FAKE OR FORTUNE SE1EO4 VAN MEEGEREN

The art world can prove a bear pit, with a myriad of tricksters at work. Experts estimate that anything between 20%-40% of works of art on the market are faked. And they can turn up in the most unexpected places.
Hanging in one of the most prestigious and respected art institutes in London is a picture Philip has heard of, which may hold the key to unlocking the story of the most audacious forger of all time. A man who dared to fake the work of Old Masters and made millions from his deception, until he was caught in 1945: Han Van Meegeren.
But a mystery remains to this day, as Van Meegeren died before a complete record of his fakes was made. How did he pull off faking Old Master paintings, duping important art galleries in to making purchases of works apparently by Vermeer, even foxing Goering in to buying one of his works during the war?
Philip and Fiona get to work on the London picture which, legend has it, hung in Van Meegeren's studio on the day he was arrested. Was it his last work? And by testing it, can we prove how he out-foxed some of the most eminent minds in the art world?

[@viz8746]

Just admit it - Van Meegeren was a genius and a painter of a very high technical caliber, who was wronged and scorned both by his family and the art world, and ended up having the last laugh.

[@KpxUrz5745]

Oh? I find him to be a pathetically untalented and twisted individual. And anyone fooled should really take another look at their own credentials. The examples I have seen are very poorly conceived and drawn, and hopelessly maudlin.

[@annamo9354]

What this episode particularly highlights to me is the sheer snobbery and aloofness of the art world in general. A friend of mine who is an artist once told me that "a good artist is first and foremost a good salesperson". You have to make people think that what they own can induce the envy of others, so they go out and buy one of your works as well. The amount of money paid for some works of art is more than ridiculous!! I would buy a picture because I love the subject and looking at it makes me happy...thankfully this is why the art that hangs on my walls is by my two most favourite artists on this planet...my two little daughters. No Monet or Dali can hold a candle to that. 😊

[@allensaunders449]

Still a business for it to exist people need to make money like it it not

[@creature57]

My favorite artwork hanging in my home is by my nephew, the kids I baby sat and my friends' kids when they were young. Priceless and made with love.

[@JohnDlugosz]

I've got paintings of my pets, painted by my niece. Other than photos of family (many now passed) is a small picture she painted at a much younger age -- it marks the transition where she started learning proper painting.

[@parthsavyasachi9348]

This is so true. After painting whole life what i value is what is done by my daughter.

[@linmonash1244]

Exactly. Imagine being one of the old masters, spending decades perfecting your craft, studying: the blending of paints, the correct treatment of canvasses, anatomy, how to create the exact luminescence of skin texture, light in the eyes, etc. etc.... and then coming forward in time. Stepping into a modern art gallery and watching someone pay $ 1 Mill for 3 square blocks of colour and a couple of lines. 😵‍💫 { Actually... Maybe I can make some Kindergarten Art and see if I can convince the gullible it has profound meaning. YOU could try to sell your children's art! 🤣🙃😉 }

[@michaeljohnangel6359]

The trouble with "experts" is that they give theit opinions on things that they don't actually know how to do. The Vermeer "Girl with the Pearl Earring," for example, was re-created in the lab without first painting the typical 17th-century grisaille (black-&-white grey) underpainting that gives luminosity to the colours. We saw this grisaille layer (on top of an orange base, known as the bole ground) in the paint samples being examined in the lab. This programme doesn't mention that van Meegeren was considered a hero by the Dutch, after the war. He had swapped his fake Vermeer for dozens of authentic Dutch Old Master paintings that Göering had stolen, thus stopping the Nazis from taking them to Germany. On a final note, the great French 19th-century landscape painter Théodore Rousseau said, "When we are discussing forgeries, we're talking about the bad ones. The good ones are all on museum walls."

[@audreymuzingo933]

Every bit of this comment was worth reading, thanks so much!

[@michaeljohnangel6359]

@@audreymuzingo933 Thank you! That's lovely of you!!!

[@samscarboro6805]

Thank you for sharing!

[@annethayer3444]

They did mention that he was a hero to the Dutch ....

[@graceaxisa4213]

So, I reckon, find a contemporary and upcoming artist who you admire, purchase a piece that sings to you and keep it forever more! Forget about how much the piece will cost in the future. Do it because you love it. But, don't forget to ask for a receipt!

[@amberspecter1]

I reckon, find a contemporary and upcoming forger, etc.

[@karenstewart4655]

I’m

[@karenstewart4655]

Lp o😊ippp😅pp

[@RiverJames1]

Have you a contemporary artist you admire ?

[@terryt.1643]

I was thinking the same thing. Tape the receipt in an envelope to the back and enjoy it for life and hope an ancestor does, too.

[@susancorgi]

FAKE OR FORTUNE has gotten me into the art world. This is a very good show!

[@ericaf7945]

John did a spectacular job considering he didn't have the exact formula of Van Meegran's paints

[@anonanon9289]

Rag bill eroMro

[@annnee6818]

Yeah, it really looked very good from a distance, he really got her facial expression right

[@MossyMozart]

@Eric F - He is certainly excellent at drawing.

