Giacometti Lithograph Authentication: When a Signature Tells Only Part of the Story
In recent months, we have received a growing number of authentication requests and first expert opinions concerning works attributed to Alberto Giacometti.
This trend reflects a broader shift in the art market. Collectors are increasingly turning their attention toward artists who, while well-established and historically significant, remain less saturated and less extensively forged than figures such as Andy Warhol or Roy Lichtenstein. These artists often present a compelling balance: a strong market presence, relatively stable value over time, and, in some cases, a steady upward trajectory.
However, where collector interest grows, forgery tends to follow.
This is precisely what we are currently observing with Giacometti. Alongside increasing demand comes a parallel rise in questionable works — and, consequently, in requests for expert evaluation.
The case presented here does not focus on a detailed breakdown of a forged signature, as we have done previously (Case Study: Detecting a Forged Alberto Giacometti Signature). Instead, it offers insight into a broader and more nuanced approach to authentication.
Beyond the technical analysis, this case also highlights something essential: the mindset required when examining a work of art. Avoiding premature conclusions, maintaining methodological rigor, and considering every element in relation to the whole are key to reaching a sound assessment.
First Impressions and an Immediate Red Flag
Following a client request, we were asked to provide an authentication assessment of a lithograph attributed to Alberto Giacometti. The work was presented as dating from the 1950s, numbered and hand-signed, and part of an edition of 75 impressions. The paper also featured a visible watermark.
As always, this case is published with the client’s consent for educational purposes. Certain identifying details have been intentionally withheld, and the images presented are of reduced quality. Only the elements relevant to this analysis are disclosed.
Upon receiving the documents, an expert will typically form an initial impression — a combination of visual coherence and instinct, informed by experience. This first reading often focuses in particular on the handwritten elements, especially the signature.
In this case, one detail immediately stood out.
The signature attributed to Giacometti displayed only a single “t” at the end of the name, whereas all comparable reference examples in our database — verified as authentic — consistently preserve the double “tt” structure.
In handwriting analysis, such a deviation is not a minor variation but a highly significant inconsistency, as fundamental letter structures and spelling patterns tend to remain stable in authentic signatures.
Additional elements further contributed to the initial doubt. The watermark present on the paper did not correspond to the commonly encountered Arches or BFK Rives marks found in the majority of Giacometti lithographs. Furthermore, editions of 75 impressions, while not impossible, are relatively uncommon within his printed works.
At this stage, the assessment could reasonably have been concluded.
However, this is precisely where the role of the expert becomes critical.
Rather than stopping at an apparently obvious conclusion, it is essential to pursue the analysis further and seek corroborating, objective evidence. This approach is not only methodologically sound, but also necessary in practice — particularly when clients may hold strong preconceptions about the authenticity of a work.
The next step, therefore, was to investigate one of the most decisive elements in this case: the watermark
Maeght Edition Watermark in the last century
The Watermark: A Turning Point in the Investigation
Before examining the specific case, it is worth briefly understanding the role of watermarks in works on paper.
A watermark is a mark embedded within the paper, typically visible when the sheet is held up to the light. It may indicate a paper manufacturer, a printer, a publisher, or take the form of a symbol, logo, or monogram. Introduced during the papermaking process itself, the watermark becomes an integral part of the sheet and cannot be added afterward.
For this reason, watermarks are considered highly valuable in authentication. While not entirely impossible to replicate, they are significantly more difficult to reproduce convincingly than signatures or handwritten elements, and therefore often serve as strong supporting evidence in the assessment of a work.
In fact, the study of watermarks is a specialized field in its own right, used extensively in the analysis of prints, drawings, and historical documents.
In the present case, the watermark did not correspond to the commonly encountered Arches or BFK Rives papers typically associated with Giacometti lithographs. This raised an important question: what was its origin?
The investigation required considering several possibilities — whether it belonged to a lesser-known paper manufacturer, a printer, a publisher, or even a custom-made paper bearing a unique mark.
At this stage, experience played a key role.
Having examined a large number of lithographs over time, the watermark appeared vaguely familiar. Similar marks had previously been observed on works by Joan Miró (Joan Miro, 'Arlequin Crépusculaire', 1975).
This connection opened a new line of inquiry.
