posted on September 26, 2000 07:19:03 AM new
Hmmmmm.... the plot thins!
Now, of course, I have to wonder what Mr. Haskins would say about the last letter attributed to him on the OAS site. You know, the one with the obvious "cut-and-paste" signature....
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on September 26, 2000 07:36:41 AM new
This thread has entertained me for weeks. I have quietly sat by and continued to read the barbs being traded back and forth. Anyway, I felt like I finally had an observation or thesis of my own to add. I preface it by saying that I am a completely typical, average american. And in the view of most of us ordinary working people we don't really care too much about fine art and what goes on in that far removed world. I have to beleive that most of you buy your "art" from k-mart, wal-mart or some other local mart like the rest of the world does. Art, art appreciation is so subjective and esoteric. I personally do not feel that I need a bunch of art "experts or historians" to suggest what art or artists I should find appealing. Even if I had the money Van Gogh's self portrait is never going to hang in my living room. Call me ignorant, but I don't see the importance or value in most of these so called master works- it's all in the eye of the beholder. So...I find it difficult to comprehend the bickering by lay people on this thread. It honestly does look like it is simply for the sake of argument. Does any one REALLY care if this is an authentic Van Gogh or not? I know that I don't. It has no consequence in my life-and none of yours either-if it is or isn't. I won't shed a tear for the poor millionaire/billionaire who spends a few million on what he believes is an authentic Van Gogh and may not actually be. I feel more the the poor dupes on e-bay who believe they are buying "an authentic retired beanie baby" and are really getting some knock off produced in someones basement. But I suppose that is completely on the buyer. If it is proven that the seller is actually intentionally attempting to perpetrate fraud then I think that it is obviously a legal issue. His intent is impossible to get at in this froum and to do so does appear libelous. Finally, there has obviouly been so much energy directed toward uncovering facts, researching this painting and its provenance. It seems to be such a colossal waste of time. Fighting about something so insignificant as a painting while many in the world go hungry, children are abused, our environment is polluted and on and on and on...I urge all of you to use your skills for something actually worthwhile. Be mentors, volunteer, help the little guy on all of the other auction sites that is being blantantly ripped off. Or maybe that isn't exciting enough because we are only talking about hundreds of dollars and not millions. Spend your time in a more productive way actually contributing to society in a meaningful way. Honestly, us little people don't give a hoot about Van Gogh or any other artist that is supposed to be important. Go ahead lambast me, I am ready and expecting it from this group but some of this has to ring true some where in your minds-whether you will admit it or not is quite another matter. My taste in art? personally I favor "dogs playing poker" oil on velvet, of course.
anyway, back to the sewing machine to construct "genuine retired beanie babies" oh, of course they come with impeccable provenance. (just kidding, wouldn't want to be sued).
posted on September 26, 2000 07:46:31 AM new
auctionrat:
HCQ said it best in her post of: September 26, 2000 06:44:12 AM
So why should we care? What does it have to do with anybody outside OAS - with the online auction business in general? A critical component of online auctions is the bidding public's willingness to trust that an auction listing's description contains the complete and unvarnished truth. Bidders can't walk up to the item and handle it or even look at it in person before the auction. They can't look in the seller's eye. They MUST feel confident in placing reasonable trust in the seller and the site - that the genuine Rookwood vase isn't a repro, that the Depression glass bowl doesn't have a chip, that the dress is indeed new and never worn. Without that trust, online auctions are doomed to failure, because nobody will bid.
Go back and read the entire post, it answers your questions.
edited because of lack of caffine and to add:
If you don't get bids on your items, don't blame us. Blame the other guys who aren't going out to uncover other suspect auctions... or better yet..... blame the suspect auctions instead.
[ edited by rosiebud on Sep 26, 2000 07:54 AM ]
posted on September 26, 2000 07:49:22 AM newauctionrat -
Date Joined: September 26, 2000 07:04:07 AM
CRIMINY- another sock puppet!
It's the thrill of the chase, the challenge of solving the mystery.
It's also a bit of indignation that the seller obviously thought the public to be stupid enough to believe the claptrap they presented as facts, even when their "facts" were not substantiated by the lab reports they offered as proof.
And now it's getting REAL INTERESTING.
As for the "Fighting about something so insignificant as a painting while many in the world go hungry, children are abused, our environment is polluted and on and on and on...I urge all of you to use your skills for something actually worthwhile."
... it's our time and we'll bring about world peace and universal freedom from want LATER, ok?
posted on September 26, 2000 08:02:44 AM new
Has anybody saved "screen shots" of the auction and seller's reports of e.g. Haskins's statements? I've got all the jpgs on my hard drive, but can't seem to save the screens no matter what I do, and I'd like to save them "for prosperity," as lagoldie stated yesterday particularly as we have regular power outages here and I can't keep these windows open forever. If anybody'd be willing to save 'em and email 'em to me at [email protected], I'd be very grateful.
posted on September 26, 2000 08:35:52 AM new
I so glad to hear Sabine Rewald finally has confirmed what has been suspected all along: the "Rewald" letter is a fake. Bravo! Maybe that's why the seller was holding it back for the eventually suc...er, I mean buyer! Indeed, the plot has become SOOOOO much thicker!
posted on September 26, 2000 09:12:04 AM new
Not before rosiebud (thanks!) sent me screen shots of everything in the auction If anybody's got a screen shot of the listing as it originally appeared, I'd loooooove a copy.
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 26, 2000 09:13 AM ]
posted on September 26, 2000 09:30:39 AM new
THESHAR, the reason I branded the ousted defenders of OAS as employees is:
1) None of the OAS supporters, except for you and OWNER, has seen fit to detail their associations, credentials, reason for interest, location (except for lagoldie), etc.
2) Yet all have reacted with a vehemence that transcends mere championing of a beleaguered cause by a disinterested and unbiased observer. Hence, one would assume that they have all joined in the fray due to having some sort of vested financial interest in the outcome of the auction.
However, if you sincerely state that they are not in the employ of OAS, I will accept that as fact, as they have provided no traceable information on their backgrounds. They too "hid behind the secrecy of a user id."
So, if these are not OAS employees, just who are these people? Associates and cronies of the owner I assume. But that is of little matter. The more important issue is why they engage in such laughable behavior. I am struck by the similar if not identical personality traits of each poster. To wit:
Total lack of a sense of humor
Total ignorance of how BBS's work
Complete disregard for BBS decorum (aka "netiquette"
Instant and incoherent belligerence
Unfathomable dearth of legal knowledge (unless you believe we post these messages by talking into our mouses, you must realize that slander would not be the operative term. This has been pointed out more than a few times.)
All through this debate, while the debunking research concerning the physical attributes of the painting, provenance, and documents has been fascinating, none of it was necessary to show that the auction was a sham. Anything bogus is revealed quickly when one looks beyond what is being sold and rather looks at the manner of HOW it is presented. It is simple to ascertain that one is being offered dubious bill of goods because value is inversely proportional to the shrillness and duplicity coming from the presenter.
posted on September 26, 2000 09:40:53 AM new
auctionrat: the reason many of the principals in this thread have pursued it is because they care about such abstract ideas as truth. I'm sorry that concept is of so little interest to you. Also, most of us here run auctions on various sites. We do NOT want auctions to be associated with frauds. Therefore it is in all of our best interests to examine and expose any inconsistencies in auctions such as this one that have the potential to be highly visible.
HCQ: I am thrilled to hear that Ms. Rewald contacted you and that her emphatic rejection of this scurrilous letter caused it to be withdrawn. Hopefully Old and Sold will do the right thing and pull this pathetic auction. Are they so desperate for business that they have to keep it up and running just so they can keep the lights on and the coffee machine humming?
To our multiple-personality friends who continue to defend this mess: I understand that many of you do not speak English as a first language and thus your spelling and grammar mistakes are understandable. However, what many of you don't seem to understand is that in America, we are permitted---nay, encouraged!---to voice our opinions, look for inconsistencies, and expose contradictions and inaccuracies to the light of day. Perhaps in your places of origin it is considered more important to keep silent, or sweep things "under the rug". However, the message board is owned by an American company, many posters here are Americans, and the owner of "Yellow Roses" is located in America, as is, apparently, the painting. Therefore our customs are significant. Understand this: In the United States, you do not need permission to give your opinions. You do not need to be an expert to speak up. You do not need to keep silent because you think differently from another person, no matter who that person may be. I have to assume that you all originate in unfortunate places that do not have these same freedoms, because you seem so shocked by our outspokenness. I suggest you get over it.
As for lawsuits, anyone can sue anyone. Winning is a different matter. AND--- since the charge of libel or slander is invalidated if the "offensive" comment is found to be true (shades of Oscar Wilde!) I don't think anyone questioning this painting has the slightest need to worry.
posted on September 26, 2000 10:05:44 AM new
The link below duplicates the Van Gogh auction. It is a zipped file of about 874k bytes. It was saved just before the Rewald letter was removed from oldandsold. Unfortunately, I didn't save the original listing before they started adding and deleting information. What a way to run a business!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You can download it to your computer into a directory that you make and unzip it. All the files are linked together. Just open the index.html file and all the links will work just as if you were on the oldandsold site.
Edited to make the link clickable.
[ edited by Noshill on Sep 26, 2000 10:11 AM ]
posted on September 26, 2000 10:12:12 AM new
Someone wrote:
>Fighting about something so insignificant
>as a painting while many in the world go
>hungry, children are abused, our
>environment is polluted and on and on
>and on...I urge all of you to use your
>skills for something actually worthwhile.
>Be mentors, volunteer, help the little guy >on all of the other auction sites that is >being blantantly ripped off.
Why do you assume that people interested in debating this issue do not also do what you view as more virtuous activities? I have been able to participate in this thread without it affecting my participation in a volunteer organization.
In fact, who knows, maybe if people weren't so involved in this thread they would use the free time to abuse and pollute? So we are making the world a better place, after all.
posted on September 26, 2000 10:13:18 AM new
HCQ: "I think I would like to invite Haskins here..."
Why, that is just what I was thinking. I am full of questions about the conversation he had with Rewald. When did it take place? Where? Was it in person or by telephone? Had Haskins ever met Rewald before? Did they ever correspond? What did Rewald think of "brushstroke anaylsis"? And on and on...
And I want to know about that heart attack that took place in January of 1990 at the owner's home (according to Starvn, who got it from Haskins), when Rewald was "about 84", (but I believe would have actually been 78 - then, who's counting?)
So many questions, so little time left in the auction.
However, I have great hopes for this next painting that OAS will be auctioning next month by an "equally important artist."
Uh Oh - too late. The whole auction on OAS is gone.
Edited to add - well now it's back. Maybe that was my computer glitch, but it said no such page existed when I clicked on the picture, which was also unavailable.
posted on September 26, 2000 10:17:12 AM new
I finally opened this thread to see what all the fuss was about, and went and looked at that painting.
Damn, I could kick myself. All these years of turning the page when I saw those ads in the Sunday NY Times for "Massive Liquidation of Original Oil Paintings - Great Decorator Art!!!" Here's what looks like a gen-u-ine airport painting fetching a cool two million. I don't like yellow roses (too Desert Storm for me), but I'm sure someone will find it the perfect thing to go over the sofa.
I'll have to start giving those ads for "Handwoven Authentic Antique Persian Vegetable-Dyed Olefin Rugs" a second look, too.
- Pareau
posted on September 26, 2000 10:40:22 AM new
I've been asked to respond to some of the dialog, slandering, theorizing and conjecturing regarding the documentation from FACL. While I'm not interested in "getting into it" with every art enthusiast/expert on your bulletine board, I will respond to a request by Leigh Fellner to comment. The documents from FACL that I have seen on the web site are all authentic and speak for themselves.
One detail (probably a misquote from an interview) should be clarified though: It was stated, "Mr. Haskins has discussed the painting with other art experts, including a Mr. John Rewald..."
I have never spoken with Mr. Rewald... regarding any matter. During a visit of Mr. Rewald to LA, I knew of the meeting between the owner and Mr. Rewald and the result of that meeting. I also have heard from another source that Mr. Rewald's papers (donated after his death) include a file with the owner's name on it. Therefore, from two independant sources, it was confirmed to me that they met.
My phone number has been published. If your questions and interest are compelling, feel free to call me to confirm this posting.
posted on September 26, 2000 10:52:42 AM new
Please comment on the inscription "Property of Molly Brown" When Ms. Brown was know as Maggie and not Molly until 40 years after her death. And was the inscription there in 1987 or 1988?
posted on September 26, 2000 10:59:28 AM new
I think we can be pretty sure this is Haskins; I invited him here privately this morning and gave my name. And I thank him for appearing here.
I do wish he'd have answered our question of how he missed the "Molly Brown" inscription back some dozen years ago.
This just in: another email from Ms. Rewald in which she gives permission to post her first response, and adds:
Again, thank you for pointing this out to me. In the meantime I have receive irate telephone calls from the owner of the letter who tracked me down here at the museum. No matter, I am very grateful to your watchfulness in protecting the good name of John Rewald. The auction house notified me at once and they told me they would remove the reference to John Rewald's letter at once.
Incidentally, I initially obtained Ms. Rewald's email address from her in our Sunday phone conversation, but then confirmed it with a follow-up call to the Met. Just call me careful
posted on September 26, 2000 11:01:29 AM new
Thank you, Mr. Haskins, for posting here. Truly, it is appreciated!
You say that you knew of the meeting between Rewald and the owner, and the result of that meeting:
a. Was the attribution confirmed, denied or left inconclusive by the meeting?
b. Who told the story to you: the owner or someone unrelated to the work?
posted on September 26, 2000 11:08:10 AM newOne detail (probably a misquote from an interview) should be clarified though: It was stated, "Mr. Haskins has discussed the painting with other art experts, including a Mr. John Rewald..."
I have never spoken with Mr. Rewald... regarding any matter.
Well, a "details" go, I'd say this one was rather important. Yet another "late addition" to the painting's provenance which has been discredited.
Remember -- all along people were willing to accept the "expert anlysis" provided by Mr. Haskins and others regarding this painting. The point that was made, however, was simply that none of the analysis actually proved [or even claimed to prove] that the painting in question was, indeed, a genuine Van Gogh. All that the experts said was that the pigments used in the painting were "available" to Van Gogh and therefore not inconsistent with a claim that it was a genuine Van Gogh. And the "experts" actually DIFFERED when it came to whether the pigments used matched those which Van Gogh was known to have actually used [one said the pallaete was an exact match, another said that one pigment was noticibly missing"].
What people here have been saying all along is that the analysis doesn't actually prove that the painting is genuine, that the provided "provenance" is full of holes, and that there wasn't a single expert opinion provided that the painting was a genuine Van Gogh.
But suddenly, there appears a statement that "Mr. Haskins has discussed the painting with other art experts, including a Mr. John Rewald, who was the author of several influential books on Impressionism." And then, just as suddenly, a letter purporting to be FROM Mr. Rewald appears. And all the "sock puppets" supporting the painting point to this as conclusive proof as to the authenticity of the painting.
Well, guess what? The letter from Rewald is apparently a fraud and has been removed from the OAS site. And now Mr. Haskins is here to say that he has "never spoken with Mr. Rewald... regarding any matter." So where does that leave the sock puppets? Do you think OAS will now remove the "Statements From FACL Owner And Conservator Scott Haskins"?
Oh, hey -- I just noticed that the entire auction is gone. What a surprise....
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
particularly as we have regular power outages here and I can't keep these windows open forever. If anybody'd be willing to save 'em and email 'em to me at 