Cautionary Tales with Tim Harford - True Lies and Genuine Fakes

Episode Date: September 12, 2025

In 1998, an art gallery gets a mysterious phone call. The caller claims they have been fooled by a master forger and that many of their prized paintings are fakes. Or are they? This is the story of the life and lies of the notorious Eric Hebborn. What did he do, and what does that teach us about how we can root out deepfakes without undermining our trust in reality? For a full list of sources, see the show notes at timharford.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an IHeart podcast. Run a business and not thinking about podcasting. Think again. More Americans listen to podcasts than ads supported streaming music from Spotify and Pandora. And as the number one podcaster, IHearts twice as large as the next two combined. Learn how podcasting can help your business. Call 844-844-I-Hart. Why are TSA rules so confusing?

You got a hoot of you. I'm take it all. I'm Manny. I'm Noah. This is Devin. And we're best friends and journalists with a new podcast called, No Such Thing, where we get to the bottom of questions like that. Why are you screaming?

I can't expect what to do. Now, if the rule was the same, go off on me. I deserve it. You know, lock him up. Listen to No Such Thing on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. No Such Thing. What I told people, I was making a podcast about Benghazi.

Nine times out of ten, they called me a masochist, rolled their eyes, or just asked, Why? Benghazi, the truth became a web of lies. From prologue projects and Pushkin Industries, this is Fiasco, Benghazi. What difference at this point does it make? Yeah, that's right. Lock her up. Listen to Fiasco, Benghazi, wherever you get your podcasts. In one wing of Somerset House, one of central London's grandest palaces, the Courthold Gallery displays a selection of its much-envied collection of drawings and paintings.

It's a haven for connoisseurs of the fine arts. But in 1998, the museum's curator was the receiver of an unsettling phone call. I imagine it may have sounded something like this. Who's speaking, please? It doesn't matter who I am. I'm a friend of the gallery, and you need to know you've been had. What do you mean? Who is this? Someone who knows the truth. Now listen, there are 11 pieces in your collection that were faked.

Faked? Who are you? Don't waste time. Have you got pen and paper? Good. Now listen. The Virgin and Child by Michelangelo isn't by Michelangelo. It's a forgery. What? You heard me. The studies by Van Dyke, that's a forgery too. The Tepaolo drawing of a pagan idol.

The Venetian scene by Guadi. Both fake. Are you writing this down? There are seven others. I'm not going to stay on this line all day. I'm writing, but how did so many fakers managed to get so many different pieces into our collection? So many fakers.

Don't you get it? They're all by one man. Eric Hebbler. fake to all of them. I'm Tim Harford, and you're listening to Cautionary Tales. In the 1950s, the Royal Academy of Art in London awarded a prestigious prize to a young student named Eric Hebborn. The choice of Hebborn was slightly surprising.

He was a gifted draftsman, but drawing was an unfashionable business. Art was all about high concepts, not realistic depictions. How come a mere draughtsman won the prize? Maybe there's a story behind it. Fine. Here's a story. Once upon a time, there was a porter who worked at the Royal Academy, who had a habit of drinking more than was good for him.

He'd find a quiet spot in the basement and sleep it off, cleverly concealing himself behind a makeshift screen of pictures that were being stored down there. One of those pictures, Leonardo da Vinci's only surviving large drawing, a sketch known as the Burlington House cartoon. Burlington House, being the headquarters of the Royal Academy, in the basement of which the porter liked to sleep. And one day, this sozzled fellow propped the Da Vinci drawing up against a hot steam radiator.

Unfortunately, the radiator was leaking. And even more, unfortunately, the glue that Da Vinci had used to fix his chalk was far from steamproof. In the morning, the picture had been thoroughly steamed, and most of the chalk and charcoal had come loose and slid to the bottom of the picture. Only the faintest outline remained. The porter, in a panic, summoned the president of the Royal Academy, who summoned the king. keeper of pictures, who summoned the chief restorer of the National Gallery, who announced that the picture couldn't be restored. It could only be redrawn. At which point, they sent for the best draftsman in the place, a student, Eric Hebborn. Hebborn wielded the chalk and charcoal

in a flawless recreation of the lost original. Or, so he claimed. Decades later, in a drunk and off-the-record conversation with a journalist. Why else, boasted Hebborn, do you think the Royal Academy then gave one of their grandest prizes to me, an unfashionable draftsman? And isn't it curious that they sold the drawings soon afterwards, and spent some of the money on upgrading their radiators?

It's an astonishing story and very hard to check. The drawing was indeed sold and went to the National Gallery. But one day, a man walked into the National Gallery, wearing a long coat, paused in front of the drawing, standing about six feet away, and then pulled out a shotgun and blasted into the heart of the artwork. The man was arrested and found to be suffering from a mental illness. The National Gallery had the drawing restored,

with tiny fragments of paper being painstakingly glued back together. But that restoration would have concealed Hebborn's handiwork if Hebborn ever touched the cartoon. which is an open question. The Royal Academy is very firm about its answer to that question. When Hebborn's jaw-dropping story was published, they responded that they were astonished that anyone could fall for such an unlikely story

from someone who made a living out of being a fake. It's true. Hebborn made his living out of being a fake. After he graduated from the Royal Academy, he moved to Rome and worked both as an art dealer and what one might euphemistically call a picture restorer hid clean old pictures and retouched them and before long.

He was doing much more than that. Add a balloon floating over an undistinguished landscape and you have what appears to be an important record of the early steps of aviation and a much more expensive painting. Or maybe the fashion was for poppies. They were easily added and made to look as though they'd been part of the original.

Or as Hebborn himself said, a cat added to the foreground guaranteed the sale of the dullest landscape. Cats. Everyone likes cats. Some things don't change, and maybe there's little harm in adding a cat to an old picture nobody wanted. Soon enough, Hebborn was being asked by dealers in the know to restore blank sheets of paper or to find lost preparatory sketches by old masters. Some of these discoveries were sold to other dealers, some of whom,

knew what he was up to, and others who did not. He claims to have created more than a thousand forgeries. Some art historians think he made a lot more than that. Here's another story, again told by Hebborn years after the fact. Hebborn acquired a drawing of Roman ruins, supposedly sketched by the Dutch master Jan Brogel the Elder, sometime around the year 1600. It was good value.

Just £40 in 1963, about $1,000 in today's money. But was it really by Broigel? The frame said so, with the imprimatur of a respected London dealer, it had Broigel's signature on it, the paper was old, Hebborn knew a lot about paper,

as a dealer in old drawings he had to. There were so many fakes around after all. But the drawing itself didn't seem right to Hebborn. It was too careful. The lines drawn too slowly. This is not a broigel. Hebborn said to himself, this is a copy. Hebborn supposed that some forgotten engraver three centuries or more ago

had painstakingly copied Broigel's original as the first step in making an engraving. The original itself had been lost. Hebborn decided to find it again, in a manner of speaking. Hebborn turned over the frame and steamed off the stiff sheet of brown backing paper, setting it to one side. Then he teased out the rusty nails, setting those aside too.

Each one would eventually nestle back, in precisely the right hole. Finally, he taped the old drawing to the side of his drawing board. Then prepared his materials. A blank page cut out of a 16th century book, carefully treated with a starch solution to control its absorbency,

an 18th century paint box. Many of the paints still perfectly good. A glass of brandy to steady the nerves. and moving precisely but swiftly, he made his own more vigorous copy. Very nice. It looked more like a broigel now. He sold it on again, and it ended up in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. Hebborn recalled three decades later, I tore up the thing I copied. I flushed it down the lavatory.

I'd rather wish I hadn't because it would be nice now to compare, you know. Perhaps I'd destroyed an original broigel. I hope not. Hebborn announced this forgery to the world in his 1991 autobiography, drawn to trouble, and joked that the Metropolitan Museum were very happy with his picture. Perhaps so, but they were not happy with the tale Eric Hebborn told about that picture. They told the New York Times, we don't believe it's a forgery and we believe that the story

told by Mr. Hebborn in this book is not true. So, what is the fake? The drawing? Or the story? Cautionary tales will be back after the break. Run a business

and not thinking about podcasts. Think again. More Americans listen to podcasts than ad-supported streaming music from Spotify and Pandora. And as the number one podcaster, IHearts twice as large as the next two combined. So whatever your customers listen to, they'll hear your message. Plus, only IHeart can extend your message to audiences across broadcast radio. Think podcasting can help your business. Think IHeart. Streaming, radio, and podcasting.

Let us show you at iHeartadvertising.com. That's iHeartadvertising.com. Imagine that you're on an airplane and all of a sudden you hear this. Attention passengers, the pilot is having an emergency and we need someone, anyone to land this plane. Think you could do it? It turns out that nearly 50% of men think that they could land the plane with the help of air traffic control. And they're saying like, okay, pull this, do this, pull that, turn this. It's just, I can do my eyes close.

I'm Manny. I'm Noah. This is Devon. And on our new show, no such. thing, we get to the bottom of questions like these. Join us as we talk to the leading expert on overconfidence. Those who lack expertise lack the expertise they need to recognize that they lack expertise. And then, as we try the whole thing out for real. Wait, what? Oh, that's the run right. I'm looking at this thing. Listen to no such thing on the Iheart radio app, Apple Podcasts,

or wherever you get your podcasts. What I told people, I was making a a podcast about Benghazi. Nine times out of ten, they called me a masochist, rolled their eyes, or just asked, why? Benghazi, the truth became a web of lies. From prologue projects and Pushkin Industries, this is Fiasco, Benghazi. What difference at this point does it make? Yeah, that's right. Lock her up. Listen to Fiasco, Benghazi, wherever you get your podcasts.

The journalist Samantha Cole introduced the world to a new technology with the following sentence. There's a video of Gal Gadot, having sex with her stepbrother on the internet. The video was, of course, a deep fake. A video swapping the face of Wonder Woman onto a porn performer's body created using a particular form of artificial intelligence called Deep Learning. A year earlier, post-truth was named Word of the Year by Oxford Dictionaries, and it was a fertile time for anxiety about people finding new ways to lie to us. What would happen if someone created a deepfake of Donald Trump declaring war on China?

In the following years, such fears seemed overblown. A few deepfakes made a splash. In 2018, the Flemish Socialist Party posted a fake video appearing to show Donald Trump, declaring, As you know, I had the balls to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement, and so should you. Then there was the audio deep fake released two days before the Slovakian election in September 2023. The fake audio was widely shared online and seemed to portray the opposite. position leader conniving to rig the vote, he had been leading in late polls, but lost the election to a pro-Russian rival. Despite such warning shots, deep-fake technology is still mostly used

for non-consensual pornography. Part of the reason is that creating deepfakes was hard, and there are easier ways to lie with video. You could, for example, misdescribe existing video. In December 2023, videos circulated on social media claiming to show Hamas executing people by throwing them off the roof of a building in Gaza. The videos are genuine, but the atrocity took place in Iraq in 2015, and the murderers were Islamic State, not Hamas. It's common for real videos and pictures to circulate online with deceptive labels. Other simple tricks achieve much the same effect.

Let's say it's the 2016 election, and you want to create a joke video of Dwayne the Rock Johnson singing an abusive song to presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her reaction. No big deal, just for the laughs. It's easy. We have footage of The Rock singing an abusive song about another wrestler. We have footage of Hillary Clinton, looking a bit awkward. Splice them together as one troll did, and you have a crude prank depicting a campaign trail event that never happened. A shallow fake, if you like.

In his book about deepfakes, Trust No One, the journalist Michael Groothaus interviewed the troll in question. who realized something unsettling once his shallow fake video went viral on Facebook and the comments rolled in. People had missed the joke. Wait, the troll told Groot House, These dumb shits think this is real? They did indeed.

They and we are busy. They and we are distracted. We instinctively feel. that some stuff is too good to check. And so, we'll all accept lies that really should give us pause. The Slovakian case should be a warning. With high-stakes elections taking place across the world in 2024, the experts I've spoken to are deeply concerned

that it's only a matter of time before a clever, well-timed piece of disinformation, has a calamitous impact, deciding the result of a close-run election. It might not involve a deepfake or another AI-generated visual image. Then again, it might. The technology is getting better.

It's already straightforward to create a convincing deepfake or to use generative AI to fabricate a photorealistic scene that never happened. barely more difficult than editing or re-describing an existing video and visual images have always been more eye-catching and emotionally compelling than mere text. So have our fears about deepfakes really been misguided or have they merely been premature? Or perhaps what should really worry us about deepfakes

is something else entirely, something exemplified by the top. trickster Eric Hebborn, who not only created fakes which pass for the real thing, but repeatedly claimed that the real thing was a fake. Which is the fake? The Metz drawing by Jan Broigel or Eric Hebborn's story about having faked it. Eric Hebborn is very firm about his answer to that question. Who cares?

In his sensational autobiography, full of mischief, Hebborn argues that there's no such thing as a fake work of art, just a mistaken attribution. I don't like the word fake, applied to perfectly genuine drawings, he explained in a BBC documentary, released the same year as his autobiography, 1991. In both the book and the documentary, Hebborn cheekly blames unscrupulous dealers for misattributing his work

and incompetent experts for missing the truth. Maybe it was a real Broigel that he flushed down the loo. Maybe it was a copy. Or maybe Hebborn made up the entire story to amuse himself by trolling the Met. Maybe the picture in the Met's collection really was painted by Jan Broigel the Elder, as they originally thought. or Jan Broigel the Younger, as they later decided. Or the current attribution, circle of Jan Broigel.

It doesn't matter, says Hebborn. It's a beautiful drawing, whoever drew it. Enjoy it for what it is. And don't worry about what it isn't. Art is about creating beautiful things, isn't it? And that is what Hebborn did. The BBC interviewer challenged him. about this. If he was just making beautiful drawings rather than fakes, why did he put the stamps of

famous historical art collectors on the pictures? Well, they look nice for one thing. But weren't they designed to convince the experts that the pictures were genuine? I don't think so. If they were experts, they would have seen that they were false collector's marks. Some of them were done freehand in Watercolour, rather than being stamped, I did them in a very amateurish way. They shouldn't have been fooled at all. Or, as a later faker said, wait, these dumb shits think this is real? But beneath the smile and the winking stories, Hevorn seems vulnerable on camera. He speaks softly, slurring his s'ses.

maybe he's had a bit too much to drink he certainly drank far too much his friends worried about that and all his tricks and adventures start to seem less fun as Hebborn quietly tells the story of his life to the camera

that his overworked, stressed mother used to take her revenge out on him at school he'd make roaring charcoal out of matches and was accused of arson by the headmaster, who cained him. So the eight-year-old Eric decided he'd do the deed for which had been punished and set fire to the school. This is the voice of Eric Hebborn, speaking on the 1991 BBC documentary,

Eric Hebborn, portrait of a master forger. I got frightened, and I thought I'd better tell the headmaster of Mr Percy what had happened. happened. So I poked my smoky face round his door and said to him, because I couldn't, I didn't know how to put it. I mean, please, sir, I've set light to the school. So I recited a little poem we'd learned. They went, fire, fire, Mrs. Dyer. Where were Mrs. Claire? And at that moment, a puff of smoke came into his study. And I found myself in a juvenile court being charged. He was sent to a youth detention centre at the age of eight. It's hard not to feel sympathy for the old rogue,

and there is something very Hebborn-esque about being punished first, then committing the crime after the fact. Justice turned upside down, truth turned back to front, history turned inside out. That's Eric Hebborn. and perhaps that's the computer-generated world that's coming for us. If I'm worried about all the stupid things that people will believe, I'm even more worried about all the true things that people think are faked.

In 2019, the Radio Lab podcast interviewed an expert about the disturbing new technology of deepfakes. she wasn't too worried. So they asked her, why? If people know that such technology exists, they'll be more sceptical, she explained. If people know that fake news exists, if they know that fake texts exists, fake videos exist, fake photos exist,

then everyone's more sceptical in what they read and see. But perhaps we've already taken skepticism too far. Consider a new analysis in the job, Journal of Experimental Psychology, from the psychologists Ariana Modirusta Galihan and Philip Hayam. They look at online games about fake news, designed by researchers to help warn people about disinformation, even to inoculate them against being fooled. And these games work, sort of. After playing the games, experimental subjects are indeed more likely to flag. flag fake news as fake news.

Unfortunately, they're also more likely to flag genuine news stories as fake news. Their ability to discriminate between true and false doesn't improve. Instead, they become more cynical about everything. Is that an improvement? Or is the cure worse than the disease? Deepfakes, like all false. Fakes, raise the possibility that people will mistake a lie for the truth. But they also create space for us to mistake the truth for a lie.

Just think about the notorious tape from Access Hollywood, in which Donald Trump boasted of sexually assaulting women. Hey, when you're a star, they let you do it. It was released in October 2016 and caused a political explosion. Deep-fake audio didn't exist then, but if it had, Trump could easily just have said, that's not my voice on the tape. The mere fact that deep fakes might exist

creates a completely new kind of deniability. That's not just a hypothetical claim. It's already happening. In 2023, in a lawsuit over the death of a man using Tesla's self-driving capabilities, Elon Musk's lawyers questioned a YouTube video in which Musk was talking about those capabilities. It might be a deep fake, they said.

The judge was unimpressed. But surely this is just a taste of what's to come. If we're shown enough faked videos of atrocities or of political gaffes, we might start to dismiss real videos of atrocities and real videos of political gaffs too. It's good to be sceptical, but if we're too sceptical,

then even the most straightforward truths are up for debate. That may explain why five years after Samantha Cole explained deep fake pornography to her astonished readers, she was writing an article with the stupefying. title. Is Joe Biden dead, replaced by ten different deep fake body doubles? An investigation. It might seem a long road from, that woman waving a sex toy around really isn't Gal Gadot, to that man giving a speech in the White House really is Joe Biden. But it's a road that Eric Hebborn would have understood very well.

Maybe that broigal really is a broigel. Maybe the da Vinci is just a da Vinci. If Hebborn was telling the truth about replacing that broigel with his own drawing, why did he do it? To amuse himself and burnish his reputation as a master draftsman when he confessed. If he lied about it, why? Also to amuse himself and burnish his reputation as a master. a draughtsman.

The writer and artist Jonathan Keats, in his book Forged, said of Hebborn, faking his fakery may have been his masterstroke, since no amount of sleuthing could detect forgeries that never existed. Cautionary tales will return

after the break. run a business and not thinking about podcasting think again more americans listen to podcasts than ad-supported streaming music from spotify and pandora and as the number one podcaster ihearts twice as large as the next two combined so whatever your customers listen to they'll hear your message plus only i heart can extend your message to audiences across broadcast radio think podcasting can help your business think i heart streaming radio and podcasting call eight four 844-I-Hart to get started. That's 844-8-4-I-Hart. Imagine that you're on an airplane and all of a sudden you hear this. Attention passengers. The pilot is having an emergency and we need someone, anyone, to land this plane. Think you could do it?

It turns out that nearly 50% of men think that they could land the plane with the help of air traffic control. And they're saying like, okay, pull this. Do this. Pull that. Turn this. It's just... I can do it in my ice class. I'm Mani. I'm Noah. This is Devin.

And on our new show, No Such Thing, we get to the bottom of questions like these. Join us as we talk to the leading expert on overconfidence. Those who lack expertise lack the expertise they need to recognize that they lack expertise. And then, as we try the whole thing out for real. Wait, what? Oh, that's the run right. I'm looking at this thing. See? Listen to No Such Thing on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcast. or wherever you get your podcasts.

What I told people, I was making a podcast about Benghazi. Nine times out of ten, they called me a masochist, rolled their eyes, or just asked, why? Benghazi, the truth became a web of lies. From prologue projects and Pushkin Industries, this is Fiasco, Benghazi. What difference at this point does it make? Yeah, that's right. Lock her up. Listen to Fiasco. Benghazi, wherever you get your podcasts.

In 2016, two analysts at the think tank, Rand, described the evolving propaganda strategy of the Russian government. The conventional wisdom on propaganda messages is that they should be true when possible, and whether or not they were true, they should be believable and consistent. But the new Russian approach, which was quite different.

Russian media channels would post anything, as would social media accounts that would be operated from St. Petersburg but were pretending to be out of Portland or Punksitone. It didn't matter whether what they said was true. It didn't matter whether it was believable. What mattered was speed, relevance and volume. The analysts called this strategy,

the fire hose of falsehood. That's a nickname that would have suited Eric Hebborn perfectly. As we explored in our recent episode, Missing on Dead Mountain, a Cold War cold case, there are several reasons why the fire hose of falsehood can work, despite the fact that the individual lies are not especially plausible. Fast, relevant spin from lots of different sources, all pushing the same basic perspective,

can create an overall impression that feels quite believable. I see something from one source and then something sympathetic from another source and another and another. And it might start to seem like the truth. And the fire hose of falsehood can also deliver results even if nobody believes a word of it. When it works, it floods social media

and sometimes the conventional media too with distractions, toxicity, ship-posting and obvious nonsense. The result may well be to turn news consumers off completely. Why would you spend time trying to understand the world when everyone seems to be lying about it all the time? In a press conference late in 2023, Vladimir Putin fielded a video call from a deep faked copy of himself.

Do you have a lot of doubles? Asked the software doppelganger. Putin calmly replied to his own digital double that only one person could speak with the voice of Putin and that would be Putin himself. Under the circumstances, that was absurd. So why arrange such a stunt? To create a moment of levity in a country at war, perhaps?

But there's also a subtext. You can't believe your eyes. You can't believe your ears. You can't believe anything. That suits President Putin just fine. In 1995, Eric Hebborn followed up his autobiography with another book written and first published in Italian. It was a scandalous how-to guide, the Art Forger's Handbook.

A few weeks later, he was full. found lying in the street near his apartment in Rome. The medics thought at first that he'd drunk too much, fallen and hit his head. But not for the first time in Hebborn's life. The professionals were confused by what they were looking at. Hebborn was ferried from one hospital to another and left lying on a trolley for hours. When they eventually recognised how serious his injuries were

and operated on him, it was too late. Hebborn died on the 11th of January 1996, a couple of days after being taken into hospital. Over the next few days, hints of another story started to emerge. The autopsy concluded that Hebborn hadn't taken a drunken stumble, he'd been killed by a hammer blow to the skull. and Hebborn's apartment had been ransacked while he was lying in the street. As so often, the truth about Hebborn is elusive.

The conventional wisdom is that Hebborn was murdered, but the murder investigation never happened. Perhaps there were just too many people who might have wanted him dead. But others who knew Hebeorn well say this is nonsense. The magistrate opened a murder inquiry when the circumstances seemed unclear, and it never went anywhere because the first, simplest explanation was the right one. He was drunk, he fell, and it was just a tragic accident. It would be nice to know the truth, but surely we've spent enough time in Eric Hebborn's company to realize that

sometimes the truth refuses to be known. Hebborn was a charming rogue. He told our outrageous stories. He embarrassed snooty art critics and cheated cheats. And let's not forget, he made beautiful drawings. The artist Jonathan Keats invites us to think of Hebborn as creating the work that the old masters were no longer available to make. Villem van der Velde would gladly have painted another handsome seascape that he died in 1707. Eric Hebborn, too, and, took up the commission in 1960, and thank goodness. It's a heartwarming idea, and one that would have pleased Hebborn, that we can create old works of art anew,

and art history can expand like an accordion to accommodate them. But I wonder. I certainly don't feel comfortable in a world in which we can create alternative facts and squeeze them in next to the real facts, in a world where Vladimir Putin has conversations with himself and where people aren't sure if that's Joe Biden or ten deepfakes of him. And even in the world of art,

should we welcome all those Hebborns? I fear that we lose more than we gain when we start to lose confidence in the Da Vinci's and the Broigals and the Michelangelo's. After Hebborn claimed to have created a better broigal and flushed the old version down the toilet, his former boyfriend and business partner published his own memoirs,

saying that the story about the broigel drawing wasn't true. The story about setting fire to his school has been disputed too. Once there are enough lies around, it's easy to start doubting, well, everything. There's a moment in the BBC documentary. Hebborn, shaded from the Italian son by a floppy peasant's hat. His voice is soft as he tells the tale of being falsely accused of arson, of his frightened nursery rhyme, of being sent to court,

and then to a detention centre at the age of eight. And I couldn't help but wander. Was any of it real? Hebborn once told an art journalist, I like to spread a little confusion. He succeeded. And he became so notorious that people are now starting to value the Hebborn forgeries in their own right. The trouble is, wrote one art dealer.

Some of the drawings which were being offered for sale by Heborn's associates and former friends had a strange feel to them, an unusually lifeless quality which did not seem true of Eric's at all. I had misgivings about the drawings and declined to purchase them. Genuine fakes? Fakes of fakes? Maybe they weren't fakes at all, just original old masters having an off day. The more time I spend in the world of Eric Hebborn, the more I start to worry that I'll never know the truth. who's speaking please it doesn't matter who I am

I'm a friend of the gallery and you need to know you've been had the anonymous phone call to the Courtold Institute which named 11 artworks as being forgeries by Hebborn took place two years after Hebborn died we still don't know who made the call

or why the curator who received it thinks it might have been an ex-boyfriend of Hebborns. I recently visited the Courthold to look at some of the fakes and wrongly suspected fakes and the works suspended in limbo. It was a fascinating experience. But it was also an unsettling one. The courthold's research has revealed that of the 11 pictures

which were anonymously accused of being Hebborn fakes, Eight, definitely aren't. For example, there's a Guadi sketch which was photographed in the 1920s before Hebborn was born. He can't have faked that one unless he copied it and flushed the original down the loo. Whoever that anonymous whistleblower was,

and whatever his reasons, he wasn't infallible. But three pictures remain under suspicion, including the Michelangelo. We just don't know whether it's real or not. It's a beautiful, simple sketch in red chalk and brown ink of the Virgin and Child by, perhaps, one of the greatest artists who ever lived. And yet, it seems doomed to have an asterisk beside it forever.

I left the Courtold Institute and strolled towards the National Gallery. Just down the road, where I could see Leonardo da Vinci's masterpiece, the Burlington House cartoon. This is the work that Hebborn claimed he'd redrawn, after a drunk porter left it too close to a radiator. The worker mentally ill man later blasted with a shotgun.

And I couldn't help wandering. If that piece really is a da Vinci, then who damaged it more? the man and his shotgun or Eric Hebborn and his story once you start to worry about what's real

and what's fake it's hard to stop you're to stop For a full list of our sources, see the show notes at Tim Harford.com. Cautionary Tales is written by me, Tim Harford, with Andrew Wright, Alice Farrett. and Ryan Dilley. It's produced by Georgia Mills and Marilyn Rust.

The sound design and original music are the work of Pascal Wise. Additional sound design is by Carlos San Juan at Brain Audio. Ben Nadaf Haffrey edited the scripts. The show features the voice talents of Melanie Guthridge, Stella Harford, Oliver Hempra, Sarah Jop, Masea Munro, Jamal Westman and Rufus Wright. The show also wouldn't have been possible without the work of Jacob Weisberg, Greta Cohn, Sarah Nix, Eric Sandler, Carrie Brody, Christina Sullivan,

Kira Posey and Owen Miller. Cautionary Tales is a production of Pushkin Industries. It's recorded at Wardour Studios in London by Tom Berry. If you like the show, please remember to share, rate and review. It really makes a difference to us. And if you want to hear the show ad-free, sign up to Pushkin Plus on the show page on Apple Podcasts or at pushkin.fm slash plus. Why are TSA rules so confusing?

You got a hood of you. I'm Nate. I'm Noah. This is Devin. And we're best friends and journalists with a new podcast called No Such Thing, where we get to the bottom of questions like, that. Why are you screaming? I can't expect what to do. Now, if the rule was the same, go off

on me. I deserve it. You know, lock him up. Listen to no such thing on the Iheart radio app, Apple podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. No such thing. What I told people, I was making a podcast about Benghazi. Nine times out of ten, they called me a masochist, rolled their eyes, or just asked, why? Benghazi, the truth became a web of lies. From Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries, this is Fiasco, Benghazi. What difference at this point does it make? Yeah, that's right. Lock her up. Listen to Fiasco, Benghazi, wherever you get your podcasts.

This is an I-Heart podcast.