Peters Gallery - Norman Waitt Suit

A judge in New Mexico has allowed a suit by Norman Waitt against the Gerald Peters Gallery to continue. Waitt, the tech entrepreneur of Gateway computers is suing Peters over a $1.2 million Samuel Seymour painting. The artist had a high auction value of just over $17,000, but Peters explained it was "an exceedingly rare piece of history". The article notes Peter's paid $200,000 for the painting (again showing listed auction values dont always tell the full story or art and value).

According to a Wall Street Journal article, Waitt had purchased over 50 paintings totaling $13 million toward his collection between 1996 and 2008.

The WSJ article states there are issues concerning return and exchange policies, as well as valuation issues, for many of the pieces purchased from Peters. The article states Sotheby's appraised the collection with many of the Peter's Gallery art being valued at less than half the purchase value. Of course the article does not state what the type/standard of value was sought.

The WSJ reports

When one of Mr. Waitt's staffers expressed concern in 2008 that he might have overpaid for his purchases, Mr. Peters assured him in a meeting that he could return any work at any time for a credit, Mr. Waitt says. Mr. Peters denies that such a conversation took place but confirmed that he had allowed returns by Mr. Waitt. It was during that meeting at the gallery that Mr. Waitt noticed a painting of a buffalo in a Western landscape.

Called "Buffalo Standing in a River," the painting was by Samuel Seymour, an early 19th-century artist who accompanied explorers on early government expeditions through the West. Few of Seymour's works remain, art experts say. The only other painting attributed to Seymour to sell at auction fetched $17,250 in 1995.

Mr. Waitt offered to buy "Buffalo" for the $1.2 million asking price.

Mr. Peters says he urged Mr. Waitt not to buy the piece. In an interview, Mr. Peters said Mr. Waitt wasn't an "appropriate" buyer, since he didn't appreciate its historical and artistic significance. Mr. Waitt denies that Mr. Peters discouraged the purchase.

After Mr. Waitt bought the piece, he had his entire collection appraised by Sotheby's, which valued almost all the paintings he bought from Mr. Peters at less than half their purchase prices, Mr. Waitt says. The company said it could not appraise the Seymour painting, given the artist's lack of a sales history.

Mr. Waitt demanded his money back, but Mr. Peters refused, they both say. Mr. Peters said he offered to give Mr. Waitt a credit to buy other works. But Mr. Waitt said the other works offered in return were "not even close in value" to $1.2 million.

To read the full WSJ article, click HERE.