posted on September 11, 2000 05:06:12 AM newfountainhouse, you actually NEED reminding? I don't think so. I hope not.
Thanks for the kudos, but heck, this stuff was hiding in plain sight. All it took was a couple people "without lives" and a decent search engine.
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 11, 2000 05:07 AM ]
posted on September 11, 2000 09:14:37 AM new
I just wanted to say thanks for all of the research you folks did on the fake Van Gogh.The posts made by the owner of the painting and by the founder of OAS sound like someting my ten year old would make up when caught in a lie.I would never buy or sell anything at OAS after this.
posted on September 11, 2000 09:59:18 AM new
Just want y'all to know I've come back and read everything that's transpired in the last 10 days since my first post, and I'm sitting here dazed and stunned (dazed from staying up all night reading about the life and times of Maggie Brown and all the fake Van Goghs on the market....stunned at everything I've just finished reading in this thread).
Guess I've just joined the June Allyson/Depends crowd, too, because PMP was INEVITABLE several times over the last few hours (never will I use the word "cottage" again without thinking of this thread!!!!!!!).
I don't know which is the most REMARKABLE FACT in all of this:
1) That y'all have the TIME and TENACITY to research all the seller's claims with absolutely no intention of buying the painting as a motive, but just to satisfy your own curiosity (and possibly "right" a "wrong" that needs to be addressed).
2) That RESEARCHING THE FACTS was so relatively EASY TO DO. Just think how much harder it would have been to disprove the provenance 20 years ago, before the internet and a WHOLE WORLD OF KNOWLEDGE was available to everyone with just the few clicks of a mouse!!!!!!!!!
3) That scammers, immature, unpolished and lacking in common sense (not to mention intelligence) are able to FIND VICTIMS so willing to be taken in (not just this "Van Gogh", but the other one, too).
4) That an internet auction site TRYING TO GET OFF THE GROUND would leave themselves wide open for ridicule and condemnation by promoting something so high-profile without verifying authenticity beforehand. How would eBay look if their Honus Wagner card had been a FAKE after all their hype about the sale??????
5) That HartCottageQuiltsnot only has a pet pig named Ramona, but that she went to school with the Dalai Lama (in Pensacola, maybe???), and never told anyone about it until now!!!!!!!
By the way, does anyone have the URL to the auction for pocket lint??? I seem to have missed that one!!!!!!!!!
posted on September 11, 2000 10:20:56 AM newgranee, so nice to see we've entertained you.
Please note, however, that I didn't say I "was" schoolmates with the Dalai Lama, but that I "may have been". The analogy was merely that - an analogy, as in "I may be able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, but that doesn't mean Kryptonite has any effect on me."
I do think the DL's pretty cool, however, and he does wear my favorite color
The principal of OAS with whom I've corresponded in the past now wants to talk by phone. I told her that, as phone conversations are so often misconstrued afterward, becoming a game of "he said - she said," that it'd be best if we corresponded by email, and that I'd certainly be available to respond to any she sent.
One of the things she sent me yesterday was the name of the party who performed the "LACMA pigment analysis," which the owner claims is Dr. John Twilley". Indeed, LACMA says Twilley was an employee of LACMA, and did perform the pigment analysis. However, Dr. Meyers, then-head of the Department and Twilley's superior and direct supervisor, said that under no circumstances did Twilley perform the analysis under the Departments aegis or with its expertise or endorsement, and that any such representation is misleading. It was a private analysis and should be viewed as such, by someone who, at that time at least, did not have a Ph.D and therefore should not be addressed as "Dr.".
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 11, 2000 10:22 AM ]
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 12, 2000 05:57 AM ]
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 12, 2000 05:58 AM ]
posted on September 11, 2000 10:35:56 AM newHartCottageQuilts,
I fully understood that you didn't MEAN you went to school with him; I was trying to be funny....guess my idea of HUMOR is strained at the moment (need sleep after this all-nighter).
If you get email correspondence from OAS about this auction, please ask their permission to POST IT HERE. I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd like to see their OFFICIAL comments.
I'd also like to see what John Twilley has to say at this point, since he's the fall guy now for the pigment analysis.
posted on September 11, 2000 11:48:44 AM new
Well, I have followed this post off and on. I have been impressed with all the "sleuthing" and have even followed through on some of the linked info and learned a thing or two about art. BUT I still can't understand all the "fury".
IMHO-I DO NOT believe the owner/seller??? of this painting has SET OUT TO DEFRAUD THE UNSUSPECTING PUBLIC. I would imagine this auction would be of little more than passing interest to anyone, NOT in the market for a VG.
I have discovered from following all those links ya'll furnished, that NOT even the experts can all agree on what "is" and what "is not" a Van Gogh. There are museums which have taken paintings off view because they are not sure if they are genuine or not. I think that funny. IF THESE GUYS DON'T KNOW-THEN WHO DOES???
I also thought it was humorous that when the big stink was going on about the 30 supposed "fakes" being offered by Wackner (did I get the name right???)they used a painting they KNEW was authentic to compare to all those they BELIEVED were fakes and sure enough, THEY DID NOT MATCH. Now what is funny about this is that years later the painting they used as the DETERMINING factor as to the others being fakes, was itself DECLARED A FAKE!!!! Sure wish I had a couple of those original "fakes" in my attic, I would pull them out and have them re-looked at THAT'S for sure!
What is obvious to me is:
1. The owner of the painting BELIEVES they have an original painting.
2. They decided to offer it for sale.
3. Any art knowledgeable, POTENTIAL bidder will examine this as thoroughly as people here did.
4. If an interested party DOES not want to gamble $millions on this painting THEN THEY WON'T.
Now, what puzzles me most, is why the hostility to OAS? I dare say eBay has had more than it's share of fakes, frauds, rip-offs and out-n-out scams, but I don't see everyone yelling: "Remind ME not to EVER buy anything from THAT site!" This seems a little harsh to me. Maybe I'm missing something here????
Not to take anything away from all those who so skillfully dissected this painting's "pedigree" to pieces, BUT you have NOT PROVED THIS IS A FAKE. You can believe it is a fake, you can dig up enough information to show that it could be a FAKE, maybe even PROBABLY is a fake, but you still have not ACTUALLY shown it to BE a fake, so how can you declare it IS A FAKE??? The information provided by the seller does no more to PROVE the painting authentic than all your information does to PROVE it isn't. All you have PROVEN is that the INFORMATION is INCORRECT. Nothing more or nothing less.
Declaring this painting fake without actually exaimining it in person is a little hastey don't you think?
posted on September 11, 2000 12:36:05 PM new
Now what? Me, I re-read the Monty Python skit that I had in mind when I selected a handle to login here for this thread. What else but that classic that was voted by "Time" as second only to "Who's On First" as the best of this century.
Near with tears running down my face I visualize a few feathers floating in the air as the stiff bird is whacked against the shop counter, "THIS is an EX parrot!" .. "No, no, he's only sleeping, beautiful plumage, the Norwegian Blue!"
I do agree there are dangers of "lynch mob mentality" developing. Group peer pressure cuts both ways; critics are tempted to one-up each other in situations like this and may well get carried away in their certitude.
Snort. But, I personally will choose to associate with *critical* group-thinkers as opposed to UNcritical flocks who I can imagine twirling psychicly-charged crystal pendulums around paintings in S. California to determine their validity and fleeing from critical analysis with cries of "negative vibes, hostility oh my oh my!" I don't doubt for a second that "owner" is quite sincere in his opinions. . .. I just attach very little importance or value to such sincerity if not backed up by hard data and answers to subsequent questions.
posted on September 11, 2000 12:42:15 PM newThe owner of the painting BELIEVES they have an original painting.
Sorry, but that is naive. It doesn't matter what they "think" they own. In the art world, if you claim a painting is a Van Gogh, then you had better damn well be able to prove with certainity that it is a Van Gogh. Otherwise, the proper categorization would be "attributed to Van Gogh." Additionally, no Van Gogh expert has been put forth as also believing this is a Van Gogh, not in any of the "evidence" offered by the owner.
BUT you have NOT PROVED THIS IS A FAKE.
No, but it has certainly been proven that the provenence proffered by the owner doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Why would anyone think someone who blindly ignores basic factual data is innocently auctioning off a painting by a famous master??
posted on September 11, 2000 01:04:48 PM new
"if you claim a painting is a Van Gogh, then you had better damn well be able to prove with certainity that it is a Van Gogh."
By that same token: if you are going to claim a painting is a FAKE, then you had better damn well be able to prove with certainity that it is NOT a Van Gogh."
