No Logo, No Montici?

For us, yes.

The Society does not offer authentication services to the public. We do however have our own internal process of authentication. It leads us to decide – for the Society’s purposes -- whether to consider a mosaic a verified Montici or not.

For us, authentication requires a logo (see Authentication and Valuation” link on Home Page) We continue to cover all offered, claimed Montici artworks in our Market Report, but will flag any missing a logo.

Our position is based on Matila Simon’s official biography of Richard Blow (see “Academic Biography” on the Home Page), In it, she describes the process Richard used to create his mosaics. “All of the pictures were worked over long and lovingly, subjected to the artist’s final approval…When completed and accepted, each piece was marked with a tiny M stone inset as a Montici signature, and signed on the back by Blow himself.”

She was wrong about the signature; most of the mosaics in our database are unsigned. But she was right about the logo. Per our database, of the 350 Montici- claimed mosaics offered at auction over the last 23 years, 341 included a logo (97%).

Our position is that a buyer should expect to find a logo.

Could a mosaic be genuine without a logo? Yes. But absent one, the seller should cite a reason.

Example: Blow issued a limited number of mosaic pieces with no logo between the start of his mosaic career circa 1947 and the creation of the first Montici logo in 1951. The seller has reason to believe that his piece was executed before 1951.

Another example : the mosaic has one or more distinguishing features strongly suggesting it’s genuine. The seller believes they’re enough to allow him to claim it’s a Montici.

In May 2023, the reputable auction house Leslie Hindman offered up “Two Cats #2.” We couldn’t spot a logo (and none was claimed), but an accompanying photo of the back showed what appears to be a genuine Richard Blow signature, together with a Montici inventory tag. Perhaps because of those elements, the missing logo didn’t seem to bother the winning bidder. It sold for $8,820 (including the 30% buyer’s premium). Perhaps the buyer also did his homework: Wright sold in Jan. 2017 a logoed Montici very similar in style, which is logged in our Society database as “Two Cats #1.”).

Three weeks later, the reputable auction house Wright offered up another claimed Richard Blow mosaic (“Richard Blow, Untitled”).

It features a prancing white horse behind three arches. Reading the very short seller description, and examining the three accompanying photos, we found no Montici logo; the back of the mosaic was covered up (typically this is viewable to potential buyers); no provenance comments, no original hanging hardware. Wright is a leader in selling Montici pieces; they put together the historic 2019 blockbuster Adam Edelsberg auction. We’re sure they have their reasons for calling this piece a genuine Richard Blow artwork. But no explanation is offered.

Instead, curious bidders are invited to ask a question. We emailed them to seek more information, asking them to confirm the lack of a logo, and requesting them to provide a photo of the back of the mosaic without the covering. They kindly sent us five photos of the back, confirming that it showed no signature, date, inventory tags or other markings. Our logo question was left unanswered.

So how did the auction house determine the work is a genuine Montici?

Meanwhile, we had our own reasons to suspect it might be genuine.

· Blow produced multiple horse-themed mosaics. We have five in our database, including a signed Calderani. In Bruno Lastrucci’s privately published biography, he includes a photo of Montici maestro Fernando Nenci (who ran the workshop in the early 1950s?). On the wall is either a horse sketch or mosaic. Richard liked horse mosaics.

· One of the first Blow horse mosaics appeared in 1950, before the first use of the Montici logo. It appears as part of the traveling exhibit “Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today” (click Illustrated Biography” link on the Home Page). Perhaps “Richard Blow, Untitled” was produced before Richard started using the Montici logo?

· In our database, we have two other Blow mosaics featuring very similar rearing horses and arches. They’re shown in the 2018 Opificio publication “Il Novecento per il Museo dell’Opificio delle Pietre Dure” (page 29). They’re dated circa 1950-1955).

*Richard Blow. “Cavalli e Cavalieri” 1950-55 ca (Foto collezione Mauro Bini).*

Bottom line? Despite missing a logo, signature, date, stickers, or original hanging hardware, it’s still possible the Wright “horse and arches” mosaic is a genuine Blow artwork.

Or not.

Interestingly enough, we have a third “horse and arches” mosaic n our database. David Mayer Antiques on West 25th Street in NYC brought it to auction.

It features several key elements found in “Wright’s “Richard Blow, Untitled” – a horse and marbled arches arranged in a similar composition It does have some dissimilar features – it’s a daylight scene, not nighttime; the horse is walking, not rearing up on its hind legs it shows four arches, not three. But it’s similar enough overall to make someone wonder if it’s a Montici. But like the Wright piece, it too lacks a logo, signature, stickers, or typical Montici hanging hardware In this case, the galley played it safe and declared it “Attributed to Richard Blow.” (Doing so can negatively affect the price. A work merely “Attributed to Richard Blow” should sell for much less than a work “by Richard Blow”).

Ironically, we believe an eBay seller set the standard for explaining an absent logo.

MSID “Acrobat,” a 1956 mosaic signed by Calderani, appeared on eBay on Sept 18, 2020, asking price $2,500. It’s missing the Montici logo, but the knowledgeable seller provided potential buyers a very detailed, reasonable, credible list of reasons for why the piece is genuine:

“…This Richard Blow pietre dure plaque is missing the iconic ‘M’ cipher, which apparently became dislodged and lost sometime during its previous ownership. I acquired the work in its current condition. The hole for the missing Murano glass cipher ‘M’ is there, and is three millimeters in diameter, which is consistent with the diameter of the cipher signature possessed by all other known Montici works, large or small. The frame is clearly an original Montici. The design is definitively in Blow’s style, with the characteristic subtle touches of his vision, such as the bowl held for the acrobat’s reflective gaze, the charismatic selection of stone, and the intricacy of the overall composition. On the reverse is the signature ‘X – 1956 Calderani’. This form of dating & signature (of the shop and/or craftsman that implemented the design) appears on the verso of perhaps a dozen Monticis I’ve observed, virtually always from the 1950’s, and usually with either Calderani’s or Fracassini’s name. A majority of them date from the period following Richard Blow’s auto accident in the US in 1954, the severe injuries from which kept him from returning to his atelier in Italy until 1957. I have included photos of the versos of two other Monticis that also possess this dating & signing – these are the last two of the seven photos, and are not representations of the work for sale, which itself is shown in the first five photos. This work measures 10.25 x 9.875 inches framed, and 6.25 x 5.875 by sight. The frame condition is good, with normal wear commensurate with its age. The plaque has an apparent repair to the left lower corner, which may be related to the missing cipher, and a few scratches.”

In the end, the Society believes that:

1. A buyer should expect to find a logo on any Mosaic claiming to be an authentic Montici.

2. Absent a logo, the seller should cite a reason; ideally in the description itself.

Montici mosaic prices are rising steeply.

If you’re paying $9,000-$10,000 for a claimed Montici mosaic with no logo, we suggest you at least make the seller explain its absence.

Happy collecting!

Michael Schmicker