posted on September 20, 2000 04:26:19 AM new
macanjan -
I belive Van gogh was supported by his family. As for the cachet of a verified signature ... are "Air Jordans" any better than a no-name? Some humans want the name, others want the art.
FlowBlue -
"It was determined from a technical and chemical persepective" ... chemical because the paints and binders and canvas match the ones Van Gogh was known to have been using in that period. As has already been pointed out, the pigment list used by Van Gogh, as evinced by what he was asking his brother to buy, has very little overlap with the pigment list of the "unblended areas" of Yellow Roses. And the binding and canvas reports have not been shown as evidence to back up the claims of Van Gogh-ism. Do they reveal anything they shouldn't?
AND the "technical" means the style of painting (pure pigments, boldly applied in a single session) matched. I have always thought that The Garden of Saint Paul's looked as though Van Gogh had been hanging out with Georges Seurat ... a minor experiment with pointillism, but with the characteristic vigorous brushwork and vivid pigments of Van Gogh. Compare that with Yellow Roses: blended background, timid brushwork, lack of intensity. Not same technique.
posted on September 20, 2000 04:31:33 AM new
How do we discredit this?
A new statement from Dr. Walter McCrone.
From OAS -
"In a telephone conversation on 9/18/00, Dr. Walter C. McCrone of the McCrone Research Institute was reached for comment on the pigment analysis he performed on the painting Yellow Roses. Dr. McCrone stated, "I did the analysis and firmly stand behind it. I conducted the analysis of the painting entitled Yellow Roses in March of 1990 and will forward a copy of that analysis to Old And Sold for their review and use. My findings were clearly referenced in the letter of March 1990 and I stand behind these findings."
Results from the McCrone analysis clearly state that pigments from Yellow Roses were available to Vincent Van Gogh, and were typical of Van Gogh's known palette. Excerpts from Dr. McCrone's report state, "We have completed the pigment analysis of the 20 X 14 1/16" oil on canvas, Yellow Roses signed by Vincent, Arles 88. All of the pigments identified in nine different samples were consistent with the late 19th century and Van Gogh's palette. All of the pigments identified in Yellow Roses were available to Van Gogh. All of our evidence points to the time period of Van Gogh and the palette matches well Van Gogh's known palette."
I learned from their website that The McCrone Research Institute had also done work on the Shroud of Turin in the late 70's.
posted on September 20, 2000 05:25:49 AM new
Nothing to discredit. All McCrone will state (or even speculate upon) is that that the pigments were available to Van Gogh and that the colors were "typical" of Van Gogh's palette.
That is a far, far stretch from confirming that the painting was done by Van Gogh - which no pigment analysis can prove, as any reputable art historian will tell you. All that such analyses can show is whether the pigments were available at the time the work was supposed to have been done (e.g., if you find acrylics in a Caravaggio, you know something's fishy). The palette may be "typical" of Van Gogh's (which I doubt) - but as the Schuffnacker and Wacker forgeries demonstrate so well, this does not mean that Van Gogh put the paint on this canvas.
Interesting that you bring up the "Garden of St. Paul's Hospital" (where'd that "In Autumn" come in?), since earlier I quoted extensively from the Van Gogh Museum's analysis of the work. Here's a pertinent paragraph:
...[A]ll aspects of the materials and technique of the The Garden of Saint Paul's Hospital considered so far (pre-primed canvas of a specific type, canvas stretched by the artist, repeated provisional stretchings, flat storage between other canvases, type and range of pigments used, discolorations), are entirely consistent with what one finds in paintings by Van Gogh....
In any of the "Yellow Roses" analyses, do we see any notations of the following:
Is the canvas described as commercially pre-primed? No. In fact, the canvas is primed only on 3 edges - NOT on the bottom (which would've been the case if the stretched canvas was sitting on an easel when it was primed).
Is it observed that the canvas used is identical to any authentic Van Goghs? No. All that appears is a thread count.
Is there any indication that the canvas shows signs of being repeatedly stretched by the artist while he was working on it? No. All that is noted is that the stretcher bars are not original.
Is there any paint on the back of the canvas (demonstrating Van Gogh's technique of removing the canvas from the stretchers between painting sessions and stacking it with other paintings)? No.
All that is stated (sigh. Once again) is that the pigments were available in the 1880s and that the palette is typical of Van Gogh.
The bottom line is this: The seller hasn't been able to produce anybody, not even Haskins, who's willing to step forward and say "This is (or I believe that) certainly (or even probably) a Van Gogh." The only parties claiming authenticity are the owner and Bright (and no actual statement from Bright is in the listing).
Hmm. How come none of these posters are addressing the seller's claims of the chain of ownership? If a person is sorely mistaken (or downright lying) about A, do you readily believe he's giving you the whole story on B?
posted on September 20, 2000 07:21:13 AM new
FYI - I just noticed this statement also...
From the LACMA Conservation Scientist who reviewed the painting.
Statement from Mr. John Twilley:
"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."
posted on September 20, 2000 08:11:34 AM newflowblue - that's yesterday's news. I reported this here on September 8. Maybe you need to go back and reread this thread.
Anyway, Twilley's statement is indeed interesting. First, it's not a written statement, but a report (by a very interested party) of a telephone conversation with Twilley in which he is supposed to have confirmed LACMA's 9/8 report to me that HE - not LACMA, as the seller claims - did the analysis freelance. (Nevertheless, the seller persists in describing Twilley's analysis as being by LACMA. Talk about name-dropping and cachet.)
It is also interesting in what it doesn't say.
Twilley never gives any opinion regarding whether the painting was done by Van Gogh. He merely confirms that he "conducted a pigment analysis" on the painting and that the results are "consistent with the period to which the painting has been attributed and the pigments used have been observed by other researchers among those used by Van Gogh." He also notes that although other researchers have observed a heavy reliance on zinc white in Van Gogh's paintings, this is not the case in "Yellow Roses". In other words, this painting differs in a significant way from authenticated works by this artist.
This misattributed analysis is the best the seller can come up with? Pretty sad.
Here's a question: If anybody at LACMA besides Twilley did see this painting (as seller appears to claim), how come LACMA itself didn't jump at the chance to state the work is by Van Gogh? Or even that it "might" or "could" be?
And you still haven't responded to my questions regarding seller's claims concerning the ownership chain...
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 20, 2000 08:15 AM ]
posted on September 20, 2000 08:26:43 AM new
Greetings .....I just have to jump in here. I have personally checked all of the owners references. Spoke with all of the conservators, and can assure you, all stand behind their analysis. All feel "Yellow Roses" is a Van Gogh, due to their analysis. Let me remind all there are three conservators that have come to the same conclusion.
Mr. Scott Haskins stated to me, and AW an reporter. "The palette of the "Yellow Roses" painting matches Van Gogh's exactly. This is Van Gogh's known palette from his Arles period."
In response to this Statement made by abacaxi to Flowblue.
"It was determined from a technical and chemical persepective" ... chemical because the paints and binders and canvas match the ones Van Gogh was known to have been using in that period. As has already been pointed out, the pigment list used by Van Gogh, as evinced by what he was asking his brother to buy, has very little overlap with the pigment list of the "unblended areas" of Yellow Roses. And the binding and canvas reports have not been shown as evidence to back up the claims of Van Gogh-ism. Do they reveal anything they shouldn't"?
In response to your statement concerning the letters Vincent posted to Theo requesting paints. In my conversation with Mr. Haskins he explained to me what the pigment sample are compared to. They are compared to samples from authenticated Van Gogh paintings. They do not rely on letters written from Vincent to his brother. This form of analysis is a science, they are comparing actual known samples that were taken from paintings of Van Gogh. I was assured that this is the same procedure the Van Gogh Museum used to make their final decision in authenticating a paintings. Please don't make statements such as the above, unless you have actual knowledge of there validity.
I hope all that read this thread will actually read the reports and documentation on the "Yellow Roses"before believing all you have read in this thread. Please consider the actual evidence and the statement from the persons that present this evidence. I hope if you have questions in regards how an analysis is performed you will direct them to Mr. Haskins, and not take the word of a persons that have no education in the authentication of fine art.Mr. Haskins has assured me he welcomes questions. We have his telephone number posted on the "Yellow Roses" provenance page, you will find it with his updated statement.
Please let me state, OAS has checked this owners references, all the conservators have stood behind their individual analysis of the "Yellow Roses" painting, indicating that it is of Van Gogh's palette. In the art world today this form of identification is being used as the final way of authenticating a painting, over the old method of visual analysis. It is scientific and proven to be more reliable. It is a well respected method in authenticating a painting today.
I just have to add this analogy, due to so many posters seem to do this frequently. I want to use a bit of your own tactics. If you were to have blood work drawn to determine an illness, would you prefer the lab tech, run your blood work in the proven scientific way or to have a GOOD LONG LOOK AT IT OR LOOK AT OLD LETTERS to perhaps see if someone had mentioned this illness being in your family along the way? I JUST HAD TO DO THAT. It seems so many posters respect these analogies no matter how ridicules they are.
I am not an art expert, that is why I deferred to the experts opinions. I would not presume to give my opinion on a work of art, as many have in this thread. This in away answers your inquiries of WHY OAS Question, Do all of the sleuths evolved here believe they can authenticate a Van Gogh? Do you feel due to your research on the Internet that your opinion should be excepted above experts that have made this form of fine art identification their life's work?
Please all take note how these questions WILL NOT BE ANSWERED---------
All evolved if true to form will go on to take small excerpts of what I have stated and misinterpret the statement as a whole.
It was said in previous postings that I stomped off in a Snit. Actually I did. This form of journalism is deplorable to me, and it does upset me that so many , " most likely nice, intelligent people will buy into this form of misrepresentation.
Everyone has a true right to their opinion, I don't dispute that. But some of the posters here seem to believe their opinions are the only opinions that count. They disregard the experts opinions, they disregard the owners opinion. They truly disregard anyone's opinion that has entered this thread with an objective opinion. SO MANY OPINIONS DISREGARD.
[ edited by theshar on Sep 20, 2000 08:38 AM ]
[ edited by theshar on Sep 20, 2000 01:18 PM ]
posted on September 20, 2000 08:28:08 AM new
I notice this statement also... I thought I would add it.
Statement from Fine Arts Conservation Labs owner - Scott Haskins. In a basic web search, I found that Scott Haskins has been in the conservation business for over twenty years.
Statements from Scott Haskins:
"Mr. Scott Haskins is the owner and head conservator of the California based Fine Art Conservation Laboratories (FACL). Mr. Haskins is considered to be one of the most respected and renowned conservators in his field. In his role as a technical analysis expert, he analyzes art to determine the time period in which it was produced.
He uses methods such as pigment analysis, x-ray work, and infrared reflectometry. Beyond that, conservators can use even more magnification and solubility tests. Sophisticated equipment such as x-ray refraction, and gas and liquid chromatography obtain an even more precise analysis of a painting. Mr. Haskins has performed pigment analysis along with infrared reflectometry and x-rays on the painting, Yellow Roses.
Mr. Haskins reports, due to his extensive evaluation of the painting's pigment analysis, that "The palette of theYellow Roses painting matches Van Gogh's exactly. This is Van Gogh's known palette from his Arles period."
He goes on to state that "My position is to give an unbiased presentation of the facts. The painting itself - the materials and background and labels - indicate that it’s from the period it should be."
In addition, Mr. Haskins has provided many interesting facts that support the history of the painting. He reports to Auction Watch that, "Yellow Roses was first obtained by Helen Henderson Chain during one of her many trips to France and brought to the United States. Helen Chain, also known as 'Trot' (as in globe-trotter), regularly went to France to purchase art for her Denver gallery, Chain & Hardys. Her gallery closed in 1892, after she and her husband died on the ship Balkar during a typhoon in the South China seas. A label from the gallery is still present on the reverse of the original frame of Yellow Roses."
Helen Henderson Chain's heirs sold the estate's contents for slightly less than $1 million in 1892. 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. Whatever the case, "Property of Molly Brown" is written on the reverse of the painting's frame.
Additionally, another painting inherited by the owner along withYellow Roses has been authenticated as being painted by Helen Henderson Chain. "Property of J.J. and Molly Brown is written on the reverse of this painting's frame along with a sticker from the BL James Company, which was once next door to Chain & Hardys."
A point of interest is that Mr. Haskins has discussed the painting with other art experts, including a Mr. John Rewald, who was the author of several influential books on Impressionism. "John Rewald was a world renowned expert who authenticated paintings." Before his death in 1994, Rewald was recognized as the foremost authority on late 19th-century art. According to Mr. Haskins, Rewald confirmed the painting Yellow Roses to be an authentic Van Gogh."
Short bio that I found on Scott Haskins:
The author, Scott M. Haskins, has worked in both Europe and the U.S. as a professional conservator for the last 20 years. In addition, for the last 7 years he has taught adult education classes on how to preserve your treasured family history items. He has worked with historical societies, museums, corporations, State governments and the Federal government and most important he has helped tens of thousands of people to save their "stuff."
posted on September 20, 2000 09:13:50 AM new
Oh, for crying out loud....
Look, flowblue2 [and I'm sorry, but I really DO have to ask what your relation to the seller of this painting or to OAS is], let me say this once and for all:
NOBODY IS DOUBTING THAT THIS IS AN OLD PAINTING AND THAT THE PAINTS USED WERE AVAILABLE TO VAN GOGH!
The problem [which you and your fellow cheerleaders seem unable to grasp] is that it is not enough to say that Van Gogh had access to the same pigments used in this painting and therefore COULD have painted it. There also needs to be some expert opinion that Van Gogh actually DID paint it.
Yes, Mr. Twilley did an "expert" analysis [whether on his own or under the aegis of the museum I couldn't care less], but all his analysis shows is that the pigments used in the painting are "consistent with the period to which the painting has been attributed and the pigments used have been observed by other researchers among those used by Van Gogh." Note that he DOESN'T offer ANY OPINION WHATSOEVER as to whether Van Gogh actually painted it. In fact, he actually states that one pigment which is typically found in Van Gogh's pallete is notably ABSENT from this painting, which would seem to indicate that it is NOT a true Van Gogh. And please keep in mind that NOBODY is claiming that Mr. Twilley did not conduct the analysis or that his report is different than reported on the AOS site, so the fact that Mr. Twilley "stands behind his written report" means absolutely NOTHING.
Next up, we have Mr. Scott Haskins. Is he an acknowledged expert on Van Gogh paintings? Why no -- he's a "conservator" and "technical analysis expert". And even if he were qualified to state that this painting is an authentic Van Gogh, does he do so? Nope. All he says is that "the palette of the Yellow Roses painting matches Van Gogh's exactly. This is Van Gogh's known palette from his Arles period" and "the painting itself - the materials and background and labels - indicate that it’s from the period it should be." So, once again, the best we can say about this expert analysis is that it proves that the paint used matches those used by Van Gogh [which curiously contradicts the statement of the other "expert", Mr. Twilley, who said that one of the expected pigments was missing]. Not that this painting was, in fact, done by Van Gogh, but simply that the same types of paints were used by Van Gogh.
Everything else Mr. Haskins says on the subject, BTW, is heresay and outside his field of expertise. The "provenance" he recites is simply a restatement of the claims by the owner, with absolutely NOTHING to document the story. All he is doing is passing along what he was told by the owner, nothing more. And we have already been shown how much [if not all] of that "provenance" is inconsistent with known historical facts.
In fact, the only "expert" testimony the owner can provide as to the authenticity of this paiting is the statement "according to Mr. Haskins, Rewald confirmed the painting Yellow Roses to be an authentic Van Gogh." Do we have a written statement from Mr. Rewald? Nope. Is Mr. Rewald alive to give testimony on the subject. Nope. Are we even sure Mr. Rewald was talking about the same paiting or that Mr. Haskins heard him correctly? Nope.
Could this painting POSSIBLY have been done by Van Gogh? Of course it's possible. I'm perfectly willing to beleive the various "experts" who say the pigments used were "available" to Van Gogh or "match his pallete" [even though there is apparently some disagreement among the experts on this point]. But instead of wasting everybody's time with all this expert testimony that the painting COULD POSSIBLY have been done by Van Gogh, why can't the owner provide a single, first-hand statement by a living expert in the field [or at least a written statement from a dead expert, in the case of Mr. Rewald] that the painting actually IS a genuine Van Gogh?
Has the owner brought the painting to the Van Gogh museum and asked them to authenticate it as a genuine Van Gogh? If so, why doesn't he say so? Has the owner brought the paiting to ANY museum and asked them to authenticate it as a genuine Van Gogh [and not simply had a pigment analysis done to see whether the materials used are contemporary with Van Gogh or not]? If so, why doesn't he say so? Is this painting included in any catalogs of Van Gogh's works? Does the artworld in general accept this to be a genuine Van Gogh? If so, why isn't this mentioned anywhere?
The simple fact is that NOT ONE SINGLE "EXPERT" has come forward to say that this painting -- being sold for $2 million -- is a genuine Van Gogh. And, it appears, the owner hasn't bothered to ASK anybody whether the painting is a genuine Van Gogh or not [or if he has, he hasn't published those results]. All we know is that the pigments used were available to Van Gogh at the time. Nobody is doubting that. But it doesn't mean that actually Van Gogh did the painting.
Sheeeeeesh....
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on September 20, 2000 09:13:54 AM newflowblue, do go back and read the past week and a half of this thread. The info you're presenting as news has been discussed at length.
Aside from the fact that your "bio" info on Haskins states no education or certification, makes vague generalizations regarding "stuff", and states that he's taught some adult ed classes in taking care of your antiques (heck, I assisted in teaching an adult ed art class when I was 15), it doesn't make Haskins's analysis say anything other than - just as with Twilley and McCrone - the paints are appropriate to the period attributed and the palette is similar to Van Gogh's.
But heck, let's assume for a minute that the "statements" the owner attributes to Haskins were actually made by Haskins.
Haskins is supposed to have said that he discussed the painting with, inter alia, John Rewald. It is impossible to verify that claim or that Rewald opined (interestingly, never in writing) that the painting was an authentic Van Gogh - since Rewald is conveniently dead. No writing from Rewald has been produced to confirm his purported opinion or that he even saw the painting.
Haskins claims the painting was bought by Chain in Europe. All the proof Haskins provides the label on the frame, and his recollection that Chain did indeed travel to Europe and buy paintings there.
Haskins reports that Chain's estate was sold in 1892, and proposes that Brown may have bought the painting from the estate. That doesn't jibe at all with the seller's claims that this is one of 3 paintings Brown acquired in 1890 "from somewhere." No receipts, letters or inventories have been produced to confirm when, from whom, or by whom the painting was purchased.
But here's a real interesting one: Haskins's statement that the painting was owned by Brown is, apparently, based on "Property of Molly Brown" being written on the frame in pencil. I wonder if he's aware that in her lifetime Molly Brown was not called "Molly" but "Maggie"...
posted on September 20, 2000 09:37:25 AM new
Molly Brown House(http://www.mollybrown.com/architecture.html): information about Maggie and J.J. Brown's house, including floor plan, interior and exterior pictures, and other pertinent information.
[ edited by nebula5 on Sep 20, 2000 09:39 AM ]
Goodness, how irate. I thought you'd stomped away for good. But I see you're back doing PR work for OAS.
You know, theshar, from your grammar/spelling/syntax, anybody'd think you were lagoldie or tightwad. But that's neither here nor there.
I have never professed to have any more expertise in art analysis than the parties who analyzed this painting. I have merely pointed out that the reports provided NEVER in any way state that the painting IS - or even MIGHT BE - by Van Gogh. I have further pointed out that in his report, Mr. Haskins either did not describe additional information available to him regarding the Chain-Brown ownership, or that he relied on hearsay from the owner; that Mrs. Brown was known as "Maggie" in her lifetime, making it highly unlikely that the "Property of MOLLY Brown" on the frame was written by her or anyone connected with her estate; and that in any case, nobody's demonstrated that Mr. Haskins actually has any credentials that would enable him to authenticate the work other than to analyze the pigments and note its condition.
I also point out that that the seller has filled in a number of significantly blank spaces on his own.
There are so many to choose from...Let's try something simple for you to focus on. The FACL report states:
A word is possibly visible in the upper right hand corner {SOUV---)
But in his auction listing, the seller reports that info like so:
Under the 'Yellow Roses' is a painting of Yellow Irises with a dedication to Anton Mauve, signed 'Souvenir de Mauve Vincent and Theo 1888'
Why is this?
I don't claim to be an art expert. All I am is a simple, sickly ol' maid, makin' quilts and livin' hyar on a dirt road with muh chickens, ducks an' pigs - who despite those hideous limitations can spot glaring inconsistencies, misrepresentations and some downright lies at 100 yards.
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 20, 2000 11:22 AM ]
posted on September 20, 2000 12:18:43 PM new
Hey Everybody????
I just went out and bought a Book. The book is by Ronald Pickvance,based on an exhibit in New York of Van Goghs paintings, by Mr. Pickvance. At the back of the book is a painting called Yellow Roses. Is this the same we are talking about.
Oh by the way, lets not make this site boring. If you are going to sound like art experts, please quote your sources, otherwise it sounds like you are trying to make yourselves out as experts, you are not supposed to be experts. Thats a big selling point. Also I have spoke to a few interested parties, and they told me, either someone has to be murdered or the painting has to turn out to be real.
Let me know about the yellow roses in Pickvances book. Talk to everyone later.
posted on September 20, 2000 12:23:58 PM new
I did a bit of amateur sleuthing myself. I contacted the LACMA this morning. Here is what I found out.
* John Twilley worked for the LACMA as a Senior Conservation Scientist.
* He has been doing this type of work for over 15 years and is highly respected as an expert in this area.
* The LACMA does not authenticate any work. It will only render opinions on paintings which in their own collection.
* The work of John Twilley was done using the equipment of the Museum.
* It was done on his personal time.
* I also learned that only a handful of people in the world can authenticate a Van Gogh. The museums opionion would not hold up. Only the few experts (Van Gogh Museum and a couple of others) opinions hold any weight.
posted on September 20, 2000 12:27:09 PM newstarvnartsts, you said you've downloaded the entire thread? Check my posts. I note links to all my sources - primarily the Molly Brown Museum, the Van Gogh Museum, the Maine Antiques Digest (and the court papers published therein), the Sacramento Bee, vangoghgallery.com (the primary Van Gogh internet site, which includes all the artist's letters) and the USPTO.
Lag - oops, I mean theshar, do tell: what part of the information I've posted from the aforementioned sites do you find "offensive" and worthy of disagreement?
flowblue, what part of the information you got from LACMA about Twilley wasn't previously noted here at least a week ago? Please - find out something actually new.
You might find it interesting to know that the Van Gogh Museum will examine and authenticate a suspected Van Gogh free of charge. All they ask for is "a[n] authentication request and a good quality colour photograph." Apparently this was never done with "Yellow Roses." Or was it?
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 20, 2000 12:32 PM ]
posted on September 20, 2000 12:33:45 PM new
Although I don't know the first thing about art, I have found this thread to be awfully interesting.
Concerning the previously posted opinion...
I also learned that only a handful of people in the world can authenticate a Van Gogh. The museums opionion would not hold up. Only the few experts (Van Gogh Museum and a couple of others) opinions hold any weight.
Have the opinions of one of these experts been sought by the owner of the painting? If not, why not?
edited... spelling
[ edited by mrpotatoheadd on Sep 20, 2000 12:34 PM ]
posted on September 20, 2000 12:39:33 PM new
Hart Cottage Quilts -
I will check your references for accuracy. I would like to understand the complete story for myself.
posted on September 20, 2000 12:43:45 PM new
Wow. Talk about pitiful! I am shocked at the attack on HCQ from an employee (owner?) of OAS. Very tacky. Not quite what I would expect from a OA site. Based on her charming attitude....I wouldn't shop at OAS in my lifetime now. And I will make sure I let my auction friends know about "theshar" and her customer service style. Just charming. You should be proud OAS.
posted on September 20, 2000 01:10:31 PM new
In her first post theshar identified herself as "Sharon, I am one of the representatives from OldAndSold." A magazine article on the site identifies a person by that name as the marketing director who "maintains excellent public relations with their users":
As little regard as I have for OAS, it's a real stretch for me to believe OAS knows about these posts from one of its principals. I wonder: is theshar actually the person she says she is? Or is this somebody else, whose sole aim in life is to make OAS look bad? It's creepy, particularly when that poster's style is virtually identical to a couple others who've been suspended for their conduct.
Methinks that, as much as she dislikes me, I'll email my former contact at OAS and give her a heads-up.
posted on September 20, 2000 01:35:09 PM new
Since we have picked apart Old And Sold in regards to the condtions of sale. I thought I would give a little comparison between what is offered at Old And Sold and Sothebys.
From condition of sale at Sothebys:
"Please note that items of Property offered on the Site are offered for sale by Sotheby’s in some cases and by sellers independent of Sotheby’s in many other cases. Where items of property are offered for sale on this Site by a Seller other than Sotheby’s, the Seller of such item is solely responsible for estimates, descriptions, condition, authenticity, title and all other matters relating to the offer and sale of such item, and neither Sotheby’s, the Site Provider nor any of their affiliated entities have seen the relevant item or are responsible for any errors or omissions with respect to such information.... If you purchase a lot from a Seller, and believe that you have a right to return the property to the Seller under paragraph 3 of these Conditions of Sale or have any other dispute with the Seller, you should contact the Seller directly to pursue your claim. "
posted on September 20, 2000 01:42:26 PM new
The difference between OAS and Sothebys being, of course, that Sotheby's would never advertise "Yellow Roses" as (a) an authenticated Van Gogh (b) received by Molly Brown as an 1890 wedding gift without having some actual conclusive documentation from reputable sources with which to back up those claims. It knows it would be laughed out of the industry otherwise, particularly if (as in the case of "Yellow Roses" it agreed to allow only the high bidder to examine the item, and then only AFTER the sale, and at his own expense.
posted on September 20, 2000 02:16:20 PM new
Gee I am so shocked that theshar deleted her lovely little posts...NOT!!!
I bet she doesn't know that her words were still sent to everyone who had the email notification turned on.
posted on September 20, 2000 02:16:25 PM new
Hey Starvnartsts! You have gone and let the pig, I mean cat out bag. Pretty good documentation isn't it HCQ. I ask again along with Shar? What now? What happens when your wrong? Oh yes Shar, You----Go--- Girl---
Know find our book Pork Lady! You should have read my first post a little more closely. You see I out and out told you I saw "Yellow Roses " in Amsterdam, In the Amsterdam Museum. Quite a clue to over look. But our sleuths were skeptical, and opinionated. They wanted to believe the worst. They totally disregarded my statement. The museum is where you should have checked first. I just knew you would not.I am sure this is most likely the owners ace in the hole. The junior detectives lead all on a merry chase. But I fear the game to be just about over.Angels do not lie. LAgoldie
posted on September 20, 2000 02:39:14 PM new
Is the tension mounting? Is there a drum roll in the distance? Who will buy? Are the autumn leaves falling at your window?
posted on September 20, 2000 02:40:49 PM new
Go off for just a bit and find I missed a priceless theshar post. The last one. (I did see the one putting HCQ on her "thrown." Would someone email it to me ([email protected])? I hate to miss any of this. Email notification is now on.
[ edited by switch on Sep 20, 2000 02:43 PM ]
posted on September 20, 2000 02:47:48 PM new
"Pork Lady"?
ROTFLMAO
Actually, since I've provided links to all the sources *I* quote, I think it's only fair that, assuming our friend actually has this book (just ran right out and bought it after downloading this thread for his screenplay, I guess), he post a jpg of it here, along with a pic of the text that refers to the painting. No cut-and-paste allowed; we need to see the page in its entirety.
lagoldie (I expect "Sibyl" to start posting at any time), we have only your word on 8/30 (and your memory) that you "saw" this painting in Amsterdam. The day after you claimed that was the very painting, you stated that "I can't say this painting Oldandsold has is the actual painting I saw in Amsterdam, but I can say there was a painting that was titled Yellow Roses that looks exactly like the painting Oldandsold has up on their home page on loan to the museum from a person that resided in the city of Angels."
So...do you remember, or don't you? Are you sure it's the same one, or not?
starvnartst, is the book you just bought Pickvance's "Van Gogh in Arles" or "Van Gogh in St.-Remy and Arles", a review of the 1984 Metropolitan Museum show?
posted on September 20, 2000 03:07:21 PM new
A little bit on the authentification process. From the van Gogh article this month in ARTnews.
On Authentification - Johannes van der Wolk - Kroller-Muller Museum.
"In determining the authenticity of a painting, curators seek a complex of factors and data. There is the stylistic approach, often referred to as connoisseurship - a painting either looks like a van Gogh or it does not. Then there is technical analysis, ranging from radiography and spectrography to the checmical composition of pigments, and the distinctive qualities of the the canvas. And finally, there is the pedigree approach, tracing the provenance of a work, not only through its previous owners... But also as revealed through van Gogh's extensive correspondence... According to van der Wolk, specialists need to create a matrix of information that confirms the authenticity of a work whether it is a painting or a drawing. This would include both technical and documentary material."
Considered one of the experts on van Gogh in the world.
it agreed to allow only the high bidder to examine the item, and then only AFTER the sale, and at his own expense.