Цитата:
Сообщение от Cyril Syzransky
No, if you change the size, not a copy, my opinion.
That's it.
Do not copy, but the replica. Provided that the disputed painting done rubles, of course.
|
The main track if the track changed, it is a replica. If not changed, then copy.
Добавлено через 59 минут
Цитата:
Сообщение от Konstantin
The song is excellent, Okudzhava, of course I do, but I tidy up the topic of feedback on your distraction. Let's not sidetrack the discussion. You are now with Ranzherom pikiruetes on who will gather more evidence that this is not Tselkov, and conversation in the stage waiting for a response from the rubles. Can wait? We need one of these days we get a response.
|
I am not "diving" with
ranzherom «on who will gather more evidence"! That is just the case that the main evidence - that the image itself (falshak). "Durilka" speaks for itself. All that wrote
ranzher «sucked from the finger" to represent me in bad light. It is funny ...
Добавлено через 6 минут
Цитата:
Сообщение от ranzher
But, nevertheless, the pictures carry several formal features, which allow us to definitively say that this is a fake.
But the thing is that the "professional" Tjutchev not say no! In his "analysis" we have not seen any « of the » or «thought».
|
ranzher, it makes no sense to speak of "formal signs", if and so obvious that it FALSHAK. Why should "spread ideas on the tree", if the very first, the main sign of forgery is obvious! Minor signs of that just and include base, nails, paint, frame, etc., etc., are considered only when the image itself claims to authenticity, but there are some doubts.