Works both ways don't you think? I think I did not make myself clear so I will try one more time---Why is everyone so hostile about this issue and willing to place themselves in a position of posible liability by claiming THIS IS OBVIOUSLY A FAKE!!!!! IF YOU BOTHER READING ALL THOSE LINKS PROVIDED YOU WILL SOON SEE THAT EVEN THE EXPERTS DO NOT AGREE ON WHAT IS AND IS NOT A VAN GOGH.
Athena1365-I do not feel I am being naive. I was just wondering why this sellers actions are preceived as "fraud" and not just stupid.
Who is this person really trying to defraud? Certainly NOT an art expert, wouldn't get the chance to do that would they????
If not the art expert, then the 'wanna be' art collector who just happens to have an extra several $$$$million burning a hole in his pocket????
EXACTLY WHY IS THIS SUCH A BIG DEAL????? Yes I am shouting here (sorry), because nobody has answered my question yet and I have asked 3 seperate times. I only see the whole issue as mildly amusing and good for a chuckle. I do not see it as the "crime of the century". Educate me so I don't remain "naive" & "clueless" PLEASE!!!!!
posted on September 11, 2000 01:28:41 PM new
Hostility to OAS? Where? As a matter of fact, I've voiced my concern here and to OAS regarding the credibility risk they're taking in continuing to list this auction. Their response? "Oh well. We're new and doing the best we can." What, to dig themselves an early grave?
Hostility to the seller? The strongest feelings I can generate are (a) amusement at his reaction to our questions regarding his claims and (b) annoyance that he would put not only an auction site, but sellers like you, sulyn, at risk by involving OAS in this exercise. Risk of what? Of losing credibility themselves - guilt by association. Not fair, but that's the way business works - a concept your PR person, once she's gathered herself, might do well to consider.
I think folks who posted here are only demonstrating healthy skepticism in stating they'd avoid OAS given its conduct in this matter. If that "seems a little harsh" to you, you are indeed "missing something here".
It is preposterous to insist that the seller's having presented worthless "evidence" (most particularly the "LACMA" analysis) - should have NO bearing on how his other claims are judged. (The thought that this idea comes from someone of the age to sit on a jury is utterly terrifying.) Is this the approach you use to buy antiques, sulyn? In that case, I have a photograph here you'll be interested in buying:
Sure, he looks an awful lot like my great-grandfather, and the photo was taken in an American butcher shop. But I have documentary evidence from an expert that says yes indeed, this is a photo of a man around the turn of the century. And the man's holding a KNIFE!! So I am SURE that this is a photo of Jack the Ripper - and so it must be. You can't prove it's not, can you?
So... what'll you give me for it?
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 11, 2000 01:31 PM ]
posted on September 11, 2000 01:32:28 PM new
This had to be the best thread on AW ever. Very interesting. I am impressed with the tenacity of a lot of the posters in this thread. Way to go HCQ and Abataxi (and others)!
posted on September 11, 2000 01:51:45 PM newBy that same token: if you are going to claim a painting is a FAKE, then you had better damn well be able to prove with certainity that it is a Van Gogh
I guess you mean prove it is NOT a Van Gogh? No, you don't have to conclusively prove it is not a Van Gogh. You have to introduce doubt if it is not certain, thus the term "attributed to" or "the school of" or whatever other term that likewise means "maybe" this artist did it. To say it is a Van Gogh is claiming certainty. Nothing certain here. So, I guess it doesn't work both ways.
Unfortunately, the apparent lack of honesty (not stupidity) on the part of the owner seems to not matter one whit. The auction's supporting materials have changed several times as this thread has progressed, but the owner has not addressed key inconsistencies. If they were just "stupid", why bother changing any of it? And, if it really a Van Gogh, wouldn't you want to get the best price possible? Thus, present solid evidence for all the bidders to see. Drives up the price.
EXACTLY WHY IS THIS SUCH A BIG DEAL?????
Because truth matters!!!!!
A foreign concept in today's world maybe, when important public figures lie and get away with it on a regular basis. Is presenting myth as fact so acceptable? Sad. "Crime of the century"? No, unfortunately symptomatic of our age.
"Anything awful makes me laugh. I misbehaved once at a funeral."
posted on September 11, 2000 02:13:31 PM new
Well, well. A few amendments have been made to the auction listing text. Take a gander at paragraph 2, to which has been added the important words I believe.
Someone has completely removed the next paragraph, which had read:
"She gave three paintings to Molly Brown for her wedding to J. J. Brown in 1890; a Van Gogh, a Cezanne watercolor and an oil painting by Manet. 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."
