Museumserver

To be clear for the reader the oneliner , bereft of any sense and reference to the painting as such was about the beautiful signed work of the man with the hat, illustrated above.
The other refutation of Van Tilborgh was more extensive and made for the heirs of the family Ras, who owned the painting since 1911 and wanted to be sure about the inauthenticity of the work as " proven " by Jan van Gelder in 1958.
Attention will also be spend to this negative report of the Van Gogh Museum from 2001, accidentally the same year as the oneliner about the Bust of the man .

Wille be continued

From Van Gogh Museum to Kinnesinnecent Van Gogh Museum:

These museumpeople are horrible and show their contempt for hardworking decent Dutch citizens in a clear and monstrous way. It is no joy to live in a country where a museum has all the rights and the citizens none. Even the judge in Amsterdam in december 2010 showed his evil, corrupt and nasty character .This Museum was first in 1973 a "Rijksmuseum ". What it is now nobody knows anymore. The judge decided that I cannot force the museum to research the two paintings so that I still since 1998 have to live with a dictate of ONE LINE . We are only good to pay taxes in this country and our civil rights are none. Even the right of information diappeared. And who controls these assholes???
Look to the list of people and you understand .
Will be continued,
Philip Silbernberg

The ridiculous research and refutation of la Glaneuse:

Let us now concentrate on the promised socalled research of 1958 by Jan van Gelder of the authentic Vincent van Gogh painting la Glaneuse,as already mentioned before nr. 23 from the first Oeuvre-catalog of Baart De la Faille of 1928 because this is a clear case where the official Vincent van Gogh research went astray, though the Van Gogh Museum does not want to recognise this enormous blunder.
When I bought the painting in 2002 it was accompanied by a lot of documents. Actually I bought in my long career as artdealer thousands of paintings, but never a painting wirh so many documentation.
1) An authentification of the well-known artist and writer and srtcritic Albert Plasschaert from 1926, who was also the salesleader of an auctionhouse called Oldenzeel, an auctionhouse in Rotterdam where almost all the real Van Goghs from the Dutch period where sold by owners, even by Jo Van Gogh-Bongers, the widow of the brother of Vincent van Gogh.
2) A mentioning of the authentification of Prof. Walter van Beselaere from 1937/1938 as written in his famous book "The Dutch period of Vincent van Gogh".
3) A document stating that the painting was from 1905 - 1911 in the hands of the wellknown artdealer Jacob de Vries from Arnhem.
4) A mentioning of the fact that the painting was the eyecatcher of an important Van Gogh-exposition of work from private collectors in 1956
in Amsterdam.
5) A report of 1958 of Jan van Gelder doubting the authenticity of the painting.
6) A report of Louis van Tilborgh from 2000/2001
doubting the authenticity of the painting, still in the hands of the heirs of Pieter Ras , who bought it in 1911 (now exactly 100 years ago ! )
from Jacob de Vries in Arnhem .

The shameless unscientifical and even ridiculous
murder of the only painting representing Sien Hoornik in a clear and distinct way by this bunch of academic liers and arthistorical fools will be our next contribution to this forum.
Lets put it clear that an honest painting cannot be false.
That this club of fools can fool the rest of the world is a miracle as such, but of course also a sign of the distance between the museumworld and
arthistorical university-clique and the people.
Who knows really something about the style and the way of painting of Vincent van Gogh in the Dutch period ?
Few in my opinion , because the fact that a small circle of foolish arthistorical clowns can declare this beautiful and unique treasure as false says a lot about the world and the foolishness of mankind. We must not teach are kids lies and stupid fantasies of incompetent and completely alienated persons but we have to teach our kids truth and real science .Also about art and also about Vincent van Gogh .
Therefore we have to talk business now and we will show the reader how bad the research-department of the Van Gogh Museum is functioning with this particular case.
When i bought the Glaneuse in 2002 at the Dutch auctionhouse De Zwaan I found a lot of documents
with the painting, actually I never got so many documents with a painting in all my live and that is already significant of the extremely importance of this marvelous little painting, so touching because it was painted in the period of the rupture between Vincent and Sien in the summer of 1883. Not long afterwards the master left the Hague after a 18 month during cohabitation with Sien Hoornik, considered as his wife for a long period.
We have to show these documents now to clarify my point of vieuw, build also on many visits to the excellent and independant Vincent van Gogh expert
Benoit Landais,son of the Directeur des Musees de France who lived for about 15 years in a small village near Alkmaar, about half an hour drive from my home. Mister Landais showed me a lot and explained me much about this little painting and alot about the way Vincent worked
stylistically.
Will be continued
Philip

So now the documents delivered with the Glaneuse
( Gleaning Woman ).

Let me join for the sake of clarity now the expertise from Jan van Gelder , made in 1958 .
The other documents are important too but show only the authenticity of the work , considered authentic until this period .
These authentifications are here mentioned quickly
but not shown now :

1) A document stating that dr.Pieter Ras, doctor in Statesciences and gifted painter and friend of Jacob de Vries, bought the Glaneuse of Jacob de Vries Arnhem in 1911 ( 100 years ago !!!).
2) A statement from the family Ras that the painting was in the collection of Jacob de Vries
from 1905-1911.

