Patricia Reed doesn’t want to update her opinion to “save face” however ironically it’s her choice not to admit an error that will do exactly what she’s trying to avoid. She had the perfect excuse to do the honourable thing: new and convincing evidence that she did not have when she made her catalogue. Courts are willing to absolve a wrongly committed person when new evidence of innocence arises. To steadfastly hold otherwise in the face of such convincing new evidence is nothing short of dishonourable!
Any serious collector who sees this show would be convicted of the painting’s authenticity, so it’s not just worth a few hundred pounds. Congratulations on one of the best shows in the series!
Indeed....but Patricia's not then seen in a good light if she had made a mistake?...So her pride has got in the way. Makes her look even more foolish now.
The point that Nicholson had a number of talented students whom he tutored in the style of his work is sufficient grounds to throw doubt on the provenance of this painting. Artists have to take income from wherever they can find it or starve, and some students are almost as good as their teachers.
But if it is a Nicholson, it would be a bigger travesty to have one of his works be effectively discarded. Could also potentially make the remainder worth more I guess...
@@robertchautardjensen6846 I cannot believe that any painter, even if they taught others in their style, would then sign the back of the board as though it were their own work and more importantly sign the student's work in their own unique style (Initial over thumb print), and thus be a party to forging their own work. Can Reed point to any known work by a student that was signed by Nicholson? Is there any evidence he followed this practice. If they were out there, would not their owners be claiming them as Nicholson's? Would not PR be flooded with paintings done under her scenario? Her claim is totally illogical and nonsensical. She makes herself look idiotic.
The most important thing an art expert has, is their reputation -- anything that puts that in question is anathema. This "Expert" was simply protecting her reputation, rather than admit the truth.
As I said earlier, it is easy for an egotistical "expert" to say no, regardless of the 100% proof of authenticity. Experts should be licensed by the government and in cases like this, they should be removed and replaced.
@@joseh3564 I was what Ruskin called a Decorative Artist, working in iron on historic buildings. I didn´t sign my work -- I "signed" the building with my work. People said that like the woodworker who carved a mouse on everything, I should leave a signature, my feeling was that whatever I added to a situation should look as if it had always been there, and not divert attention from the whole. If the signature affects the value, I think that is the property market, not the art world I know. If I was a famous painter, making pictures for a London gallery, and I finished a painting, would I perhaps wonder what it would fetch if I didn´t sign it ? Credit was not an issue, when I put railings on a property, I did not want passers by to say "What lovely railings", but "What a lovely house."
Sounds like Patricia doesnt want to be wrong or admit she made a mistake. The paint on the picture came from his box and writing on back is by his hand, but someone else painted it? Preposterous. Plus the initial over the thumb print was his. Why would he sign a student's work? That would make Nickolson the forger?
although I dont like her conclusion either, technically, shes right. the only defining thing is the signature from the front ..the back could likely just be an old used canvas. lots of teachers supply paint to students or even help them paint with their own paints or add to missing colors from their own supply etc... and it appears he used the same colors at that time that students would likely use. the formulation would likely be the same and match old tubes. I find the mueum piece odd and flat with no other abstraction pieces shown to mirror a possible phase. I found the fake to be more like Nicholson body of work than the real one
@@rnkim2564 yes possible, but unlikely Nickolson would scrape off flowers to let a student paint over them. I heard no mention of him being that broke. It was concidered real by all who owned it, but could not be traced back to time of Nickolson is the only ? mark.
@@rnkim2564 No, they said that the application of the paint on both paintings were identical as well. If this process of final decision is true, then how can we believe that any painting in question years later is authentic? We can't. No, not one. So now I consider that any painting that later was questioned in the past as possible fakes and wouldn't give a dime for them. No way...years later have another expert say no and that decision stand. Lyn's relative was an expert as well. And her opinion was rejected by this new expert. And the opinion of all the other experts didn't matter. If this is how the art world works, it's ugly and no one would invest in it. $165,000...poof, it's gone because of one lady's ego and reputation. POOF
And if the art world is going to let her get away with it...I've lost all respect for all value of all paintings. It comes down to what someone is willing to pay....but those expert opinions, geez.
Well, I think Patricia Reed need to explain why Nicholson would allow somebody to paint a very good, exceptionally mimicked in style and technique, "forgery"/copy in his studio, with his paints, on one of his boards, under his supervision, and then write things on the back of it, including the title. Just saying "it's possible" and argue she "feels", is ultimately going to drag her own name in the mud. If not now, then later. And not because she was wrong - that's nothing, of course anyone can be wrong -, but because she let personal pride bias her to give a false statement. What kind of "expertise" is that? People will ask that question. But, as the saying goes: Art is not a scam. But the art market is.
100% agree here, her suggestion doesnt add up. To me she's lost all her credibility. The previous Catalog Res lady KNEW the artist as a personal friend. Patricia Reed looks rather silly here, she's strayed from the path and become too big for her boots !
The so call Modern experts of today are all like that. She didn't got famous for painting, but for creating a catalogue. She would probably die before every admitting otherwise. The fact that many museums and real experts said otherwise is meaningless to her, is just like many other fields in academia. Archeology is a big example.
@@bradcogar2915 It's not a signature, it's the letter N. Maybe the student was also named "N.". If they were painting side-by-side, imagine the master finishing it off with his thumbprint monogram and then the student does the same, including _his_ monogram which is also an "N.". That would get a good-natured laugh out of the master, who got the joke and thought the upright block letter didn't look like his curvy version.
I find it disgusting that 1 “ expert” can deny a piece of art despite scientific evidence. It seems that the art world, only goes on feelings and can ignore actual provable fact on a single persons whim. It makes me think that the “expert’s” pride and fear of losing status and exclusivity are the real driver in their decision making. In the case the early “ expert” ( the aunt) she thought it was genuine and she knew the artist. The present day “expert “ won’t budge because of her pride but she can be replaced as the final arbiter. I would imagine there are people who are willing to accept the painting as real based on the evidence and will look at it as an investment. There might be additional interest because of the “ lost” freesia painting underneath. The expert is wrong in this case. She may think she is saving her career but in this case she may actually ruining it instead.
I want to say that she is going on her longtime experience and not just feelings, but it's hard to know really what she's about because she wouldn't show up to discuss it.
My suggestion - put the piece up for auction by Sotheby's WITH ALL THE EVIDENCE....and let the market decide. I saw the glint in the Ottawa curator's eyes...HE wanted THAT painting....bad. I ought to know.....I collect art and deal in it. I could tell by his mannerisms.....he wanted it.
@@Isabella-nd3rq Yes, since she purchased it from a reputable gallery that is still in business, if she wanted to return it they probably wouldn't hesitate to reimburse the original purchase price. She seems to have an emotional connection with the painting.
If she sold it for a pittance to an established collector within the art market circle, then and only then it would the expert magically change her mind and accept it as an authentic Nicholson. That's how the art market works; they keep the common people out of it and prey off their losses whenever possible.
Why on earth didn't the "art detectives" journalist Fiona Bruce and Philip Mould put the so called Nicholson "expert" Patricia Reed (author of the catalogue raisonné of William Nicholson) under the microscope? Can anyone auto-declare oneself an expert and write a catalogue raisonné? Reed said the plates in the painting were 'boringly painted' (!) I have been painting for 50+ years and have taught painting. One of the things that struck me immediately about this painting was how beautifully and economically the plates had been painted. In this episode the The Glass Jug and the Canadian painting are so obviously genuine and the 'expert', so obviously a fake...
That fact that she declined the invitation to say in person that she still doesn't think this painting is authentic speaks volumes. It says to me that she won't accept that she was wrong and her pride is worth preserving rather than preserving and progressing the very work she's dedicated her life to. So sad smh
Anyone else notice how Lyn’s painting looks MUCH more like Nicholson’s other still life’s in his catalog than the one in Canada? Which, if you want my honest opinion, looked like a child’s interpretation of Lyn’s painting! Despite the mountain of research to support Lyn’s painting, it was clear to me the author of the “official” resonea declining to hand deliver her decision, was proof she was not going to admit on television that she was in anyway in error. Her ego just makes her look like an idiot. Also, it’s simply mind numbing wrapping my head around Nicholson’s amazing technique at conveying in oils, the photographic realism of textured glass, glazed ceramic and even polished silver in his works. Well, If I had the money, I’d be proud to have Lyn’s “Glass Jar” hanging on my wall! 😉
Au contraire M. Demmin, As an artist, The Canadian painting show much more time and effort than Lyn's! A child could paint like him, but a real Artist show more knowledge in fine detail. Lyn's way is so dated it belongs with Cubism! Even Dali would say so!
