FAKE OR FORTUNE SE7EO2 NICHOLASON
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ส.ค. 2018
- Fiona Bruce teams up with art expert Philip Mould to investigate mysteries behind paintings.Can the team prove that a beautiful still life of a glass jug and pears is the work of celebrated British artist William Nicholson? The investigation began when viewer Lyn got in touch to ask for our help - a painting she owns recently suffered a fatal blow when it was rejected by the leading authority on William Nicholson and was left out of the artist's latest catalogue raisonnee - the official list of all his known worksAs the team delve back into the provenance of the painting, they come across an alarming find - could this painting have been involved in one of the great art crimes of the 20th century? Fiona meets reformed art forger John Myatt to find out if he ever faked a Nicholson.
- ภาพยนตร์และแอนิเมชัน
Wow. Why would Nicholson title someone else's work though? Sounds like Ms. Reed is too embarrassed to correct her mistake and is willing to rob that woman and art world to maintain her pride.
Agreed
Exactly
Text is little enough that someone can have duplicated the handwriting. It wouldn't be the first time that a painting done by a friend or student of a master painter later got "signed" by a forger. If you think about it, a forger without real painting talent would precisely be on the hunt for such paintings to apply a signature and forge provenance. What would have been interesting is if they could have pushed the investigation to see if it could have been done by one of those students.
@@philippenachtergal6077 But the thumb print was done when the white was still wet.
Agreed!
To reject this painting based on overwhelming evidence to the contrary is inexplicable. Reed is clearly trying to salvage her reputation here but in so doing has ultimately destroyed it.
I had the same exact thought. Thank you for voicing this.
agreed. what student would sign their painting as their teacher's? Arrogance.
This whole scenario struck me as a petty vengeance, especially considering the previous authority was a family member of the owner.
My comment on that very subject:
*The Art World recognizes the greater truths, and I would suspect that individual, exercising their Power, may have well sealed their own Faux ...*
An Ego stands between fact and one's inability to discern their own inability to admit error.
That's the "Human reality that requires Maturing", and this is what's relative to all our own experiencing harmony.
a Sociologist/Behavioralist
and Historian
She is acting like a French. All these other English people are dismantling her in real-time though. Her career is on thin ice.
She better hope she is funneling enough money through certified sales by Christie’s, Southerby’s,whoever, to the Nicholason trust or estate or whatever it is, for the keep up. (Of the paying-offs and the open corruption we’re all so used to seeing in this day & age.)
Because that is the only way her position could possibly be maintained after this sledgehammer diagram has been applied to her “opinion”.
The idea that a student of Nicholson picked up an old canvas from Nicholson's paint box and then painted the same scene and then signed Nicholson's name on it is ABSURD and LUDICROUS! I think Fake or Fortune have established themselves as the new Catalog Raisoné.
Reed is no more an expert than Lyn's aunt was. As it stands there are two experts with differing opinions. In this instance, the physical facts are enough to prove it to be genuine. Show me his student's works with the same scratch marks, identical signature, and his writing on the back. The answer, you won't find any. Did Churchill sign his works as Nicholson? No. Did Churchill copy Nicholson's scratch technique? Not that I've seen. Artists have their own techniques to set them apart from their contemporaries. Therefore, Nicholson wouldn't have allowed a student to copy his signature or technique. We inspire others to find their own style and branding. This piece is not amateur. The artist responsible is highly skilled. When Nicholson and Churchill painted together, their individual painting styles and techniques are distinguishable and obvious. They were not copying one another.
If Reed truly believes what she's saying, versus doing her best to save face, then the authenticity of the other painting "jug and fruit" is now suspect. It's my opinion, they were both painted by Nicholson. He was either simply trying his hand at abstract after painting the original, or was commissioned to paint the abstract version after someone saw the Glass Jug paint.
