[Nadya]

>There was no purposeful deceit here; it's simply another painting from another person who happens to have a similar name. It's coincidence.

I'm not sure why you so quickly cross that idea out when there are millions of dollars on the line. I'm sure if Doig's paintings were worthless this case wouldn't be seeing the light of day. There is a plausible reason for purposeful deceit in trying to pass Doige's painting off as Doig's painting so the owner could profit millions.

If the painting was completely worthless I'd be inclined to believe that there isn't a chance in hell of purposeful deceit going on because there wouldn't be motivation to do so.

[NamTaf]

Except it was painted when Doig was 17, before he was famous and so at the time there was no reason to imitate some kid hundreds of kilometres away?

[Nadya]

Do you honestly think the owner of the painting would be arguing it is Doig's painting and not Doige's painting if there was no money to be made from it and Doig (currently, in the modern day, not 40 years ago) was a noname artist who's paintings were worthless?

Yes or no please.