I wonder if this decision wasn’t simply made to save face re the earlier attribution of the other landscape to Gainsborough. Seems like there was so much more evidence pointing to Gainsborough than to Barker of Bath, not only the provenance related to major galleries, but the fact that Gainsborough was painting over another artist’s portraits in the same year that he painted The Gypsies. The only reason given for deciding this painting was by Barker of Bath is this expert’s finding that it looked like his style? Well, his style was very similar to Gainsborough’s, if there has been confusion (by the best art dealers and galleries between the two for two centuries or more.
its a tragedy that it was taken to THEM for research and authentication. You could see the poker face knowing he had an actual hand in the outcome. In an hundred years it will be exhanged and acclaimed as the true Gainsborough while the other is the barker of bath
@@theresabraddock9310 I don't think that's likely; this is the third time this picture was downgraded, the way back would be extremely difficult. Authentication is always going to be a problem. It's not as glaringly obvious in this one as it is with others, but there is a lot of ego involved in these evaluations, you're right. The problem is that unless you can trace provenance artist to owner without any blank periods, there's an element of guesswork in the entire process. There's literally nothing else to rely on but experience and years of study, and no matter how much people try, there is always going to be an element of bias when evaluation is as subjective as with art. Add fakes to possible contemporary copies or fan takes, and you've got a frightful mess and a cause for people to be extra careful when changing past decisions. I remember a short on an art conservator who "aged" frames that had to be recreated by exposing them to the elements, smoking them to replicate real life smoke damage from before the 20th century, and even exposing them to his fly farm, basically a hothouse where he raised flies for the sole purpose of getting fly poop specks on the recreated frames. He also used reclaimed wood from close to or as close to as possible to the required period. The short specifically discussed the complications a process like that could create if used on paintings instead of "just" frames.
The expert's verdict is, by all means, contrary to the logic of all the findings. To me, the most convincing proof that this is the right Gainsborough is the lady beneath. De Bach would NEVER fake something like this unknowing Gainsborough was up to this at this time. I sincerely think the specialist didn't want the previous "real gypsy" to lose his value, which would irritate very much the buyer and cause a horrible trouble to the auction house.
I totally agree with you. Philip Mould has behaved suspiciously on several episodes - similarly on the Sisley episode that showed scientific evidence was showing this to be a real painting by the artist. It was denied and immediately Philip said it was a forgery. How? There was much evidence otherwise. Including the ornate beautiful period frame - they were very expensive and a forger would not usually spend on such an expensive frame as they usually didn't have the money to afford.
Wow, what a time to be alive. The Witt library alone making their catalogue available online to anyone who wants to take a peek is just amazing. THIS is how the internet was meant to be used!
ONE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT CLUE … at 51:20 you see the x rays of both 1753 dated paintings showing a portrait underneath… LOOK AT THE WOOD TENSIONING PEGS VISIBLE IN THE CORNERS of both paintings… these are ON THE CANVAS/FRAME and could😊 only be placed by THE PAINTER of the top, visible image… THEY ARE IDENTICAL in ANGLE of INTERLOCKING with the frame and nearly identical in SIZE and shape…
That is where all paintings' stretchers have their keys. They are there to add tension where the frame is joined together so every painting you see will have them there. Don't you have any paintings at home? Look at the back and you will see the keys. There will be eight keys, two for each join.
@@annabellelee4535 No, you misunderstood my point, these visible wedges are THE ORIGINAL eighteenth century, NOT a latter modification - reframing which can be easily detected by DIFFERENCE in the shadow where the wedges are now vs. where they had been originally.
@@fivizzano WTF? All paintings have their wedges which are properly called keys in the same place because they are used to tighten the stretcher. Do you understand the function of stretcher keys?
My comment was lost. I am 80. I have loved long as I can remember in a pram loving colours in a flower shop from my pram. I love what I have and love this series thank you ❤
@@BlackStump172 many artists included "petimenti" (corrections) inside reproductions of his work, so if anyone tried to copy without the "original", you could catch the fake easier. And remember that this painted was relined 21:24 , thus they might have tried to "clean it"... Just like the Sistine Chapel destruction of shadows in the last "restoration"... Another example that matches this is Goya's "dark pictures". The one of the dog had in the Laurent photo birds flying and the dog was watching them. When they removed the fresco and converted into a canvas, the "restorer" f*cked the painting good (and all the others, too, even cutting them down drastically) and then the birds were gone. This also applies to other objects for "protection". For example, dictionaries included words that didn't exist just to catch "fakers".
It depends. What I've learned from this series: art experts are sometimes wrong, they even say they don't trust the evidence as much as their own eyes. In one episode _the commission_ seriously admitted "we have not made a decision whether it's real or not, there's been not enough time to analyze everything" or something like that. Every person makes mistakes. These "commissions" consist of people too. Where the problem lies and why I don't trust them - because _the commissions_ never admit there's even a possibility they could've been wrong at first. Wrong about one painting 23 years ago, for example. There's a mountain of evidence showing some art is legit? Oh, nobody cares. Their ego doesn't let them say they were incorrect. Also, the fear of losing "the reputation" makes them lose it ten times more. At least in my eyes.
But did Barker of Bath reuse canvases of other artists? That question should have been addressed. They proved that Ginsborough DID reuse canvases. What about Barker?
@@annabellelee4535 Repainting one's own work is not the same as reusing another artist's canvas. If there is no example of Barker reusing another artitst's canvas, the case is stronger for the rejected painting.
@@palladin331 How do you know that? Barker of Bath's best Gainsboroughesque paintings were painted when he was poor. It's what brought the attention of the coachmaker who became his sponsor. Barker could paint great paintings and also mediocre paintings. Many "Gainsboroughs" are actually Barker's work and he became more popular than Gainsborough.
@@annabellelee4535 There were only two paintings in the documentary painted on reused canvasses: the painting in question and a recognized Gainsborough. No Barker was named that was painted on a reused canvass. Yet, the experts stuck with the established Gainsborough painting, lacking all of the provenance attached to the painting in question, and deemed the painting in question as a Barker, even though evidence was provided that showed Gainsborough reused other artist's canvasses at the time that the painting in question was painted and no evidence was provided that showed that Barker ever reused canvasses. This should have been investigated.
@@palladin331 But in the real world it is very common to find paintings painted over other paintings. Do your own research and stop believing that you can get all the knowledge needed from a 50 minute video. LOL, smh.
A big part of the fun and excitement about this show is the reveal - so I’ve had to learn the hard way to never ever look at any of the comments before I watch the show (some of them are hard to not see accidentally when you first open the video) because almost inevitably, the first comment will be “I can’t believe the experts denied so-and-so‘s painting…” 😱 😂
Thanks for another interesting episode. I'm not finding the "verdict" convincing at all, yet with the other painting on the front page of Sotheby's catalog, I guess there was no way on earth to find this one could be the true lost painting and thereby not expose a lot of experts in the art world. A delicate problem in recent times. To me truly puzzling is that another picture, painted the same year, accepted as an original Gainsborough painting, had just been confirmed to be painted on a re-used portrait canvass as well. Now, is that other "real thing" actually another Barker? Or why would Barker re-use a portrait canvass the same year that Gainsborough did, when it was G. who had financial difficulties to pay rent? Doesn't make any sense. He had no way of knowing that Gainsbourough did this. All of this sounds fishy. With so many fakes authenticated by experts over the centuries, you really start to wonder how many prestigious paintings in castles, museums and private collections are even for real. The more they test and x-ray, the more are taken down.
I for one am sick to death of investigative research and technical advances being flushed dow the loo at the 11th hour by some ancient “expert” because they simply don’t think so.
I just watched the Fake or Fortune episode about the art forger Han van Meegeren. It was mentioned there are estimates by art dealers that about 35-40% of the worlds art is fake.
im an artist, and theres something they dont think about. At the TIME, they werent famous., they were just guys painting. They may have copied each other, they may have used each others canvases, I paint over shit all the time. Dont sign things. 100 years later some boffins will try to accredit this or that, but to us who did it we dont even care. Its one of hundreds we have done, then moved on with our lives. Of course its real, but have fun proving it
They brushed over that didn’t they - no pun intended. I don’t agree the 1999 painting even looked right for Gainsborough. I like the expert normally but I think he’s wrong here.
@@deethebee80 Agreed. The evidence presented is astonishing. I would like a reason why Rica was edited out. I can't seem to find a logical reason. They approached HER for analysis. Hmmm... In addition, I'm not sure I would trust the opinion of someone who looks so much like W.C.Fields leaving a pub in determining authentication.!!!
I started watching this series to learn more about art. But what i really learn is that it's a very tickle bussiness. Laws are sketsy. And experts contradict one an other. Even with scientivic evidence you can't be sure. And a painting can be worth a fortune one minute, and next to nothing the next. Thickle indeed!
No, even when scientific evidence refutes an expert’s opinion, opinion is taken over scientific evidence seemingly to maintain an expert’s reputation and the value of some rich guy’s probably fake painting.
I would Suggest the Sothebys painting on the cover is by Barker and this is obviously Gainsborough and that they realize they fucked up and dont want to publicly admit it.
So, the old "expert" guy just comes in at the end, he says "it's not by Gainsborough", and THAT'S IT?! just a flimsy explanation (at best) as to how he concluded it wasn't?! pfff!
i am sure it was not like that. that - old guy- for sure had had a look at all the other evidence as well. as it was shown in the episode. and, fair enough it had to be for the episode, he had his say in that one sentence. but just coming in, have a look and say - it isn't- for sure it wasn't like that.
