Talk:Art forgery

detection
Terahertz wave forgery detection is a new method that might merit a mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.250.148.7 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 13 May 2007
 * Terahertz wave, forgery detection are both Rdrs to nominally relevant articles. --Jerzy•t 06:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "multiple" :
 * http://www.artcult.com/news.htm Forgeries, a Long History By Adrian Darmon
 * http://www.artcult.com/news.htm
 * I was abt to merge the dupes, but it appears they are not true dupes. Rather, that site seems to keep different things at the same page at different times. For the first, i am replacing the lk above, that is to a (for me) blank page. http://www.artcult.fr/EN/_Forgeries/Fiche/art-0-1011646.htm?lang=EN may be reliable, but splits the cited article into 6 pp with advertising. The one i'm choosing, http://www.museum-security.org/forgeries.htm has a feel that suggests it may be the original, and it's a single page. For the second, about Picasso & quoting him, it's not in the Darman article, and many of
 * 9 for sign "very good forgery" Picasso -wikipedia
 * may be displaying various revisions of WP content, mentioning "encyclopedia", etc. rather than WP, or mentioning no source. For now i am replacing that cite with a fact tag. There are 150-199 revisions, so the first step i'd like to take is a binary search for an edit that added the quote, or Picasso's name adjacent to it; probably there are no earlier revisions with both and no later ones without. If the preceding and following 5 words, and the wording of the Picasso material match any of the remaining external Web sources, it's clearly worth looking at what else matches to see if it becomes clear whether they copied our first version, or we copied the first from them. If we can rule out our being the word-for-word copier, we still need to binary search the subsequent edits, building a table of combinations of the Picasso material and their corresponding preceding and following 5 words keeping the date stamp that starts each, as a clerical aid. If each of the remaining external Web sources matches one of those combinations, we're pretty damn sure we didn't get if from any of them, and we made it up or need a non-Web source. If any of them don't match, it's not worth trying to anticipate how to evaluate the possibility that they derived theirs from us via something other than a verbatim copy from an old WP revision. And probably when you think you've got it all nailed down that we copied someone, you want to look thru the revisions from before the supposed first WP revision with the Picasso material, to be sure there wasn't an earlier version that served as someone else's source, but was later dropped for one or many revisions before similar material came back. Or, if on the other hand, there's a external Web source that isn't reasonably accounted for by our table of combinations, its possible that we went off on a tangent for one or a few revisions, reverted back to the last combination, and missed the tangent's combination in the binary search that built the table of combinations. Well, i'm glad in the abstract that i took the time to organize my thots to that extent. But here's the result of the first binary search:
 * The fact that experts do not always agree on the authenticity of a particular item makes the matter of provenance more complex. Some of the artists have also sometimes accepted the copies of their work - Picasso is attributed to saying that he would sign a very good forgery. Jean Corot painted 700 works but also signed copies made by others in his name.
 * is in the first revision, dated 17:43, 20 June 2004, and note the distinctively odd usage "is attributed to saying" and the lack of the direct quotation (which does appear in the most recent rev'n); the first two ext refs have appeared by the 10:04, 12 July 2004 (6th) revision, and neither of their URLs accounts (at least at present) for the Picasso info. I'm having fun, as you probably have noticed, and intend to continue. --Jerzy•t 09:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Fake or fortune
In episode 3 of Fake or Fortune? presenter Fiona Bruce consults this article several times (first at about 27 minutes in). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Samson: reproductions not forgeries
Edme Sansom, contrary to the statements in this article, did not forge anything. He created reproductions which were signed as Samsons, tho the signature might not always be easy to find. If the ceramics then were sold into the art market as "genuine so-and-sos" that is not on Samson.184.148.67.99 (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Wolfgang Beltracchi
Is there some reason why Wolfgang Beltracchi is not included in the list of well-known forgers? I am aware that he has been the subject of repeated onslaughts to this article by sockpuppets of User:David Adam Kess, so I don't want to add it myself without knowing the background. But it seems to me that he (having a Wikipedia article about him and his forgeries) would be a logical addition to the list. I request someone who is familiar with this article to consider it, and either add this name or not, as you judge best. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Knoedler
Enough testimony, criminal charges and indictments have been published at this point to prove that Knoedler Inc. in New York sold dozens of faked paintings. Perhaps it is time to incluse it in the list of known dealers of forged art?198.58.164.152 (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Art forgery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.artsandantique.net/Articles/Miscellaneous/Featured-Misadventures-in-Collecting.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100829165309/http://www.quantes.nl/uitgeverij.php?aut=4 to http://www.quantes.nl/uitgeverij.php?aut=4
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121015140627/http://www.artcrimeresearch.org/postgraduate-certificate-program/ to http://www.artcrimeresearch.org/postgraduate-certificate-program

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Art forgery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060524052007/http://www.spurlock.uiuc.edu/explorations/research/collecting.pdf to http://www.spurlock.uiuc.edu/explorations/research/collecting.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Since unused photographic paper has a short (2–5 years)
My personal experience, (so WP:OR) is that some paper does indeed have a short life, but others have a surprisingly long life. This is also true for photographic film. Is there a reference for the 2-5 year life? As well as I know it, older papers seem to have longer life than newer ones. Gah4 (talk) 21:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)