument hinges on the suspicion that the dealer had a good idea of the true value of the object when he bought it from them. The antiques dealer did not display the mask at his shop and instead contacted the auction houses Drouot Estimation and Fauve Paris, which estimated it to be worth about €100–€120, and €400–€600 respectively.

Despite these valuations given by two auctioneers, he went on to seek a third opinion from a specialized sale of African objects in Montpellier. After ordering analysis using carbon-14 dating and mass spectrometry, the mask was dated to the 19th century and an ethnologist’s expert appraisal revealed it was used for purification rites by the Ngil society, a secret society that operated within the Fang ethnic group in Gabon until the 1920s.

The auction house placed the mask for sale with an estimate of between €300,000 and €400,000. The mask was sold for €4.2 million, about $4.4 million, at an auction in March 2022.

“This piece of kaolin-coated cheesewood is therefore exceptional in terms of its rarity, as only a dozen or so other reference specimens are known to exist worldwide, in Western museums and collections,” according to court records reviewed by Artnet and translated from French.

The couple’s lawyer believes it is possible to cancel the sale due to their error in believing the mask to be “worthless,” Le Monde reported. The newspaper cited other cases such as the owners of paintings by Nicolas Poussin which were misattributed to lesser-known painter before they were later authenticated, resulting in those contracts being nullified and the owners obtaining restitution.

The case has already gone through several stages. The antiques dealer initially offered to settle out of court by paying the couple €300,000 euros, or about $315,000, for the mask but they were not able to reach an agreement because of the opposition of the couple’s children, according to court documents.

The couple then filed their case with a judicial court in Alès seeking an injunction to seize the proceeds of the sale as well as damages.The Alès court initially authorized a protective seizure which was carried out by a regional bank in southwestern France in May 2022, but the lower court ultimately sided with the antiques dealer, released the funds back to him, and ordering the couple to pay him for damages and other fees in the amount of €3,000, or about $3,148.

The couple appealed the judgment to the higher court in Nimes in November.

“The respondent is a second-hand dealer who unequivocally offers an appraisal service on his website,” the couple claimed, according to the court documents.

“Only a person with a perfect knowledge of the art market is capable of mounting a sale through an auction house, after having requested a carbon-14 expertise and enlisted the help of an expert in African masks.”

The couple also alleges that the antiques dealer conspired with their gardener, with whom he split the proceeds of the sale, to determine provenance information about the mask before approaching the auction houses.

The defense argued that the dealer “is a second-hand dealer and not an antique dealer and cannot be considered an valuation professional. He has no knowledge of African art.” They added that he sought the expert assessments at the initiative of the auctioneer, not because he had reason to believe it held greater value.

Though the case remains open, the appeals court has re-ordered the seizure of the proceeds of the sale, which amounts to €3.1 million, after deduction of costs and capital gains tax—until a judgement is made

[David]

An interesting story that goes along with this.
OK, why is this mask considered so valuable? Firstly is it's rarity, as apparently there are only a few of these in existence today. While a mask like this might possibly gain some value because if it had once been in Picasso's position, i don't believe that kind of provenance would add all that much to this item. Probably the most important aspect of any African mask would be if it saw actual cultural usage. Was this mask actually danced (?) would be the first question on any collector of African masks. This question can usually be answered by careful inspection of the inside of the mask. Most African masks we see on the market were actual made for export or tourism. It appears that this was the real deal. Then there is the rarity of such a mask, as experts seems to no of only a very few authentic examples. Apparently this mask was used by a secret society within the Fang society. The unfortunate last reason i will give for why this mask is seen as being this valuable is because frankly, it is just something that people outside of this secret society are supposed to have. This wasn't simply a part of Fang culture, but a secret society within Fang culture. Even people within the Fang society who are not members of this secret sect would not have the rights to own such a mask. Given that information i am 99.99% positive that this item was not originally obtained in a legitimate manner. And of course, even cultural items obtained under colonial rule that might appear legitimate at first often are not as the duress of the colonial structure can be a major factor in how such items are obtained.
So, super rare, ritually danced mask that ordinary people are not authorized to own equals big gavel prices for rich collectors who want to be the only kids on the bock who own one.
As for the old couple who weren't savvy enough to get the big bucks for it, while i certainly believe you got ripped off by your local antique dealer, you weren't supposed to have this mask in the first place anyway. The question of returning cultural items to their sources is always a touchy one, especially when discussed in collector circles. But a ritual mask for a secret society of the Fang people is a deeply sacred object, not your ordinary artifact. This is probably one that should be returned.

