Meister,
Let me summarize, on the topic.
I fully agree with the fact that the bulk of Antiquaries exactly as experts, people are decent and do not in any way would not hurt us here, or detract from their dignity. I am confident that people gather at the forum ready to openly discuss any issues and problems.
Читать дальше...
Once you analyze the specified example, and I hope to close this topic. I propose to move to actual examples. You are constantly confused with the history of art technical and technological analysis. If we have the technology in a subject, and it showed that the product of 50-ies of the 20 century, and the author died in the 30's, art historians, even recognized throughout the world, if it is, of course, is of sound mind, to argue meaningless. Art criticism is subjective, and the technology is based on scientifically proven facts, is the instrument and the person who determines the composition of matter, there is scientific data on the synthesis and output in the production of a substance. As an art critic can argue with that? We had several precedents in which we disagreed with Western experts or foundations. And several times we double-checking in Western laboratories, once in the Russian Museum, and once in the laboratory of Ministry of Internal Affairs. Experts of all organizations to confirm our results. I'm talking about conflict situations. In working order, we certainly double-checking every third :-)
Once, on a very expensive work, it was the opposite view of Western experts and iron provenance. We ourselves are amazed that we shall not be borne at the time (the client asked for a selective few sheets from the album). At first thought it was a very deep restoration, but then, everything was decided by itself. It turned out that in the album, which was handed over to us, original works only on the first three pages, the rest were craftsmen dorisovany later, after his death, when the album came out of the family. But the provenance, it is passed on the album, who would have thought that he was not dorisovan author, and later took advantage of this, dorisovav, very professionally for another 10 sheets :-)
Second time, brought the provenance and the conclusion of a certain stock. Work with us flying on all components. Oil-synthetics (age about 10 years), pigments - after 36 years. Later, when dissatisfied customers turned to the fund, and sent a photograph, the fund confirmed the work and met with us suing, but then apparently made the request, withdrew his claim. We asked representatives of ... What is the reason? It turned out that found the original. He safely stored in one of the European collections, and they brought us to the forgery, but the identity of a stock issued under the original.
And each time it was very difficult to convince the owners, of course, they did not believe that this can happen is with their work, despite the documents and provenance.
Regarding our sinlessness, I fully agree with Mr-y, wrong everything. Do not mistake only someone who does nothing. We have over five years, several times wrong, wrong three times in the art, and twice wrong technologists. We technologists, once was a bug in report generation, purely administrative and once on the road (a lot of work, it was not possible to bring it to the laboratory) it was not possible to make the UV and X-ray, the work was greatly zarestavrirovana, and all samples were in the restoration . Then we had to carry on the export of all equipment and to take thin sections, because the work was not "living" space. We are lucky to have clients in most cases there was no problem, and they did not use this case and did not try to take advantage of our mistake, for which they bow. In one of the same cases, we will refund the customer the cost of transportation and reekspertizoy. That was our mistake but, unfortunately, it was impossible to provide an art historian has found the objective historical data and changed his mind.