4 hours well spent -the algorithm proved wrong: we can have long attention spans when the quality is good. Thanks @perspectiveArts

Plot twist. The owner of the other Gainsborough Gipsies painting is that expert.

So the painting underneath the “barker of bath” that they said would never be able to have an attribution, miraculously has been attributed to an artist that’s more valuable than the barker or Bath effort !!! Are they trying to suggest that the owner removes the Gainsborough!!??? Funnily enough ensuring it never comes back to bite them 🤦🏼‍♂️

I watched a documentary by a forger who said quite a few "fakes" are now considered real and vice versa, officially. Maddening!

so they company that authenticated a possible fake is the one deciding if his is real or not?!?!... what a conflict of interest... i hope this guy doesn't sell it for 1000 because he should get another opinion and it probably is real

What i love about these investigations is the intelligence of non-native English speakers their ability to tell us in our own language what is needed to be known. I dont care how broken that language may be, just that it enables transferring of knowledge. It also helps me identify expressions that my limited exposure can integrate into how i say something.

wow, the authenticated painting was relined and had no labels on the back, but the guys painting has ALL that and yet it's not the original???... geez

Naaaa! I bet it is a Gainsborough! All the evidence and the registration number etc. I would want to see the evidence on the other one. Also I feel, that this one had far more depth than the other so called Gainsborough. I think they didn't want to loose their reputation which is a massive conflict. (😯 Oh and would cost them a lot of money. They would have to somehow buy this one to replace the fake, but what if he didn't want to sell etc. Very awkward. Bet they try to get it on the sly cheaply to save themselves.

Marc’s is the real Gainsborough. No way that non-provenanced canvas with inferior detail is the real one - that’s your Barker of Bath. They just don’t want to admit they got it wrong.

The main thing this series is doing is undermining my faith in art "experts."

The Gainsborough - The Gypsies picture, to me the final verdict can only been given when the two pictures are hung side by side! The scientific evidence, like original 18. Century colours, 18. Century frame and the markings of Christies, who even in the 19. Century made sure they sell an original. Or didn't they? Then the portrait under the picture, all point to an original. The final verdict by the "expert", I wouldn't be impressed too much by it, it's just a "feeling". The uber master faker Wolfgang Beltracchi, and "creator of additional originals", proved how much the "opinion of an expert" are worth. Nothing! One last point, thankfully the filmmakers didn't declare the Gainsborough a fake, but a perfectly fine copy by the Barker of Bath painter, so their verdict. Now, who can give me a sane explanation why this supposedly copy was reframed as the original was reframed? Don't tell me it was Bath. For cheating reasons, no, he just copied pictures as so many other masterful painters did? The pictures were in the possession of rich distinguished persons and part of an art collection. This picture we followed in the documentary was a Christies proven Original. The other "original" doesn't even have its original frame. How can that be? That doesn't make any sense to me. Pictures hang innocently on walls, and get transported every other decade in picture transport boxes, by professional picture transporters, how could a frame break? To fit it into a new outer, smaller picture frame? Is there another reason for reframing? The "art experts" opinion is up against solid scientific evidence. I would go with the later any day! According to the scientific evidence, the shown painted picture is a true Gainsborough!

Ohhh yesss. Pump those 4 hours of quality content into my veins.

Not an art enthusiast by any means, but the investigations, the process, and the knowledge is fascinating.

Fantastic program! Discovered by accident and now I am a follower.

I will bet 10lbs that the leading "expert" on Gainesborough IS the one who purchased the actual fake from Mr Day, and is in no way ever going to denounce his own investment by giving this ACTUAL Gainesborough its merit.

Wow! So, 'The Gypsies' Repast' has been judged to have been by Barker of Bath. How utterly coincidental that B of B *also* reused an earlier portrait canvas of a lady as the foundation for his painted copy in the same manner that Gainsborough did for a similar work during the period in question. I don't believe that. B of B didn't have x-ray technology to know what Gainsborough did and the chances that B of B did it by coincidence must be very remote.

