posted on September 21, 2000 08:26:58 PM new
Well, this thread has gone downhill fast! Think the children could leave the room now? Nah, they enjoy playing games too much. What a shame, since we have now gone through 14 pages of mostly thoughtful, reasonable comments/questioning, and a person (or several) seem to think it is amusing to come in again and again under various names and blow smoke. As many oldtimers will recall, the argument that "only cowards post anonymously" seems most apropos at this juncture. Maybe it is time for the adults to leave the room, and the attention so craved by the kids will dissipate.
On the other hand, HCQ, you must have a bit of masochistic tendencies, eh?
posted on September 22, 2000 06:55:14 AM new
Nah. I just want to make sure nobody forgets the ludicrous claims this owner's made and the fact that, despite repeated requests, nobody's been able to produce a firsthand statement from ANY qualified person authenticating either the purported ownership or the purported artist.
posted on September 22, 2000 08:29:50 AM new
The only thing that concerns me about this thread is the issue of negativity.
The owner of the painting has presented credible evidence. Yes, he has not presented a complete authentification from the van Gogh museum. However, this does not allow everyone to discredit the information he has provided.
Everything in this thread is based the assumption that it is not a van Gogh. We do not have the credibility to make the assumptions that we are making.
Here are things I find troubling.
Statement: "Why has the LACMA not authenticated the painting?"
Answer: Museums do not authenticate paintings in private collections. They authenticate their own work.
Statement: "The webmaster at at http://www.vangoghgallery.com states it is not a van Gogh. Therefore, it must not be a van Gogh."
Answer: The webmaster at van Gogh is not an expert at van Gogh authentication. He recognizes himself as an amateur.
Statement: "Why has this painting not appeared in books? Why has it not been written about?"
Answer: It is not uncommon for paintings that are in private collections to remain outside the public eye. Most books on van Gogh consist of his popular works.
Statement: "Technical analysis on the painting does not prove anything."
Answer: Technical analysis of the painting is one of many complex factors that go towards making a true authentication.
Statement: "It does not look like a van Gogh."
Answer: Much of what the public views as van Gogh are his popular works. I have visited the van Gogh museum twice. On the third floor or fourth floor of the van Gogh museum exists an area of what I would call van goghs "lesser works". These works are drawings, studies, early painting, etc. Some of these works did not resemble what I would call a typical van Gogh. He was known to experiment with many different painting styles.
Statement: "It is on a small auction site. Therefore it must be a fake."
Answer: The seller has choosen the auction site based on their own personal opinions and requirements. This type of logic would lead me to believe anything outside of a large auction houses is to be held as a fraud. This would include all personal websites and small businesses.
I only have a problem with the definitive manner in which people are speaking.
posted on September 22, 2000 09:19:39 AM new
flowblue: you say directly in the preceeding post:
"Statement: "The webmaster at at http://www.vangoghgallery.com states it is not a van Gogh. Therefore, it must not be a van Gogh." "
This, and a whole series of statements in quotes by you are composed to imply various skeptics in these debates have made those exact statements in those exact words. I rather think that you're paraphrasing how you interpret various attitudes. Frankly, I find usage of quotes around words not exactly stated as such, with an attribution to WHO said it (and on which day, in this case?), to be errrr rather deceitful. Who made the above statement, and on which day, please?
Show me that one and I won't ask about all those other quotes, I'll take your word you found them and copied & pasted them rather than putting quotes around words you THOUGHT were similar to what others were saying.
You also said at the very end:
"I only have a problem with the definitive manner in which people are speaking. "
posted on September 22, 2000 10:47:22 AM new
Must agree that the recent pages here are mostly awfully uninteresting.
I believe that new additions to the list of Van Gogh paintings generally recognized as authentic are extremely rare. Anybody care to research how many have made this distinction in the last 50 years?
posted on September 22, 2000 10:57:22 AM new
Here is a interesting article.
At least forty-five Van Goghs may well be fakes
By Martin Bailey
"More than one hundred paintings by the Dutch master have been questioned in recent studies: of the forty-five doubted in the canonical Hulsker catalogue, sixteen are in the Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam; leading scholars Dorn and Feilchenfeldt consider another twenty-one dubious, and there is scepticism also about some drawings. But there is good news as well: over the last ten years, twelve new works have been accepted as being by Van Gogh.
London. Some of our favourite Van Goghs are not the real thing, according to new evidence. Claims are being made that fakes hang in many of the world's leading museums, including such great institutions as the Metropolitan Museum and the Musée d'Orsay, and even the Van Gogh Museum. Other experts are equally convinced of the authenticity of the questioned paintings
"Vincent van Gogh may well have been forged "more frequently than any other modern master," according to John Rewald, the greatest scholar of Impressionism and Post-Impressionism. Rewald added that there have certainly been "more heated discussions and differences of opinion, more experts attacking other experts over the authenticity of Van Gogh's works than that of any other artist of the period." The American scholar, who died three years ago, would not have been surprised by the furore over "Jardin à Auvers," which failed to sell in Paris last December. The debate over the painting's attribution was testimony to the passions aroused over Van Gogh's work, as well as a reminder of the huge sums of money which can be at stake."
Read the rest of the article at:
http://www.museum-security.org/van-gogh-fakes.htm
posted on September 22, 2000 11:14:33 AM new
Another good article.
Whose Eye Do You Trust?
by Dorothy S. Gelatt
"With Vincent van Gogh it only takes two words to make headlines: money and fake. The art market has seen plenty of both.
When Christie's London sold a van Gogh Sunflowers back in March 1987 for a then fantastic auction record of $39,921,750, the painting and the price made big-money headlines around the world. Yasuda Fire & Marine Insurance Company of Tokyo, the buyer, proudly displayed the prestige work in their art gallery and reportedly gave the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam £20 million as a token of gratitude for all the business goodwill the painting brought them.
But these days there's trouble in paradise. Today, cries of fake plague Yasuda's Sunflowers, the first of three van Gogh paintings that rocketed to auction records at the end of the go-go 1980's. All three have since faced special problems."
Read the rest of the article at:
http://www.maineantiquedigest.com/articles/vang0898.htm
posted on September 22, 2000 11:27:30 AM new
I concur, figmente. flowblue insists on reporting as "news" the articles we have already discussed here. There's nothing more to add to the "body of evidence" (although as I said I'm still interested in Bright and Haskins).
Let's recap for flowblue's benefit.
The seller has provided NO credible evidence to prove ANY of his claims, which include (in bold):
The painting was purchased by Chain in Europe.
Seller's evidence: Haskins observes a "Chain & Hardy's" label and another Denver label on the frame, and says Chain was known to have purchased paintings in Europe.
Reasonable conclusions: Frame was from Chain & Hardys and probably dates from before Chain's death in 1892.
Chain and Brown were neighbors.
Seller's evidence: NONE.
Evidence refuting seller's claim: Molly Brown Museum states Brown didn't arrive in Denver until 1893, the year AFTER Chain died.
Reasonable conclusions: Seller's claim is impossible unless the Brown mansion is adjacent to the cemetery in which Chain is buried.
The painting was owned by Molly Brown.
Seller's evidence: Haskins's observation last week that "Property of Molly Brown" is written on the frame in pencil. (No such observation was made at the time of his 1988 analysis.)
Evidence refuting seller's claim: Brown Museum states that Margaret Brown's nickname was not "Molly" but "Maggie". (The "Molly" came from the Morris/Willson Broadway musical which opened in 1960.) Haskins's detailed 1988 analysis never noted this writing on the frame.
Reasonable conclusions: Neither Brown nor anyone connected with her could have written "Property of Molly Brown" on the frame, which notation probably was made after Haskins's 1988 analysis.
The painting was a gift from Chain to Brown for Brown's 1890 wedding.
Evidence presented: NONE.
Evidence refuting seller's claim: Brown Museum states that Brown was married not in 1890, but in September 1886 in Leadville, Colorado. Seller later stated that "I am wrong about them being a gift for her wedding. It may have been her wedding anniversary. But she definately recieved 3 paintings in 1890 from someone." Haskins states "It is unknown whether the Molly Brown of Titanic fame purchased artwork from the [1892 Chain estate] sale or whether she received Yellow Roses and other paintings as a gift."
Reasonable conclusions: Seller knows nothing about when, how, or even whether Brown acquired this painting.
LACMA performed one of the pigment analyses on the painting.
Seller's evidence: Receipt for painting by LACMA, pigment analysis signed by Twilley which is not on LACMA letterhead, and report of Twilley stating that he did the analysis on a private basis.
Evidence refuting seller's claim: Seller's own statement by Twilley; statements from the present and former Directors of LACMA's conservation center (one of whom was Twilley's superior).
Reasonable conclusions: Seller misattributed who did the analysis, probably in an attempt to add weight to his claims.
Twilley's analysis conclusively states that the painting is a genuine Van Gogh.
Seller's evidence: NONE.
Evidence refuting seller's claim: No such statement exists in Twilley's analysis or in seller's 9/2000 report of a conversation with Twilley. Twilley reports only that the pigments used "are consistent with the period to which the painting has been attributed and "have been observed by other researchers to be among those used by Vincent Van Gogh....[o]thers have observed a heavy reliance upon zinc white in Van Gogh's works [but] zinc oxide is not the principal white pigment in this work."
Reasonable conclusions: Twilley, not LACMA, did a pigment analysis. Pigments date from the 1880s. Colors are among those Van Gogh (and many other artists of the period) used. Painting differs significantly from known Van Gogh paintings by its lack of zinc white.
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.
Seller's evidence: FACL analysis.
Evidence refuting seller's claim: FACL analysis makes no such statement. It reports only that "A word is possibly visible in the upper right corner (SOUV---)The upper left corner may also show patterns from underlying layers which may suggest writing..." and adds that alhtough an attempt was made to obtain greater details on the possible writing, "the results are not clear enough to be absolute identifications."
Reasonable conclusions: Seller disagrees with FACL's report and observes considerably more in x-ray and infra-red pictures than his expert, will attest to.
The owner has had the painting "ever since" 1957, when s/he acquired it from his/her uncle, who had received it after the death of the owner's grandmother, the person who the owner claims purchased it from Brown's children. "in the 1920's."
Seller's evidence: NONE.
Evidence refuting seller's claim: In 1997 James T. Bright claimed in court to own the painting. FACL report notes the painting is to be prepared "for sale in October 1988."
[ib]Reasonable conclusions:[/i] Either (a) Bright is the grandchild of the purchaser, (b) Bright lied in court about his ownership of the work, or (c) the work was given or sold to Bright or to another party by the grandchild of the woman who purchased it in the '20s.
John Rewald confirmed the painting Yellow Roses to be an authentic Van Gogh.
Seller's evidence: Seller's secondhand report that Haskins said Rewald said so.
Evidence refuting seller's claim: Rewald is dead and so can neither confirm nor deny that claim. No written statement from Rewald has been produced by seller.
Reasonable conclusion: Seller is relying on dead men not being able to tell tales.
McCrone analysis conclusively states that painting is by Van Gogh.
Seller's evidence: McCrone analysis.
Evidence refuting seller's claim: No such statement is made in the McCrone analysis. Like the Twilley and Haskins analyses, it states only that the pigments date from the end of the 19th century and that they are among those used by Van Gogh.
[b]Reasonable conclusion:[/i] Pigments date from the 1880s. Colors are among those Van Gogh (and many other artists of the period) used.
FACL analysis conclusively states that painting is by Van Gogh.
Seller's evidence: FACL analysis.
Evidence refuting seller's claim: No such statement is made in the Haskins analysis. Like the Twilley and McCrone analyses, it states only that the pigments date from the end of the 19th century and that they are among those used by Van Gogh.
[b]Reasonable conclusion:[/i] Pigments date from the 1880s. Colors are among those Van Gogh (and many other artists of the period) used.
Two underpaintings - a landscape and a still life of yellow irises - were done by Van Gogh.
Seller's evidence: NONE.
Evidence refuting Seller's claim: FACL report states only that it observed "details and contrast differences not consistent with the composition of the painting of yellow roses. Therefore, an underlying painting or drastic compositional change is possible...The oil paint has been applied over another painting and possibly two other paintings."
Reasonable conclusion: "Yellow Roses" was painted on a used canvas.
Even assuming Haskins is qualified to make such an attribution, if he so recently discussed (and apparently re-examined) this painting with the seller, why didn't he then provide the seller with a written statement that it is his conclusive opinion that this painting was done by Van Gogh?
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 22, 2000 11:35 AM ]
posted on September 22, 2000 02:05:45 PM newflowblue2: Thank you for posting those interesting articles about the difficulty of authenticating a Van Gogh painting. I guess it just goes to show why so many people here refuse to take the seller's claims of authenticity at face value, without at least ONE documented statement from an acknowledged expert that the painting actually is a Van Gogh.
It seems as though SOME people would prefer to simply ASSUME the painting is authentic unless it can be PROVED a fake. And those articles you quoted surely point out the folly in that!
BTW, I'm a little confused at the blanket statement you made that "[m]useums do not authenticate paintings in private collections. They authenticate their own work." As has been mentioned time and time again on this thread, the Van Gogh Museum [which you yourself acknowledged to be one of the few sources which can actually authenticate a Van Gogh painting] actually WILL authenticate a painting which is not in their collection. All the owner has to do is send in a decent photograph apparently. If you meant to say that the LACMA does not authenticate paintings in private collections, that's something else. I have no idea whether they do or do not, but I'm willing to take your word on the subject. But I think you need to stop saying that "Museums" do not authenticate paintings in private collections, since the museum best qualified to authenticate THIS painting apparently does authenticate paintings in private collections.
Regards,
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on September 22, 2000 02:40:24 PM new
I'm sure that if all these people, who think it's real, got together, than they would be able to place a bid on the item. Afterall, to them, it is real, and the proof provided is concrete. What do they possibly have to lose?
posted on September 22, 2000 04:41:31 PM new
Everyone... Finally the statement we have been waiting for. I checked the Old And Sold site. They have added the statement from John Rewald we have been looking for.
Here is the link:
http://www.oldandsold.com/vangogh/rewald.shtml
John Rewald states in his letter,
"In my lifetime I have proved or disproved paintings attributed to van Gogh, and I stand by the evidence of this painting as being a genuine work by the artist Vincent van Gogh."
About John Rewald,
Mr. John Rewald, who was the author of several influential books on Impressionism. He 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.
posted on September 22, 2000 04:44:48 PM new
Statement from Hart Cottage Quilts:
" John Rewald confirmed the painting Yellow Roses to be an authentic Van Gogh.
Seller's evidence: Seller's secondhand report that Haskins said Rewald said so.
Evidence refuting seller's claim: Rewald is dead and so can neither confirm nor deny that claim. No written statement from Rewald has been produced by seller.
Reasonable conclusion: Seller is relying on dead men not being able to tell tales."
posted on September 22, 2000 05:27:53 PM new
Was Rewald an educated man? He doesn't seem to have a great command of language. The second sentence does not make grammatical sense (unless he wished to contradict his stated conclusion).
It also seems he never met a comma he didn't like. His use of them reminds me of......Tightwad.
[ edited by switch on Sep 22, 2000 06:20 PM ]
posted on September 22, 2000 06:21:37 PM new
Fascinating. Three weeks and counting into the auction, after spending that time defending his ludicrous Brown claims, seller suddenly produces a letter of authentication from Rewald.
Fascinating, too (not to mention useful), that it's unlikely anybody here's ever seen a letter from Rewald. Is this quirky style (so eerily similar to lagoldie, theshar et al.) how the eminent, erudite and widely-published critic actually wrote? Is this Rewald's signature? Was this the text actually attached to Rewald's signature? Hey, it's dated 1990 and it's signed by him; so like the painting (dated 1888 and signed "Vincent Arles" ), it must be real.
Convenient that Rewald isn't available to confirm that this is actually his opinion and signature.
Amazing that despite being "baffled" by the "mauve" background, and apparently having never seen the painting in person (all he says is that he's reviewed the analyses), he gives his unqualified imprimatur to the work's authenticity.
Impressive that in one sweep, Rewald dismisses Pickvance and the Van Gogh Museum, the latter of which appears to be completely unreliable in its ability to authenticate a Van Gogh. (I'm kind of surprised it didn't bash me and sanctify lagoldie.)
But let's set aside all that for a moment.
Why would seller not post this letter in his auction from the get-go?
Why hold onto such conclusive evidence until 3 weeks into the month-long auction and spend time arguing about underpainting and inscriptions?
Why keep this information from potential bidders who, seeing the auction or having read this thread, find the owner unable to defend his claims, and therefore lose interest without such authentication?
Why concoct elaborate, yet easily-disproved stories regarding Chain and Brown, when if the painting is indeed by Van Gogh, nobody would give a damn who owned it? Why spend days and days in ever-expanding confabulations? Would a real Van Gogh NEED a "Titanic" connection in order to be marketable?
It just doesn't add up.
Edited to add Hey, switch, "Snap" on the grammar observation!
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 22, 2000 06:23 PM ]
posted on September 22, 2000 06:27:57 PM new
So....why did the seller wait three weeks to post this on the listing?
One would think that such a valuable piece of evidence would be offered from the get-go.
I mean, REALLY...proof that it IS an authentic Van Gogh makes it worth FAR more than "proof" that it had been owned by Maggie "Molly" Brown "of Titanic fame."
---SkorpioGal
Hehehe: I had the window already open when you posted! I REALLY didn't copy you, REALLY!!
[ edited by SkorpioGal on Sep 22, 2000 06:30 PM ]
posted on September 22, 2000 06:35:10 PM new
Great minds think alike, skorpiogal
Here's another tidbit from the AW article (also quoted by our friend fb as "proof" - of something, I can't figure out what):
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....
So Haskins says in September 2000. Why would Yellow Roses "need" an expert opinion if it already had received one from Rewald 10 years earlier? Why didn't Haskins tell the interviewer that such an "expert opinion" had already been provided, when according to the seller, Haskins himself had obtained such authentication from Rewald?
Seems an odd, very important bit of info to leave out of a quotation...
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 22, 2000 06:37 PM ]
posted on September 22, 2000 06:39:55 PM new
Has anyone had any explanation as to why the painting is listed as 20x14 etc .. and yet, in one of the analysis (the receipt from LA County Mueseum of Art), it states that the painting is 20x24?
I swear, I did read this whole thread between last night and this morning.. but I might have missed that explanation.
edited cause I can't spell
[ edited by rosiebud on Sep 22, 2000 06:50 PM ]
posted on September 22, 2000 06:40:45 PM new
HEY EVERYBODY!
Look what Our Flow--- has found! I guess the owner decided to give you the Experts statement, that you all wanted. The one piece of evidence you all were asking for. What do you know? Looks like you all got what you wanted? I guess you want that last piece of the puzzle? Notice that date on the Reward letter. I saw 'Yellow Roses" in Amsterdam in March 1990. Know add two + two = Mr. Pickvance stamp of approval.
Maybe if you make proper pests of yourselves the owner will let you see the actual statement from Pickvance?
I want to tell all of you something. This is all kidding aside. I am not aquatinted with anyone that is affiliated with this painting. What I said in my first post was the truth. I became involved because as I followed the thread, I noticed how many of the posters gave their opinions like they were written in stone. (The last word .) They gave little thought to how their opinions might be insulting, and hurtful. I am ashamed to say I let some of these posters anger me to the point of joining in, and returning insults. I was accused of posting under different handles. I only posted under my handle. I really do not think this kind of chat is fair, anyone that came in with something you did not want to hear was insulted. I was just a stranger, with something to add to the thread that I thought the posters would be interested in. A positive piece of information. I felt would help add a piece to your puzzle? I won't go into quotes of the mean, negative responses I received. This was not called for.
Yes, It did become a game, after I saw how destructive this forum was becoming. I think some of these posters should take a good long look at how self - righteous they appear. You did have some good points, what upset me is you seem to enjoy being insulting, and at times down right mean when making those points.
I realized last night, I was playing the game like a pro. Than it hit me "these are real people you have been insulting". I guess I took a lesson from pro's. One problem I can't keep up.I don't have the heart.
You see I don't spell very well, but I have a great memory, I know OAS's "Yellow Roses" is the painting I saw in Amsterdam.
Just An LA Angel With a bit of tarnish on her halo LAgoldie
posted on September 22, 2000 07:13:54 PM new
Well, forget the motion picture --we have now entered Twilight Zone territory...
Some questions:
Flowblue:
Was the letter found under the sofa...
or behind a file cabinet?
And -- is the ink dried yet?
LAGoldie:
And the following quotes seem to be misplaced too:
"They gave little thought to how their opinions might be insulting, and hurtful"
and
"you seem to enjoy being insulting, and at times down right mean when making those points. "
They are obviously directed towards HCQ, etc. -- who happen to still retain full posting rights. If their opinions had been insulting and hurtful, the Moderator would have warned and then suspended them. Gee, lets look at the scorecard: hmmm... about 4 to 1 (HCQ, I hope Ramona is not too depressed and off her feed. She must be devastated.)
Speaking of the dearly departed suspended members of the cabal, do peek around the cubicle wall and tell them Hi for us will you? We do miss them. They were quite entertaining.
posted on September 22, 2000 07:45:43 PM new
Good catch, rosiebud. I've never been able to figure it out myself. Guess it was just another "error" by LACMA that (if you'll recall the departed tightwad claimed) "cannot be rectified." Just one more reason not to trust a museum with authenticating your paintings.
Incidentally, anybody down in the D.C. area? The American Art Archives of the Smithsonian houses the Rewald document collection, which includes all his correspondence regarding provenance and authentication. If anybody's interested in going hunting I can round up some more info for you. (Unfortunately we won't be in DC until 11/10.)
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 22, 2000 07:47 PM ]
posted on September 22, 2000 07:56:41 PM new
Cooltom asked the question:
"No weasel words. In 40 words or less could you state - Yes, this is a Van Gogh painting?"
It is not I who can state this opinion. There is however now an expert opinion on "Yellow Roses". Please see the below text from John Rewald.
John Rewald states in his letter,
"In my lifetime I have proved or disproved paintings attributed to van Gogh, and I stand by the evidence of this painting as being a genuine work by the artist Vincent van Gogh."
posted on September 22, 2000 08:04:42 PM new
Problem is, fb, seller himself has damaged his credibility so much thus far (the Brown confabulation, the LACMA gaffe, the wacky ownership claims) that nobody's going to believe the Rewald letter is authentic - particularly since Rewald is conveniently unavailable for comment.
You seem to have a remarkable communication line with the seller. How about a letter from, say, Pickvance? Or the Van Gogh Museum, where lagoldie insists the painting hung in 1990? Somebody we can check with, in other words.
Incidentally, why would Rewald warn the seller away from the Van Gogh Museum in the very year, according to lagoldie, "Yellow Roses" was exhibited there?
posted on September 22, 2000 08:17:42 PM new
The basic rules for reference material and statements are as follows:
1 - It must exist on the proper letter head.
2 - It must have the signature of the author of the letter.
I also offer up this.
The seller has provided three other references.
1 - Dr. Walter McCrone
2 - Scott Haskins
3 - John Twilley
Based on the statements on Old And Sold, they have all been contacted in the past month and confirmed that they have performed analysis on the painting. Everything they have presented is fact.
Based on the ability to confirm the three other resources, It would be of little risk to say that the John Rewald letter is 100% authentic.
posted on September 22, 2000 08:59:10 PM new
Truly? I think it would be a huge risk to leave it up there on the auction site.
After reading what I could find on the web that Rewald had written, it is obvious even to me that he could not have written that particular letter, with its fractured grammar, punctuation, and misspelling. Rewald's writing is flawless and scholarly. I doubt he could have written the second sentence unless roaring drunk, not to mention the rest.
I don't think the owner realizes that a typed letter can be authenticated by determining if it matches the author's writing style in other works. Handwriting is not necessary.
Forging a letter in order to pass off this painting as authentic would be a criminal act. Up until now, I didn't think the FBI would be interested.
posted on September 23, 2000 04:10:47 AM new
What you forget, switch, is that (a) The letter is dated during Rewald's lifetime; (b) The letter is about paintings, and Rewald is known to have written letters about paintings; and (c) The letter is signed, and Rewald was known to have signed his letters. Therefore, Rewald wrote it. After all, nobody would actually fake a letter of provenance when cornered with his other shaky claims, would he?
Nah.
And what you forget, fb, is that this seller has demonstrated anything but reliability concerning his other "provenance."
He persists in describing Twilley's analysis as being by LACMA even after Twilley himself stated it was not.
He claimed all sorts of outrageous Brown and Chain connections to the work - but, oddly, after they were disproven, deleted most of them from the listing. If they were true - IOW, if seller's claims are so reliable - why delete them?
His claims regarding the chain of ownership don't jibe with reports from other, disinterested sources.
His claims regarding McCrone, Twilley's and Haskins's reports don't jibe with what those reports actually say.
Suddenly - when all of seller's claims regarding Brown have been proven false, and 12 years after he's done a microscopic analysis of the painting, right down to counting the threads per inch in the canvas - Haskins notices "Property of Molly Brown" written on the frame.
This is somebody we're supposed to trust? When the party who could easily confirm the veracity of the letter is, conveniently, dead?
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 23, 2000 04:13 AM ]
posted on September 23, 2000 05:05:11 AM new
Has it come to THIS??? The owner of the painting willing to go to prison for fabricating proof of authentication???????
Perhaps someone of very high intelligence, with flawless command of the English language, an eye for detail and superb communication skills, could have concocted a plausible provenance and believable fake painting (yes, even the best of museums get fooled by outstandingly good "fakes"....but this whole affair has been so badly staged by the painting's owner that it's laughable. At least it WAS laughable until he crossed the line with this "authentication" letter.
Would that I lived close to Washington, D.C. and could go through Rewald's documents to be the one to burst this bubble for flowblue2/lagoldie/theshar/Starvnartsts/"the owner". (I also remember where the FBI building is located there, so I'd know where to report this crime.)
Even I, totally inexperienced in the deceptive arts of forgery and fraud, could produce a DECENT letter of authentication were I so inclined. I mean, how hard is it to COPY ONE ALREADY IN EXISTENCE and change key words, rather than attempting your own pitifully botched document??????? Misspelled words, run-on sentences, contradictions, illogic, conclusions drawn from nothing, and the POOREST SCAN I think I've ever seen. They must have used the scanner that got "hit by lightening" (though the computer it was linked to survived the disaster????).
Surely OldandSold owns this painting. Why else would they stake their reputations on such a fiasco???????
Someone earlier suggested that perhaps the best thing to do with this painting would be to remove the top layer to see what's underneath. I wholeheartedly agree, since the painting on top isn't especially appealing, and (I daresay) isn't worth over $200 as a lackluster attempt by artist(s) unknown.
Maybe when they remove the top layer the owner will luck out and find a Rembrandt.
posted on September 23, 2000 05:24:19 AM new
HCQ -
Haskins said it lacked a professional opinion from an impeccable source. So now there is a professional opinion from an impeccable source ... unfortunate that Rewald has died and can't back up his letter like Haskins and Twilley did.
I do a lot of photo retouching in my work. Example to come
posted on September 23, 2000 06:35:12 AM new
Let me restate the facts.
The following references that have been given have been proved to be true.
1 - Scott Haskins (He even included a contact phone number to discuss the painting)
2 - Dr. Walter McCrone
3 - John Twilley (The statement on Old And Sold states he did the analysis in his personal time. The receipt from LACMA also exists. This is signed by an LACMA representative. I personally spoke with an LACMA conservation department to verify that John Twilley worked at LACMA and the policy around the analysis.)
All of this information is fact.
The seller in previous post stated that they have further information on the painting. This information would be available to bidders.
The letter is personal correspondence and not an edited book or article.
posted on September 23, 2000 07:09:12 AM new
Statement from Granee:
"Has it come to THIS??? The owner of the painting willing to go to prison for fabricating proof of authentication???????"
It is easy to sling arrows. Please provide facts around your statements and how you can disprove that the letter from John Rewald is authentic.
Not just your opinion. I would take your opinion if you had personal correspondence with John Rewald. If you did, please provide evidence of your correspondence.
We will need the method of how you will disprove this letter.
