posted on September 5, 2000 05:28:32 AM new
athena1365 -
Golly, shucks ma'am, twarn't nuthin' ... just a healthy dose of scepticism and the ability to use the search engine at AltaVista.com
I have no art degree whatsoever. But I know what I like
To demonstrate how his "analysis" is supposed to work, Bright compares Rock [sic] with Oak Treehttp://www.vangoghgallery.com/painting/p_0466.htm - which has impeccable provenance - with Sunflower and Oleander (the one he couldn't pay for because his money was tied up in Yellow Roses), and an unidentified "self portrait" (of which at least one has been proved a fake) and - you guessed it - Yellow Roses. He says his technique is valid because Sunflower and Oleander and Yellow Roses are "known" Van Gogh works, and the brush strokes are similar in all.
Unfortunately, the jury is out on whether his claims of authenticity are valid:
No provenance for these works is provided in the patent application; their authenticity is provided as a given. Interestingly, the only painting shown in full in the application is Rocks with Oak Tree; the only appearances S&O and YR make in the application illustrations is small portions showing only their brushstrokes.
Basically, this is like trying to prove paternity by claiming (without proof) that that B is the son of A, and since C bears a resemblance to B, C is A's daughter.
So...Bright has obtained a patent based, in no small part, on his using as an example of the efficacy of his method of "analysis", two paintings whose authenticity is in serious doubt.
Moreover, although Owner claims in the auction listing that
My grandmother passed away in the 1930's....[H]er oldest son inherited...the paintings that my grandmother had purchased from the estate of Molly Brown. In 1957...my uncle gave me...the collection of paintings that he had kept in storage all of those many years. I have had the Van Gogh ever since that time."
as late as 1997 it was Bright who claimed to own Yellow Roses (at least in part).
Is Bright still part owner, or was the painting sold at least once after 1957 - in direct contradiction to owner's claims in the auction listing?
If Bright is still part-owner, he has three reasons to insist Yellow Roses is authentic:
His own $ is tied up in the painting;
Since he's used his own "analysis" technique to "prove" it's by Van Gogh, his reputation is at stake; and
the discrediting of of his brush stroke "analysis" technique - despite any patent he may hold - will make it unlikely that curators will be breaking down his door for this "service".
Edited to add: Thanks for the compliment, athena, but anybody who's had practice dealing with a teenager's obfuscation, truth-stretching and red herrings could have done the same. So....a link to press info, please?
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 5, 2000 06:25 AM ]
posted on September 5, 2000 07:24:06 AM new
Did you ever think that the seller may have done this (the controversy) on purpose, and then advertise at a later date 'the painting that caused so much debate' .....just a thought
posted on September 5, 2000 07:49:57 AM new
Oh sure. But it'd be a bit like Lorena Bobbitt using her skills with cutlery to demonstrate her level of commitment in a relationship
We could also speculate that the seller is from a site in competition with OAS, and listed the painting on OAS as a means of discrediting it as a reputable place to buy and sell.
I can't believe that OAS colluded with the seller, unless it either (a) has a death wish, (b) thinks bidders are utterly witless, or (c) thought it would be a good publicity campaign (see Lorena Bobbitt reference above).
Personally, I think that - as is the case with most scam artists - seller thought he could make some claims and get away with it, and that folks like qualityantiques (who appears to sell on OAS), flowblue2, oldcollector, lagoldie and tightwad would rush to defend him against any skeptics, and their cry that "The seller said it, so it must be true, and who are YOU to question the seller's claims?" would bully the rest of us into silence.
Unfortunately, some of us bitter uneducated types with no life (who are probably all in wheelchairs) aren't polite enough to allow this sort of BS to stand unchallenged...abacaxi, brightid, pythOOn et al., it's been lots of fun. I've been stuck in bed for days (so I guess I haven't had a life lately) and this has been most entertaining.
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 5, 2000 07:51 AM ]
posted on September 5, 2000 04:49:54 PM new
TO: ALL
A special thanks for that info on the patent
I have added it to the provenence. Now one more, Can you find a patent that was given in 1887 to A.H. Abbott & Co. On July 19, 1887. for stretcher bars. Where were you when I needed you. You all claim to be so good now lets see if you can find this. And I do know for a fact some of you represent a auction site, one in Pensacola FL. "RIGHT" HCQ
posted on September 5, 2000 07:10:01 PM new
OwnerVGYR -
You STILL have not answered the questions about how the painting could have been a gift when the giver was DEAD before the recipient reached Denver.
YOur "provenance" seems to me to be a few unrelated facts, attached to the painting by wishful thinking and greed.
posted on September 5, 2000 07:23:40 PM new
There's an auction site? Here in Pensacola?
Why didn't anybody tell me I was one of its sinister agents?
Damn.
owner, how about you dig up the appraisal you said you'd provide, and explain how the painting could have been in your possession since 1957 (as stated in your listing) when in 1997 Bright claimed HE was the owner? And do tell us about the $9M 1997 sale that didn't go through...
posted on September 5, 2000 08:36:34 PM new
HCQ How does Ramona feel about Van Gogh? Is she available for an interview with the press? Would she consider joining the conversation here? Is she a good auctioneer?
Does she accept gifts from fans? Just thought I'd ask, she is lovely
posted on September 5, 2000 11:36:11 PM new
To:HCQ
As much as I dislike you,for all of your whoop di do cracks, you do love animals
so under all that hurt, there has to be a good person. I hate to say this but the house you live in is not considered to be a cottage, but a shanty house. Besides a cottage in Britain is a outhouse, public bathroom, etc.
Getting back to "the" painting, Most of you self apponted judges who really have no experiences with real art, And like to think that you can pick this painting apart because of errors in the provenence, You dont know everything about the provenence and that will be up to the buyer to see for themselves, Everything will be upfront with them. Only they and they will see it. I saw your site with all the lovely pictures,
however which one is of the pig?
posted on September 6, 2000 04:37:58 AM new
Well, overworked, I asked Ramona for her comments - all she'd say was "BUSY!!!". You see, it's pecan season, so she's already pretty occupied getting rid of nuts.
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 6, 2000 04:38 AM ]
posted on September 6, 2000 05:00:45 AM new
I plan to take advantage of the auction market for fine art. Due to some financial reverses suffered in the Beanie Baby sector, I am forced to offer a family heirloom. This is a work by a major artist. I will provide as much information as I feel appropriate. I will conjure up more for serious art buyers.
1. This artwork is by a major artist (name of artist available to bidders providing a $5000 bidding deposit (non-refundable).
2. This is a particularly rare work, since it does not resemble any of the artist's other work. This truly shows the wide ranging scope of their talent.
3. Scientific analysis has proven that this work and the artist's other known works have all been painted using paint brushes, further cementing the authenticity of this work.
4. X-ray analysis has determined that the numbers corresponding to the paint colors to be used do not always match, showing that the artist used their own creativity in completing this work.
In order to restrict this auction to those AW readers "in the know", I will list it as a "Fire-king Jade-ite Bowl (as is)", but you will all know what I am really selling.
posted on September 6, 2000 05:17:10 AM new
OwnerVGYR -
"You dont know everything about the provenence and that will be up to the buyer to see for themselves, Everything will be upfront with them. Only they and they will see it."
What you don't seem to realize is that NOBODY IS GOING TO PAY TWO MILLION BUCKS JUST FOR A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THE PROVENANCE YOU CLAIM TO HAVE.
In every high-end auction I am aware of, the provenance was printed as part of the auction catalogue AND available for public inspection before the auction began.
You claim to have photos of the Van Gofh in Molly's house ... but they are nowhere on the auction site as support your claimed provenance.
--------
"I hate to say this but the house you live in is not considered to be a cottage, but a shanty house. Besides a cottage in Britain is a outhouse, public bathroom, etc."
So when I toured that famous dead British playwright's "cottage" in that quaint little village on the Avon ... I PAID SEVEN QUID TO TAKE A TOUR OF A FRIGGING BATHROOM WITH A THATCHED ROOF? I shall forthwith and posthaste demand a refund for collecting quids under false pretenses. They told me he sat there, not shat there.
posted on September 6, 2000 05:42:20 AM new
OwnerVGYR
I am totally disgusted at your attitude,you sound more like a spoiled child than a professional you purport to be.
I hope people like myself who where truly interested in this painting will read this thread and the way you have handled yourself and stay as far away from you and your painting as you deserve.
All you have done is continued to throw insults and still failed to provide the information requested here.
I look at catalogues from auction houses all over Europe on a daily basis,I spent a good part of the day looking at catalogues put out by Christies for items I wish to buy as well as others.
It is very common for those places to include the provenace with the item description sometimes being extremely lenghty.
If I have a question I call them,fax,email what ever and give me the info I need and not play games.
Also to suggest that a COTTAGE is an outhouse is incredibly insulting as I was born and raised in England and I know of a lot of people who live in such.
I have a brother who lives in a Cottage,5 bedrooms,3 car garage,indoor swimming pool,
helicopter pad worth about 3/4 of a million.
And its called a cottage as that is what part of the house is,you know nothing of England.
To reffer to people as a pig is also insulting and childish as well.
posted on September 6, 2000 06:08:30 AM newOWNERVGYR
Your comments directed to HCQ are insulting and violate the AW Community Guidelines. There have been several nudges throughout this threads by Moderators to abide by the CGs and yet you persist with personal remarks.
I am issuing a formal warning and strongly suggest you acquaint yourself with the CGs before posting again. One more inappropriate comment and your posting privileges will be suspended.
posted on September 6, 2000 01:04:43 PM new
Dear Moderator Michelle:
It seems to me that this is not an open public forum like e-bay pretends it to be. I notice that all of the people that are aloud to make the nasty remarks about my painting and make personal insults to me are never censored. Because they all have auction sites on e-bay. And what right do have to censor anyone! If this is an open public forum like you say. How many times have they openly insulted me, AND YOU HAVE DONE NOTHING ABOUT THAT!!!
Imabrit: I know just as much as you do about Britain, A Cottage IS a public toilet!
Just like a fanny and a willy have different
meanings in Britain, Yes they do have Cottages in Britain that are lived in. But they are real cottages not shantys.
If this site is supposed to be a public forum
for people to make intelligent comments, Only you are therte to protect your own clients, who can dish it out but cant take it. You did not censor any person that uses you site. But if this is truly a public forum, then people have the right to say what they want, if they cant take the heat they should get out. I saw on the other sites where you threaten anyone who says something that you don't like about YOUR people, you try to censor them. I will say what ever I please,when I please, otherwise I will take E-bay to court for trying to deny me my right of free speech. And by the way I will talk to the owner of E-bay about your infringement on my free speech. Because I do know him personally.
If you intend not to give the American public their right to free speech, then you should take this site off. Or put in big letters on each of your sites FREE SPEECH DENIED.
posted on September 6, 2000 01:19:15 PM new
OwnerVGYR
No one but you have thrown insults at people here,all that you have been asked is to provide the information regarding this painting and fill in the missing gaps,which you seem to be avoiding.
As to knowing more about Britain that I do,I doubt,I have never in all my years back home ever heard anyone call a COTTAGE a LOO,or toilet.None of my family in its 900 years of British residency have ever heard of a Cottage being called a toilet.
As to not being able to take the heat,take a good look in a mirror its YOU,reason being questions are asked,you do not answer them but start calling people SILLY childish names.
MODERATOR PLEASE CLOSE THIS THREAD...OR HCQ ASK FOR IT TOO BE CLOSED..
posted on September 6, 2000 01:42:17 PM newOwnerVGYR,
Have to challenge your statements again. If you know the owner of eBay personally, then why is it that you don't know that he doesn't own or have any thing to do with this site?
posted on September 6, 2000 01:48:24 PM new
Oh no, please DON'T close this thread!
Frankly I find it quite flattering that, rather than provide any documentation to back up his claims about this painting and refute my assertions that those claims are baseless, owner instead resorts to ad hominem remarks - and more threats of litigation.