Loved this. I can't stop watching no matter how long a time it takes. The scenery is so lovely. It takes us all over the world from our living rooms. I know I'll never go to Europe but I feel like I got a good view of it here. Yes, I've got my share of illness too like so many other commentators. It might be a good thing somehow because I had the time to devote to watching this in its entirety in a short time.

After watching the entire video, I think Fiona is the perfect work of art!

obviously the third 5 is covered, you can see a tiny piece of the 5

I like when I fall asleep, and this program wakes me up. I was especially captivated by the nuclear wood analysis, and the last piece, that was imaged 20,000 times. I’m going to have to track down the Marieschi, next time I’m in Chicago. The forged seal, the composition of the linen. The layers of the under pigments. Very fascinating, indeed. And I wish more artists would paint with tempera. That medium is translucent lay delightful. And the host, Philip, looks like his whippet. The journeys through the great houses in the UK, is the best part.

Remember, it works AGAINST the auction house to admit something is a fake. Auction houses DO profit from fakes.

I disagree with the art expert that it is not an original Gainsborough especially with the fact that the original was given personally to the man who had a sale and the paper trail with the original back and all the registrations. I totally think this is original.

That Gainsborough is probably real, just like the Giorgio de Chirico is probably real. If there's one thing this show has illustrated, it's that the art workd hates to admit they were wrong.

I hope that fellow pursues another opinion for the Gainsborough.

There's a Sir Thomas Lawrence painting at The New York Metropolitan Museum that absolutely took my breath away. It was if the models could just walk out of the canvas.

If you pay the “authentication experts”, you could get them to validate a Mr. Bean painting.

We were all rooting so hard for the underdog John green in Gainsborough gypsies …it is an unconvincing anticlimax ….I mean if they were going to base their judgement on “bold” strokes…what was all the evidence for?

I have been in bed for 2 days sick and these episodes have completely captivated me

That Giorgio de Chirico is probably real. The foundation was too prideful to admit they were wrong in the 1997 evaluation. That dude made at least twelve still-life paintings containing a walnut that the "experts" of the foundation weren't even aware of. And then the pieces of fruit are clearly all over the place in those different paintings. Yet they conclude it's not a real de Chirico because fruit wasn't in the correct position? Those guys are clowns.

so, the guy at the end who said it wasn't a gainsborough, why?... what evidence disapproved it?... literally mounds of evidence says it IS real... i think this guy is corrupt and bought by that other guy who would've been "wrong" with his authenticated evaluation... why are we trusting either of them

I love how the owners of the painting in the 2nd episode insist it is by Cosway although that would make it moneteraly less valuable. Because they appreciate this wonderful peeoneering painter and because this is what the familial identity is attached to. So so good! And a curious exploration on the nature of attribution.

The portrait of lamb has absolutely beautiful eyes and the complexion is so striking! Good on Philip! Fiona is the perfect picture of a well-educated, well-grounded, modern English woman, such a class act.

Each episode is as if i was watching crime scenes in art. Love your great and ambitious work.

The most fascinating for me by far is the scientific evidence segments - to often the expert have nothing more than their subjective opinions that they think "this is not in the style of", or "not as good as" and seem to revel in giving absolute statements instead of just admitting that they can't be absolutely sure and the trust in their opinions is way to high specially when they can't give objective evidence to their subjective opinions.

Let me see if I’ve got this right. The original Constable had no provenance on the back of the painting and even when it was sold there wasn’t confirmation in the sales information that it definitely was a Constable. Yet this fake has scientific data confirming the age and the back of the painting confirms the history of the painting going back to the early 1800’s. Something seems drastically amiss here. Or maybe the complications of attributing it too Constable is too much of a problem due to the legal implications.

What a croc on the 1st episode... that was 100% a Thomas Gainsborough painting they were investigating. Then the dude at the end just walks in without only proof and declares he "thinks" it's not a Gainsborough because stylistically lol... unbelievable and laughable lol. Poor guy has genuine Thomas Gainsborough, but some snob thinks it's fake lol.