It is not only a matter of ego. Those people have the reputation of "mastering" their field. Admitting they made a blunder is putting their reputation in jeopardy. Big money is at stake too.
For me the Ottawa painting looks like not finished with pears and plate only very roughly sketched with paint. Why would he paint dimensional jug with light and everything and pears only with two flat colours and plate with a line?
Patricia’s verdict is very questionable I say… after so much proof presented to her maybe Patricia is not willing to admit… suspicious to me why she wouldn’t come in person?
Yes. She obviously is not qualified to make reasonable decisions. What an embarrassment for her. Does she think people won't look at her differently afterwards?
The amount of improbable things to happen in order for this painting to NOT be a Nicholson, would be absurd. If the painting were a forge, it couldn't possibly forge all the correct paints, the correct time frame, and the hand writing on the back. If the painting were by a student of Nicholson, sure it could explain about the scrapped painting underneath, but it couldn't explain why Nicholson would need to write "glass jug" on the back, and it couldn't explain the same paint markings as the painting in Ottawa. Furthermore, if it were a painting by a student, like Winston Churchill, why would he forge the signature of Nicholson then? Patricia Reed says she doesn't find enough evidence to say the painting is a Nicholson, well may I add, but there ISN'T any to say that it isn't.
I am an artist. After seeing the evidence, I think the work is authentic. It is likely that the artist was experimenting by painting the still life twice, using his current expressive style vs abstracting it by flattening the objects in the still life. All artists are affected by new trends and the painting styles of their contemporaries. It causes them to push the edges of their style and compare the outcome. Its possible it’s a demonstration of how the same still life could be painted to completely different effect. Artists do this all the time. I hope they keep looking for more evidence… and enjoy the painting.
I agree he could have been experimenting. But the jar doesn't look flat, while the pears and the plate does. So - two different styles in one painting?
Agree with you. The first expert on the artist authenticated this painting, the scientific evidence is absolute. Wondering if the later ‘expert’ cannot reconcile she was incorrect. It’s a huge embarrassment and loss of credibility to her expert status having tossed aside the original expert’s decision to be overruled by science and provenience.
The "genuine" painting looks like a student did it.....this lady's painting looks like it's a finished peice of work by a proper artist. I can't believe they denied it! Wow
@@Anna-Gunilla1792 Exactly. The master could have painted the slightly abstract Canadian one, while a pupil painted the more conventional version at the same time using the same materials. That's what the expert thinks can't be ruled out. That would explain the evidence, and then it comes down to her expertise that some things aren't as well executed as she would expect.
This entire series of programmes really highlights just how inexpert those who purport to be experts in fine art actually are and how chancers exist at every level of the business of fine art trading.
Yes, in a court room evidence, even if it is circumstantial is given more weight than opinion. A legal action could be a better way to decide this. And with 165 grand lost, this owner certainly has damages and has standing. Good idea.
I find it fascinating and slightly arcane, how the value of "art" is determined. Thank you for helping to shed some light on the process. I'm no expert, but the Ottawa painting looks like the work of a student, and Lyn's is the work of the master.
i agree. It sounds like the expert knows that they made a mistake and is doing everything to cover it (My opinion only). When I saw the Ottawa painting, it looked childish while Lyn's looks like it was done by an expert.
Agreed! This is an “expert” who also wrote a book about the “Alkaline Diet”(no evidence that this diet fights cancer and helps lose weight) (causality illusion, you’re losing weight because you are eating more broccoli, and reducing calories, not because of broccoli’s ph level.) At this point, i question if Patricia Reed is less about scientific evidence and more about making her decisions based on confirmation/anchoring/sunk costs biases. It’s not hard to understand that someone would not be willing to change their mind, if their decision was already “published”. It seems to me that by allowing just one person all the power, with no formal place to appeal (why not allow the decision to be reviewed by an impartial person/board?) that is shows that the art world still has a long way to go in ensuring that the art market becomes less volatile and more reputable. FCC will not allow the “public” to invest in some types of funds, given the shark infested waters. From my naive and ignorant opinion, investing in art seems like the Megalodon all shark invested waters.
It's whatever the dumbest, richest art speculators make it. Nothing more or less. Especially the modern crap (by this I mean anything since the popularization of photography).
I suppose I'm missing something here, but I have to wonder: why can't microscopic analysis be used to compare the (extensively discussed) thumb print on the front of Glass Jug with the thumb prints that must exist on many, perhaps most, of Nicholson's other works under their signatures? True, he put down his thumb print, then painted his initial over it, so only portions (mostly around the edges) of the print might remain. The same would be true for the thumb prints on the other known Nicholson works. But if enough tiny bits of thumb print could be matched out from different paintings and a positive match made to Glass Jug, wouldn't that absolutely settle the matter? Any skilled artist might be able to convincingly duplicate Nicholson's initial, but not the thumb print! Maybe there are technical reasons this is not doable, but it's disappointing the possibility was not addressed even as they stood about discussing the existence of the thumb prints.
The reality is, as a painter, not all paintings are successful ones OR have the same quality of handling. So, it could easily be one of his less successful works - it happens all the time as an artist. I am sure the 'expert' is wrong. I have seen other episodes where experts say a work of art is not authentic, then some years later more evidence is put forward, then the experts say it is authentic. I hope the owner keeps the painting and keeps looking into its provenance.
Gripping results…I believe Patricia Reed is dead wrong…your research and evidence, as you have said, was the most complete examination you’ve conducted… I really have visceral sadness for her…I wish her only the best and I know it was difficult for you…be safe…
My sadness is for Patricia Reed to NOT have the humility to admit she's WRONG. The only way anyone is going to convince this arrogant female is if Nicholson himself rose from the grave and told her PERSONALLY.
Surely there is a market for paintings like this that are charged with mystery and intrigue. It’s more than a beautiful painting, it’s a beautiful painting with a fantastic story attached which includes a whole cast of interesting historical characters. It’s still a treasure in my book.
When I was a child I believed any person of authority/expertise must be that because of unquestionable skill. When I grew up I realized I was very wrong, many got there by - knowing the right people... just their turn in a broken system... kissed the right rear ends, etc. This is why you always seek 2nd opinions when it comes to important health concerns. This episode is a great reminder to always question 'authority'.
And how often do we think tall or big men are therefore smarter or more capable? Would a short Trump have gotten nearly as far conning people? I've been watching the recent Murdaugh trial - he's another one given the benefit of any doubt, who should never have been.
Why would the artist write the name on the back of the painting if it were done by a student? I trust the writing expert. I do not trust the person who had the last say. What a terrible system. My heart goes out to the victim here.
ONE person is the judge? If other experts disagree, why is Patricia Reed the final answer? I think the Ottawa painting to be the fake - compared to Nicholson's vast sophisticated portraitures and scenery - it's so flat with no detail. Its provenance wasn't mentioned. Perhaps Patricia Reed fears for her professional status in changing her assessment. I agree with Lyn.
I completely agree that Lynn’s painting is authentic, but your comment about the Ottawa painting being fake contradicts your argument - for Lynn’s to be authentic based on scientific evidence the Ottawa painting would really have to be authentic as well
Wow! You’ve found the murderer, the weapon, and the fingerprint, but the murderer is free to go?! I’m probably not the only one that is shocked by this verdict!
Brilliant job guys. She is hardly going to go back on her word, she has just produced the definitive catalogue, going against her word even if the evidence is so strong a whole host of people would come forward and question her work, what a closed world the art world is.
As a scientist, _a painting is therefore not judged on a scientific result but on the feelings of a person with a HUGE ego._ When you know how corrupt the _'art world'_ is...
I think it is a genuine painting. I was convinced by the dot under the letter of the artists signature. It's a shame that one person has authority to pronounce it real or fake. Maybe a commission or a group of experts should be formed and then majority rules
...this smacks of professional 'envy' ...Reid must have had a run in with her aunt at some point over Nicholson ...and it's an angle which hasn't been looked at
I thought this from the start of the episode, but was hoping she would relent under the mound of evidence. Very sad outcome for the owner of the painting, but I think Patricia Reed’s karma is in the tank…
What a shame, that a so called expert has so much power. She should lose her reputation! Greetings from Germany and good luck for the owner and this delicate painting. You did an excellent job!
I agree. How awful & spiteful that she was probably wrong.when she left it out of the catalog & now doesn't have the guts to admit her mistake. There are just far to many similarities. No wonder she wouldn't see them. What an ego !!
I love this series and this is THE _Most Disappointing_ outcomes I've watched. I cannot believe Ms Reed would not authenticate this painting. In my opinion, she just didn't wanted to be proved wrong. Absolute injustice.
It happened the same in this series for a Touluse Lautrec sketch book that was beyond any doubt. It is about money and how many paintings from the author are on the market. If there are more of them -->less money. And obviously is about vanity and recognizing a mistake. If the expert recognized that made a mistake then it is not such an expert any more and again--> less money and authority in the art world. It would be like should we call Patricia to authenticate this painting? Oh she failed at one where she was an expert... hmm
My thoughts, as well. You've really brought us to the heart of the issue. For the expert to reverse her judgement she must first admit to being flat wrong previously. "Wrong" discredits her.
A good expert will always be willing to change their mind when the evidence suggests it. Because Nicholson painted beside so many people, mostly students, it becomes circumstantial that the paint and other attributes are similar. Similar paint is insufficient to prove the original artist.
@@alanmcentee9457 indeed but in this situation it wasn't a cometee it was a nominal person that built a huge catalog and refused the painting. That makes things more personal. So a student painted smth on his painting frame with his colors and he signed it on the back. The question is : it was that a normal practice for the painter? It is unusual at least. If that happend with .ore paintings maybe it is something...Why the painting was signed anyways on the front with his patern thumb painting thing if it was from a student?
@@cristianromanoschi6963 None of the questions you ask are evidence on who painted it. It could have been a student copying Nicholson's style or a forger imitating Nicholson. For Nicholson it was normal practice to share his style and apparently his paints with his students. Just because the circumstantial evidence is swaying your opinion does not mean it is sufficient to sway others. You are free to publish a book of all the Nicholson paintings you accept. And so is Reed permitted to publish her book. And either, neither, or both of you could be correct. If those in the business want to follow's Reed's catalog then that is their right. There is nothing preventing the current owner from still claiming it is a original Nicholson, just as there is nothing forcing Reed to accept it.
@Malread Ryan - I think the clear, smooth glass jug as rendered in the Ottawa painting is as masterful as the textured jug in the painting featured in this episode. I don't see why we have to think of the 2 pictures as 1 fake, 1 genuine.
I wasn't expecting that. There have been less convincing dossiers for other paintings that were admitted as genuine. It makes sense that some of his students might have painted it on an old board of his, but how about the title in his own handwritting? That does not make any sense.
Frankly the whole argument makes little sense. Sure there may have been student- ok. And sure that student may have used an old board and the same paints as Nicholson while in the same studio. BUT it is a gigantic leap from that to say that any student could and would paint exactly like Nicholson even if they were at the same place at the same time. Would Nicholson even allow a student to so obviously copy his style rather than finding their own, even if this mythical student had the ability, skill and technique to do so? If such a student existed it is on this "expert" to prove it by providing one such student- as well as other artworks by the same student as a basis for comparison. Doubt she can.
The train timetable was for the petunias painting, to be handed over near Windsor. That deal fell through, the petunias were never delivered. Later, the painting was overwritten and "Glass Jar" was written on the back. I would love to know why the petunias failed. It would be amazing if there was an intriguing back-story there.
The "expert" seems to be dead wrong. To have 100% "yes" on paint matches, handwriting, etc is a complete injustice. Ms. Reed seems to be a fake expert herself. 😮
My biggest question is, why did Nicholson's paint box have paints with 1950s labels an plastic caps, when plastic caps were not introduced in to the Winsor & Newton oil paint line until the late 1950s/early 60s, and he died in 1949...
I'd like to know what provenance they have for the Ottawa Nicholson that they don't have for the "fake." This seemed like a pretty obvious genuine, especially since it is a far superior painting than the one hanging in the National Gallery of Canada. Very odd.
Right - I was expecting a plot twist wherein they found out that the interloper was the 'real' painting and the museum piece was a copy or student work.
I would hazard a guess that the show could not even bring up that possibility since it would not be polite to question an institution that allows them to do research and film. Then again they may have plenty of documentation that gives it a strong provenance, but we will never know. It would have been important for the storytelling here.
In my opinion a travesty. One undisputed specialist of Nicholson's work who is now deceased claimed it was by him and another (admittedly still alive) says it's not. The forensic analysis done buy the FoF team is astonishing and that it ultimately comes down to subjective interpretation of style is regrettable. Is the owner not able to go back to the gallery from whom the painting was purchased and claim compensation for something she purchased in good faith from a specialist art vendor? Sensational episode, many thanks
Lyn does not believe it to be fake. She is less interested in compensation than in doing right by the painting - and by her aunt who believed in the painting.
No ONE PERSON Should be able to make or break a picture like this! Patricia just didn’t wanna admit she’s wrong. We all know how nearly impossible it is to get someone to publicly change their mind and admit they were wrong. I’d have it reviewed by many many other notable art connoisseurs and get their opinion. One person should NEVER have that much power
Well that's a load of b's if I ever saw one. This is clearly done by him, I am shocked too. If anything the work looks even better than the other Glass Jug and Pears from ottowa. I think the reason is, People do not like their reputation and expertise questioned and that in itself makes them questionable. Such is my verdict
The Ottawa painting described as "going more towards abstraction"? If anything, I'd think the Ottawa painting was done by a student, working next to Williamson, using his supplies and painting the same still life arrangement and objects. The Ottawa painting had no vibrancy at all. They should look into the provenance of the Ottawa painting.
@@argusfleibeit1165 Good point ! right and they were different dimensions which made me wonder if the ottawa would have fit the artists original painting work station and we didn't see much or any abstraction in this artists work, or maybe I missed it. And if they can't prove it was his work they certainly could not prove it wasn't. Plus the fact that it had already been authenticated by that woman who knew the painter personally. I wonder if art critics would now claim a Michelangelo COULD have been painted by one of his students would that bring the price down to lunch at McDonalds because actually I think they should able to back that up with some kind of proof and in this case they can not. Even the paint clearly came from his personal paint supply. It's indeed strange how they gave the flat pears the pass even tho he never painted anything abstract to my knowledge and this painting compares to all his other work perfectly
The "expert" will NEVER change her mind. To accept it now would be calling her entire work on Nikilson into question. Her ego simply will NOT allow for her to make such an admition.
I’m glad I buy most of my art at gallery shows with the artist present. Modern works must be so much easier to verify in the age of the internet. There are photos of many of my works with the artist and even some of the models. I did buy a watercolor painting years ago by John Marin who I studied about in an art history course in college. I did take it to Sotheby’s and had them take a look at it. They didn’t like the 4 in the date and decided it was a fake. Weird that a guy that art was a profession only panted like 12 works that year according to the catalog resume. I love this series keep up the great work.
Sothebys and Christies are extremely skittish these days. They are especially cautious about anything that might be part of a Nazi-era provenance. I have a picture that has a very remote question about it - and they wouldn't take it. They would prefer not to be mixed up with anything they have ANY concern about.
When they were studying the signatures, I was hoping they might find the remnants of a fingerprint in the paint. Odd that the person who had it in the 30s-50s being such a prolific collector did not leave behind any records of his purchases that his descendants might still have.
It looks to me as though the only fake is the art "expert" herself. So-called "experts" are never trustworthy-as the director of the Angel Academy of Art, Florence, I meet a lot of "experts," few of who are trustworthy. None of them know how to paint realistically, but they all have armchair opinions of the painting process.
From my perspective use imbues ordinary objects with hidden layers, layers which hint at so much of what it means to be human. I can sense those layers in a great still life, which is why I love that genre. When I find a work or works by a painter who paints with that magic, it takes my breathe away. I love Nicholson’s still lives…how wondrous it would be to live with one!
first of all why should this woman named Patricia but the only person that has the authority to say yeah or nay. This is not right in itself. She should be fired!
@ravenartist8 Having been on both sides of workshops I believe you're comment about demonstration is right on. I believe the still life set-up was probably in the artist's studio. The artist was demonstrating the proper positioning of the objects and the shadow in the Ottowa ptg. It probably represented a sketch. The Lyn painting is not a demonstration but the artist's finished work either before the students arrived or after they left. The Lyn ptg is not something that the artist could have completed in a demonstration. Besides, he was not an abstractionist but an academic painter. The argument that this was done by a student while they were painted along side of the artist doesn't work because the shadows and the relative placements of the jug and plates would be different
I especially enjoy seeing simple, honest and trusting folks find that the art they hope the best for, is actually the real deal- while learning some very interesting art history facts in the process. Thank you Perspective. ( I'm equally disappointed for them when the opposite is true).
With the evidence presented I am in no doubt as to the authenticity of tne painting It is such a shame that the art world is so full of huge egos that will not acknowlege their mistake. After watching this programme I will take those catalogues with a pinch of salt
I wonder if Lyn were to hold onto the painting and the work done and then be presented to another judicial panel could it then be determined as genuine?
I’ve only recently discovered this show, and I’m really enjoying it. I was a fine arts major a long, long time ago and studied a lot of art history. What I’ve learned from this show is how many artists I’ve never been aware of. Of course I know many well-known British and European artists and old masters, but this show has featured artists like this one whom I’d never heard of, and his work is gorgeous. How does someone paint glass and light like that?! The painting should not have been rejected. I was always under the impression that catalogue raisonné’s were put together by a group of experts, or a least more than one person. It’s insane that a single person holds that much power. I find it hard to believe anyone can know about every single aspect of an artist’s life and work, no matter how familiar they are with the artist’s works. Plenty of artists change their style and way of creating, and even the media they use. I’m surprised her’s can be the final word. Surely there must be a way to reject her rejection and go to a “higher court”, or something like that. Very disappointing (and surprising) ending.
Hurrah! one more!!!!!!!!👍👍👍👍👍👍 But what i love most of them all ( maybe because i have an iMac) is Phillip's Computer. Anyone has a link to that? 39.27 minutes, amongst other... I just hope this is not a fake? or made a -prop- for this series and episodes? And if i would have been Lynn i would have framed that x ray picture of those freesias as well.
We probably haven't heard the end of this story, you would think that PR would have to prove her reasoning. It might be true that WN let people paint in his studio, on one of his old board, with his paint but to let them use his signature with the "blob" of paint underneath the signature is a all different story, which the only answer would be that he thought that the painting was good enough for him to put his name to it "Rodin like".
Arrogance. Superiority. The "arts" in total are overwhelmed by individuals who take pride in their self-created existence. Being unswayable prides them most: yet their illiterateness pervades reality. That's not art. It's pompous and sententious.
It is interesting that the judge in the matter fails to provide any hard evidence that counters the scientific evidence presented by other experts. Patricia Reed’s « feelings » would not stand a chance in regular court proceedings. She would be demolished in cross examination. Wonderful sleuthing work done by our dynamic duo. I love your show! ❤
Ha. Perhaps it's time to declare that the "Empress has no clothes." With this "verdict," Patricia Reed only discredits herself. Pure cognitive dissonance -- Reed simply cannot accept that she was wrong. What a different story this would be if Reed were a big enough person to joyfully accept that there is a "new" bonafide Nicholson in the world.
I’m stunned. I thought I’d would be a triumphant end. And, I concur with a previous commenter that Lyn’s painting looks more like his work than the one in Ottawa. I don’t understand the decision.
What a great series this is. Reed is wrong IMHO....but I understand that it's difficult to give her stamp of approval and down the road have it proved to be a work by a protege. Tricky thing to do an evaluation of a work; even one this recent.
The thing to consider is whether the one in Ottawa is also fake. Further, she might have something against Patrica's Aunt. It opens the door for malice when one person has so much power.
Patricia Patricia Patricia, x ray of another painting,train schedule,100% hand writing analysis, thumb print with initial on top! Patricia really? Patricia?
It's too bad we don't get to read the whole letter the expert produced. I'd like to know if she explains the idiosyncratic signature on the front of the painting that matches Nicholson's technique from the Ottawa painting. Why would he ever tutor someone else and then sign the student's work? Bravo, to the presenters though! I love this show.
I found the evidence compelling. I think there has to be someone to over ride that "expert" opinion. I think the owner has both an original and the lost Fressia flower painting. The handwriting expert was 100% convinced, the paint matched and the most convincing thing for me was the train schedule that matched to the minute on the back of the painting. Both departure and arrival times. Her aunt was his friend and knew him. She knew the painting was authentic. The expert is now in question. She could have saved face by authenticating the work and adding it to her catalog. People make mistakes and should own up when they do.
Common sense: WHOI authenticated the painting in Canada and what connection do/ did they have with Patricia? They thought Lyn was an easy mark. Follow the money.......
@@nancymilawski1048 thank you.But did they ever get the froesia painting..or was it the sketch underneath the subject painting?That should have been either explored or been part of the video. Love this series. ...🙂
![Jack Harlow - Hello Miss Johnson [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Q86_nlRoIGw/mqdefault.jpg)
I don't understand how a decision this important is up to just one person.
It's more like everyone agrees except one. It has to be unanimous.
@@bodeaalex1142 it shouldn't be unanimous.
and a female of the species to boot ...... a female ... who has the ' PREROGATIVE ' to change her mind
@@ivanolsen7966 What does being a woman have to do with this?
@@ivanolsen7966 - Dry up!
Patricia Reed doesn’t want to update her opinion to “save face” however ironically it’s her choice not to admit an error that will do exactly what she’s trying to avoid. She had the perfect excuse to do the honourable thing: new and convincing evidence that she did not have when she made her catalogue. Courts are willing to absolve a wrongly committed person when new evidence of innocence arises. To steadfastly hold otherwise in the face of such convincing new evidence is nothing short of dishonourable!
Exactly what I said. She's being obstinate
Patricia is wrong and didn't want to admit it-ego kills.
I think this shows definitely going to have a negative impact on Patricia's career.
Not as much as it should......
rightfully so ....
I sure hope so.
her book is useful though, looks like it would tear nicely into sheets of toilet paper
I hope so
Any serious collector who sees this show would be convicted of the painting’s authenticity, so it’s not just worth a few hundred pounds. Congratulations on one of the best shows in the series!
I think he'd be convinced rather than convicted ... LOL.
Based on the evidence that was presented, I see no doubt that painting was done by Nicholson. What a travesty of justice for the owner!
Indeed....but Patricia's not then seen in a good light if she had made a mistake?...So her pride has got in the way. Makes her look even more foolish now.
The point that Nicholson had a number of talented students whom he tutored in the style of his work is sufficient grounds to throw doubt on the provenance of this painting. Artists have to take income from wherever they can find it or starve, and some students are almost as good as their teachers.
But if it is a Nicholson, it would be a bigger travesty to have one of his works be effectively discarded. Could also potentially make the remainder worth more I guess...
@@robertchautardjensen6846 I cannot believe that any painter, even if they taught others in their style, would then sign the back of the board as though it were their own work and more importantly sign the student's work in their own unique style (Initial over thumb print), and thus be a party to forging their own work. Can Reed point to any known work by a student that was signed by Nicholson? Is there any evidence he followed this practice. If they were out there, would not their owners be claiming them as Nicholson's? Would not PR be flooded with paintings done under her scenario? Her claim is totally illogical and nonsensical. She makes herself look idiotic.
@@ISIO-George It surely is a conundrum and unfortunately all the witnesses are long dead...
Patricia is just salty that her opinion is wrong and that her book is wrong.
@@sc9nd1n9v19n here here.
Exactly. She should have shown up in person to deliver the verdict too.
Agreed!
Now she is the one labeled a fake.
@@pw8970 d
The most important thing an art expert has, is their reputation -- anything that puts that in question is anathema.
This "Expert" was simply protecting her reputation, rather than admit the truth.
Here here ! I totally agree with you. True evidence has found it to be 'real', and it made sense.
@@mossie1954 I was an artist, I never signed my work though people said I should.
I said my work WAS my signature.
As I said earlier, it is easy for an egotistical "expert" to say no, regardless of the 100% proof of authenticity. Experts should be licensed by the government and in cases like this, they should be removed and replaced.
Kerry: That's hard to understand. Not signing is akin to "anonymous." Did you not want credit for your body of work?
@@joseh3564 I was what Ruskin called a Decorative Artist, working in iron on historic buildings.
I didn´t sign my work -- I "signed" the building with my work.
People said that like the woodworker who carved a mouse on everything, I should leave a signature, my feeling was that whatever I added to a situation should look as if it had always been there, and not divert attention from the whole.