[@simonlloyd7557]

The thing is, people have seen these fakes in galleries and collections and probably enjoyed them on a deeply personal and emotional level...Therefore, a fake must still be wonderful art.

[@benediktmorak4409]

i think it still is. otherwise,why is it so hard to find out the difference between real or fake?( In Vienna there's a Museum of fake art. EVERYTHING one can see there is not what it seems to be. Might that be stone age - coins-, people fell for it, or pictures of old masters. it is amazing what had come together over the years). Like the Tiergarten Schönbrunn, the - Fälscher Museum - a must see when in Vienna.

[@bethbartlett5692]

Correct.

[@SamsungGalaxy-px5nm]

@@benediktmorak4409 ZZZ ZZZ ZZZ z ZZZ ZZZ z ZZZ sass ZZZ zz zz ZZZzz ZZZz zzz z zzzzZA z1zzzli

[@audreymuzingo933]

I think it was said in another episode, paraphrasing here: "If it looks authentic and as far as anyone can tell it's authentic, then it IS authentic. A piece is as real as people believe it is" or something like that. But at the same time, I think the same goes for talent too. A work is is as good as people believe it is. So there is where I can't help but admire forgers. If they can fool everyone into thinking they created something by someone "good" and it looks "good" in the same way that that person created things, then they ARE GOOD artists!!

[@benediktmorak4409]

@@audreymuzingo933 i think forgers ARE good artists. otherwise, how would they have gotten away with so much for such a long time?

[@anttibjorklund1869]

"After completing a painting, van Meegeren would bake it at 100 °C (212 °F) to 120 °C (248 °F) to harden the paint, and then roll it over a cylinder to increase the cracks. Later, he would wash the painting in black India ink to fill in the cracks.[4][24]" Wikipedia.

[@smithersrob]

Watching the baking and cracking process I wondered whether it mightn't have worked much better if they had taken it out after a shorter period of baking, cracked it when it was partially dry but not enough that it was fully disintegrating with large fragments flying off the canvas, added a varnish or thin layer of the resin to stabilise the partial cracks then finish the baking process off. The forger in the episode had one go and did a pretty impressive job, I reckon with time and experimentation with different variations on the technique he could have nailed it.

[@JohnDlugosz]

@@smithersrob They also did not show any kind of varnish layer. I'm guessing adding Bakelite to the primer (the grey layer) would both improve adhesion to it, and improve the cracking. If the primer were made with Bakelite properly mixed in as a binder, it would form a very hard base.

[@indoororchidsandtropicals358]

28:00 how about you buy the picture you love instead of buying it for the name? Wouldn't that be something?

[@johnkochen7264]

The art critics: “You have no talent. You are useless!” Van Meegeren: “Hold my beer….”

[@jimsy5530]

Cracking the paint - if it was me, I'd heat it, then cool it rapidly, as the paint and canvas will cool at different speeds, causing cracking in the resin.

[@ericaf7945]

Maybe adding water from behind may have done a better job

[@zogzog1063]

Referral to Interpol duly noted (just kidding)

[@simonlloyd7557]

yes, warm it with a hair dryer and then use freeze spray (compressed air basically) which will freeze it immediately.

[@barnabyaprobert5159]

I've read of forgers simply popping the painting in the oven for awhile!

[@DeniseF]

I wouldn't mind paying for an exact forgery of let's say, a davinci painting..it's better than having nothing I guess. It takes skill to replicate a master

[@robertlowe5682]

Van Meegeren didn't make exact copies, he made originals.

[@michaeljohnangel6359]

I'll paint one for you, if you want. I could paint a convincing copy, or create an "original' for you. Email me through our art academy in Florence, Italy: www.angelacademyofart.com

[@manjitkapri1816]

@@michaeljohnangel6359 no dude I want davinci himself painting it for me

[@22espec]

Van Meegeren forgeries are really expensives.

[@kaydonahue]

For fooling the Nazis with a fake, instead of the original national treasure, he should have a medal!

[@kareharpies]

If the Courtauld Institute of Art is a center of excellence for the study of art history why do they need fake or fortune's help? Unlike the other normal people on this show, this institution has all the technology, expertise, and global resources at their disposal to solve their own problem. Seems they just wanted some PR🤷‍♀️

[@ogukuo97]

True!

[@bonnieroggensees6003]

It is a good question. I'd love to ask one of the stars of the show! I think you're right that they wanted free publicity for whatever reason.

[@BufferlowBill]

Well why not have The Coutauld Institute agree to assistance? They surely don’t know everything. So other instinctive and cognitive intelligence must have a go. Besides; this was a terrific episode.

[@benediktmorak4409]

as we have seen in these episodes, even the - absolute experts - can err. And since this Series is not a -Punch & Judy show, there are also other excellent laboratories and Institutes present, why not the mas well. A little bit of advertising never does any harm?

[@MossyMozart]

@kareharpies - As they pointed out in the episode, the institution's art experts were divided about whether it was genuine or fake. They needed fresh eyes and someone to discover van Meegeren's use of Bakelite. Now, museums and collectors all over the world are now probably having their works tested for the substance!

[@mattkaustickomments]

I must admit, I admire the master forgers. For their skill, for their audacity, and for sticking it to hoity-toities.

[@Pete-z6e]

Matt Kustom Kostumes , where did this bitterness begin Matt?

[@peppigue]

Yup. Great art is truly a great thing, and some of the world's moneyed gentry are good people. But the pretention, the insulation from the real world is all over them.

[@princesspatriot1544]

Lol

[@heraldeventsandfilms5970]

@@Pete-z6e Well said Peter, well-said. So familiar with talentless drones.

[@MossyMozart]

@Matt's Kaustic Komments - It is a case of consumer fraud. When somebody buys something, they have the right to get what they paid for. When an institution uses their supporter's donated money and their visitor's admission funds and gift shop purchases to buy convincing fakes, they are not the only ones wronged, but a whole string of people are.

[@BritishRiver]

I have been binge-watching Fake or Fortune and I believe this is my favorite episode. It is PACKED with information on art and the art world. Wonderful.

[@alex0589]

This was such a cool upside down episode. Real is fake, fake is real, the institute needs the show to figure out if THEIR painting is real. The forger is the artist. I loved it. Thanks for the upload!

[@wildandbarefoot]

Could have headed this spoiler alert

[@FigaroHey]

@@wildandbarefoot Don't worry - I can't make heads or tails of the comment, personally. Up is down, down is up, heads are tails, tails are heads - huh?

[@wildandbarefoot]

@@FigaroHeyit's all in motion I guess....

[@MossyMozart]

@@wildandbarefoot - Spoiler alerts are silly. We are adults here.

[@maryloumawson6006]

I've never understood why a "forgery" that was taken for a "genuine" isn't lauded by the art community. It takes a great deal more skill to recreate a masterpiece than for an accepted master to turn out a painting. Of course, in the case of centuries-old painters who are long dead, the implication is that their paintings represent a finite body of work. But if a painting is so good that it fools even the experts, why then is it not valued similarly? An image is an image. Why create this fake value by including history into the evaluation? Why are old masterpieces so valuable even though they're ugly, and capture images that no one would care to look at over their dinner table?

[@lindaheath784]

If this artist is so Good why couldn't the artist do his own.. r

[@jimihendrix3143]

Probably for the same reason some people pay large sums for NFTs.

[@patriciahadley2374]

@@lindaheath784. They probably lacked completely in fantasy which is what makes a painting fascinating. Oh, they were very gifted painters, as good as the original artists, but were too lazy to create something of their own, which is an amazingly difficult thing to do...something which has never been seen or done before.

[@chuckmaddox6725]

@@lindaheath784 because there's a lot less money in that

[@PLuMUK54]

I cannot find it in my heart to be horrified by van Meegren. Too many in the art world, experts, dealers and collectors, are so pompous that anyone who pricks their bubbles gets my support. Perhaps I am more criminal than I am willing to admit! I do feel sorry for the victims, but it is not my primary reaction. I can also understand why van Meegeren's work has value now. The backstory alone is worth it, but so many of them are truly beautiful. Actually, I am far more horrified by the sheer number of paintings held in store at the Reijksmuseum, and presumably all museums. I wonder how many of them will never be seen by other than the staff? It is a tragedy that so much art cannot be enjoyed.

[@JohnDlugosz]

It's no different to those who buy Tesla stock or the latest Crypto-meme-token thingies. It's only valuable because a group of people covet it far beyond its actual value. And that crowd's opinion can change overnight, thus "destroying" the value. Actually, I'd say buying a painting is better than buying crypto currencies, since the paintings do have some actual value.

[@Tina06019]

I would love to own a John Myatt painting.

[@dashinvaine]

I'll do one for you for £200

[@benlikebike]

I love art forgery. I'm not sure which part of it makes me more giddy- the rich people being defrauded or the experts being defrauded. Either way, pompous people who have no connection to real life are being ripped off and I'm stoked regardless

[@fredarcher7264]

What about a poorer person who loses money as a consequence of being duped by a forgery ? What about the fact that a forger distorts the catalogue raisonne of an artist ? I am appalled by the petty and vindictive nature of your post .

[@henrylivingstone2971]

@@fredarcher7264 While I do agree the original poster is being petty in his rationale to see others taking financial damage but your reasoning falls short of justification as well. Regarding the artist, most of them are dead so who cares? These artists have literally been dead for centuries what difference does it make? Also what the hell is a poor person doing taking risks on expensive pairings? Any financial hardships brought upon by forgeries is their fault and their fault alone, if they don’t have the financial means to gamble on antique paintings they shouldn’t get involved.

[@franklesser5655]

@@henrylivingstone2971 That's right! A poor person who may love art has no business buying a work of art even if it may be an inexpensive piece that he can afford. Ownership of art is responsibly done only by wealthy people.

[@henrylivingstone2971]

@@franklesser5655 You’re taking this to the extremes. And you’re purposefully misconstruing my stance. Art as a hobby or personal collection is fine but art as an investment should be left to those who won’t be rendered destitute in the case of a forgery. Anyone should be able to purchase art (if they can afford to do so). If one is financially unstable, they have no business in investing in art whatsoever. The art market is a very volatile market and someone who doesn’t have disposable income shouldn’t be banking their paycheck on what might be a forgery.