...and replaced it with:
"Many of the paintings my Grandmother purchased had the label from 'Chain and Hardy's' bookstore located in Denver where Molly and J. J. Brown lived."
OAS home page, however, still has it described as having belonged to Molly Brown.
Hmm....
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 11, 2000 02:15 PM ]
posted on September 11, 2000 03:45:54 PM new
"Sure, he looks an awful lot like my great-grandfather, and the photo was taken in an American butcher shop. But I have documentary evidence from an expert that says yes indeed, this is a photo of a man around the turn of the century. And the man's holding a KNIFE!! So I am SURE that this is a photo of Jack the Ripper - and so it must be. You can't prove it's not, can you?"
Well, actually I can't PROVE that this IS NOT JACK the Ripper. KEY WORD: PROVE. That was the point I was trying to make. I can express my opinion based on what information is available about Jackie, but I cannot say this IS NOT HIM. Now, if YOU know for a fact that this is NOT Jack, but is indeed your great grandfather, then you are knowingly attempting to commit an act of fraud by passing this off as authentic and offering to sell it to me.
Whether anyone intended it or not, I am left with the impression some THINK the seller KNOWS this is NOT authentic YET insist it is. The inference is he has actually compliled a great deal of worthless information to support his claim. You are actually inferring by your comments it is NOT just an honest mistake!
HCQ-I was not trying to pick a fight, I really DID want to try and understand why some of you were so "hostile" and YES I am left with that impression from reading many of the post. You say you are not, I will take your word for it, but you sure did fool me!
I appreciate your effort at educating me. Guess I'm just too dense to get it and not articulate enough to express my thoughts clearly. Sorry about that.
posted on September 11, 2000 04:25:01 PM new
Okay, so you can't prove it's Jack the Ripper. But I SAY it is. I tell you I BELIEVE it is.
Say you have an auction site. You say you have some doubts about the veracity of my claims. Do you accept the listing for the photo? Do you feature the item on your home page? On what do you base those decisions?
If you accept and feature the listing, and are later informed that a number of the seller's claims are unlikely at best and patently false at worst, and that at least one piece of "evidence" is very wrongly attributed several times in the listing to an august source, what do you do?
Do you have any responsibility - legal, moral, or merely CYA - to make known the information provided to you? What is your responsibility if the item is sold based on seller's claims?
Although I believe every person should regularly exercise his scepticism muscles, I do think that claiming that the bidder "should have known" seller's claims were spurious, and therefore bidder's post-auction expenses are his own responsibility (particularly as he could "afford" them) is cynical to a degree I have (so far, at least) rarely encountered, and add a whole new twist to the term "only a venue". Any doubts voiced about seller's intentions positively pale in comparison.
posted on September 11, 2000 05:40:19 PM new
Well-that is a good question! It is a side move from the point I was addressing, but is very valid and you could open a whole new thread on that one I am sure!
I would not be quick to call your picture a fake, but I consede I probably would insist you list it as an alledged JTR photo.
However, I do believe in apples to apples and oranges to oranges. Thanks to you and other posters here, I have visited some very interesting sites and have "learned" more than I probably will ever need to know about VG OR Molly Brown! The fact still remains there are paintings in museums that were there AS VG's. Now, some of them have been removed from display because they ARE NOT SURE. If they are not sure about paintings that are in museums, how are they going to be sure about paintings in private collections. If you had paintings compared to a "fake" declared "fake" because they did not match the "fake", how can you say for sure they WERE INDEED "fake"?
If grandmother left me a painting that was suppose to be by a "master" and I decided to have it checked out and sent it around to a bunch of places and got back a bunch of stuff that really didn't say diddley, but NONE of those people were able to tell me it WAS NOT by the master, I would probably call it authentic. I would rely on the fact it was NOT proven to be a fake, more than it was NOT established as an original. I'm only human.
Maybe I am 100% wrong, but I cannot believe that this painting would be put up for auction ANYWHERE if the seller KNEW FOR A FACT it was NOT authentic. If that makes me naive or just plain STUPID, well I will accept that. I beleive in giving the benefit of doubt if at all possible. If there is one thing all ya'lls links taught me: when it comes to VG, one can't say for sure!
If you want to criticize the seller for not having their ducks in a row, that's one thing, but to EVEN infer intensional misrepresentation, is another whole game! Unfortunately, THAT has happened on this thread.
