Fake or Fortune - BBC1

Renoir tonight.

Hold on -- this is a repeat

So be careful if the missus wants to bet in-running.

A bit of sleuthing finds this tweet from Philip Mould.

Next week's #fakeorfortune(Giacometti) is postponed pending further investigations.

https://twitter.com/philipmould/status/906992186687983616

Curiouser and curiouser. I hope the Giacometti owner has not already spent the money or put his foot through the painting

Bendor is back in da house!!

Is Philip a bendor??

^ Now, now -

Philip lives with his wife Catherine and son Oliver.

The "rivalry," (between the Art Houses - not unexpected, of course) - was an illuminating aspect of this edition.

And not a surprising one, either - given the arrogance and impatience of the Wildenstein family as racehorse OWNERS - when they changed Trainers, who could did not produce Classic winner 'on demand, faster than they changed their minds ...

- or, in this instance, predictably, stubbornly refused to change their mind.

Yes, one of my favourite TV programmes on at the moment. I do like the Antiques Roadshow, but this is better I think.

I would be more than happy to allow Dr. Aviva Burnstock (Courtaulds Institute) to examine my Old Master.

off course someone could always call the would be sellers bluff,mould said it was worth 300 grand plus and the price likely to increase as the years go by, so if someone took a chance and offered her say 50 grand maybe rising to a 100 grand do you think they,d be tempted,and if they were would that cast further doubt on the picture,
you see it all the time in the auctions copies that if genuine would be worth 1000,s but are almost worthless but people pay a mid range price for them as if there nearly right

Bendor is back with a new series of the spin-off show, Britain's Lost Masterpieces, Wednesday, 9pm BBC4.

Radio Times:
For the first programme they are on the scent of a possible Rubens, a portrait of George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, the sometime gay lover of James VI of Scotland (James I of England). Bendor believes a painting put in storage by a Glasgow museum might have the makings of an international art-world scoop.

And the result of Bendor's investigation is all over the news, three days before the programme is shown.

President Trump's Renoir looks a fitting subject for the next series.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4995436/Chicago-museum-says-Renoir-Trump-s-NYC-apartment-FAKE.html

Philip Mould has tweeted:

New series starts 8pm on 12th of August. Artists in the dock include Henry Moore, Toulouse Lautrec, Giacometti, William Nicholson.

https://twitter.com/philipmould/status/1017846738625941506

Thanks, Ramruna

It looks like the episode they couldn't show from the last series will be shown in this one.

Ramruma*

... back tonight. !!!

.. 9-0 bbc 1.

I'm looking forward to this but I will have to record it and watch it tomorrow, as I will be watching Unforgotten. Unforgotten has been brilliant, best thing on in ages.

I will have to avoid this thread until I've caught up with Fake or Fortune.

William Nicholson tonight, father of Ben Nicholson who was the husband of Barbara Hepworth. William was nearly as much of a genius as his son, but is much less well known.

No spoilers from me, Makybe    Well, not any others

Peter Egan, who had a small part in this last week, is one of the nicest kindest men in the world.

Unforgotten, that is.

Well, that was ... ah, but we are avoiding spoilers for the Unforgotten crowd. Avoid the BBC News page as well.

The owner's flat! It would be a tight squeeze but I reckon you could just about fit a 5-a-side pitch in there.

And the grandson's (?) home with all those pictures!

It was so satisfying as the favourable evidence accumulated piece by piece adding up to an irrefutable case for restoring the attribution. Twitter suggests further corroborating facts were available but inclusion was simply unnecessary. Marvellous television (except for the stupid swipe screen effects), and a triumph for careful research.

As enjoyable as ever - although the adjudicator's reticence  to present her decision in person, somewhat foretold  the finish.

shame, thought after all the provenance on the back of the picture, coupled with the handwriting expert, it was

a foregone conclusion. not sure how she stands with the auction house that sold it in the first place ?

intresting programme  all the same.

Very good programme , the so called expert wasn’t prepared to admit she had made a mistake

@GLASGOWCALLING -- not sure how she stands with the auction house that sold it in the first place ?

It was a dealer that sold it, not an auction house. Browse & Darby, founded by the earlier Nicholson expert, Lillian Browse, the current owner's aunt.

Are they starting to manufacture stories just for the sake of making a programme ?
Ok the painting was left out of a book and this particular expect says she is doubtful,
Why not take it to another expert

ok ramruma, thanks i thought she bought it via an auction house, i saw the browse and darby connection but for some

reason thought it was bought at an auction . !

Why not take it to another expert

Well that sounds sensible, lfc1971. But this is the art world. And there, at any one time, there's often one expert in the world who is allowed to say what's real and what's fake. If that key authority says no, the rest of the art world tends to turn away and your painting becomes almost valueless.  Completely nuts, but sadly the case.


I'm not sure you could sue an auction house or a dealer for selling you a fake, just as long as the auction house/dealer had been selling it in good faith, and had disclosed all that they knew regarding provenance etc.  If some 'authority' then comes along and decrees it to be a fake, that's not really the fault of the auction house or dealer.

@lfc1971 -- the book it was left out of was the artist's catalogue raisonné.

A catalogue raisonné is basically a list of all the artist's paintings, so if it is in the book then it is genuine and if it is out it is either a forgery or by someone else -- and that is how the big dealers, galleries and auction houses play the game. In this case it is the difference between a £200,000 William Nicholson still life, and a £500 chocolate box picture by an unknown artist.

So that is why it was important to convince not just any expert but Patricia Reed who compiled the catalogue raisonné.

I watched someat called the Repair Shop yesterday for the first time.  This Dutch fella came in with a pocket watch from his late grandmother.  She was captured by the Japanese during the Second World War and had sewn the pocket watch into her dress.  The only possession she managed to keep.  They did an amazing job repairing it and get it working again and you could see how much it meant to the Dutch family to preserve the piece in her memory, when it was prsented to them fully repaired.  A real feel good piece of tv.

I hadn't realised that there was a new series until I saw this thread last night.
I've just watched the programme and with the amount of evidence collected I find the verdict baffling.
It is theoretically possible that a student painted it using Nicholson's materials and with his blessing but no artist would then allow the trademark thumbprint signature unless he wished to claim it as his own. Effectively, it has Nicholson's stamp front and back. Although many of the great artists of antiquity used a studio full of apprentices to paint the boring details and do the donkey work on big paintings, the work is still attributed to the principal artist. This painting looks to me to have been so well executed, it really is gorgeous, even better than the Ottawa museum one, that it seems inconceivable that he didn't paint it.

Agreed. And the so called expert didn't have the strength of her convictions to turn up !!
It's obviously the genuine article, all the ' technical ' contributors were convinced. The evidence was irrefutable .

bloody silly way to sign your painting , what’s all that about

I wonder is it possible that it was forged by the artist himself

Perhaps came across a trial painting left by one of his students in the studio , maybe partly finished , or even almost complete , and Nicholson decided well I can’t be bothered to do another I’ll touch this up a little or even rework it quite a bit here and there and that will do

No point wasting thevcanvas and most of the hard work has been done

Maybe he just said oh to pot with it and didn’t do much more than stick his signature on it  : )

‘Artist forged  his own work’   that would make a nice headline

It is the 'value' attributed to the artist that determines the value of a painting. This to my mind is illogical ;surely it is the end result regardless of the name of the artist that should be the driver of the value.

An artist becomes great ( and valuable ) because he or she is unique and has their own individual way of doing things
A way no one else has though off before

Of course once someone else has thought of it it becomes fairly easy for a competent artist to copy

There are tens of thousands of very good artists but the painting they are painting is always the same painting

They are not unique and do not find a way to see the world in a new way they don’t have any new ideas
That’s the difference a great painter does , that is difficult to do , there are very few who can do that

“ She’s got everything she needs
  She’s an artist she don’t look back
  She can take the dark out of the nighttime
  And paint the daytime black “

lay lady lay ??

She belongs to me!!

There are two things about a painting which may have value, the image and the object.
The value of the image is related to the cost of making a good copy which is not high plus the cost which the copyright holder would charge anyone who wanted to make and sell the image, again not usually very much.
The value of the object is like any other object especially an antique, a market value depending on what buyers are prepared to pay for it, rarity value and fashion. An individual painting is unique and the work of an artist is limited. Dead artists aren't making any more so their catalogue is finite and usually known.

At the high end, investors are buying a recognised "store of value" and an "investment value" We attribute a store of value to a banknote which cost a fraction of its face value to make and is based on trust that others will ascribe the same value to it and exchange it for goods. People invest in stocks and shares in the hope they will be able to sell them for more in the future, the same with highly rated paintings. A "bigger fool" market if you like.

Thank you blackbarn !

High prices are based largely on people having more money than they can spend and wanting to show off their wealth by buying what is perceived to be the best.  The best will always have a guaranteed market and as the wealth of the wealthy goes up so should the value of the best.  At least the value of artwork is based largely on perceived talent, rather than number plates for example.

Wow!

Have just finished watched this.

Like lfc1971 said, the so called expert wasn't prepared to admit she had made a mistake.

Fake or Fortune is television heaven, perfect Sunday afternoon viewing. I will keep tonight's episode for next Sunday

Caught the episode discussing the rembrandt portrait. Very disapponting the "expert" didn't even want to see it.