If the signature affects the value, I think that is the property market, not the art world I know.
If I was a famous painter, making pictures for a London gallery, and I finished a painting, would I perhaps wonder what it would fetch if I didn´t sign it ?
Credit was not an issue, when I put railings on a property, I did not want passers by to say "What lovely railings", but "What a lovely house."
Sounds like Patricia doesnt want to be wrong or admit she made a mistake. The paint on the picture came from his box and writing on back is by his hand, but someone else painted it? Preposterous. Plus the initial over the thumb print was his. Why would he sign a student's work? That would make Nickolson the forger?
although I dont like her conclusion either, technically, shes right. the only defining thing is the signature from the front ..the back could likely just be an old used canvas. lots of teachers supply paint to students or even help them paint with their own paints or add to missing colors from their own supply etc... and it appears he used the same colors at that time that students would likely use. the formulation would likely be the same and match old tubes. I find the mueum piece odd and flat with no other abstraction pieces shown to mirror a possible phase. I found the fake to be more like Nicholson body of work than the real one
@@rnkim2564 yes possible, but unlikely Nickolson would scrape off flowers to let a student paint over them. I heard no mention of him being that broke. It was concidered real by all who owned it, but could not be traced back to time of Nickolson is the only ? mark.
@@rnkim2564 No, they said that the application of the paint on both paintings were identical as well. If this process of final decision is true, then how can we believe that any painting in question years later is authentic? We can't. No, not one. So now I consider that any painting that later was questioned in the past as possible fakes and wouldn't give a dime for them. No way...years later have another expert say no and that decision stand. Lyn's relative was an expert as well. And her opinion was rejected by this new expert. And the opinion of all the other experts didn't matter. If this is how the art world works, it's ugly and no one would invest in it. $165,000...poof, it's gone because of one lady's ego and reputation. POOF
1
@@rnkim2564 But what made the one in Ottawa authentic?. That's the one I would believe his student had painted. It was so bland and flat.
Patricia just ruined her reputation and “expert” status in my book.
And if the art world is going to let her get away with it...I've lost all respect for all value of all paintings. It comes down to what someone is willing to pay....but those expert opinions, geez.
I hope this nags at her, makes her lose sleep. Unfortunately, if she's a narcissist, she won't care or have any regrets about her decision.
@@melanies.6030 So true.
I was thinking the same.
It IS his painting
Well, I think Patricia Reed need to explain why Nicholson would allow somebody to paint a very good, exceptionally mimicked in style and technique, "forgery"/copy in his studio, with his paints, on one of his boards, under his supervision, and then write things on the back of it, including the title. Just saying "it's possible" and argue she "feels", is ultimately going to drag her own name in the mud. If not now, then later. And not because she was wrong - that's nothing, of course anyone can be wrong -, but because she let personal pride bias her to give a false statement. What kind of "expertise" is that? People will ask that question.
But, as the saying goes:
Art is not a scam.
But the art market is.
Not only that, allow the person to sign it with his own signature.
Perhaps Putin should nuke London just to rid the world of these so-called experts.
100% agree here, her suggestion doesnt add up. To me she's lost all her credibility. The previous Catalog Res lady KNEW the artist as a personal friend. Patricia Reed looks rather silly here, she's strayed from the path and become too big for her boots !
The so call Modern experts of today are all like that. She didn't got famous for painting, but for creating a catalogue.
She would probably die before every admitting otherwise.
The fact that many museums and real experts said otherwise is meaningless to her, is just like many other fields in academia. Archeology is a big example.
@@bradcogar2915 It's not a signature, it's the letter N. Maybe the student was also named "N.". If they were painting side-by-side, imagine the master finishing it off with his thumbprint monogram and then the student does the same, including _his_ monogram which is also an "N.". That would get a good-natured laugh out of the master, who got the joke and thought the upright block letter didn't look like his curvy version.
I find it disgusting that 1 “ expert” can deny a piece of art despite scientific evidence.
It seems that the art world, only goes on feelings and can ignore actual provable fact on a single persons whim.
It makes me think that the “expert’s” pride and fear of losing status and exclusivity are the real driver in their decision making.
In the case the early “ expert” ( the aunt) she thought it was genuine and she knew the artist. The present day “expert “ won’t budge because of her pride but she can be replaced as the final arbiter.
I would imagine there are people who are willing to accept the painting as real based on the evidence and will look at it as an investment.
There might be additional interest because of the “ lost” freesia painting underneath.
The expert is wrong in this case. She may think she is saving her career but in this case she may actually ruining it instead.
I want to say that she is going on her longtime experience and not just feelings, but it's hard to know really what she's about because she wouldn't show up to discuss it.
EQUALITY is starting to STING .... a little ... i'm sensing ...... just wait for it to BURN
@@ivanolsen7966 Are you in the wrong place?
@@ivanolsen7966 - Wrong video comment forum.
The "expert" suffered from the all-too-common foible of saving face over truth. So both art and the owner were wrongly and terribly harmed.
My suggestion - put the piece up for auction by Sotheby's WITH ALL THE EVIDENCE....and let the market decide. I saw the glint in the Ottawa curator's eyes...HE wanted THAT painting....bad. I ought to know.....I collect art and deal in it. I could tell by his mannerisms.....he wanted it.
I agree, but I believe Lyn wants to keep her painting, as it came through her aunt, the original expert.
@@Isabella-nd3rq Yeah....since it's a family thing...she really should keep it.
@@Isabella-nd3rq Yes, since she purchased it from a reputable gallery that is still in business, if she wanted to return it they probably wouldn't hesitate to reimburse the original purchase price. She seems to have an emotional connection with the painting.
If she sold it for a pittance to an established collector within the art market circle, then and only then it would the expert magically change her mind and accept it as an authentic Nicholson. That's how the art market works; they keep the common people out of it and prey off their losses whenever possible.
Why on earth didn't the "art detectives" journalist Fiona Bruce and Philip Mould put the so called Nicholson "expert" Patricia Reed (author of the catalogue raisonné of William Nicholson) under the microscope? Can anyone auto-declare oneself an expert and write a catalogue raisonné?
Reed said the plates in the painting were 'boringly painted' (!) I have been painting for 50+ years and have taught painting. One of the things that struck me immediately about this painting was how beautifully and economically the plates had been painted. In this episode the The Glass Jug and the Canadian painting are so obviously genuine and the 'expert', so obviously a fake...
Nah, Patricia is just upset that she's wrong and she can't admit it.
That fact that she declined the invitation to say in person that she still doesn't think this painting is authentic speaks volumes. It says to me that she won't accept that she was wrong and her pride is worth preserving rather than preserving and progressing the very work she's dedicated her life to. So sad smh
It’s not pride. It’s money. Money runs the art world. Money. Money. Money.
A perfect example of Hubris can become all consuming and can also lead to one’s downfall
yup, if she changes her mind to include this picture it would cast doubt on her reputation which is all that Patricia cares about.
Anyone else notice how Lyn’s painting looks MUCH more like Nicholson’s other still life’s in his catalog than the one in Canada? Which, if you want my honest opinion, looked like a child’s interpretation of Lyn’s painting! Despite the mountain of research to support Lyn’s painting, it was clear to me the author of the “official” resonea declining to hand deliver her decision, was proof she was not going to admit on television that she was in anyway in error. Her ego just makes her look like an idiot. Also, it’s simply mind numbing wrapping my head around Nicholson’s amazing technique at conveying in oils, the photographic realism of textured glass, glazed ceramic and even polished silver in his works. Well, If I had the money, I’d be proud to have Lyn’s “Glass Jar” hanging on my wall! 😉
I would think the focus would be on how he rendered his fascination with transparent or translucent glass work.
Au contraire M. Demmin, As an artist, The Canadian painting show much more time and effort than Lyn's! A child could paint like him, but a real Artist show more knowledge in fine detail. Lyn's way is so dated it belongs with Cubism! Even Dali would say so!
It is not only a matter of ego.
Those people have the reputation of "mastering" their field. Admitting they made a blunder is putting their reputation in jeopardy. Big money is at stake too.
For me the Ottawa painting looks like not finished with pears and plate only very roughly sketched with paint. Why would he paint dimensional jug with light and everything and pears only with two flat colours and plate with a line?
EXACTLY. the canada poainting looks really like a FAKE
Patricia’s verdict is very questionable I say… after so much proof presented to her maybe Patricia is not willing to admit… suspicious to me why she wouldn’t come in person?
