Genuine or Factory produced ?

T-M · September 22nd, 2011, 02:30 AM

Hi

I have been looking around a few charity shops and have seen two pictures by the same artist. They look like oil but on research of the artist name could be worth in the region of £4000 each. Would be nice if they are genuine but I am guessing not. Would be nice if someone could tell me one way or the other.

BTW, artist is David Dipnall

Thanks

Andy

John · September 22nd, 2011, 11:13 AM

His work is a little bit saccharine but it's definitely a cut above the usual mass-produced decorative landscapes. And looking at ArtInfo.com it looks like the works could be worth £500 - £1,000 or so; didn't see any prices approaching £4,000.

Anyway this gallery lists a Dipnall painting and has a close-up of the signature, and it looks the same as the one you posted. I don't know if there's anything else we could do to determine whether they're genuine originals or not.
http://www.kerrmullercollection.com.au/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=23 4%3Ad&id=37%3Adavid-dipnall&Itemid=3

T-M · September 22nd, 2011, 05:00 PM

Thanks for the reply.

What I find confusing is it is not a print, but looking at the image above, has a texture of a painting, but not as course as oil. Sizes are about the same as the ones advertised. I wonder if I should buy one and get it analyzed? Paintings advertised are on canvas, these seem to be on board. I think I will have another look tomorrow.

http://www.premierpaintings.com/dipnall_david.htm

John · September 22nd, 2011, 07:33 PM

Oil paintings don't always have thick brushstrokes. I don't know about Dipnall specifically, but lots of paintings have brushwork so fine and smooth that you can barely make it out. And often what appears to be brushstrokes of paint is the effect of gesso or varnish. I can't tell because of the glare, but that may be what we're seeing in your photo.

T-M · September 23rd, 2011, 05:18 AM

I would say that the brush strokes I can see would suggest a layer of varnish had been applied. If this is the case, could it be original? This would explain why the brush strokes look random.

I am new to art and do not know much about techniques used, but hopefully with the help of the forum become a bit more knowledgable.

Andy

John · September 23rd, 2011, 11:42 AM

I'm not expert and can't even give a layman's opinion unless you post a full picture, but if they have varnish on them I assume they are original oils. They could conceivably be a copy or a forgery, or a "real" painting by some other painter with Dipnall's name written in, but I don't see why anyone would go to the trouble of faking a work by an artist of this level. Plus he's apparently still alive so any forgery would likely be detected and prosecuted.

You may or may not be able to resell the paintings for more than you bought them for. The fact that they are in junk shops suggests it may not be so easy. But Dipnall's paintings seem jolly nice so if you like one then buy it.

T-M · September 23rd, 2011, 01:06 PM

Hi John
Thanks for all the advice.

I have had a good look at the two Dipnall's and have decided that they are reproductions. As mentioned, alot of the images are on canvas, but like you said:

"I don't see why anyone would go to the trouble of faking a work by an artist of this level".

I have asked myself this over again and thought is it possible to have two originals by one artist in the same place. Also the media it is mounted on is like a brown board which is smooth on one side and dimpled on the other.

I can see me pondering on this for a few more days and going back to look again.

John · September 23rd, 2011, 01:54 PM

All the original paintings I have looked at by DD have been oil on canvas, so that's something to think about as well. There are plenty of "giclee" prints available which are printed on paper. You seem to be describing some kind of cardboard or illustration board, so I don't know what that would signify.

T-M · September 23rd, 2011, 06:43 PM

I think the word to describe what the image was on is fibre board. I ended up spending £150 on a victorian fire place

September 26th, 2011, 03:13 AM

If it got varnish on it it's a fake it's a print that all

September 26th, 2011, 01:40 PM

does that mean that all the paintings in all the famous museums are fake?
oh my god - i feel so betrayed!!! i´m actually working at one of those musems and now i will have to quit my job.
it´s so tragic.

October 30th, 2011, 04:52 PM

Hi Andy,
From the Horses mouth! I can tell you that it is not an original, but a varnished print, as a few of your respondents have suggested.
I always paint on stretched canvas, not board of any type, and the impasto of the varnish is a confirmative giveaway.
I always spray varnish my work, which leaves no definitive brush marks over the relatively flat surface of the original work.
Quite a few of my published prints were over varnished in this way, to make them look like originals.
Regrettable, but beyond my control!
Hope you liked the print anyway!
To see recent published works by me, go to Infinartum.com, or for originals go to Forest Galleries, Guildford.
Regards, David Dipnall