Well there isn't any concrete evidence to prove it's a Gainsborough. In absence of that, they have to rely on expert opinion. None of the evidence contradicts that it was mistaken for a Gainsborough in the past.
I’m addicted to this show. Lol. I adore art and absolutely love exploring its composition, but I know nothing about it. I’ve no doubt if I had a limitless budget, I would own an enormous collection. Learning from this show is a wonderful ride. I am very confused on this one however. Taking the earlier authentication out of the discussion, I’m unclear how the detail on the back of the frame, in addition to the provenance isn’t explained as part of the final decision. There is simply so much that leads to a different outcome.
This is stupid, to me it truly looks like more of a Gainsborough than the other one. Also the provenance trail! It's so compelling! The judgement was made on a technical skill, well Barker of Bath copied Gainsborough's style and the two styles have confused galleries for over a century so that seems rather redundant to judge purely based on style and ignore the compelling provenance trail by this so called expert. This feels rather staged to save face on the other previous one that Philip discovered. When Philip mould and the other expert dies I hope this painting is re-evaluated by an expert that takes everything into consideration not just on artistic style.
oh, it looks like a Gainsborough? Ill make one that does too. That makes it real? ill use old paints and an old canvas. Doesnt make it real in any way. Provenance is all there is
Mark's painting has the sales provenance with the all the correct numbers etc. Probably 20 yrs down the track this painting will be the one given the OK as the 'real' Gainsborough
No, it has never been authenticated or sold as "by Gainsborough", only attributed to Gainsborough. In the 1970s, it was declared in no way connected to Gainsborough and in the 1980s it was declared in no way connected to Barker of Bath. It is a copy by someone who was not a recognized artist.
The fact that the reused canvas belonged to an artist who was known to Gainsborough at a period of time when we know he was recycling canvases raised my eyebrows a little, but I’ll admit that it was common practice and therefore not conclusive. Whether it’s a copy or an original I hope they keep track of it.
I'm surprised they skipped one of the big issues with the painting regarding the provenance. Clearly the Cropper Gainsborough painting is the one that is referred to in the documentation, including three sales at Christies as evidenced by the stretcher numbers and past owner label. The painting that Philip sold didn't have that, or at least there was no mention of the back of the "genuine" Gainsborough, but it still got the provenance attributed to it from the past Gainsborough scholars because at the time they didn't know the real "lost" Gainsborough was owned by Cropper's family. This made this episode unsatisfying since all of this is clear by the final edit. I guess they just hadn't reasoned that out during the actual filming. I hope Cropper still has the painting, because it is the real Gainsborough. It had all the evidence going for it including the explanation of painting over another portrait when Gainsborough was poor and couldn't afford a new canvas. If the painting truly is a by the lesser Bath artist, then it had fooled scholars and Christies for well over 100 years and all that provenance is meaningless, especially for the other painting that was using the Cropper painting provenance.
The trouble is that it was never authenticated as a Gainsborough, it was attributed to Gainsborough. There is a difference between authentic and attributed. Authentic means there is evidence to prove it's by Gainsborough, but attributed means it looks like a Gainsborough but there is no proof that it is by Gainsborough.
@@annabellelee4535 My point is that at 15:00 or so in the video Fiona shows the provenance of the "lost" Gainsborough from the 20th century scholars. That list is what matches up with the Cropper painting, whether it is a Gainsborough or not, that is what matches. That list got magically transferred to the one sold 20 years before because it was assumed it was the match even though it must not have had the Christies 555 mark used in three separate sales or the previous owner, Graves, label. Sure, the Cropper (current owner) painting could have been misattributed back in 1842 and from then on that mistake was carried forward, but transferring that mistake to the other painting doesn't make any sense. The Cropper painting also matches the verified etching used in the b/w prints, which should have carried more weight.
@@kasplat5874 But it was never sold as an authentic Gainsborough. Look at it, it's only attributed to Gainsborough and then it was found to not be a Gainsborough in the 1970s and found to not be a Barker of Bath in the 1980s. The other painting has been authenticated so it had proof that it was a Gainsborough. Paintings have to have proof because forgeries are more common than authentic works. Did you see the stack of Gainsborough paintings that were not authentic? Etchings are a totally different medium and they will never complete match. You can't go from that.
Mark really handled bad news well! I am impressed. Interesting how the "expert" analyzed the painting to arrive at his judgment ... I have no idea what "tentative" strokes look like, but the expert certainly knows his art. Interesting dilemma, though, that the painting beneath the painting is worth MORE. What a choice Mark has to make now!
He said “we always knew there was a beautiful face underneath”…..did he accidentally give away the whole performance of “uncovering” these “unknown” secrets that they really knew beforehand actually. Around the 47:35 mark
It amazes me, that the value of the art is determined more by its supposed authorship, than the art itself! The Mona Lisa on a T shirt... 15usd.... in the Louvre, priceless. The image is basically the same! What I love about this program, is all the history that is revealed in the investigations.
Now isn't that just such a, so very, "Human, ... Ego Mind" sort of "trait"? It applies to every genera, every subject, everything, "particularly apparent in the Arts", let's talk, Vocalists, Actors, etc ... You are so Correct. Beth Bartlett Sociologist/Behavioralist and Historian Tennessee, USA
The version in the louve is a canvas which Da Vinci carried with him for almost 15 years. He traveled with that canvas. He would add bits, change, add, glaze, change. add, glaze. 15 years. That is dedication to one work. Every layer applied often with his fingers. Some experts believe it was 3 or 4 years he worked on it, more recently it seems he worked on it as late as 1517, he started Mona in 1503. He essentially skipped out on the commission, instead taking it with him to fiddle with almost right up to his own death. Up to 40 layers of paint in places all thinned to be so transparent that all 40 layers could shine through. It must have been something to see when it was fresh, and completely undamaged.
They failed to do an analysis of the cover up paint used in the attributed Gainsbourgh and then a comparison to that used to cover the portrait used in the gypsies. That evidence would add to the case significantly.
To me it’s a bias to have the guy who already authenticated and got a commission and sold a possible copy of the painting in the 90’s. We need a redo on this without the other guy who had a stake in this you can see he didn’t want to admit he was wrong. Shame that it was so biased against the guy all the evidence was more convincing than someone just studying something for a long time saying yeah seems like the guys style. Versus scientific analysis. You can’t even compare the old painting and maybe if you did they would’ve come forward so the two could be compared and the true original found. Seems fishy to me. The art world in general is a big scam sadly.
Honestly I would like for them to do the same treatment to a known Barker of Bath. It's there any evidence that HE reused paintings? I mean, surely that would be a relatively "simple" way to put some questions to rest at least. 🤔🤔🤔
@@islandboy4445 Yeah I feel like for all the money and experts they have access to that they didn’t even broach the topic maybe for drama reasons? It also doesn’t help that there are no photos of the actual painting itself only verbal descriptions. I hope the guy gets a second opinion from someone without a stake in the authenticity of the painting.
@@annabellelee4535 He explicitly says in the video he was the one who arranged the appraisal of the painting to the late “Expert” on Gainsborough before he died and also stated numerous times in the video that he would have to admit he was wrong in referring it for authentication as a Gainsborough. Did we watch the same video? It still doesn’t help that there wasn’t a more thorough description of the painting or that there were any pictures of it in the late 1800’s.
A great pity is that the “original” painting can’t be compared side-by-side with this one. I would not accept any verdict unless it could be compared side-by-side.
Actually it doesn't matter if you accept it or not, it will not be sold at a legit auction as a Gainsborough. It won't even be sold as a Barker of Bath painting. It would be sold as a imitator of Barker of Bath painting because that is what the last expert decided. A similar Barker of Bath is up for sale on Ebay right now.
The owner of the other "official" painting would have zero reason to subject it to another analysis. Right now because the authorities said it's legit it's worth hundreds of thousands--the owner would never risk that being downgraded.
I agree, that would be the ultimate test, comparing them side by side. Since money is involved it might not happen but it doesn't mean that the comparison wouldn't provide new insight.
So, as I understand this, the stretcher was replaced and then used to raise the value of a similar painting. Do we know when this was done? Does someone know the reason for replacing a seemingly working strecher? And why no documentation about the old one was put with the new one? Who was in a position to get hold of the original stretcher and understanding its ”posibilities”?
Yeah, no. If it can’t be compared to the other, the verdict given is worth filth, especially when the painting stands so strong in the possibility that it’s in fact the real one.
What possibility? It was never authenticated as a Gainsborough. It was "attributed to Gainsborough" never "by Gainsborough". In the 1970s it was declared a Barker of Bath, but Barker of Bath authenticators declared it by a follower of Thomas Barker.
Looks like the mischief (switch-a-roo?) occurred during Henry Graves' ownership by "authentication" at the national exhibition then "confirmed" by his Christies' sale. of the piece
So wild that for over 100 years the attribution was wrong. Guess they have to change all those books now to say here is the long lost painting where was it before...🤷🏼♀️
I don't know if this comment will be read by the art experts, but the 555 N by Christie's said "engraved work" in the catalog. It's the print, not the painting. In this case, the frame is the frame of one of the prints and not the frame of the original painting. And this would mean that the painting is definitely a fake.
@@annabellelee4535 I believe there was a huge mistake by the expert on this artwork. It's clear that the provenance and the historical facts are related to Mark's picture. But, since 1 person said it is not by G.B, we still consider an artwork with no provenance as the original.
@@Quintus-Horatius But it's not a Gainsborough, they upgraded it to Barker of Bath, but it still would need to be authenticated by a Barker of Bath expert. It's not a painting to be ashamed of, Barker of Bath could paint Gainsborough better than Gainsborough himself at times. The provenance doesn't match the painting. It's why the art world has authorities. Most art is either a forgery or a copy. This falls into the copy category.
@@annabellelee4535 if 20 years ago it was Mark’s painting that surfaced : what would’ve happened ? The experts would’ve authenticate it as geniune and the other one would be considered the copy.
@@Quintus-Horatius Probably not, the trees were too well done in Mark's painting, however many Barker of Bath paintings are hanging on walls as Gainsboroughs. LOL, I did wonder if BOTH paintings were Barker of Bath or from a follower of Barker of Bath. Have you seen his work? He can do extraordinary paintings but he has also put out mediocre paintings. A lot like Gainsborough. Mark's painting now needs to be authenticated by a Barker authority.
I BELIEVE IT'S THE REAL PAINTING. COMMON SENSE SAIDS WHAT ARE THE CHANCES THAT GAINSBOROUGH PAINTED ON USED CANVAS OF PORTRAITS OF LADIES. SO CALLED EXPERTS. I CALL IT SAVING FACE...SO SAD FOR THE OWNER WHO HOLDS THE REAL PAINTING....
This poor chap got robbed! The Sotheby’s one had a less compelling provenance, lacking any stamps on frame or all the other entries and clues that Mark’s had! Also, there’s no proof that Barth painted on top of other paintings, but Gainsborough did, on similar looking paintings of giveaway portraits! What an ego trip on this expert’s side!
So this painting is a copy of the real lost Gainsborough. So that means Barker of Bath must have seen the lost painting in order to copy it. No one presented how and when he could have done that.
Seeing as 90% of the artwork out there is fake, there is a good chance the other painting wasn't by Gainsborough either. It will be evaluated every time it's sold so it would be interesting to know.
I love this show. Beautiful art, history and exposes the pretentiousness of the Art market. Do these things have intrinsic value or are they ONLY valuable because of the name ? I have seen some terrible paintings valued at thousands of dollars and seen modern masterpieces go for a couple hundred bucks.
What about the proof that the provenance shows the past from Thomas William, Earl of Lichfield to Henry Graves and that Henry Graves is on the back of the painting and that it had the auction identification from Christie's .... doesn't that hold any merit?....also, it's a good thing the portrait under the gypsies painting was a work done before Gainsborough's lifetime .... and then the proof that Gainsborough reused other artist's canvasses should have held more say in the final decision ....did the determiner not see all of this proof? ....and without the painting that Philip deemed to be the real lost painting not available for comparison, how can anyone now be certain that that painting was the real one?
So….how on earth did that 555N..a Christie’s lot nr get onto that painting?? In my opinion there are too many coincidences like the overpainting, the lot nr and the technical results that get thrown away by the “expert” in the end…illogical
I just watched 3 consecutive episodes where all were classified as “fakes” and 1 common theme across all these are experts “saving face” and being sour grapes.
@@annabellelee4535 understand that, but it’s not like they come without evidence, right? I would also reject if people come without proper evidence. But they do a very thorough job to research the work. And there are episodes where if they don’t have enough evidence they will abandon it. So basically we are still left with experts rejecting overwhelming evidence and unwilling to reverse their original decision to save face.
@@shinichigojir12 Did you see the envelope filled with fake and copied versions of that painting? It's not a Gainsborough. There is no evidence of it being a Gainsborough. The reason behind forgeries is to fool people so they buy the fake painting. The reason behind copies is to create pretty pictures for walls. This is more likely a copy than a forgery. Gainsborough had dozens of people copying his work while he was alive. Stealing real provenance to attach to forgeries and provenance getting mixed up and attached to a copy happens quite often. It is why the experts have the final say. If it is a Barker of Bath, and it hasn't been authenticated by the Barker experts, it would still have significant value since Barker's paintings are skyrocketing in value. However, at this point it doesn't have any real value.
I'm having trouble reconciling the provenance to come up with the picture being by Barker of Bath. If BofB copied the original from Wiltshire, who then sold the original and according to the provenance ended up at Christie's in 1882. How does the Christie's stock number end up on BofB's copy? How does the first part of the provenance end up for the original and the second part for the copy, at a time when the existence of the copy was unknown?
I think it’s important to really take in all the facts presented by careful & reputable experts layer upon layer builds the case for the conclusion thus found , in my humble view
Fiona asked how two paintings could have the same provenance. I had to watch the program several times and take notes in an attempt to understand it. Scenario #1 - Gainsborough painted The Gypsies in Bath, Somerset, ca 1753. He sold prints made from the painting in 1759 and 1764. He either gave or sold The Gypsies to his friend, Walter Wiltshire, who lived at Shockerwick Hall, near Bath. Gainsborough left Bath in 1774. Wiltshire’s grandson sold the painting in 1867 to an unknown buyer. Gallery owner Harold Day bought the painting in Suffolk, ca 1960. It was judged not to be a work by Gainsborough, so it was kept in storage. There were no identification marks on the painting, as it had been relined and reframed, possibly one hundred years previously. In 1999 the painting was cleaned. Gainsborough expert John Hayes then confirmed that it was the lost Gainsborough. The painting was sold in 2001 by Sotheby’s to a private buyer. Its current location is unknown. Scenario #2 - Barker, aged 16, arrived in Bath in 1785. Charles Spackman paid for Barker’s training as an artist. He sent Barker to copy great works of art that belonged to the local large estates. Barker took a canvas, on which was painted a portrait of a young woman by Michael Dahl, and over-painted it with a dark grey ground. He made a copy of The Gypsies at the Wiltshire estate, but some of the details now seen on the prints were omitted. The copy was sold to the Earl of Lichfield in Staffordshire. The earl sold the copy in 1842, as an original work by Gainsborough. Barker died in 1847. Either the original or the copy was sold by Foster’s, in 1879. In 1882, the copy was sold by Christie’s, as a genuine work by Gainsborough, bearing the stock number 555N. The copy, owned by art dealer Henry Graves, was hung in the Gainsborough exhibition at the Grovenor Gallery in 1885. It was sold again by Christie's in 1895. The Cropper family of Cumbria may have bought the copy from Christie’s in 1895, or soon afterwards. In 1929 the family had the painting valued, and it was believed to be the lost Gainsborough. In 1977 the painting was said to be a copy by Barker of Bath, and later to be by a follower of Barker. In 2019, Gainsborough expert, Hugh Belsey, confirmed that the copy was not by Gainsborough, but by Barker of Bath. The verdict was obviously disappointing for Mark Cropper, but fair, based on the combined expertise of all involved.
Again, common old me quite likes Barker of Bath. I'd like one of these episodes to have amongst the 'providance/history' letter from Lord/Lady (cause never Bob & Mavis) Muck saying 'we've some marvellous paintings from (eg Barker of Bath) which we intend to hang in the entrance hall of our ...... we also acquired a couple poorer works by his contempary (eg Gainsborough) which shall send to cousin Henry in the colonies." How much more diverse would our general knowledge of art be if the museums showed works "in the school of" or contemporary to the greats?` Your channel is well named because ultimately it comes down to a person's perspective of what is good art.
all very well.. bt the hidden first of the three "5"s is clearly made from another stencil, as the angle between the upper and lower halfs is very different
@@annabellelee4535 that what making people sit on an imaginary cloud 9 for too long results, they have to comprehend the fact that nowadays in Art, History, Archaeology and Antiquity (which kind of all started when rich white men were bored with their life and decided to go find something to do) is no more! Their opinions are not a final decision but merely a hypothesis. May God help these so 'experts' to let their feet eventually reach earth. 🙏
@@BlackStump172 The X-ray showed it seems a man's portrait, but the original size was larger than "blue Boy" size. The canvas of original painting was cut, so half of the man's head was cut off. Some experts explained Gainsborough used a brand new canvas if the paint was paid by a client, but he might use used canvas if the painting was experimental. "Blue Boy" was his experiment to try the clothing with cold color and background with warm color. His landscape paintings almost were never sold that time so that painting a landscape picture was his pleasure only.
With the age of the canvas proved by the under portrait and the 555N Stamped on frame as listed from it's list of provenanced owners of the original before it went missing then hidden under stickers of age, that's enough to say it was never a fake. Unless they can prove how the back was faked on this one and the other one now missing is real by its back side markings, then it's just bull sh t.
@Annabelle Lee Was easy. I did. It was in no way a fake if that was its only history showed in the book of its provenance before disappearing. The other one said to be it before has to be side by side now to prove it's not fake again.
@@marktaylor3802 🤣🤣🤣🤣Did you get your Gainsborough credentials from the back of a cereal box? They could both be fake. Gainsborough is one of the most faked paintings.
@@marktaylor3802 Obviously I have more skill than you have. LOL. It was never auctioned as "by Gainsborough", only as "attributed to Gainsborough". Which means it just looks like Gainsborough.
It feels as though this one is real andnthe other "lost" on was probably by the artist in Bath! They need to examine that painting, but, of course, the owners of ut wont be keen. Asvwell as the authenticators do not want to be exposed as having gotten it wrong. Wait anothe 10 years and address it; then have it reauthenticated.
I think the picture needs to be readmitted at a later date when technology has made some more advances. After all the research the decision was based on one man's opinion that it just didn't look like a Gainsborough. Shame on them.
I like the painting under the landscape better. She's stunning To me Marks painting is more likely to be Gainsborough. Barker of Bath had a rich guy buying him materials when he was painting, why would he paint over another portrait? Meanwhile we know Gainsboro was extremely hard up at the time of this painting and needed money and there is proof of Gainsboro doing this before. Did Barker of Bath ever paint over another portrait? Plus all the provenance. Ive seen great and highly esteemed experts get things wrong in the past and this show proved they were wrong. It seems to happen all the time so why not now? I believe the science and provenance. Keep that painting safe Mark, its the real thing! Another thing...i think when something this close could be the real thing and we know another copy of it is out there the person who bought it from Southbys should have to also have theirs examined. If you want to own art thats fine but these masterpieces are part of art history and when you own something like that it should be stipulated that you have to allow it to be xrayed, examined, etc...if it comes into question that its the real thing (and the case is good to question it, like this. Not just anyone questioning it) its important that everything is done to ensure the correct artist is attribued to the correct painting for art that truly belongs to the world because of its historical significance. What if the one sold in 99/2000 is fake. Now forever the fake will be known as the real thing and the real thing wont be preserved. Thats not right. It needs to be law that these auction houses form agreements with the buyer to ensure this very thing doesnt happen.
Why would a rich man buy new canvases if he can purchase already used canvases cheaper? Gainsborough is one of the most faked painters for hundreds of years. Remember the estimate is that 90% of artwork is fake.
I'm at 34:38, so I don't know how this turns out, but I'm too excited to speed all the way to the end. [Issue of personal integrity.] This lady was someone's lover, and they broke up painfully, and so the canvas had to be destroyed, but destroying a canvas doesn't make financial sense, and so A, spurned lover, sells this to B for a few pennies. You see where I'm heading. . . .
Ether there was an extra picture or the bath man swapped the canvases to throw people off so the fake has the proper frame ; the lady said the other picture had been reframed , an idea can’t wait til the end to see 😀👍🇫🇷
Didn't you watch the video? The painting isn't by Barker of Bath. If it were, it's worth around 30 thousand dollars or more. It's by a follower of his, worth less than a thousand dollars. Gainsborough would have fetched hundreds of thousands.
31:12 ...... remounted and new frame ...... smell a rat do I ..... as seen on the internet .... restorers hardly ever replace a frame .... for this very reason
The expert at the end gave no quantitative explanation for why he thought it is not a Gainsborough. He went based off of his "feelings." "It lacks the subtlety" that Gainsborough had is not a quantifiable or verifiable statement. "It's too tentative, somehow," is also not a strong argument. "It's too reserved, he would've been much freer than that." Also not an actual argument. This is all opinion. The show provided science, reasoning, and evidence (in the form of the back of the frame, the Christie's number 555N that directly tied the picture to the Gainsborough). These decisions falling to a singular old person who is set in their ways and opinions, and has LOTS of reasons ($$$$) to be biased, it's a real shame. They always get better results when it's a panel of two or more experts coming together.
A.I. will one day reveal that this is a real Gainsborough. To rely on a single person, with agendas and bias, on a verdict of authentication, is highly unprofessional and random
@@saschad7332 What proof of that do you have? Do you think that envelope filled with other Gainsborough "Gipsies repast" were also all authentic? The painting was just not a Gainsborough or a Barker of Bath. It wasn't good enough for either. It was a follower of Barker's who painted it.
There is no provenance proving the painting was a Gainsborough. Remember, they couldn't track it all the way back to the artist. There is no evidence of the first sale.
Many of these decisions regarding artist attributions are subjective, especially given the large amount of evidence presented to the artist 'experts' by the hosts.
after Philip is dead and gone will the real Gainsborough please stand up? humiliation in the art world is a tender subject. Had Philip had this painting it wouldve proved the real one over the one that has supposedly disappeared. Plebians like me dont really care though. They look exactly the same. its all in the name and the name is the game. all of those poor starving artists who couldnt buy a piece of canvas or feed themselves would definitely spit on all the people now fussing over their acclaimed masterpieces. its a real joke amongst themselves. real artist put in the work and usually get no acclaim. look at the palace at versais its attributed to the king who never lifted a finger while spending the country into poverty. its all a sham people wake up! The most beautiful art in the world has already been created. everything else is subjective and a copy of whats already in the world
well it's a shame that they didn't make tons of comparison with other Gainsborough landscape or Barker landscape, because i notice that Gainsborough had a more drawing like quality while Barker had more realistic approach no doubt because of his training, he is imitating, Gainsborough was just himself
How do you know? Barker of Bath sometimes had to repaint a canvas 100 times to get it right. Stretched and primed canvases were expensive, most painters reused and repurposed.
From my naked eye I can tell in Marks pic that the lady in white shawl is hovering over the fire for warmth. 1999 pic NO depth to that character at all. Marks is the true one…HAS THE PROVENANCE.
Stretching and priming canvases is expensive and just a bitch. I'd paint over an old 2-a-penny painting I found somewhere if I were a broke and harried Gainsborough.
This is indeed all a bit hard to swallow. Say it's a Gainsborough and you get sued by whoever owns the one that was previously attributed. But does this mean all the Christie's provenance was wrong. Did Christie's get the attribution wrong way back in the day - I'm surprised they haven't sued! And what about the Grave's label etc. Things that make you go hmmmmmm. I would love to see a redo comparing the now attributed and this painting - without telling the 'expert' which is which. Although I doube the current owner of the already attributed would be willing to comply.
The give away was the limbs on the trees, the real ones were very fluid and imprecise, not realistic, whereas the fake, the limbs were very precise and true to life.
You are correct and my guess is you are an artist. I’m a retired artist and the tree limbs of the “real” painting are so poorly drawn! Any expert could see it in the first moments who was the master and who was not. The flowing movement of the “fake” says it all. I knew someone else had to see it too. Thank you for posting the truth. I will not be watching future episodes.
Compare the print at 7:50 to the 2 paintings at 8:58 and look at the tree, especially the lower branch and how it forks. Only one winner here and the fact that nobody checked is poor.
I love this show but I feel like they sometimes don’t even know what they’re doing. It is extremely difficult to authenticate a painting, especially an old painting. Painting techniques were copied by many.
OK I thought I like the series but this episode was so fake It’s like a bunch of actors when they measure the painting they knew exactly what they were doing and when they were looking for that third five on the back of the painting, they did all that elaborate stuff all knowing well the 5 is under the piece of paper. Sad
I wonder if this decision wasn’t simply made to save face re the earlier attribution of the other landscape to Gainsborough. Seems like there was so much more evidence pointing to Gainsborough than to Barker of Bath, not only the provenance related to major galleries, but the fact that Gainsborough was painting over another artist’s portraits in the same year that he painted The Gypsies. The only reason given for deciding this painting was by Barker of Bath is this expert’s finding that it looked like his style? Well, his style was very similar to Gainsborough’s, if there has been confusion (by the best art dealers and galleries between the two for two centuries or more.
its a tragedy that it was taken to THEM for research and authentication. You could see the poker face knowing he had an actual hand in the outcome. In an hundred years it will be exhanged and acclaimed as the true Gainsborough while the other is the barker of bath
@@theresabraddock9310 I don't think that's likely; this is the third time this picture was downgraded, the way back would be extremely difficult. Authentication is always going to be a problem. It's not as glaringly obvious in this one as it is with others, but there is a lot of ego involved in these evaluations, you're right. The problem is that unless you can trace provenance artist to owner without any blank periods, there's an element of guesswork in the entire process. There's literally nothing else to rely on but experience and years of study, and no matter how much people try, there is always going to be an element of bias when evaluation is as subjective as with art.
Add fakes to possible contemporary copies or fan takes, and you've got a frightful mess and a cause for people to be extra careful when changing past decisions. I remember a short on an art conservator who "aged" frames that had to be recreated by exposing them to the elements, smoking them to replicate real life smoke damage from before the 20th century, and even exposing them to his fly farm, basically a hothouse where he raised flies for the sole purpose of getting fly poop specks on the recreated frames. He also used reclaimed wood from close to or as close to as possible to the required period. The short specifically discussed the complications a process like that could create if used on paintings instead of "just" frames.
I tend to agree Deborah.
I was going to make the same comment. The "art experts" don't want to admit that they made a mistake.
You lost me on this one. Experts opinion only confirms the hosts original call, and doesn’t follow the evidence. This was a miss.
The expert's verdict is, by all means, contrary to the logic of all the findings. To me, the most convincing proof that this is the right Gainsborough is the lady beneath. De Bach would NEVER fake something like this unknowing Gainsborough was up to this at this time. I sincerely think the specialist didn't want the previous "real gypsy" to lose his value, which would irritate very much the buyer and cause a horrible trouble to the auction house.
I totally agree with you. Philip Mould has behaved suspiciously on several episodes - similarly on the Sisley episode that showed scientific evidence was showing this to be a real painting by the artist. It was denied and immediately Philip said it was a forgery. How? There was much evidence otherwise. Including the ornate beautiful period frame - they were very expensive and a forger would not usually spend on such an expensive frame as they usually didn't have the money to afford.
Wow, what a time to be alive. The Witt library alone making their catalogue available online to anyone who wants to take a peek is just amazing. THIS is how the internet was meant to be used!
ONE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT CLUE … at 51:20 you see the x rays of both 1753 dated paintings showing a portrait underneath… LOOK AT THE WOOD TENSIONING PEGS VISIBLE IN THE CORNERS of both paintings… these are ON THE CANVAS/FRAME and could😊 only be placed by THE PAINTER of the top, visible image… THEY ARE IDENTICAL in ANGLE of INTERLOCKING with the frame and nearly identical in SIZE and shape…
That is where all paintings' stretchers have their keys. They are there to add tension where the frame is joined together so every painting you see will have them there. Don't you have any paintings at home? Look at the back and you will see the keys. There will be eight keys, two for each join.
@@annabellelee4535 No, you misunderstood my point, these visible wedges are THE ORIGINAL eighteenth century, NOT a latter modification - reframing which can be easily detected by DIFFERENCE in the shadow where the wedges are now vs. where they had been originally.
@@fivizzano WTF? All paintings have their wedges which are properly called keys in the same place because they are used to tighten the stretcher. Do you understand the function of stretcher keys?
My comment was lost. I am 80. I have loved long as I can remember in a pram loving colours in a flower shop from my pram. I love what I have and love this series thank you ❤
Fascinating episode. I would say this case is inconclusive. There needs to be further investigation.
After gathering all documentation… I said to myself, can I trust experts?
Nope ! Not in this instance , though I do wonder where the birds in the print have gone ?
@@BlackStump172 many artists included "petimenti" (corrections) inside reproductions of his work, so if anyone tried to copy without the "original", you could catch the fake easier. And remember that this painted was relined 21:24 , thus they might have tried to "clean it"... Just like the Sistine Chapel destruction of shadows in the last "restoration"...
Another example that matches this is Goya's "dark pictures". The one of the dog had in the Laurent photo birds flying and the dog was watching them. When they removed the fresco and converted into a canvas, the "restorer" f*cked the painting good (and all the others, too, even cutting them down drastically) and then the birds were gone.
This also applies to other objects for "protection". For example, dictionaries included words that didn't exist just to catch "fakers".
It depends. What I've learned from this series: art experts are sometimes wrong, they even say they don't trust the evidence as much as their own eyes. In one episode _the commission_ seriously admitted "we have not made a decision whether it's real or not, there's been not enough time to analyze everything" or something like that. Every person makes mistakes. These "commissions" consist of people too.
Where the problem lies and why I don't trust them - because _the commissions_ never admit there's even a possibility they could've been wrong at first. Wrong about one painting 23 years ago, for example. There's a mountain of evidence showing some art is legit? Oh, nobody cares. Their ego doesn't let them say they were incorrect. Also, the fear of losing "the reputation" makes them lose it ten times more. At least in my eyes.
But did Barker of Bath reuse canvases of other artists? That question should have been addressed. They proved that Ginsborough DID reuse canvases. What about Barker?
He had to since he would repaint painting over and over until he got them right.
@@annabellelee4535 Repainting one's own work is not the same as reusing another artist's canvas. If there is no example of Barker reusing another artitst's canvas, the case is stronger for the rejected painting.
@@palladin331 How do you know that? Barker of Bath's best Gainsboroughesque paintings were painted when he was poor. It's what brought the attention of the coachmaker who became his sponsor. Barker could paint great paintings and also mediocre paintings. Many "Gainsboroughs" are actually Barker's work and he became more popular than Gainsborough.
@@annabellelee4535 There were only two paintings in the documentary painted on reused canvasses: the painting in question and a recognized Gainsborough. No Barker was named that was painted on a reused canvass. Yet, the experts stuck with the established Gainsborough painting, lacking all of the provenance attached to the painting in question, and deemed the painting in question as a Barker, even though evidence was provided that showed Gainsborough reused other artist's canvasses at the time that the painting in question was painted and no evidence was provided that showed that Barker ever reused canvasses. This should have been investigated.
@@palladin331 But in the real world it is very common to find paintings painted over other paintings. Do your own research and stop believing that you can get all the knowledge needed from a 50 minute video. LOL, smh.
A big part of the fun and excitement about this show is the reveal - so I’ve had to learn the hard way to never ever look at any of the comments before I watch the show (some of them are hard to not see accidentally when you first open the video) because almost inevitably, the first comment will be “I can’t believe the experts denied so-and-so‘s painting…” 😱 😂
Thanks for another interesting episode. I'm not finding the "verdict" convincing at all, yet with the other painting on the front page of Sotheby's catalog, I guess there was no way on earth to find this one could be the true lost painting and thereby not expose a lot of experts in the art world. A delicate problem in recent times. To me truly puzzling is that another picture, painted the same year, accepted as an original Gainsborough painting, had just been confirmed to be painted on a re-used portrait canvass as well. Now, is that other "real thing" actually another Barker? Or why would Barker re-use a portrait canvass the same year that Gainsborough did, when it was G. who had financial difficulties to pay rent? Doesn't make any sense. He had no way of knowing that Gainsbourough did this. All of this sounds fishy. With so many fakes authenticated by experts over the centuries, you really start to wonder how many prestigious paintings in castles, museums and private collections are even for real. The more they test and x-ray, the more are taken down.
I for one am sick to death of investigative research and technical advances being flushed dow the loo at the 11th hour by some ancient “expert” because they simply don’t think so.
I just watched the Fake or Fortune episode about the art forger Han van Meegeren.
It was mentioned there are estimates by art dealers that about 35-40% of the worlds art is fake.
im an artist, and theres something they dont think about. At the TIME, they werent famous., they were just guys painting. They may have copied each other, they may have used each others canvases, I paint over shit all the time. Dont sign things. 100 years later some boffins will try to accredit this or that, but to us who did it we dont even care. Its one of hundreds we have done, then moved on with our lives. Of course its real, but have fun proving it
@@celtoloco788this is true... today. Not in 1750.
I utterly agree...
What happened to the conservator of paintings Rica Jones assessment of the painting?
They brushed over that didn’t they - no pun intended. I don’t agree the 1999 painting even looked right for Gainsborough. I like the expert normally but I think he’s wrong here.
@@deethebee80 Agreed. The evidence presented is astonishing. I would like a reason why Rica was edited out. I can't seem to find a logical reason. They approached HER for analysis. Hmmm... In addition, I'm not sure I would trust the opinion of someone who looks so much like W.C.Fields leaving a pub in determining authentication.!!!
She probably said she didn't think it was a Gainsborough. If she had, it would have been part of the show.
@Annabelle Lee Your comment is quite intriguing. I never thought of that, but now that you mention it, I think it's a strong possibility.
I started watching this series to learn more about art. But what i really learn is that it's a very tickle bussiness. Laws are sketsy. And experts contradict one an other. Even with scientivic evidence you can't be sure. And a painting can be worth a fortune one minute, and next to nothing the next. Thickle indeed!
I believe the word you were looking for is “fickle”. “Thickle” is a demonic pickle.
No, even when scientific evidence refutes an expert’s opinion, opinion is taken over scientific evidence seemingly to maintain an expert’s reputation and the value of some rich guy’s probably fake painting.
@@arsenicjones9125I think demonic pickle seems appropriate.
I would Suggest the Sothebys painting on the cover is by Barker and this is obviously Gainsborough and that they realize they fucked up and dont want to publicly admit it.
Are the “Experts” really going to admit they authenticated a fake? On the cover of the magazine as well?
Philip is great. He really does understand painting as opposed to the large amount of fakers in the scene.
Well... maybe not
So, the old "expert" guy just comes in at the end, he says "it's not by Gainsborough", and THAT'S IT?! just a flimsy explanation (at best) as to how he concluded it wasn't?! pfff!
i am sure it was not like that.
that - old guy- for sure had had a look at all the other evidence as well. as it was shown in the episode.
and, fair enough it had to be for the episode, he had his say in that one sentence.
but just coming in, have a look and say - it isn't- for sure it wasn't like that.
I don’t like his landscapes at all . They don’t give me a buzz and don’t look real .
Well there isn't any concrete evidence to prove it's a Gainsborough. In absence of that, they have to rely on expert opinion. None of the evidence contradicts that it was mistaken for a Gainsborough in the past.
It doesn't match Gainsborough's style and there is no provenance connecting the painting to the artist. There was no first sale evidence.
I’m addicted to this show. Lol. I adore art and absolutely love exploring its composition, but I know nothing about it. I’ve no doubt if I had a limitless budget, I would own an enormous collection. Learning from this show is a wonderful ride. I am very confused on this one however. Taking the earlier authentication out of the discussion, I’m unclear how the detail on the back of the frame, in addition to the provenance isn’t explained as part of the final decision. There is simply so much that leads to a different outcome.
You can not trust these so-called experts, they are few and far between.
experts are just charlatans
I like Barker Of Bath's self-portraits.
He had a good eye for painting people.
great episode!
This is stupid, to me it truly looks like more of a Gainsborough than the other one. Also the provenance trail! It's so compelling! The judgement was made on a technical skill, well Barker of Bath copied Gainsborough's style and the two styles have confused galleries for over a century so that seems rather redundant to judge purely based on style and ignore the compelling provenance trail by this so called expert. This feels rather staged to save face on the other previous one that Philip discovered. When Philip mould and the other expert dies I hope this painting is re-evaluated by an expert that takes everything into consideration not just on artistic style.
oh, it looks like a Gainsborough? Ill make one that does too. That makes it real? ill use old paints and an old canvas. Doesnt make it real in any way. Provenance is all there is
Artistic merit is the only thing they have. There is no evidence of a first sale from the artist.
Mark's painting has the sales provenance with the all the correct numbers etc. Probably 20 yrs down the track this painting will be the one given the OK as the 'real' Gainsborough
No, it has never been authenticated or sold as "by Gainsborough", only attributed to Gainsborough. In the 1970s, it was declared in no way connected to Gainsborough and in the 1980s it was declared in no way connected to Barker of Bath. It is a copy by someone who was not a recognized artist.
The fact that the reused canvas belonged to an artist who was known to Gainsborough at a period of time when we know he was recycling canvases raised my eyebrows a little, but I’ll admit that it was common practice and therefore not conclusive. Whether it’s a copy or an original I hope they keep track of it.
I'm surprised they skipped one of the big issues with the painting regarding the provenance. Clearly the Cropper Gainsborough painting is the one that is referred to in the documentation, including three sales at Christies as evidenced by the stretcher numbers and past owner label. The painting that Philip sold didn't have that, or at least there was no mention of the back of the "genuine" Gainsborough, but it still got the provenance attributed to it from the past Gainsborough scholars because at the time they didn't know the real "lost" Gainsborough was owned by Cropper's family.
This made this episode unsatisfying since all of this is clear by the final edit. I guess they just hadn't reasoned that out during the actual filming. I hope Cropper still has the painting, because it is the real Gainsborough. It had all the evidence going for it including the explanation of painting over another portrait when Gainsborough was poor and couldn't afford a new canvas.
If the painting truly is a by the lesser Bath artist, then it had fooled scholars and Christies for well over 100 years and all that provenance is meaningless, especially for the other painting that was using the Cropper painting provenance.
The trouble is that it was never authenticated as a Gainsborough, it was attributed to Gainsborough. There is a difference between authentic and attributed. Authentic means there is evidence to prove it's by Gainsborough, but attributed means it looks like a Gainsborough but there is no proof that it is by Gainsborough.
@@annabellelee4535 My point is that at 15:00 or so in the video Fiona shows the provenance of the "lost" Gainsborough from the 20th century scholars. That list is what matches up with the Cropper painting, whether it is a Gainsborough or not, that is what matches. That list got magically transferred to the one sold 20 years before because it was assumed it was the match even though it must not have had the Christies 555 mark used in three separate sales or the previous owner, Graves, label. Sure, the Cropper (current owner) painting could have been misattributed back in 1842 and from then on that mistake was carried forward, but transferring that mistake to the other painting doesn't make any sense. The Cropper painting also matches the verified etching used in the b/w prints, which should have carried more weight.
@@kasplat5874 But it was never sold as an authentic Gainsborough. Look at it, it's only attributed to Gainsborough and then it was found to not be a Gainsborough in the 1970s and found to not be a Barker of Bath in the 1980s. The other painting has been authenticated so it had proof that it was a Gainsborough. Paintings have to have proof because forgeries are more common than authentic works. Did you see the stack of Gainsborough paintings that were not authentic? Etchings are a totally different medium and they will never complete match. You can't go from that.
Cropper's painting has never been sold as a genuine Gainsborough. It was only attributed to Gainsborough because the owner said it was a Gainsborough.
I agree with your point about the back of the painting and its importance and the inconsistencies.
Mark really handled bad news well! I am impressed. Interesting how the "expert" analyzed the painting to arrive at his judgment ... I have no idea what "tentative" strokes look like, but the expert certainly knows his art. Interesting dilemma, though, that the painting beneath the painting is worth MORE. What a choice Mark has to make now!
He said “we always knew there was a beautiful face underneath”…..did he accidentally give away the whole performance of “uncovering” these “unknown” secrets that they really knew beforehand actually. Around the 47:35 mark
It amazes me, that the value of the art is determined more by its supposed authorship, than the art itself! The Mona Lisa on a T shirt... 15usd.... in the Louvre, priceless. The image is basically the same! What I love about this program, is all the history that is revealed in the investigations.
Now isn't that just such a, so very, "Human, ... Ego Mind" sort of "trait"?
It applies to every genera, every subject, everything, "particularly apparent in the Arts", let's talk, Vocalists, Actors, etc ...
You are so Correct.
Beth Bartlett
Sociologist/Behavioralist
and Historian
Tennessee, USA
The version in the louve is a canvas which Da Vinci carried with him for almost 15 years. He traveled with that canvas. He would add bits, change, add, glaze, change. add, glaze. 15 years. That is dedication to one work. Every layer applied often with his fingers. Some experts believe it was 3 or 4 years he worked on it, more recently it seems he worked on it as late as 1517, he started Mona in 1503. He essentially skipped out on the commission, instead taking it with him to fiddle with almost right up to his own death. Up to 40 layers of paint in places all thinned to be so transparent that all 40 layers could shine through. It must have been something to see when it was fresh, and completely undamaged.
They failed to do an analysis of the cover up paint used in the attributed Gainsbourgh and then a comparison to that used to cover the portrait used in the gypsies. That evidence would add to the case significantly.
With that much provenance? They just didn't want to say they were duped before, can't lose face.
Such twists and turns. Love this show.
Beats any murder mystery I've ever watched!
To me it’s a bias to have the guy who already authenticated and got a commission and sold a possible copy of the painting in the 90’s. We need a redo on this without the other guy who had a stake in this you can see he didn’t want to admit he was wrong. Shame that it was so biased against the guy all the evidence was more convincing than someone just studying something for a long time saying yeah seems like the guys style. Versus scientific analysis. You can’t even compare the old painting and maybe if you did they would’ve come forward so the two could be compared and the true original found. Seems fishy to me. The art world in general is a big scam sadly.
Honestly I would like for them to do the same treatment to a known Barker of Bath. It's there any evidence that HE reused paintings? I mean, surely that would be a relatively "simple" way to put some questions to rest at least. 🤔🤔🤔
@@islandboy4445 Yeah I feel like for all the money and experts they have access to that they didn’t even broach the topic maybe for drama reasons? It also doesn’t help that there are no photos of the actual painting itself only verbal descriptions. I hope the guy gets a second opinion from someone without a stake in the authenticity of the painting.
@@IDGAF_AboutYourLuckyCharms_238 💯
The authenticator was not involved in the 1990s painting, remember the two who handled the other painting died.
@@annabellelee4535 He explicitly says in the video he was the one who arranged the appraisal of the painting to the late “Expert” on Gainsborough before he died and also stated numerous times in the video that he would have to admit he was wrong in referring it for authentication as a Gainsborough. Did we watch the same video? It still doesn’t help that there wasn’t a more thorough description of the painting or that there were any pictures of it in the late 1800’s.
the best candid episode...
A great pity is that the “original” painting can’t be compared side-by-side with this one. I would not accept any verdict unless it could be compared side-by-side.
Actually it doesn't matter if you accept it or not, it will not be sold at a legit auction as a Gainsborough. It won't even be sold as a Barker of Bath painting. It would be sold as a imitator of Barker of Bath painting because that is what the last expert decided. A similar Barker of Bath is up for sale on Ebay right now.
The owner of the other "official" painting would have zero reason to subject it to another analysis. Right now because the authorities said it's legit it's worth hundreds of thousands--the owner would never risk that being downgraded.
I agree, that would be the ultimate test, comparing them side by side. Since money is involved it might not happen but it doesn't mean that the comparison wouldn't provide new insight.
So, as I understand this, the stretcher was replaced and then used to raise the value of a similar painting. Do we know when this was done? Does someone know the reason for replacing a seemingly working strecher? And why no documentation about the old one was put with the new one? Who was in a position to get hold of the original stretcher and understanding its ”posibilities”?
Yeah, no. If it can’t be compared to the other, the verdict given is worth filth, especially when the painting stands so strong in the possibility that it’s in fact the real one.
What possibility? It was never authenticated as a Gainsborough. It was "attributed to Gainsborough" never "by Gainsborough". In the 1970s it was declared a Barker of Bath, but Barker of Bath authenticators declared it by a follower of Thomas Barker.
It's very interesting, thank's so much 😌.
Is there any proof that Barker of Bath reused any canvases from other people? Seems like one stone left unturned to me.
Sounds like he just repainted over his own paintings himself. Remember that he painted on Gainsborough over a hundred times before he got it right.
Looks like the mischief (switch-a-roo?) occurred during Henry Graves' ownership by "authentication" at the national exhibition then "confirmed" by his Christies' sale. of the piece
That's a possibility and the episode would have been far better had they laid out the scenario in which their final verdict made sense.
I like how Mark gets increasingly tired of the theatrics throughout the show
So wild that for over 100 years the attribution was wrong. Guess they have to change all those books now to say here is the long lost painting where was it before...🤷🏼♀️
I don't know if this comment will be read by the art experts, but the 555 N by Christie's said "engraved work" in the catalog. It's the print, not the painting. In this case, the frame is the frame of one of the prints and not the frame of the original painting. And this would mean that the painting is definitely a fake.
I think Philip and the rest of the authority got it wrong 20 years ago. 😢... Put the GB label back on there Mark. 😔
Why do that when it's not a Gainsborough?
@@annabellelee4535 I believe there was a huge mistake by the expert on this artwork. It's clear that the provenance and the historical facts are related to Mark's picture. But, since 1 person said it is not by G.B, we still consider an artwork with no provenance as the original.
@@Quintus-Horatius But it's not a Gainsborough, they upgraded it to Barker of Bath, but it still would need to be authenticated by a Barker of Bath expert. It's not a painting to be ashamed of, Barker of Bath could paint Gainsborough better than Gainsborough himself at times. The provenance doesn't match the painting. It's why the art world has authorities. Most art is either a forgery or a copy. This falls into the copy category.
@@annabellelee4535 if 20 years ago it was Mark’s painting that surfaced : what would’ve happened ? The experts would’ve authenticate it as geniune and the other one would be considered the copy.
