But is this based on facts, or it is just fiction?


In the 2020 mystery book The Art of Deception (The Daughter of Sherlock Holmes Mysteries, 4) by Leonard Goldberg, it is 1916 in London and an individual has been slashing valuable Renaissance portraits in art galleries and private homes. Various ideas are suggested as the reason for the vandalism. One character suggests the possibility that the damage was done by restorers trying to drum up business saying, “Restoration is most profitable, for although labor intensive, it requires little space and even less materials. It is not uncommon for extensive restoration to involve months of work which can cost a hundred pounds or more [Note: about £8,923 or $12,148 today]. In unscrupulous galleries, the time needed to complete the work is prolonged and the cost inflated. But this possibility is unlikely for a reason… Widely slashed canvases are most difficult to restore, and when they are, the mending is quite noticeable unless done by a master restorer of which there are few.”  
Perhaps, in 1916 restorers had very small studios, did not keep stocks of expensive pigments in those studios, and did charge such prices for their work. And perhaps some restorers went around damaging paintings in order to get business—not very good PR for the field. But is this based on facts, or it is just fiction?     #conservationfiction