If you want to start a discussion in the roundtable about running a good auction site and the ethics involved, I would really enjoy that! If thre is one thing I'm NOT short on, that opinions! Sulyn
posted on September 11, 2000 06:12:19 PM new
Okay, then, a couple more questions to chew over. Let's assume seller's intentions were nothing but honorable.
How did seller "mistake" the private pigment analysis for a LACMA report? LACMA letterhead does not appear on the scan posted in the listing. LACMA categorically states it does NOT permit its staff to use its letterhead for their freelance work nor to imply in any way that they are doing said work for LACMA. Why hasn't seller changed his listing to attribute that analysis to the proper party?
Why did seller claim in his listing that the painting was a gift from Chain to Brown for Brown's 1890 wedding, and then state in an email to me that he was "wrong" and "didn't know" anything certain but that Brown acquired 3 paintings in that year - but refrain from correcting his listing? Why did he not only persist in this assertion here on AW, but actually elaborate further on this claim (which elaborations were almost immediately proven baseless)?
If, OTOH, he has documentary evidence of of the Chain-Brown connection to this painting (which he says includes a photograph of the painting in the Brown mansion, and some verification from the Brown Museum), why was the Brown Museum letter removed from the listing yesterday, and the paragraph with his assertions (finally) removed from the auction today?
How does he construe the analysis statement "a word is possibly visible "SOUV" into "a dedication to Anton Mauve, signed 'Souvenir de Mauve Vincent and Theo 1888'"?
Why hasn't seller produced the appraisal he said he obtained "from the auction house in 1990.... done by Guy Rochard, a certified appraiser for all three Auction houses" (which he later stated were Christies, Sothebys, and Butterfield)? Where is Guy (or Gui) Rochard, who is not listed as a member by any of the 3 major appraisal societies?
To quote seller - "Any takers?"
BTW, no reply from OAS...
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 12, 2000 05:59 AM ]
posted on September 11, 2000 06:59:29 PM new granee -
Tis I who has dined with His Holiness, the Dalai Lama. Fortunately, chocolate is considered a vegetable
John Twilley has nothing to do with what the owner of the painting did with the analysis ... he just reported the findings. But being misrepresented that way usually annoys the heck out of scientist types.
sulyn1950 -
"I still can't understand all the "fury"." ... welcome to the global village, where anything and everything if fair game. If you think this is rough, try the newsgroups where there are no hall monitors.
You don't understand why people were bothered by the discrepancy between the documents and the claims in the listings ... if so, I'd like to sell you some beachfront property in Yuma, AZ. After all, I have the the lab reports showing SAND all around the house. And sand is found on beaches, so therefore the house must be on the beach, right?
I wonder why the owner of a supposedly unassailably documented Van Gogh would bother with a struggling new site (Record created on 18-Sep-1999) when there are bigger venues with much more traffic. Could it be that none of the brick and mortar houses would let it in the door, and eBay just suffered that Diebenkorn scandal. Safer to pick a jerkwater spot in cyberspace and get the bidders to come to it by other means.
I'm naturally cynical, sceptical, analytical, and sarcastic ... and by profession, I analyze written material for factual content, spot the holes, and what it takes to plug them. But that provenance was unfixable, because the facts did not support the conclusions.
And when letterheads are clipped so that false claims can be made, the words DELIBERATE MISREPRESENTAT6ION OF THE FACTS" come to mind. Like when a lawyer can prove that 30% of a witness's statements are false,it's hard for the jury to believ ethe rest.
posted on September 11, 2000 08:42:08 PM new
Abacaxie-Before I actually BUY that beach front property in AZ I will examine it. If I like what I see and I can afford it, YOU have a deal. Will it bother me if it turns out NOT to be authentic? NOT necessarily. Depends on WHY I want it. SIDEBAR: I have actually constructed a beach. I had a nice big pond in my back yard, and I wanted a beach. So we built bulkheads, brought it tons of sand, added a waterfall, a couple of palm trees and a thatched roof outdoor kitchen and viola' I had beach front (rear actually) property. After a few years, I was able to sell that property for more than 5 times what I paid for it. The couple who bought it didn't mind it was not authentic. They wanted a beach and they got a beach. They did not feel cheated nor did they mind my possibly misleading ad about owning "your own private beach"! They are now known as the "people who have a beach in their backyard", I am now the lady who "USED to have a beach her her backyard". Everyone knows the place. They have lots of parties and I even get invited sometimes. Everyone is happy! Granted there is a difference between a few hundred thousand and a few million, but it really is all relative isn't it? What's that got to do with Van Gogh? Actually nothing I guess, but YOU brought up beaches and made me think about MY old beach. I kinda miss it!
