Museumserver

LOUIS VAN TILBORH: THE FOOL ON THE HILL:

"Might is right"


Finally i will spend some words to the report of Van Tilborgh :

So we had to recall four elements, of which of course the element of the signature was of main importance as that element was indicated by the third oeuvrecatlog as fundamental for putting the Glaneuse in the section "rejected works".

1) The signature on the Glaneuse :

Van Tilborgh says that the signature " does not equal exactly the one of Vincent van Gogh". This is strange enough a contradiction with the observation of his foolish predecessor Van Gelder who observed the exact opposite by suggesting " that the signature was a painted copy of a signature on one of the drawings from the Etten-period, published in the beginning of the 20.th century from the Hidde Nyland-collection".
An explication for this criptic formulation of Van Tilborgh is easy to understand. As the guy had the painting in front of his nose it was easy
to see that the signature was not added later( UV-light!), so he had to hide this fact and invented another rather ridiculous argument to falsify the original signature. Now it was suddenly "not exactly the same as the signature of Vincent".
Van Tilborgh is a master in inventing things with a unlimited fantasy, mainly caracterised by a complete false observation of facts. Here Van Tilborgh gives the impressiion that Vincent signed always in the same way and that there exists an exact signature of the painter. This is pure nonsense and every schooled graphologist can explain us that a signature is hardly ever the same, but dependent of mood,circumstances, age and other psychological facts.
So we can without any problem dismiss this argument of Van Tilborgh as pure fantasy, nonsense and graphologically incorrect.

2) "The colour-scheme " is different.( Van Tilborgh):

As I already explained before , here Van Tilborgh repeats the incorrect argument and stupid generalisation made by Van Gelder. As I already
remarked before Vincent had in The Hague-period a rather bright palet and was as a pupil of the Hague School and surrounded by a lot of Hague-School painters,influenced by them. As I said he was even a pupil of Anton Mauve who had a very light palet and used bright and light colours.
Also the fact that Vincent was not a painter of the romantic school but just the opposite, meant that he went outside in the nature of The Hague to paint in the summer and was dependent of the light of the sun and the time of the day to paint his colours and as he was a realist and pure colourist he tried indeed to reflect these factors in his painting.
The generalisation of Van Gelder, and in his steps Van Tilborgh is based on the general view that Vincent in the Dutch period should have had a somber and dark palet, which is absolute nonsense, because in the summertime on a nice day, when the sun was shining,as the strong and beautiful cast shadow , a typical Vincent technique, in the painting shows the impressionistic painter can only reproduce the colours offered to him by nature.
In this case ocre for the landscape, dunes, yellow for the wheat the woman carries and blue for the sky.
Also a painting from the summer 1885 in Nuenen of Vincent of a wheatshelf shows more or less the same colour-scheme, yellow, ocre , blue and putting the Glaneuse ( 1883) next to the Wheatshelf(1885) shows a remarkable similarity, even in the way the two works are painted. This painting is in the Kroeller-Moeller Museum in Otterloo and a serious research could prove these facts.

3) 3) "The landscape " I see hills " is not compatible with The Hague, Brabant or Drente ".(Van Tilborgh).
Here Van Tilborgh repeats the wrong observation of Van Gelder again, repeating even the wrong historical evolution of Vincent.
A correct formulation would be The Hague , Drente, Brabant.
This is a very silly argument, because here Van Tilborgh shows again his unlimited gift of fantasy and seeing things no one else can see.
Of course veryone who has eyes to see and knows the dunes in the South of Holland can recognise in this landscape a pure dunelandscape.
Dunes can be rather high and in the surroundings of the Hague were rather steep hilly dunes.
Also the landscape around the Hague from the time of Vincent was different from the time now, because the enormous urbanisation of The Hague has destroyed a lot of dunes and untouched nature, as Vincent remarks even in his letters to Theo from the period. He searched the untouched nature and loved to paint there, as he describes in his letters the roughness and natural beauty of Loosduinen. He looked there for Arenrapers( Glaneurs) litterally described in his letters from the period the Arenraapster ( Glaneuse) was painted. This argument is sickening in its stupidity and incorrectness!No serious Vincent-expert from the past has seen or better "not seen " what Louis Van Tilborgh sees here and Albert Plasschaert was living in the period Vincent painted the Glaneuse and saw no problem in the landscape, nor the scientific working Van Beselaere, who very correct situated the Glaneuse in the surroundings of The Hague!


