Loved this. I can't stop watching no matter how long a time it takes. The scenery is so lovely. It takes us all over the world from our living rooms. I know I'll never go to Europe but I feel like I got a good view of it here. Yes, I've got my share of illness too like so many other commentators. It might be a good thing somehow because I had the time to devote to watching this in its entirety in a short time.
So the painting underneath the “barker of bath” that they said would never be able to have an attribution, miraculously has been attributed to an artist that’s more valuable than the barker or Bath effort !!! Are they trying to suggest that the owner removes the Gainsborough!!??? Funnily enough ensuring it never comes back to bite them 🤦🏼♂️
Yep and they just tacked the provenance on to the other one once “authenticated “, with no evidence or paper trail whatsoever. They fully glossed over what the scientists found in the end as well. That episode really made me not want to watch the rest.
@Ty-mq7xm Thank you, that is very kind of you♡ I am alone with my mother she is also very ill. I love her dearly, but she is dying of Altsheimers. Soon, I will be all alone. I must admit it scares me. I have no income and don't own anything of value either. I honestly have no idea what will happen to me then. Until my mother dies, we have her tiny rent, but that will stop when she passes. She took care of me when I fell ill all those years ago. Now, I do all I can to help her with her failing mind and try to make her passing as easy as possible for her by comforting her and enveloping her in love.♡
@Ty-mq7xm I appreciate your words 🙏 I'm sorry about your parents💔 I only ever had my mother. No friends or distant relatives, unfortunately. My best friend died when we were 14, and I was too heartbroken the years after she died to make any new friends. Then I fell ill. I know very nice people online ,but they are all spread across the world and not in a position to help me. Thank you for being so kind♡
Naaaa! I bet it is a Gainsborough! All the evidence and the registration number etc. I would want to see the evidence on the other one. Also I feel, that this one had far more depth than the other so called Gainsborough. I think they didn't want to loose their reputation which is a massive conflict. (😯 Oh and would cost them a lot of money. They would have to somehow buy this one to replace the fake, but what if he didn't want to sell etc. Very awkward. Bet they try to get it on the sly cheaply to save themselves.
Exactly! The expert gave his opinion on style alone basically, he didn't give any explanation for all the scientific evidence for it being a Gainsborough.
What i love about these investigations is the intelligence of non-native English speakers their ability to tell us in our own language what is needed to be known. I dont care how broken that language may be, just that it enables transferring of knowledge. It also helps me identify expressions that my limited exposure can integrate into how i say something.
I like when I fall asleep, and this program wakes me up. I was especially captivated by the nuclear wood analysis, and the last piece, that was imaged 20,000 times. I’m going to have to track down the Marieschi, next time I’m in Chicago. The forged seal, the composition of the linen. The layers of the under pigments. Very fascinating, indeed. And I wish more artists would paint with tempera. That medium is translucent lay delightful. And the host, Philip, looks like his whippet. The journeys through the great houses in the UK, is the best part.
Wow! So, 'The Gypsies' Repast' has been judged to have been by Barker of Bath. How utterly coincidental that B of B *also* reused an earlier portrait canvas of a lady as the foundation for his painted copy in the same manner that Gainsborough did for a similar work during the period in question. I don't believe that. B of B didn't have x-ray technology to know what Gainsborough did and the chances that B of B did it by coincidence must be very remote.
And how do you explain all the tags and gallery markings behind the portrait that match the provenance to a T?! From what I heard, the other painting that is supposedly the real 1 where the former owners son appears in the show.. the only provenance they had was a letter from some old expert. I’m so annoyed! Ahhhh
Marc’s is the real Gainsborough. No way that non-provenanced canvas with inferior detail is the real one - that’s your Barker of Bath. They just don’t want to admit they got it wrong.
It was good, but 4 hours? Really? Do you feel like it was necessary to get all of that? I don’t think I can watch another of these. I was even on 2x speed.
@@user-pt1cz4ot1e I enjoyed this a lot. I played it in the background while doing household chores and it kept me very entertained. I might not be able to sit down and exclusively watch this in one go, but I find it better than stopping after every video and scrolling for something else to watch. It's a personal preference. You might enjoy something different. There is room for everyone's preferences
Yes, no need. It is nice not to have to look for a new episode once one ends. I leave it running while I do something where my attention is not fully needed. I thoroughly enjoyed them as a block. I can always go back to the individual episodes if I want. Nobody is forced to do anything.@@sirrathersplendid4825
I disagree with the art expert that it is not an original Gainsborough especially with the fact that the original was given personally to the man who had a sale and the paper trail with the original back and all the registrations. I totally think this is original.
The Gainsborough - The Gypsies picture, to me the final verdict can only been given when the two pictures are hung side by side! The scientific evidence, like original 18. Century colours, 18. Century frame and the markings of Christies, who even in the 19. Century made sure they sell an original. Or didn't they? Then the portrait under the picture, all point to an original. The final verdict by the "expert", I wouldn't be impressed too much by it, it's just a "feeling". The uber master faker Wolfgang Beltracchi, and "creator of additional originals", proved how much the "opinion of an expert" are worth. Nothing! One last point, thankfully the filmmakers didn't declare the Gainsborough a fake, but a perfectly fine copy by the Barker of Bath painter, so their verdict. Now, who can give me a sane explanation why this supposedly copy was reframed as the original was reframed? Don't tell me it was Bath. For cheating reasons, no, he just copied pictures as so many other masterful painters did? The pictures were in the possession of rich distinguished persons and part of an art collection. This picture we followed in the documentary was a Christies proven Original. The other "original" doesn't even have its original frame. How can that be? That doesn't make any sense to me. Pictures hang innocently on walls, and get transported every other decade in picture transport boxes, by professional picture transporters, how could a frame break? To fit it into a new outer, smaller picture frame? Is there another reason for reframing? The "art experts" opinion is up against solid scientific evidence. I would go with the later any day! According to the scientific evidence, the shown painted picture is a true Gainsborough!
We were all rooting so hard for the underdog John green in Gainsborough gypsies …it is an unconvincing anticlimax ….I mean if they were going to base their judgement on “bold” strokes…what was all the evidence for?
so they company that authenticated a possible fake is the one deciding if his is real or not?!?!... what a conflict of interest... i hope this guy doesn't sell it for 1000 because he should get another opinion and it probably is real
I’m not too shook up about the owner’s prospects. He has that thriving paper company his family’s run for generations. He’ll just have to comfort himself with all his mountains of gold, poor thing.
The portrait of lamb has absolutely beautiful eyes and the complexion is so striking! Good on Philip! Fiona is the perfect picture of a well-educated, well-grounded, modern English woman, such a class act.