[werecow]

Originally Posted by David

As for the old couple who weren't savvy enough to get the big bucks for it, while i certainly believe you got ripped off by your local antique dealer, you weren't supposed to have this mask in the first place anyway. The question of returning cultural items to their sources is always a touchy one, especially when discussed in collector circles. But a ritual mask for a secret society of the Fang people is a deeply sacred object, not your ordinary artifact. This is probably one that should be returned.

That issue aside (and I agree that it is a significant issue), I'm not sure what case they have and I feel conflicted about the ethics of the situation... So someone who has invested much time and effort to understand the value of an item has made a huge profit on it when you did not spend that time and effort and considered it useless. Well, frankly, tough.
As a collector with limited funds who has never sold anything (yet), I don't like the excessive greed that is very clearly rampant in the antiques world at all. It sucks, but that's capitalism for you. Profit is king. Of course, it would've been to the dealer's credit had he offered them a fair price, but given the incentives how many dealers actually would? Not many I suspect. You can't very well expect a dealer to just offer you millions for it out of the goodness of their heart when you're asking for €150, on the off chance that it does this well at an auction. In the end, they paid what you asked for, didn't they? If you want a good price for your item, that requires doing your due diligence. Recognizing a bargain and selling it at a high markup is what they do for a living.
Personally I would like the incentives to be very different, but for the moment that is the reality of the world we've made for ourselves.

EDIT: Just to give a recent example from my own life (which may or may not sound self serving, but it colors the way I feel about this issue): I often hunt for bargains on ebay derivatives because of my limited funds. I try to be well informed enough to recognize somewhat rare things that may be of interest. If I see something that looks vaguely familiar at a good price, I pick it up. I have never sold anything so I haven't profited from this, I just want to enjoy the feeling of collecting and discovery, and making a good deal is nice. More often than not, though, I get burned (the "oops box" overfloweth), but occasionally I find something interesting. I bought these swords a little while ago. They have a bit of a touristy vibe to them with the animal motifs, thin blades, and the lack of extensive patina, so I was unsure that they were real items until a while after I bought them, but I have a few books on African arms and I read a lot of old threads here, so I had vague recollections of seeing something similar and suspected they were of interest. So I picked them up for the asking price, which was very little. Then I found a similar sword listed (unsold) at an ethnographic arms site for a lot more money than I would have been willing to pay at the time (although personally I doubt it will sell at the listed price, but hey the dealers probably know more than I do). Great for me, but it kind of implies I screwed the lady who sold them to me. Should I have told her to ask for more because I had an inkling? Should I have gone back to her and offered her a huge markup after I found out they're probably worth more (and how much more)? Maybe, but then I couldn't have afforded them, so I'd always be screwing myself. And given how often I've been on the receiving end of that dynamic, it kind of feels like "you win some, you lose lots". There are no doubt better people out there than I am, who would do so out of principle, but I don't think it's something you can just expect.

Of course, the scale is not quite comparable, and maybe this guy did something more nefarious than I'm picking up from these quotes.

[Bob A]

The value of anything is subjective, and depends on such concepts as scarcity, need and the intrinsic value of its components.

Just because something is rare does not in itself create value.

If an item is required for the continuance of life, its value may soar beyond the norm, to the parties whose lives are at stake. A commonplace object in dire circumstances may have a value to those who need it far beyond its otherwise perceived monetary value.

Intrinsic value is subject to knowledge. A pretty pebble may be of little value to one who is unaware that it is a rare gemstone, for example.

Regarding the object in question, the value is based on information, and is therefore created by the knowledge of those who can exhume and attribute such details as may apply. This knowledge is not easily acquired, and those who make the effort to acquire it deserve to reap the rewards of their efforts.

The object has little value to those who created it, as they are no longer in existence. It had a notional value to the party that sold it, who were at the time satisfied with the price received.

Its value was created by those who were able to explain the reasons for their judgement, and validated by those who would pay the price to acquire it. Obviously there was more than one party who desired its possession, which further validates the knowledge which created the value.

People here who work to expand their knowledge deserve to reap the reward of their efforts. Those who fail to do so have no complaint, if their satisfaction in an exchange turns out to have been unfavorable.

This does not excuse deliberate fraud, usung one's knowledge to cheat the unaware. However, that does not seem to have been the case in this transaction; the purchaser may have had a suspicion of its worth, but it was unproven, and only developed through the effort of study and investigation.

[David]

Originally Posted by Bob A

The object has little value to those who created it, as they are no longer in existence. It had a notional value to the party that sold it, who were at the time satisfied with the price received.
People here who work to expand their knowledge deserve to reap the reward of their efforts. Those who fail to do so have no complaint, if their satisfaction in an exchange turns out to have been unfavorable.

As to you first point above, while i agree that the actual creator of the object is long gone and the mask is of no value to the dead, the fact remains that is is a cultural item and as such has great value to the culture and the particular secret society from which it came. Secret societies in Africa (and no doubt in other cultures) don't simply give away or even sell their ritual items. Such an item would outlive its creator and continue to be used ritually within the culture for generations. French colonial authorities banned the Ngil Society in the 1920s when this mask was supposedly acquired. That adds even more weight to the argument that this mask was more likely taken rather than gifted or bought. While the Fang people were mostly converted to Christianity during their colonial occupation many returned to their traditional religion called Biere upon their independence. I can't be sure that the Ngil Society still exists, but its people do and apparently that want this mask returned. Its value to them cannot be measured in dollars or euros. People here who work to expand their knowledge do not deserve to reap this stolen cultural artifact as their "reward".

[Lee]

The scale of the disparity is surely relevant, 33,871x versus 66x (at asking price), as is the absolute amount of money involved! When a typical collector buys from a dealer, remember that the dealer is a professional and part of their profession is knowing what the things they deal in are and what they are worth. When our typical collector has acquired superior knowledge and gets a really good deal, well then, yeah for the collector because it usually does not flow that way. I think though, in the position of being the professional, a dealer does have an obligation to be 'honest' with a "civilian" seller.

A very significant international antique arms dealer told me the story of his purchase of an item that I acquired (at a good markup) and the essence was that he knew that he could quickly place the object and made an offer at least an order of magnitude greater than other offers that had preceded it. He indicated that being willing to pay a fair price brought much more merchandise to him, and often first refusal. Of course, the dealer in the account above made so much there would be little need for future respect in the community, though he would not want me on a jury.

As to patrimony issues, decades or centuries later we cannot really know what the actual terms of a transfer were. But many of the diverse items that have found their ways into great museums and collections may not otherwise have survived if left in their place of origin and (hint, hint) we are not going to debate this contentious issue here.

[Bob A]

Originally Posted by David

People here who work to expand their knowledge do not deserve to reap this stolen cultural artifact as their "reward".

The excessive monetary "reward" was determined, not by the individual who hoped to earn compensation for his knowledge, his purchase and powers of observation, but by those who chose to competitively bid for the object in question.

It's difficult to determine ownership of an object created and used in secret; it's equally difficult to ascribe a value. As it's likely that anyone connected with the secret is dead, and the clandestine nature of the root organisation renders it obscure, it becomes impossible to ascertain ownership.

Insofar as admitting belonging to a secret organisation would either expose it to view, creating an existential problem, or would be a fraudulent claim by someone hoping to profit from knowledge obtained contrary to the tenets of the secret society, it would seem problematic regarding both ownership and violation of the intended rules of the originators of the object.

Throughout history, the pragmatism of the concept "to the victor belongs the spoils" has applied. Complaining about the implicit barbarism of the concept may feel uplifting, but a goodly portion of what folks here, as well as museums and cultural repositories study, collect, buy and sell might fall under question regarding ownership and cultural appropriation.

It somehow seems coupled with demonstrating virtue while ignoring reality. Of course, after seven decades of experience on this planet, the veneer of civilisation has probably been ground off of my essential barbarism.

Merely an alternative perspective, of course.