Yes. She obviously is not qualified to make reasonable decisions. What an embarrassment for her. Does she think people won't look at her differently afterwards?
Yes, sus indeed. The painting seems more genuine than her verdict.
Unable to provide any proof of anything except her "opinion". What could she say except "Well! I am an expert and this is what I feel."
The amount of improbable things to happen in order for this painting to NOT be a Nicholson, would be absurd. If the painting were a forge, it couldn't possibly forge all the correct paints, the correct time frame, and the hand writing on the back. If the painting were by a student of Nicholson, sure it could explain about the scrapped painting underneath, but it couldn't explain why Nicholson would need to write "glass jug" on the back, and it couldn't explain the same paint markings as the painting in Ottawa. Furthermore, if it were a painting by a student, like Winston Churchill, why would he forge the signature of Nicholson then? Patricia Reed says she doesn't find enough evidence to say the painting is a Nicholson, well may I add, but there ISN'T any to say that it isn't.
I am an artist. After seeing the evidence, I think the work is authentic. It is likely that the artist was experimenting by painting the still life twice, using his current expressive style vs abstracting it by flattening the objects in the still life. All artists are affected by new trends and the painting styles of their contemporaries. It causes them to push the edges of their style and compare the outcome. Its possible it’s a demonstration of how the same still life could be painted to completely different effect. Artists do this all the time. I hope they keep looking for more evidence… and enjoy the painting.
I agree he could have been experimenting. But the jar doesn't look flat, while the pears and the plate does. So - two different styles in one painting?
If the masters did it, and they did....why not Nicholas.
I think the 'fake' was a much better painting than the 'real' one.
As an artist I often paint the same subject more than once.
Agree with you. The first expert on the artist authenticated this painting, the scientific evidence is absolute.
Wondering if the later ‘expert’ cannot reconcile she was incorrect.
It’s a huge embarrassment and loss of credibility to her expert status having tossed aside the original expert’s decision to be overruled by science and provenience.
The "genuine" painting looks like a student did it.....this lady's painting looks like it's a finished peice of work by a proper artist. I can't believe they denied it! Wow
She denied it for a rea$$$$$on
I totally agree with what you have said, in fact the one in Cananda is a mess! compaired to this owners one.
It rather other way around.
@@miltonwelch4177 I agree. I find the one in Canada better and more interessting.
@@Anna-Gunilla1792 Exactly. The master could have painted the slightly abstract Canadian one, while a pupil painted the more conventional version at the same time using the same materials. That's what the expert thinks can't be ruled out. That would explain the evidence, and then it comes down to her expertise that some things aren't as well executed as she would expect.
Lynn is a real lady who showed real class. I am so sorry.
She is. I thought she looks like a real fragile flower but is actually made of titanium!!
This entire series of programmes really highlights just how inexpert those who purport to be experts in fine art actually are and how chancers exist at every level of the business of fine art trading.
You have to be very careful when you have your own personal objects appraised.
It's like that in almost every field unfortunately
there is more than enough evidence to say it is an orginal i would like to see a law suit in this.
Excellent idea!
Your American ?
Yes, in a court room evidence, even if it is circumstantial is given more weight than opinion. A legal action could be a better way to decide this. And with 165 grand lost, this owner certainly has damages and has standing. Good idea.
I find it fascinating and slightly arcane, how the value of "art" is determined. Thank you for helping to shed some light on the process. I'm no expert, but the Ottawa painting looks like the work of a student, and Lyn's is the work of the master.
i agree. It sounds like the expert knows that they made a mistake and is doing everything to cover it (My opinion only). When I saw the Ottawa painting, it looked childish while Lyn's looks like it was done by an expert.
@@mikeradman Yes--I so very much agree with you.
Agreed! This is an “expert” who also wrote a book about the “Alkaline Diet”(no evidence that this diet fights cancer and helps lose weight) (causality illusion, you’re losing weight because you are eating more broccoli, and reducing calories, not because of broccoli’s ph level.) At this point, i question if Patricia Reed is less about scientific evidence and more about making her decisions based on confirmation/anchoring/sunk costs biases. It’s not hard to understand that someone would not be willing to change their mind, if their decision was already “published”. It seems to me that by allowing just one person all the power, with no formal place to appeal (why not allow the decision to be reviewed by an impartial person/board?) that is shows that the art world still has a long way to go in ensuring that the art market becomes less volatile and more reputable. FCC will not allow the “public” to invest in some types of funds, given the shark infested waters. From my naive and ignorant opinion, investing in art seems like the Megalodon all shark invested waters.
It's whatever the dumbest, richest art speculators make it. Nothing more or less. Especially the modern crap (by this I mean anything since the popularization of photography).
Yeah, the Ottawa piece is a draft or student study of the same scene.
It should never be up to one person to make such a decision, not when as humans we battle our ego.
I suppose I'm missing something here, but I have to wonder: why can't microscopic analysis be used to compare the (extensively discussed) thumb print on the front of Glass Jug with the thumb prints that must exist on many, perhaps most, of Nicholson's other works under their signatures? True, he put down his thumb print, then painted his initial over it, so only portions (mostly around the edges) of the print might remain. The same would be true for the thumb prints on the other known Nicholson works. But if enough tiny bits of thumb print could be matched out from different paintings and a positive match made to Glass Jug, wouldn't that absolutely settle the matter? Any skilled artist might be able to convincingly duplicate Nicholson's initial, but not the thumb print! Maybe there are technical reasons this is not doable, but it's disappointing the possibility was not addressed even as they stood about discussing the existence of the thumb prints.
The reality is, as a painter, not all paintings are successful ones OR have the same quality of handling. So, it could easily be one of his less successful works - it happens all the time as an artist. I am sure the 'expert' is wrong. I have seen other episodes where experts say a work of art is not authentic, then some years later more evidence is put forward, then the experts say it is authentic. I hope the owner keeps the painting and keeps looking into its provenance.
Gripping results…I believe Patricia Reed is dead wrong…your research and evidence, as you have said, was the most complete examination you’ve conducted… I really have visceral sadness for her…I wish her only the best and I know it was difficult for you…be safe…
My sadness is for Patricia Reed to NOT have the humility to admit she's WRONG. The only way anyone is going to convince this arrogant female is if Nicholson himself rose from the grave and told her PERSONALLY.
Surely there is a market for paintings like this that are charged with mystery and intrigue. It’s more than a beautiful painting, it’s a beautiful painting with a fantastic story attached which includes a whole cast of interesting historical characters.
It’s still a treasure in my book.
When I was a child I believed any person of authority/expertise must be that because of unquestionable skill. When I grew up I realized I was very wrong, many got there by - knowing the right people... just their turn in a broken system... kissed the right rear ends, etc. This is why you always seek 2nd opinions when it comes to important health concerns. This episode is a great reminder to always question 'authority'.
And how often do we think tall or big men are therefore smarter or more capable? Would a short Trump have gotten nearly as far conning people? I've been watching the recent Murdaugh trial - he's another one given the benefit of any doubt, who should never have been.
I agree. The term 'expert' is used very loosely these days in almost every field
@@signalfire6691 and of course, you had to bring in Trump….
@@imlistening1137 Proven right today. Sorry to disturb you with the truth.
@@signalfire6691 bwahahaha! Bragg just handed him the election! Fake charges won’t hold up.
It would be interesting to see an x-ray of the Ottawa painting.
YES!!! indeed it would, because that one is a hot-mess, if I am totally honest, I would not hang it in my toilet-room.
Why would the artist write the name on the back of the painting if it were done by a student? I trust the writing expert. I do not trust the person who had the last say. What a terrible system. My heart goes out to the victim here.
ONE person is the judge? If other experts disagree, why is Patricia Reed the final answer? I think the Ottawa painting to be the fake - compared to Nicholson's vast sophisticated portraitures and scenery - it's so flat with no detail. Its provenance wasn't mentioned. Perhaps Patricia Reed fears for her professional status in changing her assessment. I agree with Lyn.
I totally agree your correct.
I completely agree that Lynn’s painting is authentic, but your comment about the Ottawa painting being fake contradicts your argument - for Lynn’s to be authentic based on scientific evidence the Ottawa painting would really have to be authentic as well
Wow! You’ve found the murderer, the weapon, and the fingerprint, but the murderer is free to go?! I’m probably not the only one that is shocked by this verdict!
Brilliant job guys. She is hardly going to go back on her word, she has just produced the definitive catalogue, going against her word even if the evidence is so strong a whole host of people would come forward and question her work, what a closed world the art world is.
Patricia must have started her career in the Institute of Wildenstein. Ego above accuracy.
Touche on that one! Ego before authenticity, sadly.
@@50Street21 Authenticity is indeed a more appropriate word.
LOL Your so right!
As a scientist, _a painting is therefore not judged on a scientific result but on the feelings of a person with a HUGE ego._
When you know how corrupt the _'art world'_ is...
I think it is a genuine painting. I was convinced by the dot under the letter of the artists signature. It's a shame that one person has authority to pronounce it real or fake. Maybe a commission or a group of experts should be formed and then majority rules
The double dots for the name is strange.
Miss Reed's ego was definitely squirming whilst watching this well presented, well researched program. Discrediting?
...this smacks of professional 'envy' ...Reid must have had a run in with her aunt at some point over Nicholson ...and it's an angle which hasn't been looked at
My exact thought!
I thought this from the start of the episode, but was hoping she would relent under the mound of evidence. Very sad outcome for the owner of the painting, but I think Patricia Reed’s karma is in the tank…
What a shame, that a so called expert has so much power. She should lose her reputation! Greetings from Germany and good luck for the owner and this delicate painting. You did an excellent job!
The credibility of that "Expert" just took a serious hit.
What a lovely woman… such grace. “This too shall pass”… then I cried…
This was hard to watch. I think the evidence was more than substantial enough to prove that it was a genuine Nicholson. I’m gutted for the owner.
Samatha Williams - Especially the notation on the back - in the artist's own hand - of the train schedule. Come on!
I agree. How awful & spiteful that she was probably wrong.when she left it out of the catalog & now doesn't have the guts to admit her mistake. There are just far to many similarities. No wonder she wouldn't see them. What an ego !!
I love this series and this is THE _Most Disappointing_ outcomes I've watched. I cannot believe Ms Reed would not authenticate this painting. In my opinion, she just didn't wanted to be proved wrong. Absolute injustice.
It's a genuine Nicholson.
My guess is that the "expert" doesn't want to admit that they made a mistake.
It happened the same in this series for a Touluse Lautrec sketch book that was beyond any doubt. It is about money and how many paintings from the author are on the market. If there are more of them -->less money. And obviously is about vanity and recognizing a mistake. If the expert recognized that made a mistake then it is not such an expert any more and again--> less money and authority in the art world. It would be like should we call Patricia to authenticate this painting? Oh she failed at one where she was an expert... hmm
My thoughts, as well. You've really brought us to the heart of the issue. For the expert to reverse her judgement she must first admit to being flat wrong previously. "Wrong" discredits her.
A good expert will always be willing to change their mind when the evidence suggests it. Because Nicholson painted beside so many people, mostly students, it becomes circumstantial that the paint and other attributes are similar. Similar paint is insufficient to prove the original artist.
One more painting does not affect the market. So how did the man get the painting? It was left in the house when he bought it from the painter.
@@alanmcentee9457 indeed but in this situation it wasn't a cometee it was a nominal person that built a huge catalog and refused the painting. That makes things more personal. So a student painted smth on his painting frame with his colors and he signed it on the back. The question is : it was that a normal practice for the painter? It is unusual at least. If that happend with .ore paintings maybe it is something...Why the painting was signed anyways on the front with his patern thumb painting thing if it was from a student?
@@cristianromanoschi6963 None of the questions you ask are evidence on who painted it. It could have been a student copying Nicholson's style or a forger imitating Nicholson.
For Nicholson it was normal practice to share his style and apparently his paints with his students.
Just because the circumstantial evidence is swaying your opinion does not mean it is sufficient to sway others. You are free to publish a book of all the Nicholson paintings you accept. And so is Reed permitted to publish her book. And either, neither, or both of you could be correct. If those in the business want to follow's Reed's catalog then that is their right. There is nothing preventing the current owner from still claiming it is a original Nicholson, just as there is nothing forcing Reed to accept it.
Its a lovely painting and in my opinion better than the one considered to be authentic.
@Malread Ryan - I think the clear, smooth glass jug as rendered in the Ottawa painting is as masterful as the textured jug in the painting featured in this episode. I don't see why we have to think of the 2 pictures as 1 fake, 1 genuine.
I wasn't expecting that. There have been less convincing dossiers for other paintings that were admitted as genuine. It makes sense that some of his students might have painted it on an old board of his, but how about the title in his own handwritting? That does not make any sense.
Frankly the whole argument makes little sense. Sure there may have been student- ok. And sure that student may have used an old board and the same paints as Nicholson while in the same studio. BUT it is a gigantic leap from that to say that any student could and would paint exactly like Nicholson even if they were at the same place at the same time. Would Nicholson even allow a student to so obviously copy his style rather than finding their own, even if this mythical student had the ability, skill and technique to do so? If such a student existed it is on this "expert" to prove it by providing one such student- as well as other artworks by the same student as a basis for comparison. Doubt she can.
The train timetable was for the petunias painting, to be handed over near Windsor. That deal fell through, the petunias were never delivered. Later, the painting was overwritten and "Glass Jar" was written on the back. I would love to know why the petunias failed. It would be amazing if there was an intriguing back-story there.
I’d be down grading the so called expert rather than the work itself.
I've been to The Darby gallery in London-I was simply speechless...Beautiful works
The "expert" seems to be dead wrong. To have 100% "yes" on paint matches, handwriting, etc is a complete injustice. Ms. Reed seems to be a fake expert herself. 😮
I believe too many compelling facts point to It being genuine
My biggest question is, why did Nicholson's paint box have paints with 1950s labels an plastic caps, when plastic caps were not introduced in to the Winsor & Newton oil paint line until the late 1950s/early 60s, and he died in 1949...
So an expert believes that a student of Nicholson would forge his signature as well? Then the student was trying to cash in on Nicholson's fame?
@pete jay - And Nicholson is complicit in a fake by writing on the back in his own hand so as to fool future experts.
I'd like to know what provenance they have for the Ottawa Nicholson that they don't have for the "fake." This seemed like a pretty obvious genuine, especially since it is a far superior painting than the one hanging in the National Gallery of Canada. Very odd.
Right - I was expecting a plot twist wherein they found out that the interloper was the 'real' painting and the museum piece was a copy or student work.
I would hazard a guess that the show could not even bring up that possibility since it would not be polite to question an institution that allows them to do research and film. Then again they may have plenty of documentation that gives it a strong provenance, but we will never know. It would have been important for the storytelling here.
@@suburbanhomestead The signature on the Ottawa painting was better.
In my opinion a travesty. One undisputed specialist of Nicholson's work who is now deceased claimed it was by him and another (admittedly still alive) says it's not. The forensic analysis done buy the FoF team is astonishing and that it ultimately comes down to subjective interpretation of style is regrettable.
Is the owner not able to go back to the gallery from whom the painting was purchased and claim compensation for something she purchased in good faith from a specialist art vendor?
Sensational episode, many thanks
Lyn does not believe it to be fake. She is less interested in compensation than in doing right by the painting - and by her aunt who believed in the painting.
No ONE PERSON Should be able to make or break a picture like this! Patricia just didn’t wanna admit she’s wrong. We all know how nearly impossible it is to get someone to publicly change their mind and admit they were wrong. I’d have it reviewed by many many other notable art connoisseurs and get their opinion. One person should NEVER have that much power
Well that's a load of b's if I ever saw one. This is clearly done by him, I am shocked too. If anything the work looks even better than the other Glass Jug and Pears from ottowa. I think the reason is, People do not like their reputation and expertise questioned and that in itself makes them questionable. Such is my verdict
The Ottawa painting described as "going more towards abstraction"? If anything, I'd think the Ottawa painting was done by a student, working next to Williamson, using his supplies and painting the same still life arrangement and objects. The Ottawa painting had no vibrancy at all. They should look into the provenance of the Ottawa painting.
@@argusfleibeit1165 Good point ! right and they were different dimensions which made me wonder if the ottawa would have fit the artists original painting work station and we didn't see much or any abstraction in this artists work, or maybe I missed it. And if they can't prove it was his work they certainly could not prove it wasn't. Plus the fact that it had already been authenticated by that woman who knew the painter personally. I wonder if art critics would now claim a Michelangelo COULD have been painted by one of his students would that bring the price down to lunch at McDonalds because actually I think they should able to back that up with some kind of proof and in this case they can not. Even the paint clearly came from his personal paint supply. It's indeed strange how they gave the flat pears the pass even tho he never painted anything abstract to my knowledge and this painting compares to all his other work perfectly
The "expert" will NEVER change her mind. To accept it now would be calling her entire work on Nikilson into question. Her ego simply will NOT allow for her to make such an admition.
I’m glad I buy most of my art at gallery shows with the artist present. Modern works must be so much easier to verify in the age of the internet. There are photos of many of my works with the artist and even some of the models. I did buy a watercolor painting years ago by John Marin who I studied about in an art history course in college. I did take it to Sotheby’s and had them take a look at it. They didn’t like the 4 in the date and decided it was a fake. Weird that a guy that art was a profession only panted like 12 works that year according to the catalog resume. I love this series keep up the great work.
Great series. So difficult to determine if a painting is fake.
Sothebys and Christies are extremely skittish these days. They are especially cautious about anything that might be part of a Nazi-era provenance. I have a picture that has a very remote question about it - and they wouldn't take it. They would prefer not to be mixed up with anything they have ANY concern about.
This makes me sick. Patricia Reed is cruel. I can’t believe she did this to this sweet woman.
When they were studying the signatures, I was hoping they might find the remnants of a fingerprint in the paint. Odd that the person who had it in the 30s-50s being such a prolific collector did not leave behind any records of his purchases that his descendants might still have.
It looks to me as though the only fake is the art "expert" herself. So-called "experts" are never trustworthy-as the director of the Angel Academy of Art, Florence, I meet a lot of "experts," few of who are trustworthy. None of them know how to paint realistically, but they all have armchair opinions of the painting process.
Exactly!
BTW, if this painting is indeed only worth several hundred pounds, I am definitely interested.
Me too!
I'm no expert, but Patricia Reed seems to lose credibility with this decision. In my opinion, of course.
He reminds me of Sargeant. Less flamboyance more constrained than Sargeant, beautiful . The Gardinias
From my perspective use imbues ordinary objects with hidden layers, layers which hint at so much of what it means to be human. I can sense those layers in a great still life, which is why I love that genre. When I find a work or works by a painter who paints with that magic, it takes my breathe away. I love Nicholson’s still lives…how wondrous it would be to live with one!
first of all why should this woman named Patricia but the only person that has the authority to say yeah or nay. This is not right in itself. She should be fired!
@ravenartist8 Having been on both sides of workshops I believe you're comment about demonstration is right on. I believe the still life set-up was probably in the artist's studio. The artist was demonstrating the proper positioning of the objects and the shadow in the Ottowa ptg. It probably represented a sketch. The Lyn painting is not a demonstration but the artist's finished work either before the students arrived or after they left. The Lyn ptg is not something that the artist could have completed in a demonstration. Besides, he was not an abstractionist but an academic painter. The argument that this was done by a student while they were painted along side of the artist doesn't work because the shadows and the relative placements of the jug and plates would be different
YES!
What about the atypical 'N'?
Two experts, one earlier, an acquaintance of the artist, and another later, an academic with an inflated sense of self.
Intellectual honesty is so needed.
I distrust a jury of one.
I cannot believe this last verdict, all the clues, all the work done prove it's genuine.
More evidence here than for most paintings attributed to great artists.
Right!! The most expensive painting that has ever been sold is a perfect example of what you say.
I especially enjoy seeing simple, honest and trusting folks find that the art they hope the best for, is actually the real deal- while learning some very interesting art history facts in the process. Thank you Perspective. ( I'm equally disappointed for them when the opposite is true).
With the evidence presented I am in no doubt as to the authenticity of tne painting It is such a shame that the art world is so full of huge egos that will not acknowlege their mistake. After watching this programme I will take those catalogues with a pinch of salt
oh what a shame...I hope this will negatively affect on Patricia's career)
I wonder if Lyn were to hold onto the painting and the work done and then be presented to another judicial panel could it then be determined as genuine?
I’ve only recently discovered this show, and I’m really enjoying it. I was a fine arts major a long, long time ago and studied a lot of art history. What I’ve learned from this show is how many artists I’ve never been aware of.
Of course I know many well-known British and European artists and old masters, but this show has featured artists like this one whom I’d never heard of, and his work is gorgeous. How does someone paint glass and light like that?! The painting should not have been rejected.
I was always under the impression that catalogue raisonné’s were put together by a group of experts, or a least more than one person. It’s insane that a single person holds that much power. I find it hard to believe anyone can know about every single aspect of an artist’s life and work, no matter how familiar they are with the artist’s works. Plenty of artists change their style and way of creating, and even the media they use.
I’m surprised her’s can be the final word. Surely there must be a way to reject her rejection and go to a “higher court”, or something like that. Very disappointing (and surprising) ending.
Hurrah! one more!!!!!!!!👍👍👍👍👍👍
But what i love most of them all ( maybe because i have an iMac) is Phillip's Computer. Anyone has a link to that? 39.27 minutes, amongst other... I just hope this is not a fake? or made a -prop- for this series and episodes?
And if i would have been Lynn i would have framed that x ray picture of those freesias as well.
We probably haven't heard the end of this story, you would think that PR would have to prove her reasoning.
It might be true that WN let people paint in his studio, on one of his old board, with his paint but to let them use his signature with the "blob" of paint underneath the signature is a all different story, which the only answer would be that he thought that the painting was good enough for him to put his name to it "Rodin like".
Arrogance. Superiority. The "arts" in total are overwhelmed by individuals who take pride in their self-created existence.
Being unswayable prides them most: yet their illiterateness pervades reality. That's not art. It's pompous and sententious.
Iagree
It is interesting that the judge in the matter fails to provide any hard evidence that counters the scientific evidence presented by other experts. Patricia Reed’s « feelings » would not stand a chance in regular court proceedings. She would be demolished in cross examination. Wonderful sleuthing work done by our dynamic duo. I love your show! ❤
Ha. Perhaps it's time to declare that the "Empress has no clothes." With this "verdict," Patricia Reed only discredits herself. Pure cognitive dissonance -- Reed simply cannot accept that she was wrong. What a different story this would be if Reed were a big enough person to joyfully accept that there is a "new" bonafide Nicholson in the world.
I’m stunned. I thought I’d would be a triumphant end. And, I concur with a previous commenter that Lyn’s painting looks more like his work than the one in Ottawa. I don’t understand the decision.
Check the signature for his thumb print. Can't be that hard to do.
Wow, just wow. Here I am working and listening away to this episode thinking gee they really have a strong case! Gobsmacked.
What a great series this is. Reed is wrong IMHO....but I understand that it's difficult to give her stamp of approval and down the road have it proved to be a work by a protege. Tricky thing to do an evaluation of a work; even one this recent.
The thing to consider is whether the one in Ottawa is also fake. Further, she might have something against Patrica's Aunt. It opens the door for malice when one person has so much power.
Patricia Patricia Patricia, x ray of another painting,train schedule,100% hand writing analysis, thumb print with initial on top! Patricia really? Patricia?
It's too bad we don't get to read the whole letter the expert produced. I'd like to know if she explains the idiosyncratic signature on the front of the painting that matches Nicholson's technique from the Ottawa painting. Why would he ever tutor someone else and then sign the student's work? Bravo, to the presenters though! I love this show.
Fake Or Fortune: Excellent series, Brilliant episode.
I wonder what the artist's grandson thinks of the 0ttawa painting. I love this series.
I found the evidence compelling. I think there has to be someone to over ride that "expert" opinion. I think the owner has both an original and the lost Fressia flower painting. The handwriting expert was 100% convinced, the paint matched and the most convincing thing for me was the train schedule that matched to the minute on the back of the painting. Both departure and arrival times. Her aunt was his friend and knew him. She knew the painting was authentic. The expert is now in question. She could have saved face by authenticating the work and adding it to her catalog. People make mistakes and should own up when they do.
Common sense: WHOI authenticated the painting in Canada and what connection do/ did they have with Patricia? They thought Lyn was an easy mark. Follow the money.......
Did Spencer ever receive the painting of the freesia? That wasn't delved into sadly.
Nicholson was going to do a family portrait of the Spencers but wanted to finish the Freesias first so postponed his visit.
@@nancymilawski1048 thank you.But did they ever get the froesia painting..or was it the sketch underneath the subject painting?That should have been either explored or been part of the video. Love this series. ...🙂