Looking at the photo and the painting side by side on Fiona's board, my thought was to make a transparency of the painting and slide it over on top of the photo to see whether all of the elements line up. They would not on a copy.
I'm always puzzled by the phrase: "The brushstrokes don't match." That's like saying Edwin Landseer never changed his knickers. The vintage photo expert got it right!!!
This episode reminded me of what I often found so frustrating with this series. Of how experts would so often make determinations which seemed lacking any real foundation or argument based on evidence. But are often their own rather subjective opinions which a another expert might disagree with. Take this case. I could have respected if the expert had said that due to the fact that though there was a lot of evidence in support of it actually being the Landseer original, there was also much that argued against it, leaving the matter inconclusive. That until such time technology developed or some further knowledge decided the matter either way it would remain inconclusive, and could not be verified as a Landseer. I suppose there are two reasons experts might not do so, one being more legit than the other. 1) They wouldn't want people to be able to sell the painting as a "possible Landseer" using an official lack of determination- though I think that's a bit silly if it IS a possible Landseer- all the better that it is looked after properly and the value will only really go up once it is determined to be one. 2) From what I have seen from this series a lot of experts dislike risking their reputations by recognizing a new piece that might be criticized by someone else. So they take an utterly unreasonable conservative stance as if they had personally witnessed every piece of art that left the artist's hand themselves. Yet that might end up costing the world to lose some precious art they deemed fakes and copies.
1: I wish they had examined the canvas itself. Is the canvas fabric consistent with the material used by Landseer? A copyist would probably have used different material. 2: Were copyists allowed to work in the galleries at the time? This painting was not based on an engraving because the coloration is too detailed. It must have been painted in person. 3: The lack of markings on the back argue, ironically, for its authenticity. Because there are none, that means it was probably reframed/stretched more recently. It's not the structure of the show due to time constraints, but I wish there could be a question/answer with the deciding authority. I would like to know more about how they made their determination. For example, how do they explain the anomaly in the canvas size on the left?
The art market is a brutal game. Forgeries can be treated as authenticated works. Masterpieces are sometimes dismissed as copies. Only the forgers really know what they did or didn't do, and when they die without leaving detailed records of their forgeries (which would be very strange, by the way) the confusion is immense.
Couldn't flood damage and attempts at restoration disturb the surface of the painting enough for the expert to say it was too different from the usual Landseer? What a shame. Especially with the old photo evidence of the kink in the side.
I'm not an art historian, but I do create more classical art. If that was someone faking that painting, they should have been famous. I think it's the real thing but my opinion doesn't count. I hope the owners continue to love it and maybe one day it will be verified. It was absolutely horrible what that flood did to people back then, let alone the art.
the edge o'k' it has been re lined but the same edge in the period photo means to me that the copy ist had to have the original stretcher' which was destroyed expert is wrong wouldn't be the 1st time
The expert be damned. Common sense says that is in fact a work done by the artist in question. Why and how would somone have gone to all the trouble to reproduce a work of art that records purport was destroyed after the flood?
When they say a painting/paintings were destroyed, did they record anywhere where and how they were destroyed and by whom? If they were dumped in the trash or maybe taken home by a gallery employee/s and maybe restored at home, later to be sold/inherited?Was no record kept of how it was allegedly destroyed? Does the current owner of the Lanseer War know how/from whom she acquired the piece?She bought it from an auction but who owned it before it was auctioned? Also I find it bizarre that during a flood historic gems would be recovered from a museum only to be placed outside on the pavement from where they could easily be removed or washed away Surely it would have been better to move them to a higher floor in the building to survive the flood? Many questions left unanswered.
That’s ridiculous. Of course it’s the original painting. No forger is going to copy the anomaly of the frame. Silver lining is she gets to keep it. If it had been original she would probably have had to give it back to the museum. Now it’s hers to look at in her house every day, knowing it’s a Landseer.
I would say the photograph is of this painting, but most of the paint was actually scraped off and reapplied. Whoever reapplied it was good, but not as good as landseer.
That's a common tactic in television production, so segments filmed on later days may be edited into a different sequence without the different clothes marking the discontinuity.
That anomaly in the frame has me convinced it's the real McCoy! Who would think to copy that?
right!
I thought that too. I thought for sure, when they discovered that, it was the real one.
A great forger would copy that, but then where is the history of those forgers in the time period, etc.?
Exactly!! I mean really!! Who would have thought to fake that?!
I love watching Fake Or Fortune during slow work hours. Thank you.
Looking at the photo and the painting side by side on Fiona's board, my thought was to make a transparency of the painting and slide it over on top of the photo to see whether all of the elements line up. They would not on a copy.
I'm always puzzled by the phrase:
"The brushstrokes don't match."
That's like saying Edwin Landseer never changed his knickers.
The vintage photo expert got it right!!!
Love this artist and his pictures of dogs are so beautiful!!!
