Someone mentioned some standards for identification - this is a very brief run down of standards of identification for another type of work. Maybe it is useful for perspective.
If I find in Northern Europe, on some old prestigious wall, a "raw" ("new") 17TH century canvas on a strainer with no provenanve and no relining, one-half ell wide with cusping on one side indicating a cut length of store bought pre-primed canvas (common), primed with the lowest quality white lead ground loaded with fillers, extra oil, umber, ochers, charcoal bits and driers (common schulpwit), with a simple, roughly three stage paint application approach of dead colors in brown, darks rich with umber (manganese) and cheap glass siccatives (smalt)to the point they are now just black, with rather heavy high quality white lead highlights (lootwit) and some azurite, lapis, malachite, vermillion, lead tin yellow etc. (common), signed in a dark color in a dark area 1/3 up the canvas on either side - do I have a "Rembrandt van Rijn"? Or just a "Rembrandt" - or any of the other author variations used to indicate, albeit weakly, to the viewing public which are "certainly" by Rembrandt van Rijn and which are not. If neutron activation radiography is somewhat inconclusive and the linen and materials are period, correctly employed in style, subject and composition as Rembrandt would have used them, passing the tests that establish old, hard, brittle oil films and all seems correct - I MAY have a "Rembrandt van Rijn", but - not very likely at all - it would likely "just" be a "Rembrandt" or "School of...". The sheer number of pupils working with him, schools of, copyists and so on...just in his day and using the same materials in about the same way bought up the same streets...
The converse is also true - St. Praxedis "by" Johannes Vermeer meets most/all the like requirements, but the subject (and some handling) was so removed from his oeuvre it has not been accepted as a Vermeer (it would also be his earliest known alongside The Procures, thus not showing his mature innovations), although the canvas was displayed as a "Vermeer" in 2012. Then there is a C. 1945-50 Masonite panel mixing oils and early acrylics that does not bear a terribly strong "Pollock look." It was bought as junk one way or another and gained attention (mostly as a fraud or drop cloth type thing) - but then...Pollocks friends recalled he did use the early Magna acrylic resins...and then a finger print on the panel was matched to 1 or 2 on known Pollocks and also a can of spray enamel in his studio. Jury still out there as well.
Just because a cheap, thin 24"x36" (standard size) thinly pre-primed canvas from Paris (common), stretched on a local made strainer, found in Southern France, painted thickly (common) using the cheaper store-bought chrome yellows and Prussian blues of the day (common) in a style not unknown (especially pre-1888) depicting an active sky and a cypress (common features of the area) does not indicate a Vincent van Gogh straight away. It could easily be forger Otto Wacker (until you get the X-rays back).
In painting, there is seldom one defining trait or signature of origin. The works of Albert Pinkham Ryder seem to defy this general rule, but his look and methods were certainly near unique - using entire candles of wax, tobacco juice, city street dirt, ashes, alcohol, water - they are pretty unmistakable and they are usually those ghostly beautiful and timeless marines. Pardon any errors - it is 11 am and I have insomnia for 3 days.
The authentication process may take a long time. It will require help, perseverance and contacts. It will require a few people such as QDB or JK or Eric Newman taking a look at it, reviewing the known information and deciding if the piece shows enough facets in common with what "should, could and would" have looked like if produced under the set of known facts. It will take some science and some luck. It may take another kicked up at Crown Point, I'd love it if I could interest someone with PCGS to assist in investigating and working to authenticate it. As I stated from the start, the goal is to see this in a PCGS Holder. I wouldn't even second guess his they grade it
Thanks Realone I appreciate those words more than you realize. Also your earlier post about reverse engineering this piece was very logical. Thanks. I'd hold the door open for you at Wawa any day.
<< <i>I learned a few things reading this thread. I have nothing to contribute except to say I hope you have success with your research.
I find this very interesting and thanks for posting. >>
I agree with Batman above; this thread has been a very interesting read. These are somewhat controversial pieces to be sure. Based on some admittedly brief research and what I've read here, the big problems that I would have with paying any significant amount for one would be: a) they would be difficult to adequately provenance as no real proof of Gilfoil actually creating them apparently exists, and b) their relatively simple design would not be hard at all to counterfeit.
