posted on August 31, 2000 11:03:18 PM new
HartCottageQuilt
The more you talk the dummer you sound! I am sure that there is more than one or two test done on the pigments. If the signature was added after the painting had dried, the signature under black light would have jumped off the canvas. and Ciba Geigy PbCrO4.PbSO4 chrome yellow has not been available for 105 years. The zinc white was identified in the painting but not the principle white, and there was no titanium white.
posted on September 1, 2000 04:34:15 AM new[Maybe they are paraplegics and are confined to a wheelchair.
Uh, actually I AM disabled and confined to bed for a significant part of my life.
However, that hasn't impaired my reasoning ability (nor, I might add, my ability to construct a sentence. I am assuming you have a ghostwriter for those important works on forgeries?)
The amazing part of this whole farce is that it doesn't take an expert to see that this isn't a Van Gogh. Heck, reading the auction listing points it out as a BS operation. (Love that last paragraph about the values of "other" Van Goghs. Reads like something from the Franklin Mint.)
Dying, just dying to know why revealing lagoldie's motives would result in her being "crucified"...
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 1, 2000 04:34 AM ]
posted on September 1, 2000 04:45:09 AM newTightwadG2
Many of your comments have come very close to crossing the line. I suggest you acquaint yourself with the AW Community Guidelines, particularly concerning basic etiquette, before posting again. To continue in this manner may jeopardize you posting privileges.
posted on September 1, 2000 08:16:24 AM new
TightwadG2, I am in total agreement with your sentiments, Please people get some form of Employment! You will improve your mental out look on life.You need something to do.Bravo TightwadG2!
Quilt woman, please continue to sew, and make wonderful quilts. Its therapeutic you know. When you were a girl did you finger paint? As for the "significant LACK of zinc white" . In the Yellow Roses the colors are muted and darker, Van Gogh as all artist today would increase their use of white paint to brighten and lighten colors. "McCrone, all the pigments identified were available to Van Gogh all of our evidence points to the period of Van Gogh and the palette matches well Van Gogh's palette.""LA institute, White zinc is observed in some of the Xray". The evidence is rather clear, if fully read. I suggest you read it. I just don't know were you are coming from , with this bitter stale attitude. Do yo work for an Auction House? perhaps the Internet is somewhat threading your job stability?Also you put up little pieces of the OldAndSold painting comparing them to Van Goths Man In a straw hat. Do you know how many paintings he did all have slight different backdrops. Actually it would be very hard to find two of his backdrops to be identical.No two are the same. Many of his paintings were vibrant, many sulking and moody.
As far as this site OldAndSold doing this for money please! I noted its their policy to charge three percent on an item sold. This site could break the auction houses piggy banks? They have represented this painting in a fine manor. They did their homework , and provided documents from some of the best institutes that authenticate art in this country. They have written a clear and intriguing Provenance. Give this a rest. I don't believe any expert at identifying Van Gogh would state that this is not a Van Gogh. They may be inconclusive with their results, but would not state that this could not be a Van Gogh. To much evidence points to it being one of Van Gogh's works."And I thought My Life was Crazy
By the way how long these chats go on?I am getting sore from sitting. Hey OldAndSold step in here, I could use some HELP!LAGoldie
posted on September 1, 2000 08:33:36 AM new
Hey! I am back, all had better calm down.
Newguy Why would an artist from the 1800s sign Van Goghs signature? It is so well known Vinent could not sell his paintings. What would this artist gain? Please think of that. The McCrone has identified the paint as being from the time period of Van Gogh.So we can safely assume that it was painted in the mid 1800s. I am about to actually call the McCrone and talk with a representative, in regards to this painting. Also OldAndSold have posted they have a written analyses from our Government on the brush strokes. I wish they would post that, it might clear some of this mystery up.
[ edited by Lagoldie on Sep 2, 2000 06:57 PM ]
posted on September 1, 2000 09:58:56 AM new
I don't give a rodent's hindquarters about the authenticity of this painting. I am only posting to say that the postings from TightwadG2 and Lagoldie represent the most amazingly blatent and transparent case of shilling I have ever seen.
It is evident that they are probably the same person. I am stunned that they think that they/he/she are actually fooling anyone with this charade of being a "disinterested expert". It is to laugh.
We would have to be a lot dumber (or maybe even dummer) than dumb to swallow this load.
Dr. Beetle
(Dang that UBB!)
[ edited by DoctorBeetle on Sep 1, 2000 09:59 AM ]
posted on September 1, 2000 10:31:35 AM new
I'm in a "mood" today, so I'm being @#%!!
I don't think it matters whether this is a real Van Gogh or not. I don't think my little 'ole Aunt Martha is going to spend her last dime bidding on this BECAUSE she thinks it is authentic and she has always wanted a "real" VG! I think if I was an art expert I probably would not bid on any painting I could NOT view beforehand. IF I DID bid, I would bid for the opportunity to have a "nice little conversation" piece. Since I don't have a lotta of extra cash laying around, I won't be bidding!
About 30 years ago, a friend and I came across a painting in a small "junk" shop. It was signed Picaso. Most things in this shop were around $1.00-$25.00 (and over priced at that). This painting was $300. My friend had to have it. Did he think is was real, a "lost" Picaso? NO HE DID NOT. It was unique, it was actually kinda nice looking AND it looked great on his wall!
I don't think ANYONE can say 100% if ANY "old" painting IS AUTHINTIC (I have heard stories of museums being fooled). The only way to be sure is to ask the artist and VINNIE ain't in a position to say yea or nea!
Lighten up! I don't think the selling of this painting (authintic or not) is going to damage the world as we know it, do you? If someone wants to part with a sack of cash on what very well could be a "fake", I think that is their business NOT mine.
If you don't like the way they are running this auction---DON'T BID!!!!! If you do bid, be sure and ask about the shipping charges beforehand, 'cause you don't want to get ripped off by being overcharged on the shipping do you?
[ edited by sulyn1950 on Sep 1, 2000 01:46 PM ]
posted on September 1, 2000 01:32:50 PM newThey did their homework , and provided documents from some of the best institutes that authenticate art in this country. They have written a clear and intriguing Provenance.
Too bad none of those documents call it a Van Gogh, in fact the LA one is careful to point out that the attribution is the owners.
And I will agree the provenance is intriguing though perhaps a different way than you take it.
Oldandsold is charging the seller 3.5% but it is charging the buyer 5% whether it or not they accept it as a Van Gogh.
And again, so what if the paint is old. That leaves it with about a million or more paintings with the same paint.
Miscreant -and proud of it!
posted on September 1, 2000 05:00:31 PM new
To: All interested parties.
I am the owner of the van Gogh Yellow Roses, and I have heard That there is quite a commotion on this site regarding the authenticity of this painting, I am ready to answer any questions that you might have. BUT
first, I will answer only the writers that can answer my question correctly. And that question is.
QUESTION: WHAT METHOD DID VAN GOGH USE TO MOUNT HIS CANVAS ON HIS STRETCHER BARS.
posted on September 1, 2000 08:30:56 PM new
Dear OwnerVGYR
I know the answer, but if I say then they will all know. So I'll wait until some of the others have answered. Can I get a photo of the back of the canvas?
posted on September 1, 2000 08:39:24 PM new
The fury of some of the posters on this thread is astoundingly ridiculous. Come on now, where are your credentials to even make such definite statements about this paintings authenticity. Oh, I forgot one of the posters did have the almighty BA in Art...and that would qualify that poster to do what? Evaluate the authenticity of the masters? Actually, framing prints at your local "art" store is more like it. The truth is that the actual experts, you know, those who have the appropraite degrees and experience, would most likely not even agree as to the attribution of the painting in question. I am looking forward to all of our self anoited "experts" answering the owners challenge (get busy searching the web). As for Old and Sold, I think that they have apparently done what they can do to provide some sort of verification. It is the owner's responsibility to continue to build a body of evidence in support of this painting's authenticity as a Van Gogh. It does not appear, in any way, that OAS, is claiming that this work is a Van Gogh-only offering an interesting piece for consideration. Whether the price tag is $20 or 2 million-the advice is still the same..buyer beware. And all of this from an "e-bay outlook" message board. I do not participate on e-bay but do browse. Who verifies or authenticates the enormous pile of junk on that site? Could any of you speak to the authenticity of the human kidneys that were posted a while back? I think that it is fine to speculate and wonder about the origin and authenticity of this painting. But it is quite a leap for posters to make such definitive, negative statments in the glaring absence of their own actual education and proven expertise in this area.
posted on September 1, 2000 08:48:30 PM new
Well if you can answer the right question (What is the DNA sequencing of a nematode?) I can e-mail you a copy of a report from Los Alamos National Laboratories that prove the kidney's on eBay were human. Further more, radioactive carbon14 testing show that they date from Van Gogh's time. Hey... I wonder if.....
Dr. Beetle
[ edited by DoctorBeetle on Sep 1, 2000 08:49 PM ]
posted on September 1, 2000 09:29:06 PM new
"Who verifies or authenticates the enormous pile of junk on that site?" Oh yes, let's vet ebay, we'll put Observer in charge, lol!
posted on September 1, 2000 09:36:41 PM new
Earlier I made a snitty post, but now I would like to get serious. I have read ALL the post now and am still stumped. Maybe I have missed something. Help me out here please. This is NOT a painting that has just been "found" in the attic or at a garage sale. From what I gather, the knowledge of the existance of this painting is not new. The main issue seems to be it can't be proven beyond any doubt that it IS a Van Gogh. I still stand by my earlier statement that I would imagine it is difficult to be 100% sure about ANY older painting. The known facts about this painting show that it is 1)old 2)has a signature that could be the artist's 3) could have been done by VG 4)belongs to the person auctioning it 5) has had extensive attempts to establish whether or not it is a Van Gogh. I think it is important to note that it has not been proven a fake either. So exactly what has the owner of this painting done wrong? Do they not have the right to sell it? Do they not have the right to present what they know about it and believe about it? Can't they choose how and where and when to sell it? Can't they offer it at ANY price they want? What has O & S done wrong? Why is everyone so upset about this? Is it just because this person didn't offer it through a big auction house? I really would like to know because I hate missing the point of all of this. Maybe if I WAS an art person I would understand.
posted on September 1, 2000 09:42:28 PM new
Wow I would never have guessed that this thread would have lasted this long.
I do agree that there does appear to be too many self appointed experts out there on this subject.Particularly in some cases not even the major museums of the world with all there expertise on a subject cannot at times agree or not agree that an item is genuine.
I personally would never say one way or another that something is genuine or not reason being I do not have knowledge on the artist in question.
All that can be presented are the facts and let the buyer make his or her own educated decision based on those facts.
The only question I have is why such a painting of such importance is not being offered through the major auction houses like Sotheby's,Philip's,Christie's or others.
As surely even with the amount of premium they collect that the owner of the piece would get a much higher bid amount for the painting.
The site in question is not that well known as a result of this and again this is my feeling only,so why offer it there?.
Where any of the major auction houses offered the opportunity to auction this painting imagine all the interest that would be shown for such a valuable piece.
If they where what was there although not always accurate opinion of the piece.
posted on September 1, 2000 10:01:21 PM new
Actually, my degree is in art HISTORY, not art. Perhaps you're not aware that they are two different fields of endeavor? Also, you may not be cognizant of the fact that a B.A. is sufficient to enter the Appraisal Society of America. The ASA is the largest association of art appraisers in America. I would suggest to you that you do your homework before trashing someone with "just a B.A." for regarding themselves as an expert (which I did NOT claim to be...perhaps you need to work on your reading skills as well as your spelling.)
Aside from the ignorance you've shown regarding credentials, you are pretty darned naive to be so shocked and appalled that non-experts would dare to give their opinions. Welcome to the Internet! News Flash: They have EYES. It LOOKS fake to them. The certainty that certain posters has shown stems from the fact that it's such a pathetically OBVIOUS fake. They are entirely entitled to their opinions just as you are entitled to your strange insistance that it's possible this is a real Van Gogh. But of course, if you're so hung up on "only those with credentials may speak"---what are YOUR credentials?
posted on September 2, 2000 02:56:38 AM new
Set aside the questionable merit of the painting itself for a minute.
I've compared the most pertinent claims of the seller regarding the painting's provenance, and biographical data on Molly Brown from the Molly Brown Museum website (http://www.mollybrown.com/intro.html). Seller's claims are in italics.
[Chain] gave three paintings to Molly Brown for her wedding to J. J. Brown in 1890; a Van Gogh...
The Browns were married in 1886, NOT 1890. (Their 2 children were born in 1887 and 1889). In 1890, the Browns were still living in Leadville; J.J. didn't make his fortune until 1893, and they didn't move to Denver until 1894, at which time Molly gave away to family everything the couple owned, and bought new furnishings in Denver.
Let's assume for a moment that the painting's owner is mistaken about it being a wedding present; assume that it was still a gift from Chain to Molly. Helen Chain and her husband died in 1892 - two years before the Browns showed up in Denver, and a year before J.J. made his fortune.
These paintings remained in Molly Brown's home until the 1920's, with the death of her husband J. J. Brown. Her children sold most of their possessions at that time....while visiting Denver in the 1920's, [seller's grandmother] bought many of the furnishings and paintings which the Brown children had for sale...
but
....[The] paintings that my grandmother had purchased from the estate of Molly Brown.
The couple separated permanently in 1909. J.J. Brown died intestate; his estate was settled in 1927. If "Yellow Roses" was among the "many of the furnishings and paintings" "her children sold" "at that time", it could not have been part of "the estate of Molly Brown". She died in 1932, and the household furnishings were auctioned for $200.
It's interesting to note that Brown herself was not above, well, embellishing the truth. Among stories she circulated were that, as a child floating down the Mississippi River on a raft, she was capsized by a cyclone and rescued by Mark Twain (who would later tell her to move west); that her wagon train had been waylaid by Jesse James; that after her husband J.J. hit "pay dirt" in the Little Jonny Mine, the floors of their Leadville home were inlaid with silver dollars; that she survived a typhoon on the Indian Ocean; and that she set fire to $300,000 hidden by her husband in a stove. "Publicity is the very breath of this woman's nostrils," charged at least one person. So....it is quite possible that Brown herself had this third-rate painting embellished in yet another effort at self-promotion.
Ah. Maybe the seller is is a medium who's channeling Molly Brown!
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 2, 2000 04:06 AM ]
posted on September 2, 2000 05:36:21 AM new
Actually I have a Masters Degree in Psychology and I honestly believe that a Bachelors Degree, in any major, is much too general for its holder to consider themselves "experts" on anything-that is unless you are very old and have lots of practical, hands on experience. That point has been well established in many other areas of practice (although I guess not in the art arena). My point is simple. It would be very ignorant for OAS to have promoted this painting as a Van Gogh, which they apparently have not done. But it is just as ignorant to make such definitive statements labeling this painting as a fake based on a picture over the internet. The posters who speculate and add factual information to the debate are helpful. Naive? how naive is making a statment such as "The painting is absolutely a fake" A sweeping, definitive staement with no basis-without ever having seen this piece. That is either extremely naive/inmature logic or a very inflated ego. I also think that the criticism toward OAS is a little harsh. Do you direct the same criticism toward e-bay? Like I said, who verifies their stuff? The reality is that these services simply offer items for sale. It is up the the seller/potential buyer to work out the rest. I think that OAS has actually gone above and beyond in trying to show documentation for this painting. This is absolutely the owner's responsibility.
posted on September 2, 2000 08:49:16 AM new
Maybe you should take up your complaint about credentialing with the ASA. I am sure there are tons of insurance judgments they will have to overrule now that you have decreed that no one is an expert holding just a B.A. Also, many appraisals are done with pictures only since the works in question have been lost or destroyed (i.e. the works destroyed by the Nazis in the 1930s and 1940s, oil paintings destroyed by bombing and wars in Europe during the early part of the century, etc. etc. etc.) You better make sure all these books get reprinted since they are not, in your opinion "expert" enough due to not having the work in-hand. AND, since you with your very advanced college degree in psychology think you are qualified to DISqualify me with my degree in art history, and my auxiliary work in that field, well, I'll just DEFER to your superior ability to judge. I didn't REALIZE that only those with verifiable, testable, provable opinions were allowed to make definitive statements. PARDON ME for my inexcusable faux pas.
posted on September 2, 2000 10:04:31 AM newIt would be very ignorant for OAS to have promoted this painting as a Van Gogh, which they apparently have not done.
What do you call featuring the auction (for some time all by itself) on its home page, with the headline "'Yellow Roses' by Vincent Van Gogh. Previously owned by Molly Brown...."? Not promoting it? Please, single out my stuff for such non-promotion.
What, exactly, has OAS done at all - let alone going "above and beyond" to "show documentation for this painting"?
I'm not saying that OAS, or any auction site, has to authenticate the items listed by sellers on its site. However, attempting to capitalize on the sale by actually featuring it on its home page is, at the very least, an incredibly foolish move by OAS if it hopes to retain any reputable dealers.
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 2, 2000 10:07 AM ]
posted on September 2, 2000 10:58:53 AM new
HCQ ... nice research on the attribution. The like of Molly Brown would not have been allowed in the doors of Mrs. Chain's home, let alone get a wedding present from her. Family legend.
And the department store's tag is on the FRAME, not the painting's stretchers, which only proves the frame was at one time in the store's art department, not when.
The presence of the earlier painting/s messes up the ability to analyse paint, something which many forgers know ... buying old paintings of little worth to forge old masters on.
posted on September 2, 2000 11:08:50 AM new
Thanks, abacaxi. However, gold-rush Denver being what it was, and money talking soooo well, within a year of her arrival in Denver in 1893, Mrs. Brown was moving in just about all the right circles (except for Denvers' version of the Astor crowd, which only grudgingly accepted her after the Titanic incident, but then dumped her again when she started foaming at the mouth over all and sundry). However, the Chains were well past being food for worms by the time the Browns hit it big.
Hey, owner, is the canvas-stretching answer "duct tape", like the kind shown holding this priceless canvas into its crumbling frame? ROTFLMAO
Edited to add: Hey, go look! There's also a Stradivarius for sale on OAS - no papers, unfortunately. Opening bid's only $500,000.
I also found a "mammoth fang" (sic) for $15,000 (do take the trouble to look at the pic!) Both from Eastern Europe/Russia.
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 2, 2000 11:34 AM ]
posted on September 2, 2000 11:15:56 AM new
And there is the interesting concidence that this painting appeared (according to the owner) just at the time that the first of the fake Van Gogh scandals erupted. There is no solid evidence that the painting evr was purchased by Chain, just a tag on a frame and the second-hand family legend.
posted on September 2, 2000 11:52:12 AM newabacaxi - even nicer call on the Wacker connection. Particularly apt is the quote from Stoperan (who had dealings with van Gogh's works since 1901, and assembled and hung some 12 van Gogh exhibitions):
"The paintings' spuriousness is betrayed not only by artistic elements, which form the most important criterion for the expert. There are differences between genuine van Goghs and these forgeries which are evident to every layman....All the forgeries are impure in color, they give a muddy, botched impression, they have a tortured look, they lack freshness. The colors of the genuine works, by contrast, are always clear, they gleam and shine like precious stones. Van Gogh never painted with toned-down colors, a fact he even mentions in his letters. Because of this, and because he always painted his canvases in a single, uninterrupted flow, they have that wonderful enamel, that shine and that freshness which no forger can imitate."[/i]
-and proud of it!