Art Detectives Unveil The Hidden Stories In Four Paintings | Fake Or Fortune Series 4 | Perspective 

New Series of Fake or Fortune starting around August/September 2023 on BBC.

They should be taken to court. If the evidence is there it is there. Their prejudice is the problem,

There are so many things I wish I had become during my life--because I tried and loved many things--, but one of those things would have been restorer of paintings. Color makes me swoon. Even the names of the colors are magical.

Some unknown artists are better painted than well-known artists. 😢. They should have unknown artists museum too.

I agree with others, this is disgusting...it certainly is proving just how petty snobs can be.😠 To me, the 2 most important takeaways of the Renoir are: 1. That *both* the painting *and* the dossier *must* be kept on display *together* for everyone to see, continuing the validation you found. 2. That *ALL* of the documentation, the compete dossier, be scanned, photographed and stored *together with* a scan and photograph of the painting, then placed someplace safe, waiting for the day when the *next* set of "experts" decides it is, indeed, a true Renoir. Sigh. 😥

This makes me want to go back and take art restoration classes & more art history. Maybe I'll do that in the fall of my life now. I just love the history of it all.

I love this show! I am amazed the ways you go to figure out the validity of these paintings!

If there had been a photograph of Monet & Renoir painting at that scene with this painting on Renoir's easel partially finished I have no doubt that the photograph would not have been enough for Wildensteins simply because their competitor authenticated the painting. My opinion is their verdict does more harm to their reputation than the painting.

Hateful aspect of the art world, the clashing egos. The utter lack of humility by the Wildenstein experts is infuriating. Disgusting. Something has to be changed. How can such an important decision come down to an egotistic battle between two houses? It seems petty from the outside, but in this case it's so damaging, and there is no doubt that the Wildenstein decision is based on the need to right at all costs. In this case, at great cost.

Love this program 🇺🇸

Dr. Barndoor shows his brilliant results in his investigation of the photos.

I've always felt the word "pretentious" was the most applicable to the "art" world.

WONDERFUL! I have watched the most recent PRESENTATIONS 6-8 times apiece. I have also gone back to episodes from YEARS AGO. So it will be wonderful to have NEW episodes to devour.

Perfect ! Love the colour combination of the yellow ochre and black and white.

I absolutely LOVE looking at the comments from the Art History majors tussling amongst one another on these shows 😂

I adore that photo where he’s wearing such a professional suit but covered in white paint. 😂 It’s such an iconic artist look.

The possible Winston Churchill painting is absolutely beautiful wether it’s his or not. I’d love a copy of it

Reruns or not…excellent show!🧐

was really hoping this was a new episode

I love that this show plays soundtrack scores as background music! Whay a fascinating show this is

The Wildensteins should take note of the manner in which the Lowry experts used logic and facts to arrive at conclusions.

No institute should have that much power.

I took a risk buying original (assumed) painting at a garage sale about 18 years ago. I researched it then sold it on eBay. The price I paid was $20 US and I sold it for $110. At the time, the internet wasn't as helpful as today. I wish I had held onto the painting.

Such a wonderful show.

Sue the Wildenstein mental institute.

This was so interesting!

That Lowry episode is fascinating. Remind me to do more complex paintings with rare and unusual paints when and if I ever become a “found artist” in the primitivist style. That way the forgers will have a harder time with my output. 😉

Absolutely fascinating I love this not only do I think it’s fascinating. You are introducing me to artist I’m not familiar with. I know the impression is I know the Americans cause I’m an American but I’m learning about artist all over Europe. Thank you thank you. I love this show.

i love the series, no idea how many there are, and it is tricky to identify the episodes without onening the link. would be great to have a number and series!

Really enjoy this! Fascinating…

It's amazing some of the junk they call works of art, stuff that looks like it was painted by some kid in elementary school. And to think someone would pay thousands of dollars for it, even millions sometimes.

I hope Susan was able to provide a marker for her grandmothers family.

I know of a marvellous Gainsborough painting which is hidden in a staff room on the campus of University of Toronto. It is only known to a handful of people and has sit isolated and unknown for decades.

When the lady said they sold off masterpieces to pay for renovations Fiona took a deep breath priceless.

Loved this!

It is surprising that Richard Toulmin North is not buried at the family Church

My experience as a painter is that most of the people that make the decisions in the art world or high dollars are involved are snobs who can't even paint they love dictating who and what is valuable if the Institute that is rejected it was offered 60% of the value at auction they would immediately declare that it is the most wonderful find in the history of the art world of a painting by Renoir. My apologies voice texting I assume someone from China programmed The Voice texting on my phone

I enjoy ancestry family searches, but the search for historical art is so much more in depth, along with tours of old beautiful places and ancient architecture. I love this show.

I really love the BBC. Why is their such a devision between the different art houses?

I LOVE THIS

Sarah York seems to have benefited more from her divorce than from her marriage: 2 lovely daughters, residence in her own wing at Royal Lodge, (a 30 room mansion) in Windsor Park, QEII’s beloved corgi’s, influential and wealthy contacts, etcetera. Why would THE Spare’s wife think her divorce would provide any less if she stayed in the UK post, divorce? IMO, she never intended to stay in the UK, divorce or not.

The authentication of art is not unlike the certification of computer software. In the past 30 years, if the software you write is not CERTIFIED by Microsoft, it is virtually impossible to sell it. To get a certification from Microsoft, you literally have to submit your source code to Microsoft for them to analyze. Why would anybody give Microsoft their technology?

I recognize this painting...it was the subject of a TV documentary either about painting or about a travel show featuring the area where this painting was painted. I remember seeing a photograph in the TV show showing Churchill sitting in a portal (door way?) painting this image. If I remember correctly, the TV show aired during the noon hour 2010-2012 in Edmonton, Alberta from Seattle, KSPS, that featured painting/ painters. The TV show aired in the 1980s or 90's.

"gullible" is the only word necessary. if you can't see these people are the real art thieves. Still i love there performances ❤

The project and program were excellent. But the back ground music was aggravating -- I was forced to watch other channels on this topic. PLEASE REMOVE THAT MUSIC. Thank you for your programming. 😮

Just a quick glance I knew this is a Renoir. 😊

Surely after the Wild'en'stein's ut'ter b'ad fa'ith has been expo'sed by this TV-show, it does more to disparage the value of their imprimatur than to disparage the notion that the painting is by Renoir. Everything they said in their "rationale" for their opinion was simply a restatement of the ill-founded opinion being "explained" by their circular reasoning. They didn't cite anything in justification. They said things that were simply contrary to the facts. If Chris'tie's and So'the'by's won't auction this painting, put it on e'Bay. After the world sees this TV-show, there will be many bidders who will be willing to bid on this painting in the knowledge that it IS a Renoir, as opposed to their knowledge that the Wild'en'stein Institute SAYS it's not. They can say the sky is the ocean too, but would that make it true? What matters is not what some "authority" SAYS is true, but, rather, what IS true.

I am no sleuth but, the type on the label and the a wax pencil (assumed) number on the back, can those be authenticated for the place the painting was bought from? What about testing the one bought at auction for that buyers provenance?

I remember the Churchill painting episode, but can't recall how it turned out. Fake or Fortune? I seem to remember Fake, in spite of all the proof that it was real.

I bought a beautiful old painting of a Chinese junk boat but can’t find the artist information. Peter Lee, Teter Lee, I can’t tell the spelling? Anyone heard of either artist

I hope that woman said screw you to the arrogant art egos and sued the ‘experts’ who obviously have damaged her financially

I’ve wondered how art works, given as a gift, fit in the stream of provenance. I can see the possibility of Lady with Two Dogs selling as a set with People in the Street, bought by one person, then gifting Lady to Steve’s father. Or, gifting it to his mother. Or to the family. I can imagine it as a family group. One lady and two dogs, the father and son. That’s the kind of connection I would make when gifting a piece of art to a friend or family member.

I also love how the different nations treat provenance differently, directly reflecting their traditions. With British paintings and the British art market it’s done through a decentralized, informal jury system, where art experts gather together and render verdicts. With the French, one has to go through an all-powerful, secretive institute like the Widenstein Institute. It’s highly centralized and there’s no room for dissent. How very French. 😆

Bendor's academic background is actually in British history with a particular emphasis on politics: his PhD thesis concerned British foreign policy and he wrote a book on what he believes were history's worst MPs.

How well do 2 pictures line up in overlaid with each other? If they line up can only be small question if real?

Happy i found this show, but the music and certain terms used really jazz up the show like its NCIS lab work for a unsolved murder. Like homeslice you xrayed a painting to see colors. You didnt infiltrated seal team 6 😂😂 they didn't even talk about japanese washi kozo ❤

I wonder if that’s the original Vermeer “Girl with Pearl Earring” on the workbench in the foreground at 2:40:20??

wasnt this already posted

That bendor guy - he will bend over backwards to reveal the cracks in a painting.

I don't know that Lowry was lying about the colours he used when he was interviewed. Him trying out whites and settling on one and then being interviewed years later and saying you use five colours is not a lie. That is what he used. Even as the forger pointed out the zinc white is watery and thinner, likely why Lowry did not finally settle on it. Why he decided not to finally "use" it!

0.36 what is the title of the backsound song this minute plss

So much for provenance regarding the Churchill. Living people connected to his being there at the time they've got both film and periodical confirmation? Experts? Give me a break. I liked the Churchill painting before they "cleaned" it.

I remain disgusted by these Paris houses that claim sole authority over the work of specific artists, and refuse to consider they may have made an error in the past. There is more than pride involved here…given the number of forgeries out there that HAVE been authenticated by these same houses, there is a willingness to to prevaricate in the opposite direction as well to protect their reputation. They will keep a known forgery in the approved class lest their “reputation” be called into question, and they no longer remain the FINAL word on a given artist.🖤🇨🇦

As far as I'm concerned Wildenstein has lost all credibility as an authority on Renoir and also much credibility as an authority of art in general. Considering all the trouble the family has had and the Institute being caught dealing in stolen paintings, I'm surprised that they were still considered the authority at the time. Shameful their behavior with this decision, it wasn't about facts, it was about feelings and ego, childish antics. I do hope the rest of the art community will see that this bunch is all about the money and not so much about actual science, truth and appreciation of art. I was almost convinced at the start of the episode that the painting was Renoir, everything else dug up in the episode goes beyond any doubt, it looked right even if crude, and most simply due to the rare and almost magical translucence that Renoir was able to achieve with oil. I wish I had $100K to offer on this painting, I have no doubts that it is genuine and I also have no doubt that if the now Wildenstein Plattner Institute, Inc. now in Ney York doesn't run their operation much more professionally than what the French iteration did they won't be considered the authority on anything for much longer and the painting will sell for what it actually is worth. I also have a feeling, without researching it, that there is likely something shady about this transfer of the institute to Ney York, it strikes me as much akin to the family's long history of shuffling assets around to avoid consequences, it really does seem like just more Wildenstein family shenanigans.

1:19:44 did I just hear a bizarro version of "Hello Zepp"? Haha

Insane to keep it in the church, especially after this show revealing it as worth in excess of 100,000 L . better to get that forger from the first episode to copy it. The paintings stolen from the Gardiner Museum have never been recovered. They stole 3 paintings in minutes. Imagine how easy it would be to steal it from a church? Nuts beyond belief.

I've never been able to understand why obviously talented artists spent their talent, time, and energy copying other artists to create fakes that are so perfect that can't be identified as a fake. This man, who was imprisoned for 4 years ,could fake antiquities, modern art, sculpture, Lowry, among who knows what other artists he faked. Why wouldn't they just create their own art? Never, ever have I understood that. Was it about risk? Or about being able to pull one over on so called "experts", because those experts are so many times the fly in the eye for many owners of real art that that they denounce as fakes, which to anyone who watches this show, is maddening. It's such a narrow, closed group that makes those decisions, and are often afraid of of marring their reputation.

No for any reasons BBC is not sending to RU-vid the new episodes.

Does Sean the forger have a photographic memory?

These days DNA technology is so precise that even a fingerprint leaves behind DNA and can be tested, I am curious if that isn't a way to ID a picture. Amazingly, right now, with the political unrest and the world so terribly over populated, investors are pushing art as a solid investment. I would think gold would be the push.

I totally disagree with results to, ( I believe) the Churchill painting. So obvious he was there and painted it with borrowed paints! So obvious from the newspaper account and News Reel, that he was there at that time, Oct. 1, 1949! Come on! So unfair!😢 Come on 3:48:03

Personally, I'm thoroughly enjoying the daily vlogs. It has to be exhausting for you but I'm all for them.

INHERITANCE _ FRANCE Father no mother - Under inheritance law in France, the amount set aside as the reserve is as follows: If there is one child, they receive 50% of the estate. With two children, they receive 66.6% of the estate between them. With three or more children, they receive 75% of the estate between them. The rest is covered by a will unless there isnt a will in which case all goes equal share to the children. Oddly works quite well as few arguments and the son if he has siblings will not inherit everything unlike the UK where sometimes the first son receives all the estate.

Can i submit my own drawings?

How do I block this site? I don't wamt to see anymore

LAWERY was a damn good salesman....

wow

1:42 - The key point being that a terrible painting by Renoir will sell for more cash than a first-rate painting by a nobody. It's because nobody is buying art that's satisfying to look at. They're using attributable canvases as a kind of crypto-currency. No government can deflate their value by minting new Renoirs and Matisses and Picassos by the bushel. It's legitimate to do this. It's why you buy the guitar that Les Paul played instead of another one that looks, feels, and sounds EXACTLY like it. And when it's Les Paul's guitar everyone admits that the rarity is what causes the price. But when the rare collectible item is art, everyone involved pretends they're pursuing "beauty". It's so dispiriting to see everyone continuing with this sham.

Clearly there's a skunk in the garden and will not accept that they are wrong😢 It's just sad

What would it cost to have the paint analysis, provenance history research, and expert evaluation performed? The "Renoir" was found to be of no value. Imagine you had paid $50,000-$100,000 to have all that work done; and then to find it of no value when your organization is in desperate need of funds.

These are old episodes Sad

Look at the clothes in the painting compare the styles.

Ive seen a documentary on the ”art houses” and how they have such a political adversarial relationship that the people with REAL pieces of work get screwed all the time. If there is a piece that has as much documentation as the Renoir and Monet and it was turned down and denied out of spite…I would look into defamation, some people would be in front of the barrister. I would go to the press, tell them the story..perhaps people would stop giving these houses business.

I'm a lost Lowry.....

😊

🌈💝

Dont under stand how people land up paying inheritance tax .... When a simple trust would avoid that.

I do get frustrated whenever we are talking about the authenticity of a work that we immediately go to their monetary value. Idk I think as art historians we can do better than that?

I feel they’re nit picking the fact that the artist used different whites and claiming they’re somehow different paints when white is white, especially when it’s an untrained artist.

oh poor man

I have a painting allegedly from Sir Thomas Lawrence. All the provenance looks great but the art world turns its nose up when I try to investigate the painting. In my family for 70 years and before that was owned by a Wall Street lawyer who my dad went to Yale with in the 1940’s. Frustrating.

Rerun

.Micheal a gelo ?

There is Oriental.clothes in that painting.

Even If those first three paintings ARE considered genuine, they are still of the quality of a child’s work - and a poor example at that.

Carbon date it

It says a lot about humans, that Monèt has done a lot of good work, and all we ever see are his boring crappy messy flowers...

The problems of the wealthy 🙄

I love art, but I dislike this program intensely. The hosts are clearly biased in every case, e.g., "This is our painting." They don't understand that research should have no bias whatsoever.

Fiona is quite fetching...