posted on September 28, 2000 12:28:15 PM
I like this analysis:
Computers make dispassionate digital decisions based upon facts not subjective opinions. Computers are not influenced by social pressures nor by any vested interests. Computers do not own paintings that they would like to see attributed to a certain artists. The person who is paying for the research can not place a computer under pressure to make different decisions. In this fashion, computers become the perfect arbitrator of facts and administrator of judgements. The decision was made to adopt the philosophy of conservatism. It was necessary for the painting to establish beyond doubt that it was the work of the designated artist. Nothing was attributed to any artist unless the data provided conclusively it was by the hand of that artist.
That quote comes from http://www.veritus.com/scndtier/objectiv.htm. They talk and touch on paint chemical analysis, paint buildup, color palette, etc, and then, it seems that the main body of their stuff is about digital brushstroke analysis.
An additional limitation of the technology concerns paintings that are badly damaged or over-painted. At present, we are not able to obtain precise enough images for our purposes from radiation technologies. Therefore, it is not possible to reliably authenticate in areas that have been over-painted.
Now, I assume, that "over-painted" means too much paint, but I would also assume, that a painting, which has another painting under it, would be "over-painted", as it has two layers of paint.. such as in Yellow Roses.
They have examples of what they look for in correct attributions and classic misattributions and although it's a bit of complex reading it is very interesting. That information can be found here:http://www.veritus.com/scndtier/data01.htm
For reference, the copyright date on these pages is 1995 and the domain shows to be registered to someone in Zurich.
edited for UBB
[ edited by rosiebud on Sep 28, 2000 12:28 PM ]
posted on September 28, 2000 12:44:14 PMHCQ: Maybe you should e-mail your "contact" at OldandSold and ask her why, exactly, they decided to not only suddenly end the auction early but also to completely delete any reference of it from their site? Was it because the owner pulled the auction? Or was it because Ms. Rewald threatened to sue them?
Not that I really expect them to tell you anything, but it wouldn't hurt to ask....
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on September 28, 2000 12:47:12 PM
NJRAZD wrote:
>>And I really have to laugh that OAS would be so gullible as to have accepted and been excited about this listing.<<
I'm not personally convinced OAS was gullible about anything -- well, except for the notion that their principles and minions that they could come here (or anywhere, ultimately) and bamboozle people or that they had the intellectual cajones to carry on (or just support) a deceit of this nature.
Ya'll need to review their posts. They were NOT the posts of disinterested parties. NOT the posts of an internet site that's *just a venue.* IMO the posts revealed the strong probabillity of a far more, let's say, personal involvement on their part.
Was it JUST the threat of loss of commission and/or even loss of so-called reputation that made them defend the seller and the painting itself to the extent they did? Made them personalize everything said in this forum about the painting and its provenance> Made them lots less interested in the direct questions and concerns about OAS's integrity? Personally, I think not. Of course, there's no hard evidence to support my suspicions that OAS's involvement was a little more than *just [as] a venue.*
For me, there's a big piece of the puzzle missing , and it has to do with OAS's ACTUAL involvement with the owner and/or the painting and whether or not that involvement goes beyond listing fees and commissions, as I suspect it does.
I just can't imagine any other auction site, or for that matter 99.9% of all businesspeople, going to the legnths they did to defend something that wasn't even theirs to defend.
posted on September 28, 2000 01:00:40 PM
Clevergirl,
I think I want to believe, that OAS was defending it's reputation. I agree, that their representatives, by coming into the forum, no longer made OAS's position, that of a venue.
Desperately wanting to believe something (a VanGogh auction could bring lots of traffic/attention to their site as well as the $ it would give them to expand their site) and being handed (emailed ??) many different pieces of evidence (the many documents that were posted on the auction), may blind somebody to what could possibly be the truth.
I'm not really positive where flowblue2, lagoldie, VGYRowner, etc come into the picture. There's no verifiable proof that they're from OAS or the owner (they could just be trolls, if so, they did a heck of a job!)
So, to sum it up, I think OAS was just defending it's reputation and was blinded by what such an auction could bring to them, and all our talking here at AW, meant nothing because it was not backed up with proof, at least until the very end.
My first email to OAS was on September 3, asking questions about the provenance. They forwarded my questions to seller, and forwarded his answers back to me.
In his answer he said he was "wrong" about who gave Brown the painting. All he said he knew was that in 1890 Brown got 3 paintings from "somebody". OAS read this email even before I got it . It had proof on September 4 that the seller himself admitted the story in the auction was untrue. Yet the Brown story remained in the auction, unedited, until 9/11 - halfway through the auction period.
I emailed OAS several times during the auction period, pointing them to this board and suggesting that they were treading on thin ice with the auction. All I got was a response that they are "new at this," were "working with the seller", and hoped that we wouldn't forget the other 800 items on the site.
We know that theshar was posting here for most of the auction period. Yet even after Twilley's "statement" was posted on 9/14 - right up until the auction was pulled - the auction description repeatedly described his analysis as being from LACMA.
When I reported the OAS rep's statements here, I received an email from her on 9/11 saying she wanted to talk to me on the phone to "clear things up" and to give me the "facts" about the painting. I told her I believed it best that we should have records of our statements and wanted to communicate by email. She refused, complaining that I'd "unprofessionally" reported her statements here; then - and only then - did she complain to AW that I'd named her personally and (unintentionally, believe me) violated the CGs. (Come on, she's the company representative, for crying out loud.)
