FAKE OR FORTUNE 9X03: EDWARD LANDSEER

Fiona Bruce and Philip Mould investigate a painting that could be the work of the celebrated artist Sir Edwin Landseer. If it is, they will have rediscovered a much-loved Victorian masterpiece that was thought to have been destroyed by a catastrophic flood almost a century ago.
The painting depicts the terrible aftermath of battle, with fallen soldiers and horses evoking the horror of war. The scene, known as Time of War, was first painted in 1846 by Landseer, the artist who created one of the most iconic images of 19th-century British art, The Monarch of the Glen, and whose lion sculptures still sit proudly in Trafalgar Square today. Landseer was an infant prodigy who became a favourite of Queen Victoria, and he painted the royal family and their beloved pets throughout his life.
The painting is owned by Kathy and Barry Romeril, who bought it in 1987, when they were still married. Now divorced, the painting has stayed with Kathy at her home in Ascot, while Barry now lives in Florida. The couple first spotted the picture in a sale at Ascot racecourse and had no idea of any connection to Landseer. Kathy explains to Fiona and Philip that she has a love of horses and was moved to tears by the grey horse staring out at her in such a desperate state. She decided there and then that the painting was coming home with her, and she bid £720 to secure it. But if the painting is proven to be a lost national treasure by Landseer, it could be worth as much as £80,000.
The original Time of War hung at the Tate gallery in London and was there in 1928 when the city suffered one of the worst disasters in its history. On the night of 7 January, the Thames burst its banks at Lambeth and crashed through the walls of the Embankment, flooding the houses that lined the river at that time. Fourteen people died, and thousands were left homeless. Water also surged into the lower galleries of the Tate, damaging hundreds of works from the national collection. By all accounts Time of War was destroyed - but was that really the case? Could Kathy and Barry’s picture be the lost Landseer?
Fiona follows the clues through the archives to establish exactly what happened to Landseer’s original painting. It’s a trail with plenty of unexpected twists and turns, including the revelation that other pictures thought to have been destroyed that night most definitely were not. One very notable example is now on display at the National Gallery. Philip, meanwhile, scours the picture itself for evidence that this is the hand of Landseer. As he casts his expert eye over the large canvas, he can see that the painting has unquestionably been damaged in the past. Could it be evidence of the Tate flooding? The investigation gathers pace, and the evidence is presented, but will it be enough to prove that Kathy and Barry’s picture is a long-lost national treasure?

[@joes9954]

That odd border was THE smoking gun. It was an exact match to the original and I suspect Philip's hunch about the damage working against the painting was correct and the "expert" is wrong. Too many paintings are allowed to be authenticated or ruined on the opinion of one person. The West from a previous episode is an example of this.

[@Bjy001]

I agree. The "notch" was the smoking gun. So obviously the original.

[@melanies.6030]

​@Bjy001 I'd be interested to know what the photography expert that pointed out that irregularity along the canvas edge made of the "verdict". To me too, that odd detail from the old photo directly matching up with the picture in question was indisputable proof.

[@kittentupointo5867]

pause the video at about 58mins in, spend a few minutes looking at the photo vs painting. They are quite different.

[@orionfoote2890]

I was left wondering if the expert had made the right call on this one - we must assume they know things that we don’t - the kink in the frame or canvas appeared to be some kind of smoking gun which appeared to have little or no sway on the outcome whatsoever - it was totally unexplained. Thanks for these uploads - obviously I’m not the only one who’s been hooked on the show from day one.

[@Qwijebo]

Might be because the Tate didn't want to get into a legal battle over ownership.

[@philipbloomquist1580]

I think this one I am ambient about the result I was not convinced it was a fake or real. That it was quality does not mean someone who was able to see it in person, before the flood did not do study of it in great detail and could have done a copy of extreme quality . The main reason it likely was not determined real in my mind was that there was to many unanswered questions. since it was supposed to be destroyed the burden of proof was to have a history of it not being destroyed or so identical to evidence of the known work that no doubt remained and I felt doubt. I do think it easily could have been the original but also feel it was not clear enough to say for sure that it was.

[@grekulator1628]

I can't get over the kink 🤯

[@dreamcatcher3861]

I drew the same conclusions too. That kink spoke so loudly that this was the missing piece. I too am convinced the expert was mistaken.

[@garybrewer9059]

Totally agree with you. “ The Kink” was totally ignored in the final analysis - hard to fathom that something revealed in the original photograph was also copied by the supposed forger?

[@AndreiGromit]

It makes sense that the expert would not risk his neck to recognize the painting and in the process acknowledge how The Tate made some huge mistakes.

[@jodienovello5881]

@Beaudile its a snobbery thing

[@oblongowl]

Seems highly likely to be the genuine piece. How could the expert ignore the forensic match in idiosyncrasies of the actual painting? To make a judgment on how flat the painting looked, on an unclean , retouched, and water damaged piece seems beyond absurd and even smacks of cronyism given that ridiculous Tate gallery comment that they believed the painting undoubtedly destroyed, based upon scribbled notes that were proved to be unreliable.

[@oblongowl]

Also it is hilarious, to think of the pomposity of this gallery today , in protecting its incompetence from 1934 . Talk about protecting your asses.

[@AChefkoch]

Well, it surely is the genuine piece. I'm havinge the same troubles with an painting. These "experts" are afraid to make wrong decisions, an they value their taste or connoisseurship way to high. A painting by XY has to look like this or that (how i, the expert think it has to look like), if not it cant be the artist. Other scientific proof is of no value whatsoever. Thats quite sad, and in my opinion tells a lot about such experts who behave like 18th century absolute monarchs in the artworld ;)

[@MrStGeorgeIllawarra]

I'm sure it's to not open up a huge can of worms. Something tells me perhaps a lot of works that were "destroyed" by the flood were perhaps in fact straight up taken.