This episode reminded me of what I often found so frustrating with this series. Of how experts would so often make determinations which seemed lacking any real foundation or argument based on evidence. But are often their own rather subjective opinions which a another expert might disagree with.
Take this case. I could have respected if the expert had said that due to the fact that though there was a lot of evidence in support of it actually being the Landseer original, there was also much that argued against it, leaving the matter inconclusive. That until such time technology developed or some further knowledge decided the matter either way it would remain inconclusive, and could not be verified as a Landseer.
I suppose there are two reasons experts might not do so, one being more legit than the other. 1) They wouldn't want people to be able to sell the painting as a "possible Landseer" using an official lack of determination- though I think that's a bit silly if it IS a possible Landseer- all the better that it is looked after properly and the value will only really go up once it is determined to be one. 2) From what I have seen from this series a lot of experts dislike risking their reputations by recognizing a new piece that might be criticized by someone else. So they take an utterly unreasonable conservative stance as if they had personally witnessed every piece of art that left the artist's hand themselves. Yet that might end up costing the world to lose some precious art they deemed fakes and copies.
1: I wish they had examined the canvas itself. Is the canvas fabric consistent with the material used by Landseer? A copyist would probably have used different material.
2: Were copyists allowed to work in the galleries at the time? This painting was not based on an engraving because the coloration is too detailed. It must have been painted in person.
3: The lack of markings on the back argue, ironically, for its authenticity. Because there are none, that means it was probably reframed/stretched more recently.
It's not the structure of the show due to time constraints, but I wish there could be a question/answer with the deciding authority. I would like to know more about how they made their determination. For example, how do they explain the anomaly in the canvas size on the left?
A part of me thinks that time & technology will indeed reveal this artwork back Landseer.
The art market is a brutal game. Forgeries can be treated as authenticated works. Masterpieces are sometimes dismissed as copies. Only the forgers really know what they did or didn't do, and when they die without leaving detailed records of their forgeries (which would be very strange, by the way) the confusion is immense.
Couldn't flood damage and attempts at restoration disturb the surface of the painting enough for the expert to say it was too different from the usual Landseer? What a shame. Especially with the old photo evidence of the kink in the side.
I'm not an art historian, but I do create more classical art. If that was someone faking that painting, they should have been famous. I think it's the real thing but my opinion doesn't count. I hope the owners continue to love it and maybe one day it will be verified. It was absolutely horrible what that flood did to people back then, let alone the art.
the edge o'k' it has been re lined but the same edge in the period photo means to me that the copy ist had to have the original stretcher' which was destroyed expert is wrong wouldn't be the 1st time
I love this series. I think I've seen every one that has been released here on UA-cam. I was hoping it was the original.
Excellent show. It would be great to see the show look for stolen art hidden in underground museums around the world.
This was an exciting episode!!
So cool that they have the expert Royal Horses in this story
Most of these so-called experts are spineless posers. They're in it for their own glory and God forbid admitting their mistakes.
The expert be damned. Common sense says that is in fact a work done by the artist in question. Why and how would somone have gone to all the trouble to reproduce a work of art that records purport was destroyed after the flood?
Great detective work. Also interesting English history.
When they say a painting/paintings were destroyed, did they record anywhere where and how they were destroyed and by whom? If they were dumped in the trash or maybe taken home by a gallery employee/s and maybe restored at home, later to be sold/inherited?Was no record kept of how it was allegedly destroyed? Does the current owner of the Lanseer War know how/from whom she acquired the piece?She bought it from an auction but who owned it before it was auctioned? Also I find it bizarre that during a flood historic gems would be recovered from a museum only to be placed outside on the pavement from where they could easily be removed or washed away Surely it would have been better to move them to a higher floor in the building to survive the flood? Many questions left unanswered.
I use lead white all the time, it is absolutely available.
Well done all around 👍
1:55
O my goodness --- WHERE ARE THEIR SCARVES?!?!?!
[Edit] 35:10
You just KNOWS I wasn't meaning a winter one.
That’s ridiculous. Of course it’s the original painting. No forger is going to copy the anomaly of the frame. Silver lining is she gets to keep it. If it had been original she would probably have had to give it back to the museum. Now it’s hers to look at in her house every day, knowing it’s a Landseer.
Very good point
No, she wouldn’t have had to give it back to the museum. She bought it in good faith. They would have raised money to pay her the market value.
If you're going to post a rerun please include the original date of filming in the header.
I would say the photograph is of this painting, but most of the paint was actually scraped off and reapplied. Whoever reapplied it was good, but not as good as landseer.
which also explains the anomaly of the frame
Fiona wears the same outfit through the entire video.
That's a common tactic in television production, so segments filmed on later days may be edited into a different sequence without the different clothes marking the discontinuity.
This a rerun?
Yes, Season 9 Episode 3
There's something oily about Mold.