I don't know of any artist who's sighed another artist's work. Let along allowed another artist copy their signature. All the evidence is there for another expert to give the painting a seal of approval. After all, her aunt had done so years before. Furthermore, had another artist painted the picture, they certainly would have signed it themselves! Reed simply refuses to accept responsibility for her own ill judgement. I would sue Reed for the lost value of the picture. After all, the evidence speaks for itself. Many artists experiment with techniques. Hence several works in different styles of the same or similar subject matter. Reed can not definitely say this picture is not authentic. Many "experts" and institutions have been duped or wrong time and time again. Many works have been accepted on much less physical evidence. Unless there is a 110% verifiable catalogue of all his works, written in by the artist,, nobody, with the amount of verified proof in favor of this picture, can say with certainty this is not one of his painting.
If we were to take Reed's decision as fact rather than opinion, we'd have grounds to wipe out the value of 1000's of works. I will say it again, no artist would allow a student to sign the work in their style. Certainly not with the same initial. The same initial and his own handwriting on the back is too coincidental.
Reed's decision has infuriated me. It is "expert's" like Reed who've thrown away true masterpieces. Masterpieces later deemed genuine.
Cheers!
To play devil's advocate..... the picture went through the notorious forger of provenance gallery. He would have the eye and knowledge to have seen the thumb print under signature in known works. Easily applied at a later date to a "school of" work
That being said why would the diamond dealer buy the picture pre 1970s without the signature?
Would love to see a follow up series as to what the status of limbo pictures is
Yes, in light of the evidence, I thought her reasoning a bit imbecilic.
Very well said I totally agree
Agree totally. Greetings from an educated artist.
She is absolutely corrupt. I guess the family assigns her to gatekeeping somehow. She must coordinate sales through the auction houses and everyone is happy with their role in the payola. I like the point you’ve made about the Canadian water jug. She better throw that one out of her next catalogue, lol!
(some one’s gona come at her with a hockey stick)
When she refused to deliver her verdict in person, I knew what she had decided. She couldn't show her face, in light of all the evidence she was dismissing to reach her conclusion
how does one person hold such power over a painting to say its authentic or not is just ridiculous
That's what I find so incredible - that one single person, with their ego, motivations, and imperfections could actually be allowed to hold that kind of power! It's ridiculous. I think the painting in question is NICER than the one in the Canadian gallery. I like the light in it better. It feels like the Canadian one is him returning to an old subject to play with it, maybe influenced by his son's work in abstraction.
@@VisionaryGardener Agreed! Oh, and well done! I think you may have something there (father influenced by son)!
One day someone else will be in her position and your evidence is on the record
Totally agree. 😢
Agree
I don't think this is the last we will hear about this painting somehow !
This was an open and shut case, that painting is a 100% genuine Nicholason, the evidence for it is overwhelming. It's also a fantastic painting, To hell with Ms. Reed.
I think it is a much more beautiful painting than the ''real'' Nicholson. I would prefer to have this one on my wall than the other !
@@karens5904 And who says an artist can't do more than one version of the same painting? Other artists do it all the time. Ms. Reed should know that.
Devin Devon: You hit the nail, dear. Love from Southern Europe. Thanks a lot.
The Canada painting could be by Churchill.
Miss Reed don't understand about art neither Nicholson art work.
That person don't deserve so much trust or prestige it's a walking failure with no brain.
Such blatant arrogance by Patricia Reed by supposedly expert person refusing too admit that she got it wrong ... Ridiculous
And they all stick together...
You hit the nail on the head. She refuses to admit she got it wrong.
Art snobbery is top of the chain....Many of the art experts are so far stuck up their own behinds!
This was such an unfair case! despite all the incredible evidence. The system needs to change; the value and scientific evidence should be senior to what the experts like or not.. Especially if she does not want to admit she is wrong. I truly admire and trust Lillian Browse opinion on this painting.
Blew me away too. Fiona and Philip are absolutely correct. The decree was maddening to hear. This painting will find its place again someday. How could it not?!
The expert was upset that she had the "ugly" painting of the two and really did not want anymore
side by side comparisons. So the better painting of the two was nullified as not genuine. I
would have another expert look at it.
In this particular case I don't think that if they had the hand written bill of sale from the artist, a signed statement of authenticity from Nicholson, photographic evidence and Nicholson's actual DNA in the picture that Reed and co. would accept this painting. I think this is more about sour grapes and axe grinding than anything else. The unfortunate thing is that the niece is caught in the middle and paying one heck of a price, 165,000 pounds for professional animosity.