[@georgielancaster1356]

So often the experts are just nursing huge egos...

[@craigbarron3706]

Politics always intervenes on anything seemingly factual.

[@lisaseverance6785]

I have 2 theories. Some higher up at the Tate declared it destroyed and finished. As we could see from the "Execution" painting, the finished/destroyed declaration does not mean it is truly "finished/destroyed" Perhaps, as mentioned, Landseer was no longer considered important in 1928. So it was delclared a loss by the higher up. But someone, lower in the ranks at the Tate, loved the painting and rescued it, not caring that it was damaged. Remember the relining was done in a method known in the 1920s. So they relined it and repaired the damage as best as they could. But since what was done was not exactly legal, no paper trail. The more cyncial theory and just as possible, the painting was declared destroyed and the reccomendation was that it, along with other damaged paintings, be destroyed. But again, we can see from the "Execution of Lady Jane Grey" that they weren't all destroyed as they were told to do. So, assuming insurance existed on the paintings at the Tate, insurance paid out for the damaged/destroyed paintings but someone within the Tate did not destroy the damaged paintings. Instead they secreted them and slowly over time, did some repairs and sold them....off the books. Because as they said, the Delaroche was no longer thought significant. Remember, in 1928, the art movements were trending mor towards Social Realism (Think "American Gothic") and what we would generally over all call modern art...Surrealism, abstracts etc. Landseer may have been considered far too old fashioned and not worth it. All that being said, I believe the painting to be the original "Time of War". Far too many things add up to make it so.

[@millawitt1882]

Love your theories and I totally agree - this IS the War of time especially after the mention of the lower part of the picture matching with the foto - No one copying a painting would do that -NO ONE!😉

[@michaeljohnangel6359]

@@millawitt1882 I completely agree.

[@couchphotography8861]

That sounds like a very logical explanation. Someone, as you say, "rescued" it, kept it for several years, maybe passed it onto a friend or family; they would most probably have been a Tate worker, who maybe found it in the "destroy" pile, who knows? But I think its the real one, the work is by a master painter. I've always liked The Arab Tent by Landseer; his horse paintings are just wonderful.

[@christianfrommuslim]

Yes. They did not touch on the ownership issue. If it had been determined to be original, would ownership have been "the nation" or the insurance company. At least this way the couple can keep it.

[@larrywakeman4371]

WOW perfect! Kimberly

[@poetryqn]

Thanks for uploading the episode. If there's one thing I have learned from this series it's that attributions are surprisingly fluid - what is considered genuine today can be downgraded tomorrow and vis-versa (depending on the 'authority' of currently recognized 'experts' and advances in science). Ultimately, the spread in monetary valuations between excellent 'copies' by other artists and the genuine article will color any valuation question. As the owner in this episode observed, she was moved by the grey and vowed that the picture would come home with her. It was a fair price to pay thirty years ago for a well executed painting that moved her. At least now, her insurance premiums won't be crippling!

[@aidand6638]

I honestly am still in disbelief that they say it’s fake, that kink for me Is just too much of a coincidence

[@Sparkplug4712]

I agree 1000% the kink in the pic is its own finger print

[@barryeva9186]

Prof Aviva Burnstock is always a pleasure to listen to.

[@sentimentalbloke185]

Polly Frontbum

[@annettefindlay8076]

That stag is an absolutely amazing painting! What a genius Landseer was!🎨

[@melanies.6030]

I had the privilege of seeing The Monarch of the Glen at the Scottish National Gallery a few years ago. It just stops you in your tracks, I must say.

[@milootje007]

I am convinced it is the real painting. However, if that would have been the outcome i think the Tate would have claimed ownership and these people would have probably lost that legal battle.. So maybe it's for the best that it wasn't the official outcome. All i can say to the owners is: Congratulations on your Landseer! Hope you get it restored! Maybe contact Baumgartner Fine Art Restoration and make a follow-up on this lol 😂

[@SantaBarbaraBiking]

When they showed so many of the damaged paintings I was thinking send it to Baumgartner lol.

[@helensarkisian7491]

Forget the Tate. I wouldn’t have sold it to them even if they topped the highest bidder by $1M.

[@michaeljohnangel6359]

Hear, hear!! Congratulations to the owners on their powerful Landseer (that they now get to keep). Well said, milo!

[@Laura-qn2nf]

I superimposed the images of the painting & the photograph, & the outlines don’t line up, specifically the outer corner of the rug is very different and the man on the right side is positioned at a lower angle relative to the horses head in the photograph. Those are significant composition differences that damage or age can’t explain. Of course I wish someone with better tools than me tries to superimpose the images to see if theirs also doesn’t match up. I really thought they would, but now I believe the expert made the right call.

[@palladin331]

@@Laura-qn2nf Old camera lenses can cause mysterious distortions. And printing can cause unusual warpage. Then there's the retouching process. I think the photography expert would not have said the photo was of the painting if there were even slight reasons to doubt it. Too many things lined up succesfully.

[@LiveInSydney]

I’m not buying it. The kink is too real. It’s too good a copy

[@wildandbarefoot]

Rubbish. The stepping of the outer line of the composition is not something that would be copied by a forger. Tate ass covering. Had the insurance paid out and the insurer still exists? Would the Tate have to reimburse the insurer? Therein' is the question. I'd suggest to the tate that I would probe in that direction and see if they revise the finding.

[@dougkelley2781]

This was wonderful, regardless of the outcome. Very coincidentally for me, I fell in love with and bought an engraving of the companion painting “Time of Peace” many years ago and had it framed. It’s followed me from house to house and still brings me joy every time I look at it. Though it was sad to hear of the original’s fate in the flood, through this video I’ve learned about “Time of War.” I’ve also just found an engraving by the same artist who did “Peace” (L. stocks) and it will become a pair in spirit. Thank you!

[@thecicerus3615]

This is not a fake! It is impossible to replate such details and symmetric. Just time the picture will be recognized as Edwin LANDSEER works

[@monkeytennis8861]

Cuckoo

[@MsIndigo74]

Edwin not Edward

[@harkinsclark1417]

You do know that on the KZbin update the comments flash up wether you like it or not, so thanks a lot for spoilers.

[@IoniIvyAquilina]

by the end of this episode... i'm really not convinced that it wasn't the real thing... but if it someday changes for some reason and the expert was wrong, then these people just got away with a public property painting loll

[@philmorton4590]

All you can hope is the next expert believes differently, which could happen if this painting is continually place before the public in a gallery. We really need a wing for unauthenticated and mysterious works that are proven real by aid of scientific analysis. Otherwise we are cropping history and losing valuable insights of the past. Edit: I wonder if AI programs might one day be used instead of a human expert in the effort of removing ego from the decision.

[@arthurblundell6128]

they have not had much luck in last couple seasons. The landseer had water damage and still rejected bit odd

[@heerp.4023]

Clearly we are dealing with insurance fraud here.

[@PS-vm3we]

How so if I may ask?

[@ivorytower99]

PS This is so thee "War", by Landseer!!! "Destroyed beyond repair", =the Board at the TATE, at that time, needed funds after the flood. They probably sold-off a bunch of Masterpieces that suffered -some- damage in the flood of 1928. One *big* question, is "why" did they not take the photograph of war and superimpose it over the painting? That would have been a dead cert.

[@red.aries1444]

Maybe it would have shown to much differences between the painting of this episode and the photograph of the original painting which is probably destroyed in the flood... They used retouching in early photographs to show more details, but they wouldn't change a complete painting if it's mostly for documentation. The differences between the photograph and the later retouchings should match. But I really wonder why they don't talk more about the x-rays of the painting: It's a very complicate composition. But they don't talk about underdrawings. There is not one mention of a change in the composition or of pedimenti, something you will normally find if it's an original and not a copy. They only talk about the strong use of lead white around the head of the horse... I think this picture is really a copy. A good one, but still a copy. But it's a more interesting ending for the public to leave the case unsolved.... And there is still a chance, that the original painting has really survived the flood. :-)

[@mightwenotbehappy]

I think this had the potential to be another Winslow Homer debacle if it had been found to be an original Landseer

[@jeffstation70]

I think that's one of the reasons why it wasn't found to be original. Those paintings must have been insured, so there would have been a payout to the owners - big hassle. Then there's the question of if the painting wasn't destroyed, how did it get out of the Tate to be sold? After all, the others reported as destroyed were still in the hands of the gallery. It's all a bit fishy.

[@Time2Fly]

Cheers "mightwenotbehappy". Really appreciate Fake or Fortune uploads.

[@007EnglishAcademy]

Philip - ''Hello Aviva!''. Aviva - ''Oh, hello Philip!'' sounding surprised even though the camera crew were already there :)

[@sentimentalbloke185]

They are probably getting it on.

[@edsimnett]

I feel like they should have, for at least one test, simply overlayed the photo and the picture. If the entire canvas is a precise match it makes it really hard to see how it could have been faked.

[@ginacrusco234]

Right! I thought the same.

[@angusstewart3183]

I agree. They could have tried to superimpose a negative of the photograph on the canvas of the painting ( this could also be done on a computer screen). If all the details match exactly then it is extremely unlikely to be a fake. The devil is in the detail!

[@edsimnett]

@@angusstewart3183 Great idea. I wonder if you put a negative over the top, with 50% transparency or something would it go all white (or all black?) if it was a match?

[@trevortighe]

I paused the video while both images were side by side. Then did the cross eyed trick where you can superimpose the images. The 2 images were exactly the same scale all the way across the painting. It was much more accurate than you would expect. I am surprised that the camera used in the 1800s and the camera that took the image when the series was filmed had the exact same lenses distortions. I think the painting is the one that is in the photo. This painting has been stated as 'not one of Landseer best' as indicated by Frederic Stevens. (See the Wikipedia of Edwin Landseer ref section and link to google books) Maybe Richard Ormond would not have said it was ever a Landseer. Maybe it was a fake when the photo was taken in the 1800s. Its so much fun tiring to guess if it real with so little information, .. and so little knowledge in my case.

[@edsimnett]

@Beaudile thnx for that- it's unclear- it looks like they might have done, but they did not treat it as an important point- it happens almost as a color shift. tbh if that is what that is then it is inconclusive, it looks very close everywhere but it is not a crisp precise match.

[@edgarportraits]

thanks so much for uploading a new episode of this quality program. Highly appreciated

[@emmahardesty4330]

Outrageous. What forger, what copyist could be shown, or is known, to have the skill to duplicate this powerful piece. Future sleuthing along with this documentary evidence will prove this is a genuine Landseer. I hope....