She has a long established career as a news personality, and also appears on the BBC show Antiques Roadshow. She is thoroughly a class act. I believe she met Phillip through the Roadshow.😊
And the art world would know especially the experts.. but greedly keep there mouths shut because there either paid to shut up or there career would be damaged so they don’t say anything.. I’m my opinion there are very few experts just a lot of people faking it
I understand that the talent of being able to forge a painting involves technical ability but not the same creativity as an artist who has developed their own style and has a following & place in history. I'm reminded of the Spanish forger whose imitations were so charming that they have value. If someone making a copy of a famous artist is someone who becomes a good artist in their own right, their copy may have its own intrinsic value. Often students make copies as they learn.
There's a Sir Thomas Lawrence painting at The New York Metropolitan Museum that absolutely took my breath away. It was if the models could just walk out of the canvas.
Here's a copy of my comment on the Lawrence show: On the 2nd video subject:P Lamb, II (Thought to be by Thomas Lawrence, by Phillip). 🚫 "do not read further until you watch the show" Upon completing their research and having the Experts review their findings and the Portrait, it left me a bit confounded: Philip noticed the painting when arriving at the Owners home for an event, convinced it's a Thomas Lawrence, he was able to gain cooperation from the family to investigate the Painting. Taking a mis-attributed painting to Causeway and confirming it as a Portrait painted by Lawrence creates a whole other perspective on/of the Painting: 🔹The personal History discoveries which are always priceless 🔹The monetary value from appx $8,000 to (he mentions upwards of $500,000), however upon the Experts review of the painting: 1) During the 2 years +/- of when Lawrence painted the Queen Charlotte 2) Pointing out that it is one of Lawrence 's best portrait paintings in the era. My point: I suspect the Painting could now easily fetch $1M at Auction, although $500,000 is certainly a major gain over $8,000. Yet, at the revealing of it being a Lawrence, no one bothers to acknowledge: (Had Phillip not recognized it as a Lawrence, and return to gain their cooperation in investigating the painting, it would remain a bi-line, hanging in the corner, as if an afterthought, and assumed to be an $8,000 late 18th Century work.) $500K - $1M It just seemed such a ungrateful oversight to not congratulate Phillip. I was under the impression that British Aristocracy were trained in edicate and Manners. Even the Producer of this show missed an opportunity to celebrate the keen eye of Phillip. Really a bumbled opportunity for endung on a very high note ... .
I will bet 10lbs that the leading "expert" on Gainesborough IS the one who purchased the actual fake from Mr Day, and is in no way ever going to denounce his own investment by giving this ACTUAL Gainesborough its merit.
The most fascinating for me by far is the scientific evidence segments - to often the expert have nothing more than their subjective opinions that they think "this is not in the style of", or "not as good as" and seem to revel in giving absolute statements instead of just admitting that they can't be absolutely sure and the trust in their opinions is way to high specially when they can't give objective evidence to their subjective opinions.
I don't understand when Henry was on the back and the Christie's number was on the back I just wonder if somebody was trying to save face. In my opinion it's a Gainesboro and the other one is a fake
Agreed. The Giorgio de Chirico still life is a prime example of this. Rejected 30-odd years ago by one member of the committee who didn’t think de Chirico painted walnuts… and now when presented with a dossier that includes several examples of de Chirico still lifes featuring nuts - not to mention scientific analysis revealing the very unusual ingredients of oil and honey in the tempera as well as proof that it was painted on a board from before 1950 - and the current committee rejects it simply because in their estimation it just isn’t good enough to be by de Chirico!?!
@@nerdbot37 I did an image search for Giorgio de Chirico still life paintings and he painted fruit all over the place. In bowls, neatly stacked, on a draped tablecloth, on bare wood, all kinds of ways. Then they decide this one isn't authentic because the fruit is placed unnaturally? They just couldn't admit they'd been wrong. So they decided to be wrong twice.
@@Cautionary_Tale_HarrisYesssss and their explanations in the letter didn’t seem to be that great. I agree, they just didn’t want to admit that they were wrong in the past because it would open them up to the possibility of being wrong for the last however many decades.
Well color me pink! What a fascinating series! The algorithm played this on it's own, I usually watch medieval British documentaries....this was fantastic! Very interesting!
I love how the owners of the painting in the 2nd episode insist it is by Cosway although that would make it moneteraly less valuable. Because they appreciate this wonderful peeoneering painter and because this is what the familial identity is attached to. So so good! And a curious exploration on the nature of attribution.
The old lady was the only stubborn holdout insisting it was by the artist who was way less valuable. She sounds rich, probably grew up rich and could afford to have this painting not be valuable since she’ll soon be dead. Notice the young woman was more excited that it be a Lawrence painting-she’ll live long enough to profit from the sale of this masterpiece. Lol.
That Giorgio de Chirico is probably real. The foundation was too prideful to admit they were wrong in the 1997 evaluation. That dude made at least twelve still-life paintings containing a walnut that the "experts" of the foundation weren't even aware of. And then the pieces of fruit are clearly all over the place in those different paintings. Yet they conclude it's not a real de Chirico because fruit wasn't in the correct position? Those guys are clowns.
The Barker/Gainsborough, please tell me John still owns the painting and hasn't destroyed it! Did Barker paint over others' paintings? Did your expert have an interest in attributing the painting to Barker? How can a painting with the provenance of John's be a fake? Do you think all previous owners were duped? I really think your expert was wrong!
Let me see if I’ve got this right. The original Constable had no provenance on the back of the painting and even when it was sold there wasn’t confirmation in the sales information that it definitely was a Constable. Yet this fake has scientific data confirming the age and the back of the painting confirms the history of the painting going back to the early 1800’s. Something seems drastically amiss here. Or maybe the complications of attributing it too Constable is too much of a problem due to the legal implications.
Gainsborough you mean. But I totally agree. Massive conflict of interest involved. And also I felt there was far more depth in the painting style than the other one. And the providence is all there. I would want to see the other one the same research done on the other one, but apparently its missing in action.
@@AHD2105 Apologies and thanks for the correction. It just doesn’t stack up if you take a rational perspective. I think there’s an industry line you don’t cross in these circumstances because they know what the implications would be if they do what they should. Even Philip appeared to be guarded and reluctant to state the obvious. The owner looked incredulous that no one actually asked a direct question of the so called original painting that didn’t have any provenance.
