posted on September 23, 2000 07:18:07 AM new
Statement from Abacaxi:
"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."
Why do you not contact Scott Haskins directly? His phone number was included on his statement on Old And Sold. Instead of asking Hart Cottage Quilts, why not find out the real answer?
posted on September 23, 2000 07:39:12 AM new
"In my lifetime I have proved or disproved paintings attributed to van Gogh,"
One does not "prove or disprove paintings"; he proves or disproves them to be something. I would think Rewald would say he had authenticated paintings, not that he "proved" them. Or perhaps he would say he proved them to be authentic.
"and I stand by the evidence of this painting as being a genuine work by the artist Vincent van Gogh."
More important, this statement actually says that the evidence is a genuine work by the artist Vincent van Gogh. Not the painting.
posted on September 23, 2000 08:43:23 AM new
Statement from Switch:
"One does not "prove or disprove paintings"; he proves or disproves them to be something. I would think Rewald would say he had authenticated paintings, not that he "proved" them. Or perhaps he would say he proved them to be authentic."
Could you please provide evidence on your ability or expertise to analyze John Rewalds writing and use of words. Do you have other correspondence which we may use to compare wording? If so, please provide. If not, I will understand you are making assumptions based on what knowledge you have. Assumptions do not hold up as factual evidence.
So....what do you think? About my forging abilities, I mean
I'm thinking of branching out and providing "authentification" that the drop of blood FACL noted on the canvas is from when Vincent cut off his earlobe. Or maybe a letter from "Molly" Brown to Chain thanking her for the painting.
posted on September 23, 2000 09:01:30 AM new
To Hart Cottage Quilts:
Please provide me with your line of logic. Are you stating that it is not possible to use correspodence as proof from individuals who are no longer living?
If I was a historian, I would think that most of my information and knowledge would come from those not living. Using your line of logic, I would be able to hold very little as a complete truth.
Please provide proper references to John Rewald letters. Until that point, your are making un-eductated assumptions.
If you do have expertise knowledge, please inform us where you gained your knowledge and why we should accept your credentials.
posted on September 23, 2000 09:08:33 AM new
Statement from Hart Cottage Quilts:
"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?"
A question to Hart Cottage Quilts.
Have you contacted Scott Haskins to clear up this question? He has provided his telephone number for all interested individuals. This will provide us with true factual evidence and not assumptions.
Please let us know when you have the answer to your question.
There is no need to guess when someone has offered to provide facts.
posted on September 23, 2000 09:26:11 AM new
I've got some really SIMPLE questions, that I"m sure, flowblue2, lagoldie, etc will be able to answer:
The newest addition to this auction is the letter from Rewald, dated 2/12/1990. In the letter, it states:
The colors used have matched and tests on the pigment suggest that this painting is correct in it's attribution date of 1888 ...
So, then we step forward and enter lagoldie to March of the same year, 1990 where she states that she saw this same painting in the Van Gogh museum in Amsterdam.
That IS interesting, and I would love to hear an explanation as to why there is a statment from McCrone dated March 23, 1990.
This is the same month and year, that the painting was in Amsterdam. This analysis was done AFTER the letter from Rewald.
So, I am to assume that McCrone did the analysis in Amsterdam? Within 7 days that this analysis was done, this painting was then rushed to Amsterdam to be put in display. ................... or ................ Rewald based his opinion of the pallet SOLELY upon 1 pigment analysis and that is from the one done March 25, 1988.. because in February of 1990 he did NOT have McCrone's analysis.
If this painting had Rewald's blessing in 2/1990, why was McCrone's analysis even necessary?
I'm not a supersleuth, but to me, dates don't add up. The logic doesn't add up.
posted on September 23, 2000 09:55:46 AM new
Let's step back for a minute from the question of whether the "Rewald" letter is authentic. Let's placate flowblue et al. for a minute and assume it's the real McCoy.
Unfortunately, seller has misconstrued, misrepresented and outright lied about so many aspects of this painting that nothing he says at this point will even be considered without independent confirmation. Remember "Chicken Little" and the boy who cried wolf?
The sad thing is that, if the Rewald letter is indeed authentic (good catch, switch, on the quirky dating - boy, that painting traveled a lot in a couple weeks!), seller didn't have to concoct the Brown story at all. He didn't have to misrepresent Twilley's analysis as coming from LACMA. He didn't have to embellish "SOUV---" into an entire dedication. He didn't have to "see" a painting of irises and another of a landscape underneath the one on the surface. Nobody would care what label or writing appears on the frame.
But seller didn't do that. Seller bloviated so here on AW that he got sent to his room. So did a couple of his "friends," who decided to "help out" with a little more hilarious name-dropping. So now, unless Seller can get a living, breathing specialist in Van Gogh to authenticate the work (which shouldn't be hard to do if he's already got Rewald's imprimatur as a calling card) whose statements can actually be verified through actual telephonic contact at the very least (IOW, somebody other than a "physic" ) all the seller is going to get is laughed at.
BTW, switch, from what I've read, Rewald was a native of Germany. However, like Nabokov ('member him? Lolita? - He was Russian), he had a superb command of English, as evinced by his long and well-respected bibliography, which includes thousands of letters, research papers, books and annotations in his own hand. Surely flowblue et al. aren't suggesting that all Rewald's works were ghost-written?
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 23, 2000 09:59 AM ]
posted on September 23, 2000 09:58:27 AM new
Surely somebody can do a screen save of this Rewald letter from OAS and email it to various people with true art appraisal backgrounds and solicit a few scans of known correspondence from this true expert? The way the net works, it shouldn't take a foray to the Smithsonian to find disinterested parties who'd be pleased to cooperate with such research either to confirm, or to disprove, the claim that this letter is genuine?
One technique for those still learning internet documentation research processes:
1)Get the key area of interest showing on your screen.
2)Assuming you use a Win 95/98 platform, hit the "Print Screen" button (mine is a bit above & to the right of the backspace key)
3)Open a graphics program, or even a decent word processor, and hit: control-V to copy the buffer memory to the program. The image of that screen should now appear; you might want to crop it down to save a bit of file size
4)Pick "save as" and save it, noting the file location on your hard drive (or floppy if you put it there).
There are also various "snapshot" standalone programs and graphics program modules that let you do the same thing as the above process.
Later you can compose an email, choose "add attachment" and direct the email to pick that file off your disk and transmit it to the recipient of the email.
Knowing how to do this can come in very handy, especially in transient chatroom situations, for documenting material that otherwise scrolls away or like here can be deleted by the original writer, or a moderator, or webmaster.
posted on September 23, 2000 10:08:19 AM new
HCQ, credit on that excellent catch of the quirky dating goes to Rosiebud, not to me (as much as I wish I had).
[ edited by switch on Sep 23, 2000 10:24 AM ]
posted on September 23, 2000 11:20:35 AM newflowblue2 -
Let's talk about Aesop's Fables for a moment. Specifically, let's talk about "The Boy Who Cried Wolf". After numerous false alarms, when a real wolf appeared, the boy cried "WOLF" ... and because of his previous false alarms no one believed him. The wolf ate him and all his sheep.
Now let's talk about the owner who cried "EVIDENCE" . After most of his claims are blown away by persons who can actually read lab analyses (the evidence does not support any claim beyond that it is an old painting, on top of others). Now that his supposed provenance is shown to be untenable, he comes up with what he wants us to believe is a scan of a letter from Rewald. And the text of the letter NEATLY disposes of so many of the doubts that have been voiced about the muddy background, and embraces the proof (the brush stroke analysis) the seller wanted us to believe, but most of which has ALSO vanished from the website. When the preponderance of the evidence is mis-represented and ephemeral it makes the rest suspect by association. It's called "the body of evidence", and in this case the body stinks.
"We will need the method of how you will disprove this letter."
One does not "disprove", one "authenticates", an error in word usage that interestingly also appears in the letter in question. As for authenticating the letter from Rewald, one uses the traditional methods - those used in forgery cases - comparing the paper and typewriter used in with those used in known good letters and comparing the signature with several from known good letters of the same period from the supposed author. Digital images are not proof of anything, because of their suceptibility to editing, as you can see on HCQ's site.
I have read Rewalds book on Cezanne ... his writing style is far better than the style shown in the JPG the seller claims is proof. Even if his standards slipped a bit when not writing for publication, he was a professional writer. And that JPG is not that of a letter written by an educated German.
posted on September 23, 2000 12:40:43 PM new
My propostion to Hart Cottage Quilts:
I would like you to call Scott Haskins. We seem to have many questions that are still lingering. I would be happy to call Scott Haskins, but in this "gang mentality", my words or statements would not be accepted.
I challenge you to contact Scott Haskins. His phone number is in public. He has stated that he is available for questions regarding "Yellow Roses".
I would like you to ask the following questions.
* What are his credentials?
* What work has he done on the painting "Yellow Roses"?
* Is he aware of the John Rewald letter?
* Is he aware of the painting being at the van Gogh museum?
* What is his opinion on the painting?
* What in his credentials allow him to make such an opinion?
Since none of us here are even remotely as credible as Scott Haskins, I would be curious to hear the responses.
He has also actually been in the physical presence of the painting. Which none of us have.
The answers to the questions should not include your own opinion. It cannot be slanted or sided. Proper reporting does not get personal or include personal opinions. Just facts of what he says.
posted on September 23, 2000 12:54:34 PM new
John Rewald was German. He had an apartment in New York, and a house in Germany where he spent most of his life.
How do we know what language he actually wrote his books? Were they written in German and translated by the publisher to English? Or were they written in English?
Fact, published books are edited by editors.
I actually have a bit of expertise in dealing with people from Germany. I work for a German company and deal with people from Germany on a daily basis. As you will find out, when working with people from Europe, everyone has a Doctorate in something. This is because schooling is basically free. Some of these highly educated people do not command the best use of the English language. They write very similar to how they speak. Sometimes very broken.
posted on September 23, 2000 12:57:53 PM new
Hey everybody????
HCQ, I see you have weathered the storm,But
created one of your own.
The letter (if real) would be the proof that everyone wanted,(if real). But you showed that you could create one of your own. I cant use that at all. Thats what they call criminal libel.
So far I have shown an otline of this story to 7 NO's 4 maybe's 2 possibles and one
very interested. I will know by the end of next week if we have a deal on any of them.
Rosiebud and switch, sorry you came in too
late. Your analogies are too long and make no sense!
posted on September 23, 2000 01:08:56 PM new
Statement from Abacaxi:
"Specifically, let's talk about 'The Boy Who Cried Wolf'. After numerous false alarms, when a real wolf appeared, the boy cried "WOLF" ... and because of his previous false alarms no one believed him. The wolf ate him and all his sheep."
This should not be about the sellers attitude or actions. It should be about providing facts. The seller has laid their facts on the table.
* Technical analysis from Scott Haskins, The McCrone Research Institute, and John Twilley.
* Provided letter from John Rewald. Who is known as a reputable art expert.
* The seller has also stated further information will be provided to bidders. This is the sellers decision.
The provenance must be taken as a whole.
Can you disprove the below statements?
"My grandmother had remained friends with the Chain family and while visiting Denver in the 1920's, she bought many of the furnishings and paintings which the Brown children had for sale."
"My grandmother passed away in the 1930's. At that time her oldest son inherited most of her belongings, which included the paintings that my grandmother had purchased from the estate of Molly Brown. In 1957 when I got my first apartment in Chicago, my uncle gave me furniture along with the collection of paintings that he had kept in storage all of those many years. I have had the Van Gogh ever since that time."
It is not possible. Much of what makes up any provenance is family history and memories. Things are always not captured in databases for further reference 80 years in the future. This is especially true, when computers did not exist.
posted on September 23, 2000 01:16:57 PM new
This picture looks so little like the opus of Vincent Van Gogh that, despite my lack of qualification, if every expert in and out of Amsterdam accepted it as his work I would believe them mistaken.
One tech. detail note - in the french numbering system used in the letters a size 20 canvas is approx. 28 3/4 x 21 1/4 inches.
posted on September 23, 2000 02:29:09 PM newMerci bien, figmente. Guess "Yellow Roses" was cut down considerably, huh. 4" off each of the top and bottom, 3" off each side - yet the image is still centered and the signature's down in one corner. Amazing.
fb, among my other avocations I'm the family genealogist. Until I moved, I was a member of the New England Historical Genealogical Society, which in scope and professionalism ranks only behind the Library of Congress and the Mormon data banks. There and during my travels to the UK, I traced our family line back to 1547, using original documents in the Record Offices in Britain and Canada. I know who got the fur coat, who got the best bed, the fishing nets, and the silver teaspoons, and how much bread and beer was to go to the mourners. It's truly amazing how easy it is to uncover documented fact.
Now, for over 100 years my family has maintained that my great-great-great-great grandfather was a Baptist minister, a decorated Tory chaplain, who left his Quebec church one day "to find a place to preach" and never came back, presumably having been killed by Indians: another family martyr to the faith. My great-grandfather even wrote down that his mother told him so.
However, ecclesiastical and government papers demonstrated that in fact, after getting arrested as a pickpocket in Boston and running off to Manchester, VT, he had posed for more than a decade as an Anglican priest ontside Montreal and had falsely obtained a land grant from the King for services (which he never provided) during the American Revolution. When he learned the bishop was coming for a visit and realized he couldn't produce his ordination papers (never having been ordained), he abandoned his wife and 12 children for America, where under an assumed name he moved in with his sister-in-law and her husband, and raised his youngest son, who joined him there. A number of the children have unusual names, so they're quite easy to trace, particularly when other branches of the family were very prominent in Canadian and US government.
And all of this is documented by numerous sources not related to the family.
I passed this information on to another member of the family who styles herself an historian.
She refuses even to read the documents. They can't be true, she insists. Her grandmother told her X, and everyone else is lying.
The point here is that even in the most basic genealogy, one distinguishes between documented fact and family lore with phrases such as "It was said by Aunt Fanny that..." or "Documents at Caius College, Cambridge note that..." "Granny told me so" is not acceptable. You would get laughed out of the NEHGS if you tried to submit such information as fact.
Now, back to why the ball remains in seller's court.
The seller's claims about the Brown connection to the paintings have been proven to be utterly impossible.
The seller's unsubstantiated claims regarding his "grandmother's" relationship with the Chains - and when, where and from whom she bought the painting - conflict with Bright's 1997 court testimony that he owned the painting, and Haskins's 1988 note that the work was to be prepared for sale.
The seller's claims that Twilley's analysis was done on behalf of LACMA have been refuted not only LACMA but Twilley himself, in seller's own documents, yet seller persists in claiming the analysis is LACMA's.
The seller's claims that the FACL report notes a detailed inscription on the painting are refuted by that very report, which states that only 4 letters are visible and that no more detail can be observed.
So far seller's 0 for 4. And those are just the highlights. With that kind of a veracity record, why should we believe ANYthing the seller says about the painting?
Even absent such glaring misstatements, the onus is on the seller to prove, not for the public to disprove. We are not talking about a matter of personal faith such as transubstantiation. "I believe it so it must be true" is, as Barry's said, perfectly fine in your living room but grossly unacceptable in commerce.
The only thing that Haskins can attest to is his own observations. And last week - twelve years after his extensive examination of the painting under laboratory conditions, Haskins suddenly "discovered" the ludicrous "Molly Brown" inscription on the frame. Did he miss this important notiation when he was carefully counting the canvas's warp and filling threads? When he noted the condition of the frame? (Maybe he was dazzled by the painting.) Or did "Property of Molly Brown" suddenly appear sometime between 1988 and now?
And from this miraculously-appearing inscription, Haskins - apparently lacking any knowledge whatsoever of the "Brown" in question - lunged to the conclusion that the painting was owned by Maggie Brown. From a label on the frame, he decided the painting was purchased in Europe by Chain.
By Haskins's logic, since the letter has Rewald's name on it and somebody signed it "John Rewald," - it must be authentic. Uh-huh.
Given Haskins's preternatural deductive powers regarding the "Brown" inscription and the Chain ownership, how much can we trust in his verification of the "Rewald" letter? Can he produce and compare the "Yellow Roses" letter to substantive correspondence he had with Rewald unrelated to this painting, of which copies are in Rewald's archives or with other, verifiable sources who do not stand to benefit from this painting being attributed to Van Gogh? For all we know, Haskins himself owns an interest in "Yellow Roses."
Hmm. Let's sit with that one for a bit.
Say, as a hypothetical, that I claim Haskins has a vested interest in the painting's sale, and therefore his opinion is tainted.
By your logic, fb, YOU have to prove ME wrong. And you've got to do it using disinterested sources, not Haskins's own words.
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 23, 2000 02:33 PM ]
The letter that you made up is okay, except for the fact, that you forged John Rewalds
name. You could have left the old name on.
But since you forged Rewalds name, you can be prosecuted. Get that signature off right away. I am telling you this,as a friend that doesnt want you to get in trouble. Leave the letter, but take the signature off. Or put the old one back.
posted on September 23, 2000 03:11:18 PM new flowblue2 -
* Technical analysis from Scott Haskins, The McCrone Research Institute, and John Twilley.
I have never contested the accuracy of the lab analysis, just the conclusions the seller concocts from them.
* Provided letter from John Rewald. Who is known as a reputable art expert.
Provided a DIGITAL IMAGE purporting to be a scan of a letter from Rewald, who is conveniently dead. In the case of dead expert witnesses, their written testimony itself has to be authenticated because they are no longer available to say "yes, I wrote it".
BTW - does anyone know if Rewald believed the brushstroke theory? It is hotly contested, and I wonder if he was for it or agin' it.
* The seller has also stated further information will be provided to bidders. This is the sellers decision.
The seller is quite foolish if he thinks someone will ante $2,000,000 just for a looksee at something with a provenance that leaks worse than the Titanic.
**********
"The provenance must be taken as a whole."
Which provenance? The original one where the seller claimed Chain was a neighbor of Brown? Or the current one? Or the next one the painting shows up under?
"Can you disprove the below statements? "
In commerce, the SELLER is the one who must prove their claims. If the sale of a $2,000,000 painting were riding on it, I would expect a seller to be VERY willing to back it up from the very start with documents listed right with the auctions.
We went through an authentication and provenance process to sell some drawings for an elderly aunt ... I know what it takes to make a good provenance for an unsigned work. Our word meant nothing until it was backed up by photos, letters and other evidence.
"My grandmother had remained friends with the Chain family and while visiting Denver in the 1920's, she bought many of the furnishings and paintings which the Brown children had for sale."
Can you show a reciept for the purchase? Letters from the Chains to from or about the grandmother and this long-standing friendship? My grandfather and his family were good friends with the western artist Charles M Russell ... and there are plenty of photos, letters, and newspaper stories to prove it when we had to prove that the drawings Charlie gave to the family went up for sale.
"My grandmother passed away in the 1930's. "
Death certificate? Obituary?
"At that time her oldest son inherited most of her belongings, which included the paintings that my grandmother had purchased from the estate of Molly Brown."
Probated will? Estate inventory?
""In 1957 when I got my first apartment in Chicago, my uncle gave me furniture along with the collection of paintings that he had kept in storage all of those many years. I have had the Van Gogh ever since that time.""
Snapshots of the picture in situ in the house?
***********
figmente - THANK YOU!
I knew it couldn't be that easy that the "size 20" Vincent was painting would be 20 modern inches ... France went metric with Napolean.
***************
HCQ - My thoughts exactly. Hakskins is not maintaining a professional distance here.
Edited several times because I can't type worth a darn today!
[ edited by abacaxi on Sep 23, 2000 03:17 PM ]
[ edited by abacaxi on Sep 23, 2000 03:33 PM ]
posted on September 23, 2000 03:37:02 PM new
flowblue: You claim that text like *this* sounds like something a German would write in English?:
"All of the odd peculiar traits that van Gogh exhibited, seem to be in this one painting alone. The background of this painting does baffle me though!"
Horsefeathers. Sounds a lot more like tightwad's phrasing than that of a native German to me. I suppose, though, that there might be an effect claimed of correspondence with experts having influenced the present owner(s) and friends to indulge in a certain odd "art jargon." Hence, I repeat it'd be very useful to rummage around to find someone from ten years ago with direct correspondence with Rewald.
Oh, one more thing. Take a look at the Scott Haskins signature in the "FACL on inscription findings" area on OAS... URL:
http://www.oldandsold.com/vangogh/faclnew.shtml
That first part of the swirly signature script sure looks to me like the whole signature area was CUT OUT from something else, carelessly, so there're a couple of pieces missing. Maybe that was done by Haskins, or with his permission?
posted on September 23, 2000 04:31:04 PM new
Hart Cottage Quilts:
Will you be contacting Scott Haskins?
If not, please let me know. I will contact him with the questions.
The logic is a bit one sided here. If I was being tried, I would really dislike to have any of you on the jury. You would be a prosecuting lawyers dream jury.
Here is a simple scenario:
Prosecuting Lawyer:
"Witness, please tell me what you think of the John Rewald letter presented."
Witness:
"Well, to my best knowledge, it just dont look like something John Rewald would have wrote."
Prosecuting Lawyer:
"Could you explain to the court how you came to this conclusion and where you gained your knowledge about John Rewalds personal correspondence."
Witness:
"Well, sir, I never studied John Rewald before but I do recollect a conversation I once overheard about him having something to do with art. This letter just sure dont look like something that he could wrote. I heard he was supposed to be smart."
Prosecuting Lawyer:
"Judge, I rest my case."
Statements like "just doesnt look like a John Rewald letter" do not get much support in factual cases. If they did, we would all be in trouble.
Not a single person has provided another piece of correspondence from John Rewald for comparison. Once you do, I will then think of taking into consideration your thoughts. Until then, my version holds just as true as anyone who disputes it. Your comparison must come on letter head and include a signature.
The letter stands as an authentic John Rewald letter.
posted on September 23, 2000 04:34:49 PM new
Statement from Hart Cottage Quilts:
"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?"
A question to Hart Cottage Quilts.
Have you contacted Scott Haskins to clear up this question? He has provided his telephone number for all interested individuals. This will provide us with true factual evidence and not assumptions.
Please let us know when you have the answer to your question.
There is no need to guess when someone has offered to provide facts.
posted on September 23, 2000 04:37:12 PM new
"It is easy to say something is a fake; it is hard to prove it is not. When the subject is van Gogh, it even more complicated."
Ann Distel - Chief Curator - Musee d'Orsay - Paris
posted on September 23, 2000 04:43:28 PM newflowblue2,
You keep insisting that the number you provided for Scott Haskins be called. Makes one suspicious that it wouldn't be him on the other end of the line.
posted on September 23, 2000 04:56:00 PM new
Hart Cottage Quilts:
Based on you being a genealogist, could you possibly come into my family and map out every transaction that has ever happened? Can you account for all of the personal transactions and memories I have had in my life? I have had lots of neighbors and have lived in many different places. I have purchased many things along the way. Some have been from friends, other from businesses, and some picked up on the side road on rubbish day. I have also recieved gifts from relatives and people I have done business with. Not everything I own comes with paperwork and receipts. Most of what I own is not recorded in government or church records.
(Hmmm... Maybe I'll do an inventory of my belongings and take it down to the church tomorrow.)
I have had the benefit of inheriting some items from a friend I knew in high school. I had not spoke with this friend in 30 years. I was contacted by a lawyer after they passed. They stated they would ship the items to me. I recieved the items three weeks later by UPS. These items did not come with a receipt. Just a signed UPS bill. This bill I discarded right away. They turned out to be a nice collection of early-1900's Japanese prints. Somewhat rare. I have taken thses prints to a reputable auction house. The only story I have of how I got them is that I inherited them from a friend I had not heard from in 30 years. Not much of a provenance.
Based on everyones logic here, I am going to have a real problem trying to sell these.
posted on September 23, 2000 05:02:54 PM new
noshill:
"You keep insisting that the number you provided for Scott Haskins be called. Makes one suspiciousthat it wouldn't be him on the other end of the line."
His number was included in the AuctionWatch article from two weeks ago.
I keep insisting because individuals have questions that could be answered by him. They have questioned statements he has made. Why not go to the horses mouth?
I am definately not Scott Haskins. This is fact. I would think if I was, I would have a far better chance against this group.
posted on September 23, 2000 05:03:31 PM new
Flowblue2, I think you really mean to say, we're a defense attorney's nightmare. An intelligent jury asking the hard questions and expecting clear, precise and accurate information in return.
Since the proponents of the authenticity of the painting, in question, failed to meet any of the criteria for clear, accurate, or precise responses to the logical questions asked, then the members of the jury come to the inescapable conclusion that there is, indeed, reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
If you're presenting evidence to a court, you can not just hand someone a piece of paper, supposedly written by a dead guy without any means of verifying he was the author or the letter has not been modified in any way. Being dead, he can't testify, one way or the other.
You also, can not present to the court, hearsay, which is something that OAS has done in the "Statements From FACL Owner And Conservator Scott Haskins"
According to Mr. Haskins, Rewald confirmed the painting Yellow Roses to be an authentic Van Gogh.
This is hearsay and unless Mr. Haskins has a correspondence directly from the offices of John Rewald, his statement is pure hearsay. MUCHLESS, there is an opportunity to call this witnesses (Haskin's) credibility into question, as his original report (dated May 6, 1988) made absolutely no mention of the penciled in "property of Molly Brown" that was "found" or reported September 13, 2000.
This can either lead to one of two conclustions:
1) Haskin's original analysis is faulty because this was not noticed 12 years previously. This, then, calls into question the credibility of the entire report. If this is the case, why bother to "call" someone on the phone who's aready 'not' a credible witness.
or
2) Someone added that little penciled in effect at some point during the 12 years after the report was written. If that is the case, then SOMEONE is into modifying things. That would, in turn, lead us directly back to .... Hmmm, is the letter by Rewald "modified" as well?
Every answer spawns more questions.
So, flowblue2, take your choice.
Either his report is valid and Haskins is a credible witness and we're to accept his credentials, reports, etc as they were stated in 1988 and someone has altered the painting after that date.
OR
Haskins missed the inscription and anything he has to add at this point is highly suspect.
posted on September 23, 2000 05:14:23 PM new
If, fb, you're going to try to market your Asian pictures as having belonged to your friend (who, for sake of argument here, we'll say is famous), yes indeedy, it is going to be hard to prove they came from her....except that the attorney would have a copy of the estate inventory and of having shipped the items to you. He has to doument he did so. It's part of his job as the attorney who settled the estate. You'd also be amazed at how much information people leave in odd places. Letters, family photographs showing that ugly painting of Aunt Millie's...and there's an entire database of art gallery inventories and sales online, not to mention collections of correspondence and transactions like the Rewald Collection. Places like NEHGS publishes annual volumes of newspaper and other published articles - ship arrivals, gallery openings, parties that list who wore what and who received what as a wedding gift. People wrote - a LOT - in past years. (People also write a lot now, thanks to the internet.) I found my gggggrandfather's pickpocket story in a tiny news article in a late 18th century Boston newspaper. He stole a couple of monogrammed handkerchiefs. People track down this kind of information for a living. EVERYbody leaves a paper trail whether he likes it or not - and particularly about significant events, such as acquiring a Van Gogh painting.
Anyway, if you want to sell them as orignal Hokusai woodblock prints, you're going to have an recognized expert in that field do an in-person appraisal. When he does that, he'll give you an appraisal certificate, not just an off-the-cuff letter. Just like the papers for an AKC-registered dog, that certificate can travel with your prints to demonstrate they are what you claim they are and areworth what you're asking. Of course, you have to pay for this service.
You'll also need an appraisal certificate for property insurance purposes, and you'll have to have your insurer specify the item and include photographs of it, and you'll probably pay a surcharge on your premium to cover the valuable item.
If, OTOH, you just want to list your pictures as some nice old Asian prints that your friend gave you, you don't need anything except your word...assuming they're not lithographs but actual woodblocks. Bidders don't take kindly to misrepresentation.
I hope that answers your question.
As to MY proving MY doubts about the "Rewald" letter - the ball's in the seller's court. HE's the one saying it - and the painting - are real. Why should I do his homework for him? HE is the one with the vested interest in this painting, not me. Based on all the mutton-as-lamb he's expected us to swallow so far, he hasn't given anybody any reason to believe him.
Prove to me that Haskins doesn't have a vested interest in the painting.
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 23, 2000 05:24 PM ]
posted on September 23, 2000 06:21:58 PM new
A sample of Rewald's prose:
In Cezanne’s work, however, one finds neither cylinders, cones, nor parallel and perpendicular lines, the line never having existed for Cezanne except as a meeting place for two planes of different color. One might thus be permitted to see in this theory an attempt to express his consciousness of structure beneath the colored surface presented by nature. It was this awareness of form that detached Cezanne from his Impressionist friends. But nowhere in his canvas did Cezanne pursue this abstract concept at the expense of his direct sensations. He always found his forms in nature and never in geometry.
- From Cezanne, New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1990, p. 226
