The Truth Unveiled: Winston Churchill's Artistic Mystery | Perspective 

Thank you for sharing this

I hope this was discovered in time for the gentleman to save his farm and all those jobs.

@@Bethgael winnie to the rescue!.

Look at you, out here being the real hero!

@@Bethgael I think he had already sold the farm in France. There is a good article online.

Book hint: Winston Churchill: Painting on the French Riviera ( 2020 hardcover 208 pages by artist/author Paul Rafferty ). It has on page 51 the photographic evidence of Sir Winston Churchill holding the painting on the terras of Chateau l'horizon in Golfe Juan - France ! Photo series taken by Lady Doris Castlerosse found in the chartwell archives - 2022.

@@phmwu7368 Wow! Thank you. I shall try to get the book.

How absurd that with all the evidence and provenance that someone felt reluctant to authenticate Churchill’s painting. Ridiculous.

What about Churchill's WIFE saying she knew it?

Well, for all your expertise, see FrenchArtExpertise Paris' comment below (here's the quote): "A photo was found at Churchill's residence with this St Paul de Vence fountain, so its been named a REAL Churchill painting as of 2022." The expert was wrong.

Some of these experts give an initial opinion and thereafter are intransigent in the face of additional evidence to the contrary. I think that was the case here. I'm thrilled to see the comment by Benedikt Morak indicating that the painting has now been declared a bona fide Churchill.

Book hint: Winston Churchill: Painting on the French Riviera ( 2020 hardcover 208 pages by artist/author Paul Rafferty ). It has on page 51 the photographic evidence of Sir Winston Churchill holding the painting on the terras of Chateau l'horizon in Golfe Juan - France ! Photo series taken by Lady Doris Castlerosse found in chartwell archives.

The status of that so-called expert should go down the toilet.

That's why you give away as much as you legally can per year before you die. It varies by country but there's a certain amount accepted for gifts.

yeah, Inherit money, pay less percentage of tax than a shop girl, don't spend a farthing to grow the county's economy and then expect to give it away, again paying a smaller percentage of tax than a shop girl then hire a lobbyist to try to keep more money. That is the beauty of Conservative economics. I wonder why they are having a hard time in the opinion polls ?

yep... he had it all in his lap, but they want to be as important as the artiststhemselves. talentless wanna be artists who turn into "experts"

He might not have stuck to a particular brand. During and after the war materials were hard to get.

yeah, churchill faked french impressionist paintings and signed them under an assumed name to bump up their price. Churchill was a fraud.

Gorgeous jacket, I admired a Nehru (collarlesss) standup collar at the end of a grand masters sleuthing, figured it might be an Armani but not sure, yes stays man has style

But the Churchill expert considered that only conclusive evidence that the painting and Churchill were once in close proximity and not absolute proof he had painted the piece himself.

I agree. I found an artist in New Mexico that is fantastic. I have purchased four of his paintings and wish I could afford more. The first one was $700, the second cost me $750 , the third $800, and the last $1,200 and now they have gone up to about $8,000. But when he first started out, I was told he was selling them for a "meal" at a restaurant. I believe he is now deceased.

@@mariashelly4812 I do agree with Le Chat, artists need support more than ever, who ever it may be. I am happy for this man and the preservation of history of this particular painting too though.

Well, for all your expertise, see FrenchArtExpertise Paris' comment below (here's the quote): "A photo was found at Churchill's residence with this St Paul de Vence fountain, so its been named a REAL Churchill painting as of 2022." The expert was wrong.

👍Agree...🙌☘️ He'll buy Churchills painting for less, then later coming with 'evidence' it is Churchill and sell with big profit.🤔. By the way, lady on that old film said Churchill was there painting fountain... Isn't that evidence enough..? 🤔 Blessings 🙏🌟🕊️🎆

PS Well, sadly this vid is from 2020...(at the end, one can see MMXX in the red box on the left side).. And one person commented that case is solved 2020, as Winstons painting.. DS

@@helengren9349 Excellent, where did you find this!

@@bethbartlett5692 One of the persons here in comments wrote it has been solved. I can ask him/her, as well as i can check info on the net about it. 👍

You may like to know, painting was not Churchill's only hobby. Example, he enjoyed brick laying, building walls. As for this painting, as a trained artist and historian, at first glance it does not look to me typical of Churchill's painting for several reasons. It's also worth remembering, the Art world is an ocean full of hungry sharks looking to feed. Much as I revere Churchill, he was not an outstanding painter. I'm yet to see a 'good' painting by Sir Winston and yet I'll agree to own anything created by that very great man would be wonderful. My first impression is the drawing and colouring of the architecture untypical, it's to precise. Churchill was much influenced by the 19th century French painting techniques which I too have learned in France. However, to be more sure I'd want to see the original and other's known to be by Churchill's painted around the time this one is alleged to have been painted.

I reckon he is. One thing I have noticed in every one of these episodes that I have watched (and I don't claim to have watched all of them) is that the experts NEVER change their minds from their first standing. I recall that episode regarding the painting that had 2 great houses [one French and one English] argue over whether it was authentic and despite the evidence for authenticity being overwhelming (including it having literal provenance from painter to gallery by the French house!) the English "expert house" REFUSED to authenticate it. Even the hosts were, like, politely "steady on...". I think the American expert was honest: "I'm not sure; I'll have a look" and so I had hopes. But the moment Coombes said "I have my doubts", I knew for certain this poor bloke would have to sell his farm. I think the expert knows it's a Churchill and he will later say so, when he can "suddenly" solve the mystery of one of the paintings in his catalogue. Then again, maybe I'm just seeing egos where no malice exists. I'm often wrong. :D

Possible yes, I fully agree one needs to 'see' the original before being definitive. As a noted, trained painter myself, with two large websites, I'm well aware that this is the case with any decent painting. Photography and less so the Internet never does full justice to an original painting. As for this painting, as a trained artist and historian, at first glance it does not look to me typical of Churchill's painting for several reasons which i've touched upon in a post in this series.

@@gordonfrickers5592 Well, for all your expertise, see FrenchArtExpertise Paris' comment below (here's the quote): "A photo was found at Churchill's residence with this St Paul de Vence fountain, so its been named a REAL Churchill painting as of 2022." The expert was wrong.

It's been done: "Darkest Hour" with Gary Oldman.

FDR knew 'forgery' was winnies hidden talent.

If you go back far enough, everybody has the same ancestors.

I think it was about a Chagall that came from Russia

@@alanframpton2640 That's the episode. Thanks!!

and an even worse politician, despite what you've been told.

Coal storage.

@@dorotapogubila4427 Thanks. I never heard of it. It's a British thing?

@@joa8227 Yes, they are in Holland too.;-)

@@joa8227 interesting. Thanks for explaining that!

@@joa8227 Canada too. Probably all northern countries that used coal for heating.

It may be the French inheritance tax. The two small farms are in France.

Royal family need money... 🤔 Can you imagin how many charities, galas, concerts, private donators and all charityshops are "pulling in" for cancer, starving children, and still there is cancer, starvation, no water, war... 🤔

@@lynnbetts4332 Isn't that based on nationality..? If citizen in UK, one pays taxes accordingly to that country..? 🤔

@@helengren9349 Have no idea. Those estate taxes may be a combination of taxes due in both countries.

It's a combination. He'd be paying taxes in both countries. The UK have inheritance tax based on value, at about 40%, but the tax is usually paid by the estate (he's trying to avoid selling the farm, so it is possible the estate doesn't have enough cash to pay said taxes). In France, inheritance tax is based on income and is paid by each individual beneficiary. He's being dipped by both countries, because in the UK it's based on whether you, as the inheritor, get a capital gain, whereas in France it's about the person who leaves the land (ie his uncle) and the change of ownership of the land. If his uncle had more beneficiaries, his individual tax load in France would be less. Having said that, the "Royal family" do not receive the taxes. They're government taxes in both countries, and go to government coffers and the general budgets of both countries. It's also worth noting that the late Queen Elizabeth 2 paid income taxes, VAT and capital gains taxes until her death, and has done so since 1993. Charles, despite being exempt, will also continue to pay income taxes (they do receive income from their estates). The French have no royal family, but I imagine you can google how their government uses their tax coffers.

Tru...artlife always i2f the artist...one love...blessings

As an artist with some 70 years experience I'd not call this painting a 'masterpiece' or even a Churchill original. The other, Munnings, is probably a fake by the famous Thomas Patrick Keating (1 March 1917 - 12 February 1984). However with so much money at stake sooner or later the 'art world' will claim it is both are masterpieces, one by Churchill.

They were studies, preliminaries.

Ermagerd

It's a French word and that is how you pronounce it, especially when you are well off born in Europe. You may be looking at it from a different perspective is all?

