[A. G. Maisey]

Rasjid, if we were to look at recent or new pieces, it would need to be in the nature of an appraisal, not a certification.

Since new and recent pieces are in the nature of art works, what this would amount to would be a situation where a maker's work was given an appraisal that resulted in it being declared good, bad or indifferent --- or maybe excellent.

Can you imagine the implications that would apply if this were to be the case?

Art works in other fields do not apply this type of appraisal, it is applied by the awarding of prizes in art competitions, but very often, the very best artists and sculptors do not submit their work to judging in a competition because they tend to consider the judges of these competitions to be lacking in the talent necessary to pass judgement on their work.

When all is said and done, it is the buyer who decides what an art work is worth and why it is worth a particular sum, but if the buyer does not wish to meet the artist's demands, then the artist need not accept his commission.

I'm sorry, but I cannot see any value in any of these appraisal or certification schemes for anybody except the dealers, especially the high level dealers. Conversely, all I can see for the inexperienced collector is a further endorsement of a market that is already riddled with deception.This would be just another opportunity for deception.

I think I understand what Neo has put forward, and in all honesty, if it could be implemented it would be a wonderful advance. Regrettably, I have very severe doubts that such a system could ever be implemented upon any footing at all, anywhere. The problem is money:- wherever money is involved, no matter how high minded the certifiers or appraisers may be when the scheme begins, it will inevitably be corrupted sooner or later.

Call me cynical if you will, but I have very good reasons for this cynicism.