@@Quintus-Horatius Probably not, the trees were too well done in Mark's painting, however many Barker of Bath paintings are hanging on walls as Gainsboroughs. LOL, I did wonder if BOTH paintings were Barker of Bath or from a follower of Barker of Bath. Have you seen his work? He can do extraordinary paintings but he has also put out mediocre paintings. A lot like Gainsborough. Mark's painting now needs to be authenticated by a Barker authority.
I BELIEVE IT'S THE REAL PAINTING. COMMON SENSE SAIDS WHAT ARE THE CHANCES THAT GAINSBOROUGH PAINTED ON USED CANVAS OF PORTRAITS OF LADIES. SO CALLED EXPERTS. I CALL IT SAVING FACE...SO SAD FOR THE OWNER WHO HOLDS THE REAL PAINTING....
Where did you get your art degree?
This poor chap got robbed! The Sotheby’s one had a less compelling provenance, lacking any stamps on frame or all the other entries and clues that Mark’s had! Also, there’s no proof that Barth painted on top of other paintings, but Gainsborough did, on similar looking paintings of giveaway portraits! What an ego trip on this expert’s side!
So this painting is a copy of the real lost Gainsborough. So that means Barker of Bath must have seen the lost painting in order to copy it. No one presented how and when he could have done that.
He visited many country estates looking at paintings.
then the other painting on an older portrait isn’t a Gainsborough either
Seeing as 90% of the artwork out there is fake, there is a good chance the other painting wasn't by Gainsborough either. It will be evaluated every time it's sold so it would be interesting to know.
I love this show.
Beautiful art, history and exposes the pretentiousness of the Art market.
Do these things have intrinsic value or are they ONLY valuable because of the name ?
I have seen some terrible paintings valued at thousands of dollars and seen modern masterpieces go for a couple hundred bucks.
There wearing the same clothes for half of the episode although seemingly days have past by !!! 😊
What about the proof that the provenance shows the past from Thomas William, Earl of Lichfield to Henry Graves and that Henry Graves is on the back of the painting and that it had the auction identification from Christie's .... doesn't that hold any merit?....also, it's a good thing the portrait under the gypsies painting was a work done before Gainsborough's lifetime .... and then the proof that Gainsborough reused other artist's canvasses should have held more say in the final decision ....did the determiner not see all of this proof? ....and without the painting that Philip deemed to be the real lost painting not available for comparison, how can anyone now be certain that that painting was the real one?
So….how on earth did that 555N..a Christie’s lot nr get onto that painting?? In my opinion there are too many coincidences like the overpainting, the lot nr and the technical results that get thrown away by the “expert” in the end…illogical
Its to save face to phillip. I know its a gainsborough. Come on Phillip
Phillip didn't make the decision. The expert did. Gainsborough was highly faked even in his lifetime.
Surely a real Gainsborough would be worth FAR more than £100,000, I would have thought millions!!!
It's not a good Gainsborough though, that makes all the difference.
my heart just dropped...
The "real" one had a new backing and stretcher?? Seriously.....
I just watched 3 consecutive episodes where all were classified as “fakes” and 1 common theme across all these are experts “saving face” and being sour grapes.
Every painting that comes up for evaluation is more likely to be fake than real. Like Phillip said in one episode, about 90% of artwork is fake.
@@annabellelee4535 understand that, but it’s not like they come without evidence, right? I would also reject if people come without proper evidence. But they do a very thorough job to research the work. And there are episodes where if they don’t have enough evidence they will abandon it. So basically we are still left with experts rejecting overwhelming evidence and unwilling to reverse their original decision to save face.
@@shinichigojir12 Did you see the envelope filled with fake and copied versions of that painting? It's not a Gainsborough. There is no evidence of it being a Gainsborough. The reason behind forgeries is to fool people so they buy the fake painting. The reason behind copies is to create pretty pictures for walls. This is more likely a copy than a forgery. Gainsborough had dozens of people copying his work while he was alive. Stealing real provenance to attach to forgeries and provenance getting mixed up and attached to a copy happens quite often. It is why the experts have the final say. If it is a Barker of Bath, and it hasn't been authenticated by the Barker experts, it would still have significant value since Barker's paintings are skyrocketing in value. However, at this point it doesn't have any real value.
I'm having trouble reconciling the provenance to come up with the picture being by Barker of Bath. If BofB copied the original from Wiltshire, who then sold the original and according to the provenance ended up at Christie's in 1882. How does the Christie's stock number end up on BofB's copy? How does the first part of the provenance end up for the original and the second part for the copy, at a time when the existence of the copy was unknown?
I think it’s important to really take in all the facts presented by careful & reputable experts layer upon layer builds the case for the conclusion thus found , in my humble view
Fiona asked how two paintings could have the same provenance. I had to watch the program several times and take notes in an attempt to understand it.
Scenario #1 - Gainsborough painted The Gypsies in Bath, Somerset, ca 1753. He sold prints made from the painting in 1759 and 1764. He either gave or sold The Gypsies to his friend, Walter Wiltshire, who lived at Shockerwick Hall, near Bath. Gainsborough left Bath in 1774. Wiltshire’s grandson sold the painting in 1867 to an unknown buyer. Gallery owner Harold Day bought the painting in Suffolk, ca 1960. It was judged not to be a work by Gainsborough, so it was kept in storage. There were no identification marks on the painting, as it had been relined and reframed, possibly one hundred years previously. In 1999 the painting was cleaned. Gainsborough expert John Hayes then confirmed that it was the lost Gainsborough. The painting was sold in 2001 by Sotheby’s to a private buyer. Its current location is unknown.
Scenario #2 - Barker, aged 16, arrived in Bath in 1785. Charles Spackman paid for Barker’s training as an artist. He sent Barker to copy great works of art that belonged to the local large estates. Barker took a canvas, on which was painted a portrait of a young woman by Michael Dahl, and over-painted it with a dark grey ground. He made a copy of The Gypsies at the Wiltshire estate, but some of the details now seen on the prints were omitted. The copy was sold to the Earl of Lichfield in Staffordshire. The earl sold the copy in 1842, as an original work by Gainsborough. Barker died in 1847.
Either the original or the copy was sold by Foster’s, in 1879. In 1882, the copy was sold by Christie’s, as a genuine work by Gainsborough, bearing the stock number 555N. The copy, owned by art dealer Henry Graves, was hung in the Gainsborough exhibition at the Grovenor Gallery in 1885. It was sold again by Christie's in 1895.
The Cropper family of Cumbria may have bought the copy from Christie’s in 1895, or soon afterwards. In 1929 the family had the painting valued, and it was believed to be the lost Gainsborough. In 1977 the painting was said to be a copy by Barker of Bath, and later to be by a follower of Barker.
In 2019, Gainsborough expert, Hugh Belsey, confirmed that the copy was not by Gainsborough, but by Barker of Bath.
The verdict was obviously disappointing for Mark Cropper, but fair, based on the combined expertise of all involved.
Again, common old me quite likes Barker of Bath.
I'd like one of these episodes to have amongst the 'providance/history' letter from Lord/Lady (cause never Bob & Mavis) Muck saying 'we've some marvellous paintings from (eg Barker of Bath) which we intend to hang in the entrance hall of our ...... we also acquired a couple poorer works by his contempary (eg Gainsborough) which shall send to cousin Henry in the colonies."
How much more diverse would our general knowledge of art be if the museums showed works "in the school of" or contemporary to the greats?` Your channel is well named because ultimately it comes down to a person's perspective of what is good art.
I like to see them have them cleaned.
all very well.. bt the hidden first of the three "5"s is clearly made from another stencil, as the angle between the upper and lower halfs is very different
I have zero confidence in these ‘expert’ committees that seem to run on ego rather than expertise.
Terrific story! Great job
Suggest re-evaluating the painting with another expert. Clearly from the comments that the majority weren't convinced.
There is no other expert above the one that evaluated the painting. That's what "leading authority" means.
@@annabellelee4535 that what making people sit on an imaginary cloud 9 for too long results, they have to comprehend the fact that nowadays in Art, History, Archaeology and Antiquity (which kind of all started when rich white men were bored with their life and decided to go find something to do) is no more! Their opinions are not a final decision but merely a hypothesis. May God help these so 'experts' to let their feet eventually reach earth. 🙏
@@bo2764 Wow, I bet you buy a lot of bridges.
That was a good one.
Sometimes there is a VERY thin line between the legitimate authentication process and covering one's ass re: one's earlier published decisions.
Watch the video and pay more attention. This is a different expert from the two who evaluated the real Gipsies Repast.
Beneath "Blue Boy" was another image.
What was there ?
@@BlackStump172 The X-ray showed it seems a man's portrait, but the original size was larger than "blue Boy" size. The canvas of original painting was cut, so half of the man's head was cut off. Some experts explained Gainsborough used a brand new canvas if the paint was paid by a client, but he might use used canvas if the painting was experimental. "Blue Boy" was his experiment to try the clothing with cold color and background with warm color. His landscape paintings almost were never sold that time so that painting a landscape picture was his pleasure only.
With the age of the canvas proved by the under portrait and the 555N Stamped on frame as listed from it's list of provenanced owners of the original before it went missing then hidden under stickers of age, that's enough to say it was never a fake. Unless they can prove how the back was faked on this one and the other one now missing is real by its back side markings, then it's just bull sh t.
How can you say that? Christies has sold fake paintings before.
@Annabelle Lee Was easy. I did. It was in no way a fake if that was its only history showed in the book of its provenance before disappearing. The other one said to be it before has to be side by side now to prove it's not fake again.
@@marktaylor3802 🤣🤣🤣🤣Did you get your Gainsborough credentials from the back of a cereal box? They could both be fake. Gainsborough is one of the most faked paintings.
@@annabellelee4535 obviosly you have little comprehension skills.
@@marktaylor3802 Obviously I have more skill than you have. LOL. It was never auctioned as "by Gainsborough", only as "attributed to Gainsborough". Which means it just looks like Gainsborough.
It feels as though this one is real andnthe other "lost" on was probably by the artist in Bath! They need to examine that painting, but, of course, the owners of ut wont be keen. Asvwell as the authenticators do not want to be exposed as having gotten it wrong. Wait anothe 10 years and address it; then have it reauthenticated.
I think the picture needs to be readmitted at a later date when technology has made some more advances. After all the research the decision was based on one man's opinion that it just didn't look like a Gainsborough. Shame on them.
9:09 the one on the right is the copy ..... or the sky has been badly over painted .... or I could be a virgin
How annoying. If so many paintings are just shoved int basements why doesnt the museums just sell them? At least they can be loved
Marks is the true one. LOOK 😳 at the 1999 pic. In wanting to “find” the lost one….it was produced, and likely from the etching as a guide.
It could be that none of them is the original, remember the envelope of photos of the Gipsies Repast painting? There were dozens.
That couldn’t possibly be a Gainsborough, it’s actually skilled, interesting and not saccharine.
It is more interesting than most Gainsboroughs which leads one to think it was a Barker of Bath painting.
I like the painting under the landscape better. She's stunning
To me Marks painting is more likely to be Gainsborough. Barker of Bath had a rich guy buying him materials when he was painting, why would he paint over another portrait? Meanwhile we know Gainsboro was extremely hard up at the time of this painting and needed money and there is proof of Gainsboro doing this before. Did Barker of Bath ever paint over another portrait? Plus all the provenance.
Ive seen great and highly esteemed experts get things wrong in the past and this show proved they were wrong. It seems to happen all the time so why not now?
I believe the science and provenance.
Keep that painting safe Mark, its the real thing!
Another thing...i think when something this close could be the real thing and we know another copy of it is out there the person who bought it from Southbys should have to also have theirs examined. If you want to own art thats fine but these masterpieces are part of art history and when you own something like that it should be stipulated that you have to allow it to be xrayed, examined, etc...if it comes into question that its the real thing (and the case is good to question it, like this. Not just anyone questioning it) its important that everything is done to ensure the correct artist is attribued to the correct painting for art that truly belongs to the world because of its historical significance. What if the one sold in 99/2000 is fake. Now forever the fake will be known as the real thing and the real thing wont be preserved. Thats not right. It needs to be law that these auction houses form agreements with the buyer to ensure this very thing doesnt happen.
Why would a rich man buy new canvases if he can purchase already used canvases cheaper? Gainsborough is one of the most faked painters for hundreds of years. Remember the estimate is that 90% of artwork is fake.
I'm at 34:38, so I don't know how this turns out, but I'm too excited to speed all the way to the end. [Issue of personal integrity.] This lady was someone's lover, and they broke up painfully, and so the canvas had to be destroyed, but destroying a canvas doesn't make financial sense, and so A, spurned lover, sells this to B for a few pennies. You see where I'm heading. . . .
Ether there was an extra picture or the bath man swapped the canvases to throw people off so the fake has the proper frame ; the lady said the other picture had been reframed , an idea can’t wait til the end to see 😀👍🇫🇷
Didn't you watch the video? The painting isn't by Barker of Bath. If it were, it's worth around 30 thousand dollars or more. It's by a follower of his, worth less than a thousand dollars. Gainsborough would have fetched hundreds of thousands.
Yes I did but I made the comment before the end ,I will watch it all next time 😀👍🇫🇷
31:12 ...... remounted and new frame ...... smell a rat do I ..... as seen on the internet .... restorers hardly ever replace a frame .... for this very reason
Frames are often replaced, so are stretcher bars if they need to be. Even the Mona Lisa isn't in her original frame.
I knew it! He was repurposing an earlier canvas.
so the other painting with the women underneath is not a Gainsborough?
The expert at the end gave no quantitative explanation for why he thought it is not a Gainsborough. He went based off of his "feelings." "It lacks the subtlety" that Gainsborough had is not a quantifiable or verifiable statement. "It's too tentative, somehow," is also not a strong argument. "It's too reserved, he would've been much freer than that." Also not an actual argument. This is all opinion. The show provided science, reasoning, and evidence (in the form of the back of the frame, the Christie's number 555N that directly tied the picture to the Gainsborough). These decisions falling to a singular old person who is set in their ways and opinions, and has LOTS of reasons ($$$$) to be biased, it's a real shame. They always get better results when it's a panel of two or more experts coming together.
It's a bit crazy to me that the worth of art is more dependent on "who" painted it than the actual quality and composition of the piece.
It’s about autographs, not art.
A.I. will one day reveal that this is a real Gainsborough. To rely on a single person, with agendas and bias, on a verdict of authentication, is highly unprofessional and random
I agree. AI is the way to go.
What agenda or bias did the foremost authenticator have?
@@annabellelee4535 an old friend of phil
@@saschad7332 What proof of that do you have? Do you think that envelope filled with other Gainsborough "Gipsies repast" were also all authentic? The painting was just not a Gainsborough or a Barker of Bath. It wasn't good enough for either. It was a follower of Barker's who painted it.
Dr. Barndoor could provide even better evidence..Why is he no longer consulted?
I don't belive the expert over all the provenance either
There is no provenance proving the painting was a Gainsborough. Remember, they couldn't track it all the way back to the artist. There is no evidence of the first sale.
Many of these decisions regarding artist attributions are subjective, especially given the large amount of evidence presented to the artist 'experts' by the hosts.
after Philip is dead and gone will the real Gainsborough please stand up? humiliation in the art world is a tender subject. Had Philip had this painting it wouldve proved the real one over the one that has supposedly disappeared. Plebians like me dont really care though. They look exactly the same. its all in the name and the name is the game. all of those poor starving artists who couldnt buy a piece of canvas or feed themselves would definitely spit on all the people now fussing over their acclaimed masterpieces. its a real joke amongst themselves. real artist put in the work and usually get no acclaim. look at the palace at versais its attributed to the king who never lifted a finger while spending the country into poverty. its all a sham people wake up! The most beautiful art in the world has already been created. everything else is subjective and a copy of whats already in the world
Except for Vincent's and other impressionist artists. I don't think Vincent even sold a painting in his lifetime
well it's a shame that they didn't make tons of comparison with other Gainsborough landscape or Barker landscape, because i notice that Gainsborough had a more drawing like quality while Barker had more realistic approach no doubt because of his training, he is imitating, Gainsborough was just himself
mwah weak argument of style ... The portrait underneath is actual proof it's Gainsborough, simple as that--- BoB didn't do that.
How do you know? Barker of Bath sometimes had to repaint a canvas 100 times to get it right. Stretched and primed canvases were expensive, most painters reused and repurposed.
From my naked eye I can tell in Marks pic that the lady in white shawl is hovering over the fire for warmth. 1999 pic NO depth to that character at all. Marks is the true one…HAS THE PROVENANCE.
Nope, there was no provenance back to Gainsborough. They didn't even find the first sale.
Stretching and priming canvases is expensive and just a bitch. I'd paint over an old 2-a-penny painting I found somewhere if I were a broke and harried Gainsborough.
You would also if you were a rich guy wanting to make more money per canvas.
After the expert's decision, I'd have put my foot straight through it.
It's still worth some money. Not as much as it would be as a Gainsborough or a Barker of Bath.
This is indeed all a bit hard to swallow. Say it's a Gainsborough and you get sued by whoever owns the one that was previously attributed. But does this mean all the Christie's provenance was wrong. Did Christie's get the attribution wrong way back in the day - I'm surprised they haven't sued! And what about the Grave's label etc. Things that make you go hmmmmmm. I would love to see a redo comparing the now attributed and this painting - without telling the 'expert' which is which. Although I doube the current owner of the already attributed would be willing to comply.
It seems like all of the people back then either looked exactly alike, or they just painted them that way. Am I the only one that wonders?
The give away was the limbs on the trees, the real ones were very fluid and imprecise, not realistic, whereas the fake, the limbs were very precise and true to life.
Hahaha. You can tell that from a computer screen?
You are correct and my guess is you are an artist. I’m a retired artist and the tree limbs of the “real” painting are so poorly drawn! Any expert could see it in the first moments who was the master and who was not. The flowing movement of the “fake” says it all. I knew someone else had to see it too. Thank you for posting the truth. I will not be watching future episodes.
Compare the print at 7:50 to the 2 paintings at 8:58 and look at the tree, especially the lower branch and how it forks. Only one winner here and the fact that nobody checked is poor.
I love this show but I feel like they sometimes don’t even know what they’re doing. It is extremely difficult to authenticate a painting, especially an old painting. Painting techniques were copied by many.
OK I thought I like the series but this episode was so fake It’s like a bunch of actors when they measure the painting they knew exactly what they were doing and when they were looking for that third five on the back of the painting, they did all that elaborate stuff all knowing well the 5 is under the piece of paper. Sad
But... doesn't a rose by any other name smell as sweet?
Sure, they smell the same, but the price is different according to the hand holding the brush.