Who decides that man has the final say on the matter anyway? Is there a world painting police?

Caught the episode discussing the rembrandt portrait. Very disapponting the "expert" didn't even want to see it.

Who decides that man has the final say on the matter anyway? Is there a world painting police?

I think that was the spin-off programme Britain's Lost Masterpieces, where Bendor Grosvenor (who used to be Philip Mould's assistant) investigates sleepers in public collections (small museums and the like) while Emma Dabiri makes a rather dull social history documentary to pad the programme out to an hour.

A world painting police? Interpol? If you want to sell (or buy) a painting, you go to an auction house. If they say it is a Rembrandt, it is £20 million, and if they say it is a copy then it will only make £500 if they agree to sell it at all, which is doubtful. And the auction houses and galleries rely on these academic experts who have spent their lives studying the artist.

I rather get the impression that now that lots of people are looking out for sleepers and wanting them reassessed, these experts are getting overworked, especially as the BBC4 budget to pay him was probably small to non-existent.

very nice programme again, Toulouse Latrec sketches
daughter in law of owner seemed to have a N . Irish  accent )
Lovely programme

Wont give the outcome in case  md and others have not watched the programme just yet

This has surpassed the Antiques Roadshow in my view. Compelling viewing!

Any programme featuring Fiona speaking French has my vote.

@cooperman - yes, but both presenters are perfect for the job imo. I do like programmes to be both entertaining and educational at the same time and the BBC have always had a reputation of doing that, although sadly, these type of programmes are becoming few and far between these days!

It's good to see skilfully executed art. I wonder if they will be arguing over the authenticity of some newly discovered Emin sketches in 100 years time.

Or even trying to decide whether an unmade bed is genuine Emin or not!

Tracey Emin, Professor of Drawing at the Royal Academy 2011 to 2013.  Foinavon- some of her sketches are really fine, I'd have bought one at the Summer Exhibition a few years back. Beyond my budget unfortunately.

i should exhibit my 2 teenage sons bedroom ,its a work of art !

on the show 2 weeks ago with  the woman who loved the painting but it could be worth 200 quid or 650 grand,whats the problem she loves it great forget about the value or  she puts it into an auction and it finds its level if enough people think the expert was wrong its hardly going to sell for 200 quid ,if it does theres your answer

My sister's on it this week (unless she ends up on the cutting room floor), I thought it was last week she was due on, so watched the program for the first time last week and loved it!

Yes, I know she can draw if she wants to, Blackbarn, but she discovered that obscenity sells better. I mentioned her because she's a byword for the more outlandish YBA productions. I could have mentioned the transvestite potter or the shark pickler instead.

The painting one about "Zoffany" was very interesting, not so much because of the painting which I thought was pretty mediocre but because of what an interesting life the mad b-gger led :)

Zoffany was on Britain's Lost Masterpieces, in case anyone wants to grab it from iplayer.

Did you spot Bendor's to me, to you which though recorded aeons ago now seems like a perfectly timed tribute?

Henry Moore tonight

Aug 26, 2018 -- 12:16PM, cooperman wrote:

Henry Moore tonight

An hour earlier than normal -- 8 o'clock tonight.

Loved last weeks show. Best programme on TV

I keep confusing this show for the BBC britains lost masterpieces show!

Which is reallly annoying, I should know about masterpieces, I spent my life savings on a Renoir from a cash poor Nigerian prince who happend to email me a couple of years ago!

WOW! JC, the Renoir is a Tryptich and I've purchased the other two.(had to get a second mortgage)

Oh dear, chit chat's favourite BBC programme tackling a mixed race and slavery subject this week.
Now take your diversity medicine, it won't hurt, there there

Admittedly the expected slight over-egging of the pudding, but a fine episode imo.

London's art thieves will be replaying the scene of Philip Mould keying in the entry code to his gallery.

Was only half-watching it last night, but did I hear Big Phil repeatedly shout "Feck it! Feck it!" at one point?

Ah, just looked it up. Fecit, apparently. Latin for He made.

41:33 on iPlayer https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0bj6gm7/fake-or-fortune-series-7-4-a-...

Giacometti tonight. I think this is the one that was held over from the last series so it will be interesting to find out why, assuming they tell us.

i can see the appeal of a nice oil on canvas, but no matter how many times i looked at the giacometti

i just didnt get it.

i remember other kids making stuff like that at school,

we were too busy flicking clay to make anything even
that interesting.

there were some talented artists as well.

Slightly disappointing to leave it open-ended.

@donny osmond -- yes, it is quite likely there are many potential artists who for one reason or another never make it to art school.

New series starts next week, Thursday 25th July at 9pm.

Fiona Bruce and Philip Mould investigate more potentially valuable works of art. They begin with an 18th-century landscape that could be a lost work by of one of the biggest names in British art, Thomas Gainsborough. The painting has been in the family of owner Mark Cropper for generations and until the 1970s it was considered to be a Gainsborough. But then a valuation downgraded it and Mark's father tore off the Gainsborough label in disgust. Now Mark would love to be able to re-apply the Gainsborough plaque.

https://www.radiotimes.com/tv-programme/e/h6dvn4/fake-or-fortune--s8-e1-the-lost-gainsborough/

Forgot to watch Thursday but thanks to iplayer...

s8e1 Thomas Gainsborough, The Gypsies, or "the lost Gainsborough" which was the original for a famous print.

No spoilers ... a rollercoaster ride. Is it by Gainsborough, or Barker of Bath, or someone else? One complication is that Philip helped establish a different painting as The Gypsies, some 20 years back, but this one ...  and there are stunning infra=red and X-ray discoveries.

Sadly we always knew the final answer to this weeks programe when they interviewed the son of the dealer who sold the " original " 40 years ago, he was asked how sure are you that the one your father sold was the real thing, he was emphatic it was genuine, do you think he would have allowed his appearence to be shown if the portrait being investigated was shown to be the real one !
Poor by the BBC if they thought they had people hooked till the death, saying that it was still very interesting to watch.

For a minute I thought it was about Bojo and his bluster and bravado on optimism and jam tomorrow post Brexit.

It can't have been Philip Mould's favourite episode. It started by questioning his attribution of the first painting 20 years ago, and ended with the expert (by implication) casting aspersions on Philip's connoisseurship.

Not the same without Bendor.

Bendor is sorely missed, :Diferent Gravy 12.

When Bendor said he'd seen something, you knew it was probably true. When Fiona says she has made an important discovery, we all suspect this was around the time a BBC researcher shoved the relevant document under her nose.

Not to mention Bendor is posher than the Queen, and named after a 19th Century Derby winner.

Just seen this thread ... Got Excited, as I thought it was back, and would be on tonight (Sunday) as it always used to be .

Will have to make a reminder for next Thursday and onward,  then.

Do you think Mrs Mould knows she has her own 'bendor'?

9pm

First two program's seem to revolve around the presenter Phillip Mould, firstly the  provenance of the painting last week because of another almost identical  painting that he said was the genuine one then this week he spots a painting he was sure was a Lawrence but the owners thought otherwise, almost like the BBC just want to big him up, this weeks show imo  was pretty slow.

Haven’t watched this yet, so I’m not looking closely at this thread.

It doesn’t seem right to show it on a Thursday. I shall watch it on a Sunday

Has she ever been to a Pizza Hut?

Ep 2 Cosway or Lawrence

A good episode imo. Unlike @pumphol, I liked the fact this quest started with Philip Mould having spotted a painting on the wall at a party of some sort.

Highlights included:
Fiona's voice being very weak in one scene, presumably filmed while she had a cold or similar.
A posh golf club that looked like an art gallery.
Philip's dog, Cedric.
Tea at Fortnums.
Valuations of £8,000 if Philip was wrong (Cosway) or £500,000 if he was right (Lawrence).

Though was it just me who thought the hair looked wrong in the portrait?

Not a fan of effete young men (Honest gov!!), but I thought it was a great picture whoever painted it. I actually liked the hair, particularly under x-ray.

"Valuations of £8,000 if Philip was wrong (Cosway) or £500,000 if he was right (Lawrence)"

Well I would have taken 1/100 "Phil was right " be interested to see in future episodes if he is seen to actually get it "wrong "

The hair reminded me of a young James Harries who by coincidence is about as effete as one could be.

s8ep3 Giorgio de Chirico

It seemed a bit flat this week, and needed more of Fiona speaking Italian (without the English voiceover).

s8ep4 A view of Venice by either Francesco Guardi (£10 million) or Michele Marieschi (£500,000). First world problems!

That was unexpected.

Not for the first time this series, the programme suffered from an omnipresent owner.

s8ep4 A view of Venice by either Francesco Guardi (£10 million) or Michele Marieschi (£500,000). First world problems!

or (c) an unknown British dauber worth at best £20,000

Last night's repeat of the Giacometti Gazing Head sculpture had an updated ending.

When the experts cleaned off the polyfilla and paint grandad had fixed it with after the family moggy knocked it over, they noticed the silly old fool had covered up the signature: Alberto Giacometti, 1928.

It has since been sold at Christies for £587,250. Here is the Christie's page for this lot.
https://www.christies.com/lotfinder/sculptures-statues-figures/alberto-giacometti-tete-qui-regarde-6190962-details.aspx