Well, said.
No, she wouldn't accept it. She'd bring up Nicholson's students again.
Exactly.
I don't quite understand how only single individual authenticates these works. Is that a common practice in the UK?
What an explnation by Patricia Reed, as if other students could have painted it on Nicholson's board, and let him sign it???
Ms Reed is a disgrace...she didn't even have the guts to turn up in person.
I think patricia reed has got some vengeance against the owner's aunt that she is so adamant on not admitting the fact that this painting is legit and should be rightfully included in the catalog raisonne.
Lovely Patricia Reed,
in 20 years this picture will be accepted as a real work.
And your name will be forgotten.
That‘s sadly the sweet truth.
I hate to say this, but after seeing this episode, and some where the "Wildenstein Institute" is involved, show that the art world can be as petty as a bunch of high-school children.
Where there are people, there is pettiness.
I wouldn't call the Wildenstein petty. But I would call them overly nostalgic which is just as bad. I can't remember which painting or raisonne it belonged to. But that guy saying it didn't belong because his dead father, repeat DEAD FATHER said it didn't, despite having enormous evidence that it does, takes it to another level. That being filial duty to the father taken to the level of stupidity. I've seen some idiotic decisions made by people in my life, as I am sure you have. But having watched that episode several years ago, that decision still ranks as the most idiotic I have ever seen in my entire life.
More like mafia
I would have to agree. After all Reed is the runner up expert to the very person who sold this painting to the now owner. Student wanting to outshine teacher?!?
No wonder she refused to give her verdict in person, as she still refuses to admit she most likely is wrong. I think it is unreal how in so many cases it is all up to just one person to say it is an original or not.
Yes, it says everything that that woman not had the backbone to give her negative verdict in person.
Especially when she wasn't even there when it was painted to prove it was not painted by Nicholson!
Admittedly this is the first I've heard of William Nicholson as an artist, but it's very clear that the delicacy and poetry that is present in the Begonias which Phillip pointed out is present in all his works, including Glass Jug. Glass Jug caught my breath from the get-go and I can see why Lyn was so attached to it and I truly believe it has more of the artist's spirit than the authentic one in Ottawa. I'm infuriated by the final verdict but also happy to have found a new rabbithole of an artist to pursue.
If Nicholason was standing there and said he painted it, that 'expert' would tell him "No you didn't"!!
Did Patricia Reed know Aunt Lillian and dislike her?
I think there is jealousy involved in the verdict.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. Lillian was known throughout the London art world and was respected by many artists and collectors. Ms. Reed is an "expert" on this particular artist, but she isn't famous or wealthy or beloved by many.
I'm sorry but the one in Canada is not nearly as good as the one she owns.
Which is the rub when it concerns art. 2 pictures with about a 99.9% chance of being by the same artist one worth pennies while the other is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars only because one is attributed and one is not. No way that should happen. The value of the art should be in the value of its composition, execution and theme not because Famous X painted it. This has always bothered me. Even great artists have bad days and failures. The art world doesn't seem to admit this.
@@gp75460, I like the Painting in Canada better but that is my taste. What this program proved was petty jealousy on the part of a woman who refuses to admit she is wrong. I disagree the value of art should be based on composition and execution. That is very subject and personal thing.
I think the Canadian picture is MUCH better. It is laid out very very well and has some lovely lyrical lines and aesthetic shapes. I thought the other was a fake all along, but I didn't see the writing the "expert" looked at for handwriting and the signature process seemed genuine, so did the appearance of the back.
And here I am again after 2 years … Rewatching this episode really makes me feel UGH…
Hundreds and thousands of money will be wasted because of some subjective decisions.
Like the episode on Monet’s painting. Even if it was pretty obvious. I feel for the woman. She seems like a very nice person.
I hope she or the painting gets the justice it deserves in the future.
I hope she gets redemption. The painting is exquisite.
@@cruisepaige I hope so too… 💪🏽💪🏽💪🏽❤️👼🙏🏽🥂
I hope so too. The answer will obviously be in the provenance. I hope she continues to search for where the painting was before the diamond merchant acquired it.
I don`t understand why the art world ultimately takes the word of a single person in a case like this when so many others have proven otherwise. With all the evidence that they had, why take the word of this "expert". Who made her the only one to decide? Just because she wrote a book?
Those who can do, and those who can't call themselves art experts. I think it boils down to not being willing to admit a mistake. Reed's explanation as to why she believes the painting isn't genuine reads like the outline for a story assignment for a university creative writing course. The fact she declined to appear on camera tells me she doesn't believe her own argument.
Actually those who can do teach because they feel the weight of responsibility of their talent.
That colloquialism is nonsense. Einstein taught, so too did Hawking and Chomsky, Plato and Marx.
Those we can exceptionally well also teach and it's been true from the moment humans learned something.
Nor did she want to be recognised on TV as the "expert" that tells tales and lies.
If she were so sure of herself she would have grown a pair of balls and stood up to her assessment in front of the camera. Proof in it's self that she is a ..... wait for it: FAKE. Lol.
exactly! this is ridiculous! its 100% Nicholason ! how can one person have anyways power to say yes or no!
@@f_youtubecensorshipf_nazis Those who can, do; those who can’t, teach, and is most certainly apropos.
I get that the artist board could have been reused by someone else (which happened occasionally) but a reused board that the artist had already titled on the back, and then he added his unique thumbprint signature to a painting that someone ELSE had made? That seems extraordinarily unlikely. His marks are on both sides!
These institutions seem to value provenance more than anything else. If there's not a very lengthy paper trail they just don't care about any other evidence--no paper, no dice. And in some cases even if you *have* said paper trail they may reject it anyway because they visually "feel" that it isn't the artist. And that's just absurd that one group's pride in not being able to admit they are occasionally wrong should value more than the expert community's visual inspection, forensics, analysis, and clear evidence that it is indeed an original work.
Experts hate admitting they are wrong. It's all arbitrary.
So Nicholson let someone use his paint box and an artist board with his handwriting all over it to paint a fake picture and sign his name to it. Makes Nicholson sound like a fool. I am sure he wasn't.
Reed has been schooled and she resents it. God or Nicholason himself couldn't convince her to publicly admit she was once wrong about this painting.
I like the Lillian Browse still life more, because it is more life like, especially the pears, and plates. An open and shut case, Williams art case. Churchill didn't take up painting until after the war, and whoever had access to his art would never over paint his original work and then ask him to name and sigh it . Ridiculous assumptions altogether. Maybe some professional rivalry even jealousy between the 2 female experts, Lillian Browse and Patricia Reed as to who is the best and sells the most books.
Who is there that can verify any artists work? No one! What a shame.... Lynn's picture even looks better than the one in the Ottawa gallery!
It's obviously a concern if clear providence cannot be established and linked back to the original painter, but in which other field of forensic science,
is a verdict decided by just ONE person? Expert or not, it's positively un-scientific to rely on the opinion of one person, regardless of how familiar they
may be with a particular subject. And not only that, but it also allows for petty jealousy and personal revenge to occur, especially if said expert has
some sort of grudge against the current owner of a work, or even a relative of that owner.
Personal opinion can only go so far, and unfortunately, politics and snobbish ego are also all too often mixed up with these things.
So in order to get a fair verdict, it really is vital to at least get a second opinion before a work of art is completely written off as a fraud or a cheap copy, etc.
Agreed
There should be what's called a 'school' of experts for well known artists like this to avoid such nefarious behavior.
Reed has let herself down though in the face of many others now.
I have watched this episode twice, and each time i wanted her, Mrs Reed, to change her mind. Love this program and all the work poured into finding the truth for the families. Its CSI, FBI, all rolled in one. Its interesting and educational.
I hope there is a way to appeal the ridiculous “verdict”.
I know very little about this but it seems to me the only thing Reed is concerned about is covering her own ass.
Exactly, rather than admit she was wrong, she dug an even deeper hole for herself, like is it her belief, that a student of the artist, faked his signature thumb print and initial? I think that the thumb print on both paintings should be analysed by forensic detectives, and when it is shown to be the same print, then Reed can go crawl into a hole, she has already been exposed as no kind of an expert in anything. I wonder what the artists grandson thinks now that he has seen all the evidence.
And her ego is so big she can’t admit when she is wrong.
I think M Reed is wrong.
That's was just what I was thinking. Reed has a lot to lose. Fiona and Philip's research is compelling, and far more proof than Reed 'just not liking the look of it'. Rubbish. Also, I'm wondering if Reed is sticking to her original verdict because the current owner is wealthy enough and that she can afford to lose her investment.
Agreed, seems like there should be a couple of other experts that could weigh in. I mean...he had students who could paint but were in capable of writing the title of the painting...???
It would seem that Nicholson was experimenting with abstraction and painted both of these painting around the same time using the same still life set up. Lyn's painting is obviously by his hand. It takes a big person to admit they have made a mistake. Such a shame that miss Read was unable to simply say that the new compelling evidence brought before her has changed her view.
This was exactly my thought. If he was experimenting with abstraction it makes sense that he's repaint a still life to see how he perceived the differences between abstraction and not.
She probably thinks of this painting every day because of what you said and it's ruining her inner self.
I question of painting in abstract manner in the same time period
The “non Nicholson” painting is far superior to the Ottawa version.
I agree. I think the expert's supposition that a student could have used the materials is correct, but I think the student painting is in the Canadian museum and it would be more awkward to impune their holding than that of a private collector who happens to be a relative of a rival.
wow..it is absurd that the art world allows one person to have such power to decide
There's so much evidence that this a genuine work by Nicholson. Ego and pride again is ruining hope and deprives us of a wonderful piece by this grand master. This is recurring pattern in the art world unfortunately. Why it always depends on one person judgement instead of a worldwide art committee? This system has to change for the benefits of all.
Lynn needs to keep the insurance up on her painting. Next time there's a catalogue by another 'expert,' her picture will no doubt be vindicated. Her picture is so much better than the Ottawa picture. Keep it insured, bide your time, and by no means sell it so someone else.
It is truly and most certainly a case of a woman (Patricia Reed) who refuses to have her reputation called into question, no matter how strong the evidence. Her refusal to accept the evidence says volumes about her as an "expert". Sadly, Reed must be very insecure & feel her opinion must be vigorously protected or she'll lose her standing in the art community. Apparently her perceived reputation is the most important thing in Reed's life - her raison d'être. Internally she's simply an extremely insecure individual.
But who is this Patrica Reed anyway? I felt compelled to google her and found only bad Amazon ratings *citing incomplete catalogue* :D
To my eyes the picture in question is a much finer piece of work than the confirmed picture in Canada. If there is a fake that is the fake
I wish Fiona had kept quiet when the expert was about to tell us about the painting and not stop him to say it was the one they were investigating .He edited himself once he knew .
Can't aunt Lillian's gallery publish an updated version of her own catalogue? Why must this Ms Reed be the only authority on the subject?
I wonder this too
well clearly she had a vested interest in publishing it. The painting needs to be peer reviewed by an unbiassed expert
This is why we have juries, so no one person can act as judge and executioner like Reed has done.
Great idea!
I would sue ask for a jury trial and let the court decide and present my evidence
Also, if it was done under Nicholson's supervision and by his student, why would he sign it with an 'N' and then write its name on the back aswell. Doesnt make sense
The expert seemed to have it in for Patricia and her aunt.
Patricia Reed is the expert. (Lyn owns the painting) ....But I know what you mean.
Obviously because her Aunt had the definitive catalog, and Reed is number two. Only after the Aunt's death for that matter.
If Nicholson did do the signature with the paint splattered thumb. It could be interesting to know if there would be fingerprints. If he used this as a common technique, maybe there might be fingerprints on other of his paintings somewhere else to compare to!?
Surely it should be up to Patrica Reed to prove it's not by Nicholson rather than the other way round. The evidence it is overwhelming.
The forger has the greatest insight, he’s taken aback at how good it, I think that speaks volumes.
one is before he ate the pears (Lyn), the other one is after finishing eating the pears (Ottawa)
Surely that's his fingerprint on it? The 'Expert' in question obviously has a bruised ego that she has been challenged... pathetic.
