Anyone recognize this artist?
Richard Ward
were). Couldn't help but wondering if anyone recognized who the artist
is?
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=320408444
It started at $0.25, and it was over $135,000 last time I looked. The
person selling it seems as astonished as anyone. I wonder what the
price would have been if his child hadn't run into it with his big
wheel.
Richard Ward
Mobule
around in your garage...only to see the auction price take off like a rocket!
135,805.00 it's up to. I noticed on the signature it' seems tosay RD52. Hmmm.
Who could RD be?
I'm on the search- :-)
Maura
Tsu Dho Nimh
>Advance warning, this is an eBay auction, but it isn't mine (wish it
>were). Couldn't help but wondering if anyone recognized who the artist
>is?
Obviously three people recognized the artist: Richard Diebenkorn
And it is one of his earliest pieces.
>http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=320408444
>
>It started at $0.25, and it was over $135,000 last time I looked. The
>person selling it seems as astonished as anyone. I wonder what the
>price would have been if his child hadn't run into it with his big
>wheel.
An art dealer said the small hole is not much of a problem -
flaking paint is considered more severe.
I've had an on-line chat with the buyer. He's delighted, but his
wife was asleep, and he wasn't sure how to break the news to her.
Tsu Dho Nimh
When businesses invoke the "protection of consumers," it's a lot like
politicians invoking morality and children - grab your wallet and/or
your kid and run for your life.
The Snooty Fox
>I've had an on-line chat with the buyer. He's delighted, but his
>wife was asleep, and he wasn't sure how to break the news to her.
Egads wait until she wakes up .. "hey honey!! you'll never guess who I
was chatting with .. er old what's-its-name .. excited or wot!!??!!"
Ronnie
=====
bunjiovianna_charleen
> Richard Ward <rw...@dallas.net> wrote:
>
> >Advance warning, this is an eBay auction, but it isn't mine (wish it
> >were). Couldn't help but wondering if anyone recognized who the artist
> >is?
>
> Obviously three people recognized the artist: Richard Diebenkorn
> And it is one of his earliest pieces.
The big question in my mind is: now that the seller knows who the artist
may be (and can presumably read auction results as well as anyone), will
he go through with the transaction?
Or will he attempt to stiff eBay out of its $1710.94 fee *and* go for the
gold by pulling the painting and consigning it to Some Big Auction House
instead? (Probably not Butterfields. :-)
Charleen
Richard Ward
then cancelled the auction. I've got a feeling if he tried to pull out
after the fact on an auction where the buyer stood to make several
hundred thousand dollars profit, the buyers attorney would have
something to say about it in fairly short order, probably accompanied by
a temporary restraining order from a judge. Most online auctions are
hard to enforce because the amount in controversy simply isn't large
enough to make it worthwhile. That would not be the case here.
Richard Ward
bunjiovianna_charleen
Here's the URL:
http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/05/biztech/articles/09ebay.html
(You have to sign up with them but it's free.)
TDN seems utterly convinced the piece is a Diebenkorn. Why? As the NYT article points out, the seller's refusal to let a bidder actually see the piece raises some doubts, as does his lawyer's disclaimer. The damage supposedly caused by his kid's Hot Wheel is a nice (too nice?) piece of versimilitude.
Charleen
-- Life is too short to spend it polishing cheap silver.
Mary Bellack
about the painting. He's not married, has no children, was not cleaning
out his garage, and is churning art on Yabe to launch a law practice
(Hastings College grad). It has been agreed to get the painting
professionally examined before the sale goes through. Another of the
paintings he sold for $7600 "was garbage" according to the buyer.
Mary
Double D Auction
deceit. I'm sure he'll have clients lined up for miles on
the day he opens the door.
Debbie
bunjiovianna_charleen
Charleen
Mary Bellack wrote:
Wednesday AM and the tale continues. Seller "made up a little story"
about the painting. He's not married, has no children, was not cleaning
out his garage, and is churning art on Yabe to launch a law practice
(Hastings College grad). It has been agreed to get the painting
professionally examined before the sale goes through. Another of the
paintings he sold for $7600 "was garbage" according to the buyer.