@@MarkBriers369 Yes! I'm actually disgusted. I'm starting to think their are many mistakes in claims of paintings that could cost these people a lot of money. Mostly because of advanced forensics that could cost them a lot of money in reparations. Just because they make a tv discussion of it, doesnt make them right in a court of law. And with so much money involved, this is what it should come down to. And if the other owner doesnt come forward, then they should have no licence to sell unless its proven to be an original. And these days they could likely compare DNA with the DNA on paintings they know to be painted by artists. Well idealy. I've just lost faith in these episodes now. Too many alterior motives for trying to clean up mistakes etc. Sad for those who get duped. And I hope they had on to these paintings until more advanced technology comes into being. These d cronies are protecting themselves. Imagine the cost to go back 🙄
@@MarkBriers369 sorry. In short I should've just said, there is a lot of money in determining a painting to be real or not and conflict of interest was present in this case.
@@AHD2105 Completely agree. How can they not investigate the so called legitimate painting and put it through the same stringent tests, to justify their claims? Probably because they’re worried it won’t tick as many boxes as the fake. Then they do have a problem and so does any experts credibility. The presenters on the program do a great job, but it’s pretty obvious they are under instruction not to rock the boat. They know that 90% of the viewers are probably screaming at the tv, WTF. As for that expert who made the decision. Phew! I’m surprised the owner of the painting didn’t clobber him.
so, the guy at the end who said it wasn't a gainsborough, why?... what evidence disapproved it?... literally mounds of evidence says it IS real... i think this guy is corrupt and bought by that other guy who would've been "wrong" with his authenticated evaluation... why are we trusting either of them
💯 !!! The old expert was clearly pushed by Philip to give it his approval. With zero collaboration to the provenance - yet now they’ve found a printing that DOES have the provenance right on the back. What are we missing - it seems pretty clear they made an error here.
@@deethebee80I 100% agree!!! What are the odds that the same exact artist portrait found in another Gainsborough is behind this painting?! The other alleged real painting didn’t have any gallery markings behind it. You’re telling me there’s a huge conspiracy that years later in the late 1800s people added the various markings and tags to a fake? If I were the owner of this painting, I would have demanded a 2nd opinion, also to see if the forger has any other paintings where he painted over the same artist Gainsborough did.. lastly, if this is a fake, than certainly the painting shown in the recently published book with the re-purposed canvas had to be fake as well.. I am mad! LOL
It’s almost indistinguishable from the legit one, it’s just as old and done by a notable painter, and it looks great. To me that makes it just as cool. Maybe not as valuable to a Gainsborough fan or collector, but as a survivor and a work of art it’s not too shabby.
I think it's even better because of the painting behind it and the whole story! Just wow! And just as you said, it was still done by a 17th century "faker" artist! Some of those artists paintings now have actually become quite desirable!
im about 40 minutes in and thinking; You said earlier that he had to paint portraits for money and landscapes were his true passion, youre talking now about how its frustrating that so many old portraits are so similar, Perhaps he was just as frustrated with the occurance! With a passion for landscapes, down on his luck with no money to buy a fresh canvas turns to a frustrating boring old portrait and gives it new life of a joyous campfire landscape scene ! 😊
Why? Why? Why does Miss Fiona still looks so gorgeous after all these years. ❤ to be fair and respectful to who ever painted the last painting was a master no doubt as it would make a great 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle. Easy way to recoup the cost maybe, for the creative at heart. C.a.n.v.a and e.t.s.y is your way forward. Good luck.
What a croc on the 1st episode... that was 100% a Thomas Gainsborough painting they were investigating. Then the dude at the end just walks in without only proof and declares he "thinks" it's not a Gainsborough because stylistically lol... unbelievable and laughable lol. Poor guy has genuine Thomas Gainsborough, but some snob thinks it's fake lol.
I fell asleep watching UA-cam and dreamed that a painting I had painted when I was 15 was being discussed as whether it was real or fake. I told the owners I had painted it and given it to Goodwill a long time ago. I don't know if they believed me or was disappointed to know the artist. Then, I woke up to this video. 😂
That Gainsborough is probably real, just like the Giorgio de Chirico is probably real. If there's one thing this show has illustrated, it's that the art workd hates to admit they were wrong.
If it sounds like duck, walks like a duck, and looks like a duck it must be a …. Those people’s reputation were in the line and they would hate to loose it. Sad to see they can’t admit the evidence.
Admitting would meant the foundation loose reputation and artwork of Giorgio de chirico might dropped in value as the foundation that were managing the artwork of Giorgio de chirico was not informed of drawings that were sent to the Vera by Giorgio de chirico secretly. After this episode being aired, other unsigned artworks of Giorgio de chirico would surfaces and don’t think the foundation would want that to happen, thus; denied the authenticity of this fruit drawing from the start even though it might real. 😅😅😅
Art "expert" is completely wrong. All the provenance points to it being the true Lost Gainsborough. Not his subjective feelings about the style. What a vain, pretentious, and fickle business.
I know! When he finally explained why he "felt" like it wasn't a Gainsborough because of the hesitancy of the brush strokes? I'm not an art expert but I just can't imagine devaluing that painting over one man's opinion. We've come too far to know how the art world works and how competitive these art people are. This and their hubris have destroyed the value of many pieces of art and I think that's awful
Who’s to say the modern experts on the Gainsborough won’t be proven wrong in a few decades? Obviously, others have been wrong about it in the past? Just the fact that this investigation was don’t and documented will likely make the painting more valuable as time goes on regardless! Imagine someone watching this in a century or two.
The reputation hit they would take makes the authenticator massively biased, since he didn't compare or use any of the actual evidence in his judgement. Also By saying it was not a Gainsborough they massively devalue it, probably in hopes that he will sell it for a 'high offer' based on their evaluation which could allow them to covertly acquire it for much cheaper than they otherwise would be able to if they authenticated it as real. Then they'll just say 'on further investigation this is the real one' making the value much higher and making a large profit.
Its a shame some countries cannot verify for certain the providence and if a painting is genuine or not. Being sued for being wrong is loosing big money etc. Giving a certificate of providence etc for being a genuine painting and finding out later it isnt is also why some countries wont actually certify etc. The USA doesnt I think.
I believe good old Nick showed he was a good sport after discovering the true value of his painting ...He was disappointed, but it was a gamble to begin with...
What I’ve come to realize from watching these shows is the art world is really a world of self preservation and the almighty dollar. I’m not surprised but I’m always suspicious/disappointed when everything points to a work of art being authentic but the experts either won’t acknowledge it or completely dismiss it.
It could never be the real deal, phil had worked for another some 20 years before. That painting disappeared and they will not let them see or test it. So maybe that one is false and well they must have paid a fortune, maybe for Barker of Bath.
omg this is so frustrating, everything is saying this is real!!!!... why don't they get the painting that was "authenticated" and do all this research on it to disprove it's authentication!!!
Let's say you bought an authenticated painting for £100,000. Then someone says, "We want to authenticate your painting, again." You either say, "No, thank you, my painting has already been authenticated." It's still valued at £100,000. Or, You say, "Sure." However, once the results come back, your painting will either be worth £100,000, or Nothing. My point is, the current owner of the other "authenticated" painting has nothing to gain and everything to lose.
I think artists should never copy another painting. I get requests to do so, and I always refuse. It's an affront to me. We live in such beauty, no reason to copy.
why? its good for studying and practicing. of course you shouldnt sell it,or vlaim it as original but its fine and sometimes fun to just copy a picture
The question that was never adressed is, was the Barker of Bath also in the habit of re-using old canvasses? In my humble opinion the evidence for this painting being the lost Gainsborough is much more convincing than the 1999 painting.
For decades on TV, crime shows have made it look like many dozens of young college types seem to dash off tons of "copies" of masterpieces as easily as today's kids use photoshop. I always thought this was a wild exaggeration that these young slobs could just turn out these fakes at the drop of a hat. One would have to be even better than the masters themselves in order to recreate fakes by scratch. But after seeing this show, I must admit that there are (or were) more fakers around than I thought.
1:21:00 (the state/preservation of the proposed Lawrence Paintung) Even on a Video, the portrait comes across as: Fresh, the Light areas on his face suggesting his youthful vigor, the Artist relays this, and it's like you can smell the freshness, the breeze that brings the soap and cologne of a young man, just arriving at an event. As well as any great photograph captures a moment/second in t8me, this Artist delivered that second from the latter 1700's to us in the 21st Century, like no other painting 8r artifact from that eea, or that I've seen, ftom any other latter eras.
Wow Peniston Lamb painting is awesome just comparing the technique you can tell the artist, her painting fell apart his stayed perfect wow i didnt’t know that awesome revelation
so, gainsbury can't paint over another painting?... mayb they should xray some other gainsbury paintings and see if they have been so... also, they have a letter that he was hard up... i'm not trusting this guy
I agree with many people in the comments. I think the Gainsborough is the original. It has such a better paper trail. I hope he can change their opinions someday
The Gainsborough is the real thing. The previous one was re-lined with new stretcher and this one has the original frame with matching provenance. They were wrong.
So, is it attributed to the Baker of Bath? And, One other question not explored is Did the Baker of Bath have the need to paint over anything at all, and especially a Michael Dahl portrait? They explained Bath used a Dark primer. Further Examination of Dahls work to show he did this would be more convincing to me than a last minute critique on the technique being forced rather than Gainsborough's flowing...
also there only seems to be reference to art that was owned by others which is rather misleading making others to assume artist never owned or kept any of their own work and of course work becoming contraband in war and sieges
This is interesting and all, but if I had the time, I would go through and tally all of the redundancies. Omg, this could have been 1/10th the length and given the same information. I just don’t understand why it took 4 hours.
Not an art enthusiast by any means, but the investigations, the process, and the knowledge is fascinating.
After watching the entire video, I think Fiona is the perfect work of art!
Alter noyef
Loved this. I can't stop watching no matter how long a time it takes. The scenery is so lovely. It takes us all over the world from our living rooms. I know I'll never go to Europe but I feel like I got a good view of it here. Yes, I've got my share of illness too like so many other commentators. It might be a good thing somehow because I had the time to devote to watching this in its entirety in a short time.
So the painting underneath the “barker of bath” that they said would never be able to have an attribution, miraculously has been attributed to an artist that’s more valuable than the barker or Bath effort !!! Are they trying to suggest that the owner removes the Gainsborough!!??? Funnily enough ensuring it never comes back to bite them 🤦🏼♂️
wow, the authenticated painting was relined and had no labels on the back, but the guys painting has ALL that and yet it's not the original???... geez
Art expertise is pretty corrupt sadly
Cui bono ...who benefits ...
Yep and they just tacked the provenance on to the other one once “authenticated “, with no evidence or paper trail whatsoever. They fully glossed over what the scientists found in the end as well. That episode really made me not want to watch the rest.
The other Gainsborough painting was sold with notice to the potential buyers of its questionability. 11:00
I have been in bed for 2 days sick and these episodes have completely captivated me
They’re so good!
Hope you are better❤
I've been sick in bed for 11 years now and the episodes have enticed me too😊
@@Ty-1452 I fell very ill and became bedridden when I was 17 I'm 29 now. I wish it was a typo!😂
@Ty-mq7xm Thank you, that is very kind of you♡ I am alone with my mother she is also very ill. I love her dearly, but she is dying of Altsheimers. Soon, I will be all alone. I must admit it scares me. I have no income and don't own anything of value either. I honestly have no idea what will happen to me then. Until my mother dies, we have her tiny rent, but that will stop when she passes. She took care of me when I fell ill all those years ago. Now, I do all I can to help her with her failing mind and try to make her passing as easy as possible for her by comforting her and enveloping her in love.♡
@Ty-mq7xm I appreciate your words 🙏 I'm sorry about your parents💔 I only ever had my mother. No friends or distant relatives, unfortunately. My best friend died when we were 14, and I was too heartbroken the years after she died to make any new friends. Then I fell ill. I know very nice people online ,but they are all spread across the world and not in a position to help me. Thank you for being so kind♡
Naaaa! I bet it is a Gainsborough! All the evidence and the registration number etc. I would want to see the evidence on the other one. Also I feel, that this one had far more depth than the other so called Gainsborough.
I think they didn't want to loose their reputation which is a massive conflict.
(😯 Oh and would cost them a lot of money. They would have to somehow buy this one to replace the fake, but what if he didn't want to sell etc. Very awkward. Bet they try to get it on the sly cheaply to save themselves.
Exactly! The expert gave his opinion on style alone basically, he didn't give any explanation for all the scientific evidence for it being a Gainsborough.
Totally agree! 😠
Thinking the same!
Reputation was at stake, but most auctions do not guarantee attribution. Read the fine print before speculating on legalities
@@GOLDVIOLINbowofdeathgood point too
What i love about these investigations is the intelligence of non-native English speakers their ability to tell us in our own language what is needed to be known. I dont care how broken that language may be, just that it enables transferring of knowledge. It also helps me identify expressions that my limited exposure can integrate into how i say something.
Ikr, it's a delight to learn linguistic gems.
I like when I fall asleep, and this program wakes me up. I was especially captivated by the nuclear wood analysis, and the last piece, that was imaged 20,000 times. I’m going to have to track down the Marieschi, next time I’m in Chicago. The forged seal, the composition of the linen. The layers of the under pigments. Very fascinating, indeed. And I wish more artists would paint with tempera. That medium is translucent lay delightful. And the host, Philip, looks like his whippet. The journeys through the great houses in the UK, is the best part.
I love it when owners do resemble their pets and admire the translucence of tempura. 🤗 49:08
Wow! So, 'The Gypsies' Repast' has been judged to have been by Barker of Bath. How utterly coincidental that B of B *also* reused an earlier portrait canvas of a lady as the foundation for his painted copy in the same manner that Gainsborough did for a similar work during the period in question. I don't believe that. B of B didn't have x-ray technology to know what Gainsborough did and the chances that B of B did it by coincidence must be very remote.
And how do you explain all the tags and gallery markings behind the portrait that match the provenance to a T?! From what I heard, the other painting that is supposedly the real 1 where the former owners son appears in the show.. the only provenance they had was a letter from some old expert. I’m so annoyed! Ahhhh
Came to comments to see if anyone else was as annoyed as I was. I made a longer comment at the top of the comments. 😉
Oh, and then insinuate the owner should have the 'fake' Barker work removed [destroyed] because the portrait underneath is so much more valuable! 😂
We're the two ladies painted by the same friend of Gainsborough?
@@janepilkington9293
No, they weren't.
Plot twist. The owner of the other Gainsborough Gipsies painting is that expert.
Marc’s is the real Gainsborough. No way that non-provenanced canvas with inferior detail is the real one - that’s your Barker of Bath. They just don’t want to admit they got it wrong.
I so agree.
4 hours well spent -the algorithm proved wrong: we can have long attention spans when the quality is good. Thanks @perspectiveArts
It was good, but 4 hours? Really? Do you feel like it was necessary to get all of that? I don’t think I can watch another of these. I was even on 2x speed.
@@user-pt1cz4ot1e I enjoyed this a lot. I played it in the background while doing household chores and it kept me very entertained. I might not be able to sit down and exclusively watch this in one go, but I find it better than stopping after every video and scrolling for something else to watch. It's a personal preference. You might enjoy something different. There is room for everyone's preferences
Don’t need to watch it all in one sitting! 😊
Yes, no need. It is nice not to have to look for a new episode once one ends. I leave it running while I do something where my attention is not fully needed. I thoroughly enjoyed them as a block. I can always go back to the individual episodes if I want. Nobody is forced to do anything.@@sirrathersplendid4825
I disagree with the art expert that it is not an original Gainsborough especially with the fact that the original was given personally to the man who had a sale and the paper trail with the original back and all the registrations. I totally think this is original.
The Gainsborough - The Gypsies picture, to me the final verdict can only been given when the two pictures are hung side by side!
The scientific evidence, like original 18. Century colours, 18. Century frame and the markings of Christies, who even in the 19. Century made sure they sell an original. Or didn't they? Then the portrait under the picture, all point to an original. The final verdict by the "expert", I wouldn't be impressed too much by it, it's just a "feeling". The uber master faker Wolfgang Beltracchi, and "creator of additional originals", proved how much the "opinion of an expert" are worth. Nothing!
One last point, thankfully the filmmakers didn't declare the Gainsborough a fake, but a perfectly fine copy by the Barker of Bath painter, so their verdict. Now, who can give me a sane explanation why this supposedly copy was reframed as the original was reframed? Don't tell me it was Bath. For cheating reasons, no, he just copied pictures as so many other masterful painters did? The pictures were in the possession of rich distinguished persons and part of an art collection. This picture we followed in the documentary was a Christies proven Original. The other "original" doesn't even have its original frame. How can that be? That doesn't make any sense to me. Pictures hang innocently on walls, and get transported every other decade in picture transport boxes, by professional picture transporters, how could a frame break? To fit it into a new outer, smaller picture frame? Is there another reason for reframing?
The "art experts" opinion is up against solid scientific evidence. I would go with the later any day! According to the scientific evidence, the shown painted picture is a true Gainsborough!
Yes ! I was completely shocked at the verdict of the “expert”. It is infuriating really!
The Gainesboro painting did not match the artists B&W print though
Mark's Gainsborough painting did not match the artists' b&w print, though. 11:05
It looks like the original is in the Tate Collection
We were all rooting so hard for the underdog John green in Gainsborough gypsies …it is an unconvincing anticlimax ….I mean if they were going to base their judgement on “bold” strokes…what was all the evidence for?
so they company that authenticated a possible fake is the one deciding if his is real or not?!?!... what a conflict of interest... i hope this guy doesn't sell it for 1000 because he should get another opinion and it probably is real
I’m not too shook up about the owner’s prospects. He has that thriving paper company his family’s run for generations. He’ll just have to comfort himself with all his mountains of gold, poor thing.
The question of the other paintings' authenticity was provided to potential buyers at the auction when it sold.
The portrait of lamb has absolutely beautiful eyes and the complexion is so striking! Good on Philip! Fiona is the perfect picture of a well-educated, well-grounded, modern English woman, such a class act.
Well said, your description of Fiona.
😅😅😅😊p@@bethbartlett5692😅
She has a long established career as a news personality, and also appears on the BBC show Antiques Roadshow. She is thoroughly a class act. I believe she met Phillip through the Roadshow.😊
I watched a documentary by a forger who said quite a few "fakes" are now considered real and vice versa, officially. Maddening!
And the art world would know especially the experts.. but greedly keep there mouths shut because there either paid to shut up or there career would be damaged so they don’t say anything.. I’m my opinion there are very few experts just a lot of people faking it
The Gainsborough painting was sold with notice to the potential buyers of its questionability. 11:00
I understand that the talent of being able to forge a painting involves technical ability but not the same creativity as an artist who has developed their own style and has a following & place in history.
I'm reminded of the Spanish forger whose imitations were so charming that they have value. If someone making a copy of a famous artist is someone who becomes a good artist in their own right, their copy may have its own intrinsic value. Often students make copies as they learn.
There's a Sir Thomas Lawrence painting at The New York Metropolitan Museum that absolutely took my breath away. It was if the models could just walk out of the canvas.
Here's a copy of my comment on the Lawrence show:
On the 2nd video subject:P Lamb, II (Thought to be by Thomas Lawrence, by Phillip).
🚫 "do not read further until you watch the show"
Upon completing their research and having the Experts review their findings and the Portrait, it left me a bit confounded:
Philip noticed the painting when arriving at the Owners home for an event, convinced it's a Thomas Lawrence, he was able to gain cooperation from the family to investigate the Painting.
Taking a mis-attributed painting to Causeway and confirming it as a Portrait painted by Lawrence creates a whole other perspective on/of the Painting:
🔹The personal History discoveries which are always priceless
🔹The monetary value from appx $8,000 to (he mentions upwards of $500,000), however upon the Experts review of the painting:
1) During the 2 years +/- of when Lawrence painted the Queen Charlotte
2) Pointing out that it is one of Lawrence 's best portrait paintings in the era.
My point: I suspect the Painting could now easily fetch $1M at Auction, although $500,000 is certainly a major gain over $8,000.
Yet, at the revealing of it being a Lawrence, no one bothers to acknowledge:
(Had Phillip not recognized it as a Lawrence, and return to gain their cooperation in investigating the painting, it would remain a bi-line, hanging in the corner, as if an afterthought, and assumed to be an $8,000 late 18th Century work.) $500K - $1M
It just seemed such a ungrateful oversight to not congratulate Phillip. I was under the impression that British Aristocracy were trained in edicate and Manners.
Even the Producer of this show missed an opportunity to celebrate the keen eye of Phillip. Really a bumbled opportunity for endung on a very high note ...
.
I will bet 10lbs that the leading "expert" on Gainesborough IS the one who purchased the actual fake from Mr Day, and is in no way ever going to denounce his own investment by giving this ACTUAL Gainesborough its merit.
Good thinking ! For sure he’ll have been involved - he and Philip would have clearly made a pretty penny from it. This is such bull….
I'm with you on that.
@@kittenkorleone2918sssrsdtztuzxyzuxiu te😅😅ur😊😊😊😊😊eee😅
I agree that some this sounds fishy with his assessment.
very reasonable conclusion tbh. it seems impossible that Marc’s isn’t real
Ohhh yesss. Pump those 4 hours of quality content into my veins.
Yes! Well said! ❤😂I agree
@@LEM19284 ❤
The most fascinating for me by far is the scientific evidence segments - to often the expert have nothing more than their subjective opinions that they think "this is not in the style of", or "not as good as" and seem to revel in giving absolute statements instead of just admitting that they can't be absolutely sure and the trust in their opinions is way to high specially when they can't give objective evidence to their subjective opinions.
I don't understand when Henry was on the back and the Christie's number was on the back I just wonder if somebody was trying to save face. In my opinion it's a Gainesboro and the other one is a fake
Agreed. The Giorgio de Chirico still life is a prime example of this. Rejected 30-odd years ago by one member of the committee who didn’t think de Chirico painted walnuts… and now when presented with a dossier that includes several examples of de Chirico still lifes featuring nuts - not to mention scientific analysis revealing the very unusual ingredients of oil and honey in the tempera as well as proof that it was painted on a board from before 1950 - and the current committee rejects it simply because in their estimation it just isn’t good enough to be by de Chirico!?!
@@nerdbot37
I did an image search for Giorgio de Chirico still life paintings and he painted fruit all over the place. In bowls, neatly stacked, on a draped tablecloth, on bare wood, all kinds of ways.
Then they decide this one isn't authentic because the fruit is placed unnaturally?
They just couldn't admit they'd been wrong. So they decided to be wrong twice.
@@Cautionary_Tale_HarrisYesssss and their explanations in the letter didn’t seem to be that great. I agree, they just didn’t want to admit that they were wrong in the past because it would open them up to the possibility of being wrong for the last however many decades.
Each episode is as if i was watching crime scenes in art. Love your great and ambitious work.
Well color me pink! What a fascinating series! The algorithm played this on it's own, I usually watch medieval British documentaries....this was fantastic! Very interesting!
Glad you enjoyed it!
I love how the owners of the painting in the 2nd episode insist it is by Cosway although that would make it moneteraly less valuable. Because they appreciate this wonderful peeoneering painter and because this is what the familial identity is attached to. So so good! And a curious exploration on the nature of attribution.
Hate is such a powerful word…
@@Jcarolinajr ~ Who said hate?
The old lady was the only stubborn holdout insisting it was by the artist who was way less valuable. She sounds rich, probably grew up rich and could afford to have this painting not be valuable since she’ll soon be dead. Notice the young woman was more excited that it be a Lawrence painting-she’ll live long enough to profit from the sale of this masterpiece. Lol.
That Giorgio de Chirico is probably real. The foundation was too prideful to admit they were wrong in the 1997 evaluation.
That dude made at least twelve still-life paintings containing a walnut that the "experts" of the foundation weren't even aware of.
And then the pieces of fruit are clearly all over the place in those different paintings.
Yet they conclude it's not a real de Chirico because fruit wasn't in the correct position?
Those guys are clowns.
The Barker/Gainsborough, please tell me John still owns the painting and hasn't destroyed it! Did Barker paint over others' paintings? Did your expert have an interest in attributing the painting to Barker? How can a painting with the provenance of John's be a fake? Do you think all previous owners were duped? I really think your expert was wrong!
wow that first painting is hauntingly beautiful
Let me see if I’ve got this right. The original Constable had no provenance on the back of the painting and even when it was sold there wasn’t confirmation in the sales information that it definitely was a Constable. Yet this fake has scientific data confirming the age and the back of the painting confirms the history of the painting going back to the early 1800’s.
Something seems drastically amiss here. Or maybe the complications of attributing it too Constable is too much of a problem due to the legal implications.
Gainsborough you mean. But I totally agree. Massive conflict of interest involved. And also I felt there was far more depth in the painting style than the other one. And the providence is all there. I would want to see the other one the same research done on the other one, but apparently its missing in action.
@@AHD2105
Apologies and thanks for the correction. It just doesn’t stack up if you take a rational perspective. I think there’s an industry line you don’t cross in these circumstances because they know what the implications would be if they do what they should.
Even Philip appeared to be guarded and reluctant to state the obvious. The owner looked incredulous that no one actually asked a direct question of the so called original painting that didn’t have any provenance.
@@MarkBriers369 Yes! I'm actually disgusted. I'm starting to think their are many mistakes in claims of paintings that could cost these people a lot of money. Mostly because of advanced forensics that could cost them a lot of money in reparations. Just because they make a tv discussion of it, doesnt make them right in a court of law. And with so much money involved, this is what it should come down to. And if the other owner doesnt come forward, then they should have no licence to sell unless its proven to be an original. And these days they could likely compare DNA with the DNA on paintings they know to be painted by artists. Well idealy. I've just lost faith in these episodes now. Too many alterior motives for trying to clean up mistakes etc. Sad for those who get duped. And I hope they had on to these paintings until more advanced technology comes into being. These d cronies are protecting themselves. Imagine the cost to go back 🙄
@@MarkBriers369 sorry. In short I should've just said, there is a lot of money in determining a painting to be real or not and conflict of interest was present in this case.
@@AHD2105
Completely agree.
How can they not investigate the so called legitimate painting and put it through the same stringent tests, to justify their claims?
Probably because they’re worried it won’t tick as many boxes as the fake. Then they do have a problem and so does any experts credibility.
The presenters on the program do a great job, but it’s pretty obvious they are under instruction not to rock the boat. They know that 90% of the viewers are probably screaming at the tv, WTF.
As for that expert who made the decision. Phew! I’m surprised the owner of the painting didn’t clobber him.
Fantastic program! Discovered by accident and now I am a follower.
I don’t know if I’ll sleep tonight 😩👀i can’t stop watching
so, the guy at the end who said it wasn't a gainsborough, why?... what evidence disapproved it?... literally mounds of evidence says it IS real... i think this guy is corrupt and bought by that other guy who would've been "wrong" with his authenticated evaluation... why are we trusting either of them
💯 !!! The old expert was clearly pushed by Philip to give it his approval. With zero collaboration to the provenance - yet now they’ve found a printing that DOES have the provenance right on the back. What are we missing - it seems pretty clear they made an error here.
@@deethebee80I 100% agree!!! What are the odds that the same exact artist portrait found in another Gainsborough is behind this painting?! The other alleged real painting didn’t have any gallery markings behind it. You’re telling me there’s a huge conspiracy that years later in the late 1800s people added the various markings and tags to a fake? If I were the owner of this painting, I would have demanded a 2nd opinion, also to see if the forger has any other paintings where he painted over the same artist Gainsborough did.. lastly, if this is a fake, than certainly the painting shown in the recently published book with the re-purposed canvas had to be fake as well.. I am mad! LOL
what a wonderful couple of hours spent watching this..thank you..made my day!
It’s almost indistinguishable from the legit one, it’s just as old and done by a notable painter, and it looks great.
To me that makes it just as cool. Maybe not as valuable to a Gainsborough fan or collector, but as a survivor and a work of art it’s not too shabby.
I think it's even better because of the painting behind it and the whole story! Just wow! And just as you said, it was still done by a 17th century "faker" artist! Some of those artists paintings now have actually become quite desirable!
I wonder why they can’t showcase his art - even as someone who copied other artists - he fooled a lot of people with his talent! Tell the story!!
An absolutely fascinating investigation! I enjoyed this video so much.
If you pay the “authentication experts”, you could get them to validate a Mr. Bean painting.
The vibe of tue owners in 3th ep is the most decent vibe I've ever been exposed to
Remember, it works AGAINST the auction house to admit something is a fake. Auction houses DO profit from fakes.
The other Gainsborough painting was sold with notice to the potential buyers of its questionability. 11:00
I want a Barker of Barth painting - an affordable, almost exact replica of a Gainsborough - I’m sold!
im about 40 minutes in and thinking; You said earlier that he had to paint portraits for money and landscapes were his true passion, youre talking now about how its frustrating that so many old portraits are so similar, Perhaps he was just as frustrated with the occurance! With a passion for landscapes, down on his luck with no money to buy a fresh canvas turns to a frustrating boring old portrait and gives it new life of a joyous campfire landscape scene ! 😊
ANOTHER PORTAIT UNDER HIS PAINTINGS !! gainsbourgh has a distain for then and puts it's scapes on top mwuahhahahaha !!! It's real it's REAL
They were both on the same day yeah ?? I've felt spite before oh what a beautiful human tale
Fascinating! Worthy of great institutional support from all aspects of human valuation. I’m blessed its come my way. Praise Thou.
So happy this was uploaded . Thank you !!!!!!!!!!!!
The Lawrence Painting, 2nd video, is 1 of my 2 favorites of all of the "Fake or Fortune" shows.
"Peniston Lamb, II"
Why? Why? Why does Miss Fiona still looks so gorgeous after all these years. ❤ to be fair and respectful to who ever painted the last painting was a master no doubt as it would make a great 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle. Easy way to recoup the cost maybe, for the creative at heart. C.a.n.v.a and e.t.s.y is your way forward. Good luck.
Thank you so very much for sharing!
I believe they got it wrong this time.
What a croc on the 1st episode... that was 100% a Thomas Gainsborough painting they were investigating. Then the dude at the end just walks in without only proof and declares he "thinks" it's not a Gainsborough because stylistically lol... unbelievable and laughable lol. Poor guy has genuine Thomas Gainsborough, but some snob thinks it's fake lol.
I can see why one would go to bath as an artist. The progressive architecture is enough inspiration.
The man from the last story, was so lovely.
obviously the third 5 is covered, you can see a tiny piece of the 5
52:35
I fell asleep watching UA-cam and dreamed that a painting I had painted when I was 15 was being discussed as whether it was real or fake. I told the owners I had painted it and given it to Goodwill a long time ago. I don't know if they believed me or was disappointed to know the artist. Then, I woke up to this video. 😂
That Gainsborough is probably real, just like the Giorgio de Chirico is probably real. If there's one thing this show has illustrated, it's that the art workd hates to admit they were wrong.
Absolutely!
AGREED 😢
If it sounds like duck, walks like a duck, and looks like a duck it must be a …. Those people’s reputation were in the line and they would hate to loose it. Sad to see they can’t admit the evidence.
Admitting would meant the foundation loose reputation and artwork of Giorgio de chirico might dropped in value as the foundation that were managing the artwork of Giorgio de chirico was not informed of drawings that were sent to the Vera by Giorgio de chirico secretly. After this episode being aired, other unsigned artworks of Giorgio de chirico would surfaces and don’t think the foundation would want that to happen, thus; denied the authenticity of this fruit drawing from the start even though it might real. 😅😅😅
I hope they revisit this somehow.
Art "expert" is completely wrong. All the provenance points to it being the true Lost Gainsborough. Not his subjective feelings about the style. What a vain, pretentious, and fickle business.
I know! When he finally explained why he "felt" like it wasn't a Gainsborough because of the hesitancy of the brush strokes? I'm not an art expert but I just can't imagine devaluing that painting over one man's opinion. We've come too far to know how the art world works and how competitive these art people are. This and their hubris have destroyed the value of many pieces of art and I think that's awful
In addition the lot numbers 555N written in the book were sharp modern 5's, not characteristic of penmanship of that era.
@@jh-kv6pq now if he would've pointed that out, it may have changed my mind. Good pick up .
@@jh-kv6pq
What era are you talking about?
The 555N was from 1882, right?
Who’s to say the modern experts on the Gainsborough won’t be proven wrong in a few decades? Obviously, others have been wrong about it in the past? Just the fact that this investigation was don’t and documented will likely make the painting more valuable as time goes on regardless! Imagine someone watching this in a century or two.
The reputation hit they would take makes the authenticator massively biased, since he didn't compare or use any of the actual evidence in his judgement.
Also By saying it was not a Gainsborough they massively devalue it, probably in hopes that he will sell it for a 'high offer' based on their evaluation which could allow them to covertly acquire it for much cheaper than they otherwise would be able to if they authenticated it as real. Then they'll just say 'on further investigation this is the real one' making the value much higher and making a large profit.
Its a shame some countries cannot verify for certain the providence and if a painting is genuine or not. Being sued for being wrong is loosing big money etc. Giving a certificate of providence etc for being a genuine painting and finding out later it isnt is also why some countries wont actually certify etc. The USA doesnt I think.
It’s provenance, not providence.
Yes, they mentioned this in the Willem de Kunning episode.
The main thing this series is doing is undermining my faith in art "experts."
Ever heard of "anthropogenic climate catastrophe" expert, who like to blubber us full of nonsense on TV?
That first picture from Mark is Authentic and I do not collect Art. Beautiful....I was wrong
I believe good old Nick showed he was a good sport after discovering the true value of his painting ...He was disappointed, but it was a gamble to begin with...
Love this show!
I love this show! It shows how one is able to distinguish fake from real! Thank you for your show! Love the intro music as well!
fiona bruce would be such a good screw
My God! It's my dream job!!!! It's soooo exciting!!!
this why I hate this show. All the evidence points to it being a Gainsborough and yet one dude says its not and all the evidence goes out the window..
So, you don't understand how science works. That's hardly the show's fault.
The Gainsborough decision wasn’t made by objective logic, it was one man’s subjective interpretation.
Perfekt duko ,thangs,key iß th🎉😂❤e
Let's buy those artworks with the scientific attributes and wait the feely authenticators out
Agreed, reminded me of the old nerds that so called disprove newly found polik works. A dumb accent and an opinion.
I prefer the dahl potrait she is very beautiful...😊
I loved the bankrupt couple and the happy ending!
I love your watercolors for your client, too, and also your house portrait!
What I’ve come to realize from watching these shows is the art world is really a world of self preservation and the almighty dollar. I’m not surprised but I’m always suspicious/disappointed when everything points to a work of art being authentic but the experts either won’t acknowledge it or completely dismiss it.
Wow this one was a real roller coaster! Thanks! I love these shows.
Roller coaster? It’s called writing and editing. Faked just as much as a forger
It could never be the real deal, phil had worked for another some 20 years before.
That painting disappeared and they will not let them see or test it. So maybe that one is false and well they must have paid a fortune, maybe for Barker of Bath.
I believe in the Peniston Lamb portrait, the third was Lawrence. But, the fourth I strongly believe could be a post mortem Cosway.
It is a De Chirico, they didn't want to admit their mistake
I think it was a Gainsborough!
2:02:18 money money, when people spend, things get serious 😉 (super video, my congratulations)
It IS a beautiful piece! I'd be happy to display and look at it.
omg this is so frustrating, everything is saying this is real!!!!... why don't they get the painting that was "authenticated" and do all this research on it to disprove it's authentication!!!
They don’t know who has it. It’s in a private collection and most of these people don’t want to reveal themselves
Let's say you bought an authenticated painting for £100,000.
Then someone says, "We want to authenticate your painting, again."
You either say, "No, thank you, my painting has already been authenticated." It's still valued at £100,000.
Or,
You say, "Sure." However, once the results come back, your painting will either be worth £100,000, or Nothing.
My point is, the current owner of the other "authenticated" painting has nothing to gain and everything to lose.
Good show, another you tube discovery!
Damn that rogue Barker of Bath. Fantastic episode just the same.
Oh I love your channel............................
Up at 4a.m fascinating!
100 years later... It is A Thomas Gainsborough! Surprice!!
I think artists should never copy another painting. I get requests to do so, and I always refuse. It's an affront to me. We live in such beauty, no reason to copy.
why? its good for studying and practicing. of course you shouldnt sell it,or vlaim it as original but its fine and sometimes fun to just copy a picture
The question that was never adressed is, was the Barker of Bath also in the habit of re-using old canvasses? In my humble opinion the evidence for this painting being the lost Gainsborough is much more convincing than the 1999 painting.
This is just too cool!
For decades on TV, crime shows have made it look like many dozens of young college types seem to dash off tons of "copies" of masterpieces as easily as today's kids use photoshop. I always thought this was a wild exaggeration that these young slobs could just turn out these fakes at the drop of a hat. One would have to be even better than the masters themselves in order to recreate fakes by scratch. But after seeing this show, I must admit that there are (or were) more fakers around than I thought.
Let me guess another 5 under the sticker lol
1:21:00 (the state/preservation of the proposed Lawrence Paintung) Even on a Video, the portrait comes across as: Fresh, the Light areas on his face suggesting his youthful vigor, the Artist relays this, and it's like you can smell the freshness, the breeze that brings the soap and cologne of a young man, just arriving at an event.
As well as any great photograph captures a moment/second in t8me, this Artist delivered that second from the latter 1700's to us in the 21st Century, like no other painting 8r artifact from that eea, or that I've seen, ftom any other latter eras.
That Gainsborough is the original!! No question.
Wow Peniston Lamb painting is awesome just comparing the technique you can tell the artist, her painting fell apart his stayed perfect wow i didnt’t know that awesome revelation
so, gainsbury can't paint over another painting?... mayb they should xray some other gainsbury paintings and see if they have been so... also, they have a letter that he was hard up... i'm not trusting this guy
1:48:57 is it me? Or does Mary Boyle look like Mr. Bean's great great grandmother?
Now you’ve said it… I can’t unsee it!!
Does look like Mr. Bean but I also see Tony Robinson in that face.
I agree with many people in the comments. I think the Gainsborough is the original. It has such a better paper trail. I hope he can change their opinions someday
You certainly need to listen to Water ,Truth or Dare ,Jump ,Been Thinking and On My Body.Tyla is going to be Huge
The Gainsborough is the real thing. The previous one was re-lined with new stretcher and this one has the original frame with matching provenance. They were wrong.
So, is it attributed to the Baker of Bath? And, One other question not explored is Did the Baker of Bath have the need to paint over anything at all, and especially a Michael Dahl portrait? They explained Bath used a Dark primer. Further Examination of Dahls work to show he did this would be more convincing to me than a last minute critique on the technique being forced rather than Gainsborough's flowing...
also there only seems to be reference to art that was owned by others which is rather misleading making others to assume artist never owned or kept any of their own work and of course work becoming contraband in war and sieges
Amazing…!
This is interesting and all, but if I had the time, I would go through and tally all of the redundancies. Omg, this could have been 1/10th the length and given the same information. I just don’t understand why it took 4 hours.
This Olivia Bensen is amazing
The art world is very corrupt.
brilliant guest with great hair