A painting bought for £165,000 and attributed to William Nicholson has failed to convince the artist’s leading expert of its authenticity and been rejected as close to worthless.
The still life of a glass jug and pears was rejected by the leading authority on Nicholson, Patricia Reed, and left out of the artist’s latest catalogue raisonne – the official list of all his known works.
The piece was examined on BBC One’s Fake Or Fortune? but a thorough forensic case was not enough to persuade Reed that the painting is genuine.
The programme obtained new evidence that scientifically linked the painting to Nicholson’s very own paint box which is kept in his grandson’s house, and a handwriting expert also confirmed that writing on the back of the painting was very likely to have been written by Nicholson himself.
Presenter Fiona Bruce met reformed art forger John Myatt to ask him if he had ever faked a Nicholson, with Myatt revealing that he had, but not this painting.
The programme found that while there are physical aspects to the painting that link it to Nicholson, there is not enough direct evidence to prove that he executed the work himself.
It has been suggested that because there was a group of amateur painters who were tutored individually by Nicholson in his studio and elsewhere during the 1930s, known as the “Sunday painters”, the painting could have been executed by one of them, under his supervision.
One of Nicholson’s most famous tutees in this group was Winston Churchill.
Bruce said: “I’m genuinely shocked by that verdict. I didn’t expect it. I thought the case was so strong.”
Fake Or Fortune? is on BBC One on Sundays at 9pm.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel