Help, I've Spent £165,000 On A Fake Painting! | Fake Or Fortune

Patricia is just salty that her opinion is wrong and that her book is wrong.

I don't understand how a decision this important is up to just one person.

Based on the evidence that was presented, I see no doubt that painting was done by Nicholson. What a travesty of justice for the owner!

Patricia just ruined her reputation and “expert” status in my book.

Patricia Reed doesn’t want to update her opinion to “save face” however ironically it’s her choice not to admit an error that will do exactly what she’s trying to avoid. She had the perfect excuse to do the honourable thing: new and convincing evidence that she did not have when she made her catalogue. Courts are willing to absolve a wrongly committed person when new evidence of innocence arises. To steadfastly hold otherwise in the face of such convincing new evidence is nothing short of dishonourable!

I think this shows definitely going to have a negative impact on Patricia's career.

The most important thing an art expert has, is their reputation -- anything that puts that in question is anathema. This "Expert" was simply protecting her reputation, rather than admit the truth.

Anyone else notice how Lyn’s painting looks MUCH more like Nicholson’s other still life’s in his catalog than the one in Canada? Which, if you want my honest opinion, looked like a child’s interpretation of Lyn’s painting! Despite the mountain of research to support Lyn’s painting, it was clear to me the author of the “official” resonea declining to hand deliver her decision, was proof she was not going to admit on television that she was in anyway in error. Her ego just makes her look like an idiot. Also, it’s simply mind numbing wrapping my head around Nicholson’s amazing technique at conveying in oils, the photographic realism of textured glass, glazed ceramic and even polished silver in his works. Well, If I had the money, I’d be proud to have Lyn’s “Glass Jar” hanging on my wall! 😉

Well, I think Patricia Reed need to explain why Nicholson would allow somebody to paint a very good, exceptionally mimicked in style and technique, "forgery"/copy in his studio, with his paints, on one of his boards, under his supervision, and then write things on the back of it, including the title. Just saying "it's possible" and argue she "feels", is ultimately going to drag her own name in the mud. If not now, then later. And not because she was wrong - that's nothing, of course anyone can be wrong -, but because she let personal pride bias her to give a false statement. What kind of "expertise" is that? People will ask that question. But, as the saying goes: Art is not a scam. But the art market is.

Any serious collector who sees this show would be convicted of the painting’s authenticity, so it’s not just worth a few hundred pounds. Congratulations on one of the best shows in the series!

The "genuine" painting looks like a student did it.....this lady's painting looks like it's a finished peice of work by a proper artist. I can't believe they denied it! Wow

That fact that she declined the invitation to say in person that she still doesn't think this painting is authentic speaks volumes. It says to me that she won't accept that she was wrong and her pride is worth preserving rather than preserving and progressing the very work she's dedicated her life to. So sad smh

Sounds like Patricia doesnt want to be wrong or admit she made a mistake. The paint on the picture came from his box and writing on back is by his hand, but someone else painted it? Preposterous. Plus the initial over the thumb print was his. Why would he sign a student's work? That would make Nickolson the forger?

I find it disgusting that 1 “ expert” can deny a piece of art despite scientific evidence. It seems that the art world, only goes on feelings and can ignore actual provable fact on a single persons whim. It makes me think that the “expert’s” pride and fear of losing status and exclusivity are the real driver in their decision making. In the case the early “ expert” ( the aunt) she thought it was genuine and she knew the artist. The present day “expert “ won’t budge because of her pride but she can be replaced as the final arbiter. I would imagine there are people who are willing to accept the painting as real based on the evidence and will look at it as an investment. There might be additional interest because of the “ lost” freesia painting underneath. The expert is wrong in this case. She may think she is saving her career but in this case she may actually ruining it instead.

Patricia is wrong and didn't want to admit it-ego kills.

Nah, Patricia is just upset that she's wrong and she can't admit it.

I am an artist. After seeing the evidence, I think the work is authentic. It is likely that the artist was experimenting by painting the still life twice, using his current expressive style vs abstracting it by flattening the objects in the still life. All artists are affected by new trends and the painting styles of their contemporaries. It causes them to push the edges of their style and compare the outcome. Its possible it’s a demonstration of how the same still life could be painted to completely different effect. Artists do this all the time. I hope they keep looking for more evidence… and enjoy the painting.

Why on earth didn't the "art detectives" journalist Fiona Bruce and Philip Mould put the so called Nicholson "expert" Patricia Reed (author of the catalogue raisonné of William Nicholson) under the microscope? Can anyone auto-declare oneself an expert and write a catalogue raisonné? Reed said the plates in the painting were 'boringly painted' (!) I have been painting for 50+ years and have taught painting. One of the things that struck me immediately about this painting was how beautifully and economically the plates had been painted. In this episode the The Glass Jug and the Canadian painting are so obviously genuine and the 'expert', so obviously a fake...

My suggestion - put the piece up for auction by Sotheby's WITH ALL THE EVIDENCE....and let the market decide. I saw the glint in the Ottawa curator's eyes...HE wanted THAT painting....bad. I ought to know.....I collect art and deal in it. I could tell by his mannerisms.....he wanted it.

Patricia’s verdict is very questionable I say… after so much proof presented to her maybe Patricia is not willing to admit… suspicious to me why she wouldn’t come in person?