The vibe of tue owners in 3th ep is the most decent vibe I've ever been exposed to

I believe they got it wrong this time.

wow that first painting is hauntingly beautiful

It’s almost indistinguishable from the legit one, it’s just as old and done by a notable painter, and it looks great. To me that makes it just as cool. Maybe not as valuable to a Gainsborough fan or collector, but as a survivor and a work of art it’s not too shabby.

Who’s to say the modern experts on the Gainsborough won’t be proven wrong in a few decades? Obviously, others have been wrong about it in the past? Just the fact that this investigation was don’t and documented will likely make the painting more valuable as time goes on regardless! Imagine someone watching this in a century or two.

An absolutely fascinating investigation! I enjoyed this video so much.

what a wonderful couple of hours spent watching this..thank you..made my day!

The Barker/Gainsborough, please tell me John still owns the painting and hasn't destroyed it! Did Barker paint over others' paintings? Did your expert have an interest in attributing the painting to Barker? How can a painting with the provenance of John's be a fake? Do you think all previous owners were duped? I really think your expert was wrong!

Thank you so very much for sharing!

So happy this was uploaded . Thank you !!!!!!!!!!!!

I fell asleep watching KZfaq and dreamed that a painting I had painted when I was 15 was being discussed as whether it was real or fake. I told the owners I had painted it and given it to Goodwill a long time ago. I don't know if they believed me or was disappointed to know the artist. Then, I woke up to this video. 😂

I want a Barker of Barth painting - an affordable, almost exact replica of a Gainsborough - I’m sold!

I can see why one would go to bath as an artist. The progressive architecture is enough inspiration.

Art "expert" is completely wrong. All the provenance points to it being the true Lost Gainsborough. Not his subjective feelings about the style. What a vain, pretentious, and fickle business.

I don’t know if I’ll sleep tonight 😩👀i can’t stop watching

I loved the bankrupt couple and the happy ending!

I prefer the dahl potrait she is very beautiful...😊

so, gainsbury can't paint over another painting?... mayb they should xray some other gainsbury paintings and see if they have been so... also, they have a letter that he was hard up... i'm not trusting this guy

I believe good old Nick showed he was a good sport after discovering the true value of his painting ...He was disappointed, but it was a gamble to begin with...

Fascinating! Worthy of great institutional support from all aspects of human valuation. I’m blessed its come my way. Praise Thou.

Love this show!

Wow this one was a real roller coaster! Thanks! I love these shows.

It could never be the real deal, phil had worked for another some 20 years before. That painting disappeared and they will not let them see or test it. So maybe that one is false and well they must have paid a fortune, maybe for Barker of Bath.

It is a De Chirico, they didn't want to admit their mistake

I love this show! It shows how one is able to distinguish fake from real! Thank you for your show! Love the intro music as well!

2:02:18 money money, when people spend, things get serious 😉 (super video, my congratulations)

I think it was a Gainsborough!

Why? Why? Why does Miss Fiona still looks so gorgeous after all these years. ❤ to be fair and respectful to who ever painted the last painting was a master no doubt as it would make a great 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle. Easy way to recoup the cost maybe, for the creative at heart. C.a.n.v.a and e.t.s.y is your way forward. Good luck.

Its a shame some countries cannot verify for certain the providence and if a painting is genuine or not. Being sued for being wrong is loosing big money etc. Giving a certificate of providence etc for being a genuine painting and finding out later it isnt is also why some countries wont actually certify etc. The USA doesnt I think.

I love your watercolors for your client, too, and also your house portrait!

Let me guess another 5 under the sticker lol

Good show, another you tube discovery!

Up at 4a.m fascinating!

100 years later... It is A Thomas Gainsborough! Surprice!!

omg this is so frustrating, everything is saying this is real!!!!... why don't they get the painting that was "authenticated" and do all this research on it to disprove it's authentication!!!

