Listen to CRY Radio 104fm live
‘Dumped’ Youghal Art Work Withdrawn By Sotheby’s
16 comments | 
The art world is a wide and varied terrain but not many connoisseurs would have assumed a close link between Youghal’s 1980′s landfill site, Sir Walter Raleigh’s former home at Myrtle Grove and Sotheby’s of New York! Report Christy Parker Photo: Michael Hussey e mail news@youghalonline.com
Simon Murray outside Myrtle Grove-Youghal
According to a story just surfaced in the Sunday Times, a painting discovered at the rat-infested dump in 1987 has just been withdrawn from auction in the American capital, following intervention by Simon Murray, current proprietor of Myrtle Grove and great-great-grandson of Sir Henry Arthur Blake, a British colonial administrator and former Governor of Hong Kong, who retired there in the late 19th century.The painting, Children Under a Palm Tree, is a watercolour by renowned American artist Winslow Homer and depicts Sir Henry’s three children seated on a couch. An English tourist, fishing in the area, discovered it at the dump in 1987, in the wake of a series of robberies at Myrtle Grove during the mid-1980s. Last year the BBC’s Antique Road Show valued the painting at €40,000 -and more if restored. The fisherman’s daughter consigned it to Sotheby’s, where it carried a reserve price of approximately €110,000. Then, two days before a scheduled May 21st auction, Simon’s mother, Shirley Rountree, with whom he shares Myrtle Grove, discovered the impending sale and had it stopped.
Murray, who works as a lawyer in London, is said to be “disappointed” that Sotheby’s had not become aware of the painting’s history. Sotheby’s insists it carried out “extensive diligence.”
The painting-'Children Under a Palm Tree' by renowned American artist Winslow Homer
Interestingly, neither Mr Murray nor his mother had been aware that what they now call “our painting” was missing! “The fact that this portfolio of paintings was taken was clearly missed,” Murray has said and adds that his family are partial to providing a ‘finder’s fee’ by way of consolation to the fisherman’s family.
The BBC refuses to name the fisherman who had the painting evaluated, while Sotheby’s says it has still not received documentary evidence of the “oral” claim. One senses a row looming.
Meanwhile the painting is now on the Art Loss Register and cannot be sold in good faith. Displaying admirable virtue, Art Loss Register chairman Julian Radcliffe says “Removing something from a skip or a rubbish dump is theft. It should have been brought to the gardai or the local council.” Well at least it was found -how many Picasso’s and Monet’s have been recycled out there since they upgraded the place?!
Myrtle Grove-Youghal
16 comments |
Just watched Simon Murray on BBC’s “Fake or Fortune” and what a hideously vile, pompous, entitled and odious man he seems. The very worst kind of toff who can and will attempt to manipulate any situation to their own advantage by using their establishment position to grind down the opposition. I hope his Myrtle Grove falls around his ears before Shirley relinqueshes her claim to the painting Simon and his family didn’t even know existed!
Micky,
I wholeheartedly agree with you………… It may eventually be the case that the law comes down on their side but ethics and moral behaviour will never be on their side.
One thing that breeding brings out in such folks is bad manners and loss of moral fibre.
Do the right thing Simon, give the girl the painting that is morally hers.
Regards,
Niccolo
If they valued the picture they would have know it was missing, they only value the money which some one else rightly deserves, the picture wouldn’t exist if it hadn’t been rescued. Rescuing art is not stealing but trying to stake a claim on something which you have misplaced twenty years ago is, unless you reported it missing at the time. Too greedy for his own good.
I think the villians in this story are Sothebys who didn’t attempt to trace the owner of the picture and said that they had contacted the owner and obviously had not. They were obviously only interested in their commission.
I can sympathise with both parties – The Murrays obviously want their picture back – it was their family depicted and the painting was definitely proven to be. They said it was stolen-s it was Sothebys who said that the family had no recollection of the picture which was obviously a lie.
I feel sorry for the girl in question but there is actually no proof that her father found the pictures on the tip it was just his word. Maybe he did.Maybe they were just discared thinking they were worthless.
A very sorry situation.
Lady Blake would certainly not be amused…. she must be spinning in here grave…. She wrote about it being a sketch… a nice souvenir… now all the grubbing around … in legal processes and waste tips….
This is a deeply sad case where a legal battle can take years. By providing increasingly substantial Provenance, the case appears to be heading towards a victory for the Simon Murray cause. However, the timing was so tight and so depressing that somehow I feel that somebody very close to the whole story may have approached Simon Murray to make his claim at the very last minute and so some unjust behaviour may have taken place. Selina and her family should reflect on this and I hope that both parties can settle amicably and quickly before the value of the whole episode is eroded by the huge legal cost and as importantly an Art treasure loss. (Provenance, from the French provenir, “to come from”, means the origin, or the source of something, or the history of the ownership or location of an object.The term was originally mostly used for works of art, but is now used in similar senses in a wide range of fields, including science and computing. Typical uses may cover any artifact found in archaeology, any object in paleontology, certain documents (such as manuscripts), or copies of printed books. In most fields, the primary purpose of provenance is to confirm or gather evidence as to the time, place, and—when appropriate—the person responsible for the creation, production, or discovery of the object. This will typically be accomplished by tracing the whole history of the object up to the present. Comparative techniques, expert opinions, and the results of scientific tests may also be used to these ends, but establishing provenance is essentially a matter of documentation).
Best Wishes,
DINESH R MAKWANA (DREAMWORDS AND INORBITS)
I am just incensed by this whole episode – the Blakes (aka Murrays) – claim the picture was stolen from them – but one picture wasn’t stolen. The finder found other pictures including a picture by Lady Blake. Come one Mr Murray – there was a major burglary at your ancestors’ house – and nobody noticed!!! And not only that, the burglar(s) took their stash of paintings and abandoned them! What a good night’s work for a burglar.
But wait – it gets better – nobody noticed this burglary! No reports made, no attempts to find the pictures. Of course not – there’d been a house-cleaning and these bits of flotsam had been taken to the tip.
But here lies the rub – somebody found them abandoned outside the tip and twenty years – yes I said twenty years – later when offered for sale you noticed they’d gone missing and staked your claim!! I’m sure the fact that one of them had been identified as a very valuable painting didn’t influence you at all!! Excuse me while I sit down and laugh my socks off you ghastly little man!!
Shows what a horrible toff he is they haven’t asked for the old birds painting of the beach, I guess they had a clear out chucked the old girls paintings because they thought her paintings are rubbish, and fly tipped them them selfs at the tip.
I think the painting should be sold and they get 50 / 50 each without the painting being found it would have got wet and be gone.
Doesn’t show the Blakes/Murray in a good light does it!
Previous posts just about sum it up for me.
I presume Mr Murray can do his own Litigation (he is a Barrister – see http://www.1chancerylane.com/?action=barrister&asset_id=2550) so even now the finder is on a hiding to nothing . If Mr Murray wins and is awarded costs I presume it will be a nice personal payout of fees at £hundreds per hour plus he gets the painting. A real win/win situation and if they lose hey-ho. The finder is really between a rock and hard place/ Presumably whatever value they are deemed to have in the painting will be eroded by their legal costs – The Blakes/Murray’s could have shown themselves in a much better light by offering a 50/50 split, this would still have given the finder a handsome payout and would seem to be fair and equitable offer.
I find it difficult to garner any sympathy for the Blake clan whatsoever.
“To me avarice seems not so much a vice, as a deplorable piece of madness.
– Sir Thomas Browne, Religio Medici”
The Murray ponse looks like a middle aged Harry Potter. I think a 50/50 offer would be a fair solution if Murray retracts his slur that the finders would waste the money on a swimming pool!
It looks like the lawyers will split the proceeds 50/50
It’s like a lengthy divorce, only the lawyers win.
Watched Slimy Simon on Fake or Fortune last night. Oh how I would love to cross-examine him in the witness box.
Would also be fascinating to hear Slimy Simon’s sister’s version of events, (the one that DID actually speak to Southebys’ General Counsel during their due diligence inquiries).
By the by: the statement by Art Loss Register chairman Julian Radcliffe that “Removing something from a skip or a rubbish dump is theft…..” is NOT necessarily true at Law. (Although a myth routinely peddled by the self serving self righteous and by sloppy semi-educated bureaucrats -police officers/council by-laws inspectors included).
The nature of the “tip” and various other circumstances surrounding any particular situation may make a pivotal difference.
ie: a “tip” where public access is freely available to the site and public foraging and removal of materials was commonplace and publicly known to be so, in the absence of clear and deliberate efforts to prevent such activity (signage and/or fencing etc), could be considered at Law to have given permission for the removal of said materials and therefore the removal from said tip could not of itself constitute the basis of theft.
I would say Simon Murray the great grandson of this fairytale is nothing more than a pompous…. He showed no sympathy for the family that found the picture and worse he made fun of them by suggesting they would have spent the money on cars or a swimming pool.
OH MY GOD,JUST WATCHED FAKE OR FORTUNE…WHAT A POMPOUS GIT SIMON MURRAY IS.FUNNY HOW THE FAMILY SUDDENLY WANTED THE PAINTING AFTER 20 YEARS WHEN THEY DID NOT EVEN KNOW THAT THEY HAD EVER OWNED IT.JUST SHOWS THE SO CALLED UPPER CLASS IN THEIR TRUE LIGHT.KEEP FIGHTING SELINA IT IS TIME SOMEONE PUT THIS PRIG IN HIS PLACE
Simon is a just a greedy, desperate, little man with low self-esteem.
Surely there art collection was catalogued and they never new they had a painting By Homer until now because as he said no other painting in their collection was worth nearly that much! And he was happy to sell it to do up Myrtle Grove to sell that too – so sentimental, i think not!
Dont think it was a coincidence that he was in New York either, but regardless of that which Lawyer was lying the most!
simon is a greedy pig. . The girl should get 50% at least. What a selfish creep he is.