September 22nd, 2011, 02:30 AM	#1
T-M Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 14	Genuine or Factory produced ? Hi I have been looking around a few charity shops and have seen two pictures by the same artist. They look like oil but on research of the artist name could be worth in the region of £4000 each. Would be nice if they are genuine but I am guessing not. Would be nice if someone could tell me one way or the other. BTW, artist is David Dipnall Thanks Andy

October 30th, 2011, 04:52 PM	#12
Unregistered Posts: n/a	Dipnall Hi Andy, From the Horses mouth! I can tell you that it is not an original, but a varnished print, as a few of your respondents have suggested. I always paint on stretched canvas, not board of any type, and the impasto of the varnish is a confirmative giveaway. I always spray varnish my work, which leaves no definitive brush marks over the relatively flat surface of the original work. Quite a few of my published prints were over varnished in this way, to make them look like originals. Regrettable, but beyond my control! Hope you liked the print anyway! To see recent published works by me, go to Infinartum.com, or for originals go to Forest Galleries, Guildford. Regards, David Dipnall

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

September 22nd, 2011, 11:13 AM	#2
John John Malyon, host Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 2,404	His work is a little bit saccharine but it's definitely a cut above the usual mass-produced decorative landscapes. And looking at ArtInfo.com it looks like the works could be worth £500 - £1,000 or so; didn't see any prices approaching £4,000. Anyway this gallery lists a Dipnall painting and has a close-up of the signature, and it looks the same as the one you posted. I don't know if there's anything else we could do to determine whether they're genuine originals or not. http://www.kerrmullercollection.com.au/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=23 4%3Ad&id=37%3Adavid-dipnall&Itemid=3

September 22nd, 2011, 05:00 PM	#3
T-M Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 14	Thanks for the reply. What I find confusing is it is not a print, but looking at the image above, has a texture of a painting, but not as course as oil. Sizes are about the same as the ones advertised. I wonder if I should buy one and get it analyzed? Paintings advertised are on canvas, these seem to be on board. I think I will have another look tomorrow. http://www.premierpaintings.com/dipnall_david.htm

September 22nd, 2011, 07:33 PM	#4
John John Malyon, host Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 2,404	Oil paintings don't always have thick brushstrokes. I don't know about Dipnall specifically, but lots of paintings have brushwork so fine and smooth that you can barely make it out. And often what appears to be brushstrokes of paint is the effect of gesso or varnish. I can't tell because of the glare, but that may be what we're seeing in your photo.

September 23rd, 2011, 05:18 AM	#5
T-M Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 14	I would say that the brush strokes I can see would suggest a layer of varnish had been applied. If this is the case, could it be original? This would explain why the brush strokes look random. I am new to art and do not know much about techniques used, but hopefully with the help of the forum become a bit more knowledgable. Andy

September 23rd, 2011, 11:42 AM	#6
John John Malyon, host Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 2,404	I'm not expert and can't even give a layman's opinion unless you post a full picture, but if they have varnish on them I assume they are original oils. They could conceivably be a copy or a forgery, or a "real" painting by some other painter with Dipnall's name written in, but I don't see why anyone would go to the trouble of faking a work by an artist of this level. Plus he's apparently still alive so any forgery would likely be detected and prosecuted. You may or may not be able to resell the paintings for more than you bought them for. The fact that they are in junk shops suggests it may not be so easy. But Dipnall's paintings seem jolly nice so if you like one then buy it.

September 23rd, 2011, 01:06 PM	#7
T-M Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 14	Hi John Thanks for all the advice. I have had a good look at the two Dipnall's and have decided that they are reproductions. As mentioned, alot of the images are on canvas, but like you said: "I don't see why anyone would go to the trouble of faking a work by an artist of this level". I have asked myself this over again and thought is it possible to have two originals by one artist in the same place. Also the media it is mounted on is like a brown board which is smooth on one side and dimpled on the other. I can see me pondering on this for a few more days and going back to look again.

September 23rd, 2011, 01:54 PM	#8
John John Malyon, host Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 2,404	All the original paintings I have looked at by DD have been oil on canvas, so that's something to think about as well. There are plenty of "giclee" prints available which are printed on paper. You seem to be describing some kind of cardboard or illustration board, so I don't know what that would signify.

September 23rd, 2011, 06:43 PM	#9
T-M Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 14	I think the word to describe what the image was on is fibre board. I ended up spending £150 on a victorian fire place

September 26th, 2011, 03:13 AM	#10
Unregistered Posts: n/a	If it got varnish on it it's a fake it's a print that all

September 26th, 2011, 01:40 PM	#11
Unregistered Posts: n/a	does that mean that all the paintings in all the famous museums are fake? oh my god - i feel so betrayed!!! i´m actually working at one of those musems and now i will have to quit my job. it´s so tragic.