Talk:Shaun Greenhalgh

Draftiness
Well, that's the first draft finished. Have at. Aukker (talk) 07:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Photos
Yep, needs photos. (Wish)list in 'Gallery' section is just a reminder. Aukker (talk) 07:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Copied this to photo request page. Hope it doesn't, like, create an awkward loop leading to the destruction of the universe or anything:


 * Shaun Greenhalgh, the forger. He was an eclectic fellow, and did many things including sculptures. You can see links to my wishlist in the articles' gallery or list of known forgeries. I hope not only to get photos of the forgeries themselves, but also, for comparison, what he worked from. In particular, the Amarna Princess. His version was based in part on the Louvre princess and the Penn Museum princess. Other items that went on public display include the Risley Park Lanx (ok, not a sculpture) and The Faun (not by Gauguin). Cheers Aukker (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Known Forgeries
It would be good to see this section expanded into something more than a rudimentary list, with details of chronology, price, etc. Aukker (talk) 07:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Expanded list. Have tried to order list by historical chronology of items. So, not by date at which item was discovered to be a forgery, but taking into account when item was made, authenticated, sold, exhibited, etc. Aukker (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The Brother
Belatedly i discover there's a brother, George Jnr. Bolton mafia? Aukker (talk) 07:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Is this what you mean? It's an early article in the Bolton News Sat April 21, where it's a gang of four with George Jnr aged 52 then 53 in relation to Bolton Council and the Amarna statue Julia Rossi (talk) 05:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, cheers. I saw a similar, peripheral reference in the Telegraph . Perhaps that is all there is to his involvment. I'll wedge it in somewhere. Aukker (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Manual of Style
Havat Manual of Style for wikifying. This is very interesting article, so interesting that suggest some of the details within the reference tags could be put into the article as extra info or html'd to read in the references as notes. Otherwise they only show up on edit page which means the edit page gets clumsy and they are virtually lost. Also suggest no need to enclose every word in quotes if refs are there and they are in a paraphrase anyway. Cheers Julia Rossi (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Youre right re the footnotes, but problem is inserting them into main article is never a one-to-one process and things can get a bit TristramShandyesque. Tried to avoid that. As to enclosure: never intentionally put parapharases in quotes, just quotes! Of course I couldve made mistakes, but hope if anyone is removing them they are checking source. Acutally I am probably definitely guilty of over-quoting. Too close, enslaved by the sources; can't get  the    distance to paraphrase. Which is just an excuse I know; hope it encourages others to be ruthless. Aukker (talk) 07:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. BTW, "motivations" looks okay to me. Look forward to further developments. Julia Rossi (talk) 05:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

By the by.. have reformatted the footnotes. They look a bit like References now (redundant?), but its much better than having two intertwined numbered notation systems! Also, shifted info going dead between the ref-tags out into the article proper. Thanks for the pointers. Aukker (talk) 09:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Money Laundering
Explanation for why i've deleted last para of 'Motivation' section: In the last part of the 'Motivation' section I tried to indicate how much money the Greenhalghs' had, and for how long. The purpose of this was to suggest several possiblities, viz-

(1) that they lived in squalor because the chronology indicated they hadnt had the money long enough to spend it; (so their motivation was somewhat indeterminate) and/or

(2) that they had spent it - there being significantly less than their purported overall gain left in the accounts, ie they were motivated by money.

(1)was semi-speculative really, based on the comment that the Greenhalgh's big success was 'short-lived'(BBC). i was thinking about deleting it altogether anyways.

Then it was all rewritten, incorporating the money laundering, mostly I think to magnify or qualify (2). Only now it sounds like less about 'Motivation' and more about 'Monies involved.' And I think the quote there re Shaun being convicted for concealing and transferring covers it already. And I'm not sure it's possible to say anything about the Greenhalgh's spending habits, so I've deleted redundant end of 'Motivation.' Aukker (talk) 00:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Tate Modern, Bonhams etc
Was the Tate Modern fooled? This is the quote that originally stuck in my mind:

He persuaded experts from some of the country's most famous museums, such as the British Museum and the Tate Modern, as well as auction houses Bonhams, Christie's and Sotheby's, into paying hundreds of thousands of pounds for them. 

Which is explicit, and is all the verification one needs. However, rereading the article I note this occurs later: "Greenhalgh Snr also tried to con the Tate Modern, London, into buying a carved stone head.." which implies otherwise.

So what's the correct response? Shrug. Unless there's another source, i'm inclined to go with an explicit statement of fact rather than an implication. Aukker (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay after this article on Bonhams role.. Despite press articles, its now not clear if these institutions were duped, ever, by the Greenhalghs. Or just not in these cases. Inserted Bonhams counter-indicative quote in Reactions section. Aukker (talk) 01:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he just fell at the hurdle of the carved stone head. :) And congrats on the DYK achievement - so cool! Julia Rossi (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ta. I have added in that the Greenhalghs did successfully gift an Otto Dix to the Tate. Though which exactly, no-one's saying. As per most of Gs "known" forgeries.. Aukker (talk) 00:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Birthdate
Does anyone know the birthdate of Shaun Greenhalgh? I've add an infobox but it's missing a few facts, most notably birthdate and an image.yorkshiresky (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

using comments on articles
There are two references (ref 34 and 62 of ; ref 21 and 29 of my revised ) which refer to comments on online news articles. IMO these comments are not a reliable source, and should be replaced with better sources or the associated statements should be dropped. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Malware warning
On clicking the link at note 32, which is supposed to go to Shaun Greenhalgh's own website, I got a malware warning from Avira, which blocked the page from opening. Maybe this is a false alarm, or maybe it is somehow appropriate!109.150.72.117 (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've removed that link, just in case. Thanks for pointing it out. --Hillbillyholiday talk 14:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Shaun Greenhalgh. 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/20111002133910/http://www.tomflynn.co.uk/fakingit.pdf to http://www.tomflynn.co.uk/fakingit.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120062143/http://www.boltonmuseums.org.uk/news/amarna-princess-statement to http://www.boltonmuseums.org.uk/news/amarna-princess-statement
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120062143/http://www.boltonmuseums.org.uk/news/amarna-princess-statement to http://www.boltonmuseums.org.uk/news/amarna-princess-statement
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002133910/http://www.tomflynn.co.uk/fakingit.pdf to http://www.tomflynn.co.uk/fakingit.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) 08:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Leonardo
I recently read Martin Kemp's book about his long involvement with the work of Leonardo da Vinci. He discusses Shaun Greenhalgh's claim to have faked a Leonardo drawing, and gives seemingly good reasons for rejecting the claim. Out of curiosity I have also just read Greenhalgh's 'memoir', and this gave me some doubts. First, Greenhalgh pours scorn on an unnamed 'Oxford professor' - unmistakably Kemp - who authenticated the drawing. This gives the argument a personal edge which I don't think Kemp mentioned in his own account. In turn, he scorns Greenhalgh on the grounds that a poorly educated young man could not have forged something so sophisticated, despite the evident sophistication of Greenhalgh's other fakes, such as a Gauguin sculpture. Secondly, Kemp ignores an important part of Greenhalgh's claim, which is that the wooden board on which the drawing is mounted was taken from an old school desk. Greenhalgh gives some details about this which ought to be open to verification or refutation.2A00:23C8:7907:4B01:B464:6620:3068:CE32 (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)