Sheikh’s £4.2million court fight with art dealer ‘who sold him fake ancient statues’
A COUSIN of the emir of Qatar is suing a London art dealer for allegedly selling him £4.2million worth of fake ancient statues.
Sheikh Hamad bin Abdullah al Thani bought seven pieces from John Eskenazi, including a carved head of the god Dionysus and a £1.8million statue of the goddess Hari Hara.
But he later claimed the works – which he was told were 1,400 to 2,000 years old – were not authentic and demanded the dealer take them back and give him a refund.
Mr Eskenazi, 72, denies the claims and is counter-suing for a declaration that all the works – which were lined up in court before the judge – are authentic.
Sheikh Hamad, a noted art collector, owns the ornately decorated Dudley House in Mayfair, central London, which is believed to be worth about £256million and is said to be the country’s most expensive private residence.
His dinner guests have included the Queen, who reportedly said in 2015 that ‘this place makes Buckingham Palace look rather dull’.
Sheikh Hamad, 40, arrived at the High Court in London in a RollsRoyce yesterday. He told Mr Justice Jacobs he bought the seven artworks through his family firm,
‘Each of the works is a modern forgery’
Qatar Investment and Projects Development Holding Company, in 2014 and 2015.
He is relying on expert reports which state that on examination ‘protruding plastic’ was found embedded in one of the pieces, an unfired clay head of a demonic being, known as the Krodha.
The reports also say modern materials and chemicals suggestive of forgery were found in several other pieces and that their state of preservation is too good to be true.
Roger Stewart QC, for the sheikh, told the judge: ‘The claimants’ case is each of the works is a modern forgery, not an ancient object.’
He claimed one pre-7th century marble head was of a type so rare there was only one known example in the hands of a collector.
‘Mr Eskenazi has sold three,’ he said. ‘Your lordship will have to consider whether Mr Eskenazi has been very lucky in receiving these miraculous objects and selling them to his clients, or whether they are not genuine objects.’
He added Mr Eskenazi was ‘negligent’ in ‘not having a reasonable belief as to the authenticity of the objects sold’. The barrister also claimed the dealer knew the Hari Hara statue ‘not to be authentic’.
But Andrew Green QC, for Mr Eskenazi, told the judge: ‘Conservation and restoration treatments… self-evidently interfere with an object’s surface, including any weathering patterns, and are likely to introduce foreign materials to an object.’
These might include ‘residue of the tools used [or] modern materials used in restoration’. He said: ‘It is often impossible to ascertain whether intervention was the work of a restorer or a forger.
‘It is wholly implausible that the defendants would risk destroying an impeccable reputation built up over many decades with museums, collectors and scholars by either carelessly or deliberately selling forgeries.’
He put it to Sheikh Hamad that he simply ‘decided you wanted your money back’ after a rival dealer questioned the origin of the pieces and then ignored expert evidence that backed their authenticity in bringing his claim. The Sheikh denied those claims.
Mr Green told the judge carbon dating does not work on stone artworks as it simply reads their geological age, and any claim made about the origin of ‘an object made 1,400 or 2,000 years ago is necessarily a statement of opinion’.
The trial continues.