[@winkieblink7625]

I don’t agree. It’s a masterpiece. If Ormand found it…he would feel differently. Flooding of Thames a time of kayos. The painting could easily have been set off to the side..away. It’s the EXACT same Dimensions. Weak reasons for discounting painting. This was a terrible conclusion.

[@NyanyiC]

Chaos

[@dharmaofdog7676]

If I HAD to choose only One Series to be able to watch for the rest of my Life, surely it would be THIS one. Besides just providing a more in depth look & understanding of an Artist, these Episodes take you through History - the surrounding Culture of the times, Political Climates, Historic Events, unknown details of the Artists Life and the incredible advance of Technology where had I not watched this Show, I would never knew even existed. The Forensic explorations are fascinating. And there are SO many more facets of the Art World I never knew brought to the fore. One's Art History knowledge expands triple fold with each & every episode & One's overall Art Appreciation immeasurable! And then there is simply the underlying mystery and excitement as the information about the Work in question unravels and we wait in honest anticipation and hope that the Work will prove to be credible and original! With some of the Episodes where the answer is "No, sorry", I'm usually in agreement and merely feel disappointed for the Owners. However, I cannot say that about the Nicholson "Glass Jugs with Plates and Pears". That "No" was not only shocking it brought my Mind back to the "subjectivity" of Art overall and the possible "politics" played behind the scenes of our Art Institutions worldwide. Hmmm....I truly felt (& can only assume I was far from alone), that the particular Nicholson was clearly proven and authenticated. That the "No" was attached to human Ego's and I laugh at myself for recalling how angry I became following the conclusion of that Episode! I swear I paced about my room frustrated that I had no idea where I could complain or make MY Opinion known! (lol, as if it mattered!). My Dogs certainly didn't seem to care one way or the other .... There is definitely Passion in Art! I periodically check KZbin for Seasons & Episodes that I may have missed and when I find one, it is EXACTLY the same feeling as finding a great Master at a Yard Sale! I Thank the people who make the Effort and take the time to post them.

[@dawn5227]

I think it is the genuine piece. And reasons given as to why its not by the artist could very easily be explained by water damage from the flood. I just dont think they want to put their name to authentication because there are still unanswered questions. Even 'experts' get things wrong and I honestly think in this case the expert is wrong.

[@MichaelandCathy1999]

Another fantastic inquiry, that painting is stunning. 👍🇨🇦

[@rondifrankel]

Thank you so much for uploading this! This series is sooo fascinating in so many ways! It's a real-life detective story with wonderful art as the object! Fiona Bruce's investigative abilities, and Philip Mould's enthusiasm and expertise make this both gripping entertainment and a great learning experience. Thanks again!

[@blackboxartistry]

Archivist Mark Palmaroy’s has a twinkle in his eye🤩 excitement! Magic!

[@richardhutchinson9646]

For the art expert to say that the differences between photo and painting can't be explained is b.s. he's an expert on paintings not photography. The photography expert said they're easily explained he bloody well knows if the photo could be edited like that. the big question though is why not just overlay the photo image onto the painting if it overlays perfectly proof. Or even just cross sections like the window horses head or soldier if it lines up has to be real a fake wouldn't quite line up things would be to big or small or lines would just be out.

[@richardhutchinson9646]

Besides the notch kinda proved it was real anyway. A copy wouldn't have the notch on the canvas when the person copied it the original would be in a frame you wouldn't even see the notch to copy and you'd have to find another stretcher with the same notch 😂. I swear with some they could have the artist paint it in front of them and they'd say it's fake.

[@GrahamCLester]

I would have really liked to see a mathematical comparison of the photo and the copy that checked to see how precisely the distances and angles in the photo matched up with the painting. Certainly, an overlay was the least they could do. Also, I would like to see what the expert who said it wasn't by Landseer wrote in the second half of his letter. At the end the presenters seemed fairly convinced that it was a copy and that makes me think they had more information than was shown in the program.

[@richardhutchinson9646]

@@GrahamCLester Well the cross sectioning overlays using software would do exactly that. No one seemed to think 1800s pitch black no electrics on starts to flood blind panic run grab something get it safe. That also explains why for instance time of peace was totally ruined but other pics from that floor weren't you would instinctively run to were the flooding is starting ground floor they were just grabbing stuff at random until someone in charge said leave the stuff down there we are going to consentrate on just this floor for now and organised it. So flood comes security guard for instance runs down to were it's flooding grabs time of war at random gets it safe. I just solved their mystery of why it and some others weren't that badly damaged with basic logic 😂.

[@DaraghOwens]

Thanks for uploading these, they are great to watch.

[@1songlover]

(SPOILER ALERT) Fiona and Philip and their team are the very best art detectives on the planet. And these shows are wonderful to watch. Every program is a gem. There is nothing else like this show. There are so many issues in this episode´s story. And I get the feeling that some details, are not completely presented here. Maybe it will be continued some day. Fingers crossed. The kink itself is confusing. Yes it was certainly present in that photography, predating the flood, when the painting was sitting on the original stretching frame. And it was the stretching frame that had an imperfection that caused the kink. But the painting canvas in the program was cut along the edges with knives or razor blades, to remove it from it’s original stretching frame (and was then glued on to a new canvas). By doing so, they would have had to cut the kink also (only a craftsman with incredible attention to detail would do that). The kink should have been examined down to the millimeter and compared with the kink in that photograph, in the program. I am also missing a detailed overlay comparison between the photo and the painting. The outlines of pretty much everything in the painting, should match the photo. Using all the x-ray methods and other technology they always have in FOF, all the numerous touch-ups that have had to happen to the painting (should it be the flood damaged painting) would have been visible and presented in the program. And many of the touch ups would have been done with paint available in the 1930-ies (I doubt that a restorer back then thought ”let’s make sure to only use pigments that were present in 1850, so that they can run this painting through a Star Trek-like pigment scanner in the future, and find nothing strange with the painting (while simultaneously asking himself ”W-H-A-T is Star Trekkkk?!!”)” . Touch ups and alterations would actually add credibility to the painting in this case. So either the conclusion is that someone refrained from the legal issues that would be raised, were it to be the real painting, and just wrote it off as a copy. Or some art student painted a copy of the real painting, while it was hanging in the museum, before the flood. And did such a good copy, that people living in the 2020-ies can’t say for sure, if it’s a copy or the original.