[@franklesser5655]

@@henrylivingstone2971 Yes, I agree. Those that are, "financially unstable have no business in investing in art whatsoever." If only those, "financially unstable," individuals would learn.

[@dvaldez4900]

My wife had Pauline, his daughter, make sketches of herself, (my wife, Irene Teunisen). Pauline was such a wonderful talent herself. My wife lived in Dieren nearby and her father was a doctor there. She, father, mother and sister survived the war and the 'hunger winter'. Later she was a KLM hostess in 1st class and wasn't aware that Audrey Hepburn was also a KLM about 15 tears ahead of Irene. Anyway, everyone has a story of their life, etc, etc...

[@UsernamesForDummies]

Van Meegeren’s trial was really what I’d call being stuck between a rock and a hard place. There would only be one instance I’d chose to out myself as a forger. This is it. What a story!

[@Tojazzer]

28:15 It's funny that the fraud officer relates how difficult it is to prove that a supposed Banksy might be fake because fakes are so easy to produce; like the originals?

[@paulamourad4699]

I cracked up when Fiona said "...or it could burst into flames" XD

[@KatrinaRoseT]

The chemist at the college is fabulous! Personable and able to explain very succinctly the toxicity. I’d imagine he is an excellent professor, very engaging for students.

[@christophermichael.w.7577]

I was astonished to learn how paint was made.The white made from stale urine buried in a dung heap really surprised me.

[@brittanyt729]

What would be even cooler is if they explained what chemical reactions were taking place to create the white compound. For example why stale urine vs fresh urine. Does evaporation lead to a more concentrated chemical? Is dung heap about creating the right temperature for the reaction to work or does it also have chemicals that are reacting with the lead?

[@JohnDlugosz]

Some other TV show re-created it in detail. Lead spirals are placed in urns and covered with straw loaded with dung and left to fume for some time. The white flakes off the lead and they repeat.

[@JohnDlugosz]

@@brittanyt729 Start with en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_white#Production_methods . Details are given by ChatCPT, without even needing to use the Browser plug-in. >quote> The use of urine in the production of lead white pigment, also known as lead(II) carbonate, dates back to ancient times and was commonly used until the late 19th century. Stale urine was specifically used because it contains ammonia, which is produced when urea in the urine breaks down over time. The general process of creating lead white with urine involves the following steps: 1. Sheets or strips of lead are rolled up or otherwise arranged in earthenware pots. 2. Each pot is then filled with vinegar (acetic acid), which reacts with the lead to form lead acetate. 3. The pots are then placed in a larger container, which is filled with manure or another fermenting organic material. The heat from the fermentation process accelerates the reaction. 4. Urine is then added to the larger container, where it decomposes and produces ammonia. 5. The ammonia reacts with the lead acetate to form lead carbonate (lead white), which precipitates out and can be collected from the lead sheets. The use of *stale urine* is important because fresh urine does not contain a significant amount of ammonia. It takes some time for the urea in the urine to break down into ammonia, so only after the urine has been allowed to sit (become "stale") will it be useful in this process. The production of lead white using this method is a slow process, typically taking several weeks. It was eventually replaced by more efficient industrial methods in the 19th and 20th centuries.

[@crafael.]

thanks for your effort to upload all this series. well done mate👍🏻

[@christine6059]

“Tart”? Seriously? Goodness me. And I would be surprised if any Dutch people are “proud” of an undeniable Nazi sympathizer. For example, he gave a book of his drawings to Hitler in 1942 and inscribed it “To my beloved Führer in grateful tribute.“ For a fascinating study of van Meegeren, read “The Man Who Made Vermeers,“ by Jonathan Lopez.

[@cruisepaige]

I cringed as well.

[@flowermeerkat6827]

I want that fake Vermeer they've created 54:07. It would be a hoot to hang that on my wall and have my guests do a double-take

[@volundrfrey896]

Why would they take a double-take? No one would believe you had the actual girl with a pearl earring. It's like having the mona lisa on your wall. Except that it's a much prettier painting than the mona lisa, no offence Leo

[@flowermeerkat6827]

Völundr Frey just trying to be whimsical

[@scruffycritter]

I wish they had learned how to pronounce "Van Meegeren" properly before they went and made a whole program about him.

[@stuart8663]

Exactly ! its pronounced "Van Meegeren" not "Van Meegeren":

[@johnnydtractive]

@@stuart8663 Thanks for clearing that up!

[@johnnydtractive]

Ok so even though up until now I've really enjoyed this series, I've always felt there was something...'off' about it. Like the people involved--including the 2 hosts--knew the answer to whether the painting involved was a fake or real BEFORE they actually filmed most of the scenes of them talking. This episode proves it. The scientists who studied Van Meegeren's forgeries during his trial in 1947 determined at that time that he used bakelite. This fact has been known & written about repeatedly for the 70 years since then. But this episode presents the bakelite as their own 'detection', & the painting as somehow unattributable when a simple test done even 30 years ago could've determined whether bakelite was present. It's all too neatly packaged to be a detective story rather than the truth, which is disappointing.