Looking more closely at the artistic and editorial history of both artists, it becomes clear that they shared, for a period, a common publisher: Maeght Éditeur.
Re-examining the watermark with this in mind, a key detail emerged. Beneath the symbol, the letters “ME” appeared, subtly integrated into the design — most likely referring to Maeght Éditeur.
At this point, the situation shifted significantly.
What initially appeared inconsistent now became historically plausible. Rather than contradicting the authenticity of the work, the watermark suggested a potential link to a known publishing context.
This, however, introduced a new layer of complexity.
Further research indicated that such watermarks were associated with more specific and relatively uncommon editions, often less documented than standard print runs. Many of these editions date from the 1960s — a crucial detail, considering that Alberto Giacometti passed away in 1966.
A new hypothesis therefore had to be considered.
Could this lithograph belong to a late production, possibly issued close to the end of the artist’s life? And if so, could the atypical signature — lighter, less assertive, and structurally altered — be explained by age, illness, or physical decline?
While such a scenario may seem unlikely, it cannot be dismissed outright without careful consideration.
This moment illustrates a fundamental principle of expertise: even when strong inconsistencies are identified, the role of the expert is not to confirm an intuition, but to test every plausible hypothesis before reaching a conclusion.
Converging Evidence and Final Assessment
At this stage of the analysis, it becomes essential to systematically verify every available element and assess how they relate to one another.
Beyond the watermark, another detail began to support the hypothesis of an authentic print. Editions associated with Maeght Éditeur in the 1960s were often produced in series of 75 impressions. This corresponded precisely with the numbering indicated on the lithograph.
Further elements reinforced this direction. The dimensions of the work, the structure and quality of the paper, as well as the characteristics of the lithographic impression itself, were all consistent with known original productions.
Taken together, these factors strongly suggested that the print — as an object — was genuine.
However, a critical issue remained.
A review of the catalogue raisonné — the reference corpus compiling all known and documented works by
Alberto Giacometti — revealed no trace of this specific edition.
This raised a fundamental question:
How could a lithograph displaying all the technical and material characteristics of an authentic production, and consistent with known edition formats, remain undocumented?
The answer lies in a situation that is, in fact, more common than one might expect.
Research indicated that impressions of this work were indeed printed on paper associated with Maeght Éditeur. In some cases, Maeght also produced lithographic reproductions intended for a broader audience, printed on watermarked paper but issued as publisher’s editions without numbering or signature.
The impressions corresponding to this work appear to fall within this category, having been originally released unsigned and unnumbered.
We are therefore confronted with a classic but significant alteration:
an original print, later modified through the addition of a signature and numbering in order to increase its market value.
One final hypothesis had to be considered.
Could the artist have signed such a print at a later stage — for instance, during an exhibition, as a dedication, or for a private individual?
While this scenario cannot be entirely excluded in general, in this specific case it becomes highly unlikely.
A key element reinforces this conclusion: many of the lithographic impressions produced by Maeght Éditeur for a broader audience — including those printed on watermarked paper — were issued after the artist’s death.
This significantly reduces the likelihood that Alberto Giacometti could have personally signed such an impression.
The presence of numbering is also a decisive factor in this case. Numbering implies inclusion within a formal edition process. It is not something an artist would retrospectively add in an informal context such as a dedication. Alberto Giacometti would not have numbered an isolated impression outside of an official edition structure.
Furthermore, without entering into exhaustive detail, the signature itself presents several inconsistencies beyond the absence of the characteristic double “tt”, further supporting the conclusion that it is not authentic.
This case ultimately confirms an essential principle of expertise.
The initial intuition — in this instance triggered by a striking inconsistency — proved to be correct. However, it is only through a complete and methodical analysis, extending to every detail, that such a conclusion can be confidently established without overlooking elements that might have led to a different interpretation.
Conclusion
This case illustrates a situation frequently encountered in the art market: an original print, later altered in a way that significantly impacts its value and interpretation.
What initially appeared to be a clear red flag required a more nuanced investigation. While the signature and numbering proved to be non-authentic, the lithograph itself remained consistent with an original production.
For collectors, such distinctions are critical.
Understanding what is authentic — and what is not — can make a substantial difference, both financially and historically.
This is where a first expert opinion proves its value: providing clarity at an early stage, reducing uncertainty, and helping collectors move forward with confidence.