There is also the portrait said to be of Beatrice D' Este which portrays the same sitter in all probability which was painted by Ambrogio da Predis, which looks very similar to this coloured drawing. Ambrogio was an assistant and collaborator of Leonardo at this time, which further connects this drawing to Leonardo or his workshop! sttgaegoaktd
This beautiful picture was created by Shaun Greenhalgh in Bolton, England in 1978 on a piece of Vellum from a land deed dated 1587. He sanded down the writing on the 'flesh side' which he then decided looked too new and clean for a work of antiquity, so he did the drawing on the wrong side - the fur side - which no land deed scribe nor artist would ordinarily use. That is the reason for the drawing being on the wrong side of the vellum. Yet, executing the picture on the 'wrong' side of the vellum is seen by incurable romantics as evidence of Leonardo who was an 'experimental' genius. Only he would do such a thing. Only him, or perhaps an amateur who wasn't a genius but who liked the look of old things, and tried to reproduce such antiquary but did so inexactly. There would be no reasonable explanation why Leonardo would sand down the 'flesh' side with 600 grade sandpaper, the abrasions from which would still be irrefutably evident on the verso. So the claim could very easily be checked. As for the identity of the sitter Greenhalgh gave a clue in his title for the work: "Bossy Sally from the Co-op" - she was a checkout girl at the supermarket where he worked. He also lightly traced the profile onto the vellum in graphite and there ought to be evidence of that too. He sold the picture to a dealer in Harrogate, Yorkshire in late 1978 for less money than the time he spent creating the piece was worth. He neither claimed it to be a Leonardo nor anything else, leaving that up to the creative mind of the dealer. The 'left-handedness' that most people are convinced is evidence of Leonardo is explained by Greenhalgh - a right-hander - in extraordinarily revelatory terms ironically consistent with the eureka-moment demystification of the enlightenment period - he simply turned the piece 90 degrees counter-clockwise for the hatching and another 90 degrees counter-clockwise (so that the portrait was upside down) for the cross-hatching. The left-handed palm print, which is at the top right and inverted, is consistent with a right-hander inverting the picture to cross-hatch as if the picture were done by a left hander. This palm print is also verifiable against Greenhalgh's claim. The fact that the trois crayon technique was unknown to anyone other than Leonardo in Italy in 1495 when the fashion in the picture was at its peak, could either be evidence that Leonardo did the picture in 1495, or evidence that Greenhalgh liked both the trois crayon technique and 15th century Milan fashions, and combined the two despite their combination being wholly historically inaccurate. There is a simple answer to this mystery. Only one of the two men is alive and making a claim that can be checked. Check it. Martin Kemp has described Greenhalgh as "hilarious and ridiculous" - he also suggests his claim is nothing but the seeking of media attention. He dismisses Greenhalgh as a convicted forger and therefore not worthy of attention. Yet the evidence is as plain as the nose on your face. Just look at Kemp and then look at Greenhalgh. Kemp dyes his hair and wears rather gaudy clothing, he has a reputation to uphold and evidently a somewhat grandiose sense of self. In short, he has quite an ego. Greenhalgh, by stark contrast, is the most unassuming character it's possible to imagine, living with his parents well into middle-age, and remaining incredibly insular and shy, unprepossessing and unkempt. He clearly cannot abide the limelight, and would rather stay out of it. What's more, he has no horse in this race. There is no reason for him to make his claim except, as he says, to avoid the shame and the guilt he would feel should a public institution pay the £150 million price tag for a work he did in the shed at the bottom of his garden. If Greenhalgh were indeed uncharacteristically seeking publicity, then it would be incredibly easy for Kemp and Silverman (the owner) to prove Greenhalgh wrong by checking for sandpaper abrasions on the verso. There is also a smudged ink blot on the Victorian oak school desk lid that Greenhalgh used for the panel, and they could check out the cabinetmaker's glue he used to mount the vellum onto this panel. That Silverman and Kemp choose not to pursue these avenues which, should Greenhalgh be proved right, would absolutely disprove beyond doubt that the piece is not a Leonardo, says more about Kemp and Silverman's desperate desire for the Leonardo attribution to be accepted (Silverman for financial and Kemp for reputational reasons) than it does about Shaun Greenhalgh's desperation for media attention. As his only know ceramic statue, Gauguin's faun caused a great frenzy in the art world, until it was revealed to be the work of Greenhalgh, to say nothing of the Amarna Princess. Greenhalgh has form. He did time for his crimes. He is not a publicity seeker but a chronic wallflower. He has no axe to grind; no profit to gain; no possible reason for sticking his head above the parapet and making the claim, except to warn public institutions against wasting the contents of the public coffers on a piece of no historical value. As his sole motive that makes absolute sense. No other explanation seems credible. His claim ought therefore to be considered at least possibly credible. If he claims to have done the piece he ought to be taken seriously... unless of course such a truth would be uncomfortable for those like Kemp and Silverman with reputations and investments to lose. Until this work is checked on the verso and found not to have 600 grade sandpaper abrasions, it should be considered a 1978 portrait by Shaun Greenhalgh of 'Bossy Sally from the Co-op' done on the wrong side of land deed vellum from 1587. Everyone should take off their blinkers and look at the evidence. The physical record of the modern provenance of this picture dates back to 1998. How the absolute eff could anyone attribute a picture with zero record beyond the last 20 years to any single artist from 500 years ago, not least Leonardo, without a massive dollop of wishful thinking? Marchig claims to have inherited the piece from her husband at his death in 1983, 5 years after Greenhalgh claims to have created it. That fits. Giannino Marchig had been an old master restorer. It would be entirely reasonable to suggest that he may have come across a piece that he thought was interesting, bought it, restored it, and died never having had any intention of claiming it was a piece of any significance. That fits. The idea that somehow a Leonardo of such extraordinary preservation, and of such a pretty subject, done on the wrong side of vellum, explicable only by the fact that only Leonardo would use the wrong side because he was a genius, is not credible. The fact that the book was cut down and rebound is not proof that therefore the picture must have been taken out prior to the book's rebinding and reshaping. This is like saying that there is no writing in the sand because the tide came in, therefore before the tide came in there must have been writing in the sand. It means nothing. The tide is not evidence that there was ever any writing. That something might have happened is not evidence that it did. The facts that the trois crayon technique is wrong for the fashion of the period, or that the wrong side of the vellum was used, are not evidence of Leonardo's genius any more than they are evidence of someone else's mistakes. Kemp claims that it is the accumulation of otherwise inconclusive singular 'evidence' that counts. But the accumulation of false logic does not equate to logic. It is like Kemp is hammering a jigsaw piece into the wrong puzzle. There are far too many faults in his case. The use of Occam's razor rather points to this being a screaming fake. Why won't he check the presence of sandpaper abrasions on the verso? The simple answer would be that he'd have nothing to gain. If there are no abrasions that does not advance his claim. But if there are abrasions it completely scuppers it. The very fact that he won't entertain the idea is proof that he is concerned less with the truth than his own reputation. His dyed hair is an in-your-face indication of his ego overriding his sense of reality. Check the verso. For what it's worth, I love this picture. I'd just like people to appreciate it for what it is, and not what they want it to be. It is "Bossy Sally from the Co-op" - and how fantastic is that?
Leonardo 🙏A genius of geniuses ,multitasker ,a self learner 🙏
what is the book name
10:57 Is there any possibility that the illumination could also be drawn by Da Vinci?
There is also the portrait said to be of Beatrice D' Este which portrays the same sitter in all probability which was painted by Ambrogio da Predis, which looks very similar to this coloured drawing. Ambrogio was an assistant and collaborator of Leonardo at this time, which further connects this drawing to Leonardo or his workshop!
sttgaegoaktd
This beautiful picture was created by Shaun Greenhalgh in Bolton, England in 1978 on a piece of Vellum from a land deed dated 1587.
He sanded down the writing on the 'flesh side' which he then decided looked too new and clean for a work of antiquity, so he did the drawing on the wrong side - the fur side - which no land deed scribe nor artist would ordinarily use.
That is the reason for the drawing being on the wrong side of the vellum.
Yet, executing the picture on the 'wrong' side of the vellum is seen by incurable romantics as evidence of Leonardo who was an 'experimental' genius.
Only he would do such a thing.
Only him, or perhaps an amateur who wasn't a genius but who liked the look of old things, and tried to reproduce such antiquary but did so inexactly.
There would be no reasonable explanation why Leonardo would sand down the 'flesh' side with 600 grade sandpaper, the abrasions from which would still be irrefutably evident on the verso.
So the claim could very easily be checked.
As for the identity of the sitter Greenhalgh gave a clue in his title for the work: "Bossy Sally from the Co-op" - she was a checkout girl at the supermarket where he worked.
He also lightly traced the profile onto the vellum in graphite and there ought to be evidence of that too.
He sold the picture to a dealer in Harrogate, Yorkshire in late 1978 for less money than the time he spent creating the piece was worth. He neither claimed it to be a Leonardo nor anything else, leaving that up to the creative mind of the dealer.
The 'left-handedness' that most people are convinced is evidence of Leonardo is explained by Greenhalgh - a right-hander - in extraordinarily revelatory terms ironically consistent with the eureka-moment demystification of the enlightenment period - he simply turned the piece 90 degrees counter-clockwise for the hatching and another 90 degrees counter-clockwise (so that the portrait was upside down) for the cross-hatching. The left-handed palm print, which is at the top right and inverted, is consistent with a right-hander inverting the picture to cross-hatch as if the picture were done by a left hander.
This palm print is also verifiable against Greenhalgh's claim.
The fact that the trois crayon technique was unknown to anyone other than Leonardo in Italy in 1495 when the fashion in the picture was at its peak, could either be evidence that Leonardo did the picture in 1495, or evidence that Greenhalgh liked both the trois crayon technique and 15th century Milan fashions, and combined the two despite their combination being wholly historically inaccurate. There is a simple answer to this mystery. Only one of the two men is alive and making a claim that can be checked. Check it.
Martin Kemp has described Greenhalgh as "hilarious and ridiculous" - he also suggests his claim is nothing but the seeking of media attention.
He dismisses Greenhalgh as a convicted forger and therefore not worthy of attention.
Yet the evidence is as plain as the nose on your face.
Just look at Kemp and then look at Greenhalgh.
Kemp dyes his hair and wears rather gaudy clothing, he has a reputation to uphold and evidently a somewhat grandiose sense of self. In short, he has quite an ego.
Greenhalgh, by stark contrast, is the most unassuming character it's possible to imagine, living with his parents well into middle-age, and remaining incredibly insular and shy, unprepossessing and unkempt. He clearly cannot abide the limelight, and would rather stay out of it.
What's more, he has no horse in this race.
There is no reason for him to make his claim except, as he says, to avoid the shame and the guilt he would feel should a public institution pay the £150 million price tag for a work he did in the shed at the bottom of his garden.
If Greenhalgh were indeed uncharacteristically seeking publicity, then it would be incredibly easy for Kemp and Silverman (the owner) to prove Greenhalgh wrong by checking for sandpaper abrasions on the verso.
There is also a smudged ink blot on the Victorian oak school desk lid that Greenhalgh used for the panel, and they could check out the cabinetmaker's glue he used to mount the vellum onto this panel.
That Silverman and Kemp choose not to pursue these avenues which, should Greenhalgh be proved right, would absolutely disprove beyond doubt that the piece is not a Leonardo, says more about Kemp and Silverman's desperate desire for the Leonardo attribution to be accepted (Silverman for financial and Kemp for reputational reasons) than it does about Shaun Greenhalgh's desperation for media attention.
As his only know ceramic statue, Gauguin's faun caused a great frenzy in the art world, until it was revealed to be the work of Greenhalgh, to say nothing of the Amarna Princess.
Greenhalgh has form.
He did time for his crimes.
He is not a publicity seeker but a chronic wallflower.
He has no axe to grind; no profit to gain; no possible reason for sticking his head above the parapet and making the claim, except to warn public institutions against wasting the contents of the public coffers on a piece of no historical value.
As his sole motive that makes absolute sense.
No other explanation seems credible.
His claim ought therefore to be considered at least possibly credible.
If he claims to have done the piece he ought to be taken seriously... unless of course such a truth would be uncomfortable for those like Kemp and Silverman with reputations and investments to lose.
Until this work is checked on the verso and found not to have 600 grade sandpaper abrasions, it should be considered a 1978 portrait by Shaun Greenhalgh of 'Bossy Sally from the Co-op' done on the wrong side of land deed vellum from 1587.
Everyone should take off their blinkers and look at the evidence.
The physical record of the modern provenance of this picture dates back to 1998.
How the absolute eff could anyone attribute a picture with zero record beyond the last 20 years to any single artist from 500 years ago, not least Leonardo, without a massive dollop of wishful thinking?
Marchig claims to have inherited the piece from her husband at his death in 1983, 5 years after Greenhalgh claims to have created it. That fits.
Giannino Marchig had been an old master restorer. It would be entirely reasonable to suggest that he may have come across a piece that he thought was interesting, bought it, restored it, and died never having had any intention of claiming it was a piece of any significance. That fits.
The idea that somehow a Leonardo of such extraordinary preservation, and of such a pretty subject, done on the wrong side of vellum, explicable only by the fact that only Leonardo would use the wrong side because he was a genius, is not credible.
The fact that the book was cut down and rebound is not proof that therefore the picture must have been taken out prior to the book's rebinding and reshaping. This is like saying that there is no writing in the sand because the tide came in, therefore before the tide came in there must have been writing in the sand. It means nothing. The tide is not evidence that there was ever any writing. That something might have happened is not evidence that it did.
The facts that the trois crayon technique is wrong for the fashion of the period, or that the wrong side of the vellum was used, are not evidence of Leonardo's genius any more than they are evidence of someone else's mistakes. Kemp claims that it is the accumulation of otherwise inconclusive singular 'evidence' that counts. But the accumulation of false logic does not equate to logic.
It is like Kemp is hammering a jigsaw piece into the wrong puzzle. There are far too many faults in his case. The use of Occam's razor rather points to this being a screaming fake. Why won't he check the presence of sandpaper abrasions on the verso? The simple answer would be that he'd have nothing to gain. If there are no abrasions that does not advance his claim. But if there are abrasions it completely scuppers it. The very fact that he won't entertain the idea is proof that he is concerned less with the truth than his own reputation. His dyed hair is an in-your-face indication of his ego overriding his sense of reality.
Check the verso.
For what it's worth, I love this picture. I'd just like people to appreciate it for what it is, and not what they want it to be. It is "Bossy Sally from the Co-op" - and how fantastic is that?