posted on September 4, 2000 01:31:26 PM new
TO HARTCOTTAGEQUILT:
The year that Brown met Oscar Wilde was 1882
not 1892.
And as for your posing as a prospective bidder, rthat is Illegal, I know what auction site you represent. Your ranting and raving about this painting is evident,
Your extreme jeolousy betrays your impartiality. If you continue to call this painting a fake, you will be subject to a lawsuit along with your boss too! The information for this piece is solid and any buyer will have all of that. Not the likes of you and your auction site, Leigh and Val And yes, the Molly Brown museum has travled over 1500 miles just to see this painting. And yes, Molly Brown lived in Leadville in 1890, before they struck gold, but she wanted to improve her self, way back in 1882, and she had to travel to Denver. And she did know
Helen Chain, How many book stores and art gallerys do you think existed in Denver back in 1882? Or Leadville.
And by the way they dont put stickers on the back of a oil painting, they put them on the back of the frame. And the name is Gui Rochard, and the auction houses are Christies,Sothebys and Butterfield and Butterfield.
posted on September 4, 2000 02:08:07 PM new
OwnerVGYR,
It is a violation of the AuctionWatch Community Guidelines to harass, threaten, or intimidate another member. I urge you to familiarize yourself with the Community Guidelines before you post again.
posted on September 4, 2000 02:22:31 PM new
Well, this thread inspired me to register and add my 2c rather than simply lurking. I have virtually zero relevant background in art as such, but have been involved in areas involving fossils, gemstones, and collector stamps, all areas which have occasional controversies involving authenticity and value.
The theme here that I find most striking is the manner in which the reputed owner of this painting and his/her friends or defenders seem to be avoiding answering many direct questions and trying to change the subject(s). To make responding to questions dependent on answering a trivia quiz of sorts is simply rinky-dink to an extreme, and comes across to me as screaming that something is being concealed.
I would feel much better about accuracy if they in fact WERE acknowledging various difficulties in the history, analysis, and appearance of this painting. In real estate transactions, for example, the agent will actively disclose to a prospective buyer, as part of the due diligence process, material information (such as zoning, street widening plans, title doubts, etc) that the owner he's representing might prefer not be told to the buyer. I would be interested to hear from other participants with "real" knowledge of art auctions here if this would be the case with a 'big" auction house such as Sotheby's, also, in the case of paintings like this? The online auction service here, like eBay, seems to take the "only a venue" position, so does the owner of this painting have a known and sheltered ability to avoid disclosures and a more balanced presentation which a well-known "live" auction service would feel obliged to make on their behalf?
To hear buzz that there's more documentation (what has been said? brush-stroke analyses? possibility of photographs of the painting hanging in Molly Brown's house?) but that they can only be revealed after the auction is complete and a bid has been made, and only to the buyer, leads me to the image of a former President waving his "V"-forming fingers in the air and yelling "I have a (secret) plan!"
Reading back through the various "defenders'" postings after they appeared on page 2 and subsequently, I guess I agree with other posters who've said it seems likely that several of them are the same person. I guess the idea now occurs to me that what we might have here is a painting owner whose "prize Van Gogh" was rejected by one or more of these monopolistic auction houses in the recent past?
Too much! No, I'm not part of any conspiracy. Just another cybergeek who needs to get a life, I guess !
posted on September 4, 2000 02:24:27 PM new
OwnerVGYR -
It is certainly legit to pretend to be a buyer to flush out facts a seller is unwilling to reveal. In the art world it happens frequently. And HCQ flushed some discrepancies out for the world to see. Sorry about that, but if it had not been her, it would have been me.
What part of "if you want to sell it, show your provenance UP FRONT" do you fail to understand? This is not a poker game, and expecting someone to call your bluff and fork over $2,000,000 just to see what you consider provenance is not going to fly.
Time to put ALL cards on the table:
You said there are photos of the paniting in Molly's house. Scans please.
You said there is proof of the friendship between Molly and Helen Chain. Documents please.
posted on September 4, 2000 03:09:35 PM new
From owner's email to me:
[Molly Brown] 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."
I can find NO evidence that Wilde visited "Leadville in 1892 and lecture in "The Ethics of Art." He did not, as far as I can tell from his itinerary, ever visit Leadville, even in 1882 when he DID tour North America. Please provide documentation to support your claim.
but she wanted to improve her self, way back in 1882, and she had to travel to Denver.
(The following dates are from the Brown Museum site.) In 1882, Maggie was 15 years old, living in Hannibal, MO, and had been working for 2 years, first at a tobacco factory and then as a hotel waitress (where she claimed to have met Mark Twain). Molly Brown didn't make the 911-mile move to Leadville until 1886. Surely you don't propose that she commuted from Hannibal to Denver for piano lessons?
In 1886, Molly and her brother Daniel joined their elder sister and brother-in-law in Leadville(they had moved there in 1883.) The brother-in-law was a blacksmith; Danile found work as a miner, and Maggie was a seamstress in a dry-goods store. Also in 1886, J.J. Brown arrived in Leadville and obtained work as a miner, then shift boss and timberman. At their wedding the best man was a barber, and the bridesmaid was a housemaid; their house was a 2-room log cabin. Even assuming that you consider blacksmiths, miners, seamstresses, barbers, and housemaids "upper middle class", the "Browns" weren't a couple until 1886, well after you claim Molly met Wilde.
I find your threats - and your understanding of the law - as desperate and hilarious as the rest of your posts. All I have done is point out the increasingly glaring conflicts between your claims and documented evidence from numerous sources, and asked that you provide simple documents such as bills of sale and appraisals. I'd be amused to learn which auction site you think I "represent,", and who my "boss" is.
Please also note that the spelling of the appraiser's name as "Guy" was taken directly from your email to me. Why you find it necessary to positively spit the names of the auction houses is anybody's guess, since you, not I, are the one who omitted them from your email.
I understand this is painful for you; but you could avoid all these arguments were you merely to provide documentary evidence - IOW, a paper trail - showing that (a) Brown owned the painting, (b) Chain gave it to her in 1890; (c) it was purchased from the Browns; (d) that any competent laboratory states that the medium and canvas are identical to those known to have been used by Van Gogh; and (e) that any competent, certified appraiser knowledgeable in Late Impressionism and Van Gogh in particular can state with any degree of certainty that this painting is indeed by Vincent Van Gogh.
hmm....just noticed that the photo of the Chain & Hardys label is NOT a photo of the painting being offered. Why do you show a photograph of another work as "provenance"?
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 4, 2000 03:42 PM ]
posted on September 4, 2000 03:47:05 PM new
HCQ -
Wilde DID make it to Leadville in 1882, or at least wrote about it (search for the three words together and his comments on Leadville pop up), although he was not much for mingling with the natives while on tour.
posted on September 4, 2000 03:54:16 PM new
Thanks for the pointer, abacaxi.
Still doesn't explain:
How Molly Brown met him in Leadville in 1882 when she was living and working in Hannibal until 1886;
why the owner of this painting, in an email to a prospective bidder, would state that "Molly Brown started her education in art in 1892" and that "She meet with the author Oscar Wilde when he came to Leadville in 1892 and lectured in 'The Ethics of Art'", and a few hours later claim that the date for BOTH these events was 10 years later;
and most importantly, what meeting Wilde has to do with the authenticity of this painting. If she met him in 1892, did he verify the authenticity of the work? (He was a writer and aesthete, not a painter or art historian.) If she met him in 1882, he couldn't have seen the painting because according to the owner, it hadn't been painted yet/.
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 4, 2000 03:59 PM ]
posted on September 4, 2000 04:06:57 PM new
HCQ - You know what's wrong with us? We keep letting these niggling little facts get in the way of a good story.
posted on September 4, 2000 04:12:53 PM new
TO; Moderator PATAYLOR:
I have been advised that HARTCOTTAGEQUILT violated the Insider Trading Act. To Wit:
Anyone who uses the wires in any form whatsoever to gain insider information, to use for their own benefit, be it for profit
or advantage over a competitor, or hold an individual up to ridicule, or gain an advantage is Guilty of a crime.
Also I made no threats to HCQ I found out who they are and what their aim really is.
My attorney is going to file a complaint with the FTC tomorrow, against the HCQ people
he feels that they crossed the line when they
pretended to be a buyer in order to get information, which would only be given to a Real prospective buyer. Anyway I'll let him handle that matter.
posted on September 4, 2000 04:28:55 PM new
OwnerVGYR -
Nice try, but the "Insider Trading Act" only applies to stocks and bonds, not paintings.
Here's a definition from a stockbrokers site ... "Insider Trading And Securities Fraud Enforcement Act Of 1988: Legislation that defines what constitutes the illicit use of nonpublic information in making securities trades and the liabilities and penalties that apply." It's H.R.5133
Public Law: 100-704 (11/19/88)
As there are no securities, just a painting with a provenance that neither stands up to casual scrutiny nor resembles anything Van Gogh ever painted, good luck with the law suit.
posted on September 4, 2000 04:29:18 PM new
OwnerVGYR
The info you stated regarding the law relates to stocks not an auction.
I buy items at auctions all over the World on a weekly basis.I email the various auction houses about the items in question to learn more about them.Some I do as a matter of interest others I do intentionally to bid on and to gain fair advantage over the other bidders who may not know the right questions to ask.
I think for someone who wants to sell a painting that your answers are both childish
and of no value at all.Instead of using this as an opportunity to PROVE without shadow of a doubt that the painting is authentic you have done nothing but play with people who have asked serious questions about this item.You could have directed potential bidders to this thread letting them know that all pertinent information has been made available here.
I have a very wealthy relative whom I am very close too,they are very interested in the items I buy and sell and are always looking for an item with a good investment potential.
They know nothing of antiques but I do and they trust my judgement,I had every intention of telling them about this painting etc etc etc.
But a lot of good questions have been raised that need to be answered but you have not done so or shown any willingness to do so.
You mention pictures that show this painting being the house in question and other documents too but nothing has been presented.Most of the story fails to match up and all we here are words and no proof.
I would have liked to have seen what the other individual whom was associated with the major auction houses you made reff too had to say on this painting.If this person is genuine and I can check my sources at the auction houses you mention to verify this is so.There input should be of major importance and should be made available to all who ask.
You have no idea as to who also reads this thread maybe other potential bidders would have shown interest.But I am sure from what they would have read here that they would no longer be interested in this item.
I am no longer interested in this item as it does seem you are trying to hide something.There are too many questions left outstanding.
posted on September 4, 2000 04:48:00 PM new
...and who, owner, "are" HartCottageQuilts and what is "their" aim, aside from selling a few quilts and asking a few questions about your painting?
posted on September 4, 2000 06:00:57 PM new
To: IMABRIT,
Regarding HCQ it would be all right to find out certain things if you are truly just interested in finding out something for yourself, but if you are a competitor, but when you represent another auction site and delibertly set out to get insider information
in order to destroy a competitors advantage and to use it to try to get rid of the competitor. by trying to destroy their reputation. And the Insider Trading Act does include this type of law not just stocks and bonds. And there is also the Industrial Espinoge Act too. Anyway We
will see what the FTC says tomorrow.
posted on September 4, 2000 06:13:20 PM new
WOW the fur is flying, take a few days off and I miss all the fun, so HCQ is another auction site. I knew it.
posted on September 4, 2000 06:14:20 PM new
OwnerVGYR -
"when you represent another auction site" ... where did you get the idea that ANY of us "represent" another auction site.
I am well acquainted with both the Insider Trading Act and the Industrial Espionage act because I work with high tech industries on corporate confidential projects. Asking questions about the provenance of a painting does not fall into the scope of either act.
So where is the ABSOLUTE PROOF that the painting belonged to Molly Brown? Such as the photos of it in her house?
posted on September 4, 2000 06:16:47 PM new
Please note that the questions I asked in my email to you were identical to those I've posted here. The only thing different was your answers.
Which auction site do I represent?
How could your reputation be destroyed by the publication of your own answers to very basic questions regarding your claims regarding Chain and Brown - assuming, of course, your answers were truthful and consistent with what you voluntarily stated in the auction and on this board?
How is the provenance of this painting "insider information"? Why should it be kept secret?
Why do you persist in resorting to these red herrings, rather than simply providing the documentation you insist you have regarding provenance?
What documentation do you have that I represent an auction site in competition with OAS? Assuming I did, how could you file a claim if they are the injured party? Or do you claim that I am an art dealer who also has a Van Gogh for sale and am sharing "insider information" (ROTFLMAO) to scare bidders away from you and toward me? If so, how would posting information YOU provided scare bidders away from your auction?
Edited to add: abacaxi I nearly PMP laughing when I read the "insider trading" charge, as I worked for some years assisting in the legal defense of brokers accused of insider trading and other misconduct.
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 4, 2000 06:21 PM ]
posted on September 4, 2000 06:25:47 PM new
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If this seller is for real we have a classic, textbook example of how NOT to do business.
This "seller" (and I use the term loosely) wants people to bid $2 million + on a painting that has a provenance with so many holes that it resembles a piece of swiss cheese.
He will give information only if people pass a "pop quiz"....god, I'm laughing so hard my sides ache!
Now, maybe if this were a $2 dodad someone would take the chance and win the item so they can then see the "secret" proof that it is what the seller claims it is...but who the heck will pop for a $2 million "chance" to view the "secrets" this seller has.
And now he is going to report HCQ to the FTC!!
Oh please, make him stop...it's not fair to make me laugh so hard! My bladder is fighting a losing battle here!
HCQ..shame on you for having an auction site and not letting the rest of us know about it
Seller..I think you need to look more carefully at the calender...this is NOT April 1st!
[ edited by amy on Sep 4, 2000 06:28 PM ]
posted on September 4, 2000 09:32:32 PM new
Just popped in to see what all the fuss was about, and it's been quite entertaining!
Did anyone notice the post early-on that claimed that DNA would prove authenticity because Van Gogh TOUCHED the painting? ROFLMAO!!
Well, if nothing else, all previous thoughts of giving oldandsold a try have evaporated. What we don't need is another auction site that's "only a venue" -- with a vengeance.
posted on September 4, 2000 10:12:58 PM new
P.S. Sorry I'll have to miss all the action I'm leaving for home in Kaula Lampur Malaysia
Back in 9 months.
posted on September 4, 2000 10:18:05 PM new
This has become positively surreal. Seller, if you can't take the heat here, you really should stay out of the auction business. Any appraiser is going to be a LOT more critical than we are, and any buyer you play your little games with is going to withdraw their bid pretty darn quick. Threatening HCQ is cowardly and ignorant since it's obvious to everyone but you that there is no basis for the charge. You've been put in a corner and made to look silly (which you brought entirely on yourself with your little riddles and your red herring answers). I suggest you take your fake Van Gogh and go play somewhere else where your threats and bullying might fool people. It's not going to fly here.
posted on September 4, 2000 10:25:07 PM new
TightwadG2,
I have deleted one of your posts because it contained personally identifying information about an AuctionWatch member, which is a serious violation of the Community Guidelines.
This is a formal warning. If you continue to post in this vein your posting privileges will be in jeopardy.
Please do not ignore this warning. You are one post away from suspension.
posted on September 5, 2000 01:29:59 AM new
Read all of the information using the link below. Also follow the links on that page. There are some statements made in the court documents that are almost identicle to some profered by the parties with a vested interest that are posting here.
It appears that the painting was owned by a T. James Bright during 1997 and he hadn't collected on a sale of the picture for 9 million bucks. This was in connection with his un-deposited bid on another disputed Van Gogh at a bankruptcy sale.
posted on September 5, 2000 03:42:42 AM new
I'm not the smartest person in the world, my wife will validate that to any that wish to inquire. But if I had a Van Gogh to auction off I'd probably not want to use an online auction, but if I did I'd go with eBay for the exposure I'd get. Now if I can figure that out then it really makes me question why someone else wouldn't do the same.
Its all moot anyway, I'm sure that anyone that can afford to pay $2,000,000.00 for something to cover a stain on the wall can also afford an expert to investigate the painting.
My wife corrected the spelling, see I told you...
[ edited by uaru on Sep 5, 2000 03:50 AM ]
posted on September 5, 2000 04:33:27 AM new
Good find, noshill!
(from the Maine Antiques Digest article) The supposed buyer, bidding [on "Sunflowers and Oleanders"] over the phone, was T. James Bright, a retired artist and paintings conservator who had done a brush mark analysis of the picture. The only trouble was that Bright had until 5 p.m. Wednesday July 23 to get the money to the court and he didn't make the deadline....Bright told newspapers he couldn't come up with the money in time because his funds were tied up in another van Gogh, Yellow Roses, which he had just sold for $9 million but hadn't yet received the funds for.
Gee, I wonder why he couldn't close the $9M 1997 deal? Fascinating that one of the "analyses" of "Yellow Roses" flaunted by owner was done by an investor in "Yellow Roses." Hmmm....no vested interest from that quarter in proving it's authentic...
posted on September 5, 2000 04:46:41 AM newnoshill, thanks for that link, it provided my first laugh of the day, and maybe my best depending on how the day goes.
...a kiwi and almond farmer, told the Sacramento Bee that she was convinced of the painting's authenticity, partly through "psychic means."
Husband, "Honey, I think we need to have this investigated by an expert."
Wife, "Relax sweetheart, I just got off the phone with 'Pychic Network Friends' we're covered."
posted on September 5, 2000 05:12:23 AM new
As an art historian [with a PhD ], I have nothing more to add to this thread other than to say HartCottageQuilts, noshill, pyth00n, brighid868, and abacaxi have demonstrated the most amazing, tenacious research skills in this matter! I am honestly and thoroughly impressed.
!
I nearly PMP laughing when I read the "insider trading" charge, as I worked for some years assisting in the legal defense of brokers accused of insider trading and other misconduct.
