Sunday, 29 November 2015

La Bella Principessa is a "forgery"!!!

The silly season for Leonardo never stops. This now applies as much to the profile portrait on vellum, the portrait of Bianca Sforza known as La Bella Principessa, as it does to the Mona Lisa.
The latest in the Sunday Times is the hilarious claim from the convicted forger Shaun Greenhalgh that he forged the portrait in 1978. He is effectively promoting his forthcoming book.
There are many reasons why the story is ridiculous. I give just three for the moment.

1) We have lead isotope dating undertaken by the University of Pavia that shows the white pigment in the sitter’s cheek to be a minimum age of 250 years old. This means that it is not a recent forgery;
2) If someone fakes a Leonardo why do they not promote it as a Leonardo? There was no suggestion from 1978 to 2007 that it was by Leonardo.
3) Obviously anyone with a decent level of technical knowledge can read what Pascal Cotte, myself and other scholars have published and say, “that’s how I did this or that”. But many of the “thises" and “thats" were not known in 1978. A nice case in point is the hand-print technique in the flesh tones as revealed by Pascal's multi-spectral analysis, a technique that we did not know about until the 1980s. 

Faced with the pigment dating, Greenhalgh then claims that he used "organic" materials of appropriate age, including "iron-rich clays" he dug up. You cannot obtain lead-based pigments (non-organic) this way so as to pass the isotope test. No forger in 1978 could have anticipated the recent high-tech tests against which he would have to protect his creation.

The plus side of all this is that it provides another picturesque story for the book I am writing called Living with Leonardo, to be published by Thames and Hudson. Ha Ha!

3 comments:

  1. "..This means that it is not a recent forgery"

    So are you implying that it is indeed a forgery but not a recent one ?

    ReplyDelete
  2. No, I used language carefully. The lead isotope dating on its own cannot prove that it is not a much older pastiche. There are many other things that indicate that it is not an "older forgery" as I have explained.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Kudos for your painstaking forensic & detective work on this mesmerizing piece. I don't believe the forger at all. Cheers! Fuzzbee Morse

    ReplyDelete