4) " The Brushstroke is different".

Here Van Tilborgh repeats a wrong observation of Van Gelder again, but does not explain this observation. So it is an opinion, not expained by facts.
Lets go back to Albert Plasschaert who knew the work of Vincent as no other probably as a painter and as the director of Oldenzeel from 1908-1912:

THE NEGATIVE REPORT OF LOUIS VAN TILBORGH from 2000 for the family Ras:

VAN GOGH MUSEUM : FRAUD AND CRIMINAL INTENT ?????

Here I mention that I tried several years ago on the basis of the new scientific findings I collected about la Glaneuse, the pigment-research of Dr.Jaegers, who did the pigment-research for the Dutch work for the Van Gogh Museum in the past too, the new finding of the fingerprint and hair found on the painting under the varnish by the photo by Lumiere Technology in Parisand last but no least the lenghty book of Benoit Landais, explaining that the Glaneuse must be authentic on objective scientific grounds, to invite the research-department of the museum to look with fresh eyes and unbiased and objective again to the Glaneuse.As they claim that their expertise
is limited to the person they make the expertise for I supposed that they would be so kind to
give an expertise with a debate about the new scientific findings stipulated here above on several occasions. This was however a miscalculation because the Museum was so brutal to deny me this right and an answer was given that they had researched the painting already in 2000 and that they had nothing to add to this expertise. The same reply I got in the same period after my kind and civic request for a serious research of the beautuful painting of the Bust of a man, a painting Landais and I could now even , after long time guessing, situate on the grounds of the colour-scheme in the Nuenen-period and even identify as a painting Vincent described in one of his letters from 1884 as the missing Bust of a Shepherd . Also this right was denied to me and the same argumentation was given, referening to the oneliner I showed above.Here my doubt about the legality of the judgements of the Van Gogh Museum changed in anger and also in despair. All the financial investments I had done to give a clear and objective image of the fact that they must be wrong and the yearslong troubles and time and energy to do this had been in vain and here I began even to feel discriminated, as a Jewish citizen, the fact that I was born in this country was a miracle , because my father had been in a concentrationcamp , was robbed of all his possesions and was destined to be wiped out in Auschwitz , but was saved for this destiny bu a miracle. An example where they did a real research, though not convincing in the words of the owner Bouwe Jans, was for the Diggers of Bouwe Jans, not even an artexpert and a painting carryuing a false signature. Why they do not help me and research the Bust of a Shepherd, as this painting has all the qualities to be a beuatiful Vincent, painted clearly an i9th,century canvas and carrying an authetic and beautiful Vincent -signature ??? Here the feeling of discrimination is not without cause I guess!
In 1944 my father was in a razzia in Belgium in a bus taken by the Belgian fascists and he was afraid that they would find out about his false papers, as he lived under a false name in Belgium, Liege,(Luik) with my mother and three children from which two of the brother of my father called Philip Silbernberg too,who died with his young wife in Poland and was betrayed and one daughter ,my sister Lyda,born in 1941.
He had to go out to search for food and it was on one of these foodexcursions that he was taken.
In panic he ran away and they shot my father in the leg, so that he lost his knee cap , and was transported to the concentrationcamp, called Fort Breemdonk in Mechelen (Malines) . He was destined to go to Auschwitz in a group of 43 Jewish men, but was the only one not transported because he was too ill. The fact that short afterwards Belgium was freed from the Nazis saved the life of my father and from the men sent to Auschwitz no one came back.
So to be confronted with a creature as Louis Van Tilborgh who , as I remarked, even wrote in apositive way about the national-socialistic artist Pyke Koch, a viruelent nazi, and called a "charming artist" in the words of Van Tilborgh ,and made this Nazi-artis " Hoffaehig" in the culture of this country, to use a nice German word , changed my anger into rage.
In what country do I live and why do they treat me so inhumane and so nasty and so villain were the questions passing my mind. Why I have no right of information, why they treat me so bad , as I am after all an expert in artevaluation and as such at least a collegue of Van tilborgh and working in the same field.
Not long ago I called the Van Gogh Museum a criminal organisation, because of my anger and the way they insult me by denying me the right
of information and of a serious research. Not long afterwards I got a letter from their lawyer
in which they threatened to sew me when I would repeat this alligation. This letter I can of course show here. It was evidently not good for their good name, but when they have a good name it is only because they use and manipulate the stupid and ingnorant massmedia in this sense, because this good name would never have existed when the media would confront them in acritical way about the stupid and inintelligeable expertises they make for citizens who find work of Vincent Van Gogh.

