How would a collector assess authenticity risk when scientific tests are inconclusive?

• A. Consider multi-source corroboration: provenance, stylistic/technical analysis by independent experts, previous restorations, comparisons with authenticated works; treat as high risk; obtain additional testing or hold
• B. Rely on current market demand
• C. Assume authenticity if price is high
• D. Ignore inconclusive results

Answer: (D)

When scientific results are inconclusive, you shift from trusting a single test to building a evidentiary case from multiple sources. The strongest approach for assessing authenticity risk is to triangulate evidence: examine provenance and ownership history, obtain independent stylistic and technical analyses from recognized experts, review any restoration or alteration records, and compare the work directly with authenticated pieces from the same artist or workshop. If these threads converge toward authenticity, confidence can grow; if they conflict or remain unsettled, treat the piece as high risk and pursue additional testing with different methods or put the purchase on hold until more conclusive information emerges. Relying on market demand or price as proof, or ignoring inconclusive results, can lead to costly mistakes, so a cautious, evidence-driven process protects the collection.