[@heraldeventsandfilms5970]

That's typical for TV and it's stretched out to fill an hour, like a puff-piece in a newspaper. Many programmes are made this way, pulp for the masses. Co-incidentally I have worked with Fiona Bruce and she is very pleasant.

[@carlotta4th]

Except the episode says the trial covered his materials, they only re-tested it since technology has advanced so much it became worthwhile to get a modern record. Them talking about bakelite is just for the audience's benefit. They have to explain every step simple for an inexperienced audience. And yes, that does involve some pretending.

[@kiwilerner]

@@heraldeventsandfilms5970 I envy you for living somewhere that "pulp for the masses" includes a multi-season show featuring art experts, researchers, historians and scientists educating and identifying classic works. Here we're served up Real Whorehousewives and MILF Island.

[@heraldeventsandfilms5970]

@@kiwilerner There are FAR better features on Van Meegeren than this box-ticking hokum made for idiots. The book 'I Was Vermeer' by Frank Wynne is better than any of them though.

[@danielclaeys7598]

This is why art should be bought from a living artist and besides that, the dead ones don't need the money.

[@hollygolightly8048]

Visually and without chemical analysis and at first blush this painting is obviously a forgery. The countenance of those painted looks sophomoric. Nothing like anything Ver Meer would paint. Reminds me of the supposed art experts pushing the Salvador Mundi as a complete Leonardo when anyone can see the face is not the work of Leonardo. He may have painted portions of the piece in a studio with students, but that face is nothing Leonardo would produce.

[@Intrepid_Explorer]

The Salvator Mundi is at least partially attributed to Leonardo based on surviving passages of the right blessing hand and details of the orb he's holding. The problem is that the face was so badly damaged and abraded that the restorer essentially had to repaint it with almost nothing to go off of, hence why details of the jawline, nose and eyes are uneven and crooked. The cleaned painting didn't have those flaws.

[@PhilMace]

Love this story. Love the Dutch cunning and intelligence.

[@stuart8663]

One of the best episodes ever. Inspiring!

[@fauchejuliano]

I had no idea it was so hard to copy a real Van Meegeren!

[@ronmcknight1500]

Great program love fake and fortune. When goring found out that his painting was forged , he is reported to have Said , isn't there terrible evil in the world what an evil so a so he was eh .

[@dawn5227]

I just love how Goring was duped. You have to love a forgery on that alone.

[@scottmclennan6114]

Dawn yes it’s a pity he didn’t find out he had been duped in his lifetime.

[@22espec]

The best part, they told him that he has bought a forgery before his execution, and his reaction was the one who has seen true evil for the first time.

[@anttibjorklund1869]

@@22espec He committed suicide before he was to be executed.

[@Suzyfromtheblock]

Sir Alec Guinness could have played van meagren in a film, so alike

[@audreymuzingo933]

I don't dislike Fiona per se, but I don't understand what her area of expertise is. She just seems to be the narrator and scene tag-along, with frequent drama-antagonizing tendencies, lol!! Like when the museum guy is showing them the collection of fakes, talking about how much money the museum was ripped off, etc. and he probably wasn't even alive yet when it happened, but Fiona keeps trying to make it personal, like "Every time you get that painting out it must hurt!" And omg so funny: at 15:48 "These are your dirty little secrets aren't they?" -TRYING SO HARD TO STIR THE TURD! But then look at dude's face, he's like "B!tch, keep trying, go ahead."

[@Shirleyy1123]

Who can blame that guy for selling forgeries to feed his children? It’s not like rich people don’t already have more money than they know what to do with.

[@TheKirkby]

What a horrible statement. You could say that about drug dealers or hit men, there just feeding their children. Do you know how many people lost their life savings because of this man.

[@Loukbots]

steven kenny None, most of his buyers were Rotterdam nouveau riche port barons.

[@Loukbots]

Or at least van Meegeren did, I wouldn’t know about the forger that tried his techniques in this episode

[@TheKirkby]

Louk bots your as uneducated as Shirley. Because someone has money it's ok if they get ripped off. Not everyone that bought his painting's had money to throw away. At least know what your talking about before you talk...

[@Loukbots]

steven kenny They most certainly didn’t lose their life savings. I don’t think Van Meegeren’s actions were moral, and he did indeed sham a people and museums out of large amounts of money, but, just like today, if you’re a middle class shop owner you don’t just buy a Vermeer. The people he shammed had lots of money to spare, and wouldn’t have been happy, but they surely lived a life in prosperity after the purchase. If not, they wouldn’t have been able to afford and justify the buying of such massively expensive paintings.

[@susanhazard632]

From my experience as a painter, if they had wet the canvas from the rear and let it dry, the cracking would have occurred. The canvas expands and shrinks with moisture, and the paint layer doesn't, hence the cracking occurs when the canvas stretches and contracts.