I do not believe anyone who would actually consider bidding in this auction is going to do so merely on the say of a few documents and a really nifty story about Molly Brown. Then again, maybe that is WHY they would have bid and now YOU have RUINED that perfectly delightful "story". Shame on you!
Yes, I am making light of the whole thing and I know I should be ashamed of myself. I apoligize. Have a nice evening everyone!
HCQ-You have posed some interesting questions and I indeed will "chew" on them awhile and I'll get back to you. I've enjoyed it. Thanks-sulyn
posted on September 12, 2000 12:03:14 AM new
You all lead such EXCITING lives....
I've never had a fake beach with palm trees and waterfall in my backyard or dined on chocolate with the Dalai Lama or inherited a fake Van Gogh....
then there's HartCottageQuilts--not only a pet pig named Ramona but Jack the Ripper for a great-grandfather to boot!! Some people have all the luck!!!!!!!!!!!!
My only claim to fame is having a really bad made-for-tv movie filmed at my house in the middle of August and meeting a sweaty Lorn Greene (much shorter than he appeared on tv, and not too bright, either).
Guess all the excitement's in Arizona, Florida, and LA, and I'll have to MOVE if I want to escape the DULL life around here.
posted on September 12, 2000 04:40:55 AM newsulyn, if you were another real estate broker listing on the same "reputable" site, and the site got a truckload of publicity about the - um, mistaken representations about the AZ land, you'd be happy to be associated with the site??
I had originally posted this with the name of the author, but please see the moderator's note below, which appeared after I first posted this.
So... the gist of the correspondence I recevied today from OAS is that they still want to talk to me on the phone, but since I've published their email responses to me they can't send further info by email. Thge individual finds my having named her "very unprofessional" (hmm - I thought she was a company rep. Anyway) and she's going to call AW (which obviously she did - see mod post below). They say they just want to provide the "proper facts" and "explanations." (They don't want these published? Or attributed to them? Hmm.)
They then provided the "simple" explanation that the Brown Museum letter was removed because people were contacting the museum to get the owner's name and the curator felt the letter was personal correspondence and should not be published.
Ohhhh. I see.
Better, moderator? I think I caught all the other references.
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 12, 2000 06:08 AM ]
posted on September 12, 2000 05:35:36 AM new
Morning HCQ
The CGs require you to edit out the author's name and other identifying information when posting private email correspondence. Please edit the contact name from the (3) posts or I will have no alternative but to delete them.
posted on September 12, 2000 06:28:26 AM new
Sulyn -
"Before I actually BUY that beach front property in AZ I will examine it. If I like what I see and I can afford it, YOU have a deal."
UH ... NO! The terms of sale are that you have to PAY IN FULL, with a 5% fee to the venue where the property is listed, and then you have 10 days to come to AZ and look at the property, and if AN EXPERT decides the property is not a beach, I'll give you your money back, but only if I accept the expert's opinion.
And I have pictures of the beach, but they are only available to the final buyer, and not for just anybody to see.
posted on September 12, 2000 07:03:34 AM newabacaxi - not quite. I don't see anything in OAS's TOS on this auction that states that the seller must concur with the expert's opinion for the deal to be off. (Correct me please if I'm wrong.) However, it is not at all hard to envision one honker of a lawsuit over the matter. In fact it takes less effort than trying to envision "Yellow Roses" as a genuine Van Gogh And the very fact that such semantic nitpickers as you and I have interpreted the TOS differently does not at all bode well.
You are indeed right on the money, however, that bidder doesn't get to examine this "beach" property until after the auction, and then at his own expense. And if it turns out NOT to be a beach, and the only reason bidder bid was because it was represented as such? Bidder is SOL, and has to eat the expenses he never would have incurred if seller hadn't made those representations.
Edited to add: I just noticed this term in the "Yellow Roses" TOS: If you are a California resident, you waive California Civil Code §1542, which says: "A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him must have materially affected his settlement with the debtor." Somebody familiar with California law enlighten me here. Can the terms of a contract supersede civil law? In FL at least, any terms of e.g. a rental agreement which cause the parties to waive their rights under the law are void; the law prevails. Anyway, what would effect would waiver of said Code have on the parties?
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 12, 2000 07:12 AM ]
posted on September 12, 2000 10:28:27 AM new
Fascinating thread, people. Thanks for all the pages of entertainment! Why buy the latest Summer fiction when you can visit Auction Watch?
I happen to have a doctorate, so I assume I am qualified to give my opinion on this topic? Granted, it's a juris doctorate and not a Ph.D. in art, but still....
Personally, having read everything by the alleged owner of the painting and all his supporters [or his sole supporter in all his or her many guises, as the case may be], I'd really like to believe that the owner is NOT just some low-life scam artist trying to rip people off by selling a worthless piece of junk he knows isn't really a Van Gough. Ayup, I'd really like to believe that all right. It's a bit hard, unfortunately....
Taking everything that has been said in it's best possible light, I would have to accuse the owner of "willful blindness" at the very least. How does that old Beatles song go? "He's as blind as he can be, just sees what he wants to see..." I think it's very likely that the seller did not start out trying to defraud anyone. I suspect that this painting really is as old as he says it is, and has probably been in his family for many, many years. And I can even believe that the painting has a family history which states that it was painted by Van Gough, owned by Molly Brown, etc. Given that, I can well imagine why the owner would be very resistent to the idea that his cherished [and supposedly quite valuable] family heirloom isn't what he was always told it was. And the minmimal research he has done doesn't conclusively prove that the painting must be a fake, so he feels justified in clinging to his story.
And that's all well and good, as long as the painting is hanging on his wall and he wants to be able to tell a good "story" about how it got there. And he is under no obligation to "prove" it is authentic, as long as it remains on his wall. Once the seller tries selling it to somebody else, however [especially for $2 million], he is no longer free to make unsubstantiated claims about the painting. If untrue, the claims are no longer "family history" but instead become misrepresentation and possibly even outright fraud. And the line between "purposeful misrepresentation" and "willful ignorance" is a thin one.
It seems obvious that the seller is fully aware that the painting is probably not authentic. Instead of submitting the painting for expert appraisal and being conclusively told that it is a fake, however, he has instead decided to rely on only those reports which show that it is physically within the realm of possibility that the work COULD have been painted by Van Gogh. Those results mean absolutely nothing without the provenance to back it up [heck -- any painting done during the last century COULD have been painted by Van Gough according to those test results], and the seller has used that provenance to justify the lack of any more conclusive tests or appraisals. Unfortunately, when the provenance itself is shown to be internally inconsistent and at odds with historical facts, the seller is left with nothing whatsoever to back up his claims as to the painting's authenticity. And when he continues to argue that the painting is authentic, based on what he has left, he crosses that line from willful ignorance into knowing misrepresentation.
Just my opinion, of course, but when you are trying to sell a painting for $2 million, it is not enough to simply state that it was painted by a famous master and back up your claim with a spurious family history and some highly suspect lab tests which prove -- at most -- that the pigments used were "available" to the artist in question [even if they weren't the ones he is known for using in the rest of his paintings]. Choosing to not have the painting authenticated as an actual Van Gough [as opposed to an actually possible Van Gough] is willful ignorance. Stating the demonstrably false "provenance" as fact, however, coupled with assertions that lab tests done by a private individual were actually performed by a reputable museum, is just outright misrepresentation.
If the seller is so sure that this painting is authentic, he should take steps to have it legitimately authenticated. If he decides he doesn't want to take those steps [perhaps out of fear that the painting will be declared a fake], then he has NO BUSINESS offering it for sale as an authentic work.
Have I ever mentioned, BTW, that I have a pocket watch which used to belong to George Washington? I have a lab test result which states that the materials used to make the watch were available to watchmakers in 1776, and family history recounts how my grandfather bought it from somebody who's great grandparents put George Washington up for the night back when he visited Boston during the Revolutionary War. I also have a letter from the George Washington Museum which states that George Washington did actually own a pocket watch, which proves that this is his watch. After all, George Washington owned a watch, this watch could have possibly been made in 1776, and family history recounts how it belonged to somebody who's ancestors met George Washington once. Heck -- if that isn't enough I even have a picture from the George Washington museum showing THIS VERY WATCH on display there, and I will be happy to show that picture to anyone who wants to pay me $2 million for the watch first....
Regards,
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
[ edited by godzillatemple on Sep 12, 2000 10:32 AM ]
I don't think so. I hope not.
Sulyn