I Think the Met’s $95M van Gogh Masterpiece Is a Fake

New York Post ^ | November 6, 2016 | Bill Sanderson

[Liz]

Nice brush strokes.

[captain_dave]

If it’s a forgery, then maybe the forger isn’t a “third rate” painter.

[dfwgator]

[faithhopecharity]

I forget. its been at least a week since her last visit to me here

[tet68]

You had a Farrah by Van Gogh?
Must have cost a lot.
How could he paint with her sitting there like that?

[Liz]

Yeah, sure.....how do we know the velvet is really old.

Huh?

[Liz]

Art forgers are pretty clever....I've read several books on
art forgery....amazing what they wont do to forge a painting.

[BykrBayb]

Thank you. I used the corners of the dish sponge, and a lock of the dog’s hair taped to a pencil.

[Liz]

My, my....you are clever.

[CrazyIvan]

But my “Last Supper” with the fat Christ to balance out the two skinny ones really is the original.

[visualops]

omg that movie was so hilarious!

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

Right on...what difference does it make...
Sell it to the Clinton Foundation!

[skr]

Regarding the rolling up of the canvas only, it’s possible that it was correctly rolled with the painted side inward. The fissures would then close instead of open when the painting was unrolled. Otherwise, it would be unusual for a painting to not show cracks the same way its similarly painted contemporaries do.

[minnesota_bound]

I think this guy painted it.

[Liz]

LOL.......before or after he died?

[The Westerner]

That brush is a nice touch.

[IronJack]

The Velvet’s new. The PAINT is Early Renaissance.

[Liz]

That should pass the connoisseur test....no question. LOL.

[Albion Wilde]

bump

[minnesota_bound]

Before then after he passed others copied him and sold “original” Bob Ross paintings.