[@enriquecastro2065]

Not exactly

[@DanielJackson2010]

The problem they faced, though, wasn't the lack of craquelure as much as the fact that the paint didn't adhere properly to the canvas. Van Meegeren must have used some more forgery tricks of the trade there other than simply adding a foreign substance into the mix. But perhaps they've only went overboard with the temperature. perhaps the trick is slowly increasing the temperature - and/or letting the painting first dry naturally for some weeks or months before baking. Or alternating between baking and freezing.

[@erichraudebaugh]

If they had used traditional hide glue gesso, I think that repeated wet/dry cycles would have produced the craquelure. So I agree with you.

[@jeadevoe209]

another great episode that proves the true crime was against the artist Van Meegeren when his own work was rejected and he was declared a no talent hack by the so called experts. he proved them wrong as his work now hangs in museums around the world attributed to some of the most highly regarded artist. when authenticity means more than aesthetics and only a few so called experts can make that call there is an inherit problem that will always lead to fraud. hope you do many more episode's I will be watching Thank you

[@BufferlowBill]

Agreed

[@webartist69]

Love the documentary, but 23:55 one side of the planes landing tires are available. Just something i noticed.

[@kamikaas803]

He had to work at least twice as hard than the original painter. If i ever had a collection, it would be of van Meegeren

[@peppigue]

Or a painting of Brienne of Tarth

[@dawn5227]

No real artist has to work with such skill and dedication as that of a forgery. He really went to some crazy levels to fake it. No wonder people admire him, its hard not to admire his skills and dedication.

[@whaddup5417]

Anyone notice how many movie scores they threw in to make this more compelling? I heard The Da Vinci Code, Gladiator and even Wall-E (@43:37). Ironic for a doc about forgery

[@Daughterofbaal]

I’ve noticed music from Amélie as well, in a few of the episodes

[@belindacorani1590]

They also use the Basic Instinct soundtrack !

[@ghostofdayinperson]

Why is no one talking about how badly painted Van Meegren’s fake Vermeers are? Fiona said they were “kind of rubbish”, but that’s the understatement of the century. Van Meegren might have been extraordinarily clever with his materials, but the final results of the fake Vermeers are so obviously not Vermeer and look extremely amateurish. I just can’t fathom how they fooled experts. It’s actually really disturbing. Fake and bake!

[@audreymuzingo933]

I agree 100%. And I'm only an amateur as well, but his mock 'Girl Reading A Letter' -you know what it reminds me of? This paint-by-number replica of The Last Supper by da Vinci that my grandmother painted back in the 50's. Like it wasn't an El Cheapo one, it was pretty big and well-designed so that the painter could get in lots of detail, and my grandma did - she probably did the very best anyone could do with a paint-by-number and it turned out beautiful! But still, all carefully dragged lines, no color blending, etc., it definitely did not look like an original painting, never mind da Vinci's.

[@joeadmin3560]

I believe this is Series 1, Episode 3. Episode 4 is on Rembrandt.

[@avanconia]

I love the difference in foragers where you have the guy who got into it just flash in the pan got turned on by the money versus the old guy who was obsessively trying to trick the community... The funniest thing is you just know the living forger / teacher is now experimenting to figure out how to use the resin properly lol..

[@orsino88]

In every version, The Procuress is a hideous painting.

It seems NOT ONLY SOME PAINTINGS ARE FAKE.....BUT "Experts" ALSO.........

[@aujay]

Most of the so called legitimate Art World, should in fact be the ones behind bars!

[@nelsonx5326]

"van Meegeren was wildly popular because was the man who ripped off Goring". Good job.

[@heatherr7378]

Very surprised they tossed those paint samples all together in a glass. Shouldn’t they be kept separate and labeled?

[@JohnDlugosz]

The prepared samples are labeled. The preparer put a paint flake _and a paper label_ in the mold filled with acrylic, and then sanded it down until the edge of the paint flake was exposed. A bag can casually hold these dice-sized acrylic cubes, no problem.

[@ManuelGarcia-ww7gj]

The more abstract an artist's works are, the easier they are to fake. Caveat emptor!

[@IntrepidFraidyCat]

You can't go wrong with a pearl earring! 😉😸

[@janejan9728]

You can tell she doesn't know anything about art. She only takes cues about what's good or not, what's fake or not, and quite often they have to prompt or correct her to get the appropriate response. A realistic painting is 'soft' until they tell her otherwise, and then all of a sudden she sings a different tune.

[@pauk.6189]

can you imagine how Vermeer would feel if he was watching this? lol

[@minoublome8205]

@Epsilon Theta there is another documentary on KZbin they explain how he could do it. It’s because the early vermeer where very different from the later Vermeer so they thought there would be other paintings in between and it should be Christian paintings. So van meegeren just made it this way because the art collectors expect them to be like this.

[@minoublome8205]

@Epsilon Theta yeah the early ones were good but later he became sloppy.

[@hannahbaxter8825]

Called it from first look. I love this show.

[@Stuarts84]

Way too many commercials in this...

[@heidi-mariadegruchy7641]

Fantastic programme -love this!! So interesting :0

[@TsetsiStoyanova]

Where is van grovner from?

[@e.h.5849]

You mean Bendor Grosvenor? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bendor_Grosvenor

[@evelynmoyer9069]

Reminds me of the movie, "Incognito".

