> The visit at the Van Gogh Museum, June 16th 2003

As agreed we check in at the reception at 1100 AM. Mr. LvT, head curator paintings, picks us up from the waiting room. He takes us to the basement of the Museum.
Arriving there I ask him why he rejected the painting. The answer is "on basis of the knowledge they have about the oeuvre of Van Gogh".
I ask him whether they are able to see that from foto's, the answer is positive. They have a lot of experience and have seen a lot of paintings from Van Gogh, I should accept that from him......
After seeing the foto's he saw no reason to believe the painting was by Van Gogh.

After unpacking the painting I ask him whether it's allright for me to make notes. He reacts surprised like "notes of what?". I reply that I ask him for in case he is going to say things about the painting.....

First he checks the back of the painting and especially the label. I tell him there's a good foto of the label on my website, something he doesn't seem to know. He seems surprised about the text "Stoom Spiegel en Lijstenfabriek".

Next he examines the front of the painting.
He concludes a hut is depicted.
He continues by saying that the brushstrokes don't look like Van Gogh's. Those are namely wide and clearly visible, much different from this painting.........

He takes us to the exhibition room to show us "Farm with stacks of Peat" (F22, JH421).
Here he points at the wide brushstrokes on the foreground, the green field. (This painting indeed shows some wide brushstrokes, the rest of the painting shows - in my opinion - similar brushstrokes as our painting).

The left contour of the roof is painted the same weird way as in our painting. I draw his attention to this. He reacts by telling something about the way a painting is set-up and that it is normal to paint it like this.........

I tell him that I see absolutley no difference between the sky in this painting and the sky in our painting. He seems to agree on this by saying that it is "a very simple flat sky", without going deeper into this.

Next I walk to "Cottages" (F17, JH395). I point out that the vague stacks/huts as painted in Cottages are exactly similar to the left underside of our painting regarding structure of the paint, brushstrokes and vagueness of what is depicted. He doesn't react on this.
To prevent being to much pushing I mention that I'm not really wanting to go into discussion with him because I'm not an expert.

Despite this I couldn't help to say that the only "clear wide brushstrokes" I could find in "Cottages" are a few light strokes on the foreground. On this also no reaction.

Back in the elevator to the basement we tell him that we are busy with the provenance. For the first time he shows some interest. He asks how we obtained the painting. We tell him the story and mention that we are in contact with Landais. He didn't react on this at all, not a single word.

Back in the basement he takes another look at the painting and I ask some questions.
On my question whether the impasto is like Van Gogh he replies that the paint is added thick but that this doesn't say much.

He examines the figures and says they look detailed. He can't answer my question whether these are painted directly or afterwards. I tell him that I think the figures show resemblance with the figures in "Peat boat" (F21, JH415). He replies by saying that in that painting working figures are depicted, contrary to our painting and that these are painted in a different way. (?)

Next I ask him whether he thinks a signature is visible. He says "there is something red with a line, but I can't tell whether it concerns a signature".......

My question whether he thinks the composition is like Van Gogh he can't answer. It is to unclear what is visible in the foreground, the bottom of the hut.

As asked he mentions the painting to be old, late nineteeth century, probably a bit later.

My question whether the subject is like Van Gogh is answered positively. It was in that period a very popular subject to be painted. He has no idea who otherwise could have painted the painting, "could've been hundreds". It even could be painted by a local master from the city of Culemborg....... (population around 1000 poor souls those days)

My question about the significance of the letter texts is answered "the letter texts say nothing". "In his letters Vincent describes a painting but anyone can make a painting/sketch according these texts"..........

When I ask his opinion about the letter texts I mention on my website, he started digging in some paperwork, old prints of my site but he quit the subject.

To convince us further he walked to the other end of the basement to get another painting. He returned with "Two women in the moor" (F19, JH409) and put it next to our painting. I told him I was surprised that the Drenthe paintings all fit only two dimensions (It seemed he heard this for the first time) and that our painting fits in. He replied with a vague story about standardized dimensions. Next I told him that the paintings from before and after the Drenthe period show a wide variety in dimensions, he had no reply on this.

I drew his attention to the carrier of the painting but he showed little interest in this.
I asked him to show me the back of "Two women in the moor". He showed it briefly and told that in the past the paintings were added new carriers.

Next I ask whether the colors, the palette, are according Vincent's oeuvre. He can't judge that, the varnish should be removed first to give an opinion on this.........

Finally I ask whether he thinks the painting is according "De Haagse school". The answer is "I don't dare to say that". We are advised to contact the RKD for this.........

At the end I tell him that I think it weird that only one person is able to judge about something important like the authenticity of a Van Gogh. He answers that more people took a look at the painting. (Strange that we were told by phone that the painting was subject in the meeting of curators while before this meeting we received the rejection?)

He also mentioned that if someone else had another opinion, they always could further examine the painting. At this moment he sees no reason to do this though.
I ask him whether he has problems with me mentioning this visit on my website. He says he can't prohibite me from doing this.


Conclusion:
To express it gently, we thought Mr. LvT very uninterested. Practically every positive aspect of the painting was waved away or stayed unanswered.
Before he had seen the painting (only the foto's) it was rejected for stilistic reasons.
After seeing the painting it was rejected on the absence of "clearly visible wide brushstrokes".

To leave no doubt I specifically asked why he rejects the painting, the answer "because of the brushstrokes". Next I asked him whether this was the only reason, this was answered positively.
(I have the impression that there are many more early works where "clearly visible, wide brushstrokes" are absent like "The parsonage garden at Nuenen" (F185, JH484), but I need more time to check this out properly).

After this visit we are even more convinced that our painting is definitely the lost "first study" from the Drenthe period.
Also from the behaviour of Mr. LvT we think that he knows it's a Van Gogh.

Up untill now, no single person has presented even one convincing argument why the painting isn't authentic, while there are many arguments pro.