posted on September 25, 2000 02:29:42 PM new
HCQ, I think it's a pretty good comparison. In some aspects I almost think it's stretching it a bit, but then again there's definitely similarities there.
posted on September 25, 2000 03:52:52 PM new
"But through it doesn't matter in the least this time, in the future my name ought to be put in the catalogue as I sign it on the canvas, namely Vincent and not Van Gogh, for the simple reason that they do not know how to pronounce the latter name here."
posted on September 25, 2000 04:45:04 PM new
HCQ
It takes a bit of time to put together all the paperwork to file a litigation of this size. If I were you I would not be so eager to be served.
Rosiebud, In response to..."You need to explain how you have such an intimate knowledge of what the seller knows and doesn't know. What documents he does and does not have. What is just so interesting as I cannot find this information written on the auction site or within this thread by the seller when s/he was supposedly a member."
This is an open Internet forum. I must tell you, my personal life, who I know, what I personally know about this painting is none of your business.I owe you no explanations what so ever.The owner has full right to present this painting in the manner he wishes. Where do any of you find you have the right to ask personal questions such as you have asked me in this above statement?
Moderator, These questions are of a personal nature, this kind of badgering should not be permitted.
Oh yes let me explain my statement to HCQ
I GOTS MINE! It is slang for, I have more money then I know what to do with. Plus I have a weak side, I love to come to the aid of a good friend. PLEASE REMEMBER I SAID THAT.
Let me assure you when...oh I mean if you are served legal papers, you will find perfect grammar, and not one word will be spelled wrong.
This is just my opinion, which its been explained to me by rosiebud, I can have a personal opinion, and express it. After reading all the material in this thread. I have come to the conclusion that many of the posters here have a big problem. They have followed their Queen right into a very ugly lawsuit. To late to scurry and remove your posts all have been copied for prosperity. Just look at the bright side you may have your chance to explain in a court of law why you felt one should have the innate right to slander a person, and cause a persons good name to be defamed. You all will appear to be so smart. I mean this should really make all of your friends and family proud?
posted on September 25, 2000 04:54:37 PM new
I wonder how many times someone has used (threatened)the word "Lawsuit" on AW when things don't go their way?? Usually happens with new posters. And I would guess that there are certain posters that work for OAS that wouldn't want their unedited posts shown around the auction world.
posted on September 25, 2000 05:06:44 PM newlagoldie, it's not me who's saying "Serve me!" Take a look at the posts again. I don't try to goad anybody into anything.
Let's digress a bit. Here's a summary of the Sacramento Bee's story on "Sunflower and Oleanders," another disputed Van Gogh in California. The whole story can be read at
"A long time ago, probably before the turn of the century in Europe, a painting ... was created. It crossed the ocean, landed in California and spent many years in a crate." The owner buys the painting at an estate sale of a prominent western U.S. woman who was married to a famous and wealthy man, and with whom he had been friends for decades until her death. At the time the owner buys the painting, it has no history that can be traced directly back to Vincent van Gogh. It wasn't listed in any catalog of van Gogh's known works. All he knows is that someone had bought it in Europe around the turn of the century and brought it home to the western United States. The painting, dated 1888, is not typical of Van Gogh's work.
Failing to obtain authentication, the owner then takes desperate steps. He alters a negative report from an Amsterdam museum to make it appear favorable. He pays $4 to a notary public and in a hand-typed "certificate of authentication" pronounces himself an expert and his painting as genuine. He writes blistering letters to those who refuse to acknowledge its authenticity. In 1990, the painting and its representatives travel to the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam for authentication, but they return empty-handed: the director states unequivocally that the painting is not by Van Gogh.
In the mid-1990s, the owner's survivor decides to sell the painting through a local auctioneer with little experience in the world of international art marketing. The auction description includes a two-page history of the painting, based mainly on the arguments put forth by the owner. The owner claims to have received offers for the painting from fabulously wealthy people in exotic places, none of whose names are recognized even by their own embassies.
According to the owner, the upper right corner of his painting bears a dedication, but even under intense laboratory lighting only a few letters are visible.
Some local art dealers insist the painting is genuine. One states that the fact that it was atypical of van Gogh's style only added weight to arguments that it was real and not a forgery.
In 1997, one of the attorneys involved with the painting's sale - this time at bankruptcy - claims she's "run into the [arts] clique ... the 'you're not one of us, therefore whatever you say doesn't mean anything.'" She argues in court documents that the opinions of Pickvance and others that the painting is not by Van Gogh should be disregarded, and that "Contrary to the negative opinions expressed by the majority of the art historians who have come in contact with the Painting or transparencies thereof, the scientists' opinions, the provenance, inscription and letters by Vincent Van Gogh leads one to conclude that the Painting more likely than not was painted by Vincent Van Gogh."
Prominent among the "scientists" quoted in favor of authenticity are Walter McCrone, and James T. Bright.
Bright unsuccessfully attempts to buy the painting by selling another "small Van Gogh" he says he owns, but that sale falls through and "Sunflower and Oleanders" sells for under $175,000 to another unnamed party.
The painting Bright was trying unsuccessfully to sell for $9M to finance "Sunflowers and Oleander"?
"Yellow Roses."
The SacBee story notes that "Around the federal courthouse in downtown Sacramento, the case became a cause celebre, with attorneys and staffers regularly listening in on the hearings, speculating on whether the van Gogh was real or not and, if so, wondering which of the people involved would end up with the riches."
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 25, 2000 05:07 PM ]
posted on September 25, 2000 05:06:49 PM new
Three words:
GO FOR IT!
Whenever "facts" are questioned in a logical, mostly unemotional fashion (unlike the "supporters" who have done nothing but lob insults), freedom of speech and the human intellect reign supreme. Not to be smug, but looking through the length of this thread, who do you think comes off as logical and thoughtful, and who comes off as...what's a nice word for loony, HCQ?
P.S. I think you mean Tom Bright, not James?
[ edited by athena1365 on Sep 25, 2000 05:14 PM ]
posted on September 25, 2000 05:12:32 PM newSmartsss,
Your posting privileges have been suspended as it appears to us that you registered for the sole purpose of disrupting the forum. Your post was deleted as it contained extremely insulting language which is inappropriate for this forum.
posted on September 25, 2000 05:14:36 PM new
Perhaps this has been mentioned before and I missed it, but a person cannot sue another over libel (or slander!) that has been directed at a third party. Guess that means that lagoldie is the owner, if he/she is in fact preparing to sue AW posters. Another mystery solved...
posted on September 25, 2000 05:22:33 PM new...what's a nice word for loony, HCQ?
I think Miss Manners would approve of "unsound". Personally, I like what the narrator of "Rebecca" quietly says to her predecessor's maid, who's by then frothing at the mouth with rage:
"Mrs. Danvers, you're not well."
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 25, 2000 05:23 PM ]
posted on September 25, 2000 05:35:59 PM new
LAGOLDIE:
Dare I say it? Why, yes, I think I shall! You said it in your post of September 24, 2000 04:42:59 PM
STICK TO FACTS
The facts are what is presented in the auction. The facts are what is presented in the documents.
The facts are NOT what you say they are when you have nothing to back them up, and you are unwilling to cite your sources. Something none of us have been afraid to do.
It is so easy to pull "facts" out of thin air, without any supporting documentation.. such as:
1) My husband, and I. Noted the painting first due to the variation from Van Goghs given style, plus the painting was signed. It stays in my memory because the person that put it on loan was from my city LA. If its good enough for the Van Gogh Museum, its good enough for OldAndSold.
Where is the DOCUMENTED FACT for this little tidbit? There is none. Stick to the facts in evidence LAGOLDIE.
2) This was done through handwriting analysis.
Once again, where is the DOCUMENTED FACT for this? There is none. Once again, STICK TO THE FACTS.
Our credentials have been under fire, for expressing an opinion. Your credentials are now under fire for making statements that you insist we take as factual, without any supporting evidence. We ask for that evidence and you refuse to give it. That can only lead to a few conclusions.
1) You are the owner
2) You work for OAS
3) A personal friend, or associate, of the owner
4) You are simply a contrarian
5) You're lying
If any of the conclusions 1-3 apply, than you have a vested interest in this item and one has to question the "facts" that you state, without any supporting evidence.
If the conclusion is 4, you need to learn how to be a better contrarian.
posted on September 25, 2000 06:00:00 PM newLAGoldie -
"I assume you can openly prove the owner embellished on his statements." For starters, he states there is an inscription that is not there in the lab reports. If adding several words that do not exist is not embellishment, I don't know what is.
"I might add you should not have the right to insult the opinions of the experts that have provided their educated opinion's."
Sorry, but the only thing that is under dispute is the owner's embellishment of the lab reports to create a Van Gogh out of an old painting. Kinda like making a silk purse out of a sow's ear ...
Voicing our doubts about the authenticity of the painting is in no way libel ... it's expressing opinions. To collect, one must prove damages, and that would bring the entire painting auction, including the owner's identity and all relationships between him and OAS, into the limelight. Discovery can be BRUTAL.
rssouvigny -
I am well aware of "scientific methods", and the listing for the auction takes some sparse facts and draws totally unsupported conclusions from them.
flowblue2 -
Read the complete article at:
http://biz.yahoo.com/mf/000714/hill_000714.html
OK, I did. And the opinion of the author is that the financial institution would be damned fools if they pursue the case.
posted on September 25, 2000 06:10:38 PM newflowblue's article in sum:
CS First Boston claims that the "false and defamatory" posts have caused "actual, incidental and consequential damage to its reputation and professional and other economic interests," a claim which I find utterly silly.....The only true damage to its reputation that CS First Boston is likely to incur out of this episode is the resulting fall-out of being publicly laughed at for filing this case in the first place....
You have to imagine that the analyst in question was so disturbed by what he chose to read on the message board that he might have lost some perspective on things....
Actual monetary damages seem to be fictional, punitive damages are a pipe dream....
If the purpose of this suit is to shut up the posters on the Yahoo! message board, I've got to say that I would weigh the odds of that very differently than those at CS First Boston seem to have....
In the meantime, while we wait to see how this one plays out, if you want to engage your First Amendment rights to the fullest extent with no fear of having a Wall Street firm or publicly traded company pursue legal action against you, just remember to aim your hostility toward the analysis, not the analyst. It's pretty much as simple as that.
Yup. Just the facts, ma'am.
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 25, 2000 06:14 PM ]
posted on September 25, 2000 07:41:40 PM new
HartCottageQuilt: If you only knew the truth
regarding the owner of the Sunflowers and Oleanders. She was a 84 year old lady living by herself in rundown shack. She had been recieving Social Security to live on.
Some men if you read the artical, had been taking most of her furnishing and selling them for their own profit. they left her little or nothing to live on. She also had Alzheimers disease. When she was found by
Adult protective services, she weighed less than 80 pounds and was covered with her own filth. They wanted to put her in a public institution that would'nt have done her any good. They also found the crate with the painting. When the thieves heard there might be a van gogh in the crate they tried to claim it has theirs. Producing a sales reciept for which they claimed she had sold it to them.
The Adult Protective Service file a bankruptcy in Federal Court trying to protect the old ladies rights against the thieves. Yes it went through all the things you said about the van gogh museum,
Ronald Pickvance did not say it was'nt by van gogh, because he suffered a heart attack
just a few days before he was to travel to the U.S.
The thieves said they had paid her 10,000 dollars for the painting, and wanted the painting, The attorney representing the painting was trying to get a larger amount of money for the painting in order that the old lady could be sent to a private sanitarium, with more money than the ten thousand dollars. Any money she made was paid to her by the Federal court for her services for representing the old lady. It did noyt come out of any profits from the sale of the painting. The painting was finally sold for 325,000 dollars. Which went totally for the benifit of the old lady.
You should read the whole story of the people who were really involved, before you make fun of the people who werew trying to help her. After all you know what its like to be disabled, what if there were no one to help you?
posted on September 25, 2000 07:45:18 PM new
Dear Moderator,
I have read some things that were posted which were not within your community guidelines. You are not enforcing the rules of your message board. Please try to be fair to all people.
posted on September 25, 2000 08:05:41 PM new
Indeed, Community Guidelines are being broken as it is against the rules to:
Create or attempt to create multiple accounts for use on AuctionWatch.com, without the express approval of AuctionWatch.com. We reserve the right to immediately and permanently revoke any account that we believe was created by a suspended or revoked member, or any account that we believe was created for the sole purpose of disrupting the forum.
posted on September 25, 2000 08:15:15 PM new
And yet another of Hydra's many heads appears.
Where do you find evidence that "Sunflowers and Oleander" "was finally sold for 325,000 dollars"?
Last report I could find was this August 1997 article in Maine Antiques Digest:
"The painting, referred to as "Mystery Vincent Van Gogh painting" and as "Sunflowers and Oleanders" sold at a second auction at the Bankruptcy Court in Sacramento, California, on August 4 for $220,000 to attorney Matt Brady who said he was representing clients who did not wish to be identified."
The painting was sold as part of the bankruptcy of a party other than the eldery widow of the former owner, who received a percentage as part of an out-of-court settlement.
But that's immaterial. Whether the owner of the painting was poor, elderly and frail or a billionaire high jumper with 7% bodyfat has nothing to do with the painting itself or with the circumstances surrounding its owner's nearly 3-decade attempt to prove it was by Van Gogh, and the creepy similarities between those circumstances and that of "Yellow Roses," including the "experts" used to "authenticate" it.
Here's something interesting in the same article:
When he still thought he was the buyer [of "Sunflower and Oleanders"], Bright, reached at his West Hollywood residence the day after the sale, was ecstatic....[He] said that for now he would keep the painting. "It needs to be restored. It has lost some paint in unimportant areas." Then what? "Maybe next year the major auction houses will accept my brush mark analysis...then we'll see."
So according to Bright himself, apparently as late as 1997, "major auction houses" didn't accept Bright's "analysis" technique.
posted on September 25, 2000 08:15:33 PM new
[i]Ronald Pickvance did not say it was'nt by van gogh, because he suffered a heart attack
just a few days before he was to travel to the US[/i]
Oh my! Someone knows some VERY detailed information about the "Sunflowers and Oleanders" painting...that information is not in the public record. Further food for thought...
[ edited by athena1365 on Sep 25, 2000 08:19 PM ]
Darn italic tags!
[ edited by athena1365 on Sep 25, 2000 08:20 PM ]
Urrrrrr!
[ edited by athena1365 on Sep 25, 2000 08:21 PM ]