[@TheKirkby]

Louk bots once again you're using that old excuse of robbing a bank doesn't hurt anyone. Or robbing someone with money is ok because they have more money. Many of his victims bought his painting's as investment's for when they retired. Meaning they lost their retirement investment. Don't use such a wide brush to paint everyone with. Not everyone who buys artwork are wealthy people.

[@mylesgarcia4625]

@ the 28:00 mark, they show a version of the famous Banksy "Girl with Balloon" painting which hit the headlines last week; and Fiona and the Scotland Yard mick even discuss it. Maybe the one ripped @ Sotheby's was a Fake??

[@holdfast7657]

Han Van Meegeren mixed Bakelite to make the paste. John, it seems, wasn't told this. Dipping his brush in Polyoxybenzylmethylenglycolanhydride would produce too high a concentration and create separation.

[@eyeshowyou]

Your 100% right

[@MrMaverickF14]

Anyone else go to sleep to this?

[@smallbeginning2]

Is there a show amongst these ads?

[@cathe8282]

The modern forger that Fiona talks to didn't sound at all regretful that people were spending a lot of money but then moments later when she asks him why doesn't he fess up to the fakes he knows are still out there he says "I come along and say 'I did that', you just lost a whole mass of money". I think he doesn't want to admit to some of his forgeries because he's proud they're out there, proud he has duped people. He's gone clean in a way but I think there's a part of him that still wants to be doing it.

[@TheHeraldOfChange]

if 40-50% of the artworks are fakes, and "little time bombs" survive in the next 30-40 years, then while they may be fakes per se, they will also be considered works of art in their own right.

[@Britgirl58]

I'm not sure that i understand that such a prestigious museum would overlook/turn a blind eye or whatever they did, to ignore such an simple test. If it was already known that the forger used bakelite in his paintings why not test a questionable painting. I usually enjoy this program, but here i found indications of one of those fake reality tv shows. The recreation of a forgery by John was a ridiculous attempt ~ how could he possibly work under those conditions? I'm sure when he took on the challenge he wasn't aware of what he was actually taking on. (Not that he shouldn't have taken health precautions ), but when you look at how microscopically they test in this show, and then kind of threw John in at the deepend with conditions that were difficult and underprepared to say the least were totally unfair. And to add to that it was completely unnecessary. It felt it rushed and a throw away! Shame on you!

[@angelface925]

It's all about loss and gain. If there is a painting that is rumored to be fake, like one of the Van Gogh sunflowers, it makes more money. People will visit the painting, talk about the painting, write stories about the painting, etc. It's like reading a mystery novel. You stop reading when the solution is presented.

[@SuperNinger]

Fair play to the art teacher very clever Indeed. Humans will always be greedy end of and it's not hard to get several peoples opinion weather its a fake or not. 1 person doubts it you don't buy, but getting something for 5k knowing its worth 100k don't do the proper checks. I doubt showing how its done is a good idea. Just showed the art world how to fake old art work :)

[@johnkochen7264]

The thing about van Meegeren is that the so-called and self-appointed know-it-all art critics lambasted his work and did there best to totally discredit him as an artist. So what do you do as an artist under those circumstances? You teach them a lesson in humility. These days it would fall under Reddit/nuclear revenge.

[@zuluzero4659]

Best show on bbc ever after dr who

[@Baskerville22]

Surely if there was doubt about this painting, the Courtauld Institute would not have waited 18 years till a TV programme came calling before it put the experts to work to determine its authenticity ? The TV presenters knew the result before this was filmed. A bit like those Do You Know Who You Are shows.

[@watchmedo635]

Fiona’s conversation with the forger was incredibly insightful. The gentleman should write a memoir!

[@tiny6912]

Van Meegeren wasnt just a forger but a master painter in his own right. And not only that, he also was a genius of some sort, and a collaborator to the German invader ofcourse.

[@bohemian46]

Since he screwed the Nazis.. how is he a collaborator?

[@tiny6912]

He did screw the nazi's but he also befriended them, and led a luxurious life because of it, while his countrymen literally starved under the yoke of those same nazi's. That is how he is a collaborator. The man screwed everyone over by the way, he did not discriminate. He never cared much for norms and values, he was all about 'me'.

[@joannecarroll5504]

@@tiny6912 He was found not guilty of collaboration.

[@tiny6912]

@@joannecarroll5504 Why would I even answer to that anymore anyway, he was what he was despite any verdict by anyone at the time!

[@joannecarroll5504]

@@tiny6912 because, just like those people we criticise, we must also take responsibility for our words & actions. Secondly, if you had been found not guilty of any crime in a court of law yourself, I'm quite certain you'd insist on THAT legally recorded info taking priority over anecdotes claiming your guilt from people who weren't actually there at the time.

[@marycahill546]

Fascinating. Thanks for posting!

[@dashinvaine]

Not sure I would go to the bother of doing a good painting to try out an experimental varnish or chemical ingredient on, given the risk of it wrecking it. Painting with authentic materials, incidentally, can be dangerous enough without including bakelite. Apparently it was lead poisoning from his paints that killed Caravaggio (after driving him mad), and that before either underworld thugs or Papal assassins or the Knights of Malta could catch up with him.

