The Museum of Hoaxes
hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive
 
Baby Yoga, aka Swinging Your Kid Around Your Head
Monkeys pick cotton, a 19th-century urban legend
Old-Time Photo Fakery, 1900 to 1919
The Nobody For President Campaign, 1940 to Present
The Gallery of Fake Viral Images
The Cradle of the Deep, a literary hoax, 1929
Did Poe say 'The best things in life make you sweaty'?
The Diaphote, a television hoax, 1880
Did Paul McCartney die on Nov. 9, 1966?
September Morn, the painting that shocked the censor, 1913
Flower Portrait Controversy
The last time the famous Flower portrait of Shakespeare (the one showing him wearing a wide white collar) made news was back in 2005, when experts at the National Portrait Gallery declared it a fraud painted sometime during the 19th century.

Now a German scholar, Hildegard Hammerschmidt-Hummel, is arguing that the National Portrait Gallery experts didn't examine the original painting. She believes that sometime in the past ten years someone stole the original Flower portrait and substituted a fake in its place:
Professor Hammerschmidt-Hummel said yesterday that the original had been substituted by a copy. In 2005 it was sent to the laboratories of the National Portrait Gallery and dismissed as a 19th century forgery after it was found to contain chrome yellow, a colour that was commercially available only from 1814 onwards.

“Where is the priceless 400-year-old original Flower portrait?” asked the professor, who lectures in English literature at the University of Mainz.

She said that she was basing her conclusions on tests that she carried out on what she says was the original – which she she last saw in 1996 – and on the version that she claims is a copy, which she saw in January.

The Royal Shakespeare Company and the National Portrait Gallery are disputing her claim:
A spokes-woman for the RSC said that the only time the painting had not been on display under CCTV coverage in the RSC Collection Gallery was when it was in a secure store room. Dr Tarnya Cooper, the portrait gallery’s 16th century curator, said: “The idea that this picture has been substituted for a different portrait between 1996 and 2005 is plainly nonsensical . . . Any perceived differences between photographs are likely to be caused by differences in lighting conditions.”

So, if I'm understanding this controversy correctly, Hammerschmidt-Hummel is saying that the Flower portrait is real because the one we have is a fake. But the RSC and Portrait Gallery are saying that the Flower portrait is fake because the one we have is the real one.
Categories: Art
Posted by The Curator on Fri Oct 26, 2007
Comments (2)
There are several portraits that are alleged to be Shakespeare but none can be shown to be him. All show a great deal of simularity but, if I remember right, they also show simularity to one of the noblemen sometimes claimed to be the real Shakespeare. I've never been to the National Portrait Gallery so I've never seen this except in photos and anyway what I know about art forgery is minute. I bet, though, Professor HH-H sells a lot of books.
Posted by Christopher Cole  in  Tucson, AZ  on  Fri Oct 26, 2007  at  12:44 PM
I wonder if he could be dug up & have some facial reconstruction or something done. They do it for other bones...like found bodies & stuff. Why not ol' Willy?
Posted by Maegan  in  Tampa, FL - USA  on  Fri Oct 26, 2007  at  02:10 PM
Commenting is no longer available for this post.
All text Copyright © 2014 by Alex Boese, except where otherwise indicated. All rights reserved.