posted on September 12, 2000 11:09:58 AM new
Well, I have a picture of George Washington, and I have a picture of the watch. But since I have a "provenance" establishing that my watch was, in fact, once owned by George Washington, that should be more than enough proof for anyone, right?
Just please don't tell me that George Washington never visited Boston in 1776....
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on September 12, 2000 11:22:26 AM new
OK, one little clarification is in order. It has been pointed out to me that the watch I have, which used to belong to George Washington and which I am selling for $2 million, is actually a wristwatch and not a pocket watch as I stated in my original post. But that is really irrelevant, since I have lab test results done by somebody who used to work at a museum [I think he was a janitor or something] which state that the materials used in the making of this watch were "available" to watchmakers in 1776. True, there is no evidence that any watchmakers during that time period actually MADE a watch such as this, but that just shows how unusual this watch is. After all, you wouldn't expect the first president of the United States of America to own a normal watch, would you?
Besides, I'm sure somebody out there is willing to pay $2 million for this watch simply based on the fact that nobody has ever proven that it COULDN'T POSSIBLY have belonged to George Washington. At least, not the two people I showed it to. Well, OK, my cat couldn't prove it wasn't authentic. But still....
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on September 12, 2000 12:03:31 PM new
TightwadG2 writes: "Samples of van goghs DNA have been taken from his family and from the back of his paintings, If he has touched the backs which we know he did, it will remain there forever and that will be conclusive. The Study is being conducted by the University of Kansas and we will soon know about many of his paintings, If his DNA is not on a painting then he did not do it. If it is there then we may conclude that it is by him whether it looks like his work or not."
Barry - I think you should call the University of Kansas and ask them to look for Washington's DNA on that wristwatch.
(This has been the most interesting, amusing and educational thread I have ever read. Thank you one and all.)
posted on September 12, 2000 12:17:11 PM newswitch: Actually, the existence of Van Gough's DNA on the painting would only show that he handled it at some point, not that he actually PAINTED it.
As for my watch, I don't think I can use DNA analysis on it. I talked to an "expert" [well, he's an expert on comic books and not on DNA, but still, an expert's an expert, right?] and he said that they didn't have DNA back in the 1700's. Apparently it wasn't even discovered until the 1940's. Which raises a VERY interesting question in my mind as to what people did before the law of gravity was passed....
Anyway, some other facts about my watch that I need to point out. I called one of those psychic hotlines and the woman I talked to told me I had something "very rare and valuable" before I even mentioned my watch. More proof that the watch is authentic!
Also, I should point out that, as with all fine watches from this period, my watch is signed by the maker. The letters are rather faded, but it looks like the word "Tim" followed by an "x". My records indicate that there was, indeed, a watchmaker named "Timothy Xavier" who lived in the 1700's, and this is simply more proof that this watch is authentic.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on September 12, 2000 12:23:20 PM new
Well Barry..the last "proof" did it for me! I just have to have that watch made by Timothy Xavier for George Washington. I can send you a check for $2 million, postdated of course. You do have to promise not to cash it until sept14, 2010. You will send the watch out by overnight mail today, right?
posted on September 12, 2000 12:31:03 PM new
'Bout time you showed up, Barry. I'm hoping you were merely lurking or on vacation, rather than having a legitimate excuse like undergoing major surgery or being held hostage by somebody good-looking
As long as you've got your - uh, what do we call it, a speculator? Anyway - any ideas on why OAS - or any auction house - would've gotten involved in this to begin with, and why they've apparently dug in their heels? I've ruminated on this during those lovely AWAKE periods I occasionally enjoy at 4AM, and still can't come up with anything approaching plausible, let alone rational. But maybe that's the problem. What say ye? Purely hypothetically, of course.
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 12, 2000 12:32 PM ]
posted on September 12, 2000 12:32:33 PM newAmy: Did I mention that I need a copy of your financial records and at least three references? I am an honest seller with an authetically verified valuable object, and I just can't take the chance that somebody might be trying to scam me.
If you send me the check right now, however, I will let you see the picture of this watch in the George Washington museum, however. Just as soon as I figure out how to use my new Adobe Photoshop program....
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on September 12, 2000 12:38:00 PM new
Hiya, HCQ! Actually, I was doing the ol' Brimfield thang all last week. Getting up at 4 in the morning, schlepping 65 miles due west, walking around buying watches until the sun went down and then returning home to crash. And yes, I did get some very nice watches! Check out this one I bought for my private collection:
As for why OAS got involved, dug their heels in, etc., who knows? It's simply human nature to not want to admit when you've made a really stupid mistake, especially in public. You might as well ask why somebody on a dance floor farts and then wrinkles his nose and stares with distain at the person dancing beside him as if to "prove" that the other person was the one at fault....
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
[typos...]
[ edited by godzillatemple on Sep 12, 2000 12:50 PM ]
posted on September 12, 2000 12:41:56 PM new
Actually, if the DNA analysis showed Van Gogh handled the back of the painting (I'm assuming this includes the stretcher bars), it would pretty much conclusively prove it wasn'tpainted by Van Gogh but by one of his students, since Van Gogh's practice was to ship his canvases, UNstretched, to his brother Theo, who then did (or attempted to do) the selling.
Howdy to you too, Barry. Damn you. Brimfield IS a legitimate excuse. Glad you had fun. Nice acquisition. Whom did this one belong to, William the Conqueror?
Edited AGAIN to add: Barry - Just hit your home page. I swear we met while I was assisisting with due diligence while I was a lackey at R&G.
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 12, 2000 12:51 PM ]
posted on September 12, 2000 12:54:02 PM new
Barry..I'm sure you will make an exception to the financial statement for me...after all, we both were born in Massachusettes...that should take away ALL doubt about me being a deadbeat.
PS...HCQ is right, that's a nice watch you got there!
posted on September 12, 2000 12:54:22 PM new
SI&W? R&G? Dang it, everytime I try to respond to your post you go ahead and edit it again. Now, stop that!
And yes, as a matter of fact, that watch DID belong to William the Conqueror! That's why it's a "keeper". Well, at least until I can dig up the proper "provenance", that is....
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on September 12, 2000 01:11:06 PM new
I looked at your pic first, said "Hey! that's the guy that worked at SIW!" Then I actually read your bio and saw P&A, and I changed me mind.
For those of you who are appropriately annoyed by this OT bit and actually want to be clued in, the abbreviations refer to assorted law firms in the Boston area.
posted on September 12, 2000 03:18:04 PM new
Hmmmm... Upon closer inspection, I just noticed that the signature on my watch [which most definitely belonged to George Washington] has a letter "e" in between "Tim" and "x". I can only assume that Timothy Xavier's middle initial was "e", which makes perfect sense since lots of people had middle initials back then [or so I believe].
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on September 12, 2000 04:26:21 PM new
Um, folks, re the DNA: unless Vinnie either spat, bled, or performed another bodily function on this artwork, or left a strand of hair or nail clipping in the paint, there would be no DNA on it.
Perhaps tightwad was referring to fingerprints, which, even if any that old were still present, and even if they could be proven to belong to VG (both long stretches of the imagination), would not prove he created the painting.
posted on September 13, 2000 04:07:14 PM new
Wow. Molly Brown's Van Gogh, Quilts made in the loo by Jack the Ripper's great granddaghter, and now George Washington's watch ... Wish I hadn't invested all my money in bridges so I could afford these deals.
posted on September 14, 2000 11:32:49 AM new
The only way I can possibly hang on to the shreds of my pathetic belief that rational life exists on Earth is to subscribe to the theory that paypaldamon, ownervgyr and one or more OAS principals are ebay operatives planted in these two operations - both competitors to ebay and its subsidiaries - to destroy their credibility: an act of corporate terrorism at its finest.
What business in its right mind would act the way these two have?
Every time there's a new post to either of this thread or any of the Paypal threads I think "Oh goody - now somebody will say "APRIL FOOL!" and we'll all have a good har. Well, I'm laughing, but not at myself...(this time at least)
posted on September 14, 2000 05:16:00 PM new
To: HartCottageQuilt!!!
I have been keeping periodic tabs on this thread and have listened to what you have been saying regarding the Yellow Roses painting.
1. I called LACMA and spoke to Dr. Peter Meyers regartding the statements that you posted. He says he never told you that the painting had never been worked on at LACMA.
2. The person thayt did work on the painting was Dr. John Twilley, Senior Research Chemist for the LACMA Conservation
Center for LACMA. Also Dr. Twilley was his boss there.
3. The painting was recieved there on May 12, 1987 from the previous owner. And the reciept for the painting was given on LACMA stationary, the painting stayed there until
January of 1988, when the previous owner paid for the work at that time it was by check, made out to LACMA, not Dr. Twilley.
He also stated that the analysis done by Dr. Twilley WAS CONSIDERED AN AUTHENTICATION.
But it was against museum policy for them to get involved in such matters. It was an error at that time, and cannot be rectified.
Your statement was totally in error, and can be considered to be slanderous and libel. The previous owner and todays owner can if they so please take legal action against you.
