Sir Edwin Landseer's Victorian Masterpiece | Fake Or Fortune

[@tomobedlam297]

That anomaly in the frame has me convinced it's the real McCoy! Who would think to copy that?

[@adelheidsnel5171]

right!

[@sjferguson]

I thought that too. I thought for sure, when they discovered that, it was the real one.

[@RJ-nh9hw]

A great forger would copy that, but then where is the history of those forgers in the time period, etc.?

[@sylversyrfer6894]

Exactly!! I mean really!! Who would have thought to fake that?!

[@CostaWanti]

The experts usually say fake when it’s the really big artists because they are scared of losing their reputation if they authenticate a fake.

[@PSPguy2]

When the "kink" in the lower left corner was discovered, it was at that point that I was convinced it was the original Landseer painting. Anyone else?

[@chrisdeoni1697]

I'm always puzzled by the phrase: "The brushstrokes don't match." That's like saying Edwin Landseer never changed his knickers. The vintage photo expert got it right!!!

[@chrislee-anneminturn5111]

A part of me thinks that time & technology will indeed reveal this artwork back Landseer.

[@southernboi21]

I literally know nothing about art but that’s a Landseer

[@aldanovaico181]

It’s definitely the missing painting from the flood of ‘28. What a treasure!

[@Thiazzi0]

I love watching Fake Or Fortune during slow work hours. Thank you.

[@a.westenholz4032]

This episode reminded me of what I often found so frustrating with this series. Of how experts would so often make determinations which seemed lacking any real foundation or argument based on evidence. But are often their own rather subjective opinions which a another expert might disagree with. Take this case. I could have respected if the expert had said that due to the fact that though there was a lot of evidence in support of it actually being the Landseer original, there was also much that argued against it, leaving the matter inconclusive. That until such time technology developed or some further knowledge decided the matter either way it would remain inconclusive, and could not be verified as a Landseer. I suppose there are two reasons experts might not do so, one being more legit than the other. 1) They wouldn't want people to be able to sell the painting as a "possible Landseer" using an official lack of determination- though I think that's a bit silly if it IS a possible Landseer- all the better that it is looked after properly and the value will only really go up once it is determined to be one. 2) From what I have seen from this series a lot of experts dislike risking their reputations by recognizing a new piece that might be criticized by someone else. So they take an utterly unreasonable conservative stance as if they had personally witnessed every piece of art that left the artist's hand themselves. Yet that might end up costing the world to lose some precious art they deemed fakes and copies.

[@bobbbxxx]

Don't forget, we are seeing it through the lens of a television show.

[@annabellelee4535]

Trouble is that the vast majority of "Landseer" paintings are not by Landseer. Many painters learned their craft from copying authentic paintings in museums.

[@a.westenholz4032]

@@annabellelee4535 I think they accounted pretty well for that possibility in the program, and that it wasn't very likely in this case. Unless the photograph of the painting that originally hung in the museum before it disappeared was a copy and not a Landseer original (not likely). My feeling is that at some point even while it was in the museum and some time before the flood there may have been some sort have damage and restoration work done causing the confusion in attribution.

[@annabellelee4535]

@@a.westenholz4032 That's the trouble, there may have never been an authentic War at the museum. Many pieces of art in museums are forgeries or copies.

[@a.westenholz4032]

@@annabellelee4535 So are you saying there NEVER was an original Landseer "War"? I believe the provenance of the painting up until the disappearance from the museum is fairly well documented- but it isn't impossible that there might have been a switch at some point. But that won't account for the very details of the painting which are unique to Landseer. If the forger or copier could do parts as Landseer himself would, then why did that same person not keep the same standard throughout? It is that odd mix that makes the whole thing so puzzling.

[@johnqclark5155]

Looking at the photo and the painting side by side on Fiona's board, my thought was to make a transparency of the painting and slide it over on top of the photo to see whether all of the elements line up. They would not on a copy.

[@mtn_linda364]

I see differences with the comparison of the painting and the photo that cannot be attributed to a retouched photograph, i.e. the bridle(or rein) outstretched near the nose of the black horse. In the painting that piece is even with the nose. In the photo it is closer to the body. No retoucher would erase an element and redraw it. 50:00

[@lindadeal3344]

Love this artist and his pictures of dogs are so beautiful!!!

[@fabiodeoliveiraribeiro1602]

The art market is a brutal game. Forgeries can be treated as authenticated works. Masterpieces are sometimes dismissed as copies. Only the forgers really know what they did or didn't do, and when they die without leaving detailed records of their forgeries (which would be very strange, by the way) the confusion is immense.

[@burdineestep4224]

the edge o'k' it has been re lined but the same edge in the period photo means to me that the copy ist had to have the original stretcher' which was destroyed expert is wrong wouldn't be the 1st time

[@jbc1715]

good point

[@seantiz]

Given the virtual “fingerprint” of the bumped out edge and the amount of overpainting which was not removed, I remain hopeful that this could well be the original. Too many matches to the old photo, the size, and apparent flood damage. It all adds up. Who knows.

[@TerryInUSA]

Couldn't flood damage and attempts at restoration disturb the surface of the painting enough for the expert to say it was too different from the usual Landseer? What a shame. Especially with the old photo evidence of the kink in the side.

[@twinsonic]

Most of these so-called experts are spineless posers. They're in it for their own glory and God forbid admitting their mistakes.

[@sjferguson]

I love this series. I think I've seen every one that has been released here on KZbin. I was hoping it was the original.

[@deaconseptember2002]

The expert be damned. Common sense says that is in fact a work done by the artist in question. Why and how would somone have gone to all the trouble to reproduce a work of art that records purport was destroyed after the flood?

[@suebarnes5183]

That was 100% the original. What a shame that one man gets to decide. Hang onto that and treat it like the treasure it is❤

[@tallthinwavy3]

Excellent show. It would be great to see the show look for stolen art hidden in underground museums around the world.

[@sanaznouri3707]

Sooo disappointing to hear the final decision. 😢 But one person’s opinion threw away the other experts findings.

[@lisalesinszki7536]

This was an exciting episode!!

[@frenchartantiquesparis424]

So cool that they have the expert Royal Horses in this story

[@ordiekelleher2641]

Merry Christmas! Love hugs!❤😊❤

[@jenniferlawrence9598]

That’s ridiculous. Of course it’s the original painting. No forger is going to copy the anomaly of the frame. Silver lining is she gets to keep it. If it had been original she would probably have had to give it back to the museum. Now it’s hers to look at in her house every day, knowing it’s a Landseer.

[@sylversyrfer6894]

Very good point

[@Roheryn100]

No, she wouldn’t have had to give it back to the museum. She bought it in good faith. They would have raised money to pay her the market value.

[@judyhazel4972]

@@Roheryn100 true

[@jlasf]

1: I wish they had examined the canvas itself. Is the canvas fabric consistent with the material used by Landseer? A copyist would probably have used different material. 2: Were copyists allowed to work in the galleries at the time? This painting was not based on an engraving because the coloration is too detailed. It must have been painted in person. 3: The lack of markings on the back argue, ironically, for its authenticity. Because there are none, that means it was probably reframed/stretched more recently. It's not the structure of the show due to time constraints, but I wish there could be a question/answer with the deciding authority. I would like to know more about how they made their determination. For example, how do they explain the anomaly in the canvas size on the left?

[@MichaelKomlo]

Utterly Fascinating! And a pretty incredible copy. 🖼

[@davidson-mielellc980]

I use lead white all the time, it is absolutely available.

[@carolgivati7372]

When they say a painting/paintings were destroyed, did they record anywhere where and how they were destroyed and by whom? If they were dumped in the trash or maybe taken home by a gallery employee/s and maybe restored at home, later to be sold/inherited?Was no record kept of how it was allegedly destroyed? Does the current owner of the Lanseer War know how/from whom she acquired the piece?She bought it from an auction but who owned it before it was auctioned? Also I find it bizarre that during a flood historic gems would be recovered from a museum only to be placed outside on the pavement from where they could easily be removed or washed away Surely it would have been better to move them to a higher floor in the building to survive the flood? Many questions left unanswered.

[@ShelleyHannaArt]

I'm not an art historian, but I do create more classical art. If that was someone faking that painting, they should have been famous. I think it's the real thing but my opinion doesn't count. I hope the owners continue to love it and maybe one day it will be verified. It was absolutely horrible what that flood did to people back then, let alone the art.

[@bombaysapphire17]

As an artist.. life changes so much ..strokes are different.. style is always an underlay..

[@EGChurchofChrist]

Great detective work. Also interesting English history.

[@timmythecat7478]

Well done all around 👍

[@lindanorris2455]

esthetics of Execution o f Lady Jane Grey is beyond EXQUISITE! SO VERY, VERY BEAUTIFUL!

[@franosborne8198]

If you're going to post a rerun please include the original date of filming in the header.

[@w.urlitzer1869]

season 9 episode 3 aired first Aug 2021

[@davidseter1780]

I was hoping Fiona would also inquire if the painting could have also been deemed beyond repair because it was beyond the technology to repair at the time that decision needed to be made. The owners have a mixed blessing here really since it's not declared to be a national treasure, they can enjoy it with no worry about being bothered to return it. But personally, if I were the owner I would be saying that I know that I have the original Landseer that the Tate lost and if they ever want it, they'll have to prove that it's the original themselves. I would also challenge that they can't prove that it's not the original with any actual data because they failed at recording its destruction.

[@jwhiskey242]

A man I worked for owned "Morning" and "The Falconer" among other works. It was my introduction to Landseer.

[@lanakim2537]

As a Christian, Fake or Fortune has given me a list of more questions to ask God when I die. Gainsborough, Nicholson (the father), and now Landseer. I mean look at the frame. The details being different does seem concerning, but I can definitely imagine that being part of maybe an undocumented conservation effort done by an amateur artist after it's been thrown out, before it got to the hands of the nice lady. But the Frame. Bro. The fraaaame.

[@Mudhooks]

Very sad. Not going to argue with the expert, of course, but it really was convincing, especially in the “jog” in the left-hand corner of the canvas. As they said, “Would a copyist have gone to the trouble of copying that?” In fact, would a copyist have seen it without its frame to know of it? Of course, you can’t get past the fact that it doesn’t show the damage that would have made the Tate label it as “destroyed” or completely written off as beyond repair or the fact that there isn’t the evidence of it having been restored. Even minimal repairs would have appeared during the X-ray and other examination or during the cleaning and restoration for the program. And, of course, where some experts have (bloody-mindedly IMHO - thinking of a certain French panel of experts) dismissed paintings that have more convincing evidence, even convincing proof, in this case, their analysis seems much more considered and convincing.

[@Norfolk250]

1:55 O my goodness --- WHERE ARE THEIR SCARVES?!?!?! [Edit] 35:10 You just KNOWS I wasn't meaning a winter one.

[@LSTEdD1]

Another fascinating Fake or Fortune! Although they said not available I wonder if more information from the original auction exists somewhere. Also wonder who might have allowed it to leave Tate and be sold not destroyed.

[@udoboehm4498]

The simplest explanation: the painting was looted as it was standing on the side of the building.. "lost" my ass,,,

[@kartos.]

It's wild they would simply decide to destroy a piece instead of showcasing the remnants.

[@THSeaNotes]

It’s real. These so called experts can be very biased for one reason or another. The painting has been through a lot of abuse. Of course it will look lackluster. The details are too fine and accurate to be a fake.

[@paulsantos7358]

Still trying to figure out how these damaged paintings were released into the public. If it was declared an original I suspect the museum would have an argument to get the painting returned.

[@db7266]

I would say the photograph is of this painting, but most of the paint was actually scraped off and reapplied. Whoever reapplied it was good, but not as good as landseer.

[@barriehobbs4533]

which also explains the anomaly of the frame

[@pipuriponpon]

34:41 what’s that painting 🖼️ to her right? Our left looking at the video. Please.

[@w.urlitzer1869]

Madame Moitessier by Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres, 1856

[@pipuriponpon]

@@w.urlitzer1869 thank you so much!!!!

[@dazzling9982]

“Waiting for a load” it’s not a name that aged well 💀🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@RogueCylon]

I looked up the painting at the top of list of destroyed paintings archer’s La Morte D’Arthur. It’s now on display at Manchester Art museum and look spectacular. So that wasn’t destroyed either.

[@jbc1715]

they said the paint was relined, the original canvas waxed to another, no telling what was on the back of the original canvas.

[@danhnguyen-fn9eb]

When they did the X-ray the lady should of turned the painting around and X-rayed it from the back as well. Just to see what might be there.

[@donaldprice9569]

Oh that we could resurrect Landseer and have him dismiss "the final authority" and yell "Fool"", what would you know". Hang in there Kathy, another "expert" is on the horizon!

[@ofres5651]

This a rerun?

[@Spl3en]

Yes, Season 9 Episode 3

[@lorie76yt]

It’s clearly the Landseer original - there are few disciplines that disappoint and annoy me more than “art experts” The fact that they set themselves above common sense, and science just adds to their villainy 🤷🏻‍♀️

[@landrews7280]

Fiona wears the same outfit through the entire video.

[@stanbrown32]

That's a common tactic in television production, so segments filmed on later days may be edited into a different sequence without the different clothes marking the discontinuity.

[@janina8559]

Whoever the expert was made a huge mistake HUGE! This lady needs to take the painting to a better expert. The photo of the original proves it not to mention the anomaly. Every measurement was exact. They need a second opinion for sure!

[@kristianstorgaard9309]

I think they got the real one.

[@henrivanbemmel]

I really thought they had found a lost painting. Too bad the auction house's records were lost. Sigh.

[@nancymcclain2533]

Couldn't the differences be from the restorer. making up for lost chipped off paint

[@mycatsnameiskaren8253]

I disagree!!!! The flood would certainly explain the changes in the painting.

[@RonaldSimkin]

And why would such a skilled faker waste time on this one??? They revealed that this artist just wasn't that popular back in the day; and how do you copy it in such detail after it is destroyed? No, I still believe that this is the real thing and that art snob didn't want to admit it for some reason. The painting was retouched AND the photo was manipulated. Too much there to support it as real for me to give up hope. Hold it a generation and someone will prove it is the real thing....

[@Silencedogood-r6l]

Why on Earth don’t all artists just sign and date their works ffs?

[@waltervanderboor]

Looks like the expert has done a poor job. The Nick in the bottom frame and the details of the metal as well as the details in the uniform are extremely unlikely to be copied with paint and material from that era. The precision of that horses nose and the look in its eyes… I believe the photographer 100% … the expert? Not at all.

[@reimannx33]

This fart world is dry, but 'moldy".

[@RogueCylon]

When a so called “art w pert” weighs in and completely dismisses the work, when it matches the original in so many details. What a complete arse.

[@xjAlbert]

There's something oily about Mold.

[@henrivanbemmel]

However, they consult experts with years of experience whose vast knowledge of the painter and the troubling existence of forgeries produces some frustrating facts. However, I would never presume to know more about all of this than the experts. If we are not going to heed their wisdom, no matter how inconvenient, then we are back to witchcraft. These folks are not fools and have considered not only the evidence in the TV program, but also complex technical aspects of these analyses not digestible by the typical viewer. I think it takes a lot of brass for folks on this loop to just blow off the analysis and opinions of these experts who easily know 1000x more than they. Its unfortunate that experts who have spent decades learning their craft can be judged by viewers with mostly no expertise.