By all accounts, Enid was willing to sell the models at far less than their fair market value. Once again, Corporate House arranged for a consortium of investors to buy them. How much they paid, we don’t know.
The museum applied to certify the sculptures as Canadian cultural property. The original appraisals were refreshed and the board settled on a fair market value.
That figure was not publicly disclosed, but according to the museum’s 2006 financial return, it issued $13,535,930 in tax receipts for “non-cash gifts” during that year. Once again, Noble says virtually all were issued on account of the sculptures.
That raised the total amount of receipts issued for non-cash gifts during those two years to $31,383,910, nearly all on account of the little clay models.
***
That is a formidable amount for an institution that lives a hand-to-mouth existence. In 1996, when the first donation was being arranged, the museum was on the verge of collapse. The city hired a consultant who identified serious management and organizational problems.
The board was reconstituted and the museum was stabilized. However, like most institutions of this type, the museum still lives on the edge. It routinely loses money and depends mainly on government grants for its survival.
During the year ending Dec. 31, 2011 (the date of its last audited statements), the museum’s total revenues were $2.4 million. Of this amount, $1.8 million came from city, provincial and federal funding sources.
The City of Vancouver was by far the largest contributor, providing $1.5 million. (This was larger than normal that year because it included money for capital projects. The city’s annual operating grant is usually about $750,000).
The museum’s mandate, as articulated in its financial returns, is “to collect, preserve, research and interpret the human and natural history of Vancouver for its citizens and visitors.”
So how does a collection of clay models, purportedly created by an Italian Renaissance artist, fit with this mandate?
The answer is, it doesn’t, which is why the museum decided to put the first half of the collection up for sale. (Under Canadian tax rules, the museum had to wait at least 10 years from the date of the donation to avoid being taxed on the proceeds.)
Southey’s estimates it will sell at auction for $200,000 to $300,000, which implies a value of $400,000 to $600,000 for the entire collection. (Noble says the two halves of the collection were valued at about the same amount, in U.S. dollars. When the half was donated, the conversion rate to U.S. dollars was much higher, which explains why a larger tax receipt was issued for the first half, even though the two halves are worth roughly the same.)
Noble says the museum never expected to get $30 million for the collection: “Paul LeBrooy attempted to attribute the sculptures to Michelangelo, and individual scholars had attributed them to Michelangelo, but to my knowledge, the museum board did not.
“We did not certify them as works by Michelangelo, rather as Renaissance-era models. We thought they would be valued higher, but I don’t think we ever thought we would get millions of dollars, nor did we plan for it.”
Kathryn Minard, a highly respected art appraiser from Toronto, said she doesn’t have any specific knowledge of this matter, but she is very familiar with appraisal techniques and dynamics. She said the re-evaluation is likely due to changing scholarship, not overt error or bad faith.
“The review board is very careful in assessing appraisal reports. High-value objects like this [art associated with Michelangelo] are going to attract a lot of scrutiny. The last thing the board wants is to have a big scandal,” she said in an interview.
“Museum curators would have been responsible for writing a rationale for the objects being of outstanding significance and national importance, and they would have provided all the documents and provenances they had at the time. But scholarship changes…”
That’s little solace for taxpayers, who will no doubt wonder how and why they paid so much for so little. Len Westerberg, a spokesman for the federal department of heritage, said in an email that the review board “has a mandate to review issues such as this. It is expected they will do so in a timely manner.”
“I think that’s good,” Noble says. “I think the certification process is a good program. It encourages donations to museums. So the more transparency, the better.”
By month end, the museum will know exactly what the market thinks Paul LeBrooy’s former collection is worth. By that time, Sotheby’s will have auctioned off the first half of the collection. The museum plans to sell the other half in 2016 when the 10-year waiting period expires. |