3. Van Gogh was in Arles in Febuary and March of 1888. So you are WRONG AGAIN. The Irises come up in early spring followed by the vine type of the yellow roses.
4. I called Scott Haskins regarding the canvas (Cusping) He said that there is no such word in his art vocabulary, and he said the proper word is "Cupping". Also he said that the canvas is French too!
I read the article written by Michelle Dennehy regarding the painting on AW Daily-
Daily News- Van Gogh or No?
You were quoted for all the world to see, I am sure that you will get replys about your error on Van Gogh's arrival in Arles.
Also ther have been experts who have said yes that the painting is a Van Gogh.
The painting does not try to imitate a Van Gogh it just simply is, rather you and your ilk like it or not. I would like to know why you are so jeolous about this painting.
And it seems that there is proof that the painting was once owned by Molly Brown. How she got it we may never know. I expect that there is much more evidence that has not been revealed to tyhe public, but thats there business isnt it?
posted on September 14, 2000 05:28:38 PM new
tightwadg2 - "Also ther have been experts who have said yes that the painting is a Van Gogh. "
Please reproduce the written authentication by these experts, showing the letterhead and give their name and credentials.
Please note that verbal authentication means nothing unless the "expert" is testifying in court.
edited to add:
"And it seems that there is proof that the painting was once owned by Molly Brown."
If there is proof, the person who has the proof has not been willing to show it. This "you have to pay a minimum of $2,000,000 to see the proof, but trust me when I say I have proof" is NOT the way expensive art is sold. Every high-end auction I have attended had the authentication and provenance available for inspection. ALL OF IT!
Edited again to add:
"He also stated that the analysis done by Dr. Twilley WAS CONSIDERED AN AUTHENTICATION"
Of the MATERIALS ... the painting has nothing in it that would cause anyone to doubt that is is indeed, from the late 1800s. The materials are "authentic to the period. However, my great-uncle Dave also painted in the late 1800s, and his painting would have the same kind of authenticity ... purely chemical.
[ edited by abacaxi on Sep 14, 2000 05:33 PM ]
[ edited by abacaxi on Sep 14, 2000 07:37 PM ]
posted on September 14, 2000 06:39:12 PM new
My. So many exclamation points.
1-2. I've passed on your assertions to the Director of the Conservation Department - including your statement that "Dr." Twilley was Dr. Mayers's "boss".
3. You say that "The painting was recieved [at LACMA] on May 12, 1987 from the previous owner." Yet the listing states that "In 1957 when I got my first apartment in Chicago...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." Has this painting been in one person's possession since 1957, or was it transferred sometime after 1987 from the "previous owner" to another party? If the former, who's the "previous owner"? If the latter, why omit the transfer of ownership from the listing?
Please support your assertion that when said "previous owner paid for the work at that time it was by check, made out to LACMA" with documentation, including a copy of the check.
He also stated that the analysis done by Dr. Twilley WAS CONSIDERED AN AUTHENTICATION.. An "authentication" of what, precisely? And by whom?
But it was against museum policy for them to get involved in such matters. It was an error at that time, and cannot be rectified.
Please translate into standard English. What "matters" was it "against museum policy" to "get inviolved in"? What "cannot be rectified"? Why is the analysis, which the owner claims is the full document, neither on LACMA letterhead nor possessing a signature?
3. (Another 3? Anyway) Van Gogh was in Arles in Febuary and March of 1888. So you are WRONG AGAIN.
Editorial error - not mine. AW misquoted me. My 8/29 post read:
"The listing claims that 'the last two years of his life, the period in Arles, the period in which he painted "Yellow Roses"...' Aside from the fact that Van Gogh spent only 2/1888-5/1889 in Arles, NOT 'the last 2 years of his life'...."
My dispute with the owner's claim was not whether Van Gogh was in Arles in the spring of 1888 (which I myself noted that he was), but that since Van Gogh died in Auvers-sur-Oise, it was physically impossible for the artist to have (as the owner claims) "spent the last 2 years of his life in Arles."
4. Here is the Van Gogh Museum analysis of The Garden of Saint Paul's Hospital which uses and defines the term "primary cusping" in paragraph 5. Note also that "cusping" occurs during commercial canvas preparation before the work is painted, unlike the "cupping" described in the FACL analysis, which appears to have resulted from mishandling of this precious work.
Who says "the canvas is French"? Is it commercially prepared? Is it from any of the shops that provided such prepared canvas to Van Gogh? Does it have the same or similar thread count as other canvases known to be by Van Gogh? Please provide this information.
Also ther have been experts who have said yes that the painting is a Van Gogh.
And their written statements to that effect are....where? Why keep them a secret?
"The painting does not try to imitate a Van Gogh it just simply is..."
Yes indeed, it "just simply is". WHAT it is, however.....
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 14, 2000 06:48 PM ]
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 14, 2000 06:49 PM ]
posted on September 14, 2000 07:55:08 PM new
HCQ observed in part: ""In 1957 when I got my first apartment in Chicago...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." Has this painting been in one person's possession since 1957, or was it transferred sometime after 1987 from the "previous owner" to another party?"
On reading through this posting, my instant thought on this early assertion was "Doesn't this clearly show that somebody's been just flatout lying here?" Also, wasn't this "tightwad" ID supposed to be slinking away to Borneo where there was no net access or something, after making those stupid comments about Van Gogh's DNA on the back of the canvas? Would that we'd be so lucky.
Brings to mind a rough paraphrase of something said by Mark Twain, I believe: "It's always a lot easier to tell the truth, it requires much less future strain on one's memory."
posted on September 15, 2000 05:43:39 AM newpyth00n, you are SUCH a cynic. There's nothing to have prevented tightwad from swimming over to, say, Hong Kong and popping into a cybercafe to "research" and defend owner's claims. Or maybe he gave that psychic almond and kiwi farmer his AW ID and password, and she's channeling him. Hey, it could happen.
And since it could happen (after all, Ramona is presently taking flying lessons), let's take at face value this claim that he spoke to Mayers et al. I'm waiting for some rice to cook for Val's lunch, so I haven't got anything better to do.
Actually, on second reading virtually nothing tightwad reports regarding his "conversation" to Dr. Mayers conflicts with what I stated last week.
I called LACMA and spoke to Dr. Peter Meyers regarding the statements that you posted.
Perfectly within the realm of possibility, assuming tightwad is near a phone.
He says he never told you that the painting had never been worked on at LACMA.
Absolutely true. He never said that the painting had not been "worked on" at LACMA, and since it's highly unlikely that Mr. Twilley had the necessary equipment in a spare room in his apartment, it would be reasonable to assume Twilley used LACMA facilities to perform the analysis. This would jibe with Dr. Mayers's statement to me that LACMA employees are permitted to use LACMA facilities in connection with freelance work (i.e., work for other than LACMA that they do on their own time).
What Dr. Mayers said was that the "work" done on the painting was not done by LACMA - i.e., under LACMA's aegis or at its behest - but was done by a LACMA employee on a freelance basis on his own time. That's why the analysis doesn't appear on LACMA letterhead.
The person thayt did work on the painting was Dr. John Twilley, Senior Research Chemist for the LACMA Conservation Center for LACMA. Also Dr. Twilley was his boss there.
Well...sort of. Twilley did do the analysis, but LACMA tells me he didn't have a Ph.D. at the time. Twilley was not Mayers's "boss".
He also stated that the analysis done by Dr. Twilley WAS CONSIDERED AN AUTHENTICATION.
Hard to reply to this - since no indication is given here as to what the analysis is "authenticating".
The painting was recieved there on May 12, 1987 from the previous owner. And the reciept for the painting was given on LACMA stationary, the painting stayed there until January of 1988, when the previous owner paid for the work at that time it was by check, made out to LACMA, not Dr. Twilley.
Hmm....we're back to the "previous owner" question. "Previous owner" implies there is a "present owner" - IOW this painting has NOT been in one party's possession since 1957 as the listing rather elaborately claims. Can you give the reason for this significant discrepancy, which puts the veracity of your other statements into serious doubt?
And the reciept for the painting was given on LACMA stationary, the painting stayed there until January of 1988, when the previous owner paid for the work at that time it was by check, made out to LACMA, not Dr. Twilley.
Even assuming you have documentation to prove this, it doesn't put the analysis on LACMA "stationary" and over LACMA's authorized signature, which is the only thing that counts.
But it was against museum policy for them to get involved in such matters. It was an error at that time, and cannot be rectified.
Hard to address this, since the nature of this purported "error" is not identified. Do you refer to the "receipt" for the painting being written on LACMA paper? To the check being erroneously written out by the "previous owner" to LACMA rather than to Twilley? Or is the "error" that "cannot be rectified" the analysis not having appeared on LACMA letterhead? If that's your claim, I'd be interested to know your theories on why a museum could or would not "rectify" this "error". Why would any organization of repute refuse to stand by its findings?