Comments
Later the royal mark, the "broad arrow," was put on all white pines 24 inches in diameter 3 feet from the ground, that they might be saved for masts.
If I find in Northern Europe, on some old prestigious wall, a "raw" ("new") 17TH century canvas on a strainer with no provenanve and no relining, one-half ell wide with cusping on one side indicating a cut length of store bought pre-primed canvas (common), primed with the lowest quality white lead ground loaded with fillers, extra oil, umber, ochers, charcoal bits and driers (common schulpwit), with a simple, roughly three stage paint application approach of dead colors in brown, darks rich with umber (manganese) and cheap glass siccatives (smalt)to the point they are now just black, with rather heavy high quality white lead highlights (lootwit) and some azurite, lapis, malachite, vermillion, lead tin yellow etc. (common), signed in a dark color in a dark area 1/3 up the canvas on either side - do I have a "Rembrandt van Rijn"? Or just a "Rembrandt" - or any of the other author variations used to indicate, albeit weakly, to the viewing public which are "certainly" by Rembrandt van Rijn and which are not. If neutron activation radiography is somewhat inconclusive and the linen and materials are period, correctly employed in style, subject and composition as Rembrandt would have used them, passing the tests that establish old, hard, brittle oil films and all seems correct - I MAY have a "Rembrandt van Rijn", but - not very likely at all - it would likely "just" be a "Rembrandt" or "School of...". The sheer number of pupils working with him, schools of, copyists and so on...just in his day and using the same materials in about the same way bought up the same streets...
The converse is also true - St. Praxedis "by" Johannes Vermeer meets most/all the like requirements, but the subject (and some handling) was so removed from his oeuvre it has not been accepted as a Vermeer (it would also be his earliest known alongside The Procures, thus not showing his mature innovations), although the canvas was displayed as a "Vermeer" in 2012.
Then there is a C. 1945-50 Masonite panel mixing oils and early acrylics that does not bear a terribly strong "Pollock look." It was bought as junk one way or another and gained attention (mostly as a fraud or drop cloth type thing) - but then...Pollocks friends recalled he did use the early Magna acrylic resins...and then a finger print on the panel was matched to 1 or 2 on known Pollocks and also a can of spray enamel in his studio. Jury still out there as well.
Just because a cheap, thin 24"x36" (standard size) thinly pre-primed canvas from Paris (common), stretched on a local made strainer, found in Southern France, painted thickly (common) using the cheaper store-bought chrome yellows and Prussian blues of the day (common) in a style not unknown (especially pre-1888) depicting an active sky and a cypress (common features of the area) does not indicate a Vincent van Gogh straight away. It could easily be forger Otto Wacker (until you get the X-rays back).
In painting, there is seldom one defining trait or signature of origin. The works of Albert Pinkham Ryder seem to defy this general rule, but his look and methods were certainly near unique - using entire candles of wax, tobacco juice, city street dirt, ashes, alcohol, water - they are pretty unmistakable and they are usually those ghostly beautiful and timeless marines.
Pardon any errors - it is 11 am and I have insomnia for 3 days.
Eric
As I read it, there's no testimony that anyone saw him make them.
<< <i>"The undeniable fact remains that Wiiam Gilfoil hammered out discs which passed as halfpence in a British Fort between 1764 and 1773"
As I read it, there's no testimony that anyone saw him make them. >>
I also have asked that - I just don't see it. You have read the other posts.
Eric
Best,
Eric
I find this very interesting and thanks for posting.
<< <i>I learned a few things reading this thread. I have nothing to contribute except to say I hope you have success with your research.
I find this very interesting and thanks for posting. >>
I agree with Batman above; this thread has been a very interesting read. These are somewhat controversial pieces to be sure.
Based on some admittedly brief research and what I've read here, the big problems that I would have with paying any significant amount for one would be:
a) they would be difficult to adequately provenance as no real proof of Gilfoil actually creating them apparently exists, and
b) their relatively simple design would not be hard at all to counterfeit.
Just my two coppers' worth
RIP Mom- 1932-2012