[@feliciagaffney1998]

I was also wondering why they never brought up details about restoration paints. But, Fiona was talking about "overpainting" being removed. Was that from the restoration of flood damage?

[@chris...9497]

Couple of things: The Thames flood occurred in Jan of 1928; the Great Stock Market Crash that led into the Great Depression occurred in Oct 1929. 'Unnecessary' industries would fail first, ones like art and charities. I could see those workers not yet redundant or fearing loss of employment being lured by those still insulated by wealth to take away works due for destruction. The new 'owners' would then set about to conserve the damaged pieces and keep them in 'private collections'. Eventually, those owners would pass away and their goods liquidated at auction, passing in the 1970s into the current owner's hands. I am not satisfied with the term 'finished' being correctly interpreted as equating to 'destroyed'. I must wonder is 'finished' a recognized term of art or does it mean something more like 'completed restoration'. 'Finish' can mean the completion of an action and/or the final work upon an object as in a patina, paint, or gold leaf is a kind of finish. "The Execution of Lady Grey" was noted as being 'finished'. The penciled notation 'finished' was (if I recall) added in the 1970s, same decade "Time of War" was acquired by the new owner.

[@palladin331]

The testamony of the photography expert far outweighs the so-called 'expertise' of the art expert. Relying on one expert's opinion is fraught with bias and rivalry; it is not likely to be neutral or objective. And this is exacerbated by the fact that crossing the established authority can ruin the career of the other expert. (Of course, it also works the other way: competing experts can tacetly agree NOT to cross each other in order to preserve their own misidentified artworks).

[@justjohnxx]

I THINK MOST OF US WHO WATCHED THIS DO NOT AGREE WITH THE VERDICT ......THE SIZE THE SAME... THE PAINT USED OK....THE ORIGINAL PHOTO HAVING THE SAME KINK IN THE LEFT HAND CORNER ......THE X RAY MAKING THE POINT IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT F9R A FORGER TO DO THE SAME ....NOTHING TO SAY WASNT DONE IN RIGHT TIME PERIOD

[@zahria]

Thank you so very much for uploading this episode 🌷 What a treat for the culturally starved outside of Great Britain ; ) Not much can compare to your cultural programs.

[@ivorytower99]

RIGHT ON!

[@soniamacdonald9193]

Ditto from Southern Africa!

[@fool4singing]

What about that kink on the lower left hand side of the painting? How did the authentication committee overlook that detail? It's such an odd defect, and I find it highly unlikely that both paintings would have this flaw in the canvas just by chance,...I'm not convinced that it's not the original in a very restored state.

[@Sugarplum2025]

This is my favorite show. So exciting to see some new episodes, since I live outside the UK and can’t watch it when it actually airs. I love that the entire “drama” of the show is simply whether the work is real - if this was a US show, they’d create some other angle, focus much more on the owner, make it a sob story somehow. I appreciate British TV so much by comparison. Also I love Fiona Bruce and I covet that fuzzy blue jacket she’s been wearing in these. Oh and where’s Bendor? I miss him!

[@couldbegood]

You must watch ‘Britain’s lost masterpieces’. Bendor and a lady (whose name I forget) host it. It is just as good as this and actually very similar. They go to art galleries or stately homes and find paintings that they believe are incorrectly attributed. They go though similar processes to find out.

[@andreaandrea6716]

I too miss Bendor!! There's a great big gaping hole where once he was to be found! (although I love all the experts who weigh in ... minus the ones we never see!)

[@kyleanuar9090]

@@andreaandrea6716 he deserves his own show or make him a trio to this team

[@andreaandrea6716]

@@kyleanuar9090 Nina, above, says he HAS his own show! : 'Britain's Lost Masterpieces' I found one and watched it. It was good! But I like the chemistry when they're all together.

[@BlackKettleRanch]

I find your US comment a highly speculative and prejudice thing to say. There have been plenty of high-drama sob stories on this UK show. Human beings are emotional creatures regardless of continent, so it stands to reason. And we art nuts are some of the most emotional. Take a look at the drama, egos, and politics among the art "experts" and the museum administrators...please.

[@darreno9874]

If you view both images as a stereo pair there area a few minor areas of difference, part of the trumpet banner, part of the black horses head and the upper right clouds. But these are small changes. The rest of the image (more than 90%) are so close as to create a full stereo effect. All the dimensions exactly line up. Someone talked about the horses noses being different but this and the other areas may have been retouched either in the negative or the painting, and may have been done with materials contemporary to the artist. I belive the expert was wrong. Love the program.

[@catsmith7234]

Needs a conservator to apply washicozo to the front and remove the lining and see if there anything hidden on the back blocked out by the lead paint.

[@crawfordconservation3624]

They didn't discus the removal of wax residue that would most likely have penetrated the paint and ground layers during the lining process. They also did not discuss the removal of the grime layer below the varnish that was not fully removed during a previous cleaning. You can see it in the light areas of paint in the detailed images. The residual grime layer would have been locked in by the wax and the varnish. It didn't appear in the cleaning that the residual grime layer was removed and the surface would be dull and the colors unsaturated if there was still a wax residue on the surface. I think there still is hope. I enjoy these programs but sometimes I think the condition isint discussed in enough detail, there are many things that happen to paintings that change their appearance, unfortunately not all curators and art historians have enough experience looking at paintings in this way.

[@junyima5574]

Thanks for uploading the episode! Please keep them coming!! One question, if the painting is the real deal, shouldn’t Tate Gallery be the rightful owner?

[@AJShiningThreads]

I know. Right?

[@red.aries1444]

The Tate Gallery could only make a claim to the picture if it would be the original, but it is identified as a copy. And even if it would be the original. The painting has never been stolen from the Tate. In their archives the painting is listed as ruined by the flood and the leftover as destroyed. A staff member of the gallery could have taken the "rubbish" with him, restored the painting and sold it. Then it would be really difficult to say, who is the rightful owner. :-)

[@pocketjohnson1820]

I wondered that too of course it might depend on insurance if there was insurance it would probably belong to some insurance company

[@graphiquejack]

I think when Philip said that because it wasn’t an original, she could continue to have it hanging on her wall, by which I assume she would have lost it to the Tate if it was attributed to Landseer

[@girlnorthof60]

@@pocketjohnson1820 My thoughts exactly.

[@flyingrobins6468]

With this one I firmly believe it is a genuine work by the artist in question. But I also think that it was probably poorly restored. By comparision with the picture all the main figures and objects outlines are perfectly align. Its just not as detailed and lacks the fine brushwork which could be due to overpainting it. Also the smoke above the soldier in the center of the painting is differently shaped. I think someone really had the heart and compassion to make it whole again just not quite the skill.

[@borderlands6606]

I agree. The Tate's flood appraisal was damning, so they clearly thought its condition beyond repair. However, someone charged with the painting's disposal could have had it restored, with no intention of representing it as a Landseer. It appeared in a local auction without provenance, and a price to match. When the extent of restoration no longer renders it as "by the artist", added to a convoluted ownership and insurance trail, the expert probably did everyone a favour by declaring it a copy. To the audiences satisfaction, it was what it purported to be - a Landseer. It would be interesting to know what the verdict would be for a painting worth tens of millions, rather than a couple of hundred thousand..

[@mikegrey7549]

I think it should be subjected to a optical profile projection from the original photograph. I guess it highly unlikely a copier would be able to manage perfect outline placement and dimensionality .

[@danmac5510]

The Expert gave a political decision to avoid embarrassing the Tate. The picture was nicked by someone and declaring it real would have opened an embarrassing can of worms The establishment never admits FK ups A blind man on a galloping horse can see it's real political BS shameful

[@PLuMUK54]

I agree with the decision. The quality is good but it lacks the touch of the master. Admittedly, the kink in the canvas is hard to explain. Had it been verified as genuine, I wonder what the legal position would have been. The painting originally belonged to the nation, and it's disappearance from The Tate would be possibly considered an illegal act. The lack of provenance means there is no evidence of the legality of its removal, and does, in fact, support the idea that it was an illegal act. The photograph of the destroyed painting from The Tate was truly heartbreaking.

[@Songbirdstress]

It wasn't nearly as good after the cleaning. A talented artist did it though.

[@olafkundrus1570]

I'm sure that this is the original painting. The problem is if it is the original, and I'm sure it is, it was owned by the Museum how does it end up at a auction? I think they want to cower up something, better to say it is not the original, than to open an investigation. It is my opinion.

[@kevinchambers1101]

Museums deacession art so it was possible the Tate sent it off to auction.

[@seanobrennan2372]

Another wonderful episode. I took note that no one addressed what seemed to me an important ethical question, if this was indeed the Landseer of the flood, was this painting sold 'on the sly" or simply taken home, by someone at the Tate after it had been deemed damaged beyond repair. I believe the question of how this painting left the gallery and who owned it until it was sold at the auction to Kathy was deliberatly overlooked because of the security and the moral questions this would bring up, casting doubt on the integrity of a Tate employee and perhaps fate of many other 'stored away' paintings?

[@sentimentalbloke185]

Absolutely. Hence why it's more likely that the original canvas was destroyed and the picture we're seeing is a very good, and very old, copy.

[@truthseeker444]

Just wondering out loud, if someone was to report a painting destroyed to an insurance company, and get a big pay out, then sell it....would that be illegal?

[@girlnorthof60]

Yes or No, I still enjoy viewing the process of investigation & discovery. Thank you again for sharing this series. 😍

[@ucviet1]

The Tate just didn’t want to admit it was wrong

[@SantaBarbaraBiking]

Exactly. We have seen previous episodes where museums and experts don't want to admit they messed up.

[@strumdogmillionaire]

"damaged beyond repair" better go to my house then, can't throw it in the fire. So valuable, Perfect opportunity to swindle yourself a budget masterpiece is during a disaster. Who were these men carrying them out? Lol it ended up at a worker's house and fixed up then hidden or forgot about. It's totally the one ! That kink on the edge!! C'mon!!!!

[@pangaeuspress]

In 1928 somebody nicked it and sold it. And maybe somebody got the insurance to pay off. That's a Landseer sure as I'm sitting here.