That first picture from Mark is Authentic and I do not collect Art. Beautiful....I was wrong

This is just too cool!

Damn that rogue Barker of Bath. Fantastic episode just the same.

I believe in the Peniston Lamb portrait, the third was Lawrence. But, the fourth I strongly believe could be a post mortem Cosway.

Oh I love your channel............................

It IS a beautiful piece! I'd be happy to display and look at it.

My God! It's my dream job!!!! It's soooo exciting!!!

For decades on TV, crime shows have made it look like many dozens of young college types seem to dash off tons of "copies" of masterpieces as easily as today's kids use photoshop. I always thought this was a wild exaggeration that these young slobs could just turn out these fakes at the drop of a hat. One would have to be even better than the masters themselves in order to recreate fakes by scratch. But after seeing this show, I must admit that there are (or were) more fakers around than I thought.

That Gainsborough is the original!! No question.

this why I hate this show. All the evidence points to it being a Gainsborough and yet one dude says its not and all the evidence goes out the window..

Amazing…!

What I’ve come to realize from watching these shows is the art world is really a world of self preservation and the almighty dollar. I’m not surprised but I’m always suspicious/disappointed when everything points to a work of art being authentic but the experts either won’t acknowledge it or completely dismiss it.

What do you reckon Peniston's nickname was?

I think artists should never copy another painting. I get requests to do so, and I always refuse. It's an affront to me. We live in such beauty, no reason to copy.

I love love you both so very much

So, is it attributed to the Baker of Bath? And, One other question not explored is Did the Baker of Bath have the need to paint over anything at all, and especially a Michael Dahl portrait? They explained Bath used a Dark primer. Further Examination of Dahls work to show he did this would be more convincing to me than a last minute critique on the technique being forced rather than Gainsborough's flowing...

Ngl i watch dis shi when i am tired at 12 am💀

1:48:57 is it me? Or does Mary Boyle look like Mr. Bean's great great grandmother?

That "fake" Gainsborough seems so much more legit than that paint-by-number looking one which preceded it, still absurdly sitting confirmed as the original. They say themselves how common those portraits-of-a-lady were, if any painted canvas were to be re-used by a struggling artist, especially considering how many artist were contemptuous of having to waste their talents on boring commissions portraits, they'd certainly choose such "postcard" portraiture to paint over. Also, how sad that a care home is not considered worthy of precious fine art. Every soul on earth deserves a fine life surrounded by beauty and comforts. Imagine if the resources to make art and music and film, and to build things and develop material skills were made available to everyone, how many more glorious things there would be and then the ridiculous concept of manufactured exclusivity could no longer exist. Something would be coveted or cherished based purely on its merits and of course the love and eyes of the beholders.

I bet the royal family saw that painting when it was on exhibit

1:28:57 the corresponding branch of the Family Tree.

There is a video of this woman in a documentry type of video. I will try to find it to send it to you. This woman was infact insane . There was multiple letters and a metal photograph exactly the same . I believe it was a repurpose because he didn't want her picture anymore . .. an artist always runs out of canvas haha

IMHO, and I imagine I'll get hated for saying so, but the woman's portrait under the gypsy landscape is a far more beautiful painting - she is, as my older brother would have said, a "stone fox", a very singular beauty, and much easier on the eyes than the landscape. IMHO :-)

also there only seems to be reference to art that was owned by others which is rather misleading making others to assume artist never owned or kept any of their own work and of course work becoming contraband in war and sieges

The art world is very corrupt.

Honestly I’m also fascinated by the fakers haha imagine someone having the skill and attention to detail to copy an artwork.

I attribute that still life to De Chiraco.

The gainsborough's technique is more of watercolor or oil like texture and illusion. As barker's art is very clear and sharp. Im also an art detective. Plus, barker try to add certain details to his picture such as very thick paint for the hair or the skin of a person. Or very clotted paint for trees and birds. Gainsborough's are very fine and featherlike. Also, he paint pictures mixing hus saliva on it, so try testing the paint if theres dna on it

Beautifull habit