And yet, one of them a real van Gogh?
 

I'm reading now, Van Gogh's correspondence with his brother, he was a wonderful man, a special insanity did not notice. Yes, a lot of personal experiences, loosely health ... through it are not only creative people, but also the most ordinary, so that his suicide, is a step, but rather a moment of weakness, IMHO of course. And re-read the topic about forgery in LSR, thanks to her very much for all threads created by it:)
I want to ask everyone who is of the Van Gogh, this, in your opinion:)
"Portrait of Dr. Gachet." Arles, June, 1890., Oil on canvas, 73x60. Private collection, or "Portrait of Dr. Gachet." Auvers, June 1890. Oil on canvas, 68h57, Paris, Musée d'Orsay, France

I think the first real, but one that in Orsay fake:)
What do you say?;)

And what you were guided by expressing such an assumption?

Carefully examined the backgrounds have different images and have Orseshnogo he was already very smooth. Well, of course, intuition;)
OOO! And not only I noticed, that's from an article translated LSR:
"The second version of the famous portrait of Dr. Gachet, which is stored in the Museum d'Orsay, which in the artist's letters, there is absolutely no mention, is very questionable authorship. Jean-Marie Tass, the critic in Le Figaro, which we are obliged to identify inconsistencies in the" Garden at Auvers "I am confident that this work is a fake, as well as the Van Gogh self-portrait from the collection of the Metropolitan in New York."

And he could not do two portraits?

eva777, I look at both and the second, more with the dark background does not cause the desire to become its owner.

I too think that first, due too russet and somehow especially torchashchikh from under caps hair. So specially not invent. Regards letters I too agrees, his correspondence impresses.

Mog and the two do, but the second is not mentioned anywhere and, as noted
uriart, you do not want to hang myself on the wall. Intuition resist:)

Amusing discussion.
Oh just for connoisseurs of art, Van Gogh.
But I also wanted to "insert their 5 kopecks" (sorry for the banal phrase, but it very accurately on the site).

I would never have thought that one of the pictures - the possibility of forgery, if it were not for this topic. Looked more closely, and that's what drew the attention of:

- In the first scene, though the whole situation goes to show that it is - the room (a table with books, and light on a figure similar to the light from the lamp "on top"), von registered soon as a landscape - the slope of the stroke as on the surface of the landscape, and a the upper edge of the landscape \ sofa no zakorugleny smear "the wall" that would be needed if it were a couch (after Van Gogh when he writes, distinct strokes, always puts them "in form"). Also - for the couch already very shapeless. And given the fact that the figure is illuminated from above rather, the horizontal surface of the back of the sofa, too, must have had to be illuminated by more than a vertical surface of the back of the sofa. And so, again, more like "aerial perspective" - the gradual darkening of the illumination of distant hills.
And behind the head - much like the way he wrote the sky, and a great depth of feeling. Well somehow the sofa with the wall so do not write.
  And the second scene, the line between the hills \ heaven (or the sofa \ wall?)
  become more amorphous, the upper plane (the sky \ wall?) spelled out exactly how the wall (ie, as Van Gogh wrote, flat surface) - strokes, reaching under 90 degrees to each other.

Of course, if one painting - the landscape, but on the other - a sofa and the wall, it does not prove anything. But all the same gives the hook - copier did not see that written in the landscape, and made room.
And that, would not run up against possible inaccuracies, made his "flaccid" (well, kind - where he was - I do not remember). And Van Gogh is usually very relishing the situation.
Here's a IMHO.

netserg, In my opinion you are right! But fear now is that they both now causes me to doubt, because, in fact, and in another pile of any inaccuracies, for which Van Gogh, by definition, was not able to!:)
And now with this order them to do ?!:);)

I drew attention to the expression of the person (s) of both doctors. At first it was just sad, but the second one (presumably bogus) - very sad ...:)