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 15, 2000 05:54 AM ]
posted on September 15, 2000 08:55:42 AM new
I admit I haven't really followed or read through all of this thread, but I'm intrigued by Barry's watch and thought there could be a chance of us working out a trade.
I have a Van Gogh item, the authenticity of which, I think, there can be no doubt.
As you can see, it's beyond question that the article is in Van Gogh's style, and the signature is certainly authentic.
Except for the time before I bought it, it has been in my possession since my uncle's death (and he was born long before the 50's).
I believe it to be from the period Van Gogh spent in Couchon-sur-Chou in between his time in Arles and Overs-sur-Oise, as this is an article of clothing and almost all of the experts agree that Van Gogh did, indeed, wear clothing during this period.
I am currently putting together the equipment (picks, shovels, pry-bars, etc.) necessary to obtain a DNA sample from Vincent's remains to compare with the saliva laden stains on the front of this article (none of them bad enough to cause cuspidoring), but I have no doubt that further investigation will only support my certainty that this item is genuine.
If you would like to send me your watch, Barry, I could have MY cat take a look at it too, just to remove any lingering doubts anyone might have.
edited to try & make UBB work, what's wrong?
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside a dog, it's too dark to read.
[ edited by cathammer on Sep 15, 2000 08:56 AM ]
[ edited by cathammer on Sep 15, 2000 09:01 AM ]
posted on September 15, 2000 02:17:39 PM new
Well, well. Look what's been added to the "provenance". Here's the text:
"In a telephone conversation dated September 14, 2000, Mr. John Twilley was reached for comment about the pigment analysis he conducted on the painting, Yellow Roses. Mr. Twilley stated that in March of 1988, he was working for the LA County Museum of Art as an Art Conservation Scientist. He verified that he conducted a pigment analysis of the painting Yellow Roses. After reviewing the report on Old And Sold, he requested his signature and credentials be added to the report. He stands behind his written report. Mr. Twilley also made clear that the analysis of Yellow Roses was done on his personal time. This was and still is a common practice among museum conservators. "
Unfortunately, the listing itself repeatedly refers to Twilley's analysis as being from LACMA itself.
So...what part of the conversation I reported between me and LACMA was "slanderous and libel"?
Apparently the ownership of Molly Brown is proved by the words "PROPERTY OF MOLLY BROWN" having been written on the back of the painting.
posted on September 15, 2000 03:35:30 PM new
I find it ironic that in the added statement from Scott Haskins, he brings up John Rewald as "confirming" that the work is Van Gogh. How convenient that Rewald is dead and can't defend his reputation from such hogwash. Appalling lack of taste (and a tad bit desperate?)...
posted on September 15, 2000 03:48:36 PM new
The previous ridiculous comment on DNA reminded me of something. (Forgive me if this has been discussed, but I don't have the will to wade through the entire thread.)
I remember reading that Van Gogh would, for some reason, put his paint brushes in his mouth (maybe to clean them?). I suspect this is a myth, but it would be interesting to do DNA tests on chips of the paint itself to see if it contained his DNA.
posted on September 15, 2000 06:24:44 PM new
TO: HartCottageQuilt
Boy you sure no how to twist things!
What was ment by the earlier post was.
When the original owner took the painting to LACMA to have the pigment analysis done, he was never told about the rules they had, there was never a disclaimer by the museum. And since the reciept was on LACMA letterhead
and he/she paid for the work directly to LACMA, he/she never knew that it was not being done by LACMA. Next time when you talk to LAVCMA ask them to show you their disclaimer on their receipts. If you dont notify people of these things you cannot expect them to know what your rules are.
Also you MAY have been misquoted by the Daily News writer, and so the present owner MIGHT have been misquoted by OAS. We dont know, do we?
Also I have been in Malaysia, but I did go to Brunei which is part of Borneo, that guy must be physic!!! I am now in Hawaii and I will be heading back to Kaula Lampur, phone service is not as good as the USA. If I can connect back I will.
Also I am told that the remarks by Scott Haskins, regarding John Rewald and Pickvance are in writing and the Van Gogh museum also
They are not available for public viewing,and never will be, but will be given to the buyers. And so it should be, since we are not the buyers, and just supposedly disinterested gadflys.
posted on September 15, 2000 06:45:09 PM new
To Amalgamated2000
Your remark about the paint brushes being in VanGoghs mouth while he painted is true as reported in JAMA, this caused Van Gogh to indirectly ingest arsenic, which has showed up in his DNA taken from samples of his hair which was left on some of his paintings.
I still have that article, and will try to send it to you, anyway that shows that you have a remarkable memory.