[@ronmcknight1500]

Great program love fake and for

[@mrjules2008]

This show doesn’t try and pander to the masses does it. Is there a more upper class name then “Bendoor”? Ha I love it good on you BBC.

[@muffin6369]

Those Germans/Austrians are sooooooooooooowildly exitable.....................NOT! I love love love this show and just love the experts Aviva, Simon, Annie, Sarah, Rebecca AND of course at the time Philip, Fiona and the Great Bendor!!

[@neilkennedy5307]

Who cares about these fakes? The artists are replicating works of art which give the buyers great pleasure and they have money to burn by buying art. I love Fiona but she was being a bit uber judgemental about the artist producing the fakes. As he said.......'nobody died'. I would buy one

[@a_lucientes]

I thought van Meegren used bakelite.

[@linmonash1244]

Not withstanding my Dutch heritage! 😆 I kind of get it about how the Dutch have a sneaking level of pride in Van Meegeren. He was a Genius Forger, but only because he was a Master Painter in his own right! What a pity he didn't create his own original works. Of course, the other thing he clearly learned from the Old Masters, aside from technique, was not to bother WAITING for posthumous recognition and financial recompense.

[@anissaapolinario]

I love this episode. Enjoyed Philip and Fiona's reactions when they found out the results 😁

[@NickPenlee]

This episode was a little misleading in that the programme sought to find out whether a painting was by Van Meegeren or, as thought, by Dirck van Baburen. Upon discovering Han's actual studio paint box it had one phial named "artificial resin". Now at 33:48 Philip stated, "Now I have a hunch what this might be", prompted by what the authorities already knew previously regarding this unknown substance. The puzzle for me is wondering why they hadn't analysed the phial contents, discovered the phenol formaldehyde additive and then checked its presence in suspect paintings years ago. Philip's hunch must have been based on something more concrete than mere guesswork on his part. It would seem to have been a rather obvious step for the Dutch art fraternity to have investigated their suspicions way before Fake or Fortune got involved!

[@suzannecooke2055]

I understand that a "fake" is a painting using another artist's style and name. If it is a beautiful and moving painting that is unlikely to be sold again - frankly, who cares? If a museum's collection is 50% 'fake' - I ask Fake what? The work's authenticity has not been questioned in years( probably not since it was painted. This fake vrs real controversy comes down to a pissing match between experts to claim a higher 'expert' status than some other academic. As an art consumer - ie viewer, again, who cares?

[@cindyoverall8139]

I just cannot imagine any one with any knowledge of a hint of painting could possibly think that Van Meegeren has the faintest ability to feign Vermeer. This is a great example of why art historians should not be authorities on a subject they don’t practice. . No empirical knowledge. Van Meegeren’s people look like Halloween ghouls. BTW, Vermeer did not paint others that came out of his studio. Both women at pianofortes, The allegory of Faith, The Lacemaker, The women with a guitar. The hand that painted those knew the skill of the camera lucida, but it stopped there. Vermeer , the master created the beat in The Music Teacher.

[@SsecicKG]

Van Megreen was painting ‘in style off’ since no one knew how Vemeer’s earliest lesser known paintings looked like, just vague description and size of canvas was given… Everyone believed this was how Veemer painted, these forgeries, before perfecting his style….Van Megreen was a genius…

[@thecrow7]

to me the guy had skills to go to the lengths he did to fool and deceive. and lets not forget he had to be good as a artist to do what he did kudos the the guy.

[@Brutally-Honest]

Forgive me in advance, but these art works are so ugly in my opinion. I can't believe anyone would want them at all. But I do so enjoy the detectve work of our two hosts; they are both awesome narrators/art detectives.

[@shangrila73eldorado]

the parts where they wax on with their interpretive profundities is nauseating. they speak in a hushed, dramatic tone. so cliche...i like a more factual presentation.

[@lilacmile]

If you didn’t miss it for 20 years, it’s not yours. What garbage those descendants of the Blake’s turned out to be, no wonder that’s where the painting was picked up.

[@noblenotes27]

I have all the respect of the artist of fakes but his skill level you must respect as extremely excellent.He seam to be a very nice human being one would like to know. This was a great episode.Thank You Thank You .

[@yanluoanthony6868]

I think people who buy art that aren’t doing so to make profit or to display in a museum or mansions should do so because they like what the painting depicts. buy art for arts sake not because of money or prestige but because you view it as beautiful, so buy what you view as a comfortable price for something u fine beautiful.

[@barbarajones5961]

I have studied his work and story for years. He was cought and paid his dues. He is still to this day an incredible artist. The talent is still there. Let's support his artistic abilities and honesty. NOW, I say.

[@trotterhorsewatsonjr.6668]

They were going to give her 25% knowing its ownership is in question?? No! If you're willing to give up money for a questionable ownership, then something is wrong!

[@linmonash1244]

Oops, just found that he did {do MANY Originals } Comment still stands. He didn't want to wait for the Big Money!

[@kevanwillis4571]

John Myatt, you have to love him! 'Can you do it?' 'Of course!' What else did you expect from a chancer?!😅