It's the wrong way up you fool! Just who owns No 5, 1948?
Confusion reigns in New York, where the sale of an early Jackson Pollock drip painting has stirred the murky waters of the art scene.
A breathless report in the New York Times on November 2 sparked headlines around the world after "art experts with knowledge of the transaction" told Carol Vogel that the Hollywood mogul David Geffen had sold No 5, 1948 for a world-record $140m (£74m).
The "art-world experts" - who spoke to the Times "on condition of anonymity", citing fears that they might be seen to be betraying confidences and so jeopardise future business - "identified" the buyer as the "Mexican financier" David Martinez.
But the story began unravelling soon after when Josh Baer's email newsletter, The Baer Faxt, suggested that Mr Martinez was not the buyer after all.
Dominique Lévy, a New York gallery owner who has "advised Mr Martinez in building his collection", told the French newspaper Libération on November 8 "it's not [Martinez] who has bought this painting". She also said Mr Martinez and his lawyers were going to send a "formal denial" to the Times, and suggested the price would only turn out to be "between $130m and $140m" after all.
The mystery deepened two days later, when Katie Taylor reported in the New York Sun that Mr Geffen had confirmed the sale, but would not reveal the identity of the buyer. Mr Martinez's statement duly emerged, denying any part in the sale (and pointing out his status as a Mexican-born "naturalised British citizen"). This was enough for Taylor to speculate that Mr Martinez may have pulled out of a deal due to the publicity surrounding it - confidentiality agreements being the norm at the top of the New York art world - and that Mr Geffen, rumoured to be amassing funds to buy the LA Times, may have wanted news to leak out.
With the blogosphere full of schadenfreude - including a design for a T-shirt with a copy of the painting and the motto "All right, fine, I bought it" - a host of questions remain.
Who are the "art experts with knowledge of the transaction" who told Carol Vogel about the deal? Why did they think they could reveal so much (dodgy) information about a sale and not be seen as "betraying the confidence of the buyer or seller"? Is this just a by-product of a wider media campaign? And who, but who has David Geffen sold his Pollock to?
Feel free to tell us all how it looks on your living-room wall below...
