posted on September 21, 2000 01:46:02 PM new
Statement from Hart Cottage Quilts:
"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!"
Please explain your ability to make the definitive statements you are regarding "Yellow Roses". Do you have experience in the antiques business? Have you dealt with the purchase of fine art before?
I have no affiliation with Old And Sold or the seller. Just found this to be a thread that needed a little attention.
posted on September 21, 2000 01:55:43 PM newflowblue2,
You said: "I have no affiliation with Old And Sold or the seller. Just found this to be a thread that needed a little attention."
Bolding is mine. You statement implies that you just recently found this thread.
Have you forgotten that you started this 14 page thread on August 29 with this statement:
"Has anyone heard of an antiques auction site called Old And Sold (http://www.oldandsold.com)? I saw that they have a premiere auction of a painting reportedly by Vincent Van Gogh? The style is
quite different. It's a still life, but then I know that Vincent had many different styles. The history behind it is remarkable. It was owned by the Unsinkable Molly Brown of Titanic Fame, and also the Helen Henderson Chain family. It is an interesting and colorful story, if anyone has the chance to read it."
posted on September 21, 2000 02:11:06 PM new
Hey Everybody????
NOSHILL
Duh. Your address speaks volumes Am-not-stupid. I wanted to know if imabrit is male or female, you can be any race from Britain too! It is now multi-racial.
HCQ
Much better. Have a vallium on me.
this thread has everyone around here running to get information on Van Gogh, and this painting.
This is the one thing that I find curious.
If the painting is old as its pigment says,and the sticker is 1892 or earlier and the signature is part of the actual background, who? way back then would sign a painting with van goghs signature? Also I can observe on this paintings xray souvenir
de M. And if van gogh said he signed the painting "a size 20 canvas" Souvenir de Mauve Vincent & Theo, could the painting underneath be that painting? Maybe the owner should have it scrapped off to get to the other one. If indeed the other painting is finished. It would be a risky venture.
P.S. NOSHILL Please some information on your smart self. Male or Female? Etc.
posted on September 21, 2000 02:24:20 PM new
Hey Everybody????
NOSHILL, I understand that imabrit is British, however many races live in Britain now.
HCQ, Much Better, have a vallium on me.
Flowblue,How about some information on you.
Also the fact that the Souvenir de Mauve is on a size 20 canvas. That has not been mentioned before. Is that true HCQ? Please! You have all that information.
I can see on the xray about one inch over and one inch down the words Souvenir de M.
the rest I cannot make out. and something else is written below that.
Did you know that every page here is about 12
pages when printed out?
NOSHILL, How about something on you? Male or Female? Your e-mail address is interesting.
posted on September 21, 2000 02:30:46 PM newStarvnartsts,
For you I can be AC-DC (male or female). Your choice.
What the hell does gender or race have to do with this thread?
I have been called a Jewish Indian. Derived from being Scottish, Irish, German, and American Indian (Cherokee & Choctaw). Maybe a better term would be Heinz.
posted on September 21, 2000 02:36:40 PM newflowblue, your reading-comprehension slip is showing again. First reporting (over and over) old, already-discussed information as somehow new and revealing; then forgetting to read your own sources before challenging us with your perspicacity; and now - misattribution. You're quoting godzillatemple, not me.
But heck, I'll bite.
Hey, let's look at your own quoted sources, the purported "statement" of Scott Haskins on the auction site:
In his role as a technical analysis expert, he analyzes art to determine the time period in which it was produced....
And from the AW article, which quotes him:
Haskins, the owner of Santa Barbara, California-based FACL Inc., a conservator of fine art, is not an art historian or "authenticator." But he and those like him play a crucial role in the authentication process, using technical analysis to decide whether a painting comes from the period its owner alleges it comes from.
Scott Haskins confirmed that Yellow Roses needed an "expert" opinion from an art historian to give it legitimate standing in the art world. "If you have a painting by Van Gogh, there are only a couple of people respected enough to say it is [so]," he told AW....
Question answered - by your own source. A technician, no mater how skilled, is not qualified to "say it is". All the technician can do is see if the pigments match the period in which the work was supposed to have been painted.
Again, the point is not whether any of US have a Ph.D. in art history (or even merely a B.A. like Twilley). The point is that, their qualifications notwithstanding, none of the three will state that the painting is indeed a genuine Van Gogh.
If you can find any statement in any of the three analyses that says otherwise, I think we'd all be delighted to see it, since we've been asking for it for three weeks.
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 21, 2000 02:38 PM ]
posted on September 21, 2000 02:37:11 PM new
Guess the "proof of the pudding" will come soon enough, when the auction ends, and we'll see how many bids there are......
posted on September 21, 2000 03:31:40 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."
Let us layout the facts that we have using the above method for authentification.
----------------
-- Technical ---
----------------
There is a great bit of technical analysis done on this painting. There is the pigment analysis from the McCrone Research Institute. Dr. Walter McCrone states - "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."
The following information was presented by * the shar * - "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."
Comparing known van Gogh pigment samples with pigment samples from "Yellow Roses" provides strong technical evidence.
----------------------------
-- Correspondence Aspect ---
----------------------------
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.
Based on the x-ray done of "Yellow Roses", the owner of the painting states - "It is signed at the right hand top and says 'Souvenir de Mauve Vincent and Theo'."
The x-ray reveals that "Yellow Roses" is the original canvas that van Gogh meant to be "Souvenir de Mauve". The canvas, due to unknown reasons, was painted over by van Gogh. The result of the overpainting is "Yellow Roses".
posted on September 21, 2000 03:56:28 PM new
I would also like to take into consideration the other paintings which have been brought up.
I'll list them out here.
- "Yellow Roses" By van Gogh
- An authenticated Helen Henderson Chain Painting (revealed by Scott Haskins)
- A third painting with authentication information related to Ambroise Vollard with a serial number.
I would like to investigate the link between Helen Henderson Chain and Ambroise Vollard.
posted on September 21, 2000 04:07:19 PM new
Gee, flowblue. Here's an opinion from an expert you seemed to have missed. It was from Page 1 of this thread...
[quote]
If you'd care to comment on my behalf: the work isn't genuine. It's not a Van Gogh painting and Molly Brown never owned a Van Gogh work. Yet another online auction of a so-called Van Gogh. Caviat emptor.
[/quote]
This is known in the real world as a declarative statement. Straight English. No weasel words. In 40 words or less could you state - Yes, this is a Van Gogh painting?
ps If your opinion of AW posters is that we are a gaggle of yokels, agent provocateurs, and ill-educated dullards, then why are you expending your valuable time on us -- especially since the sale of the painting is no doubt imminent due to the phalanx of Asian Trillionaires that have lined up to bid?
posted on September 21, 2000 04:26:21 PM newflowblue2,
What *you* stated would be great if it was on a letter head and signed by an acknowledged expert. However your statement: "The x-ray reveals that "Yellow Roses" is the original canvas that van Gogh meant to be "Souvenir de Mauve". The canvas, due to unknown reasons, was painted over by van Gogh. The result of the overpainting is "Yellow Roses"." just doesn't do that now does it?
Without authentication from an expert, in writing, what is said in support of the painting is mute. It does not take an art expert to see the descripencys in the story that accompanies the painting.
This painting was supposedly being sold in 1997 by Tom Bright for 9 million dollars (according to court documents). Was he the one who inherited it in 1957, was the sale completed, or is Tom Bright still the owner? His brush analysis technique is not accepted as an authentication process by the experts, yet he claimed the painting is by Van Gogh based on his analysis while he owned it.
The provenance has been shot down by facts. There is no expert willing to state in writing that the painting is a genuine Van Gogh. All the pigment tests prove is that the paint is old and was available at the time Van Gogh was a painter. Many years ago I owned a house that had paint on it that was available to Van gogh also. Big deal! Any paint that was available during the Van Gogh era is either available today or is easily duplicated. Right down to the lead and arsenic. So, new paint can become old paint. So, what does that leave? An ugly picture painted over what was probably an even uglier picture with no proof of when it was painted or by whom.
[ edited by Noshill on Sep 21, 2000 04:27 PM ]
posted on September 21, 2000 05:25:31 PM new
Starvnartsts,
I really don't know if the silver screen is ready for a flick like the one you purpose? I don't think most people would enjoy this form of humor? All kidding aside, some of these posters are pitiful. "You said it best down right mean."
Know----- A Board Game------ that's more like it! It could be such fun. Think of the little objects we could move around the board. OHH--- I know a little pink pig, A little Palace Guard, you know like at Buckingham palace. or should I spell it Bucking--HAM. You know like in pork. How about a little flowblue plate with arms and legs, and a really cute face.(Because I think this person is on the level) The list goes on, we have had a Physic, a Doctor, an Art Major, a Psychologist. The list goes on and on. One smarter then the other--- Most spell really well, grammer,check most have that down. So what do you think a board game?
Imabrit What would you like your little movable piece to be? Could you give Starvnartsts a little hint? Personally I thought Imabrit was a female. The kind of girl that just about knows everything, and just downright make sure all around her know she knows just about everything. What joy she must bring to all around her?I can only imagine?(I would have liked a happy face here).
Flowblue, I asked you before please don't involved yourself with this bunch. Goldie feels you are on the level. A nice person. Maybe just interested in deciphering the facts in a logical manner. Most of these people involved in this chat are hell bent on destruction of the painting and it's owner. Why, I have not figured out?
HCQ, You mentioned cutting off your ear, and sending it to OAS to put up for auction? I noticed OAS had a few lovely Vintage Handbags. Let me remind you.
"YOU CAN"T MAKE A SILK PURSE OUT OF A SOWS EAR" (HAPPY FACE HERE)
Don't they make pork Rhine's out of pig ears? Hummie know all we need is some HOT SAUCE!
Valium, No I think most in this thread could benefit from Prozac.(YEP Happy Face Here)
posted on September 21, 2000 05:34:01 PM new
Hey everybody????
NoShill, do you really find that painting ugly?
HCQ, I hoped that you would comment on the size of the painting size 20 canvas, I know what you say will be accurate, because you are the Star.
CoolTom, cool down.
Everybody, I spoke to legal about using this thread for a script, and was told since it is on a public chat, there is no need for any releases from any of you. But I would need a release from the owner to use the painting in any film. If I use any of you I
promise to share the profits with all of the main charcters. This is official.
What happened to the OwnerVGYR?
AC/DC, and so you shall be described.
HCQ, is there any way for you to go the other way regarding this painting? I dont want any surprises at the end. Does this thread end with the end of the auction? They do have a bidder at $2,000,000.
I dont want to do any research on this painting. That can be a long drawn out affair.
posted on September 21, 2000 05:41:27 PM new
LaGoldie
Thats funny. But I dont think HCQ is playing a game, she has shown amazing insight. I think she can really solve the mystery of the yellow roses. Not who the owner is, but is it or isn't it. The lady has a brain and knows how to use it.
posted on September 21, 2000 05:45:29 PM new
***************
*** Cooltom ***
***************
Lets review a statement made earlier...
The statement was made that the webmaster at http://www.vangoghgallery.com/ is regarded as an expert on van Gogh.
Here is the statement that he gave in a early post:
"I would have been happy to add my comments, but I see that you have to become a member and I'm not going to do this just for one on-the-fly comment.
If you'd care to comment on my behalf: the work isn't genuine. It's not a Van Gogh painting and Molly Brown never owned a Van Gogh work. Yet another online auction of a so-called Van Gogh. Caviat emptor."
Here is his statement on what he considers himself. Taken directly from his website:
"This Gallery is a bit heavy on reference content (all of the works and their locations, the letters, etc.) and light in terms of critical analysis. This is partly due to the fact that I'm just an enthusiastic amateur, but I'm still going to throw caution to the wind and strive to add far more background information for many of the works (provenance, exhibition and commentary)."
The statement can be found at:
http://www.vangoghgallery.com/misc/forward.htm
There is a major hurricaine heading for you!
I hope you have someone there to help you. Batten down the hatches. Be safe. If you need help we are all here.
posted on September 21, 2000 06:23:04 PM new
Hart Cottage Quilts,
This is Ramona. Your pig. I think this is a VanGogh. What are you so upset about? I have talked about this over an ear of corn with the other pigs. The infrared is what really convinced me. The others are still skeptics.
posted on September 21, 2000 06:35:15 PM newflowblue, Cooltom's obviously too abstract for you to comprehend. He was merely showing that somebody, anybody, in 40 words or less, could say it's not a Van Gogh. He wasn't holding David up as an expert. Even if he was, the onus is on the SELLER to prove that the painting is what he says it is. [b]And nobody's come forth to say so.
What cooltom was proposing is that YOU, in 40 words or less, show that it IS a Van Gogh.
All you need is a statement from an expert in 19th century art that says "I have personally examined "Yellow Roses" and have reviewed the pigment and other analyses. I can say without reservation that this painting was done by Vincent Van Gogh."
That's less than 30 words, actually. The owner could easily have obtained that from the Van Gogh Museum for free.
Unfortunately, nobody - not even the three parties who analyzed the pigment - has provided such a written statement.
It would seem that your energies would best be spent obtaining such a document.
starvnartst - The size of the canvas is immaterial without other, conclusive evidence that the work is by Van Gogh. ANYbody could've painted a "size 20 canvas".
I think flowblue is attempting to infer that one of the several underpaintings on the canvas is the landscape described in the letter she quotes. I'm done quilting for the night; so let's say, just for grins, that she's right: that a landscape is the first underpainting on the canvas. That doesn't say ANYthing about who did the painting that DOES appear, which is the one that's being offered for sale. Nor, most critically, is there any way to evaluate who painted this "landscape," which is only vaguely visible under x-ray and infrared - hardly feasible display methods even for a museum. Selling "Yellow Roses" by touting its unauthenticated underpaintings is like dyeing a pink dress black, then trying to sell it as a "pink" dress because under all that black dye, hey, the dress is pink.
What's interesting is that, in all her recent posts of "information", flowblue still hasn't produced one expert to back up the owner's claims. Apparently she's content to fling red herrings instead.
I also thought you were reading the entire thread. OwnerVGYR was suspended from AW for (like tightwadg2 after him) making personal remarks intended to insult other posters. He also threatened me with litigation for "insider trading", and threatening is also forbidden by CGs.
The thread will run until its natural death. The "current bid" of $2M has been there since the auction's first day. Since that auction's format diverges significantly from OAS's standard, it's unclear whether there's actually a bid on the item or whether the "current bid" is merely a restatement of the bid one needs to make to "get in" on this fantastic deal.
lagoldie, please don't stop posting. Your butchery of the language is utterly hilarious ("pork rhines" - must be from German pigs), and I'm delighted to know that my beloved Ramona has attracted so much attention. And what was it you were saying about starvnartst's book proving the autenticity of this painting? Get on that bike and pedal, pedal, pedal backward....
posted on September 21, 2000 06:53:05 PM new
Damn! Missed it again! :8)
Just so you folks know - Ramona's an "only" pig and corn's out of season. And she's terribly nearsighted.
starvnartst - thanks for the kind words. Helene (or is it Helena?) is headed right for Pensacola Beach. Fortunately (for us, at least) all the rain clouds are to our east, the direction in which the eye is turning, so we won't get the worst of it even so. Coleman stove's gassed up, bottled water is always here, plenty of food for the beasts and I've already ground several days' worth of coffee. Val (who built the addition) works for an environmental engineering firm, so that end of the house at least is built like an aircraft carrier. She just got back from storing the '66 Mustang at her company parking garage, and Ramona's snoozing in our bedroom (yes, she has her own quilt). This is pretty average for these parts. Opal and Erin hit this house dead on and we didn't lose a shingle.
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 21, 2000 06:58 PM ]
posted on September 21, 2000 06:55:29 PM new
Statement from Cooltom:
"Gee, flowblue. Here's an opinion from an expert you seemed to have missed. It was from Page 1 of this thread..."
I am not picking on you. I am only pointing out a fact. The webmaster at http://www.vangoghgallery.com is not considered an expert.
There are only a handful of experts on van Gogh in the world.
posted on September 21, 2000 07:04:02 PM new
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."
-------------------------------------------
Could someone please reconcile the difference in canvas size of the official "Souvenir de Mauve" and the one reported in the above letter from Vincent van Gogh.
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.
Correspondence between Vincent van Gogh and Theo van Gogh is a very important aspect of authenticating a work.
-------------------------------------------
posted on September 21, 2000 07:07:06 PM new flowblue2 -
The biographical details of Helen Chain's life are irrelevant UNLESS you can find some proof that she bought "Yellow Roses" and brought it back from Europe. That the owner of YR has an authenticated Chain painting means nothing to the authenticity of the Van Gogh.
You cite the letter about rain and note that it was used to help decide when a Van Gogh was painted. Then you cite the letter about "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. (snip)
I wrote on my picture
Souvenir de Mauve
Vincent Theo "
And somehow that became the canvas you call Yellow Roses? Van Gogh sent the canvas to Theo, if the letter is accurate, it is an orchard picture. How and where did it turn into a still life of roses? Who overpainted it with the flowers?
Then you go on to state: "Based on the x-ray done of "Yellow Roses", the owner of the painting states - "It is signed at the right hand top and says 'Souvenir de Mauve Vincent and Theo'." "
Unfortunately, from the actual x-ray, all the technical expert is willing to commit to is the letters "SOUV". The rest of the inscription was filled in by the fervent imagination of the seller.
The OAS listing claims: ""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." .... I'm confused. Where did the ORCHARD SCENE that Vincent wrote about go to? Where did these Irises come from?
"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."
Europe had already begun using the metric system, so can you be sure that a "size 20" canvas was 20 inches in any dimension? Is there an international standard for sizing pictures?
"I would like to recap the individuals who have actually reviewed the painting and their credentials. (snip) I dont see how we can discredit their expertise.
FOR THE LAST TIME ... I DO NOT DOUBT THEIR CHEMICAL ANALYSIS! BUT NOTHING THEY HAVE PUT INTO WRITING STATES THAT IT IS A VAN GOGH, JUST AN OLD PAINTING THAT USES THE SAME PIGMENTS.
posted on September 21, 2000 08:11:55 PM new
Pyth00n,
No, I have not posted as Theshar.
Ramona, Have you been posting under anyone else's name?
HCQ, Actually I do have an exercise bike, and use it daily. I have to keep in shape. A girl that can't spell has to have something going for her. I got a lot of firm muscle and a great shape.
I don't think I want to play the game anymore today.You see for some reason
Goldie is feeling sorry for this woman.
I will keep pedaling , but always forward, always forward Quilt Lady.