[@christianfrommuslim]

The jag on the corner did seem very characteristic. They did not touch on the ownership issue. If it had been determined to be original, would ownership have been "the nation" or the insurance company? At least this way the couple can keep it.

[@greensage395]

Disturbing...no one would go to such an extent as to recreate the edge of the canvas, as shown in an Actual Photograph of the Work. ...So Sad...someone doesn't want it to be True, but it is!

[@drewliedtke3415]

Umm, I paint with lead white, also called flake white. Although not easy to find, some companies make it. This forensic lady lost a bit of credibility for me.

[@martijnkeisers5900]

I still think it's the real version..

[@yvesklein5414]

they need to work on Philip's chatbot. I'm definitely getting a Westworld vibe from him

[@birtybonkers8918]

Well, at least the current owners still possess the “not Landseer” that is obviously a Landseer. If it had been an official Landseer it would have been a stolen painting and, surely, it would have gone back to the Tate. The owners also got the painting cleaned for free.

[@ticouna]

The expert? is no expert! enough evidences! the Tate Museum cannot accept that the painting has volitized! and therefore cannot accept that this is the real thing. They were supposed to be the keeper of this collection .... they failed.

[@elizabethannegrey6285]

A fascinating journey in search of a missing art work. I learned a lot, not least of the 1928 Thames flood. Having grown up in London and spent many happy hours at the Tate, I am surprised at my own ignorance. A great video - thanks - and I nearly passed it by because of the plight of the war horses.

[@asotpan]

I have to agree with the previous commentator’s observations that the kink in the bottom left hand corner of the painting has to be a smoking gun. It is notable how in so many of these so-called experts pronouncements that the scientific analyses are often disregarded for personal opinion. At some point the artist must have handled the canvas and left possible traces of his DNA..... might this not be another avenue to explore?

[@deawallach3404]

Too many people have handled it , I think,for that to be possible. A fingerprint in the paint, now that would be definitive! I also think that a lot of these experts on a particular artist have issues with declaring a newly found picture as part of that artist's catalogue , because if later it's found to not be by that artist, they look like they don't know what they're doing. So who comes into play many times.

[@Otto72ish]

The kink in the frame seems like pretty strong proof. The "expert" seems to have got this wrong.

[@veritas6335]

The painting IS by Landseer. The "authority" was wrong.

[@andreaandrea6716]

And (once again) I think that the 'expert' is WRONG and that it IS a Landseer.

[@jimmytheexpat5719]

were there any insurane fraud things going on.... listing something as destroyed or beyond repair collecting the insurance money then years later rediscovering the painting?

[@P.Galore]

If this painting was the property of the museum when rhought lost in the flood, would it still not belong to them if this is the original?

[@andreaandrea6716]

One thing that was NOT done, is to take a blown up photo (a photo that was taken of the original painting) the size of THIS painting, and superimpose it directly over the top of the painting. THIS would provide another layer of evidence.

[@jasmin5753]

Thank you for sharing these episodes. Had the painting been by Landseer.. the original owner Robert Vernon, gifted the painting to the nation.. therefore the painting is public property. Interestingly, there was no mention of this during the episode.

[@icandothis1238]

Yes! I kept wondering about this. Plus, unless I missed it, was the owner of the painting when she bought it at the auction?

[@winkieblink7625]

I was wondering also about the original owner and no mention thereof and then to not mention what would happen if the painting was authentic. Possibly the owner was spared a huge legal conflict because she bought in good faith at a reputable auction.

[@garybrewer9059]

@@icandothis1238 but they did mention that all records from the audition house were not retained after they went out of business in the 1990,s .

[@garybrewer9059]

If the Tate had it insured prior to flooding and received a payout,the the insurance company would be most likely claimants?

[@ksbrook1430]

Given that they knew the outcome by the time they edited the episode, that conversation could have been taken out.

[@theartfullgolfer3279]

In my opinion there is a lot of ego going on with some of the so called "experts" not wanting to be proven wrong.

[@ivorytower99]

At the opening, the auctioneer woman in the purple dress, "At $42 Million....": I'm afraid she might try to bite my neck!~ lol Another *Amazing* episode; especially from the perspective of a professional restorer. Whenever a new episode air's, I will watch it 2,3 times and then give a summation. Again, *Thank You, mightwenotbehappy!!!*

[@springgee9763]

I just discovered this series and I could not be more pleased! I love every bit of these programs. Thank you for sharing this on KZbin!

[@jackmundo4043]

Two dead men and this woman is about to cry for the dead horse? SMH.

[@rosemarydement-tucker4111]

Clearly Tate Gallery collected insurance and "someone" didn't destroy them after being paid and found a way to be paid twice. They CAN NEVER admit to that. Some good detective could sort it out IF it meant anything to ANYONE....

[@annabellelee4535]

The painting was different from the photo. Look at the smoke over the gray horse's head.

[@pNo415]

Thank you so very much!

[@bscepter]

The kink in the canvas should've been enough to authenticate it. I almost wonder if there's some 94-year-old conspiracy going on. Did they claim it lost for insurance purposes in 1928?

[@LB-gs5vi]

They ignored the kink in the edge which is a huge point of authenticity!!

[@jaypaul3749]

I feel this is the original painting. Is it just a coincidence that this remarkably good "copy" of same age, size, and materials used has also suffered the same damage as the original? Of course the damage would distort the painter's original intention and render it a bit flat. I think the experts decision would be swayed by putting the Tate Gallery's reputation on the line, who can not accept this as the original for legal reasons, the institution would then be admitting to alleged dodgy dealings in the past and it could open up a can of worms - so better to reject this artwork as a Landseer and still maintain that the original was "destroyed" to save face.

[@thedarksage328]

I think the photographic "expert" could have done a much better job at providing hard data. Image processing done on the photo AND the painting to get actual measurements on key areas of the painting and photo. These measurements could have then been compared.

[@annabellelee4535]

The photo was probably what capped their decision. The painting was different from the photo. The smoke was different, behind the metal grate was different.

[@sgw3612]

The differences between the heads of the soldiers between the early photograph and the painting are very different. Detail. Mouth open vs closed. Ear shape. Ribbon detail. Head shape. There are stark differences.

[@Isabella-nd3rq]

No. That would have been noticed immediately.

[@annabellelee4535]

Also, looking at the painting and the photo side by side, the upper left corner's smoke was in totally different patterns.

[@gulfstream-tvstudios9546]

when I saw this painting first time , I was crying...😢... not cause of the 2 soldiers, ... cause of the horses ....

[@ArcticBreaze]

just a thought, this maybe the original Tate painting and it may have ALLWAYS been a fake. it happens

[@nancymilawski1048]

Some fakers are well known and they should who they think actually painted it, if not the original artist.

[@shploingy6699]

What's especially ridiculous about this is that a forger is not going to flood damage a painting, and then repair it in order to then consign it to an auction house for £600. Such complete nonsense. Of course, experts can't usually accept that something like this got missed by them.

[@allisonjae3152]

Even if this painting is a copy, it's a great one and keeps the spirit of the original alive.

[@AJShiningThreads]

Thanks!!

[@somjasa]

Why didn't they put the picture over the photo? It's easy to see if all lines align. A copy wouldn't get all exactly in the same place.

[@annabellelee4535]

Because that would have ended the show before the grand finale.

[@brahmburgers]

The blip on the lower left side - indicates it is genuine. A copier would not get the exact correct dimensions AND the blip. It corresponds with the early photo - as attested to by the photographry expert.

[@annabellelee4535]

Not really since that is where most stretchers get damaged.

[@ginacrusco234]

Too bad the title says "Edward" when it should be "Edwin." Otherwise, well done.

[@benfel9403]

I love all these episodes, but not being an art historian, I go along with whatever they decide. This one though however, something in my gut says this is the real one. No idea why, but a very strong feeling that is the genuine one. But what do I know..... Great story as ever.

[@michaeljohnangel6359]

You obviously have better gut feelings than Richard Ormond has!!! I'm an artist and an art historian, and this is obviously a Landseer.

[@benfel9403]

@@michaeljohnangel6359 not in anyway being knowledgeable about art, I think it was the body language and reasoning in ALL the other experts that made me think so. Madness is it not! Hopefully in the future when there is a erm.... different authority on Landseer someone will try again and things can hopefully be put right!

[@JJJRRRJJJ]

Come on… this was the original… the kink(😉) is beyond refute.

[@annabellelee4535]

The "kink" was probably caused by a not quite fitting frame or an accidental bump against a harder object when out of it's frame. Often stretchers have to be planed down when a painting has been removed to bring it back into proper form.

[@lalaLAX219]

The only bad part of this show is how they never fully explain the reasoning of the experts whenever a painting is not accepted.

[@LundyWilder]

Somtimes they do , if it is included on the rejection letter.

[@rolo4945]

A friend of mine Carla Grace who paints the most beautiful realistic animals I have ever seen. Look her up ! ❤️

[@TonyP602]

Seems a win for the couple. They get to keep a picture they love, whereas if declared genuine, ownership may have been claimed by the Tate Gallery or an insurance company. As a Yank, hearing Philip say he was going to take a "torch" to the picture caused me a moment.

[@humandoodad]

yeah, the way the lady teared up recounting when she saw the painting at auction, I'm almost glad she doesn't have to be stressed about owning a masterpiece and can just enjoy the first piece of art that deeply touched her.

[@julianmetcalfe1070]

This show does a medal wining service to the art world ,this was very close,experts they can not have doubts , not enough flood damage it may not have touched water ,.very good work by the team

[@gkess7106]

Saying a picture is not damaged enough seems like a weird reason to say it is not genuine!

[@julianmetcalfe1070]

@@gkess7106 also when experts get it wrong just because of a very rich provenance that alone some times sways their decision making,as there is so much money on the table

[@annabellelee4535]

@@gkess7106 The real painting was sitting in flood waters for days. Only the highly valued paintings were rescued DURING the flooding, the rest were there until they got around to fishing them out of the basement.

[@pommerhutabarat8666]

It's so amazing how people in western kept record of almost everything that one day Will be so important.

[@robynandrews4384]

That De La Roche is exquisite...as is the Landseer. Its pitiful that some pictures languish in museum basements for decades and possibly centuries, when there's clearly an audience for them.

[@holdfast7657]

For the Tate and Art World, it was perhaps better to say it's not the original. The Tate can mitigate its responsibility to the nation by not securing art. If this painting was stolen, then the current owners do not own it. I suspect if it had been originally restored better, this painting would be declared the original and the Tate would have claimed it. In its current state they wouldn't be interested. Better to say it's a copy and let the current owners keep it.

[@thisthat283]

Ironically, I saw total proof that it were re touched in an effort to repair the damage done to it just as shown with the other ones. Where the retoucher ruined the original by changing details. Most likely this is in fact original what a loss.

[@aucourant9998]

I think in years to come, the 'expert' will be proved wrong.