Archipenko.
 

Please help me with an estimate of paintings Archipenko.
Oil on board, 60 x 40 cm Thank you.

TUNER, is a Archipenko, you Pope!

Dear TUNER. I assume that your fake by Archipenko fabricated with a similar fraud, which was once sold to a private person in Hungary. Unfortunately, nothing more to say you can not.

Then it was dated 1960, the size of 68h32 cm and was called Nu .

uriart

Please do not be rude to begin with!


OlegTsi

Thank you for your reply.
The picture is not mine.
As for fakes, what grounds for this assertion?

It's very simple . Works very well studied Archipenko - this time.
For artistic and compositional qualities of this picture can not be compared with the works of Archipenko - that's two.
The original work of such a plan has its own history - that's three.
If it was a seminal work , it would be so easy to not get into this topic with a question : - that's four.

Yes, you yourself must see and understand.

OlegTsi

Thank you for your detailed response, the logic is clear, the principle of "this can not be, because this can never happen."
Nevertheless, thank you, though not Nakhamu.

Well, thank you for that.

Добавлено через 5 часов 22 минуты
You know , TUNER, this phrase , you spoiled me a bit of Friday's mood. After a good party , I have decided you More time to respond. No, here in the forum, I am not guided by this logic . I try to apply their knowledge and experience. So went back and decided to komryuteru you to prove their case in a more illustrative way.
Photo 1 - Your Picture
Photo 2 - the original "Woman with a Mirror " , 1916 .

Now, in essence your question :
Price it - exactly what is the frame and canvas. Ksati to use the canvas again , the image must be washed off.

You know , TUNER, this phrase , you spoiled me a bit of Friday's mood. After a nice party, I finally decided to answer you again . No, here in the forum, I am not guided by this logic . I try to apply their knowledge and experience. So went back to computer , and you decided to prove their case more revealing way.
Photo 1 - Your Picture
Photo 2 - the original "Woman with a Mirror " , 1916, painted wood or metal , base - oil on cardboard .

is now a matter of fact your question :
Evaluation pattern is this: it costs as much as is the frame and canvas. Ksati to use the canvas again , this is a terrible image even need to rinse.

Now you are convincing or not?

OlegTsi, the impression that you are making excuses to the author and subject.
I do not understand why you need it ?
He writes to me that I Nakhamu and Nakhamu did it to you .
Ungrateful is the case, explain the uncomprehending .
They believe that they have masterpieces , and you, your ( rinsing ) deprive them of these masterpieces.
I am inclined to think that let people see what they want to see!
And do not disappoint them !
And so he wrote (which he, as the Pope ), but only because falshakov inundated by Archipenko and Internet resources and lots of auctions and galleries.
It's disgusting to look at them , these fakes.

I do not understand.
Why can not I?

Accused seeks to blame ...)

In general, this picture would have to move to the subject of forgery.
Everything is very clear.
There are two fake photos, and original.

OlegTsi
I can not agree with you, because your conclusions do not seem to me sufficient.

The points.

A. Where you saw the canvas? This is not a canvas, how do you write a paper,

Two. How did you know that Hungarian "fake" (if this is fake, it is that has been exposed, where, when and by whom?) Earlier in time than shown me?

You do not see any live or other work, and the original, too, how can you make such a definitive conclusion?

Three. The basis of your "method" is to find an artist notorious original and based on the similarity of all like to declare it a forgery. But this method is flawed, unnecessarily from the artist is and repeats, and development issues. Take Picasso least half of his work can be written in bullshit, if you follow your logic. And then, here you write "I assume that your imitation of Archipenko fabricated with a similar forgery, which was once sold to a private person in Hungary. Unfortunately, nothing more to say you can not."
And why is this picture, and not from the Archipenko "Woman with a Mirror", 1916,?

4. Assert that the prevalence of artistic and compositional qualities of the original Archipenko recognized over the questionable work can probably only a very big fan of Archipenko. For many self-Archipenko malopriemlem a very artistic and compositional side.

Five. And yet, no serious expert and a specialist will not be so categorical, with only uninformative photographs.

I understand that this resource, you are a recognized authority, as you say, so be it, can be written in a fake anything on paper can endure, but that's the base, evidence base, it is just lame, so that such categorization is unlikely will benefit you personally and share as a whole.
Once again, I repeat, the picture is not mine, I also doubt it eriginalnost were asked to put up and ask the experts say so, but your "evidence" seem to me inadequate.

Please protect me from the charge of rudeness from a particularly violent your fans, I was most correct. Nothing personal ...
Would you like to answer, respond with arguments, please, no poetry, such as

"The original work of such a plan has its own history - that's three.
If it was a seminal work, it would be so easy to not get into this topic with a question: "

.........
Mf.7 6 .......