Will be continued
Philip Silbernberg

The report of Louis Van tilborgh from 2000:
"the fool on the hill":


Lets go on now with the promised talk about the dry and inintelligeable and even foolish report of Van Tilborgh for the heirs of the family Ras.
First of all it is already stinking that Van Tilborgh accepts the report of Van Gelder without any correction or comment. As I showed above this report is completely wrong and bad and unscientific. When one cannot even distinguish an authentic signature from a false one , when one talks about the lacking of a preliminary drawing for a painting of an impressionist who paints directly outside and who makes his preliminary scetch under the painting as is readable even in the letters of Vincent to Theo, when one cannot even name the colours correctly, when one denies a painter to paint bright colours as Vincent had to do as the sun was shining, visible in the nice , very impressive and perfectly painted drop shadow,when one denies the only model Vincent had its specific traits, when one simplifies the palette of the painters in the eighties of the 19.th century, when one cannot not even give the correct data about the Vincent-experts of the past,when one does not understand a diluted signature and so on and so on, then one has to wonder why Van Tilborgh accepts all the rubbish and nonsense of Jan van Gelder.
As the report is even mainly repeating the wrong observations of Van Gelder, we agree with Landais that we can hardly speak in this cae of an original research, but more of a extremely simpliflied and shortened repetition of the wrong observations of Van Gelder.

1) The colour-scheme:

The argument of the colour-scheme of Van Gelder is repeated by Van Tilborgh and absolutely wrong.
As I already commented this wrong observation before at the analysis of the report of Van Gelder I will not talk too long here about it .
Put the wheatshelves, painted by Vincent in the summer in Nuenen next to the Glaneuse and we see the same colour-scheme.
I will try to show the reader this observation by showing the painting, now in the Kroeller- Moeller Museum in Otterloo!

2) "We see hills"( Van Tilborgh)and cannot place it in The Hague, Brabant or Drente:

Here we even find a new element, not findable in the expertise of no other Vincent-expert from the past and not even by Van Gelder. The wrong historical and chronological order he exactly copies from the report of Van Gelder. The correct order should be The Hague, Drente, Brabant. Here van Tilborgh shows his creativity in phantasising and inventing elements , but in the wrong way.
Who knows a little bit the dunesector in the neigbourhood of the Hague will agree with me that the landscape shown by Vincent is a pure dunelandscape and not a mountainlandscape as Van Tilborgh told the judge in 2010 , even exagerating this invented element and changing hills in mountains. So we have to believe this nonsense and situate the painting in the opinion of Van Tilborgh in the alps in Austria or Switzerland as I remarked, smiling about so much stupidity during the case in the room of the judge in december 2010.
Strange enough the experts of the past, who knew also the Dutch landscape, saw no inconvenience in putting the work in The Hague, as the veru scientific working Van Beselaere who visited The Hague for his research and knew also Bremmer, another Vincent-expert avant la lettre.
Also the Vincent-expert, who was one of the main figures introducing Vincent in the Dutch culture, Albert Plasschaert, born in 1866(!) saw no prolem in situating the Glaneuse in Holland and neither even De La Faille saw a problem here.
In our opinion this is a complete wrong observation of Van Tilborgh too, like the stupid generalisation about the colour-scheme,which is completely incorrect too as i showed here above.
Millet had a bright palette, Anto Mauve did, Van der Weele did and so we see no problem in accepting the bright sunny landscape as a real Vincent. The dichotomy, first somber in Holland then light in France is an incorrect and sullen simplification and only invented to fool the ignorant masses.
In the neigbourhood of the Hague even now exist rather high and steep dunes and for Dutch circomstances high points compared with the Amsterdam level (AP).
Also we have to acept that the urbanisation destroyed a lot of dunes near The Hague at the end of the 19-th century and we can even read in the letters of Vincent of that period how much he liked for example the neighbourhood of Loosduinen, where in his time the landscape was still pure and unspoiled by the upcoming urbanisation of the Hague.
He even writes in his letters to Theo that he surely wants to paint a painting with model there
in that beautiful nature near Loosduinen in the summer of 1883 and we suppose that he realised this plan by painting Sien Hoornik, his only sure model, as "arenraapster"(gleaning woman) , a project he also named in these period in the summer of 1883 as he writes to Theo how much he longs for arenrapers(Glaneurs, Glaneuses)to paint.
It is a typicle Vincent-subject and very touching to see how nice Vincent shows this by the one ear of wheat in the hand of the Glaneuse, showing his realisation of a theme of Millet and showing also the sympathy Vincent felt with the poor people, active to gather a meal by picking the last remains of the wheat-harvest.

