Fake or Fortune (TV Series 2010– ) Poster

(2010– )

User Reviews

Review this title
16 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
10/10
Documentary Art History and Detection: the Da Vinci Code meets the Antiques Roadshow
classicalsteve22 March 2014
In the book and later film "the Da Vinci Code", much of the opening scenes take place in the most prestigious art gallery in the world: The Louvre in Paris, France. From the Louvre in Paris, to the French countryside, to Westminster Abbey in London, fictional characters Robert Langdon and his female companion Sophie Neveu embark on a trail which combines religious and art history with an action-packed thriller. Take away the car chases and the assassinations, but add real-life works shrouded in both inspiration and mystery. Then add to the mix attractive detectives on the hunt to reveal the truth about important and valuable works of art, both modern and old-master, and you just might end up with "Fake or Fortune?".

The relatively recent BBC series involves three art historian-detectives who are on a never-ending quest to discover the truth about intriguing paintings which have crossed their paths, either by accident or design. The paintings being researched share a few things in common: they are not on display in a prestigious museum and/or they are in private hands. All of them share the distinction of not being attributed to a great master artist. Philip Mould is a real-life art historian and dealer, the series' equivalent of Robert Langdon. His career which spans a quarter-century before the series went on air involves hunting down lost art. At the beginning of his career he bought a painting at a humble auction for only £180 (about $275 US) before research revealed it was a 17th-century painting, later resold for £12,000 ($20,000 US).

Although the fictional character Sophie Neveu is a forensics detective, Fiona Bruce has some interesting similarities, having been an award-winning television journalist with the BBC and an appraiser on the UK version of the Antiques Roadshow. Her tasks on the show involve historical investigations, often discovering the contexts when a work in question was produced and later events which also impacts a work's provenance, i.e. its history. Lastly but not least is Bendor Grosvenor, who, like his colleague Mould, is interested in lost and mis-catalogued works of art. Grosvenor is often the one to find missing paintings in catalogs at auctions or other places where a masterpiece might be hidden. Sometimes he and Mould discover works for sale which are completely misattributed. He also researches provenance history and uses technology to demonstrate certain aspects of an artwork which under current investigation.

So far there have been about 10 episodes broken up into 3 series, with a 4th hopefully on the way. Among the highlights have been a painting thought to be a Rembrandt, once confiscated by the Nazis in the 1930's, a couple of paintings attributed to unknown artists which Mould believes could be by one of Britain's most important artists, Thomas Gainsborough, and some early 19th-century Turners stashed in the basement of an art gallery when experts from the 1950's believed they were misattributed. (Some sailing experts have refuted some of the series' conclusions stating the boats in the pictures may be in fact from the early 20th century, not the 19th.) My favorite thus far is a lost Van Dyck from the early 17th century possibly painted over in the 18th century. I won't reveal all the details of this episode but to say that this is one of the best finds by the three colleagues, and must have been a shock and surprise to the art world at large.

Overall, one of the most fascinating documentary shows of recent memory, which makes PBS' the History Detectives seem a little tame by comparison. If you like the Da Vinci Code, the Antiques Roadshow (both UK and US versions), and the History Detectives, you can't go wrong with "Fake or Fortune?" Excellent job, BBC. Please tell PBS to broadcast more episodes.
12 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Such an insite into the art world
nancy-793-2288799 September 2018
Whether you like art or not this programme is fascinating. Love to see how they X-ray the paintings and analyse the paint to figure out if it's by the artist. So annoying when the verdict hangs on one person though!
10 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Detective stories from the art world
depont037 February 2015
These TV series are about sleepers - works of art by famous artists that escaped catalogs and were missed by auction experts. It is quite entertaining, and would appeal to people interested in old masters, impressionists and early 20 century art. The team spends amazing amounts of time traveling around the world in search for clues in archives, trying to cover gaps in picture's provenance, meeting world experts and performing pigment and canvas analysis. This process is like an exciting detective story, quite often more interesting than the picture itself which in many cases is a relatively mediocre piece by a famous artist (like in episodes about Monet or Degas). I think the most interesting episodes were about Van Dyck and Van Meegeren.

I hope they make the 4th season of this show. Since in most cases the paintings turn out to be genuine, it might be more interesting if more fakes would be shown, to make it less predictable. Also although the price aspect is important for owners and art dealers it would be great if the art and history aspect would somehow be given higher priority.
8 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
More please!
nancy-793-2288797 March 2020
This is what I want my tv license going to! Fantastic detective work.
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
So Subjective
lmricci655 March 2022
I love this show and I've learned a lot about art by watching it but one thing it has solidified is that people aren't willing to change their minds even when shown proof positive that something is genuine even when confronted with scientific facts and unbroken documentation.

These so called experts at these institutes shouldn't be allowed to have so much power that they can be the only ones to declare a painting is genuine. If they were that professional, they would take everything into account and put their pride on the back burner. The art world is in desperate need of a change or real masters will continue to go unnoticed just because these people are too proud.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Cannot look away
troysgrampa17 June 2020
Every episode is like the best Columbo, Law and Order, and Perry Mason you have ever seen rolled into one. Deeply respect Fiona, Phillip, and Bendor's calm as they go through the ups and downs of each investigation...and we learn about the great works of art and the artists as they investigate. The bonus is...everything you see is real, no scripts.

One episode a masterpiece was found by a junkyard...another someone has had decades and tracking it trail of ownership or provenance is really quite fascinating...

Highly recommended.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Brilliant marriage of art and sleuths
Sarden8 April 2020
Highbrow insights into art and history blends very well with cheap detective thrills in Fake or Fortune.

You'll learn about the artists themselves, the historical context they found themselves in as well as a bit about chemistry and forensic science - all the while being held in suspense as the investigation unfolds.

It is a brilliant concept that should be replicated with other subject matters: Make enlightenment fun and engaging, and get more enlightened people.

At times the show feels just a little too staged. It's too obvious that researchers went ahead and laid the groundwork, and then our two hosts turned up to act and walk us through the findings and interview whomever were found to be relevant.

I'd give it a full 10 if the show was a little less 'polished' and the hosts were shown to be a bit more involved in the tedious bits. A bit more 'authenticity', in other words.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Investigations into Art Forgeries
AnnaFaktorovich19 December 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Fake or Fortune? Cast: Fiona Bruce Philip Mould, Bendor Grosvenor. Crime TV Show. TV-G. **** "Fiona Bruce and Philip Mould use investigative skills and scientific techniques to determine if paintings are real or just impressive forgeries." This series leaves things to be desired, but is one of the best art forgery documentaries I have seen. I had a suspicion as I watched it that the owners of these works should have known about most of the supposed mysteries that were uncovered across each episode before they submitted these for evaluation. For example, a stamp and some indicative of a gallery writing were uncovered on the back of one of these two images from Episode 1. If this work has a potential value of $100,000 and the owner has the resources to pay for tests during this program, surely, they would have been able to look at the back and would have run the necessary tests in advance. It seems they are pre-screening works to determine which offer the most evidence that can be uncovered and only look at these. I guess it would be a very dull show if they considered works without any evidence to be found. It also bothered me across most of this series that at least half of the works being evaluated look like a child's doodle. Fiona and Philip mention in passing that the drawings are amateurish, but don't really explore why art dealers and buyers are seriously willing to pay this much money for a work simply because the price has been inflated due to the fame of the artist. In the case of the artist displayed below, they explained that his working-class drawings in only five or so basic colors became popular late in his life because the art market was interested in works that glorified the lives of the poor. In one of the other episodes, the show considers an enormous classical painting displayed in a church, so they do not solely consider works that are "post-modern" or abstract, but they do enough of this for it to be a strange pattern. It is surely easier to forge a painting with few lines that can be mimicked in an hour, rather than a composition with multiple forms, and complex layers. Most of the top art market seems to be tailored for forgers and for those who use art to launder money or otherwise as a financial mechanism. There are a few living artists who join this game and sell their art for mega-prices, while most other artists starve or exit the field. I saw another documentary recently about Pollock and his art critic friend, which explained that the two rose in prominence together. The art critic profited by being hired to criticize by larger publications, while the artist's work escalated in price as he was positively reviewed by this guy. I think these types of relationships suppress great art and promote artists who pay (one way or another) for the promotion. This show really highlights some of these problems without intending to do so. For example, in a couple of episodes they hired forgers to attempt to mimic the paintings they were testing to discover if they were forgeries. These forgers explain how they are copying what art critics might deem to be unique to an artist's style. One of these forgers explained that he was struggling with legitimately selling his art, so he set out to prove that his art was as good as the art of the few guys who were selling their work for extraordinary sums. To do this, he forged these works, and since he did such a great job, he did it with many paintings. This demonstrates that the art market has to find a way to place value on the best art rather than on whatever has had its price inflated by buyers. There are plenty of artists today that could paint a work better than Sistine Chapel, but they are being forced into making marketing materials for businesses, forgeries, or other types of low art by the absence of demand for high art that reaches for the ceiling. Kings, aristocrats and business owners of the past used to display their power when they displayed superior art, but now abstract or pop art takes up these public and private displays. Instead of commissioning an artist to paint a wall in a corporate building, a designer is hired to create a fractured set of rectangles or some other geometric arrangement, the price of which is much higher than a painting, while the materials used for it might cost less than the paint would have. Looking at the two paintings below and how they can be mistaken for doodles by a first grader, it is easy to see why artists go mad and start making forgeries.

Fake or Fortune: Season 4, Episode 1 One of the positive aspects of this series is their honest portrayal of the research that goes into learning about a particular painting's provenance. The researchers are sitting in an archive, reading records from dusty binders and books. Though occasionally, I think the researchers, lab technicians and others say that they need a lot more time to run a test than they should realistically need. Taking a week to test a bit of paint seems excessive, but then again perhaps this extra time is needed to double-check or to question initial findings to avoid all possible errors from going on an international television program. Too often programs like this only show images of glittering archives and gilded books, so these plain shots of regular libraries and archives ease my mind as a researcher myself. Whenever I do research and find the archives to be too crowded, narrow, dusty and to have rickety chairs, I tend to feel as if the archivists should be as well funded as those idealized archives on the TV, but with shots like this, I'm starting to think that I've been visiting some very posh archives.

Fake or Fortune: Season 4, Episode 2 The visits to grand museums in this series are also inspiring as seeing masterful art in the background and listening to lectures about some of this classical art is very refreshing from a TV series. The discussions offer a good deal of comparative and overview information about the old masters and about the genres of art that is being reviewed. A show that purely described the history of art through the ages would have been much duller than it is with the insertion of these potential art forgery mysteries. The threat that an owner of a piece of art might have to surrender their art, or might learn that it's a worthless fake, or can be rewarded with a fortune from a barely known piece makes these histories engaging and dramatic.

Fake or Fortune: Season 4, Episode 3 Another positive about this show can be seen in the quote in the last screenshot, where Philip, while standing in the art researcher's studio, says that he disagrees with the conclusion they have been developing. Such disagreements among the crew are very healthy for a show, as if everybody agrees with the findings of a research project, those on the project are likely to not be paying enough attention to the points being raised. In a healthy collaboration, there should be disagreement in order to learn from these clashes and to uncover the real truth among the possible versions of it. In this particular Episode 4, the team is considering if a painting was really done by Churchill. They mention how amateurish it is, and consider if its lack of artistic merit is part of what proves that it was painted by an amateur painter like Churchill. They journey to the country where it is said to be painted and find the spot and the people that were around this spot at the time it was painted. Occasionally, even with overwhelming proof from first-person accounts, ledger entries and the like they fail to convince art buyers of authenticity. The decisions are frequently shown to be illogical, political, or otherwise more based on personal preferences, fiscal motives, or some other behind-the-scenes machinations rather than on the evidence alone. These insider dealings are very interesting to see under a spotlight. It's also interesting to see a studio of an art researcher like the one in the image from Episode 4. Books on Churchill are on the table in the foreground. Paper, canvases, paint and other tools of the trade are very inspiring, as they make me want to return to drawing on a physical canvas again (away from the digital world). Though the placement of the projection device or television screen where the images under scrutiny are being examined on a giant easel demonstrates how this show mixes digital and physical art testing techniques in keeping with the times
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Amazing! Like Long Lost Family / WDYTYA for artworks.
SunnyDaise31 July 2021
This is a fantastic series investigating where artworks came from. Even my Dad is hooked and he's not usually into art. There are so many twists and turns from the back stories, historical and scientific research.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Overlooked Gem
prudhoeboy13 July 2022
A friend tipped me off about this show and I have been addicted to it ever since. I've seen all episodes and waiting for Season 10 to be announced. The series is basically a detective show to determine the authenticity of a given artwork presented. Both hosts are very engaging and welcome the viewer into the art world. Unfortunately one of the experts, Bendor Grovesnor was also very good but left the show a few year ago. The show has suffered in his absence so hopefully he will come back.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Oddly, this show made me appreciate art experts less and less.
planktonrules3 January 2020
"Fake or Fortune?" is a British series where various paintings purported to be by various great artists are examined by many different experts to determine if they are fake or forgeries. Using technology, records, art dealers, art experts and more, the team work to slowly reveal the truth. And this is the point....slowly....the work is very slow and the pace is such that most viewers would probably be bored to death by it. As for me, I didn't find it at all boring but the shows also created a reaction that the program did not intend...I came to feel that most of these folks couldn't care less whether a painting is good or not. In other words, they are caught up in many details but little of the show is about whether the paintings, whether fake or not, are aesthetically pleasing. The love of the art seems missing. This doesn't mean you shouldn't see the show....but I found little in the way of enthusiasm by so many of the folks in the shows.
3 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A fascinating programme.
plan9912 August 2021
An upmarket version of Flog It!, Dickinson's Real deal etc. Where fortunes can be decided upon by one person or a small group of experts. I am often puzzled when the decision by the expert(s) is "fake" when I'm convinced that it's "fortune", but what do I know, not a lot probably. The viewer's interest is kept going from the start to the big reveal at the finish.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Addictive and arguably the most compeling, mysterious and educational show EVER
tohmsono15 March 2024
Never ever, ever have I seen a show includes mystery, hystory, great naration, education, science and personal drama in such fantastic way! Crime, mystery and detective stories is what I love watching the most, but that hardly compares to this real-life dramas unwrapping in front of us and in the world of art and all of it with intrigue, science and excellent story telling. Alos, I can almost sense the tension between the two leads (art dealer and the art reporter), which kinda makes things funny a bit :) . I don't think that was intentional by the production house, but no love lost between them is palpable :). Anyhow, I highly recommend watching a few of the episodes for some art and hystory education, but trust me, you will get hooked.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Cannot Say Enough Good
cypmtmqfr14 April 2024
I really cannot say enough good about this show. The sleuthing duo at its heart are truly charming, compelling people, whose education and smarts are a pleasure to behold. One does not have to be an art history expert to become swept up in the drama behind so many great paintings. In fact, I have learned so much about art in the five shows I have watched so far, I am just amazed. What a painless way to learn, as the viewer is taken to various countries, outstanding museums, private homes, and behind the scenes where art restoration takes place. It is fascinating!! An absolutely gorgeously produced, thoughtful, sensitive show!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
I love it but
susansundaisy22 August 2022
It's the same thing over and over. That isn't bad but I know what they do, what they are going to say and then, really, it either is or it isn't. Basically it's the same methodology over and over again and I wish they varied it a little bit so that you can't kind of read the newspaper and follow along and then pay attention for the last 5 minutes. I feel like there's a lot more they could talk about and I love Fiona.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The first episode gave away the limits of the host and program
memalarcher-271-33887114 February 2019
Laurence Stephen Lowry (1 November 1887 - 23 February 1976) the English artist was not a primitive painter. A mistake made by most people who do not care too much about the academics of art, but buy it because they like it.

Lowry's work being called Primitive was a big hick up right off the bat. For trying to use the program to help people learn, understand art and buying it the show has some merits and some misleading script.

Lowy's work is Naïve art, an art style usually to defined an artist style and craftsmanship who lacks the formal academic education and training that a professional artist undergoes (in anatomy, art history, technique, perspective, ways of seeing). This is not a bad thing until those who are scholars and collectors of Primitive art see how this whole episode is put together to intices, entertain and a bit misleading.

The public being exposed to the technical side of how a painting can be verified or dated is a very nice thing. But, never rely on shows like this with similar formats, or of different genres, that have this kind of showmanship of what something is worth so that those watching their show will think their help will get them rich in finding an unknown piece of work.

Again, some of the technical ways they exam artworks is worth viewing, but if you had to do all of that you would have to pay a lot more than you might think is basically a crapshoot.

If there was a treasure to be had at a cheap price for something really worth a fortune the reputable panel they have for "the last call" on the artworks authenticity the dealers, galleries, and specialist would of done anything to get it before it was even made into an episode. The business of making money off of any kind of art is not always that nice.

Treasures are out there. But almost all of the research that was done on the show you could of done it on your own, other than technical.. You may have to spend more time and learning than you want, so remember the researches they featured are not free.

Always consider on any kind of these types of shows they may not be anything more than an advertising platform for the specialist or professionals they feature to find out if the painting is real. Which does not mean they are not very good at what they do, they may be the best. But best is not cheap.

Be clever and careful. Always buy art because you like what you see, and it is only worth what you are willing to pay for it.
2 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed