There is nothing new under the sun, just that now we give it more attention than 30 years ago...
In June 1983, Jeanne Modigliani the daughter of the artist along with a main cultural private institution in Spain (actual name La Caixa a large bank)
and Christian Parisot as the second name in the list curated, well let's better say perpetrated, an horrible exhibition in Madrid and Barcelona during the summer.

The similarities with the Genoa/Genova expo are enormous, a lot of flea market papers scrambled with some great works loaned by the main museums accompanied by gross fakes.
At that time did not cause even the slightest scandal, the press criticism of the moment considered it the cultural milestone of the summer.
Where were all those who now complain and shout about it when Parisot and Jeanne Modigliani, the painter's daughter for more derision, did this?

Well, the reality is:

Restellini was looking to collaborate with Parisot.

Carlo Pepi (yes the one who reported it to the police) was collaborating with them,
he even considered himself friend and defender of the innocent Jeanne ...


We can demonize Parisot and the "innocent" Jeanne now that they are fallen trees, but when they were in power they used it without any kind of mercy or contagions.
It's funny but the average life of a historian power in other artists is between 20 to 50 years, in Modigliani's oeuvre only Ceroni has lasted that years, all the rest lasted 13 to 20 years.

Let's put the background before trying to understand everything:

- Pfannstiel: 1928 - 1936 and after the war from 1950 to 1960.= 18 years more or less (*1)
- D 'Atri:1954 - 1968 0 12 years of power.(*2)
- Schoeller: 1932 - 1951= 19 years of power (*3)
- Jeanne Modigliani = 0 years (*4)
- Lanthemann: 1970 -1973 = 3 years (*5)
- Ceroni: 1972 to present = 46 years (*6)
- Patani: 1988 - 1998 = 10 years (*7)
- Parisot : 1987 to 2003 = 16 years (*8)
- Restellini: 2002 to 2017 = 15 years(*9)
- Wayne is the new one = 2012 to??? (*10)

So with this on focus, lets think we are in the middle of a "Game of thrones" battle, Restellini wanted the death of Parisot and recover his name for the market (in public press of course). Exactly the same movement that Parisot did against Patani.
This time he had the help of the press and an Italian collector / connoisseur / ex friend of Parisot & friend of Jeanne named Carlo Pepi and actually the biggest fan of Restellini.
Will see what happens when Restellini place on display his selection for the Albertina Museum, is Pepi going to claim against Restellini for the Picasso portrait he has told in public is a fake? (*11)
So with all this in mind lets go back to Genova Scandal:
What was in there:
Undoubted works present at the exhibit damaged in the press
Beatrice Hastings amedeo modigliani woman red head amedeo modigliani  Moise Kisling amedeo modigliani elizabeth fuss amore amedeo modigliani
Seated nude amedeo modigliani Seated nude amedeo modigliani Woman with black hair amedeo modigliani Louise amedeo modigliani
  Elena Povolozky amedeo modigliani woman amedeo modigliani  
L' Atelier Kisling/Modigliani L' Atelier Kisling/Modigliani L' Atelier Kisling/Modigliani Hanka Zborowska
Marie woman Cariatide  Bride and groom
Conrad Moricand soutine woman  Celine howard
As soon as I get to the year by year of each work , I will put on-line the complete report of Mme. Quattrocchi on each one until then I will just show this one as example
( the red caryatid is already on line in 1913)
Down you can read a copy of the original report sent to the court that was used to determine the authenticity of the work
Celine howard
In RED my questions or adding:

T Prof.ssa Isabella Quattrocchi
Consulente del Tribunale di Roma per le Opere d’Arte:

Oil painting on synthetic canvas, mounted on a Greek cross frame, of non-Italian design, complete with keys tensioning.
NOTHING OUT OF THE ORDINARY, except synthetic canvas? what is that? Non Italian, didn't he painted in France?
The work depicts a female nude, drawn and subsequently painted (As usual in Modigliani), assembling, without any competence in the subject, (Agree) anatomical elements extrapolated from the many graphic studies carried out from the artist ( NOTHING OUT OF THE ORDINARY, there are plenty of sketches for the amazone and that don't make the work a fake?) There is also a disharmony of the graphic components of the nude, accentuated by the drafting of the color that does not take into account the volumes, light and dark, of the incidence of light on the image, crushing and dilating the forms, misrepresenting the female characters of the character. ( THIS IS SOOOO GENERIC THAT IT CAN BE APPLIED TO ALMOST ANY OTHER WORK MADE BY MODIGLIANI, IT´S A PERSONAL OPINION NOT A SCIENTIFIC REPORT?)
The figure and the face are defined by an uncertain brownish contour line, ( NOTHING OUT OF THE ORDINARY, there are plenty of similar brownish contours in Modigliani, in fact is his signal of identity) the spot colors do not they follow, but they deform the anatomical parts. The back wall is defined by irrational brush strokes oblique ones that color the "vertical" surface, without taking this into account. The hair looks like a cap adherent to the head and the soft volume of the hair is highlighted chromatically by a compact brown and from black doodles that decorate it.
The formless cushion is flattened and the sommier, on which the nude is reclined is stained painting.( NOTHING OUT OF THE ORDINARY)
The color of the complexion is altered by turning to orange.( WHAT DOES THIS MEANS???)
The signature in the upper right corner is false: uncertain, grainy, messed up, repeated twice with a light color and a dark one on the still fresh painting and the letters that compose it do not have the same character and trend of the originals.
(THIS MEANS SHE HAS A NORM OR LAW FOR THE PERFECT SIGNATURE IN MODIGLIANI?? THERE IS A CANON? I don't understand this, if the painting is fresh and signed while fresh, it means it's by the same author, if it is painted double with a light color and a dark color, could it be a bristle out of place or does it have a double signature... The boy in short pants at Dallas museum has a double signature and nobody think its a fake, the Alexandre portrait has a double signature because of a bristle out of place showing 2 colors and nobody think it's a forgery, the Madame Pompadour and 230 more paintings have a totally strange signature and nobody think its a fake)
The frame, embellished with informal decorations in coarse relief, gilded and a heavy dark lacquer, presents chipping at the corners and coming from the eastern countries.
(chipping at the corners, common this is hilarious, eastern countries??? what does that means??? they are polish, Russian, Moldavian? thank god they are not Chinese that would make the music of Benny Hill sound in my head)
The work for the incongruities described above is considered grossly false.
(Non Italian canvas - bad drawing - the sketches - the use or non use of light vs. volume, the doodles decoration, stained painting, orange, a non perfect signature, the chipping or the eastern -tarararararararara)
Taking into account the results of the microprocessive analyzes, which are attached to the elaborate CTU (dott.ssa Marie-Pierre Etcheverry􀀁e dott.ssa Tiziana Mazzoni), which do not reveal substantial anachronistic
elements, considers it necessary to submit the work to the tests of the RIS nucleus of the Carabinieri.
(this means that the pigments are more or less from the same period, so it do not present titanium white, polyurethane? this is not clear, that's the main point no the lousy chipping eastern carpentry)

My personal opinion as a Modigliani fan about this work is obvious, I don't like it and I consider is a bad painting and probably not by Modigliani (of course as a fan opinion, not as an expert), I don't need to see the carpentry to decide it, but a judge...
A real report should start by taking an X Ray, then an infra red and Pigments then comparison.
All the rest is crap, and I am sure my mother is absolutely capable of doing a much better report than this woman with such a nice name and dislike for the eastern countries cheap gilded frames...

What I find really disturbing here is the fact that it came to give so much power to an art historian (behind all this is the hand of Parisot and its archives) to have generated a new and unpleasant Modigliani.
This particular painting has already been involved in other scandals, lawsuits for theft and even the presence of titanium, but this report makes no mention of anything.

For me there is no doubt that all the possible responsibility falls only on Parisot (THE EXPERT) who is the one who signs the certificate

Shall we destroy this painting if declared fake?
Why not?

1.- If we destroy, the CTRL+ Z key is not valid, there is no turning back
2.- What if later we discover something new?
3.- What will our sons and nieces think about it?
4.- If the opinion of an historian last 15 years, will the next think different?
5.- what is the real harm done to Modigliani's oeuvre?? if the files are open and clear NONE
6.- the only reason to destroy an artwork is if you work for the market and your main concern is the market
7.- Art even if fake, is not a cheap copy of a nike sport shoe, its art even if FAKE
8.- Museums are full of Circle of, attributed to, follower of, circle of ...
Why Modigliani cant have in the future his followers, circles or even study of??? time will put everyone in place.
9.- The art Historians who claim to destroy something are not art historians, they are just and only the worst part of the market.
In 1880 a prominent French art Historian decided that the Museo del Prado Gioconda was a forgery
The "art historian" claimed DESTROY IT!!!
Later Friedlander the great said that the Louvre one was a copy and the Isleworth one the original
The "art historian" claimed DESTROY IT!!!
Finally another one said that the Isleworth one is a copy.
The "art historian claimed" DESTROY IT!!!

If we let anyone destroy anything, we wouldn't have none of the 3 Gioconda's
Even if only one is good and the other 2 are actually acknowledged as by da Vinci pupils.
(if someday we discover this painting was by Kisling or by the aunt of your cousin, who cares)

some day in a future they will laugh about us or condemn us??
monalisa of prado-islewoth-louvre

Actually the most expensive painting in the world (Salvator mundi) has been sold as fake, forgery or circle of or imitator almost 20 times
thank god it did not came in to the hands of Parisot, Restellini or de Steffani or it would be destroyed with not even a hesitation moment.
I prefer them to laugh from us...

*1.- Too long, but there was a war in between, Europe was rather static during the reconstruction and Schoeller, D'Atri and Jeanne took away much of his cake. He was supported by Zborowski and the Netter collection who gave him secret access to their files & records, his Nazi background came later... he was a nice boy then.

*2.- Collaborated with the great and powerful, never release its much advertised catalog and finally it remained in a simple anecdote, but for almost 10 years he was considered the maximum authority in Modigliani with ability to defenestrate any work .

*3.-He was a general expert with an office in Paris and gave certificates "on demand", one did not buy a -odigliani, one bought the word of Schoeller, the business lasted about 20 years but it did not publish anything nor did it look like something else beyond a kind of private "certificate of authenticity".

*4.- the daughter tried on her own to make her name, first started by claiming moral rights but her time coincided with the end of Pfannstiel, d 'Atri, Schoeller and the appearance of Ceroni, which caused his name never to be taken seriously, She invented Lanthemann (just as Zborowski and Netter had done before, taking Pfannstiel out of the hat to fulfill his market expectations).

*5.- Ceroni appeared immediately and became popular what meant the end of Lanthemann's option, was the shortest reign.

6*.- The duration is mainly due to the solidity of its work on one side and on the other to the sordidness of the rest. Seen with current eyes his work would not be valid but, in the 60s and surrounded by all that kind of nefarious elements, was the one-eyed king of the blind.

*7.- He was considered the first heir of Ceroni with whom he had collaborated in principle, but Parisot had to remove the site and did so by accusing him of fakes in the Alexandre collection and he got it ...

*8.- As Jeanne saw that she was losing her throne and the consequent stipend, she saw an art historian who was looking around, and Parisot came out of that. At first and basing only on his first catalog reasoned, it would seem that Parisot take over from Ceroni, but if we see what he did with Jeanne out of his catalog raisonne, the water was much more murky.

*9.- He entered the party in 1998 with the support of Wildenstein and the Netter family with closed access to the archives of all of them plus everything he could acquire from others. His close relation to one of the Netter family members make him look like the more perfect..
At first everything seemed fine, but in 2002 he made his expo in the Senate and let's say that he came up, losing the favor of the powerful who supported his name. Actually he has invented his own institute and goes around from Singapore, Dubai, Tokyo, Malaysia, Geneva and Paris selling his power project. He is currently trying to recover the lost prestige by using the trampoline of a great exhibition for the Albertina museum in Vienna over Picasso / Modigliani and primitivism (something he did in Japan almost 20 years ago). We could apply positive thinking and believe it but when you see local auction houses (mainly French) sell works with the promise that they will be present in that exhibition, I lose all the credit of the doubt.
It is curious to see that Parisot did exactly the same movement to regain its prestige against an emerging Restellini with a super exhibition in Bonn that was disturbed by all kinds of accusations and ended with headlines in newspapers. The Expo in Bonn cost the position to the director of the museum and the head of several intermediate positions seriously damaging the prestige of the Museum.

*10.- Since the Tate exhibit he is showing some muscle but in a low profile style, waiting to see the others cooked in their own sauce, he does not enter into Genoa-type matters or silly denunciations, he simply waits for the prey to arrive.
So giving him the credit of doubt, but...

*11.- The 1914 Picasso portrait went to auction, Sotheby's - Impressionist and Modern Art - Paris | 02 Jul 2008 with a certificate that say: "Cette oeuvre sera incluse au catalogue raisonné de l'oeuvre peint d'Amedeo Modigliani par Marc Restellini en
préparation au Wildenstein Institute."
In Pepi's page: Always Pepi had taken a stand against the exhibition of Villa Maria, where according to his opinion there were two non-authentic works: a sculpture (included in the Ceroni publications and identified as XIV) and the portrait of Picasso, also considered false by Jeanne Modigliani .The dissent of Pepi was reported in an article entitled "who applauds and who condemns".
More to come...( I hope never again)