posted on August 30, 2000 08:27:36 PM new
Brighid 868
Who are you? Where are your so called credentials? Just because you can't afford it dont call it names, I am sure that the auction site may not have all of their facts right. I looked on old and sold and saw no Van Gogh! are you sure that you got your facts right? You talk like expert, please expose them to us.
posted on August 30, 2000 08:43:23 PM new
To Mr. Newguy:
Maybe you can help me buy this painting, I will pay 15% commission, I cannot find it on old and sold. Is it really a Vincent Van Gogh? I do not speak English very well,
posted on August 30, 2000 09:00:09 PM new
Mr. Newguy is far to busy to middle on the Van Gogh deal, I on the other hand, will gladly take the 15 points. I also have a copy of "The Last Days of Disco" which I'm willing to part with for not much money
posted on August 30, 2000 09:48:10 PM new
A short line in defense of the OldAndSolds Van Gogh, Yellow Roses. First of all Van Gogh did many floral paintings with just such muted backdrops. Second he did several works that contained roses. Please all do your homework before becoming such biting critics. The "Yellow Roses" was on loan to the Van Gogh Museum in 1990. The reason I can say this is, My Husband and I were on holiday, and visited the Van Gogh museum, in March of that year. This was due to a layover over in Amsterdam on route to Germany.My husband, and I. Noted the painting first due to the variation from Van Goghs given style, plus the painting was signed. It stays in my memory because the person that put it on loan was from my city LA. If its good enough for the Van Gogh Museum, its good enough for OldAndSold. Let up people.
posted on August 30, 2000 10:25:23 PM new
Wow. All these first time posters, including the person who started the thread, here to defend this painting. By the way, just where is the rest of the report from LACMOA?
The Van Gogh Gallery site which by the way has every known Van Gogh listed, strangely missed this one.
posted on August 30, 2000 10:38:48 PM new
Funny how the masterpiece has shrunk in size on Old and Solds website since yesterday, to make room for more "featured" items. Definitely in the same league as the Majolica plate and the crock
posted on August 31, 2000 02:57:46 AM new
I think if the owner of the painting was SERIOUS about selling it, he would let experts CLEAN it to see what they really have under the grime.
I was shocked about 10 years ago to visit a French cathedral that had literally dozens of enormous antique paintings hanging on the walls, probably commissioned when the church was built, almost black with grime---I guess from candle soot. The paintings were so dark I could barely make them out. If the church members couldn't afford to have their art cleaned, couldn't the GOVERNMENT pay for it, in the name of tourism??? I don't understand owning a treasure such as the church paintings OR the "Van Gogh" painting and leaving them covered in soot or grime.
Though the Molly Brown Museum can't afford to buy this painting for $2 million (if it's the same shoestring-budget group that was restoring her house some years back), surely the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam CAN afford it, if they truly believe it's a Van Gogh painting.
Though I don't see any similarity to Van Gogh's other known paintings except POSSIBLY in the roses themselves (certainly not in the leaves or composition of the painting, or in the "emotion", the established age of the painting (both from pigment analysis and provenance) places it at the time of Van Gogh....which raises some interesting questions if it IS a fake:
1) If Van Gogh's work was not respected or appreciated, and worth little until many years after his death, why would a contemporary of his (late 1880s) bother to paint a fake Van Gogh??? At that point in time Van Gogh and his work was considered bizarre, the painting would bring little money, and struggling artists were trying to make a name for themselves, not forging art of other little-knowns.
2) Why would a painter trying to FAKE a Van Gogh painting not at least try to make it LOOK like Van Gogh's other paintings, like his STYLE??? Who wants a BAD fake???
3) If the painting, done about 1888 by artist unknown, had the "Vincent" signature ADDED at a later date (when Van Goghs became more valuable), why do the X-Ray and Infra-red show "a dedication to Anton Mauve, signed Souvenir de Mauve Vincent and Theo 1888" on the underpainting??? And WHO would be close enough to Van Gogh to KNOW what to "sign" on the underpainting??? It would have to have been painted by a fairly close acquaintance of his or by someone with access to the letters he wrote his brother, providing it actually WAS painted before 1890.
It doesn't look like a Van Gogh, but is KNOWN to have been painted before 1890, if this actually is the Van Gogh painting Molly Brown received for her wedding in 1890. There's always the possibility her true Van Gogh (if she ever really had one) was later disposed of, and that THIS painting (an early fake) came into her possession before her death in the 1920s. Only PROOF that she owned it in 1890 (like photographs of it hanging in her house at that time) would make the provenance believable, and even then you still wouldn't know if it was painted by Van Gogh or by someone close to him.
posted on August 31, 2000 06:14:04 AM newthe established age of the painting (both from pigment analysis and provenance) places it at the time of Van Gogh....
Granee, if you'll take a look at the analyses, all they say is that the pigments are consistent with the purported date of the work (1890s). If I understand pigment analysis correctly, this means that if a certain pigment that was first available in, say, 1850 shows up in a painting, it's a pretty good bet that the work wasn't done before 1850. Therefore, unless any of the pigments noted were not available after 1890, the only thing the analysis proves is that it could have been painted in 1890.
LA goes on to say that because of the underpainting, there's no way to determine whether the pigments so analyzed are those of the "Yellow Roses" painting or of whatever picture "Yellow Roses" covers.
Moreover, the analysis was done from "areas of distinct colors" (which would appear to rule out the very muddy signature area). NO analysis was done as to the age of the pigment in the "Yellow Roses" layer, or to whether the signature was overpainted. The LA analysis also observes a complete lack of zinc white in this painting - which pigment, the analysis notes, was a significant component of Van Gogh's works.
The only "provenance" we see here is the owner's claim that it came from the Brown estate and was given to Brown by Chain. What I find interesting is that absolutely NO documentation is given that ANYbody aside from the owner even suspects this might be a van Gogh. All that's given is some pigment analyses and a letter written before this was supposed to have been painted - and, craftily, the potential bidder is thus invited to make his own determination.
I also find it amusing that two of the brand-new-yesterday posters defending this work somehow BOTH either saw or knew about this very painting being exhibited in 1990 as a Van Gogh. What a coincidence!
BTW, lagoldie, where are Van Gogh's other comparable "roses" paintings, and ANY works by this artist with this hideously muddy background?
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Aug 31, 2000 06:18 AM ]
posted on August 31, 2000 07:53:41 AM new
It seems to me that Old & Sold or ANY other auctioneer would demand that a painting of this sort was absolutely examined and authenticated or not by at least 2 of the most credible experts available, and would make that information known.
If it's real, then it is likely worth millions of dollars -- but maybe they just feel yanking everyone's chain to get publicity for their site is worth it.
Hey, I've got a paint brush & canvas here, maybe they would like to sell the previously unknown Rembrandt I'm going to do later this afternoon...I swear, it's going to be the absolute real thing!
To simply state the owner says its real & we aren't the owners, just the purveyors, is out & out crap -- Mealy mouth auction poop! They should be demanding the owner prove its authenticity, or do it themselves. Anything less is bogus.
posted on August 31, 2000 10:34:06 AM new
I applaud Grannie, you have used an open and objective mind. It appears their are many self appointed experts out there, that deem fit to insult this painting with little thought of how ignorant they sound. its a shame people could not be a little kinder. I wonder what could possibly happened along the way to our society to make us all so skeptical yes cruel?
Upriver, you claim you have a brush, and paints. Question, you seem to be so educated in these matters. Where might in find paints such as the paints that were analyzed to be from 1888? I would think they would be a bit old and dyed? Please read the document from the Mcrone institute more carefully.
Hart cottage Quilts, I could provide many works of Van Gogh in which he used As you state "muddy backgrounds"I prefer to call them moody, please surf into Artstar.com There are to many to list. But I will list one. This portrait was actually one of his most famous works, Self Portrait With Straw Hat, the backdrop was very muted with the use of many of the same hues you will find in the Yellow Roses. In his Arle period he was known to have strayed from his pallet.He created many of his finest paintings in this time. In this very period he put out many paintings with dull lifeless backdrops very moody and muted. It was said he was not in his right mind. For God sakes people this man cut off his ear. He could not have made a few bad choices in colors. Lighten up.
I can't say this painting Oldandsold has is the actual painting I saw in Amsterdam, but I can say there was a painting that was titled Yellow Roses that looks exactly like the painting Oldandsold has up on their home page on loan to the museum from a person that resided in the city of Angels.
posted on August 31, 2000 02:27:01 PM new
Dear Newguy::
Thank you for te van Gogh site, you are right it does not look like the Pink Roses,
However the roses is question are those vine type roses that bloom in early spring. If you go back to some of his late Paris period
paintings you will see similiar style work.
Also go forward into Arles you will see bits and pieces of his style. The test done by the McCrone institute looked for paint that did not belong. Like paint from the 20th century. There was none! So whom ever painted this piece did so in the 19th century not the 20th.
Also there is a brushmark identification listed. Showing the yellow roses and rock with oak tree match. This proves that the same brush used to paint the well known painting Rock with tree and the yellow roses are the same. No one could have used the same brushes as van gogh. Also I understand that the United States Government, are the ones who did this match and is a proven document for viewing by the buyer only. You dont get something for nothing.
posted on August 31, 2000 04:00:32 PM new
Oh Please.
Lagoldie of course you can't say you saw this in the Van Gogh Museum.
TightwadG2 (Yet another freshly registered first time poster defending this painting!!!)
Why is there not someone credited for the brush mark ID? Could it be the same person who invented the system of brush mark ID, which no major museum accepts, that sold a Van Gogh titled "Yellow Roses" for 9 million dollars 3 years ago? But did not that sale fall through when the buyers did not accept it was a Van Gogh? And is it not the same person who tried to buy another so-called Van Gogh in Sacramento? Hasn't this painting been offered for 10-12 years with no takers?
And does not oldandsold get a 5% buyers commission whether or not the sale goes through? That is a minimum $100,000 fee just to look at the painting.
Still waiting for one listing of the painting or one reputable authentication. No one seems to want to put their name to this.
Miscreant -and proud of it!
posted on August 31, 2000 04:20:41 PM new
What a great resource this forum is. Expert opinions on everything from thrift shop clothing to authenticating major art works!
It actually got me to look at the auction web site - which appeared to be attempting to get some better quality dealers and offerings. But this painting thing is a real turn-off. Not all publicity is good publicity.
And the "Molly Brown provenance" - well, to put it politely, she was not known for her exquisite and discriminating taste.
You remind me of the same critics that scoffed at Manet and the rest of the artists
of that period, and when they all became famous, claimed the fame for their discovery.
You seem because you are all over this web site that your opinion is the one that counts. You must be some old gallery owner thats jealous that someone got something you dont have. You have the most posted articles on this and every web for auctionwatch. WHAT IS YOUR MOTIVE? WHAT IS YOUR AX TO GRIND. SOUNDS SUSPICOUS TO ME.
Maybe you work for E-Bay,Huh!!!!
posted on August 31, 2000 05:15:46 PM new
Damariscotta
I have been to the Molly Brown museum, yes you are right, its all very Victorian and overdone. But that was their way back then.
She fought for womens rights thou. And left her last $1500 to the children of Leadville
to buy mittens and shoes for the winter. She had a good heart. She was only accepted into the Denver clan after the titantic. I would very much like to have had the priviledge to have known her.
posted on August 31, 2000 05:21:39 PM new
"Skeptical" = "cruel," lagoldie? Give me a break. I'd say "cruel" is setting up an auction situation where reputable sellers are besmirched by this sort of cheesy dealing. Jeez, at least the guy who attempted to sell the - who was the purported artist, folks? - had the delicacy NOT to outright claim it was by the artist.
(I liked the tricycle-in-the-garage story, too.)
The ONLY thing the pigment analyses show is that the pigments used were available at the time the painting was supposed to have been made. Those pigments were indeed available well AFTER that date, and in most cases I think are still available today.
If, for example, it had been claimed instead that this was a Gainsborough (and therefore a century or so older), the analysis would show that certain of the pigments used were NOT available at the time the artist was working, and therefore the painting was a fake. Again, tightwad, all that the analysis shows is that the pigments were available in 1888, NOT that the painting was done at that date, and particularly not that it was done by Van Gogh.
In fact, one of the analyses points out the significant LACK of zinc white, which is characteristic of virtually ALL Van Gogh's works (which is how he got those brilliant colors).
Is this the "straw hat" painting you reference, lagoldie? (There are 7, I think, all told.)
Well, I picked three "Straw Hats" with the "moodiest" background colors (and the closest I could find, stretching my imagination to its limits, to "Yellow Roses", in each case selecting the dullest section of the backgrounds. Here's the documented Van Gogh backgrounds:
and the section of the background of "Yellow Roses" with the greatest variation.
From the Amsterdam Museum site: "Whereas in Paris his works covered a broad range of subjects and techniques, the Arles paintings are consistent in approach, fusing painterly drawing with intensely saturated color." (italics mine) Note the incredible variety of colors in even the darkest backgrounds (e.g. the dabs of red in the first one), with heavy, quick brushwork. "Yellow Roses" is ONE hue, varying only in tone, and is pathetically overworked.
OTOH, if you can't distinguish between "muddy" and "moody" in palette choices, my time is clearly better spent with Ramona, who can tell the difference with her eyes shut, being an expert on both.
posted on August 31, 2000 05:31:12 PM newTightwadG2
I do not have an axe to grind nor have I ever been involved with a gallery or worked for ebay. That last one is really funny.
All that I ask is that someone answer one of the above questions by me and others.
What is your motivation? Any involvement with the painting or old and sold? You seem to get very angry when someone questions the rather dubious provenance for this painting. You have very suspicous motives.
posted on August 31, 2000 06:17:37 PM new
Boy, it's getting heated in here! I just found the story very interesting. Did anyone check out Art News this month? They have a complete story on Van Gogh forgeries.
Hopefully old and sold will provide further light on this painting.
posted on August 31, 2000 08:22:37 PM new
HartCottageQuilt
You dont know what your talking about. It did not say there was no lead white there, it said they did not do a test for it. They also did not find titatium white there either
since it was not invented until the 1920's.
ALSO the yellow refered to is Ceba Gigi and they have not made that yellow for about 100 years. And is not available. Also the paints in question are loaded with arsenic and that was stopped 100 years ago. Where did you get your biased information. With 2452 replys, you must get yourself a life. things are happening out in the real world.
You and HartCottage Quilt need to get a life, you spend too much time on the net.
Thank you for the photo of the early Paris painting. You dont know everthing about this painting as I dont know. You seem to be trying to damage it for some reason or another. I have authored several books on fakes and forgeys in the art world, Try reading "Au Faux van Gogh" Fakes are always
in the style of the artist, This painting interest me, because it may be the real thing. If I could get a look at the canvas I would know. van Gogh used a certain type of weave that was only in use during his period. Also with the new technology of DNA there may be other proof of its origin.
Samples of van goghs DNA have been taken from his family and from the back of his paintings, If he has touched the backs which we know he did, it will remain there forever
and that will be conclusive. The Study is being conducted by the University of Kansas
and we will soon know about many of his paintings, If his DNA is not on a painting then he did not do it. If it is there then
we may conclude that it is by him whether it looks like his work or not.
I can send you many photos of paintings that the so called experts swore were by great artists, and were not. Take for example the Hitler Diaries, the forger had many paintings in his home by great masters, and the experts swore by them. Everyone a fake.
I discovered that and wrote a paper on that.
So a experts word means nothing. Most of them are elitists, and charge heavly for their expertise. They really dont know the first thing about art. They fake it and divide the spoils among their own. They have divided their territories amongsy themselves. And you are not invited in..
posted on August 31, 2000 08:49:46 PM new
I have done everything in my power to keep out of this nonsense...but it's TOO MUCH not to!!
It's fairly clear that someone is having us on (and even using different names to do it...)
I mean, really, there, "Tightwad"...you claim to have "authored several books on fakes and forgeys in the art world," but yet don't present yourself as a professional, nor do you act in a professional manner in here.
WTF is a forgeys?
AAARRRGGGHHHH!!!
Enough of this...if the painting were authentic (and even all the "proof" proffered states "attributed to Van Gogh...by THE OWNERS", it would be at a major auction house.
Still waiting for the "owner" to appear...except that, I think, old "QualityAntiques" IS the seller...among several others in here...
posted on August 31, 2000 09:51:36 PM new
TightwadG2 I am loving this! This is my first time I have ever involved myself in a chat conversation. Actually I will not give my motives for becoming involved. Because with the critics we have attracted I would be in GREAT trouble. They would crucify me. I would like the opportunity to actually see this painting. It intrigues me totally. I feel this is the painting I saw on display in Amsterdam, and think it odd that I now see it on an Internet auction site. A close friend and I were having lunch yesterday, and she brought up the subject of a Van Gogh being posted on an Internet Site. She went into how she was participating in a chat about it on Action Watch. I had to join in once I saw the painting, Now I am hooked. I just can't believe how these people find the nerve to direct this painting, just from a picture they have viewed off a monitor. Its almost scary. I have a question, being new to all this fun? What do they all say when they turn up wrong about a subject? Do they retreat, go into their shells, what? I guess I will just have to stay tuned.
posted on August 31, 2000 09:53:32 PM new
"It can be noted that others have obsevered a heavy reliance upon zinc white among Van Goghs's works and although zinc is observed in some of the x-ray flouresence spectra from Yellow Roses, zinc oxide was not identified in any of the patterns so it is not the principle white pigment in this work.
Direct quote from the LA paper so it looks like they did test for it.
And there is not a mention of titanium white in either of those papers so how did you get inside information?
By the way, telling someone to get a life is a violation of the TOS here and can get you suspended from posting.
And what are you talking about with 2452 replys?
Miscreant -and proud of it!
posted on August 31, 2000 10:26:30 PM new
Scorpiogal
Hi I am a Scorpioguy! WTF does that mean?
I find this site very enthraling! Most of these no nothings are looking for a life. They spend most of their time on the net. Twice a day, 45 to 60min. a day thats all.Got to work for a living. I am completing a new book on the life of another contempory artist. I prefer to solve a mystery, than create one. Also as far as art goes, every artist is, in my opinion
contributing to life,and expressing for the future what really happened in our time. I am an expert on pigment analaysis and style
of impressionists art to the contempory style. All art is good including fakes. What is the date of your birth?
posted on August 31, 2000 10:36:53 PM new
LAGOLDIE
Yes, I hope some of these so called expert go back to school to learn something about art.
Can you imangine that Hartcottagequilt has sent in 2452 replys, and newguy has sent in 850 replys. Maybe they are paraplegics and are confined to a wheelchair. I feel sorry for them. Unfortunately they would not appreciate it. I suspect that they really
working for some auction house and they are afraid that auctions of high quality art on the net will put them out of business.THEY WILL NO LONGER HAVE THE STRANGLEHOLD ON THE ART PUBLIC!!!!!
Molly Brown died in the late 1930's Her property was sold in the 20's after the death of her husband J.J. by her children, when she did not return to Denver.
When they had the 100th year aniversary
of Van Gogh in amsterdam at the Van Gogh Museum. Many of the paintings belonging to the museum needed cleaning. However because the museum did not have the money to pay for this they had the exposition of Van Gogh's
paintings. They still have not cleaned many of them, only the favorites.
-and proud of it! 
, the established age of the painting (both from pigment analysis and provenance) places it at the time of Van Gogh....which raises some interesting questions if it IS a fake:
