posted on September 20, 2000 03:40:39 PM newflowblue2: "In determining the authenticity of a painting, curators seek a complex of factors and data...."
Very interesting paragraph. It's just too bad that the owner of the painting has [deliberately?] chosen not to actually have it authenticated by any museum curators, relying instead on a pigment analyst, an "art conservation scientist" and a "professional conservator". And none of THOSE "experts" seem to be willing to eve say that the painting IS a genuine Van Gogh, only that it COULD BE one.
I don't know if you are purposely ignoring me [should I take that to mean you can't answer my questions?], but let me ask again...
Can the owner of this painting 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? If, as you say, there are "a handful of people in the world can authenticate a Van Gogh", has the owner actually ASKED any of these people to authenticate it before trying to sell it for the princely sum of $2 million? Has he approached the Van Gogh Museum to see if they wanted to buy the painting? Does the Van Gogh Musuem acknowledge this painting to be a genuine Van Gogh?
Nobody is doubting the technical qualifications of the "experts" who have examined this painting and given their opinions. But none of them have actually said it IS a genuine Van Gogh, only that it COULD be one. And none of them are actually experts in authenticating paintings in the first place, only in "conserving" them.
You know, I'm starting to think that maybe -- just maybe -- you had an ulterior motive for suddenly showing up on an eBay related discussion board out of the blue and talking about this painting on a competitor's auction site. Are you in any way associated with the owner of the painting or with the OAS site? Did you come here just to promote your business? I'm not accusing you of anything, but I would love to know your reasons for posting here in the first place.
Regards,
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
[ edited by godzillatemple on Sep 20, 2000 03:41 PM ]
posted on September 20, 2000 03:48:49 PM new theshar
When you can't attack the logic, attack the debater, eh?
"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."
But why have not all three of them been willing to put this "feeling" into writing and SIGN IT! Where are the signed statements stating that in their expert opinion, this IS a Van Gogh? Is it because none of them are an acknowledged expert in the techniques of Van Gogh? All I have seen are the lab analyses ... and the lab analysis from my great-uncle Dave's daubings would show the same results - 1880s pigments and an old frame.
"I hope all that read this thread will actually read the reports and documentation"
Uh ... WE DID! And that's where all the doubts come from ... the discrepancy between the bare facts of the analyses and the highly embroidered description on the listings. How does the trace of what MIGHT be "SOUV" written on an underlayer (lab report) turn into the inscription "SOUVENIER DE MAUVE THEO VINCENT" (auction description)? How does a label on a frame turn into a buying trip wherein H. Chain bought the picture and gave it to Molly Brown? It's the loose ends, leaps of faith and assumptions that have us questioning things.
"He explained to me what the pigment sample are compared to. They are compared to samples from authenticated Van Gogh paintings."
They are actually compared to previously published results of similar analyses done on known VG paintings ("the pigments used have been observed by other researchers among those used by Van Gogh". You can't keep taking samples off a valuable painting and running them every time someone wants another test run. You look up the spectra in a book or other reference publication.
"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?"
As a former medical technologist (ASCP certified, 12 years experience), this made me laugh! As well as looking at the results of the lab tests (some of these are visual examinations of the cells in the blood or the debris in urine), the MD has to ask questions, do a physical exam, and compare the collection of symptoms and lab results with known diseases. Knowing the recent activities and yes, the family history too, is essential to making a diagnosis. Lab tests are used as much to rule out possible illnesses as to confirm them. Pigment analysis is used to rule OUT the possibility of a painting being from a certain era, but if the pigments match an era, that says nothing about who the artist was. It takes a different kind of exam for that - canvas, painting technique and the overall feel.
"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?"
"This form" ... being lab analysis of paintings to show the kind of pigment.
1. I am not doubting the accuracy of their chemical analysis!
2. I am not saying the analysis does not show the painting is old.
I am saying that nothing in the lab analysis shows it to BE a Van Gogh,
just an old painting.
flowblue
"I also learned that only a handful of people in the world can authenticate a Van Gogh. The museum's opionion would not hold up. Only the few experts (Van Gogh Museum and a couple of others) opinions hold any weight."
So why has the painting NOT been submitted to the Van Gogh museum for authentication?
"comparison between Old And Sold and Sothebys."
For starters, Sotheby's makes ALL the provenance and lab results available BEFORE the bidding starts. Old And Sold appears content with letting the seller charge $2,000,000 for a looksee!
lagoldie
Wrong city - this exhibition was NOT is Amsterdam, it was in
New York. and note the QUESTION on the wording.
"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."
Starvnartsts
Scan the picture and post it, and include the info abuot SIZE and owner at the time of the exhibition. I'm certainly curious to see it!
posted on September 20, 2000 03:49:35 PM new
Well, Barry, of the 15 posts made by [f]flowblue2[/b] since her 7/15/00 registration, all 15 have been to this thread, which she started. I guess she never found any other thread interesting enough, but when she found this auction she just had to de-lurk. Hey, it could happen, and probably does on occasion.
posted on September 20, 2000 03:50:24 PM newStarvnartsts: Since you have the book, why not check out the auction [there's a link to it on the first page of this thread, I believe] and tell us whether it is the same painting or not.
However, since the owner hasn't mentioned ANYTHING about this painting ever being part of any "exhibit in New York of Van Goghs paintings" [which would certainly lend at least SOME credibility to his claims], I suspect it is not the same painting.
Assuming the paintings ARE the same, however, perhaps you can tell us a little more about this "exhibit in New York of Van Goghs paintings" where the painting appeared? Was it sponsored by a museum? Was this painting actually PART of the exhibit and labeled as a Van Gogh, or was it simply in the same location?
I just didn't want you to think people were ignoring you....
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on September 20, 2000 04:12:21 PM new
If it's Pickvance's book (actually there are two), it's basically an expanded catalogue of the Met exhibit which took place in 1984 - some 3 years before Twilley was asked to analyze the pigment.
It wouldn't be this painting, would it, starvnartst?
posted on September 20, 2000 05:32:18 PM new
In case anyone's trying to track the various participants' "costume changes" while offstage, I can't resist listing the following language butcherings that appeared in the now-deleted "theshar" postings from this morning. A slightly later one, of course, included the already-alluded-to:
"thrown" with word intended: "throne"
But also appearing were:
"there validity" (their validity)
"away" (a way) (possibly a true typo)
"ridicules" (ridiculous)
"excepted" (accepted)
"evolved" (involved)
Note all of these garbled misusages would fail to be flagged by a spell checker since they ARE words, just the wrong ones. Sorry, but I simply do NOT trust the ability of a person who can't use words like these correctly, and proofread something being published like this to catch such errors, to be able to read even mildly complex writing by others and comprehend what's being expressed.
And, speaking of LAgoldie, you keep asking what happens if someone buys this painting and it's genuine? First, someone buying it won't prove squat, really, and I doubt we'd be updated in any reliable fashion on this thread by the principals, anyway. What happens? What do you THINK happens? This thread dies... dwindles away and w/o frequent new postings, vanishes, as it almost certainly will at month's end, anyway. You slink away, we slink away, who cares? Are you implying there should be some sort of ramifications for either "side" here if somebody lays down $2 million under these OAS terms to look at this painting up close? Then offer terms for a "real money" bet, with some trusted secondary party whose ID is already known (like HCQ, lol!), but who would maintain confidentiality of the sources of the bets, designated to hold the bets in escrow until the end of the month when it can be seen if a bid was registered at OAS.
I might as well say: "What happens if no bids come on this auction, what then for all you defenders of it, as you're shown to be running an auction that's utterly unconvincing yet wasting our time here with all these multiple-ID postings?" The answer is, nothing happens. THIS right now is what happens. Carpe diem. Whazzzat mean, "make a fish your god?" Whatever. Performance art is what happens, and it IS happening.
Oh, you asked how to make a "smilie." Actually, the post right after that one so long ago tried to tell you but wasn't very clear. You type a colon ":" then immediately a closed-parenthesis "". With a space between: : ) or colon-dash-parenthesis
: - ) and sometimes a "frownie-smilie" with the open-parenthesis "(" instead. And sometimes a semi-colon makes a winking-smilie.
Here, w/o the spaces: ;( Not sure which work on this site, am experimenting there myself...
[ edited by pyth00n on Sep 20, 2000 05:44 PM ]
[ edited by pyth00n on Sep 23, 2000 08:27 PM ]
posted on September 20, 2000 05:49:07 PM new
A bit more information on techniques used to authenticate a van Gogh from the ARTnews article on the so-called van Goghs.
On authenticating "The Garden of Saint Paul's Hospital In Autumn"...
"Van Tiloborgh saw additional corroborating evidence in the artist's correspondence. In a letter to Theo, van Gogh mentioned that he had painted two canvases simulataneously: 'I am working on a rain effect and an evening effect with large pine trees.' Observing that a weather report from October 31, 1889, indicated a downpour of 22 cm in Saint-Remy, van Tilborogh argues that the first canvas was 'Rain', now in the Philadelphia Museum of Art, and the second was 'The Park at Sain-Remy', in which puddles of water left from the storm are indicated with splashes of yellow paint, reflecting the 'evening effect' of a setting sun."
Interesting how they are using a weather report to validate the painting.
Also...
On the Gachet Collection at the Musee d'Orsay...
"At the height of the 1998 controversy over 'Garden at Auvers', when the press led by Landais begin raising questions about the Gachet collection, the Musee d'Orsay deliberated on an appropriate response. Initially, museums officials decided not to respond at all. 'Someone comes along out of the blue and says, 'I dont like this painting of Dr. Gachet' and 'I dont like his son' and 'I think they were crooks and they made fakes and these fakes are in your museum.'' observes Ann Distel. 'You cant respond every time someone criticizes a work of art.'
[ edited by flowblue2 on Sep 20, 2000 05:52 PM ]
[ edited by flowblue2 on Sep 20, 2000 05:54 PM ]
BTW, it's not from "this month's" issue, but the Summer 2000 issue of ArtNews Online, and is found in the magazine's back issues collection.
It'd be appreciated if, as others have done when they've quoted from online sources, you include a link...
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 20, 2000 06:32 PM ]
posted on September 20, 2000 07:46:58 PM new
Whoa... where did THAT come from???
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on September 20, 2000 08:21:42 PM new
Hey everybody????
Have you all been busy little beavers! Let me answer some of the questions asked.
In ref: HCQ, I know about the earlier source refrencing, I am refering to the last few quotes by you and abacaxi, you sound too much like experts, if you are quoting someone
else, please state so.
On the book I bought, It from the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York on a van gogh exhibit curated by Mr. Ronald Pickvance, between Oct 18 until Dec 30 1984
It says Yellow Roses size 14 X 20 in private collection. thats all. Although the flowers dont look yellow to me, they look orange. But maybe since this is an old book the colors may have faded.
I called the publishers to try to get hold of Mr. Pickvance. They gave me a phone number
which I called. But it was an old number. He lives in England.
Also it gives Mr. John Rewald as an expert
who wrote books on van gogh in 1936 Van Gogh
en Provence "L;Amour de l'Art
van gogh The Artist and the Land,"
Theo van Gogh, Goupil and the Impressionists,"
Gauguin Drawings.
The Pickvance books states the the painting was done in a Japonaiserie motif.
I believe that this book was personaly autographed by Pickvane it is dedicated to a
Nina, but I cant read the signature clearly,
it looks like a scribble.
What I want to know about some of the people in this thread is some of their background,
I know HCQ background, and I think by one post that abacaxi is a black woman, correct?
I also know about Barry, Hi Barry!
I need info on Athena 1365, why the number?
Pyth00? Male or female? And what do you do for a living?
I dont want to make anything up.
I need info on LaGoldie, I see her as a hot blonde, I mean temper wise.
Info on Tightwad:
Also the person who started this thread Flowblue. And anyone elso who has contributed to this thread more than once.
I do not have scanner so sorry. But I am getting a new one, last one I had was struck by lighting, yes, lighting.
I will try to get hold of Mr Pickvance tonight, I will check thru the net.
posted on September 20, 2000 11:20:09 PM new
Well, "Alex," I certainly don't need to be a "busy little beaver" to figure something out and sort of ask a question to the OWNER of the painting.
IF the painting were part of a large exhibit in 1984, why didn't the owner of said painting provide a scan of the painting as featured in the catalogue?
That would certainly provide a great deal more credence and weight to the claim that it is a Van Gogh, as opposed to a scan of an alleged receipt where the painting size doesn't even match the auction-stated dimensions.
Hell, if I owned something that were publicly shown, I would CERTAINLY save the documents as a matter of pride. I still have the newspaper where the first advertisement for my antiques shop appears.
Since your scanner had an interesting encounter with a bolt of lightning (I am reminded of an X-Files episode), I guess that I shall not be treated to a picture of it.
However, since the photo of the painting up for auction is readily available (unless Old&Sold suddenly is struck by a bolt of conscience), why don't you just click on it, open to the page in your catalogue, and tell us if it is the same painting.
I can't wait to find out.
---SkorpioGal
(Edited because it is late and I am an incompetent typist)
[ edited by SkorpioGal on Sep 20, 2000 11:25 PM ]
Starvnartsts, Well you must be the physic in this group. Yes, I have a hot temper, and its done me well. Yes, I am blonde, but so are 88% of all women in California, and dam I am hot, but so are 88% of LA's women. But I am open minded, you got it so are 88% of all LA women.What do I do for a living , use your physic powers?
Starvnartsts,Good work finding THE BOOK, but it will put an end to this game.
Just anther Angel from LA.
posted on September 21, 2000 04:01:34 AM newStarvnartsts: I'm thrilled to hear that you "know about" me! I hope, of course, that it is all good?
Before you contact Mr. Pickvance, why not simply compare the picture in the book with the picture of the painting for sale? If they match, then we can go to the next step. But if they DON'T match, that pretty much ends the debate on this topic, eh?
Anyway, just to make it easy for you, here is the picture from the OldandSold site of the picture in question:
So, do they match? Is this the same painting that is in your book? Or is your mention of this book just another non-issue? I will, of course, take silence upon your part as an admission that they are NOT the same....
Regards,
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on September 21, 2000 04:29:06 AM new
Starvnartsts -
If the painting HAD been shown at a Van Gogh exhibition in NY in 1984, there would have been no need to have the pigment analysed in 1987-88 would there? It would have been already accepted as a Van gigh by Pickvance, who is one of the acknowledged experts about Van Gogh.
Scan the picture of the one that was exhibited and post it so we can compare it with the one being sold.
"I am refering to the last few quotes by you and abacaxi, you sound too much like experts, if you are quoting someone
else, please state so" ... when I quote someone, I put the material in these things " " My normal writing style is formal and sounds like I know what I am talking about. Good grammar and spelling is intimidating
[b]flowblue[]
Yes, it is possible towards the end of Van gogh's life to figure out what he was working on by the letters to Theo. But when the LETTER mentions the "Souveneier de Mauve", he's working on orchard pictures, not flowers in vases. Are you saying he overpainted
posted on September 21, 2000 05:32:30 AM new
A little bio on Helen Henderson Chain. On the back of "Yellow Roses", a label from the "Chain & Hardy" bookstore exists. It was also stated by Scott Haskins (Fine Art Conservations Lab owner) that the owner of "Yellow Roses" also has an authenticated Helen Henderson Chain painting.
-----------------------------------------
Helen Henderson Chain was one of the most important members of the Colorado art community during the final quarter of the 19th century. A native of Indiana, she moved to Denver in 1871, and operated the Chain and Hardy bookstore, a book, stationary and framing supply emporium which also functioned for a number of years as an art gallery. She studied and progressed rapidly as a painter under the tutelage of the American artist Hamilton Hamilton, and reportedly studied during a winter in New York with the American master George Inness She exhibited a canvas of Long's Peak at the Cent3ennial Exposition in Philladelphia in 1876, and in 1878, exhibited these two picures at her studio, earning her serious plaudits from the Rocky Mountain News. Chain continued to paint and exhibit in Denver throughout the 1880's focussing almost exclusively on the Colorado landscape, and in 1884 displayed several pictures at the National Mining and Industrial Exposition, in which her prized student, the far better known Charles Partridge Adams, won a gold medal. Apart from her distinction as one of Colorado's early day female artists, Chain is equally important as a resident art instructor. In 1891, and based on the success of the Chain and hardy bookstore as an exhibtion venue for visiting and resident artists in Colorado, Chain and her husband opened an art gallery in downtown Denver on the site of the present day D & F Tower. Less than two years later, she and her husband drowned when Their steamship, the S.S. Bokhara, sank in the China Sea during a trip around the world. Chain has the distinction of being the first woman to climb Long's Peak.
-----------------------------------------
posted on September 21, 2000 05:49:21 AM new
We need to recap the issue on the letter sent from Vincent to Theo in regards to "Souvenir de Maue".
Below is the text of the letter sent from Vincent to Theo in regards to the painting "Souvenir de Mauve".
-----------------------------------------
"I have been working on a size 20 canvas in the open air in an orchard, lilac plowland, a reed fence, two pink peach trees against a sky of glorious blue and white. Probably the best landscape I have done. I had just brought it home when I received from our sister a Dutch notice in memory of Mauve, with his portrait (the portrait, very good), the text, poor and nothing in it, a pretty water colour. Something--I don't know what--took hold of me and brought a lump to my throat, and I wrote on my picture
Souvenir de Mauve
Vincent Theo
and if you agree we two will send it, such as it is, to Mrs. Mauve. I chose the best study I've painted here purposely; I don't know what they'll say about it at home, but that does not matter to us; it seemed to me that everything in memory of Mauve must be at once tender and very gay, and not a study in any graver key.
"O never think the dead are dead,
So long as there are men alive,
The dead will live, the dead will live."
That's how I feel it. Nothing sadder than that.
I now have four or more studies of orchards besides this one, and I am going to begin a size 30 canvas on the same subject."
-----------------------------------------
The key thing to note is that Vincent is stating the canvas for "Souvenir de Mauve" is a size 20. The official painting recognized as "Souvenir de Mauve" is approximately 30 X 23. This painting in now in the collection of the Kröller-Müller Museum.
The dimensions of "Yellow Roses" is 20 x 14.
Also, the painting that Mauve's widow received was signed "Souvenir de Mauve Vincent," and does not record Theo's name.
posted on September 21, 2000 06:16:55 AM new
Sigh. I realize I'm talking to a brick wall, flowblue2, but I have to ask: How does Chain's having climbed Long's Peak - or ANY of the bio you post - relate to this painting?
Sources other than the seller's hve confirmed (and we have known for weeks) that:
She was a painter.
She had a stationer's/art shop.
She died in 1892.
There's a C&H label ON THE FRAME.
No evidence has been presented:
That the painting was done in Europe.
When the painting "came to the U.S." if indeed it was painted in Europe.
That Chain herself bought the painting.
All that the C&H label can prove is that at least the frame passed through the hands of C&H sometime before 1892 (assuming that the shop closed upon Chain's death, which we also don't know).
Although FACL notes that "the...painting came to the US circa 1895" (not 1890 as the seller has claimed), no indication is made of how FACL came to that conclusion. One can only hope it is not the same logic that used "Property of Molly Brown" as compelling evidence of ownership.
FACL also notes that "The stretcher bars are marked 'A.H. Abbott & Company. Patented July 19, 1887'". All this can prove is that they were used after 1887 (the patent date) and that the stretching was done in the US.
All we know from this information, therefore, is that:
The stretcher bars are American and "not original" to the work, and were used after 1887.
The frame was at C&H probably before 1892.
Since NO documentation has been provided that Chain herself bought the painting, if any inference at all can be drawn from the frame and stretcher bars, it would be more reasonable to conclude that the owner of the work (wherever it was purchased) brought the unstretched canvas to C&H for stretching and framing sometime between 1887 and 1892.
And since Maggie Brown didn't arrive in Denver until 1893, it's improbable (to put it generously) that that person was she.
Amazing, isn't it, now lagoldie thinks starvnartst is "physic," just like tightwad, and that the three apparently had the same English teacher.
Even more amazing that starvnartst can run right out and immediately find not only a copy of Pickvance's book (which is out of print), but one with an inscription by the author. Too bad that "lighting" struck his scanner, and that he can't reproduce any information from this book (such as the date it was painted and Pickvance's notes about it), and can't even recall the title or describe the painting to us (one rose in a glass, on a tree, hanging from a chandelier). Observation powers being of critical importance in an artist, it's no wonder, then, that this one describes himself as "starvn".
Edited to add: If FACL has evidence (or is merely of the opinion) that the painting "came to the U.S. circa 1895," how could it ever have been in C&H's shop, let alone in Chain's hands, unless she was transporting canvases transatlantically from beyond the grave?
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 21, 2000 06:53 AM ]
posted on September 21, 2000 08:59:08 AM new
I will try to answer a few questions that have been asked.
The question keeps coming up why the seller has not taken the painting to a museum to be authenticated?
I learned a bit from my discussion with the LACMA Conservation Department yesterday. Usually, a museum will only authenticate paintings which are in their collection. They do not authenticate paintings in private collections.
In regards to a previous post, I wanted to note that even the Musee d'Orsay in Paris had trouble authenticating the van Gogh paintings in their own collection.
I learned there are only a few experts in the world that can authenticate a van Gogh.
posted on September 21, 2000 09:11:02 AM new
But the Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam, WILL do an authentication - FREE.
According to the 9/5 email I received from Esther Hoofwijk, the Collections Secretary at that museum, all the owner needs to do is send an "authentication request and a good quality colour photograph to:
Van Gogh Museum
Attn. Mr. Sjraar van Heugten
Head of Collections
P.O. Box 75366
1070 AJ Amsterdam
The Netherlands
She goes on to say that they welcome any additional information an owner might have on the work in question, but that they can't work from information on the internet. Once they receive the photo and request, their curators will "start an investigation, which is free of charge."
She adds that as the museum does not give information on prices, the best place to find out the value of a work is an auctioneering firm.
(If anybody would like me to forward a copy of this email to them - including headers which will show it is in fact from the party I say it is - I'll be glad to do so.)
Why didn't the owner take advantage of this free service from the world's preeminent experts on Van Gogh - particularly if, as lagoldie claims, the painting had been exhibited there? Haskins is supposed to have spoken to many experts regarding the painting - did he completely bypass the Van Gogh Museum?
posted on September 21, 2000 09:17:47 AM new
Hey everybody????
Dear Ms. HCQ, I looked at both paintings, they are not the same. I also should not get caught up in this thread, I have to remain objective. In regards to your demeanor, I see you as a very Mean person,that will hopefully mellow by the end of this thread.
Yes, Barry I have read you bio, I bet theres a lot more to it.
I also need some info on imabrit. Age, race etc.
I bought this book from a thrift shop, Most of the books in the book stores are very expensive. We at Starving Artist live on a budget, some of us do make it, and some dont
but I'll keep trying.
I find HCQ remarks insulting, lighting hit a pole down the street and caused a power surge
it burnt out the scanner, because it was in use. We all share the computer.
Flowblue2 I find your information on the size of the painting to be very very enlighting, I see your demeanor as helpful
and caring.
Every story needs a villian, and we all know who that will be.
Someone told HCQ to shut up, whats that all about? Is there something about HCQ we should know?
I may write like a peon, but I can tell a good story. I am writing the outline for this story, as we speak. How will it end
is all important.
Also, I need a name for this story, Thread,
mystery of the roses, I would appreciate your input on it,and HCQ mellow out,count to ten, take a valium. You are generaly very
logical, but when you set out to search
and destroy, you lose it. Why is it you are tied to your bed? I know your disabled, but from what? Or are you just mad at the world?
I have to base most of this story around you,so if you want to be the bad guy, thats always the best part. But dont scream later about it. Because sometimes you are downright cruel.
I will make no more comments about this painting, because it is not my job to do so.
I'll leave that all to you. Give me a good ending.
posted on September 21, 2000 09:40:52 AM newstarvnartst, my life's an open book, and I posted my webpage URL in this thread at least once.
I guess I have been "mean." I've laughed at the red herrings disguised as (rather pathetic) ad hominem remarks, rather than act hurt; my reaction probably feels quite insulting to those trying to offend me into silence. I've refused to let vagueness, unattributed statements, incomplete information (as regarding your apparent inability merely to transcribe information from Pickvance's book), obfuscation and dissembling stand as acceptable defensees against documented fact, and have persisted in pointing out inconsistencies in statements that the people who made them would prefer be ignored. How impolite of me to dare question anything, even in the face of (hilarious) threats at litigation! Your remarks mortally wound, but I think I have just enough energy to drag myself over to perform ritual suicide (again). Here, let me cut off my earlobe first so that somebody can auction it as Vincent's over at OAS.
But say you're right. I'm a mean old witch. I would greatly prefer to be considered nasty than foolish or duplicitious.
I think the Valiums might do more good if administered to, say, theshar in any of her incarnations, whose completely OT fulminations are at least as entertaining as the auction listing itself. On second thought, scratch the Valiums. She's too fun to silence.
I do see, however, that buried in your diatribe is the admission that - AHA! The painting in your book is NOT the one in question.
How come nobody's arguing with me about the Brown/Chain connection?
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 21, 2000 09:42 AM ]
posted on September 21, 2000 10:30:17 AM new
I would like to recap the individuals who have actually reviewed the painting and their credentials.
Dr. Walter C. McCrone of The McCrone Research Institute (Chicago, IL) -
McCrone Research Institute was founded in 1960 by Walter C. McCrone. It is a separate entity from McCrone Associates and from McCrone Accessories and Components, although these companies were also founded by Walter C. McCrone.
John Twilley -
Former Senior Conservation Scientist at the Los Angeles County Museum. Well respected in his field. Has been working in the science of conservation and authentication for over 15 years.
Scott Haskins owner of Fine Arts Conservation Laboratories (Santa Barabara, CA) - Has worked in both Europe and the U.S. as a professional conservator for the last 20 years.
I have reviewed the statements from all of these individuals.
posted on September 21, 2000 10:34:38 AM newStarvnartsts,
You asked what race imabrit is. Duh! Does his user id not give you a clue? Have you not read this thread and his posts where he indicates that he is British?
posted on September 21, 2000 10:46:33 AM newflowblue2,
You said: "I have reviewed the statements from all of these individuals.
I dont see how we can discredit their expertise."
Has anyone tried to discredit their expertise? I don't think so. In fact the expertise of these experts shows very clearly by their not stating that the painting is by Van Gogh.
Please give just one signed example from any expert that the painting is by Van Gogh. You can't because one doesn't exist. This painting has been floating around for quite some time. If it is by Van Gogh, why does it not at least receive mention in any catalogues or any writings by any expert?
posted on September 21, 2000 10:59:53 AM newstarvnartst: "I looked at both paintings, they are not the same"
I just wanted to pause and say how much I respect you for making that statement. All the other supporters of the painting seem unable to answer any question which doesn't jibe with their stated point of view. They either ignore the question entirely or else change topics without answering.
flowblue2: I'm still waiting to hear what your association, if any, with the owner and/or the OAS site is.
As for the three experts you mentioned, I have yet to see ANYBODY question their credentials or expertise. Keep in mind, however, that NONE of the three "experts" are experts in authenticating Van Gogh paintings [two are "conservators" and one does pigment analysis to determine whether the paints used WERE AVAILABLE to a particular artist]. And also keep in mind that none of these experts have actually said that the painting is a genuine Van Gogh! I can only assume you keep mentioning this as a red herring to distract us from the real issue.
As has been pointed out, the Van Gogh Museum [which is one of the "handful" of experts which you have acknowledged to be qualified to authenticate a Van Gogh] will provide an expert opinion of alleged Van Gogh painting FOR FREE. The question remains why the owner of this painting has apparently AVOIDED having it authenticated by the the Van Gogh Museum, choosing instead to rely solely on technical experts who can, at best, say that the painting COULD POSSIBLY be a Van Gogh.
Again, just in case you missed it the first 15 or so times, NOBODY IS DOUBTING THE CREDENTIALS OF THE "EXPERTS" WHO HAVE GIVEN THEIR OPINIONS ABOUT THIS PAINTING!
Sheeeeesh.....
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on September 21, 2000 11:06:09 AM new
The statements in McCrone's analysis, and McCrone's credentials, are not and never have been disputed.
The statements in Twilley's analysis are not and never have been disputed. However, seller's claim that Twilley did the analysis on behalf of LACMA, and that Twilley had a Ph.D. (and another's insistence that he was Dr. Mayers's "boss" ), have been shown to be false. According to Cornell's PreserveNet - http://www.preservenet.cornell.edu/ca.htm - Twilley has only a BS in Chemistry from the University of California. In 1995 he was teaching part-time at UC-Riverside - one course in "Conservation Science". His published papers focus primarily on stone conseration and sculpture, not in 19th century post-Impressionism or oil painting at all, for that matter. (Many thanks to a fellow AWer who provided this data.)
The only information we have on Haskins is that he owns a conservation studio and says he's worked in Europe and the U.S. (so have I), done some museum work (so has my son, who's in his second year at the Art Institute of Chicago), taught some night-school classes - no details on any of this. Moreover, a number of statements that the seller now says Haskins made - including observing the inscription "Property of Molly Brown" and a BL James label on the frame, and his claim that Rewald opined the painting was genuine - do NOT appear in the actual report produced by FACL some 12 years earlier. The BL James label isn't even noted in his 9/13/2000 report.
In any case, and even if they had been curators at the Van Gogh Museum itself, the point is that NONE of these three states that the painting is a genuine Van Gogh.
damned ubbs
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 21, 2000 11:20 AM ]
. You can't keep taking samples off a valuable painting and running them every time someone wants another test run. You look up the spectra in a book or other reference publication.