Anyway, my research isn't done yet
I find it hilarious that owner wants to include Bright's patent information among his "provenance", when at least one of the paintings Bright used to demonstrate his technique is indeed "known" - as a forgery. From the 1997 Sacramento Bee article about "Sunflowers and Oleander":
[i]"In 1968 the painting was roundly rejected by an expert at the influential Stichting Institute in Amsterdam. In 1990, when a Delta couple representing the Rudolphs took the painting to the van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam, they too came away with a firm no.
An endorsement from the van Gogh Museum is tantamount to total acceptance by most of the art world, including the major auction houses. But in a telephone interview last month, a museum official reasserted its earlier negative assessment.
"A number of people from Sacramento have inquired about this painting over the past couple of years," said Martina Kilborn, secretary of collections for the museum, "and our answer has always been the same. We have no interest in this painting, and no interest in speaking to anyone about it."[/i]
Well, I guess that in light of owner'sother claims about the painting, Bright's hideously flawed "technique" looks pretty rosy. Wonder what the USPTO would say if they knew Bright's methodology was not only flawed, but that the painting was known NOT to be a Van Gogh after Bright filed his patent application? Hmm.
Anyway, so far I've found out that none of the "Big Three" - the American Society of Appraisers, the Appraisal Association of America, and the International Society of Appraisers - have any Rochard, Guy or Gui, among their certified members.
I did find out, from the Collections department at Amsterdam's Van Gogh museum, that they will provide a FREE initial appraisal of any work of art upon receipt of "an authentication request and a good quality colour photograph" (they don't do it over the internet). Odd that for all his knowledge about art, owner never went to this very minimal trouble to have what is considered a premier source take a look at his "priceless" painting.
Edited to add: Oh damn. Now you've gone and suspended him, and he won't be able to make any more outrageous claims for us to explode. Moderator, please reconsider your decision. I'm serious. Shutting up owner will only keep him from demonstrating further how - well, let's be kind and say questionable - his claims are.
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 6, 2000 01:52 PM ]
posted on September 6, 2000 10:23:01 PM new
Hmm ...
More stuff has been added to the provenance page. Click back and forth between the REAL Van Gogh and the supposedly owned by Molly Brown painting. Notice the vibrant colors of the Van Gogh, and the lifeless tones of the other.
Page 3 of the FACL conservation report indicates the painting has been schlepped around the marketplace since 1988, as they indicate that conservation should happen inn time for the intended sale.
************
HCQ - you must have been hitting close to the sensitive areas with that research, my dear.
And give Ramona a scritch for me.
posted on September 6, 2000 10:49:56 PM new
I can't believe I almost missed seeing this "priceless" thread. HCQ - Bravo for your usual quick wit and "just the facts." Gotta love it!
But, my favorite laughing so hard I'm crying line goes to abacaxi for his "They told me he sat there, not shat there."
posted on September 8, 2000 04:38:19 PM new
Just heard from the the director of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) Conservation Department.
The assistant to the Director says there is no record the painting was ever examined by LACMA.
She then switched me to Dr. Peter Meyers, who was a member of that department in 1988 when owner claims the LACMA pigment analysis was done. Dr. Meyers says definitively that LACMA never did a pigment analysis of "Yellow Roses". It is his recollection that the analysis was freelance work done by one of the conservators on a private basis. He says Museum conservators are permitted to perform such analyses on their own time, but it is strictly against Museum policy for them to imply in any way that the analysis was done under the purview of LACMA.
Off the record, the Department is not at all happy about having its name attached to the painting, describing any representation that the analysis was done by LACMA as "strongly misleading."
Two letters from Van Gogh to his brother around the time of Mauve's death address the paints and canvases Van Gogh was using. From these letters and from a definitive analysis of another painting, it's clear that Van Gogh's habit was to use commercially-prepared canvas:
The canvas was commercially sized (coated with animal glue) and primed with a lead-white based ground. The composition of the priming corresponds to that of other analysed works of the same period by Van Gogh. Vincent's letters inform us that he regularly obtained 5 or 10m rolls of this pre-primed canvas from Theo, who purchased it from the shop ‘Tasset et l'Hôte' in Paris.
You will please ask old Tasset or old l'Hôte his absolutely lowest price for 10 yards of his canvas prepared with plaster or absorbent....Then - at once if possible - the actual price, to me, of 10 yards of the absorbent canvas, please. The colour merchant here made me absorbent canvas, but he is so slow about it that I decided to have it sent from Paris or Marseilles.
The FACL analysis, however, notes that "The fabric is primed to the edge on right and top tacking edges, partially primed along left."
How could a canvas cut from a roll that had been commercially prepared lack priming along one edge?
I also did a comparison of the pigments listed for "Yellow Roses" in the FACL analysis with the list of paints Vincent asked Theo to purchase in his 4 April 1888 letter - about the time "Yellow Roses" is supposed to have been done.
Of the 10 pigments listed in each of the analysis and the letter, only one - emerald green - appears in both lists:
Note also the significant difference in types of white paint.
Oh, and the US Patent Office said that it accepts data supplied in patent applications as a "given" - IOW, the fact that Bright received a patent for his "analysis" technique is no proof that the technique actually works, and the USPTO does not determine whether the methodology used (in this case, using paintings NOT definitively attributed to Van Gogh) was flawed or "fudged". It did say, however, that if he litigates at any point for patent infringement, all the defendant has to do is prove that his methodology is flawed and Bright loses his laswuit and his patent.
That's all for tonight, folks.
abacaxi - have had tons of fun with you on this. Mona has been scritched in your behalf, and says "bwuh wuuh wuuh", which in my best translation is "same to you."
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 8, 2000 04:57 PM ]
posted on September 8, 2000 06:10:46 PM new
re. "How could a canvas cut from a roll that had been commercially prepared lack priming along one edge?" - I think such could occur at edge or end.
"Where the heck is the media on this one? They jumped all over the Diebenkorn fiasco. Sheesh" - Why should media be interested in a small site offering an obvious fake? ...And no one bidding, where's the surprise or interest?
posted on September 8, 2000 08:25:57 PM newfigmente - I'd thought of that too, except for an interesting note in the Van Gogh Museum report. In authenticated Van Gogh paintings where the canvas was cut from the side of the canvas, something called "primary cusping" is evident, a result of the commercial priming process:
‘Primary cusps' are pronounced, scalloped weave deformations, formed where the roll of canvas was tacked and tensioned on a commercial priming frame. This primary cusping down one side of the picture is seen in many Saint-Rémy canvases by Van Gogh that were cut from the side of the pre-primed roll (as opposed to the middle).
IOW, if the unprimed edge of "Yellow Roses" is that way because it came from the edge of the preprimed canvas, that edge should show "primary cusping."
But no such cusping is noted in the FACL report; the only distortion noted is "cupping" (no "s" ) in the lower right corner "due to handling" and "quilting" as a result of "distortions in the paint layers".
Moreover, the only priming noted in the FACL report is white gesso, while Van Gogh's commercially-prepared canvases - particularly those from Tasset et L'Hote, whom Van Gogh mentions in his 4/9 letter, were first sized with animal glue before the "lead-white" primer was applied. (I see no mention of animal-glue sizing in the FACL report.
I think the whole thing might be newsworthy not because it's a questionable Van Gogh, but because the whole story - and the owner's reaction to questions regarding his claims - are so utterly wacky. Why would a fledgling auction site risk featuring something like this, when (as one of the principals admitted to me in an email) they are "getting quite a bit of heat" over it? What would possess anybody to make such outrageous claims and conflicting statements when two rank amateurs (okay to say that, abacaxi?), using information available on the net, quickly demonstrated those claims (and provenance) were questionable at best? What's the Tom Bright connection with this painting today (he claimed to be an owner of the painting in 1997)? I'd still like to know the answers to those questions
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 8, 2000 08:29 PM ]
posted on September 9, 2000 06:31:31 AM new
HCQ -
"rank amateurs"! I'm a pro at sifting through bull-feathers looking for real data, and spotting discrepancies in the claims of different documents is what I do all day.
Adrian -
Good point about putting eBay on the map with a Van Gogh auction. But with friends like that, who needs enemies?