Mary
bunjiovianna_charleen wrote:
>
> Tsu Dho Nimh wrote:
>
> > Richard Ward <rw...@dallas.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Advance warning, this is an eBay auction, but it isn't mine (wish it
> > >were). Couldn't help but wondering if anyone recognized who the artist
> > >is?
> >
> > Obviously three people recognized the artist: Richard Diebenkorn
> > And it is one of his earliest pieces.
>
> The big question in my mind is: now that the seller knows who the artist
> may be (and can presumably read auction results as well as anyone), will
> he go through with the transaction?
>
> Or will he attempt to stiff eBay out of its $1710.94 fee *and* go for the
> gold by pulling the painting and consigning it to Some Big Auction House
> instead? (Probably not Butterfields. :-)
>
> Charleen
-- Life is too short to spend it polishing cheap silver.
bunjiovianna_charleen
http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/05/biztech/articles/10ebay.html
Richard Ward
disciplinary committee of the bar association of whatever state Mr.
Walton is licensed to practice in. Fraud is generally grounds for
disbarment.
Richard Ward
Doris Bialas
If its a fake, I hope whoever bought it turns the matter over to the
disciplinary committee of the bar association of whatever state Mr.
Walton is licensed to practice in. Fraud is generally grounds for
disbarment.
couldn't he just go across the border and
take the boards in that state and become a lawyer anyway? We've had
reports in NY of MD's that have been barred in other states and end up
here. Does this happen
with lawyers also? Is there a nation wide
system that can be asked about these
disbarred people with reasons for disbarment? Or are we still at the
mercy
of those with the most money?
Doris
Do Lipton employees
take coffee breaks?
Richard Ward
disbarred or suspended in another state. Most will not grant a law
license to an attorney either disbarred or suspended in another state.
To lie when you are asked the question can also get you disbarred.
I don't know of a nationwide database, but it does become public record,
and is published in legal publications which are widely available. I
would be surprised if most state bars didn't maintain a file of such
offenders, but I can't guarantee it happens. I know for a fact it ought
to.
At this point, neither of us knows that the painting is a fake, but from
the way the transaction was handled, it appears likely. People
generally don't create a bizarre phony story to market a piece that has
a very high legitimate value. If the piece is really valuable and the
seller knew it, why didn't he market the painting on its own merits, and
get the million dollars that paintings by this artist receive at
auction, not the $135,000 from someone hoping for a bargain? The more
information that comes out, the worse this whole thing smells.
Richard Ward
Mary Bellack
Kenneth A. Walton of Sacramento, CA, placed a phony bid on the
painting. Seller contends it was for a friend who didn't have an e-mail
address. Uh huh. In case anyone's interested, two of seller's ID's are
golfpoorly and advice.
This kind of behavior is more likely to get him clients than disbarment,
particular given his location.
Mary
Pig Wrestling Antiques
Doris Bialas
hear about in NY is when someone needs a doctor from their HMO and they
say they try to find out what ,if any, transgressions there may be
against this person and no one is very helpful.
Just 2 wks ago one local doctor had a
report in our newspaper, with the headline
"The most sued MD in OC" something like that. I do realize this is from
a newspaper
they had of course people complaining
about his work, his attitude was oh, well
a good doc gets sued. I have to admit when my SO cut his finger tips off
many
years ago this doc did a great job for him.
But a friend had to have the same surgery done over by another
doc,cause the first one messed up. No he didn't sue
he said he couldn't through workers comp
and the job he had. I don't understand that. He also said it is very
hard to get one to testify against another, which I'm sure is the same
with lawyers? JMO
bunjiovianna_charleen
It would have been so cool had this thing actually been legit. My SO has been trying to console me by saying, "It makes honest sellers like you look good." But I think just the opposite is true, and the scandal will tar yabe sellers with a broad brush.
Charleen
-- Life is too short to spend it polishing cheap silver.
Tsu Dho Nimh
>If its a fake, I hope whoever bought it turns the matter over to the
>disciplinary committee of the bar association of whatever state Mr.
>Walton is licensed to practice in. Fraud is generally grounds for
>disbarment.
Richard -
He NEVER claimed any authenticity for the painting ... the
signature was shown, but he didn't mention any artist's name.
But it is a heckuva way to start your legal career.
Richard Ward
people would look at a forged signature, which if the painting was
forged he would almost certainly be aware of, he was definitely
attempting fraud. This of course presumes the fact that the painting is
a fake. If you intentionaly mislead someone to believe an article has a
particular status or property, you are often going to be held to be in
violation of either civil or criminal statues, whether you actually flat
out print it in your ad or not. In Texas the Deceptive Trade Practices
Act allows treble damages for this kind of fraud. I have a feeling the
disclaimer was added to try and avoid criminal prosecution, but I don't
think a disciplinary committee would look favorably on it, even if it
might well keep him out of jail.
Just an opinion.
Richard Ward
Ronnie McKinley
>Maybe not, but by using shill accounts to bid the price up to the point
>people would look at a forged signature, which if the painting was
>forged he would almost certainly be aware of, he was definitely
>attempting fraud. This of course presumes the fact that the painting is
>a fake. If you intentionaly mislead someone to believe an article has a
>particular status or property, you are often going to be held to be in
>violation of either civil or criminal statues, whether you actually flat
>out print it in your ad or not. In Texas the Deceptive Trade Practices
>Act allows treble damages for this kind of fraud. I have a feeling the
>disclaimer was added to try and avoid criminal prosecution, but I don't
>think a disciplinary committee would look favorably on it, even if it
>might well keep him out of jail.
>
Hey Richard, if **I** was the behave in such a manner, as you allege in
the above, would the USA justiciary automatically come into play. In
other words, is the internet automatically controlled by the USA
justiciary?
Ronnie
=====
Richard Ward
this case, however, we are dealing with an attorney licensed in
California, which was still part of the USA the last time I looked. The
US government may not care what he did, and the state government in
California may not care either, but I'd be surprised if the California
Bar wasn't at least interested. Fraud, either civil or criminal, is a
serious matter when it comes to most US bar associations, and they
usually don't care what mechanism you use to perpetrate that fraud.
Again, that is presuming fraud ever occurred. Until the painting is
examined, it is of course possible that the painting is perfectly
legitimate, and the seller just elected to sell in on eBay for $135,000,
instead of taking it to a normal auction house and selling if for
$1,000,000 because he wanted all the wonderful feedback the auction
would give him.
Richard Ward
Richard Ward
position is this. If you were to paint your own painting, and add a
signature on it which is a forgery of a signature used by an artist
whose work is both highly collected and highly valuable, and then
construct an elaborate and totally false story to try and convince the
bidders that the painting is an undiscovered early work by this artist,
even if you don't flat out state that the painting was done by the
artist, your activities are fraudulent and reprehensible. And since the
person committing the alleged fraud is an attorney, he should be held to
a higher standard than the general public.
If the painting is fake, this isn't a case of "I don't know what it is
but it sure looks good" listed under Weller, this was a scheme intended
to deceive and defraud.
Just my opinion, everyone else is free to have their own.
Richard Ward
Esengo wrote:
>
> Richard wrote:
> >Again, that is presuming fraud ever occurred. Until the painting is
> >examined, it is of course possible that the painting is perfectly
> >legitimate, and the seller just elected to sell in on eBay for $135,000,
> >instead of taking it to a normal auction house and selling if for
> >$1,000,000 because he wanted all the wonderful feedback the aucti>on
> >would give him.
>
> If it turns out to be an original do we forgive him for being stupid (I mean,
> come on....who would admit to having a wife if he really didn't have one,
> right?) or do we go through with the punishment (perpetual and eternal ridicule
> for lying on Ebay)?
> I just sort of assumed that all the "creative writing" on Ebay was
> understood as part of the Ebay game. Haven't you ever read those titles
> "Grandma's Weller vase" and then clicked on the description that said...."JUST
> KIDDING....it didn't really belong to Grandma!" Or how about this title,
> "Weller? Roseville? Rookwood?" Click on photo and description...."I don't know
> what this is but it looks good!" Page down to see RPG pottery.
> But then again.....they are not aspiring *lawyers* and a lawyer should know
> better, right? How dare he sell a painting with the initials of a famous
> artist? And not say that it is not THE famous artist with those initials!!!!
> Come to think of it....shouldn't we all be required to say what our items
> ARE NOT? Oiy.
> Still, the shilling is despicable. I say string him up.
> See ya!
> Fayette
>
Ronnie McKinley
>Of course not Ronnie, I never stated or even implied that it would. In
>this case,
Well I just wondered what you meant by .... (in the Internet environment)
>Richard W
> If you intentionaly mislead someone to believe an article has a
>particular status or property, you are often going to be held to be in
>violation of either civil or criminal statues, whether you actually flat
>out print it in your ad or not.
>however, we are dealing with an attorney licensed in
>California, which was still part of the USA the last time I looked.
A laugh a minute .. have you considered a weekend at the Comedy Club? ;>
Ronnie
=====
Esengo
Ronnie McKinley
> How dare he sell a painting with the initials of a famous
>artist? And not say that it is not THE famous artist with those initials!!!!
> Come to think of it....shouldn't we all be required to say what our items ARE NOT? Oiy
By the By......
Well in the real world the BIG and famous auctionhouses use many
expressions in their *Art* catalogue descriptions, some are more obvious
than others, some are rather ambiguous, but fair to say all expressions
are carefully chosen and worded in favour of the seller. I'll not list
all the expressions but when the following appears, say in Christie's
catalogue, what do you think it really means or implies? Richard can have
a go as well.
"With signature (or monogram) ....... "
"With date ..... "
"With inscription ..... "
Ronnie
=====
Tsu Dho Nimh
>I doubt that I'm going to convince anyone of anything here, but my
>position is this. If you were to paint your own painting, and add a
>signature on it which is a forgery of a signature used by an artist
>whose work is both highly collected and highly valuable, and then
>construct an elaborate and totally false story to try and convince the
>bidders that the painting is an undiscovered early work by this artist,
>even if you don't flat out state that the painting was done by the
>artist, your activities are fraudulent and reprehensible.
Or, as is more likely, find an unsigned old work that is
heavily influenced by the work of the famous artist (by the early
70s, that was a common abstract style), or is a blatant copy of
style and palette ... add signature and damage the painting above
the signature to give opportunity to show signature.
Richard Ward
signature" is used in Christies catalog, do you feel it could be taken
to mean that a Christies employee added the signature, or that Christies
knew it to be a fake? I see a difference in someone who sells a
painting they believe to be genuine but aren't willing to assume the
risk if it isn't, and someone who sells a painting they know to be a
fake, by carefully creating the impression that it is something it isn't
by lying about it's origin. In my mind at least that distinction is the
line between risk management and fraud.
Richard Ward
Ronnie McKinley wrote:
>
> .<snip>
Esengo
>I doubt that I'm going to convince anyone of anything here, but my
>position is this. If you were to paint your own painting, and add a
>signature on it which is a forgery of a signature used by an artist
>whose work is both highly collected and highly valuable, and then
>construct an elaborate and totally
>false story to try and convince the
>bidders that the painting is an undiscovered early work by this artist,
>even if you don't flat out state that the painting was done by the
>artist, your activities are fraudulent and reprehensible. And since the
>person committing the alleged fraud is an attorney, he should be held to
>a higher standard than the general
>public.
>
Well Richard, I'm not a lawyer....but is kind of fun to argue with you! :-)
I think that you have made some gigantic leaps here....to imply that the
man may have even painted this painting himself....or that he (not someone
else) added those offensive initials....or that he was even AWARE that those
initials had significance....all of these are assumptions with no evidence or
proof to back them up (yet). Isn't it still true that we are innocent until
proven guilty?
So far the man is guilty of claiming to have a wife and kid (he may
actually have purchased that painting a long time back in Berkeley....who
knows?). He's guilty of saying the rip came from a big wheel. He's guilty of
"shilling"....which is another issue.
If that darn painting turns out to be the actual thing (and I'm not even
guessing that it is) then this man is guilty of being really stupid, too.
If the whole thing is a fake then they are going to have to show (aren't
they?) that he was the one who added those initials or painted that painting or
*knew* that one or both was done.
And as far as attorneys being held to a higher standard (Barry Scheck and
Johnny Cochran come to mind, Heh!)....I don't see why we can't all be held to
high standards....clergy, doctors, teachers, heck.....why should anyone get
away with committing fraud *intentionally*. But let's face it....lawyers
aren't neccesarily smarter than the general population and they make mistakes,
too.
I say let the drama unfold before we convict the man.
Yours truly,
Fayette
Happy mother's day to ALL the women in this group who love and care and nurture
others. I'm off to be plied with roses and gifts....my annual "performance
review". ;-) see ya.
Esengo
That fellow that bid $135,000 thinking that he was getting a painting worth
millions because the seller was clueless....is he guilty of anything?
Seems to me that we should hold "art collectors" to a higher standard. ;-)
I'm thinking that the seller (and we've been over this issue several times
here) would have some recourse if the painting actually turns out to be worth
*millions*.
Don't worry, be happy.....
Fayette
Doris
position is this. If you were to paint your own painting, and add a
signature on it which is a forgery of a signature used by an artist
whose work is both highly collected and highly valuable, and then
construct an elaborate and totally false story to try and convince the
bidders that the painting is an undiscovered early work by this artist,
even if you don't flat out state that the painting was done by the
artist, your activities are fraudulent and reprehensible. And since the
person committing the alleged fraud is an attorney, he should be held to
a higher standard than the general public.
but it sure looks good" listed under Weller, this was a scheme intended
to deceive and defraud.
Just my opinion, everyone else is free to have their own.
Richard Ward
I agree with you on this. And it's no different than IMO repainting
the inside of your house before you show it to buyers
so you can cover up the water damage
on the sheetrock. Or putting sawdust in your oilpan to stop the knocking
of the engine in that car you are trying to sell.
The intent IS to decieve not just to sell.
Doris
Do Lipton employees
take coffee breaks?
http://community.webtv.net/dorass126/refinishingchairs
http://community.webtv.net/dorass126/Sideboard
Gillam Kerley
Esengo wrote:
>
> So far the man is guilty of claiming to have a wife and kid (he may
> actually have purchased that painting a long time back in Berkeley....who
> knows?). He's guilty of saying the rip came from a big wheel. He's guilty of
> "shilling"....which is another issue.
> If that darn painting turns out to be the actual thing (and I'm not even
> guessing that it is) then this man is guilty of being really stupid, too.
> If the whole thing is a fake then they are going to have to show (aren't
> they?) that he was the one who added those initials or painted that painting or
> *knew* that one or both was done.
A couple mildly interesting points:
The seller's shill bid was for $4,500. Only three bidders thought the
painting was worth six figures. The next highest bid was $7,500, with
lots of bids in the four-digit range.
I'm not sure what, if any, inferences can be drawn from this
information. It does seem to me that if the seller knew the
significance of the initials, and thought there was a chance in hell
that the painting was real, he would have shilled it much higher. (One
could also draw this inference from the fact that he sold it,
unauthenticated, on yaBe.) The other inference I would draw is that the
majority opinion on yaBe was that this was a good, but not great, piece
of art.
GK
Ronnie McKinley
>Ronnie, here's the distinction I would draw. If the term "With
>signature" is used in Christies catalog, do you feel it could be taken
>to mean that a Christies employee added the signature, or that Christies
>knew it to be a fake? I see a difference in someone who sells a
>painting they believe to be genuine but aren't willing to assume the
>risk if it isn't, and someone who sells a painting they know to be a
>fake, by carefully creating the impression that it is something it isn't
>by lying about it's origin. In my mind at least that distinction is the
>line between risk management and fraud.
>
Richard, I haven't been following all the in and outs of this thread so
please excuse me, but for the life of me, I can't understand why you
keeping alleging that the seller is being dishonest - that he may have
painted and/or added the signature.
When Christie's include the expression "with signature ... " in an art
catalogue description they mean precisely that ... simply, the piece in
question is signed with a signature and the floor of the sale room can
come to their own conclusion, the final hammer price will be whatever the
strength or the belief of the floor at the time.
I have re-read the yaBe description and I see nothing wrong with the
seller's description. I see NO misleading implications made by this yaBe
seller as to the possible authorship or attribution of the said painting,
the signature (monogram) is simply reproduced without further comment.
I also noticed that the underbidder originally withdrew his/her early
bid, claiming the reason "Will bid again after I see painting in person
tomorrow in Sacramento" this bidder then appears to have comeback in at
$135,705.00. I checked this bidder's other sales and it would appear that
this person deals in art as well, so draw your own conclusions.
IMO you are reading away too much into all this for some reason, but more
importantly!!!! your use of the word FAKE is IMO rather ridiculous, what
do you mean by FAKE??!!!!??
The seller hasn't claimed or declared it to be anything other than a "big
abstract art painting" which it is and, "it is an original painting on
canvass" which I assume it is ... the rest of the story I take with a
pinch of salt. But nowhere! do I see the seller claiming an artist name
or even a hint at an attribution. IMO this is the important factor. So
how could it be a FAKE??
I don't see how anyone could prove the seller painted this himself and/or
added the monogram. If the seller indeed did paint the thing himself then
in my opinion he is wasting his time becoming a lawyer and would be best
to take up art painting for a living. :)
IMO, trail by internet is a dangerous practice. In some ways the seller
may have grounds in suing over some of the comments and implications
made within this thread. It sounds like the usual art dealing fiasco, in
which the signature seems to be more important than the actual work
itself and decisions being based upon and made by the signature alone
without other considerations. Seems the whole bloody art world these days
are into buying autographs rather than the ART .. well, slap it up 'em
ALL, either way.
FWIW ... this is taken from a typical Christie's art sale catalogue. The
expressions are as grey (gray) as the page it's printed on. Don't forget,
paper never refuses ink.
http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~mckinley/temp/cat.jpg
Ronnie
=====
rhiannon
>
> I'll make a go of it:
>
> >
> > "With signature (or monogram)......
> .
>
> > "With date ..... "
>
> Someone has included a date (see above). Unless specified, this could be in MO/DD/YY or Month Date, Year format or any combination of the above. Any parallel between this date and the original date of production could be coincidental or a d*mned lucky guess.
>
> > "With inscription ..... "
> >
> Someone has taken a sharp implement and scratched something onto the article. This term is generally limited to the item itself, since this method would tend to shred any paperwork involved. The inscription might be original to the piece or may vary according to the time period, age and ethnicity of the scribe. In high crime areas populated by 50's retro punks, anticipate an occaisional "Kilroy was here."
>
How'd I do?
Rhiannon
----------
"I either want less corruption, or more chance to participate in it."
- Oscar Wilde
Richard Ward
I am a bit more cynical, when someone starts out with an element of
fakery and dishonesty in their story, the chances are there's a whole
lot more there to be uncovered. If you're interested in placing a
little wager on whether the painting turns out to be a fake or not,
The reason that I feel that attorneys should be held to a higher
standard has nothing to do with their intelligence or even any
presumption of honesty or ethical behavior. The reason relates to their
position of trust with respect to their client. You simply can't have
someone who is overtly dishonest occupying this kind of position.
Making arguments in open court on behalf of their clients that no
reasonable person would believe is one thing. Defrauding someone is
something entirely different.
Let me explain the underlying problem. People convicted of fraud have
one of the highest recidivism rates of any class of offender.
Basically, once a con man, always a con man. Their have been numerous
cases of supposedly "reformed" con men who sell their consulting
services to business on how to protect themselves from other cons and
trickery, only to be rearrested for running a little con on the side.
They almost always revert.
Take it one step further. Would you want such a person handling your
legal matters? You are often at the mercy of the attorney you hire, and
the only real protection you have is knowing that the attorney is
reasonably honest, and is really pursuing your best interests. If you
were a corporation, and your attorney had access to private information
which would allow him to profit from selling your stock short, would you
want this person to be representing you? What if his actions had the
ability to drive the price of your stock down? The other people you
referred to are not in the same position to harm their clients by
dealing with them dishonestly. Some professions are, such as
accountants, and their professional associations don't look highly on
their members being involved in fraud either.
Richard Ward
Esengo wrote:
>
> Richard wrote:
> >I doubt that I'm going to convince anyone of anything here, but my
> >position is this. If you were to paint your own painting, and add a
> >signature on it which is a forgery of a signature used by an artist
> >whose work is both highly collected and highly valuable, and then
> >construct an elaborate and totally
>
> >false story to try and convince the
> >bidders that the painting is an undiscovered early work by this artist,
> >even if you don't flat out state that the painting was done by the
> >artist, your activities are fraudulent and reprehensible. And since the
> >person committing the alleged fraud is an attorney, he should be held to
> >a higher standard than the general
>
> >public.
> >
>
> Well Richard, I'm not a lawyer....but is kind of fun to argue with you! :-)
> I think that you have made some gigantic leaps here....to imply that the
> man may have even painted this painting himself....or that he (not someone
> else) added those offensive initials....or that he was even AWARE that those
> initials had significance....all of these are assumptions with no evidence or
> proof to back them up (yet). Isn't it still true that we are innocent until
> proven guilty?
> So far the man is guilty of claiming to have a wife and kid (he may
> actually have purchased that painting a long time back in Berkeley....who
> knows?). He's guilty of saying the rip came from a big wheel. He's guilty of
> "shilling"....which is another issue.
> If that darn painting turns out to be the actual thing (and I'm not even
> guessing that it is) then this man is guilty of being really stupid, too.
> If the whole thing is a fake then they are going to have to show (aren't
> they?) that he was the one who added those initials or painted that painting or
> *knew* that one or both was done.
Richard Ward
First, he posted the article with an extremely low price, and a very
cute story that can be shown on several critical points to have had no
basis in reality. When someone lies on one part of their story, I
generally tend to disbelieve anything they say until I can find some
other source to support it. In this case the story seemed to have been
created to make the painting look like something he'd just picked up
years ago and which had been sitting around the house. The painting
just happens to have the signature of a well known artist.
Second, he puts in shill bids to push up the price just high enough to
get the attention of all the people who cruise the fine art section of
eBay. If it were a painting that he had sitting around his garage, it
would be ridiculous to bid it up that high, because no one would have
bid on it. If he believed it were a real painting by this artist, the
shill bids were too low, because the painting was going for way under
market value.
Third, when the bidding gets high, and people ask to examine it, he
refuses. If it were genuine, his refusal would be cutting all the
legitimate collectors out of the market, and limiting his market to
people who have more greed than common sense.
Fourth, there have been reports that this isn't the first piece of art
that has been sold this way by this person, and the other purchase
supposedly stated that what he got was worthless. This is admittedly
heresay, but most of this is at this point.
While I will be the first to admit that this is definitely enough to
convict anyone of anything, it gives a chain of conduct that shows a
less than honest behavior, and makes the entire transaction suspect.
Does anyone want to take bets on whether the painting turns out to be
authentic? I'd love it to turn out to be authentic, and my faith in
human nature (what little I had left at least) restored, but I don't
think it will happen.
Richard Ward
Richard Ward
be the first to admit that this is definitely NOT enough to convict
anyone of anything,...".
Richard Ward
Richard Ward
replied to. If it is not a painting by Richard Diebenkorn, and if the
seller was aware it was not a painting by Richard Diebenkorn, I consider
it a fake because regardless of the information given in the auction
posting itself, there was a chain of actions taken which appear to be
designed to give the impression that the painting was painted by someone
other than the person who did paint it. I laid them out in the previous
post. You may not agree with the conclusions I reached, you may think
I'm overreaching, but I did not dodge the issue.
Richard Ward
Ronnie McKinley wrote:
> <snip>
>
> I have already asked you to define what you mean by "fake" within the
> context of this particular auction, so far, you have ignored me! <snip>
Ronnie McKinley
>Ronnie, I'll give you the points I have a problem with.
>
>First,
> The painting
>just happens to have the signature of a well known artist.
>
Did he claim in his auction description any authorship or attribution to
the painting? Did he at any time declare the painting to be the work of
any "well known artist?" Did he claim that the painting was a work by
Richard Diebenkorn? Did he claim the signature (monogram) was that of
Richard Diebenkorn? Did he comment at all on the signature, other than to
reproduce it along with some other details (images) and an overall
(image) view of the painting?
>Second, he puts in shill bids to push up the price just high enough to
>get the attention of all the people who cruise the fine art section of
>eBay.
Can you prove that?
>Third, when the bidding gets high, and people ask to examine it, he
>refuses.
I wasn't aware of this .... is that a fact or hearsay?
As I pointed out in my last post ....
"I also noticed that the underbidder originally withdrew his/her early
bid, claiming the reason "Will bid again after I see painting in person
tomorrow in Sacramento" this bidder then appears to have comeback in at,
$135,705.00."
Unless I have misinterpreted the bid listing on yaBe ... why would the
underbidder comeback in at $135,705 if there was this flat out refusal on
examining the painting? I can only assume the underbidder did indeed get
to see the painting, or else the underbidder is just one of those greedy
folk you speak about.But I am sure that could be confirmed one way or the
other?
>Fourth,
> This is admittedly
>heresay, but most of this is at this point.
Er .................
>
>Does anyone want to take bets on whether the painting turns out to be
>authentic? I'd love it to turn out to be authentic, and my faith in
>human nature (what little I had left at least) restored, but I don't
>think it will happen.
Oh I see you have changed from the "fake" to the "authentic."
I have already asked you to define what you mean by "fake" within the
context of this particular auction, so far, you have ignored me! but keep
harping on about fake painting, fakery and con jobs. If the painting can
be define as 1. "a big abstract art painting" and 2. "it is an original
painting on canvass" .... that is, medium: oil on canvass .. then how
in the name of hell can it be a fake or not authentic? as the seller has
claimed nothing else!!!! ... NO authorship! NO attribution! .. not even,
the slightest suggestion of an artist's name. As far as I can see it is
you and some other folk the ones alleging the painting to be by this
"well known" artist Richard Diebenkorn, which I must admit, is a name
that means nothing to me, never heard of Richard Diebenkorn.
And btw Richard, if all the lawyers were so bloody upstanding and correct
then who the hell would we get to DEFEND the likes of OJ? :)
Ronnie
=====
Take it to a Jury, Richard.
--------------------------------------
Ronnie McKinley
> If it is not a painting by Richard Diebenkorn, and if the
>seller was aware it was not a painting by Richard Diebenkorn, I consider
>it a fake because regardless of the information given in the auction
>posting itself, there was a chain of actions taken which appear to be
>designed to give the impression that the painting was painted by someone
>other than the person who did paint it
Absolute twaddle, Richard.
Ronnie
=====
sonn...@my-deja.com
Richard Ward <rw...@dallas.net> wrote:
> Advance warning, this is an eBay auction, but it isn't mine (wish it
> were). Couldn't help but wondering if anyone recognized who the artist
> is?
>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=320408444
>
> It started at $0.25, and it was over $135,000 last time I looked. The
> person selling it seems as astonished as anyone. I wonder what the
> price would have been if his child hadn't run into it with his big
> wheel.
>
> Richard Ward
>
What was the outcome of this?
I haven't seen anything in the paper or on TV.
Doris
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.