posted on September 2, 2000 12:07:43 PM new
HCQ:
Exactly ... the muddy taupe background of those roses is NOT a VanGogh-like background. Even his somber backgrounds are pure pigment, just darker pigments.
posted on September 2, 2000 06:07:46 PM new
OwnerVGYR -
Can you explain how the supposed first purchaser of the painting gave it to Molly Brown as a wedding gift?
posted on September 2, 2000 06:52:43 PM new
Owner VGYR I was so delighted to see you enter this forum. It appears no one can answer your question. The conversation has ebbed since you appeared on the sine. Where are all our scholars? We had them all, a cast of many. Self proclaimed artists, an author, a history major (with only a BD), a quilt maker, A frustrated artist (that created a masterpiece in it's own right, I mean is that a male organ with a HAT on or what)? Last of all we have a Psychologist. I think I could invent a board game around this scenario? Hey Observer, do you ever charge group rates?
Now to get a bit serious, Owner, I am in your corner, if you could be so kind to grant me a move? Was Yellow Roses ever on exhibition in the Van Gogh Museum? Good luck with painting. LaGoldie
[ edited by Lagoldie on Sep 2, 2000 06:54 PM ]
posted on September 2, 2000 07:15:54 PM new
OwnerVGYR -
The provenance sank like the Titanic, because the supposed giver DIED before Molly Brown arrived in Denver, and Molly was married BEFORE the date of the wedding you claim was the occasion of the gift.
And the only connection with the supposed purchaser is the label on the FRAME of the painting.
The lab reports mean litle, because they only show that none of the pigments was impossible for the claimed date ... I have a picture by my uncle Dave that could pass those tests.
And any forger would certainly take the time to get the right looking canvas and attach it to the frames in the right way ... Wacker did.
posted on September 2, 2000 07:17:48 PM new
Oh jeezus, abacaxi, let's throw this poor creature a bone. Maybe he needs the answer for a homework assignment.
Actually, "owner", asking "which" method Van Gogh used is a bit of a trick question.
Van Gogh didn't actually mount his canvases on stretcher bars, as those terms are generally understood.
According to the Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam, his common practice was to loosely tack the commercially prepared canvas onto a working frame, and detach and remount it between painting sessions and for shipment to Theo, who then had the canvases mounted on stretcher bars for framing.
Now put aside your Gameboy and do tell: How do we know you're the owner? And how do you reconcile the date conflicts I noted in my post of earlier today?
posted on September 2, 2000 07:30:47 PM new
To ALL
Since you cannot answer my previous question,
I will give you an easier one.
QUESTION: How many paintings did van Gogh
paint in his lifetime?
1000 to 2000
2000 to 3000
3000 to 4000
4000 to 5000
5000 to 6000
6000 to 7000
7000 to 8000
8000 to 9000
9000 to 10,000
You may select one and only one. Those who get it right will have their questions answered.
posted on September 2, 2000 07:43:19 PM new
OwnerVGYR -
I will ask you a couple of TOUGH questions about the provenance ... why should we believe you when you don't even have the facts about Molly Brown and the Chains correct. HartCottageQuilts laid it all out in an earlier post - Helen Chain and her husband died in 1892 - two years before the Browns showed up in Denver! So unless they were getting gifts from dead people, the provenance is pure hogwash.
Provenance claim: [Chain] gave three paintings to Molly Brown for her wedding to J. J. Brown in 1890; a Van Gogh...
HCQ: "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.
(provenance claim) "....[The] paintings that my grandmother had purchased from the estate of Molly Brown. "
HCQ: 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.
posted on September 3, 2000 03:05:17 AM new
This is much too hilarious to resist. I must de-lurk for a moment.
First of all, I am not an expert in art history or connoisseurship nor am I a Van Gogh expert. That said, I AM well educated and trained in art history and connoisseurship, in part at the two major auction houses in London. I can detail my education to anyone who would like to know more details.
There is much finger pointing by some that a Ph.D. is necessary to attribute this picture. Nonsense. Connoisseurship is based on a trained eye looking for qualities such as brushwork, color, light, and composition. Van Gogh is one of the most famous artists primarily due to his unique and identifying painterly techniques, making attribution not necessarily exclusive to scholars. With a collection of visual "fingerprints" this unalike, one doesn't need to even see it in person, which is usually called for. In other words, you'd have to be blind not to tell it's a phony.
Furthermore, galleries, collectors, and auction houses desire clear provenance, so to answer IMABRIT's question, the messy history of dates not coinciding (nice work, HartCottageQuilts and abacaxi!), lack of a trail of paperwork documenting transfer of ownership, and a visual analysis that suggests nothing of Van Gogh's work are most likely responsible for its appearance on OldAndSold--a nice site, by the way--rather than Sotheby's or Christie's.
The picture is one of these:
1) Genuine Vincent Van Gogh
2) Misattributed work by another artist and the signature added later as embellishment
3) Fake from start to finish
My suspicions are:
It was painted no earlier than the 1920's (from the style and brushwork), the signature was added for effect (I wouldn't attempt to guess when), and someone had (has?) a vivid imagination. Not necessarily in that order.
Some assumptions that have been made:
1) That the signature was contemporary to the picture.
The signature states VINCENT ARLES 88, but everyone is assuming 1888. Someone do some work here: how often did Vincent add a year and/or place to his paintings? Why assume the signature is "married" to the picture?
2) The pigment analysis proves that it is "old."
The pigment analysis tests for pigment, which is only half of he paint recipe. The other half is the medium, or binder. Where are those lab results? In addition
Pigments are the pure color in powder form usually, sometimes in a gel or liquid. Most are commonly available today except for example, the arsenic based pigments, and you can buy a tube of oil paint in every pigment mentioned in these reports at your local artist's supply store. Ultramarine is particularly lovely. Ever heard of ochre and burnt umber? Italian Renaissance artists did, and you can paint your house in them too. In fact you can still buy natural and traditional pigments and have them custom mixed into the binder of your choice.
The most common binders today are oil and latex; latex didn't exist in Van Gogh's time but oil was the common medium. In fact oil has been the most common medium since the days of tempera (egg yolk)! paint in the early renaissance. In short, the scientific studies are not really telling us much as no forger, including that of just a signature, would be so stupid as to use latex based pigments, and most of those "pigments" are available today.
I suspect there is more to the LACMA report that deals with the binding medium; I request that the owner scan and post the entire report including letterhead and signature. To answer the owner's sphinx-like riddle about how many paintings Vincent completed in his lifetime, the answer is "none of the above," as Vincent finished less than 1000 and that option was not offered. HCQ answered the stretcher question. (I loved the duct tape observation.)
3) The brushmark analysis proves the same brush was used.
In what universe? Proves nothing; in fact I detect a softer brush and smoother "hand" on Yellow Roses.
4) That the x-rays, infrared, photo of signature letters, and Painting of Souvenir de Mauve Vincent prove that it's a Vincent.
Irrelevant. The x-rays indicate there is something underneath the top layer, but painting over canvasses is and was hardly a rare occurrence, especially for struggling artists. Nothing is clearly shown, let alone a signature and dedication to Anton Mauve. Vivid imagination at work again.
5) Helen Henderson Chain gave these to Molly Brown because the owner's grandmother said so.
Doesn't prove a thing. Family tales like these mean nothing, unless it can be backed up with concrete evidence. The label of Chain and Hardy's bookstore from another of these paintings proves that the frame came from Chain and Hardy's Art Department. Nothing more. Oh, I think the picture also came from the bookstore/art store also, but was never anywhere near France or Vincent.
HCQ did an excellent job of popping this balloon, and there is no further connection to Molly Brown at all indicated. In fact, there is no provenance at all before the grandmother bought the pictures in the 20's.
I have much more to say on the matter, especially on visual analysis matters--including the very important if not decisive zinc oxide issue--, but it's late and this should give everyone still interested in the issue fodder for more research, discussion, and, no doubt, attacks.
I'm greatly looking forward to the salvos from TightwadG2, Lagoldie ( I am also from "city of Angels", OwnerVGYR, tansri, and the other personalities attached to this alleged Vincent Van Gogh picture. Bring it on!
posted on September 3, 2000 04:47:32 AM new
"VINCENT ARLES" ... maybe that is the name of the painter! Not Vincent van Gogh, painting in Arles, but some guy whose WHOLE NAME is VINCENT ARLES!
posted on September 3, 2000 11:29:39 AM new
Hi All. We are all slipping , OAS has opened there own forum. "Cafe Chat". Anyone want to take this game on the road?
Scrnsiren, you defiantly earn merit , and have long passed go. You made some compelling points.
OwnerYRVG, will you respond and clear up this confusing Provenance?
posted on September 3, 2000 11:50:23 AM new
A few pertinent quotes from lagoldie (typos hers), defending the painting as genuine and lambasting us "cruel" skeptics who need to "get some form of Employment! You will improve your mental out look on life. You need something to do":
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....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....
The evidence (that the painting is a genuine Van Gogh) 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.
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.
I have a question....What do they all say when [the people arguing this is not a genuine Van Gogh] turn up wrong about a subject? Do they retreat, go into their shells, what? I guess I will just have to stay tuned.
What they do is backpedal. Faster, faster, lagoldie! Show us how!
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 3, 2000 11:55 AM ]
posted on September 3, 2000 02:26:12 PM new
TO ALL: I will answer your questions, when you answer mine. So far the only one who has even come close is HartCottageQuilt. The correct answer is in the Jan Hulsker book on van Gogh
And the screensiren is so far off on the amount of paintings done by van Gogh. These questions are not trick questions. I promise you that. Everything I have on this painting is well documented, and only people interested in the purchase of it will have them. I stand by all of the statements made by Old and Sold. Chain and Molly were friends as far back as 1882. (documented)If the painting were at Chain & Hardys it had to be before they died. The painting also appears in photos of Mollys house. Not available to the general public. I deeply appreciate your genuine interest in this painting. I appreciate your intelligent replys. I would like answer all of your questions, even the silly ones, because at least everyone here is interested in art.
Please explain how you reconcile your statement with the evidence.
Chain and Molly were friends as far back as 1882.
Even assuming you can document this, it has no bearing on whether the painting (a) was an 1890 wedding gift from Chain to Brown or (b) was painted by Van Gogh.
I may have been schoolmates with the Dalai Lama, but that proves neither that the little bronze Buddha on my desk (a) was a gift from him nor (b) that it's a rare antique. I may have picked it up in a junk shop or Pier 1.
If the painting were at Chain & Hardys it had to be before they died.
The Chain & Hardys label is on the FRAME, not the CANVAS, and therefore does not relate in any way to the canvas. In any case, the canvas has clearly been removed at least once from the frame, as it's presently held in by what appears to be duct tape (which as far as I know was not available to Van Gogh), and therefore the frame may not be original to the canvas. (It's an easy job to resize a frame.)
Why do you refuse to provide documentation only to "people interested in the purchase" of the painting? Are these documents classified? I would think that providing provenance up front would only increase interest.
posted on September 3, 2000 03:28:20 PM new
The Chains DIED before the Browns moved to Denver. Therefore they could not have been neighbors in Denver, as the provenance claims. And when the provenance starts with an error of fact, the whole thing becomes VERY suspect. By the time we get to the wrong wedding date the deal stinks like a 4-day dead fish.
"The painting also appears in photos of Mollys house. Not available to the general public" ...
The usual way one cites a provenance is to lay it ALL out for any prospective buyer. The reason you do not have interested buyers is that you think you are playing "I've Got a Secret".
Please provide the pictures of the painting, IN SITU in the house, any inventory done for the separation, bills of sale for the painting, or even mention in the newspaper columns that the Chains had returned from a buying trip. That's the only way you are ever going to get that error-laden provenance to stick.
No reoputable auction house woud accept your claims without seeing the evidence, why should we be any different?
posted on September 3, 2000 04:20:55 PM new
Hello all. I had a comment to make. I noticed that the top two scans of "Yellow Roses" were different in color. The scan of the Front View Of Painting is very muddy, as everyone here has commented. But take a closer look at the smaller scan of the Signature (right underneath the Front View of Painting). I clearly see the bright green of the leaves, the bright yellow of the roses, and even orange in the background. When I look at the leaves in the big picture, they are dark and black, but the picture of the signature clearly shows bright green leaves.
This makes me think that the top picture may have not been properly scanned. I also noticed two new letters have shown up under References. One from the Molly Brown Museum, and the other from Fine Arts Conservation Laboratories. The Molly Brown letter was most intriguing. This letter clearly states that the owner has the Van Gogh and a Helen Henderson-Chain painting. My two cents....
[ edited by flowblue2 on Sep 3, 2000 04:22 PM ]
posted on September 3, 2000 04:39:57 PM new
"The Molly Brown letter was most intriguing. This letter clearly states that the owner has the Van Gogh and a Helen Henderson-Chain painting".
It only states what the museum was told - and they were told that there was a painting from the Chains and a Van gogh reputedly owned by Molly. That letter is museum-speak for "We're mildly interested, but we want you to give it to us". It proves nothing, because you could contact the Molly Brown Museum about a dinner menu she used on the Titanic and get much the same response.
Edited to add:
The FACL letter merely says the letters "SOUV" are visible in some sort of underpainting ... and "the results are not clear enough to be absolute identifications". So it could be "SOUVENIER OF NIAGRA FALLS" as easily as SOUVENIER OF MAUVE.
BUT the owner/pimp for this thing says "It seems quite likely that the painting found under "Yellow Roses" which is signed "Souvenir de Mauve Vincent and Theo" is the painting Vincent described in his letter to his brother Theo." ... The infrared showed NO such signature that a lab would put their names to. Wishful thinking strikes again.
And edited again ...
In the letter that mentions the "Souvenier of Mauve Vinvent Theo", the artist gripes about the ONE pigment that is strikingly lacking in this "yellow roses"... ZINC. "This zinc what that I am using now does not dry at all."
And edited again -
If I were selling a Van Gogh, or any painting, I would have the BEST digital image possible for the auction, showing the colors in all their vibrant glory.
[ edited by abacaxi on Sep 3, 2000 04:44 PM ]
[ edited by abacaxi on Sep 3, 2000 04:51 PM ]
[ edited by abacaxi on Sep 3, 2000 04:55 PM ]
posted on September 3, 2000 04:47:10 PM new
...and note that the Brown museum makes no indication anyone from there ever even saw the painting, merely that the owner met with the director.
The FACL letter states merely that Yellow Roses appears to be painted over an earlier work, and that it looks like there's a word ("Souv" there, but that nothing they did could provide further details.
Whoop-de-doo.
Is this the best the owner can come up with? How sad.
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 3, 2000 05:01 PM ]
posted on September 3, 2000 05:38:32 PM new
Van Gogh's popularity has no parrallel and I love him too. I can't claim any appropriate expertise, and couldn't buy a 2 million dollar painting, but, as with so many of the posters here, I find this painting, and its purported documentation, totally unconvincing.
posted on September 3, 2000 07:27:16 PM new
Okay,why doesn't the owner of this piece instead of playing silly games around here,take this as an opportunity to prove that it is indeed what they say it is.
Think about someone who really wants to pay out the cash for this item close to what it is supposedly worth would have similar questions to the ones posted here and they would want all of the answers.
You also assume that no one here has the cash to actually be able to buy this painting
but how can you know that for sure.
Plus even if none that post here can afford it how about the many of silent folks who are reading this thread and who can afford it.
If this truly is what it is stated then again is in the wrong auction and would make someone a great buy to then go and sell it in a real Art Auction that is internationally known.
Come to think of it I do know someone who does have the cash and is looking for a good investment potential.
This maybe it....this is not a joke either I need to make a phone call.
Please provide with the information that has been requested that you supposedly have that prove's it is a Van Gogh painting and that the provenance all makes sense.
posted on September 3, 2000 09:50:49 PM new
TO ALL:
The duct tape was put on temporaly, when the museum wanted to photo graph the back, and they did not want to renail it back until they where through. It has absolutely no bearing onanything to do with this painting
except to give the HARPIES something to Kavetch about and point fingers at. And as for HartCottageQuilt, I thought you had more sense then the rest of them.
posted on September 4, 2000 04:40:30 AM new
OwnerVGYR -
We are waiting for your explanation of the flawed provenance ... just how WAS the painting a gift when the supposed giver died before the givee came to town? And the occasion of the gift happened before the two met.
The provenance still stinks like a month-old litterbox, and the lab results are still unconvincing: they do not see the text you see in the underpainting. YOU make a wild jump to conclusions.
One of your supporters has suggested that the "muddy taupe" background in the picture is just a (conveniently) bad digital image and that the real painting would look a lot mote like a Van Gogh. Can you get a better image? I mean you are trying to convince us it's a TWQ MILLION DOLLAR painting, and your image is not showing the thing accurately?
posted on September 4, 2000 05:04:08 AM new
So the Museum put the duct tape on the picture?
Gee, sounds like the kind of careful conservatorship ANY museum would afford a $2M Van Gogh that wasn't theirs....
Or did the owner use the tape? Yeah, I'd do that to my $2M investment too. Look, if you're going to insist this is a valuable piece of "art," at least act like you believe that in front of strangers.
Still haven't answered my questions regarding provenance, Bubbalah.
This is the most hilarious farce I have seen yet on the online auction circuit. The auctions of pocket lint and human kidneys take a very distant second place, both in imaginativeness and sheer brazenness in broad daylight even when confronted with fact.
Thanks to owner, in his/her many different personalities (all of whom have exactly the same ineptitude with spelling and grammar), for a great Labor Day laugh.
posted on September 4, 2000 09:58:06 AM new
Yesterday, using OAS's standard question procedure, I emailed OAS, posing as a prospective bidder. Liz Byers, OAS auction manager, forwarded my questions to the owner. I just received the owner's response. My questions are in italics; the owners answers, in full, follow each.
This listing claims this painting was given by H.Chain to M.Brown "for her wedding to J. J. Brown in 1890". The Browns were married in 1886, not 1890. The Browns did not move to Denver until 1893, one year after the Chains died at sea, so H.Chain could never have been "a neighbor" of the Browns. Please explain how you reconcile your claims with the documentary evidence regarding the Browns. Please also provide documentation, such as correspondence, inventories, and bills of sale, showing that this was indeed purchased by Chain, given to Brown, and sold by Brown's children "in the 1920s."
"Regarding the gift of the paintings, I am wrong about them being a gift for her wedding. It may have been her wedding anniversary. But she definately recieved 3 paintings in 1890 from someone. I will look that up. I know that have it in writing and I will find it. Also it is documented that Molly Brown started her education in art in 1892. Even studying the piano. She meet with the author Oscar Wilde when he came to Leadville in 1892 and lectured in "The Ethics of Art". The Browns were at that time considered to be upper middle class, and not dirt poor."
Please also provide the full LACMA analysis, including letterhead, signature, analysis of medium, and analysis of canvas...
"This is the full analysis done by LACMA on the Painting. Please notice that the signature on the painting is indistinguishable from the background. That means that the siginature was signed when the painting was still wet, and does not jump off the canvas when a black light is
applied."
...as well as a certified appraiser's valuation of the painting and the likelihood of it being a genuine Van Gogh work.
"I have an appraisal from the auction house in 1990. I will have to dig
that out. It was done by Guy Rochard, a certified appraiser for all three Auction
houses."
Here's the pic attached to the email, which s/he says is the rest of the LACMA analysis (note no letterhead and no analysis of canvas or medium):
The seller admits s/he actually has NO idea whether this was a gift from Chain - only that Brown received 3 unidentified paintings in 1890 from somebody, and ignores my question regarding his/her claim that Chain and Brown were neighbors. (I have no idea what Brown purportedly beginning art studies two years after she was supposed to have received the painting has to do with the painting's provenance. It should be noted, however, that Wilde's American tour took place in 1882, not 1892 as the owner claims. I have found no indication that he ever visited Leadville, and 1892 Lady Windermere's Fan was staged and Salome was banned, both of which would have kept him on the right side of the Pond.)
Despite these admitted inconsistencies with the claims in the auction listing, the seller has NOT modified that listing to correct it, and on this board - within 24 hours of his/her email to me - stated that "I stand by all of the statements made by Old and Sold."
Although the owner claims on AW that "Everything I have on this painting is well documented," s/he cannot provide - even in response to a question from a prospective bidder, submitted through OAS - ANY sort of paper trail at all regarding the sale of this painting to or by any of the parties who purportedly owned it.
The LACMA analysis comes with NO letterhead, signature, or cover letter identifying its origin, and does not analyze the age and origin of the canvas and binding medium, both of which are critical to authenticating the work..
The seller says that an appraisal from "the auction house" [WHAT "auction house"?) was done in 1990 by "Guy Rochard, a certified appraiser for all three Auction houses" (WHAT "three auction houses"?) but that s/he will have to "dig out" that appraisal. Funny that it's nowhere at hand. Good thing I'm not an impatient bidder with $2M to burn, or s/he'd be SOL
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 4, 2000 10:13 AM ]
posted on September 4, 2000 10:01:29 AM new
I think it is just wonderful to have someone correct my spelling, my typo,s. Actually I should run through spell check. I guess I have lost many skills, you see I have a secretary that handles most correspondence. No excuses, I guess to sum it up is "I gots Mine." I can see this Internet chatting biz can get ugly. Some have the stomach, some don't. I just do not. To many nasty people involved, to much name calling, slander. This expends to much energy, all negative. There are a few posters that have entered into this chat that have posted there thoughts, asked their questions, and used a polite approach. Others call names, insult one another,and dissect messages for typo's and poor spelling.The bottom line is none of us are actually going to bid on this picture. If a person bids on this painting, I am sure he or she will have an expert look it over with a fine tooth comb. This actually is one of the owners stipulations to complete the sale.If someone purchases the painting it will ultimately be up to the purchaser to except this painting as it has been represented,along with an experts opinion It will be interesting to see if the piece is bid on.
I have looked all the information over for about the fourth time. I am trying to remain objective, and not read just select statements, but the whole statement. The information is compelling. It leaves me wondering is it or sent it?
abacaxi- In defense of the statement you made about the zinc. I quote from the McCrone Analysis " was Observe in some of the X-ray florescence spectra from Yellow Roses ,zinc was not identified in diffraction patterns." This leads one to believe zinc is present in some amounts in the Yellow Roses. This could explain the complaint Vincent made to Theo. He would not be able to send a painting that was not completely dry. We can't really judge how much of the referred to painting was wet?
What I got from the letter from the molly Brown House was that the owner met with the a representative from the museum to talk about donating a painting, and possibly a second painting ,a Van Gogh. Why would this representative meet with our owner if she did not have some actual knowledge that this person had these paintings?
posted on September 4, 2000 10:47:45 AM new
Lagoldie -
"Why would this representative meet with our owner if she did not have some actual knowledge that this person had these paintings?"
Because part of the job of a museum director is to meet with anyone who MIGHT have something of value to the museum. They validate AFTER meetings, but BEFORE accepting or making an offer on a painting.
If I were to call the local art museum and say I had a Charles M. Russell that belonged to my grandmother, I could get in to meet the director and discuss the possible purchase or donation and get a nice letter from him. He would not have to already know I had the painting and it was authentic.
And the letters from the labs specifies that "zinc was NOT identified in any of the diffraction patterns" ... which would be extremely unusual for a van Gogh, because he relied heavily on zinc white. All the white in the lab report was lead white.
I notice that oldandsold stands to collect a 5% buyer's premium. That certainly warps ones perspective a bit, leads to blind eyes being turned, etc.
, OwnerVGYR, tansri, and the other personalities attached to this alleged Vincent Van Gogh picture. Bring it on!