All the while, theshar continued to post here, identifying herself as an OAS principal and working herself up into such a lather that on 9/20 I decided to give the OAS rep another heads-up about her own boss's behavior. Three minutes after I noted my intention to do so, theshar deleted her posts. The OAS rep said she'd take a look at what had been been stated on the message boards. theshar had been watching all along.
One AW party posted on OAS's own message board, pointing out the serious questions in the painting's provenance. Within 2 hours, that post was pulled from OAS's message board. It did, however, leave messages from other parties which argued in favor of the shaky provenance.
And right up until the last minute, OAS's public relations and marketing representative (?!) posted here, again and again, defending the seller, defending OAS, and berating and outright threatening those who dared question the actions and motives of OAS and the seller.
Uninformed? Gullible?
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 28, 2000 01:40 PM ]
posted on September 28, 2000 01:33:20 PM
For those of us late turning on email were the deleted posts by theshar just invective or was there any information in them?
posted on September 28, 2000 01:52:45 PM
I was hoping THESHAR would be mentioned again as I had an unasked question for her. She denied that any of the posters except her were in the employ of OAS. I took her at her word and let it pass. Since then I realized that if they weren't affiliated with OAS, she had then observed complete strangers (pro and con) thoroughly besmirching the reputation of her house of business by dragging it through the mire and muck of this vigorous debate.
Yet, she never issued the typical canned statement such as "Statements made by OWNERVGYR, lagoldie, et. al. represent their own viewpoints and do not necessarily reflect the views of OAS or its... yadda yadda." Pretty odd behavior for the house PR rep.
posted on September 28, 2000 02:07:47 PM
Prudence, I didn't have my email on at that time either, but I'm fairly positive that the deleted posts contained no information. If I'm wrong, someone please correct me.
posted on September 28, 2000 02:27:53 PM
Funny that lagoldie writes in the same style as "Weldon Fargo" (no joke), the party who emailed me yesterday for Ms. Rewald's correspondence. Unfortunately I tracked the emails down to an "investment" company on Wilshire Boulevard - which appears to have an unlisted phone number. Gee, they're not going to get many investors that way, are they?
posted on September 28, 2000 02:55:53 PM
Hey, it's all in the California incorporation info. (The contact person for the corporation is female - not a name I recognize....yet.)
And obviously great minds think alike, rosie[b] and [b]cooltom - abacaxi has a similar theory.
posted on September 28, 2000 03:07:44 PM
CleverGirl...you could be right. I was giving them the benefit of the doubt in that the site itself would have been on the up and up. The majority of the items listed on the site are small potatoes compared to a possible Van Gogh work. I really think they were counting on this to put them on the map.
However, it's obvious there is much, much more to this than meets the eye.
Sung to the tune of "Paper Roses"
Yellow Roses, Yellow Roses,
Oh how real those roses seem to me.
But they're only imitation.
Like the letters, it's a forgery!
******************
That's Flunky Gerbiltush to you!
posted on September 28, 2000 03:29:37 PM
Zounds! I nearly used the analogy of the La Brea Tar Pits for the main locked thread (rather than a bug in amber). That location is on Wilshire Blvd, isn't it? Nearly physic again, missed my chance. (Tar Pits at 5800 Wilshire, is that getting warm?) No, no, don't post the full address, just if I'm "warm".
posted on September 28, 2000 03:29:58 PM
Here's something for you to ruminate on while I make chicken pie for Val. It's a glowing review of the OAS site in The Tattler, which is an antiques digest, and talks about how wonderful its PR person is Anyway, note in particular the last sentence in paragraph 5:
'Member this text from the original "Yellow Roses" listing? (Go to the top of this thread - I think it's switch that found the original version and has zipped it up for general amusement.)
She gave three paintings to Molly Brown for her wedding in 1890: a Van Gogh, a Cezanne watercolor and a painting by Manet....We will be offering another painting of an artist who is equally important, which was one of several purchased by the owner's grandmother.
Could not get the url to work. You will have to cut and paste. It is about a Cezanne once owned by Emile Zola and Molly Brown. Or was this already mentioned?
posted on September 28, 2000 05:50:46 PM
You had put "a Cezanne watercolor" in bold, and I wasn't sure why, so I did a three word search: Cezanne and the owner's name (in quotes). There it was, all by itself.
posted on September 28, 2000 07:15:09 PM
Just received this email from our friend who yesterday was doing "research":
"If you think that the INV stands for Investment, you are dumber than your site. We have a copy of the letter written by Mrs. Rewald and she never said the letter was a fake. We just gather information, and you gave it all to us with your e-mails. We WILL see you in court, along with sleuthing friends.
Love and Kisses
Weldon Fargo"
Edited to add: My guess is that he's cobbled together a bogus email using header info from a response from Ms. Rewald and from me. He's already bent her ear and LACMA's ear insisting the "Rewald letter" and the "LACMA analysis" are genuine, so why should I miss out on the fun?
Frankly I was getting a bit insulted it took him this long to threaten me personally I guess the "crow" remark pushed him over the edge...
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 28, 2000 07:44 PM ]
Anyway, note in particular the last sentence in paragraph 5: