A condition report is the single most important document in an art logistics dispute. When a work arrives damaged, the insurer's first question is not "what happened?" — it is "what did it look like when it left?" If your condition report cannot answer that question with dated, attributed, photographic evidence, the claim is already weak.

This guide covers what a defensible condition report looks like, what insurers actually check, and how to produce reports that hold up under scrutiny — in minutes, not hours.

What an insurer looks for

When a claim is filed, the insurer's adjuster examines four things:

  1. Attribution. Who wrote the report? Is the author identifiable and credible? A report signed "RG" is weaker than one signed "Rachel Green, Registrar, Gallery Name."
  2. Date and time. When was the report created relative to the handoff? A report dated three days after the shipment was collected is less defensible than one dated the morning of pickup.
  3. Photographic evidence. Are the images clear, well-lit, and sufficient to show the condition of the entire work? Raking light photography is the standard — it reveals surface texture, cracks, and repairs that are invisible under diffuse light.
  4. Specificity of annotations. "Some craquelure" is vague. "Craquelure network across upper-left quadrant, 15cm × 20cm area, consistent with age, no lifting" is specific. The second description survives a challenge; the first does not.

If any of these four is missing or weak, the adjuster has grounds to question the entire report — and the claim is delayed or reduced.

Photography: the standard that matters

Four photographs, minimum, for every work:

  • Full recto — the entire front surface, evenly lit, at sufficient resolution to see detail when zoomed.
  • Full verso — the back of the work, including the frame, stretcher, labels, and hanging hardware.
  • Raking light detail — a light source held at a shallow angle to the surface, revealing texture, cracks, and repairs. This is the photograph that matters most in a claim.
  • Detail of any existing condition issues — close-ups of craquelure, scratches, frame damage, paint loss, or previous repairs. These establish the baseline.

The photographs should be timestamped in the file metadata and cross-referenced in the report text. A system that bakes the photograph into the report — rather than attaching it separately — eliminates the risk of a photograph being separated from its report in the adjuster's file.

Annotation: be specific, be consistent

Use a standard vocabulary. "Craquelure" is more precise than "cracks." "Abrasion" is more precise than "scratch." "Bloom" is the correct term for a whitish haze on varnish. Using the trade's vocabulary signals competence to an adjuster who may not be an art specialist — it shows that the report was written by someone who knows the subject.

For each condition issue, record:

  • What it is — the type of condition (craquelure, abrasion, tear, loss, bloom, foxing, etc.)
  • Where it is — the location on the work (upper-left quadrant, lower-right corner, verso stretcher bar, etc.)
  • How large it is — dimensions in centimetres or inches (not "small," not "large")
  • Whether it is active — is the craquelure lifting? Is the tear stable? Active condition issues require immediate attention and must be flagged.

Chain of custody: the report is a trail, not a document

A single condition report is useful. A chain of reports — at collection, at arrival, after the fair, on return — is defensible. Each report references the previous one: "Compared to the pre-departure report dated 14 March 2026, no change in condition is observed." Or: "New abrasion noted on lower-right frame edge, 3cm, not present in pre-departure report."

This chain establishes the timeline of when damage occurred. If the only report is pre-departure, and the work is found damaged on return, the insurer cannot determine whether the damage happened in transit, at the fair, or during deinstallation. Liability is unclear, and the claim stalls.

Tools: Articheck and beyond

Articheck is the best-known digital condition reporting tool in the art world. It replaces paper notes and email attachments with a structured digital report. It is well-regarded among registrars and conservators.

Its limitation is that it is a point solution: the condition report lives in Articheck, but the carrier record lives in Convelio's portal, the insurance policy lives in a PDF, and the exhibition calendar lives in a spreadsheet. A complete chain of custody requires the registrar to connect these manually.

Arpezio integrates condition reporting with the full logistics record. Photograph, annotate, and issue a standardised report in one system. The report is automatically linked to the shipment, the insurance policy, and the artwork's permanent record. Request early access.

A checklist for every report

  • ☐ Dated and timestamped
  • ☐ Attributed (full name, role, organisation)
  • ☐ Artwork identified (title, artist, date, medium, dimensions, inventory number)
  • ☐ Four photographs minimum (recto, verso, raking light, detail of existing issues)
  • ☐ Condition notes in trade vocabulary, with location and dimensions
  • ☐ Comparison to previous report in the chain (if applicable)
  • ☐ Active condition issues flagged
  • ☐ Report stored in the artwork's permanent record — not in a folder on a desktop