I'm actually quite surprised it's back for another series. I liked it to begin with but the format started to wear a little thin with me after a while.
I record this. Watch the first ten minutes, then skip quickly through any padding until the "reveal."
It needed only half an hour.
I'm not sure licence money should be used to help people who are usually well off to add to their fortune when provenance is established, unless the BBC gets a percentage of the likely resultant sale of the subjects.
I record this. Watch the first ten minutes, then skip quickly through any padding until the "reveal."
It needed only half an hour.
I'm not sure licence money should be used to help people who are usually well off to add to their fortune when provenance is established, unless the BBC gets a percentage of the likely resultant sale of the subjects.
What do you like , other than Inappropriately young jazz singers, while slagging off other female "contemporary vocalists" ?
What a load of waffle, they could just have gone to the last bit & cut out the middlemen.
Fionas worn well, she looked just like the clip of the London bombings that followed.
I record this. Watch the first ten minutes, then skip quickly through any padding until the "reveal."
It needed only half an hour.
I'm not sure licence money should be used to help people who are usually well off to add to their fortune when provenance is established, unless the BBC gets a percentage of the likely resultant sale of the subjects.
So you want to drop all antiques programmes also?
I suspect many do not sell the items immediately, the man last night seemed as interested in proving his father had not been conned. How do you ensure you get your commission in twenty or more years time?
The cost of the experts in the programme is probably insignificant compared with the the costs of making a TV programme.
What a load of waffle, they could just have gone to the last bit & cut out the middlemen.
On that basis, many TV programmes would be a lot shorter, but I suppose we would at least not have suffer hours of boring sport when they just go straight to the result.
On that basis, many TV programmes would be a lot shorter, but I suppose we would at least not have suffer hours of boring sport when they just go straight to the result.
The next series of Broadchurch is 5 minutes long and only shows the arrest of a child murderer.
Well I enjoyed the full hour and the bits of background we got - was it just me or did the man who owned the paintings look just like a younger version of Dickie Bird the cricket umpire (and yes, I'm aware it probably was just me )
Well I enjoyed the full hour and the bits of background we got - was it just me or did the man who owned the paintings look just like a younger version of Dickie Bird the cricket umpire (and yes, I'm aware it probably was just me )
He reminded me of someone but I thought it was more a football manager or comic of the time.
Never seen this show before but found it very interesting. It struck me, too how well Fiona has worn
I suspect many do not sell the items immediately, the man last night seemed as interested in proving his father had not been conned. How do you ensure you get your commission in twenty or more years time?
The cost of the experts in the programme is probably insignificant compared with the the costs of making a TV programme.
Would you like to re-visit that daft remark?
When did I say that?
Why try to turn it into a "feast or famine alternative?
It just makes you look silly.
I do record Antiques Road Show and skip through the less interesting items.
But that still leaves plenty worth watching.
No costs incurred when making a TV programme, are insignificant.
It did strike me there was an elephant in the room which they couldn't discuss, namely did the owner's father not have any proof of purchase because he, er, acquired them without paying for them? Maybe in settlement of a debt?
When the saleroom said they had been sold around the relevant time but to someone else, whose name they wouldn't disclose, I'd like the programme at least to have asked them to go down the tunnel from that end and try to track the painting from that end. And if they did ask but the saleroom declined to cooperate, say as much.
It did strike me there was an elephant in the room which they couldn't discuss, namely did the owner's father not have any proof of purchase because he, er, acquired them without paying for them? Maybe in settlement of a debt?
When the saleroom said they had been sold around the relevant time but to someone else, whose name they wouldn't disclose, I'd like the programme at least to have asked them to go down the tunnel from that end and try to track the painting from that end. And if they did ask but the saleroom declined to cooperate, say as much.
It was very fortunate that the "experts" consulted would be willing to attribute the paintings to Lowry, despite the absence of any written provenance, or ownership, in the event of a sale.
Well, I mean 15% of a lot of money, is... a lot of money, innit?
I found it very interesting, I learned more about Lowry (like he told fibs) and that his paintings are so heavily faked/copied (very sneaky the way some sellers manage to imply the paintings are by Lowry without actually saying they are). I like Lowry's work, I like the mill scenes but my favourite is Yachts At Lytham, which is not what people expect from Lowry.
I don't understand how the crowd scene was authenticated though, was it just a case of the other two being genuine so the third probably is as well? I get that the old couple was most likely genuine, as it matched the one in Lowry's workshop. The woman with dogs was genuine as it had been sold by a gallery who got it from Lowry (though not sold to the current owner's father apparently, so that was a little ambiguous - surely more investigation into where it had been would be required, just in case there are two of them), but the crowd scene, I don't know?
It did strike me there was an elephant in the room which they couldn't discuss, namely did the owner's father not have any proof of purchase because he, er, acquired them without paying for them? Maybe in settlement of a debt?
When the saleroom said they had been sold around the relevant time but to someone else, whose name they wouldn't disclose, I'd like the programme at least to have asked them to go down the tunnel from that end and try to track the painting from that end. And if they did ask but the saleroom declined to cooperate, say as much.
The saleroom could not cooperate because of confidentiality, they had no choice. The painting could have passed through many people since then and the original purchaser quite probably had also died.
They had checked catalogues and there was no record of it being in an auction but could have easily changed ownership several times. I don't think Lowry prices were as high then either so if an owner died it could have ended up in a local gallery or even charity shop!
His father perhaps just liked art and did not think of things like provenance.
I can see that the saleroom couldn't hand the purchaser's name over to the programme. But they could have done a bit of research at their end and maybe the original purchaser or their family would have been happy to cooperate. It's conceivable that at some point it was stolen so it might even have eventually reunited it with a rightful owner.
I can't explain why, but I thought the attempts at "gravitas," by the experts in the "reveal," prompted the thought "Would you buy a used car from them?"
I suspect many do not sell the items immediately, the man last night seemed as interested in proving his father had not been conned. How do you ensure you get your commission in twenty or more years time?
The cost of the experts in the programme is probably insignificant compared with the the costs of making a TV programme.
Well, he was hardly going to go on national TV and ask the BBC to spend license payers money so he could make a huge profit was he!
I wonder if he waited until after probate was complete so he wouldn't have to pay inheritance tax on the newly increased value of the paintings?
FortyTwo25
Posts: 5,170 
Comments
It needed only half an hour.
I'm not sure licence money should be used to help people who are usually well off to add to their fortune when provenance is established, unless the BBC gets a percentage of the likely resultant sale of the subjects.
What do you like , other than Inappropriately young jazz singers, while slagging off other female "contemporary vocalists" ?
Fionas worn well, she looked just like the clip of the London bombings that followed.
So you want to drop all antiques programmes also?
I suspect many do not sell the items immediately, the man last night seemed as interested in proving his father had not been conned. How do you ensure you get your commission in twenty or more years time?
The cost of the experts in the programme is probably insignificant compared with the the costs of making a TV programme.
On that basis, many TV programmes would be a lot shorter, but I suppose we would at least not have suffer hours of boring sport when they just go straight to the result.
The next series of Broadchurch is 5 minutes long and only shows the arrest of a child murderer.
He reminded me of someone but I thought it was more a football manager or comic of the time.
Never seen this show before but found it very interesting. It struck me, too how well Fiona has worn
Would you like to re-visit that daft remark?
When did I say that?
Why try to turn it into a "feast or famine alternative?
It just makes you look silly.
I do record Antiques Road Show and skip through the less interesting items.
But that still leaves plenty worth watching.
No costs incurred when making a TV programme, are insignificant.
And a serious faker would be careful to stick to the five colours that Lowry always said he used.
The chap who demonstrated how to fake a painting must be one of the family who were featured in a repeated programme a few weeks ago.
When the saleroom said they had been sold around the relevant time but to someone else, whose name they wouldn't disclose, I'd like the programme at least to have asked them to go down the tunnel from that end and try to track the painting from that end. And if they did ask but the saleroom declined to cooperate, say as much.
It was very fortunate that the "experts" consulted would be willing to attribute the paintings to Lowry, despite the absence of any written provenance, or ownership, in the event of a sale.
Well, I mean 15% of a lot of money, is... a lot of money, innit?
I don't understand how the crowd scene was authenticated though, was it just a case of the other two being genuine so the third probably is as well? I get that the old couple was most likely genuine, as it matched the one in Lowry's workshop. The woman with dogs was genuine as it had been sold by a gallery who got it from Lowry (though not sold to the current owner's father apparently, so that was a little ambiguous - surely more investigation into where it had been would be required, just in case there are two of them), but the crowd scene, I don't know?
They had checked catalogues and there was no record of it being in an auction but could have easily changed ownership several times. I don't think Lowry prices were as high then either so if an owner died it could have ended up in a local gallery or even charity shop!
His father perhaps just liked art and did not think of things like provenance.
Well, he was hardly going to go on national TV and ask the BBC to spend license payers money so he could make a huge profit was he!
I wonder if he waited until after probate was complete so he wouldn't have to pay inheritance tax on the newly increased value of the paintings?