posted on September 15, 2000 06:54:55 PM new
While my memory for bizzare trivial facts may be remarkable, I still can't remember where the hell I put my keys...
But I now remember that the reports also indicated that this arsenic ingestion may have been responsible for some of Van Gogh's psychological problems.
posted on September 15, 2000 07:05:10 PM new
Unlike so many of the owner's claims, my having been misquoted is easily documented, since what I actually said regarding Van Gogh's tenure in Arles appears in writing in my first post to this thread on page 1. I received an apology today from the article's author, who deleted her misstatement from the article.
A "disclaimer" by LACMA to the painting's owner regarding the analysis would hardly be necessary, since if the analysis isn't on LACMA letterhead, signed by a LACMA conservator on behalf of LACMA, it's not a LACMA analysis.
You seem to know an awful lot about the painting and its "provenance," tightwad. Unless you too are "physic", one can only conclude that you are hardly a "disinterested gadfly". Do tell us how you came by this information.
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? Where's the authoritative signature that should go under these findings?
Why are the "experts who have said yes that the painting is a Van Gogh" unwilling to come forward and say so? Are they all conveniently dead, like Rewald?
Finally: In the auction, the owner claims the painting has been in his possession since 1957. YOU say it was delivered in 1987 to Twilley by the "former owner," who also paid for Twilley's work. James T. Bright testified in court in 1997 that he couldn't pay for "Sunflower and Oleander" because his money was tied up in "Yellow Roses". Who's telling the truth here about the chain of ownership - you and Bright, or the owner?
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 15, 2000 07:07 PM ]
posted on September 15, 2000 08:20:11 PM new
HartCottageQuilt
I may have been wrong regarding that the previous owner had the painting at LACMA,since I dont know who the present owner actually is. I believe that the present owner is Lord Teong Teck Leng, maybe, but dont quote me I know he purchased a Van Gogh, three years ago of some yellow flowers, and refuses to let any of the public see it. He hordes it like everything else he owns to himself. But he is very wealthy and I dont believe he would sell it, unless he needed the money. But since I know he is worth 5 Billion, I dont think hewould sell it. I do know however that a study was done by LACMA and Scott Haskins on his painting, So 2 and 2 make Lord Teong. He presently resides in Australia. Also he is crazy about anything yellow. Mr Haskins did say that There is documentation from the experts, so thats all I can say about that.
posted on September 16, 2000 04:43:44 AM new
So on 9/15, you "may have been wrong regarding that the previous owner had the painting at LACMA"? But just the day before ago you reported in detail conclusive information regarding the "previous owner's" actions in 1987, even describing the paper on which the receipt was written, how the work was paid for, and to whom the form of payment (a check) was issued.
Of course, these incontrovertible facts were accompanied by other such "facts" from your "conversation" with Dr. Mayers, including that "Dr." Twilley was Mayers's "boss," Dr. Mayers's explanation regarding some sort of (unnamed) mixup, and that Haskins says "the canvas is French" (which, oddly, is missing from the "statement" added to the auction listing).
But heck, let's ignore all that.
It's your position that, whether by Lord Teong Teck Leng or Bright or the Queen of the May, the painting is now owned by somebody other than the person whose grandmother bought the painting from "Brown's children"?
So the owner's statement in the the auction that s/he received the painting in 1957 fron his/her uncle, and has "had the Van Gogh ever since that time" is not true?
Let's take a tally here of the owner's claims (in bold) and what I and several others have found, in writing, from independent and reputable sources (e.g. websites of The Brown Museum, the Van Gogh Museum, letters from the artist at vangoghgallery.com, court papers, and contradictory statements in the listing itself):
The painting was purchased by Chain in Europe. The only evidence presented is Haskins's recollection that Chain was known to have bought paintings in Europe, and his observation of the "Chain & Hardy's" sticker on the frame in which the painting is presently held with duct or masking tape, which tape the owner claims LACMA applied.
Chain and Brown were neighbors. Chain died in 1892; Brown didn't arrive in Denver until 1893, the year after her husband became a multimillionaire. OAS and the owner were made aware of this at least a week ago. The claim remains in the auction listing.
By the way, are the Brown and Chain houses even adjacent? If not, it's as if, because JFK is buried in Arlington National Cemetry, my ex-husband (who lives in Arlington) can justify calling himself JFK's "neighbor". If the houses are indeed adjacent, it's the same as if, were I to own and reside at Mount Vernon, I went around telling people George and I are housemates.
The painting was owned by Molly Brown. The original auction listing included a redacted letter from the Molly Brown museum (thanking the owner for offering the painting to it for sale!) but that letter has been pulled. The owner has repeatedly claimed he has a photograph of the painting hanging in Brown's house, but has never provided such evidence. The only "documentation" provided that it was ever owned by Brown is Haskins's observation that "'Property of Molly Brown' is written on the reverse of the painting's frame."
The painting was a gift from Chain to Brown for Brown's 1890 wedding. Brown was married in September 1886 in Leadville, CO; the wedding party included a barber and a housemaid. During her few months in Leadville before she married, Brown worked as a seamstress in a dry goods store; before she moved to Leadville in 1886, she worked in Hannibal, MO as a waitress, and so could hardly have traveled to Denver to improve herself, take piano lessons, and to meet Oscar Wilde there in 1882, which the owner also claims. In response to an email inquiry I made on 9/2, the owner stated that "I am wrong about them being a gift for her wedding. It may have been her wedding anniversary. But she definately recieved 3 paintings in 1890 from someone." Despite this discrepancy, the paragraph regarding the 1890 "gift" remained in the auction listing until 9/11. Haskins of FACL now states that "It is unknown whether the Molly Brown of Titanic fame purchased artwork from the sale or whether she received Yellow Roses and other paintings as a gift."
One of the pigment analyses was performed by the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. John Twilley (no "Dr." ) himself states that he did the analysis free-lance while he was a LACMA employee, not at the behest or under the aegis of LACMA. The present director, her assistant, and the former director who was Twilley's boss have all confirmed that the analysis can be in no way construed a "LACMA report". OAS and the ownwer were notified of this on 9/9, but Twilley's statement and signature were not added to the auction until 9/15, after I had made LACMA aware of the owner's claims. Despite Twilley's statement, the owner's repeated claims that the analysis was by LACMA remain in the auction listing.
"Under the 'Yellow Roses' is a painting of Yellow Irises with a dedication to Anton Mauve, signed 'Souvenir de Mauve Vincent and Theo 1888'. This shows up in X-ray and in Infra-red." The FACL analysis reads merely "A word is possibly visible in the upper right corner (SOUV---)The upper left corner may also show patterns from underlying layers which may suggest writing..."
The owner has had the painting "ever since" 1957, when s/he acquired it from his/her uncle, who had received it after the death of the owner's grandmother, the person who the owner claims purchased it from Brown's children. "in the 1920's." In July 1997, James T. Bright testified in court that he couldn't purchase another questionable Van Gogh "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." See also tightwad's claims of 9/14 and 9/15.
That John Rewald, "a world renowned expert who authenticated paintings," confirmed the painting Yellow Roses to be an authentic Van Gogh. Rewald died in 1994. No documentation has been provided to substantiate this purported statement by Rewald other than Haskins's claim, nor that Rewald ever even examined the work. And, conveniently, Rewald isn't around to confirm or deny the claim.
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 16, 2000 10:50 AM ]
posted on September 16, 2000 06:07:21 AM new
Tightwad -
"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."
AHEM ... reputable auction houses require FULL disclosure of provenance of important works before the auctions. The seller is expecting someone to ante $2,000,000 just to SEE the supposed proof? When Suis avis is declared a species!
(some deletions to the below)
"I believe that the present owner is Lord Teong Teck Leng, maybe, but dont quote me I know he purchased a Van Gogh .... But since I know he is worth 5 Billion, I dont think he would sell it. ... So 2 and 2 make Lord Teong. He presently resides in Australia."
Interesting that a search on the Web for a reclusive Australian Billionaire (and a bloody Lord, at that) with a penchant for yellow expensive items brings up absolutely ZIP, NADA, SQUAT. How has a titled billionaire has managed to escape mention in the press, and any mention in deBrett's Peerage, as well as the usual mention in the databases of titled persons? I found "Princess May of Teck", but not any Lord Teong Teck Leng using any combination of the names.
posted on September 16, 2000 07:18:24 AM new
Well, dropping the "Lord" title, I did find an interesting article on a "Tan Sri Teong Teck Leng" who in 1998 was being sued by Amsteel Securities over RM19.4 million in debts. http://www.malaysia.net/lists/sangkancil/1998-05/msg01130.html In need of quick cash, perhaps? But then he's worth "5 Billion", no? Wow, for a "disinterested gadfly" someone knows a lot of insider details.
edited to add:
How does a living Van Gogh expert such as Dr. Roland Dorn feel about this work, I wonder? I believe he's still living in Zurich... Or maybe Walter Feilchenfeldt?
[ edited by athena1365 on Sep 16, 2000 07:25 AM ]
posted on September 16, 2000 07:48:26 AM new
Tan Sri Teong Teck Leng ... WOW ... Is he in the picture at http://www.mec.com.my/News/news02.html
"MEC president and CEO Datuk Sri Teong Teck Leng."
AKA "Ybhg. Tan Sri Dato' Sri Teong Teck Leng (Chief Executive Officer MEC)"
Datuk Sri and Tan Sri appear to be local language "honorifics", not anything like "Lord" in the English sense. I'd have to ask one of the Malaysian engineers.
posted on September 16, 2000 01:29:09 PM new
TO: HartCottageQuilt
If the matter of whether or not the pigment analysis were done under the cover of LACMA
jurisdiction, were to go to court LACMA would lose,because they and Dr. Twilley never put a disclaimer on their documents when they accepted the painting to do the analysis. Unless a person is physic like so many of you seem to be, the only way for them to know that LACMA doesnt stand behind the conservator who does the work. Enough about that item.
As for Lord Teong being the same person refered to in one of the posters posts, He may be the same,but in Malaysia many people are called by that name.
Also I find some of your statements to be a bit rambling and non-sensical. I wish you would stick to the subject. Also I want any
one of you to go into one of the major auction houses, without showing you credentials and bankability, UNLESS you are all ready know, to get this information. They will treat you like a poor relation, and ignore your requests. Also they will only tell you who the present owner is if the owner allows it. I keep telling you that you have absolutely no right to the information you are requesting. OAS is only letting out certain information that buyers can see, after they pass the financial and reference requirements.
Regarding the other authorities Dorn and Feldenfelt. I would like to see what they have to say in writing. That would be interesting. I am sure if they said it was indeed a Van Gogh, you would tear their opinion apart too!!!
Also none of you have any art expertise,whatsoever. Otherwise you would be doing it for a living. If any of you had the slightest knowledge about art you would not be so upset about this paintings provenence, and style. Tell me your just out to protect the world from being taken by
someone. Hey how about getting that Nazi Baby Bush to lower the Gas prices. After all his grandfather Prescott Bush helped build the first concentration camp in Poland. Read on Yahoo. George Bush an unauthorized Biography. Open you eyes!!
posted on September 16, 2000 02:48:02 PM new
Actually, tightwad, I do have a great deal of art expertise. Does holding the rank of assistant professor of art history in a well-respected state university system, with a PhD, qualify? Don't assume anything about the people who read or post on these boards. It is because I do have "the slightest knowledge about art" that the inconsistencies and weaknesses of the provenence do "bother" me. Call me anal retentive, if you will, but don't even tell me I don't know of what I speak! Perhaps you would present your art credentials for us? (Didn't think so...)
You are correct in saying that if a real auction house like Christie or Sotheby's were auctioning it off, they would not reveal the name of the owner. Truly, no body here cares who the owner is; you brought that issue up, as a bit of a smokescreen for the real issues, no doubt. However, an auction house would also fully present a valid and well-documented provenence upfront for a positively-identified work, not making a potential bidder wait until the auction is over. If there is documented proof that Rewald made such an attribution, then it should have been posted, as that fact would surely bolster any claim of attribution. Because it is not, forgive me for being highly incredulous of such a claim. If Dr. Roland Dorn or Dr. Walter Feilchenfeldt did authenticate the work, there would be no "tearing apart" their opinion as they are two of the primary living authorities on Van Gogh, particularly in Arles, and on the many forgeries of his work.
I've wasted enough time on this. I have an exam to write, student email to answer and lectures to organize for the week. Good luck, tightwad, with your "Van Gogh" auction!
Wasn't it PT Barnum who said, "There's a sucker born every minute"?
posted on September 16, 2000 03:52:15 PM new
Tightwad ...
Just for grins, when I lived on the east coast, I went into one of the "big three" auction houses to see the previews for a major auction of paintings. A couple of items were expected to sell in the "low seven figure range", and the rest were merely many multiples of my annual salary. If I had a couple hundred thou to spare I could have had a genuine painting by a minor artist of the Renaissance.
I was not treated like a poor relation by the staff. They were very pleasant to me, even though I made it clear I was merely looking at the pretty pictures that were way out of my budget. The authentication tests and provenance were available for inspection on request. I was very interested in the lab reports and what they could and couldn't tell, and the staff was more than happy to oblige my curiosity.
That, sirrah, is the difference between true class and the also rans like your mystery owner/seller with his top secret authentications.
posted on September 16, 2000 04:25:50 PM newabacaxi Your last post reminds me of a conversation I had with a realtor a while back. He was also a client and I was visiting him on a sales call. He asked if I wanted to tour one of the incredibly pricey condos he was offering for sale in a high rise downtown. My reply was, "Absolutely! Let me take a peek at how the well-to-do live!" We toured the incredible place and he asked what I thought. I told him I was ready to move in if he wouldn't bother to check and see if I was qualified. His reply? "Madame, those who will readily say they can't afford it are more often the ones who, if they can't yet, will soon."
I keep waiting to be able to afford it, but for a second there, I felt like I could. Anyone selling high dollar items, be they homes, jewlery or pieces of art, should know better than to judge a book by its proverbial cover. I bought my first Mercedes Benz from a guy who treated me with no respect and thought I was a window shopper. That was just three years ago. There are only two Benz dealers in town....next time I'm going to the other one. And I'll go in jeans, a t-shirt with baby spit-up on it and chipped fingernail polish. Why should I have to be something other than who I am every day to give someone business?
BTW... I've enjoyed your thorough posts in this subject...and I don't see the end of that in sight!
posted on September 16, 2000 05:00:48 PM new
Now remember, kids, tightwad has written "a paper" and is working on "a book" about art. He's probably working on a book on civil law practice too.
posted on September 16, 2000 05:15:37 PM new
tightwad:
The word is "psychic," as in relating to ESP, paranormal events, and so forth. "Physics" deals with Newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics, particle physics, etc.
Now settle down with that stuff about Nazis and conspiracies or I may have to get some of my Illuminati acquaintances involved.
edited to remove a smilie that I couldn't get to work right...
[ edited by pyth00n on Sep 16, 2000 05:16 PM ]
posted on September 16, 2000 05:24:10 PM new zamanski - I tend to go shopping in levis and a t-shirt because I don't care if they get dropped on the floor of the dressing room. And if sales clerks are snooty (inevitable the high-end shops are great, and the second-tier are the snobs), I leave. Then I send the manager a copy of the sales slips from the shopping expedition and tell them exactly how they lost the sales.
pythOOn - "physic" initially meant
a strong laxative ... maybe it WAS the right word, because there's a lotta crap being slung.
posted on September 16, 2000 05:59:50 PM new
Mr. Tightwad, it's painfully obvious that you and the "Owner" person are the one and the same or else working very closely together. Could we please drop the little charade?
What I see in all your indignation and fury is a person desperately wanting to cling to a story that they have been told and that has been proved to have some holes the size of the Grand Canyon (the Molly Brown part) and someone who probably needs some money and who has always thought that they could raise some cash, if necessary, by selling this "supposed" Van Gogh.
To be honest, I do sympathize. It cannot be easy to hear that something you had in the family and/or have always heard stories about is a fake.
However, to continue to protest and to hide and manipulate evidence----the type of evidence that sellers (even anonymous ones) regularly provide, regarding provenence---is perpetuating a story that you know or at least suspect is not true. That is the part that I regard as vile and cowardly.
Sorry you can't just own up to being mistaken or misled unintentionally by family members. Sorry you can't face the fact that statements regarding the presence of chemicals in a painting which are contemporaneous with those used during the lifetime of Van Gogh does not make it a Van Gogh.
I'm just sorry for you, period, and I think you and Old and Sold were a match made in hell. Some auction house with a reputation and experts on staff could have prevented this embarassment to you, which will only get worse when (if?) someone bids.
posted on September 16, 2000 08:42:06 PM newRather than enter an expanded, duplicate post, after assembling my info later last night I thought that this morning I'd just edit my original post and add my most recent questions.
I dunno, brightid. I don't think tightwad is the owner, who claims in the auction listing that the painting's been in his possession since his uncle gave it to him in 1957. I'd pretty sure he's not OwnerVGYR; their grammar and syntax just don't match (although I'll grant you their logic does). Unless we're talking about a real case of multiple personalities, I'd say Lagoldie is the closest thing to being tightwad's alter ego.
Tightwad's slip of the lip regarding who delivered the painting to Twilley and paid for his services jibes with my earlier suspicions about the auction's claims that since 1957 the painting has been in the hands of the grandhild of the woman who bought the painting from Brown's children.
Look at the paper trail of the painting. First, a flurry of activity in 1988:
March - Twilley pigment analysis. Note too Tightwad's claims that the "former owner" turned the painting over to Twilley in 1987 and paid for the work upon completion.
May - FACL report notes that the painting is to be cleaned prior to authentication (which authentication is, significantly, absent), then restored in anticipation of "sale which will occur in October 1988."
Then nothing until:
March 1990 - McCrone pigment analysis.
No news of the painting after that until it appears in a 1997 Maine Antiques Digest news article and court papers regarding another questionable Van Gogh:
T. James Bright, described in the article as "a retired artist and paintings conservator," unsuccessfully tries to buy "Sunflower and Oleanders" by selling "Yellow Roses." He misses the payment deadline because, he said, his money is tied up in "Yellow Roses," for which he hadn't yet collected the $9M sale price.
(Bright had had extensive previous contact with the painting: in 1996 he used it - claiming it as a "known Van Gogh" - and and "Sunflower and Oleanders," another very doubtful Van Gogh, in an application to his "brush stroke analysis technique". )
The MAD article says "Sunflowers" was sold to another party. Although Bright apparently considered contesting that sale, I can't find anything to show that he did so or that he ever acquired "Sunflowers," which leads me to wonder if the 1997 sale of "Yellow Roses" ever went through.
It's pretty clear that attempts were made to sell the painting in 1988 and 1997. If either sale were successful, the painting's in hands other than those of the grandchild of the woman who said she bought it from Brown's estate.
But here's something interesting:
The listing says 1957 was when the owner got his first apartment. According to the article, Bright was 59 in 1997; in 1957 he would've been 19 - the right age for a "first apartment".
Bright had extensive contact with the painting in preparation for his 1996 patent application.
A "brush stroke analysis" appears in the auction listing; oddly, it's unaccompanied by the sort of dated explanatory letter that came from every other analyst and which would appear to be particularly critical in this case - unless of course the party who ordered the analysis was intimately familiar with the technique himself.
Bright himself claimed in court in 1997 that he owned the painting (or at least was a major investor in it).
In 1997 Bright lived in West Hollywood; the high bidder is required to travel to California to examine the painting.
If the painting has indeed been in the same hands since 1957, could those hands belong to T. James Bright?
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 17, 2000 05:29 AM ]
posted on September 17, 2000 05:40:52 PM new
TO: Athena 1365
I think you should give Professor Feilchenfeldt a call in Germany and ask him about the yellow roses, I think you will be surprised on what he has to say.
You CLAIM to have Ph,d in art history, Lets see it, you can take out your name, Do it now so you don't have time to borrow a copy of someone elses. HartCottageQuilt has more ability in art than you will ever have. And as far has I being the owner, I wish I were, because I would sue like crazy.
I would never have put the painting on the web, first of all I would have sold it privately to some Asian Trillionaire. Like Hasanal Bokias.
I have never claimed to have a Phd, but I do!
I just enjoy watching all of you so called
artificial art-officials spout off, and make
outrages statements. Do I know the owner of this painting personaly, NO! Play detective all you want, I doubt that you will ever find the owner. Unless Feilchenfeldt tells you.
You can reach him at Walter Feilchenfeldt
Freie Strasse 116
CH-8032 Zurich
Switzerland
posted on September 17, 2000 06:44:07 PM new
Nice try, Tightwad....I like the masterful way that you wrote Mr. Feilchenfeldt's address, as if you have some personal acquaintance with him.
However, about 5 minutes of surfing the web produced the following information (which can be seen by all at www.cinoa.org):
Walter Feilchenfeldt
President and General Secretariat:
116 Freiestrasse, CH-8032 Zurich, Switzerland
Telephone (41-1) 383 79 60, Fax (41-1) 383 99 48
posted on September 17, 2000 06:56:10 PM new
So...do I call the esteemed Doctor in Germany or Switzerland?
That being said, what all this actually boils down to is the simple need for disclosure.
I am not interested in the painting...
However, why, if the painting were authentic, is there no FIRM (and in writing) document of any authority stating it is?
If I were lucky enough to own a painting of such value (and I could certainly use some extra disposable cash!!) I would get someone who knows to tell me what I own and how best to proceed.
I have enjoyed the brilliant sleuthing, and also am amazed at the power of the Internet to help in such matters. It is truly a world at your fingertips, if you have the patience and the skill to look!
I am not pleased with the owners (or whoever these pro-Van Gogh people are--or is that "is" if there is but one?) for not just providing all important documentation that is alleged to exist. Saying "I know but I'm not telling you," is schoolyard nonsense.
Unfortunately, this incident makes the auction site look like they know little and care less. That is a shame, especially for all the dealers who are trying to sell their goods. Not all exposure is "good for business"...Actually, this to me, is the kiss of death.
I have, no doubt, repeated what others have said, and I apologize. (One of the reasons I rarely post is because my views have already been succinctly stated.) But this has made me so angry (and sad, too) that I felt compelled to type.
Keep at it, you sleuthers! You do all of us proud, and you keep us honest, too!
posted on September 17, 2000 06:59:10 PM new
Well, tightwad, since you insist on playing this game of whipping it out to see whose is bigger....here you go:
'Nuff said.
The game playing, insecure name-dropping and insipid banter is tiresome. "Sue like crazy"? For asking questions and raising issues?? Gee, sorry. Guess that's what life in academia has done to me.
And, again for emphasis, nobody cares who the owner is. Except maybe him. Anonymity's a #*!@, ain't it?
Ciao!
Edited to removed URL, as it served its purpose.
[ edited by athena1365 on Sep 18, 2000 09:00 AM ]
posted on September 17, 2000 07:06:43 PM new
Hey. Ease up on tightwad. He's "written a paper", is "writing a book," can drop names of obscure gazillionaires, is a trailblazer in the area of civil law, and has a "Phd", which I can only surmise is some sort of Malaysian soup (like Vietnamese "pho"?).
AndandAND - he has modified his opinion of moi (which, you'll recall, was that the more I said the "dummer" I sound).
This thread would have died of its own accord had he not posted a couple days back to show the world what a liar I am. Instead, he's inadvertently raised questions about the auction's statement regarding the chain of ownership and the level of "expert" Mr. Bright's disinterest in having his "analysis" prove the painting is what he claims it is.
I really miss ownervgyr. Any chance you moderators would let him back on so he could fulminate in person?
posted on September 17, 2000 07:14:14 PM newAthena, you aren't registered with the online version of (or have a hard copy of) "Who's Who in American Art," Artlibrary International Auction Records or Allgemeines Künstlerlexikon, are you?
I'd love you to do a search on a couple names in connection with this piece, but without a subscription I can't get all the data. If you have access and are willing to do a little hunting, please email me at [email protected].
You can email me anytime, tightwad, but I'll publish everything you say right here.
Edited to add: The auction's now posted the receipt from LACMA for the painting (this is also known as "reachy-reachy", which documents that the painting was left at LACMA while Twilley did his freelance work on it. (You would expect him to transport the painting back and forth in his car every day, maybe?) Now if the owner can just come up with the document that says LACMA did the analysis....and that LACMA believes it's a Van Gogh...
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 17, 2000 07:31 PM ]
posted on September 17, 2000 07:32:26 PM new
The painting do doubt carries a warranty similar to an Oklahoma car salesman's guarantee "50,000 miles or 50 feet", which ever occurs first.
Okee's don't take offense, as I was born in Oklahoma.
posted on September 17, 2000 07:51:39 PM new
Actually, it carries not only NO warranty, but you can't look at the title until you've sent the owner 3 references and a financial statement and are high bidder on the auction. Then - at your own expense - you can bring your mechanic out to California to give it a look-see. If it turns out the engine's held in place with duct tape, you have to jump the car to start it, and the title's bad, hey, you don't have to close the deal. But the cost of your inspection is yours, buddy, whether you buy the car or not.
posted on September 17, 2000 09:06:48 PM new
Oh gee missy Kim, can you now get me Walters phone number in Studtgardt Germany.
Also it sounds like we have a couple of racists horning in on this site.
Nice try Athena 1365, bogus diploma, 50 cents
anywhere in America. You studied art history not art critism, You should know better than to step out of your league. What have you ever done in the art world? Do you paint, draw, sculpt, or just B@$#ch about life, and what you haven't done in your life. Take up Quilting like HartCottageQuilt. Maybe you can make a living sewing,because you wont make anything with your Phd in Art History.
posted on September 17, 2000 09:20:34 PM newtightwadg2
You post is extremely insulting to a number of Community Members. As you were previously issued a formal warning within the last 30 days, your posting privileges have been suspended. If you wish to appeal this moderation decision, please email [email protected]
posted on September 17, 2000 09:42:58 PM new
I must say, this issue aside, I've learned more about art reading this thread then I ever thought possible! (I'm not a big art person....I just like what I like, 'who cares who painted it' type of gal).
Thanks to all for the links. This has been great fun!
Don't assume anything about the people who read or post on these boards. It is because I do have "the slightest knowledge about art" that the inconsistencies and weaknesses of the provenence do "bother" me. Call me anal retentive, if you will, but don't even tell me I don't know of what I speak! Perhaps you would present your art credentials for us? (Didn't think so...)