Is there really no way to estabilish the paternity by fingerprint?
They proved their case in my mind. in this case the buyer was only trying to justify her purchase and avoid losing her investment. I would hope that the body of evidence would support providence in future dealings with the painting.
Another "EXPERT" refusing to admit that they were wrong. Shades of the Wildenstein (?) institute in Paris in another show.
I’ll bet the Canadian Museum would love to swap pictures with her! I think the Canadian version should be classified as a sketch.
The reason given for not accepting this painting Can be said about just about every painting. “There were other people around.” The fact that she wouldn’t come in person to give her verdict says a lot about her character and commitment.
Here we go again: Self pronounced experts verdicts. I know: this fine, lovely Lady will not trust the written result deep inside. And damned right she is. Wonderful art. Rotten art "business". Thanks for the episode. Love the painting so much...
This is one where my first thought was Patricia Reed was not going to be second guessed! I am glad that so many feel the same. It's a shame that one person has so much power and influence over such a subjective area. I do find it odd that she has likely confirmed at least one fake as authentic - well perhaps she is human after all.
Philip and Fiona have discovered, not only that this painting is authentic, but also the "missing" Freesias that Nicholson mentions in the letter. Nicholson wrote "Glass Jug" on the back of the painting, THAT has been proven. But the artboard previously had Freesias on it. So, why would Nicholson title someone else's work? If he'd given the artboard to a colleague or student, presumably it would be their title written in THEIR hand, and not Nicholson's. I think poor Lyn got cheated by the supposed "expert" who IMHO, has been exposed as a fraud. Apparently, she just couldn't stand being wrong. For what it's worth, I like Lyn's picture much better than the Canadian picture.
If Nicholson put his thumb print to his paintings, then surely there would be skin cells left behind by the artist. So maybe a forensic scientist should be employed to have a look at the 'thumb print' and see if they can find the DNA Evidence to prove its authenticity. That would put Ms Reed firmly in her place as a not so hot expert of Nicholson's works.
Not likely that any possible DNA left behind would be in a condition to allow testing, sadly.
We seen similar thing on this show, experts behind closed doors that refuse to argue in public. The art world is pretty pathetic we should all be happy not being part of it. Where else are one expert the final judge. Even in court you can appeal to a higher court if not happy with a verdict.
Perhaps the provenance can be extended to find where the diamond broker bought the painting, and complete the gap there. Note that Aviva said the technique for applying the paint to the board was the same as the known Nicholson picture, and that is very difficult to copy. Patricia Reed apparently did not believe Aviva. Patricia Reed did not explain why the title on the back of the board "Glass Jug" was put there in Nicholson's handwriting if it was not by the artist himself. She apparently did not believe the handwriting expert. In fact she did not believe a procession of professional people who thought the painting was genuine. I am convinced by the evidence assembled that the painting is genuine, and would advise Lyn to keep the painting insured for 200,000 pounds if in an insurance company will accept the obvious evidence and wait. Fifty years from now someone else will be the "expert."
This one's a head-scratcher. I thought the evidence was compelling and convincing.
Also, thank you so much for uploading these!!
reed needs to pack it in.
I felt really sorry for Lyn, the verdict looked like a blow to her despite her taking it well.
How I wish that Nicholason will get up from his grave and visit P. Reed and tell her himself. Goodness! The evidences were clear... It’s just brutal. I feel for the owner... Well... she has been part of the investigation so I guess that’s a great consolation already.
And How I wish that IF EVER it was a student who painted it, He’d be popular and become a legend as well.
What a world art is when an "expert" can rely on a hunch to dismiss stronger evidence.
What a beautiful beautiful painting. I drew my breath in when I saw it. I would cherish that forever
If either of the glass jug paintings is fake, it is the one the "expert" Mrs. Reed deemed a Nicholson, the Ottawa painting, the crappy one that just looks like crap because it is the most "abstract" of his known paintings, and not because one of his students did it? "Expert," ya!
Absolutely LOVE this series!!!
Art experts are like Archaeologists they can never admit they are wrong which doesn't make them experts at all.
Wow…. Crazy old bat didn’t want to bear the embarrassment of having to publicly admit she was talking crap. The evidence is totally overwhelming that it’s genuine. Furthermore, her aunt was a close friend of the artist, and her exhibiting a fake as one of his works is utterly ridiculous.
How exciting to see the freesias painted underneath. I came away from this video believing we have two paintings by Nicholson ... including a possible lost painting of freesias.
I think this must be the most amount of effort that has ever been put into verifying a William Nicholson painting
But, the handwriting and unique signature? Also, why would a student put their painting in Nicholson’s box?
Apparently after this aired in 2018, Twitter went into meltdown about Patricia Reed's inability to admit she was wrong, and her reputation is still in tatters. When she has now demonstrated to the whole world that she is no expert, who could ever take her seriously again!
There is only one expert on William Nicholson?? How absurd. Ms. Reed ought to be ashamed of her arrogance.
Is it possible these are both Nicholson paintings, but also examples of teacher and student? I'm not sure when Nicholson's son, Ben, was born. He is more abstract. I can imagine a scenario of son learning from father, side by side, painting a still life, using the same supplies, where dad labels to back for his young son, etc... If this were a mystery novel, that's the ending I could imagine written to solve this case. Both Nicholson paintings - Lyn has the Dad's version and Canada has the son's with the more abstract pears. That's the only alternative I can consider. Otherwise, they are both by Wm Nicholson. Either way, I feel the scientific analysis show authenticity of the work - no fakery or underworld art here.
I was heartbroken to see her get the verdict at the end.
Probably my favorite episode.
I do think this series has ultimately opened the curtain for me certainly to see how the art world truly works at its best and in its worst. I know I might see it in black and white but somehow the cartel like power some art houses or experts have is somewhat upsetting.
It’s just a case of a lady who can’t accept that she made a mistake, even though the evidence at hand is overwhelming. The owner of the painting should just enjoy the painting .
This is done my Nicholson. When it has his art, his signature, his style and history and more you can not deny it. However, someone with an attitude of self-importance can my a claim that is wrong and won't admit that. Sounds like former corporate CEO or President who makes false claims. This is a Nicholson.
Art experts are touchy, especially when they are wrong and will not admit it.
When a so called expert is really nothing more than a critic
Can't believed that the painting wasn't accepted as a genuine Art.
Shame on Ms. Reed...
Conclusive evidence says that this painting is genuine, who is Ms Reed to say otherwise. Maybe Ms Reed is too embarrassed to retrack her judgement once stated.
Wow, no wonder the expert did not want to attend the finale. Just shows how important provenance is, even though science tries to outsmart it at times.
they have detailed the evidence in favor of authentication, what evidence does Reed have to
contradict that ? "NONE" just an "I Don't Think So"
Is there a way to check on the finger print?
Omg! I just can’t stop... hugs to the owner.
If his thumb print was underneath his signature, couldn’t they check that thumbprint?
The wood cut of queen Victoria looks like a Banksy
Ms Reeds thinking that anybody could have painted on one of Nicholsons boards then almost all of his works are suspect and she has already accepted one that is 100% forged. This one person judge and jury in the art work is bs. There needs to be a panel of experts to avoid egotism to affect peoples lives.
Why doesn't Patricia Reed address the proof presented? THIS is the problem with so called 'Experts'. As has been said before by Philip, there should be a panel of experts and scientists that weigh in ... and not just one snotty person afraid to admit having made an error when the sort of proof that has been provided is there.
I LOVE this program. It exposes the 'Experts'!!
The conclusion of Reid is ridiculous. Is it not possible to compare the thumbprints on both Nicholsons to the fingerprints on Nicholson’s paint box?
I’m heartbroken and beyond shocked.
This is an excellent program!
"Sorry, painting." 😭
I think the other, so called "genuine" painting is a kind of study etc. and Lynn's painting is the finished piece.
Some of these experts are just driven by an ego.... This is ridiculous
The singular "imprinted N" on the front and "100%" handwriting analysis of the back would seem to seal the deal.
It seems that this expert(?), Ms. Reed, simply refuses to admit that she was mistaken!
Also, how can there be only one Nicholson expert?