posted on August 29, 2000 08:14:55 AM new
Has anyone heard of an antiques auction site called Old And Sold (http://www.oldandsold.com)? I saw that they have a premiere auction of a painting reportedly by Vincent Van Gogh? The style is quite different. It's a still life, but then I know that Vincent had many different styles. The history behind it is remarkable. It was owned by the Unsinkable Molly Brown of Titanic Fame, and also the Helen Henderson Chain family. It is an interesting and colorful story, if anyone has the chance to read it.
posted on August 29, 2000 08:41:04 AM new
Yes..I sell on OAS and got the Email about this up-coming painting...Will be on for one month...
The exciting part is that this should bring a lot of new people onto the site. It is a beautiful place...but I have as yet, to sell anything...Will keep trying, though....
posted on August 29, 2000 09:44:59 AM new
yeah, like old and sold would get the piece to sell, lol! I'm sure it's a beautiful place, but the key might be "I've yet to sell anything" I'm smelling the same odor as newguy
posted on August 29, 2000 09:55:39 AM new
Well, it really IS a nice, trim-looking site, for ANTIQUES only..Beautiful things up for sale. Some are doing OK. It is very new and is trying to develop. I chose it as an alternative to Ebay, because what I sell is antique, and thought there would be a better market there than on Ebay, where I tend to get lost in the shuffle...I also show pottery on http://www.pottery.com and http://www.justglass.com (occasionally).
I do not believe it is a hussle. The owners are trying to attract more business...Of course, the painting COULD be a fake... But I still believe....
******************** Shosh http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/rifkah/
posted on August 29, 2000 10:30:23 AM new
Its interesting you should put this up as in a recent antique magazine I get there is a small article stating that 200 Van Gohs could be fakes.
At least 100 have been questioned as to authenticity some found so and removed from display at museums.
There is even some question as to whether The Sunflowers sold for 24.75 million pounds in 1987 is actually by him or someone else.
posted on August 29, 2000 10:40:05 AM new
Oh! My Gosh!.....I really do hope that is NOT the case, as I really like the look of OldAndSold! Otherwise, I'll have to start selling....widgets...(what IS a widget?)
******************** Shosh http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/rifkah/
But then, WHY not sell it through Christies or another famous site? Maybe, because of their high commission? OAS only charge 3.5% (if I recall), if you are a FEATURED seller...No insertion fees...That might be the reason...
posted on August 29, 2000 11:09:22 AM new
There is not one authentification of the painting itself, neither the signature nor any sort of recent paper from an expert.
Take ten guesses why they would not submit this to an auction house that brings the highest prices for Van Gogh. None would accept this convoluted attribution.
Notice that the sellers ID are kept secret. The scenario reminds me of this seller on eBay who writes up the same type of convoluted attributions for a variety of artists. Remember the kid who bid on a Van Gogh painting on eBay and many other high-ticket items? That Van Gogh had the same type of authentication, was a fake, and somehow was overlooked as such by the media.
posted on August 29, 2000 12:09:34 PM new
Well, I like the masking (duct?) tape holding the canvas into the frame.
The listing claims that "the last two years of his life, the period in Arles, the period in which he painted 'Yellow Roses'..." Aside from the fact that Van Gogh spent only 2/1888-5/1889 in Arles, NOT "the last 2 years of his life" (he died 7/27/1890 in Auvers-sur-Oise), here's a couple examples of the (very few) Arles still lifes:
This is the same artist that chose as background the lovely - um, mud color in "Yellow Roses"? Well, maybe it just needs cleaning. Uh-huh.
Although the story goes that Van Gogh sold only one painting during his life (actually, it was sold in 1891, AFTER he died), it's unlikely that he never sold ANY of the 2,000-plus works he produced. However, if indeed "Yellow Roses" WAS purchased from Van Gogh, it is probably the only documented sale (although the artist never mentions it in his correspondence). Here's an interesting thread on the matter:
Most damning, however, is the letter from Van Gogh which the listing quotes in an effort to identify "Yellow Roses" as the "size 30 canvas" he refers to. Here's the full text of the letter:
posted on August 29, 2000 01:07:36 PM new
This is from the owner of the above mentioned Van Gogh site. He was invited to post here but did not want register to make one comment.
I would have been happy to add my comments, but I see that you have to become a member and I'm not going to do this just for one on-the-fly comment.
If you'd care to comment on my behalf: the work isn't genuine. It's not a Van Gogh painting and Molly Brown never owned a Van Gogh work. Yet another online auction of a so-called Van Gogh. Caviat emptor.
Maybe oldandsold should take another look at this auction before the media finds it.
blasted UBB
[ edited by newguy on Aug 29, 2000 01:10 PM ]
[ edited by newguy on Aug 29, 2000 01:13 PM ]
posted on August 29, 2000 01:24:27 PM new
Hart Cottage Quilts needs to go back and read what is said about the Van Gogh. Vincent said in the letter that you refer to, which is also on the site at OAS, that he signed the painting with his name and Theo's name. Underneath the painting of "Yellow Roses" there are both Vincent's and Theo's name after the phrase "Souvenir de Mauve," the painting that was sent to the widow does not have both names. I guess Newguy hasn't heard about the investigation into two of the largest auction houses to see if indeed they fixed their commissions, I believe 20%, within a short period of time. As for the owner not wanting his identity made known, how many would want all of the sometimes strange people in the world to know who he is and where he lives. The winning bidder can refuse the sale as well and is invited to bring an expert of his choice to review the painting.
posted on August 29, 2000 02:23:03 PM new
Wow, so much response to my original message! It does seem that Old And Sold is going out on a limb with this painting, I agree. But they have been careful to say that the owner represents his painting as a Van Gogh, and not Old And Sold. Also, if I may play devil's advocate here, who can actually authenticate a Van Gogh painting? Certainly not you nor I. What if it's real?
I would be interested in hearing again from the owner of the Van Gogh website. I looked at his site and it looks very nice, and he must have done a lot of research. How does he know that Molly Brown or Helen Hendersen Chain never owned this painting? I found the story to be quite intriguing.
posted on August 29, 2000 03:11:57 PM newthere are both Vincent's and Theo's name after the phrase "Souvenir de Mauve," the painting that was sent to the widow does not have both names
The "yellow roses" listing attempts to imply that the "30 size canvas" to which Van Gogh refers in the letter, which was not yet painted at the time of the letter - is "Yellow Roses."
Hey, "qualityantiques," I have a letter here from Van Gogh to Mrs. Chain telling her he hopes Mrs. Brown likes the painting. It's signed and everything, and mentions that it was an old canvas he overpainted...so obviously the letter's authentic, yes?
Wanna buy it? I'll let it go cheap.
flowblue, you mean you can't see ANY difference in style whatsoever between "Yellow Roses" and any of the authenticated Van Goghs I posted? I'm assuming you collect or deal in flow blue. Can you really not tell the difference between a real 19th century piece of that ware a 20th century knockoff?
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Aug 29, 2000 03:14 PM ]
posted on August 29, 2000 04:40:22 PM new
I have a bachelor's degree in art history and while that by itself in no way makes me an expert, I am also very fond of Van Gogh, studied & assisted a professor who has done a great deal of research on him, spent time at the Van Gogh museum in the Netherlands, did a "Van Gogh Tour" of the South of France, and own numerous books on Van Gogh. I've also painted copies of his work myself using the enlarger method, the grid method and the just-eyeball-it method (copies for my own pleasure, I should mention). his doesn't look ANYTHING like a Van Gogh to me. I don't even see a "maybe" here.....this is either very calculated or very ignorant.
posted on August 29, 2000 04:47:45 PM new
To answer HartCottageQuilts - In my original message, I did say that I see a difference in style. However, only knowing his most popular paintings and never actually having seen one, I cannot presume to say that he did not paint in any other style.
By the way, does anyone know the connection between Ambroise Vollard and the paintings in the owner's collection?
I find the story that the owner has weaved very interesting.
posted on August 29, 2000 04:54:52 PM new
The only connection Vollard will have is that the owner found that name on a website or in a book and decided to use it.
Miscreant -and proud of it!
posted on August 29, 2000 05:05:10 PM new
Hart,
Brighid,
Did either of you notice that at the end of the description it says Vincent's vibrant painting of the most beloved flowers of all time, painted by the most widely known representatives of post-impressionistic art, is herein offered for sale.
Do they even know what a post impressionist is?
In the two documents they provide, one is 10 years old and they other is 12 years old and neither calls the painting a Van Gogh, just that the paint was old enough.
All the holes in this story are incredible.
Miscreant -and proud of it!
posted on August 29, 2000 05:25:13 PM newnewguy, yeah, I know, "post-impressionistic" (sic).
But the rest of the sentence is interesting. I think if one uses the Clinton Guide to Semantics, it could be construed that " Vincent's vibrant painting of the most beloved flowers of all time, painted by the most widely known representatives of post-impressionistic art, is herein offered for sale" refers primarily not to the purported artist, but to the ROSES ("the most beloved of all time, painted by the most widely known representatives..." ) Moreover, it's "Vincent's" painting, not Van Gogh's, they're "offering for sale" therein.
A very irregularly constructed lot of BS, semantically occasionally juuust barely crafty, but the holes in the rest of the "evidence" are hilarious! I did observe that the "provenance" noted is - well, not
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Aug 29, 2000 05:25 PM ]
posted on August 29, 2000 05:38:31 PM new
I was talking with my husband, and he recognized the McCrone Research Institute as the very same research lab which analyzed the "Shroud of Turin." He remembers this from a PBS special.
posted on August 29, 2000 06:12:37 PM new
McCrone has an outstanding reputation and I am sure they will just love to find their name bandied about in this auction.
Notice in the McCrone letter it only address the age and type of the paints. It also says the painting is signed "Vincent, Arles 88".
What happened to the 88?
Miscreant -and proud of it!
posted on August 29, 2000 06:39:33 PM new
I was talking with my husband, and he recognized the McCrone Research Institute as the very same research lab which analyzed the "Shroud of Turin." He remembers this from a PBS special.
posted on August 30, 2000 04:50:05 PM new
I agree the background color looks muddy, however, that is the color Mauve. It probably need serious cleaning. I saw the painting in a museum in Amsterdam, during the van Gogh exhibition I believe in 1990.
I mentioned that the painting looked dirty to one of the curators, he said that the owner would not allow any cleaning of the painting, However they were glad to have it for the exhibit. The owner did not allow any photos of it to be taken either, because I tried.
This painting was indeed the property of JJ and Molly Brown. The Molly Brown Museum in Denver has been trying to acquire this painting for many years. I too have tried but the price, I don't have, maybe someday.
I don't think the old and sold have their facts strait and are causing all this todo!!
I believe that the experts have referred to this painting as the Rosetta stone of art, van gogh transition from his Paris period to his Arles period. That is why many of the museums have tried in vain to purchase it.
posted on August 30, 2000 05:21:21 PM new
To: Imabrit
Yes indeed there was a todo about 200 paintings not being by van Gogh. The article came out after the sale of the Dr. Gachet painting for $78,000,000 The paintings including Dr. Gachet were thought by some experts to be fakes because their provenence only dated to the early 1900's and had been painted by a Parisian family, after van Gogh started to become famous. However this painting was presented to Molly Brown for her wedding in 1990. That can be checked out with the Molly Brown Museum in Denver Colorado.
The auction houses of Christies and Sothebys
have held the art market by the throat,and this is a step in dethroneing them.
posted on August 30, 2000 07:28:35 PM new
oldcollector,
Please show us just one "expert" that calls this a Van Gogh. Even the paper from the L.A. County Museum of Art takes care to point the attribution is the owners.
And why doesn't the auction description mention the fact it was in a Van Gogh exibition? Wouldn't that help authenticate it?
None of the x-ray or infra-red photos show any detail at all and they should.
In the McCrone paper it says the picture is signed " Vincent, Arles 88" Where is the 88 now? Why is that very important fact not brought forth in the description?
I can't wait to see how they are going to use Vollards name next month to authenticate a Cezane.
Miscreant -and proud of it!
posted on August 30, 2000 07:44:11 PM new
The fact that this painting was once owned by a wealthy person is interesting to people who enjoy art gossip, but does not bear upon its authenticity. Since Van Gogh was spectacularly unsaleable in his lifetime but did give lots of his works away, it's possible that someone "gave" a Van Gogh to Mrs. Brown that had been acquired through non-sale channels (although it is not, I think, terribly probable.) However, the fact remains that this looks nothing like any Van Gogh presently known to me. The idea of it being a "transitional" piece seems highly unlikely since the nature of a transitional work is to show influences from either the preceding era or the later one (usually both.) Transitional works do not exist in a vaccuum. Using Occam's Razor, it is FAR more rational to conclude that this is simply a mislabeled or (poorly) faked work than to try to "market" it as a transitional work that bears no resemblance to either the previous period or the later one. IMO this is going to be just another reason for people to laugh at online auctions. I sincerely hope no one bids.
-and proud of it! 
(what IS a widget?)