@@davidmorris6254 Nope. About 45% of English derives from French but we don't change from native English pronunciation to a sort of mangled French every time we say "beef" or "table" or "delicious" or "city" or "person". Provenance is not a French word, and has not been for centuries. It entered the language via French about 200 years ago and was quickly pronounced according to its spelling in English: the pretentious fake French pronunciation is a very VERY recent thing. If people did the same thing with "ignorance" or "arrogance", which have similar derivations, others would rightly regard them as idiots. Sorry but it's not just a different perspective, it's research and scholarship. Even though I used the 20-volume Oxford English Dictionary, even all the non-paper-based, not-respectable sources I can find on the Internet all say the same thing. I know it's not the word you were specifically addressing, but "ommarzh" as I said is another bugbear of mine, and it is breeding like a plague among the arty-but-ignorant crowd. It also has not been a French word for centuries - in this case about 500 years. The English word homage (hommidge) is Middle English, which means it has been a naturalised English word since at least 1500. The Modern French word is *hommage* with a double m.

@@steelcrown7130 Not so, re pronunciations always being Angolified. Many of our weird pronunciations for similar spellings have been kept in English. School : k: Greek Chef: Sh : Oh, look, French. tch: OE often via Welsh. Different people say things differently. eg, in Australia, twat, would be pronounced "twot" because an a after a w sound is often pronounced "o". I smile every time an English person says "non" for "none" because here, we say "nun" for the same word. People are wonderful, and reverse snobbery is also snobbery.

@@Bethgael Sadly your comment consists of four points unconnected in any way by a common thread and almost completely missing the point of what I wrote, so I'll deal with them separately, as you have: 1. "Not so, re pronunciations always being Angolified." Apart from inventing Anglofied to mean Anglicised, you are contradicting something I never came close to saying. I *never* said pronunciation is always anglicised. In fact I suspect I am in total agreement with you. I did say about 45% of English is derived from French but we don't change from native English pronunciation to a sort of mangled French ... and then I gave a few example words derived from French to demonstrate that most French-derived words are fully assimilated into English and are correctly pronounced as English words. *Provenance is one of them* . Of course many French words have kept their Frenchness: hour, heir, honour, ballet, chef (I'll call your chef and raise you "cliche", "pastiche" and "moustache"), restaurant, cafe, naive ... My gripe with provenance (as with homage) is that the word was pronounced as a natural English word for centuries and then a bunch of pretentious fools began to parade their non-existent poshness by re-Frenching it. The problem is the project fails every time: any attempt by an English speaker to say "provenongz" sounds nothing like the actual French pʁɔvnɑ̃s. 2. "School : k: Greek Chef: Sh : Oh, look, French. tch: OE often via Welsh." My point (and yours) exactly. We agree. Let's move on. 3. "Different people say things differently." Well, derrr Fred (yes I am Australian too, and I suspect in the same city). Interestingly the particularly rude word you used as an example I have heard as both rhyming with "hat" and rhyming with "what" in Australia in about 50/50 proportions, and I am in the "hat" camp. Similarly I too have noticed the "non" and "nun", and I'll also raise the odd new UK pronunciation of "says (sez)" as "sayz (like daze)", and the bizarre Estuarine turn toward "us" as "uz", or even "əz". Again, we agree totally - different people have their own personal pronunciations. However, where we differ is that I believe that without a common relatively stable core that accommodates these personal quirks, we would eventually no longer understand each other. 4. "People are wonderful, and reverse snobbery is also snobbery." Hmmm, straight out of left field a massive truism and then a direct character judgment with no evidence. Nice try to pin that one on me. No false dichotomies please: there are many gradations between snobbery and reverse snobbery, and pointing out one does not immediately scoot you down to the other extreme end of the spectrum. I wasn't railing against snobbery anyway, just ignorance and pretension. Every time we correct someone for a howler it does not mean we have placed ourselves at the other end of the scale and proclaimed we are God; we all make mistakes and should be grateful if someone helps us not to sound foolish: my doctor recently pointed out the difference between "nauseous" and "nauseated" and I took it like a lamb. All the best.

....As an Artist.....You obviously don't know Churchill's hand all that well as the painting is in fact by his hand ! ....As an Artist.....

Artist to artist I agree with you as for "Sorry but it is, this case was solved in 2020", with so much money at stake and knowing the art world yes sooner or later, it would be 'solved'.

SCAM

"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. 7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. " ~ Matthew ^ v 5, 7. Now go away.