will be continued

Philip Silbernberg

3) "The signature is not exactly the one of Vincent" :

Here we observe a strange contradiction with the opinion of van Gelder and have to wonder why he suddenly dares to contradict the observation of the professor, though he claims to agree with his report completely.
I guess that in one or another way also Van Tilborgh observed the authenticity of the signature as this is easily seeable by using the UV-lamp and to save the professor and hide the mistake of Van Gelder suddenly the signature , which was in the words of Van Gelder a copy of a signature on a drawing of Vincent from the Etten-period of the collection of Hidde Nyland becomes a signature in the words of Van Tilborgh "not exactly like the one of Vincent". As Landais already observes in his book about the Glaneuse
Van Tilborgh suggests here that there is a n exact signature of Vincent, a graphologically complete wrong suggestion , because no signature is always the same, and no human being signs always exactly equal and like everybody who is human, a signature depends of the mood, the pahse in which the human being is situated and so on and so on.
Again a rubbish argument and illogical, as all the arguments of Van Tilborgh to dismiss the authenticity of the Glaneuse are.

4 ) The touch is not of Vincent.
Also this argument is borrowed of the report of Van Gelder and is only an opinion, like the one of Van Gelder, without further explication.
A Vincent-expert who minitiously studied the touch of Vincent, Maurits van Dantzig was very explicite and Landais applied his vision on this painting.
We will show here important elements taken from the correct and objective observations of Maurits van Dantzig about the "hand of Vincent" to prove that this painting is stylistically a pure Vincent , because the utterances of Van Tilborgh are too poor and not defined an without a concrete definition of the terms, a habit of Van Tilborgh, it is also impossible to falsify these utterances.
In the book about the Glaneuse Landais gives a
lot of important Vincent-elements borrowed from Van Dantzig. In a next contribution we will use these elements and talk a bit about them.

will be continued
Philip Silbernberg

A TEMPORARY CONCLUSION :

Before we go on with the promised wonderful and very scientific expertise of Benoit Landais , who is in my humble opinion as officially recognised licenced valuer of paintings and very experienced dealer in Dutch art
it is time to make a temporary conclusion

We tried in the text above explain from one examplary example, in this case the painting called "la Glaneuse", how the attitude of the Van Gogh Museum is very unfrienly towards peaple who find paintings of vincent van Gogh

A TEMPORARY CONCLUSION: NO SUSTAINABLE RESEARCH BY
THe Van GOGH MUSEUM

Before I go on with the other side of the coin, the expertise of Benoit Landais, a Vincent van Gogh expert who in my opinion is working in a way I can approve and even admire, a way of working completely opposite to the superficial, voluntaristic and unsientific way of working of the socalled experts of the Van Gogh Museum, I think it is necessary here to give a temporary conclusion of what has been discussed here above.
We have to ask ourselves what kind of expert we need to offer the people who find works signed Vincent, works unsigned but eventually attributable to Vincent, and works distinctly
determinable as concient falsifications, a convincing and also objective, valuefree expertise based on the scientific truth .
This is important because what lacks in the expertise of the Van Gogh Museum is sustainability.Thats why people like me and Mr.Head, Bouwe Jans and numerous others stay unconvinced and the works always come back to the experts of the Van Gogh Museum .
As my report above of the state of affairs is proving in a distinct way, the Van Gogh Museum gives no sustainable expertises. An expertise must be guaranteed for the far future and must be done in a scientific way, based on the fact that a painting has two sides, a front side and a backside. As I pointed out hereabove the backside is of extreme importance for a sustainable evaluation and expertise of a painting of Vincent van Gogh from the Dutch period.
As the Van Gogh Museum completely neglects the study of the backside of a painting and in doing so systematically violates and even falsifies the specific laws of the historical distribution of the Dutch work of Vincent van Gogh on the free market( since 1902),as explained here above, sustainabality is impossible.
As is shown with my examples of the Bust of a Shepherd , the Glaneuse and the stillife of Mr.Michael Head , the owner of an original Vincent signed painting, distinctly painted on 19th. century canvas and carrying a honest and real authentic Vincent-signature cannot live with the way the Van Gogh Museum treat them, a treatment violating the most fundamental democratic human rights: the right of dialogue and the right of information. It is not only with the owners of possible work of Vincent van Gogh that the Van Gogh Museum is behaving in this indecent way but even with collegue Vincent-experts in the society, knowledgeable people who are already decennia active as Vincent-expert and who dedicate their life even to the study of the work of Vincent and do their best to give expertises of paintings of the master in a honest , strictly scientific and objective way, but not belonging to the small club of museumpeople and university professors, which form the microcosmos of the official Vincent van Gogh -expertise, as the unworthy treatment of the fantastic Vincent van Gogh-expert Benoit Landais
is proving. I witnessed from a close distance this provincialistic , narrow-minded and brutal attitude towards the experts who are concidered as ennemies , because they have an independent and contrary and often even better view on the work of Vincent van Gogh.
In fact it was Dr. Maurits van Dantzig himself who explained in his introduction to the book " Vincent, a new method of identifying the artist and his work and of unmasking the forger and his products ? ",from the fifties,publisher Keesing, Amsterdam , clearly what kind of expert we need and what kind of expert we do NOT need!!!
It is a pity that just the kind of expert, despised by Dr.Van Dantzig , has won the struggle for the right to expertise the work of Vincent van Gogh officially, experts appointed by the Dutch State and showing all the bad characteristics
Maurits Van Dantzig warned for, like Louis van Tilborgh, Van Heugten, the expert srwings of the Van Gogh Museum, etc.
I a next contribution we will show this vision of Maurits Van Dantzig.

Will be continued,

Philip Silbernberg

THE PICTOLOGY OF Dr. MAURITS VAN DANTZIG:

What kind of expert we need ? :

In the struggle for the right to be called the best Vincent expert after the second World War one person shows a shining light because of the
subtleness and keenness of observation and the serious way he studies the object, in this case the way of painting of Vincent and that is Maurits van Dantzig.
In the intro to the application of his method to the work of Vincent he writes:

"Experience has shown that there are some who oppose the idea of analysing a work of art into a number of elements or characteristic features.They say that this vitiates artistic emotion, since feeling is eliminated and replaced by impassive brain-work. But this assertion is confined to those who have no first-hand knowledge of analytical work, for experience shows that those who have such knowledge think otherwise. For feeling is only very slightly called into play if one looks at something without observing it closely,i.e.if one observes without realizing what one has observed. What is the difference between this method of observation and the other?
Anyone who passes judgement "at first sight", "intuitively", "with the eye of a connoiseur", or whatever one may choose to call it - but in any case without an exact realization
of what has been observed - is content with no more than a superficial view of the work as a whole.This superficial view gives rise to emotions which colour the assessment of the work and pronounce it good or bad. In contrast to the results of this kind of observation, there is another type of synoptic image which arises as the synthesis of consciously analysed elements."

As I said before the way Van Tilborgh is looking
to works offered by citizens for research is in general limited to a oneliner or at most to some superficial categories, but surely the way of observing Van Dantzig and also Landais despise and me too. It is this superficial way of observing which is introduced in the official modern Vincent van Gogh expertise as the dominant
method and I agree with van dantzig that that is absolutely wrong.
Will be conntinued

Philip Silbernberg

THE REPORT OF BENOIT LANDAIS: AN OBJECTIVE AND VERY SCIENTIFIC MODERN STUDY EXPLAINING WHY THE GLANEUSE MUST BE AUTHENTIC AND 100% SURELY A REAL VINCENT VAN GOGH:

Lets now forget about the negative rubbish of the socalled "connoiseurs" of the Van Gogh Museum, and see how a modern independent Vincent van Gogh scolar and expert is doing his job.
I met the gentleman, a very nice and open personality, with a good working brain and a keen intelligence, complete opposite to the dull and sullen experts of the Van Gogh Museum, in 2003.
As I was not content with the expertises of Van Gelder and Van Tilborgh I looked for other experts and had made a list of people who could maybe inform me about the odd fact that the Glaneuse carried an authentic signature Vincent, and as far as I could see this signature could only be of Vincent van Gogh. The same fact I had already observed with the Bust of a Man with hat and beard.
Especially about the Glaneuse I was interested to know the opinions of people in the field and contacted for example Johan Van der Wolk, ex- Vincent- expert of the Van Gogh Museum and Kroeller Moeller Museum. He told me HE DID NOT WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE SUBJECT!!!
Also I phoned Walter Feilchenfeldt from the duo Dorn/Feilchenfeldt who was in Holland, but HE SAID THAT HE DID NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT though his partner Dorn had written a booklet about The Hague-period of Vincent long time ago.
As far as I know they are specialised in research of the provenance of the paintings of Vincent.
Also I had a disappointing chat with T.Meedendorp who told me he knew the painting and agreed completely with the official version that the work was false , though I told him that the signature was authentic and not false. This guy was working at the Kroeller-Moeller Museum too and now even at the Van Gogh Museum.
Finally I met Landais and a new world opened for me, the world of the ïndependent Vincent van Gogh
experts. A real eyeopener. Here was finally someone who like me looked careful and did not make a judgement on superficial and even wrong
suppostions.

Will be continued

Philip Silbernberg

THE REPORT OF BENOIT LANDAIS( continued):

I never forget the astonishing experience of our first meeting. I came in West-Graftdijk, a small village near Alkmaar on a beautiful day in the autumn of 2003 and arrived in the early afternoon and left the Vincentesque dwelling of Landais deep in the night. It was so different from the people I met at Sothebys, Christies and the Van Gogh Museum and the ICN( Institute Collectie Nederland),who have all one specific trait in common, namely to be extremely snobbish and badly informed about Vincent van Gogh or too mean to acknowledge the authenticity of these two beautiful paintings, so honest and original and with no examples in the Vincent-litterature.
It took no long time for Landais to congratulate me with both paintings and surely authentic Vincent-paintings,He told me that i was the first expert finding original work of the master and I got a real happy feeling after all the sufferings I had with Sothebys, Christies and The Van Gogh Museum and later on with the ICN, which contact I will elucidate later on.
Landais began directly with a lot of pleasure and enthusiasm to make pictures of the two paintings
and explained me afterwards in a very revealing way why my two paintings had to be authentic.
Not long afterwards he surprised me with a lengthy report about the Glaneuse, a report which contrasted that much with the reports of Van Gelder and Van Tilborgh that I was very surprised
in a positive way. On my request Landais made a simmilar report sometime later about the Bust of the Man.
In this report about the Glaneuse, a report written in his native language, French, Landais explained several crucial elements leading to his absolute certainty that the Glaneuse had to be a real Vincent van Gogh.
The beginning of his report he explains what is wrong with the reports of Jan Van Gelder and Louis Van Tilborgh.
What I wrote above about these reports is mainly based on his observations, though not completely, because I also begin to form my own vision about
the methodological problems, based on my own study and thinking.
The difference is that Landais as a specialist in Vincent van Gogh goes much deeper in certain details as for example the signature and the specific stylistic characteristics and the ideological message of the paintings, based on his decennialong specialised experience in evaluating and expertising paintings, attributable to Vincent, shown to him by hundreds of people. Interesting to mention here though is the fact that the clash between a real Vincent-expert and a real experienced general expert in Dutch art-evaluation ,as my person , gives a nice combination of knowledge, as I know of course better the Dutch school of the second half of the 19th. century, with my great experience as artdealer and artexpert in observing thousands and thousands of paintings of hundreds of Dutch painters working in that period, an experience based on looking carefully at paintings offered for sale by the many auctionhouses this country has.
Anyway I learned a hell of a lot of Benoit Landais, and I realise more and more that he must be right, though the official Vincent-expertise thinks differently about these paintings.
Also I learned the reality and deep meaning of the message shown above from Maurits van Dantzig
about the two kinds of experts, the careful and the careless ones.
will be continued
Philip Silbernberg

THE REPORT OF LANDAIS:

I apologise for the fact of the delay in continuing the show of tis report because I wait for goog pictures of important details, which will be sent to me by Landais soon.
As soon as they are in I go on.

Philip Silbernberg