posted on September 24, 2000 06:59:09 AM new
Rosiebud:
What conclusion can you draw from this?
rosiebud sample of John Rewalds writing:
"One would be tempted to deny that Cézanne could have painted so insignificant a work if it were not for the formal testimony of Dr Gachet's son and if other still-lifes, executed in Auvers-sur-Oise, did not fail from similar faults."
Sample from John Rewald letter provided by seller:
"The painting is very unusual in its style, however after studying the brushwork and application of the paint, one would have to deny the fact that van Gogh was the only artist in his time that painted with such impasto."
Notice similar uses of wording:
"one would have to deny the fact" (John Rewald Letter From Seller)
"One would be tempted to deny that" (John Rewald letter provided from rosiebud)
Rosiebud - Please let me know, as I would like to understand your original line of logic and why your sample was posted. Are you saying they are very similar or not? Please let us know your conclusion. And once you do come up with that conclusion, could you send it to my office in writing? Based on this correspondence between you and I, we should have record that you are making such a conclusion in case I need it for further reference in the future. This is how most of my personal correspondence works. It gets a bit tiring for my friends, but I do have a file cabinet full of paperwork on all of the correspondence I have ever had. These are also signed by who I spoke with, myself, and my legal representation.
posted on September 24, 2000 07:01:33 AM new
flowblue -
you said "Original John Rewald topic came up in a post from Hart Cottage Quilts"
Actually it was one of the OAS sock-puppets who pointed out that OAS had added text from an interview with Haskins wherein Haskins said he had "discussed" the painting with Rewald and that Rewald had supposedly said it was a van Gogh.
HCQ merely pointed out that the only person OAS has for authenticating the painting on style and technique, instead of purely chemical details, is conveniently dead. The conversation between Haksins and Rewald is hearsay unless backed up with information from Rewalds archives.
posted on September 24, 2000 07:07:18 AM new
Abacaxi:
Before you make your definitive statements that the John Rewald letter is fake. Can you answer the simplest question.
(This came from you)
"The letterhead paper the letter is on (does/does not) match the letterhead known to have been used by John Rewald for letters to his publisher and other correspondents at that time?"
Please let me know when you have this question answered. I am very interested to find out. It would also be good if you can provide us with how you came about your conclusion, and if required, proper comparison materials.
posted on September 24, 2000 07:12:14 AM new
Statement from Abacaxi:
" The conversation between Haksins and Rewald is hearsay unless backed up with information from Rewalds archives."
Do some work to back up your conclusions. Please contact the individuals in charge of the Rewald archive. This should not be a problem. Until you provide proper evidence, your word is as good as mine.
As I have asked Hart Cottage Quilts, please do some work outside the keyboard to provide better information.
posted on September 24, 2000 07:22:25 AM new
Hmm. Found the newsletter archive for the "Western Assocation for Art Conservation (WAAC), and got some background not only on Haskins, but on Twilley,who appear to know each other very, very well.
1983
Haskins becomes Vice President of Western Association for Art Conservation ("WAAC" ), which runs into problems with the IRS regarding its tax-exempt status. John Twilley spends the next 3 years untangling the mess.
1984
Haskins leaves BYU to become head paintings conservator at "Art Conservation Laboratories of Santa Barbara, CA..." which commenced business 1/2/84. "This is a new lab which will service both public and private collections."
1986
ACL closes its doors because "[T]capitalization of the business...depended on the stability of one central person and when that stability failed then all business ventures associated with the investor also failed...Attempts were made to find new venture capital investors but without success."
Haskins opens FACL, "(a continuation of ACL) which offers some continuity to the existing professional obligations.....Liens and litigation are presently tieing up the lab's assets....
1995
Haskins continues teaching the "class on preservation of family historical items at a local city college" which he began in 1989.
So at the time of the FACL analysis, the "highly-respected" FACL had been in existence for ONE YEAR. Its predecssor, ACL, had been in business for TWO YEARS, at which time its money train left the station, leaving its its assets tied up in "liens and litigation."
Twilley and Haskins worked closely together at WAAC, including spending three years patching up the bungling of its incorporation as a non-profit organization.
Twilley taught at UC Riverside from at least 1985-1995. Haskins taught at "a local city college" from 1989 to at least 1995.
Haskins's credentials at the time of the analysis consist of having worked in the conservation department at Brigham Young University, two years at a conservation company that folded, and one year as the head of the company he founded. He hadn't even taught his night-school course yet.
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 24, 2000 07:27 AM ]
"Everyone should have a copy of this book, December 1, 1999
Reviewer: Scott M. Haskins from Santa arbara, CA
This easy to read and down to earth handbook helps anyone learn to preserve and protect their family history, photos, collectables... and basically all the stuff we accummulate and treasure. Also, learn how to respond and save your stuff when disasters hit, like earthquakes, floods... or grandkids! After all, anytime you loose something dear to your family's history, its a disaster. The book's step by step instructions and abundant pictures make the information easy to follow.
This book has been reviewed by the conservation community, the disaster response industry, professionals from museums and auction houses, genealogical professionals and always receives the highest compliments and votes."
posted on September 24, 2000 07:42:16 AM newFlowBlue -
After the series of lies, half-truths and misrepresentations that have been presented as "proof" about the painting and its provenance, why are you baffled that this latest piece in a string of "evidence" is greeted by scorn and derision.
The seller's early and persistent unfounded claims about the provenance of this painting, and their wildly inflated claims for what the laboratory analysis proves have rendered any supposed correspondence worth considerably less than the pixels it is shown in. To be taken seriously it needs to be backed up by lab reports (on paper and ink and typewriter and signature) from a neutral expert in document authentication.
In legal jargon, "the witness has lost credibility".
********
Edited to add this"
I said an expert witness would make statements like this .... "The letterhead paper the letter is on (does/does not) match the letterhead known to have been used by John Rewald for letters to his publisher and other correspondents at that time"
You then posted this: "Please let me know when you have this question answered. I am very interested to find out. It would also be good if you can provide us with how you came about your conclusion, and if required, proper comparison materials."
OK ... for starters, SEND ME THE ORIGINAL REWALD LETTER. Validation of an item always starts with the item in question being produced for examination.
posted on September 24, 2000 07:48:54 AM new
Flowblue2, my intent was to provide samples of Rewald's writing style, vocabulary, grammar, punctuation, etc. This would, of course, provide readers of this thread the opportunity to draw their own conclusions, if they were unable to find such examples.
You make the comment:
Also note, one is personal correspondence and one is an edited article.
You may wish to rephrase that. The one in question is not just personal correspondence. Rather, it is statement of professional opinion backed by his professional reputation, and would be constructed in a professional manner similiar to that of an edited article. This would mean, proofreading, editing, etc, by a secretary or assistant, or at least someone with a sense of grammar and punctuation.
If you want a copy of this, you are more than welcomed to print this out and place it in your file cabinet. What I have written above is my "offical" "personal" "professional" opinion.
Sincerely,
Rosiebud
Auctionwatch, please note that the above typed signature is meant to serve in place of an actual signature, due to limitations of this medium. Any duplication of this signature is to be considered a forgery, in the eyes of the law and auctionwatch, unless it is accompanied by a post directly from the AuctionWatch poster, Rosiebud.
posted on September 24, 2000 08:07:26 AM new
HCQ -
Amazon encourages authors to review their own books. However, that other link reveals some interesting punctuation usage, or lack thereof, in the subordinate clauses. As well as the inability to spell (it's LOSING, not LOOSING!
rosiebud -
EXACTLY! A professional is extremely unlikely to whip out the equivalent of a letter of authenticity with the same speed and lack of editing that he writes to his mum with news of the grandkids.
They are much more likely to say, "If you want my professional opinion on your painting, here is my fee structure for authenticating paintings. Please contact my assistant."
posted on September 24, 2000 08:48:41 AM newflowblue2: "I joined AuctionWatch a couple of months ago to host pictures for my auctions. I looked at the message board but found nothing interesting to chat about. I am not the type of person who likes to chit-chat about problems with ebay and paypal. This was the most interesting topic I found. I really did not have anything to contribute to the other topics."
Thanks for the response. I did not ask, however, when you first came to AuctionWatch or why you never posted anything else before. I asked why you chose to post a message regarding a painting on another auction website in the eBay forum. And I find it rather disingenuous to claim that you were merely "cointributing" to this topic, since you were the one who actually started this topic in the first place. And I also asked whether you had any association with the seller of this painting or the OAS site, which you haven't answered either.
Further, I asked how you could justify making a bald-faced statement such as "the seller has always stated they have had the reference from John Rewald". And I'll ask again -- do you have anything to back up this statement? As far as I can tell, the supposed statement from Mr. Rewald was mentioned VERY RECENTLY in a quote from Scott Haskins, and I can't find any reference to Mr. Rewald before that time. I know how much you hate it when other people make broad, unsubstantiated statements, so I'm sure you'll be able to explain why you said that "the seller has always stated they have had the reference from John Rewald".
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on September 24, 2000 08:56:57 AM new
Statement from Abacaxi:
"I said an expert witness would make statements like this .... "The letterhead paper the letter is on (does/does not) match the letterhead known to have been used by John Rewald for letters to his publisher and other correspondents at that time."
Are you an expert witness? If not, how can you make such definitive statements about the John Rewlad letter?
I guess we now have two problems. Not only do we need an expert in van Goghs paintings, we now need an expert in John Rewald writing.
I think it is difficult for me to believe your statements since you have not provided us with credentials in both of these areas.
Could you please provide us with your educational and professional background?
posted on September 24, 2000 09:03:16 AM new
Statement from abacaxi:
"In legal jargon, 'the witness has lost credibility'.
Basically I could say the same thing about your statements. You have not provided us with your background. I would like to know both educational and professional.
Your statements are based on ideas derived from personal opinion and not knowledge.
posted on September 24, 2000 09:07:48 AM new
Barry -
I made an assumption myself. From the posting of Hart Cottage Quilts and the statement from Scott Haskins, I assumed that this information had been available in earlier posts. I did not rejoin in the conversation until around page 12.
I posted the message to the ebay board because it is the most active.
posted on September 24, 2000 09:14:05 AM new
Statement from Figmente:
"It still doesn't seem that Haskins claims anything beyond "that it’s from the period it should be".
This is true. He can give an opinion on the painting, but it would not be his job to provide authentication. Very simple. He does technical analysis of art work. This includes things such as pigment analysis, x-rays, infrared, etc. He completes one piece of the authenication process, being technical.
People such as John Rewald authenticate.
Please review earlier posts. There are very few people in the world who authenitcate van Gogh paintings. I think Scott Haskins would understand that he could have personal opinion on what the painting is but not true expert opinion.
posted on September 24, 2000 09:18:26 AM new
Flowblue2, but, least you forget, one of the "expert" witnesses in this case, Haskins has already lost credibility because of inaccurate reports filed in 1988.
Or
Someone added the pencil markings to the frame after that time, which concludes that whoever had possession of the painting is not credible.
So, either an expert witness is inept in his job, or someone added/altered the painting. In which case, that someone also loses credibility and EVERY PIECE OF EVIDENCE that he offers then becomes suspect
This is very simple logic, that anyone should be able to follow and understand.
Rosiebud
fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
posted on September 24, 2000 09:22:42 AM new
Statement From Abacaxi:
"EXACTLY! A professional is extremely unlikely to whip out the equivalent of a letter of authenticity with the same speed and lack of editing that he writes to his mum with news of the grandkids. They are much more likely to say, "If you want my professional opinion on your painting, here is my fee structure for authenticating paintings. Please contact my assistant."
How do you know? Also, what do you know of the relationship between John Rewald and the seller? Maybe they were personal friends. Maybe they worked together at one time. Maybe John Rewald did not charge any fee for authentication. Maybe there is a chain of correspondence and we are only seeing a final letter.
posted on September 24, 2000 09:25:08 AM newHCQ: This guy thinks it's appropriate to review his own book.
Just FYI, up until this year, there was a link on each Amazon book page that had a "comment" box specifically for the author of the book. That's now been replaced by the generic "customer review" blurb.
This is a totally absorbing thread; fascinating reading.
posted on September 24, 2000 09:35:41 AM new
Actually, what we "need" is somebody who can actually read and comprehend English, which, it is becoming more and more apparent, is a physical impossibility for the defenders of this painting.
flowblue et al., abacaxi was not making a statement. She was giving an EXAMPLE of the KIND of statement an expert would make. An expert would not say "This is/is not an authentic Rewald letter." He would say "In [form, tone, composition, paper, signature], this letter is identical to/completely different from all other authenticated Rewald letters to which I have compared it."
The seller describes Haskins as "considered to be one of the most respected and renowned conservators in his field." When Haskins did his analysis of "Yellow Roses," he had (a) worked at BYU as a conservator, (b) been president and vice president of an organization that has NO membership requirements other than that dues be paid, and which under his aegis ran into trouble with the IRS; (c) had worked for a conservation studio that folded TWO YEARS after he joined it (and whose assets, upon its demise, were tied up in "liens and litigation," ) (d) had ONE YEAR of experience in art conservation as the head of his own successor company, and (e) hadn't even started teaching adult ed. yet. Nearly a decade later, he published a vanity press book on how to save your family's "stuff".
Respected? Renowned?
I particularly like one "testimonial" on the book:
"This is a book that would make Lewis Carroll's Alice very happy."
Interesting quotes from and about McCrone, thanks to athena who found this article about more of McCrone's work, in this case with some "ransom note" paint chips ostensibly from a Rembrandt stolen from a Boston museum:
While McCrone's expertise is respected throughout the art world...many say they are puzzled that McCrone came to such a strong conclusion based on paint fragments. "A technical examination of a painting cannot prove anything positively," said Ivan Gaskell, curator at Harvard's Fogg Museum. "The most you can do is say that materials 'could be from the 17th century,' but you can't logically say a work with those materials 'is a Rembrandt.'"....
[i]But the problem with this kind of analysis, say art historians, is that Rembrandt's painting materials were not his
alone. Nor was his application of paint special. Style and composition is what set him apart. "I don't think we can say that Rembrandt used materials in a way unique to him," said James Cuno, head of the Harvard University art museums. "What he used was consistent with thousands of other painters working in northern Europe in the 17th century. And even that doesn't mean that his materials could not be produced by you and me today."[/i]
posted on September 24, 2000 09:37:11 AM new
Hart Cottage Quilts:
Will you be contacting any of the references for further questioning? I appreciate your web searches. I do however find them to provide only a small piece of the puzzle. Your desire seems to be to discredit everything without even making the attempt at personal contact with the individual. I find this a bit discouraging. It is like a trial with the person being absent. Please let me know if you would like such treatment?
Could you please provide me with a bit of your personal information so that I may search around the web and try to discredit you based on my findings.
(hmmm... I might even be able to find some documents where you made a spelling mistake. It is possible.)
posted on September 24, 2000 09:44:11 AM new
flowblue2, those are all really good "maybes" except for one small little fact. Rewald would know that his professional opinion would be very important in determining if something was fake or real. These opinions would carry weight in the artworld. Therefore, he would STILL present his findings in a professional manner.
I know, I know.. prove it. I think this is something I don't have to prove, because if Rewald conducted his professional correspondences based on all those "maybes" than Rewald would not be the person he is known to be in the professional art world.
posted on September 24, 2000 09:47:50 AM new
From ARTnews article on van Gogh fakes:
From the article - in regards to the painting "The Garden of Saint Paul's Hospital in Autumn"...
"In response to public critique, and parallel to the Gachet exhibition organized by Anne Distel and Suasn Alyson Stein, the painting was subjected to a battery of sophisticated tests. It was determined from a technical and chemical persepective The Garden of Saint Paul's Hospital in Autumn was completely consistent with other Van Gogh works."
Technical analysis was used by the Musee d'Orsay to authenticate paintings in their collection. It is very relevent to the complete picture.
The old days of "it just dont look like no van Gogh" does not work in the modern art world. Scientific methods are being held as relevant. Would you argue that this is not the case? Experts have confirmed that it is.
If you had a van Gogh, would you expect someone like yourself to judge it as a van Gogh just by looking at it? Would you want that to happen?
posted on September 24, 2000 09:54:40 AM new
Statement from Hart Cottage Quilts:
"flowblue et al., abacaxi was not making a statement. She was giving an EXAMPLE of the KIND of statement an expert would make. An expert would not say "This is/is not an authentic Rewald letter." He would say "In [form, tone, composition, paper, signature], this letter is identical to/completely different from all other authenticated Rewald letters to which I have compared it."
I thought since Abacaxi has made the statement that John Rewald letter is false, Abaxcaxi had gone through the process answering the questions that an expert would ask.
Since Abacaxi has come to conclusion the John Rewald letter is false, Abacaxi must provide info such as an expert would in a court case on why the letter is false.
posted on September 24, 2000 09:57:44 AM newI thought since Abacaxi has made the statement that John Rewald letter is false, Abaxcaxi had gone through the process answering the questions that an expert would ask.
Yet another demonstration of the importance of being able to analyze statements for what they actually state, rather than extrapolate from them what one might wish them to say...
posted on September 24, 2000 10:00:29 AM new
Please note, I will be checking all posts for spelling errors.
Spelling seems to be an issue in this thread. Anyone making a spelling mistake, will be notified. The person making the spelling error will no longer be held as credible. All further posts from that individual will be held as suspect. Their intelligence will also be judged.
posted on September 24, 2000 10:08:00 AM new
Statement from Hart Cottage Quilts:
"Why should I do any of the seller's work?"
Because you are discrediting the seller and the references the seller has provided. You are doing something very negative without actually speaking with the individuals involved. You are posting "your version" of what you feel is the truth. There are always many fine points to a story. I think you are missing quite a few.
You did not answer my question about providing me with your personal information? I would like the same chance to discredit you by finding information on the web.
These contacting the references is not for the seller, it is so that you will know a bit more of the truth.
posted on September 24, 2000 10:47:51 AM new flowblue2 -
"I thought since Abacaxi has made the statement that John Rewald letter is false, Abaxcaxi had gone through the process answering the questions that an expert would ask"
READ MY PIXELS! I said an expert witness would make statements like this .... "The letterhead paper the letter is on (does/does not) match the letterhead known to have been used by John Rewald for letters to his publisher and other correspondents at that time."
I said that an expert witness would EITHER say it DOES or would say it DOES NOT ... based on physical characteristics of the paper, signature, and the device used to put the text on the paper. After, of course, checking out other letters known to be from the same time and by the same person. For a short course on document examination and handwriting questions, see American Jurisprudence, 3rd Edition, Proof of Facts - Section 15. (It's a bit long to type out here for you). Or read for yourself
Author: Dines, Jess E.
Title: Document examiner textbook
Published: Irvine, CA : Pantex International Ltd., c1998.
LC Call No.: HV8074.D56 1998
"I guess we now have two problems. Not only do we need an expert in van Goghs paintings, we now need an expert in John Rewald writing."
Yes, you certainly do. If the letter is to be believed as a statement of authenticity for that painting, in the absence of proof such as a notary seal and a witness signature or the testimony of Mr. Rewald, yes you do have to prove he wrote it at the time it supposedly was written.
"Are you an expert witness? If not, how can you make such definitive statements about the John Rewlad letter? "
I made no definitive statement about the letter. You misread my postm AND apparently misread HCQ's post explaining that you had nisread the letters.
I do know quite a bit about how forensic analysis is conducted AND what happens to the expert witness in a trial based on lab evidence. Been there, done that, with DWI and paternity cases back when I was a medical technologist, and I never lost my interest in forensic analysis.
My official signature ends with BS, MT(ASCP), ET. The BS consists of a major in microbiology and a triple minor in Chemistry, Mathematics, and Romance Languages (accidentally got the Romance Languages one by taking one too many courses in that department). Grades adequate to get on the Dean's list most of the time. The ET is a later addition for Electronics Technology (4.0 average at that school) IQ score is high enough to get me into MENSA
Profession at the moment is technical writer, hobby at the moment is picking apart the flaws in logic of hapless AW victims