3) A very nice expertise of Albert Plasschaert
from 1926 stating thet the work was on stylistic
grounds a real Vincent.
albert Plasschaert was a wellknown Dutch painter and publisher about art and also Salesleader from 1908 -1912 of auctionhouse Oldenzeel ,Rotterdam, where the real Vincent-paintings were sold coming from Breda or Johanna Van Gogh- Bonger.

4) Illustration of the page of the first Oeuvre-Catalog of Baart de la Faille from 1928 where the work was mentioned nr.23.

5) Mentioning of the positive expertise of the Belgian Prof. dr. Walter van Beselaere, stating that the work was real and probably representing Sien Hoornik as Glaneuse in 1937 in his book the Dutch period of Vincent Van Gogh (1880 -1885).

6) A photo of the illustration of the work fullpage in the second Oeuvre-Catalog of Baart de la faille, where it was mentioned as nr.27. (F-27)

7) A reproduction of an article in the Rotterdamse Courant / Handelsblad from 1956, where the exposition in Amsterdam , called "Unknown works of Vincent Van Gogh from private collections "was treated and the Glaneuse admired by the writer for its nice light colours
and more or les seen as the eyecatcher of the exposition.
8) A negative report from Jan van Gelder , made for the so called Expertise Instituut from 1958
9) A negative report of the conservator paintings from the Van Gogh Museum, Louis van Tilborgh in 2000/2001.

Will be continued

Let me wish everybody who reads this conribution with interest and an open mind happy X-MAS AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR, except of course the persons and institutions and reprentants of these respondible for this sickening situation and a state of order in which functionaries from the Dutch State are intermingling in a very disturbing and brainwashing way to kill the objective, unbiased and serious-scientific research of works of Vincent from the Dutch period appearing on the market. I will use the opportunity to show some of the works offered me by owners to judge and until now surely from the hand of Vincent or possible because of different reasons and sent from me to the world to judge.
Of course I will continue the line of my story and will deliver a good translation of the negative reports of Prof.dr. Jan van Gelder (1958) and thereafter of dr.Louis van Tilborgh and of course followed with a critical analysis of my person .
a translation of

From knowledge to market to pay desk (Mark Rutte):


I wish everybody who reads this contribution to the science of Vincent van Gogh with an open mind and unbiased interest a HAPPY NEW YEAR AND A NICE CHRISTMAS , except of course all those who are responsible for this sickening situation.
When statefunctionaries in the cultural field are intermingling in the free market of economic and physical distribution of works of Vincent van Gogh and disturb the economic development of that sector of the artmarket of undiscovered works of the master then I wonder if this attitude is positive in function of the missed tax-revenues of the state .
An artmarket would finally develop in a normal way and not under the supervision of a small club of museumpeople who only write negative oneliners,
and act like dictators.
I will also use this oppertunity to send some nice cristmas and new year wishes in the form
of pictures of some works offered me for evaluation and exterpise by owners .
Of course I will also go on with my critical analysis iof the positions of Jan Van Gelder and Louis Van Tilborgh in the following contributions.
So keep reding and the world of new and unknown Vincents is opening.
Cheers ! drs. Philip Silbernberg

AND TO PEOPLE WHO FEEL SYMPAHETIC TO CHANUKAH I WISH THEM THE BEST CHANUCA ! AND LETS SHOW THE LIGHT!!!!
ENLIGHTENMENT !!!
PH.

The preliminary actions of the Vincent van Gogh
arthistorical fools-club responsible for the firing of the Glaneuse was activated in 1956 or surely at last in 1958 by a rumour by an unknown Monsieur XXXX who probably had an important say in the affairs around the expertise of works of the master in that historical period (1956-1958).

This rumour was used to push the owner of the authentic Vincent van Gogh- painting ( Mrs Ras- Lundby ) to offer it for research . The fact was that Mr.XXXX had seen the painting at the exposition of Unknown Works of Vincent van Gogh from private-collections,
Amsterdam, 1956 and that he doubted about the authenticity of the work.
Until now I was not able to detect with scientific certainty who that gentleman could be. The Van Gogh Museum could maybe give an answer to this important arthistorical question .

After this rumour was introduced in the small circle of Vincent-experts or better would-be Vincent-experts Holland and Belgium had to deliver in that historical period
( we have to row with the rows we have, isnotit )the secretary of the Expertise Instituut , a lady with the beautiful French name, Marguerite de la Sabloniere , who had a double function as private secretary of the engineer, ( DE INGENIEUR ! ) sent an invitation to Prof. dr. Jan Van Gelder,University Utrecht, the superbobo of the Dutch in the arthistorical field then .
This document I detected at the RKD library in The Hague and is very interesting for an understanding of the mores of the arthistorical world of that time and also a proof of their lack of objectivity and scientific neutrality.
So in the next contribution I handle with this written proof of the muddy waters
of the official arthistorical VIncent-expertise.
In chronological order i will after that treat the document of the refutation of Van Gelder

Will be continued

Philip Silbernberg