Posted on 06/19/2004 11:46:35 PM PDT by Michael2001
DUBLIN, N.H. -- A group of friends who bought a painting for $3,200 at a church auction and then sold it for more than 150 times that price are being pressured to share some of the money.
Rick O'Connor and Roy Gandhi-Schwatlo, of Dublin, and Dawn Ward, of Rindge, purchased the painting at an August 2003 auction to benefit the Dublin Community Church. They later put the painting on the auction block at Sotheby's in New York, where it sold in January for $489,600.
The roughly 13-inch by 11½-inch panel of the Madonna and child turned out to be the lost third of a 14th-century triptych painted by an unknown Sienese artist. It was donated to the auction by Jessie Hale, of Dublin, whose family had owned it for nearly 100 years.
Word of the painting's worth has spread around town, and some residents say the buyers have a responsibility to donate some of their new fortune to Hale and the church.
"The whole thing's just unfortunately slimy," said Charles Pillsbury, who volunteered at the auction. "It's just too bad."
O'Connor was on the committee that organized the auction and was responsible for acquiring paintings for the auction. He said he never spoke with Hale about her painting, and no one in his group knew its real value before buying it.
"We were all friends and decided we would buy the painting," he said Thursday. "We just thought it would be a great investment."
O'Connor said he and his friends considered offering some of the money to Hale but may change their minds because of the hostility they've encountered.
"We're basically innocent people here," he said. "Do you come back after you buy something at a yard sale and tell the owner, 'Oh, geez, we've got to give you back half of everything we've made on this product?'"
As members of the auction committee, O'Connor and Gandhi-Schwatlo spent weeks putting together a successful event, said committee chairman Tom Blodgett.
He called them "honest and honorable people," adding, "I hope that they will rethink their situation and make a personal gesture to the Dublin community."
Hale declined to comment to The Union Leader of Manchester.
The second it becomes involuntary, it's no longer a donation.
Would a $ 100.00 be out of line, for the donation..
O'Connor was on the committee that organized the auction and was responsible for acquiring paintings for the auction.
There is a conflict of interest here. The guy is in charge of acquiring donated paintings for the church.
Here's my scenario:
1) Hale unknowingly donates expensive painting to church
2) O'Conner realizes that he may have an expensive painting on his hands. His duty is to get the best price for the church. This involves getting it appraised and informing all potential bidders of it's possible value. Instead, he tells no one except for his two friends. Sounds like fraud to me.
It probably wouldn't take much of an investigation to determine if inquiries were made regarding the actual value and authenticity of the painting, by any of the three "investors".
Seems suspect to me.
$3,200 is a pretty hefty price and I am sure the Church was happy when the sale went through. If they had bought it for $20.00, it would be a different story.
THIS IS A HUGE PEOPLE THING.
churches would be great places if it was not for people.
now let's get back to the foundational word in the greek for church.
COMMUNITY,a place for those of the same mind-set to gather.
the mind-set should not be money,but the teaching of christian values[ie;the gospel]
I am going to have to rethink my position on this. If what you say is correct, someone should be going to jail and the proceeds should go to the church.
The gesture I would give would involve the middle digit. Just because the donor and the church couldn't be bothered to get an appraisal is no reason for these folks to share a thing.
They'll probably be shunned, but that's not a bad thing. Who wants friends that begrudge you good fortune? Hopefully they'll use some of the money to move to a nice American town somewhere.
No it probably wouldn't much of an investigation.
But it could only be done by law enforcement.
Internet search records along with when would be key.
I agree. I don't believe for a moment that O'Connor and his friends didn't know what they had on their hands. How do you even look at a painting like that and not realize it's got to be worth something? At any rate, as you pointed out, it was his respnsibility to get the best price he could for the painting, which would definitely have meant getting it appraised. The guy's a crook and should be fined heavily for his dereliction of duty.
It all depends on where or not it was honest "good fortune".
Dang...
Make that "...whether or not..."
'We were all friends and decided we would buy the painting,' he said Thursday. 'We just thought it would be a great investment.'"
Sheesh. What a weasel.
Hey, O'Connor: WWJD???
I didn't think of this angle the first time I read the article, but as some of you pointed out it does seem a bit suspicious now - I think O'Connor may have known from the start what he had.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.