Recognition & risk
Are "attributed to" lots at auction safe to buy?
"Attributed to" means the house believes the work is by that artist but lacks absolute proof — it's their informed opinion, not a guarantee. The risk lives entirely with you: if later scholarship or the artist's foundation rejects it, you own an expensive fake with no recourse. Safe? Only if you're buying at a price that survives downgrade to "school of" or "in the style of" — and only if you've verified why the attribution exists and what would settle it.
The Method's take
The Method treats attribution language as a risk tier, not a promise. "Attributed" sits between certified and speculative: higher risk than a foundation stamp, lower than "in the style of." The protocol is always: read what証 証evidence the catalog cites (exhibition history, provenance, technical analysis), then apply the affordable-loss rule — below your absorption threshold, decide with your eye; above it, a written opinion from the recognized authority comes before you pay. The market pays certification, not your conviction.
The math
An "attributed" lot that sells for €8,000 and later gets rejected by the foundation becomes €800 trade stock overnight — you've lost €7,200 plus years of carrying costs. Do that twice in ignorance and you're down €15,000. The 24-hour pass costs €100; the annual costs €3,800. One avoided mistake at this level pays for thirty-eight years of access. The trade does not reward optimism; it rewards the questions you asked before the hammer fell.
One question answered here saved you a mistake. The engine answers yours — the exact object, the exact number.
Ask the engine — 24h pass €100