CLPEX Chat Board

Did anyone see that documentary last night (12-17-07) about where the experts were trying to authenticate a Da Vinci painting using a 500-year-old fingerprint? They used various techniques to get the painting in the correct time period and the correct city. They even found an authenticated drawing from his studio with the same subject matter (two babies kissing) that was extremely similar. And then they pulled out this TERRIBLE latent print they had developed some time ago on a drawing from Da Vinci's studio. Their "fingerprint" expert examined the painting with a flashlight and saw a plastic print in the paint. It was TERRIBLE. This "expert" then compared the two prints and was satisfied that they were a match, as he had found eight characteristics, which he marked with little circles and lines drawn out to the side and numbered. He did this on both fingerprints. Then he removed the fingerprints and laid the little circles with the lines drawn on top of eachother and said, "See? They are almost an exact match."

I kid you not.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Everybody was happy until someone mentioned that the latent print on the drawing from Da Vinci's studio might not be Da Vinci's. It might be one his numerous students' prints. No one knows. The authentication is now on hold.

It doesn't seem to have occurred to anyone that having an "art" expert comparing latent prints MIGHT not be the best way to go.

check out another fingerprint ID. http://www.birofineartrestoration.com/P ... ollock.htm

Note the comments about the actual images and examination.

This Da Vinci documentary also mentioned the Pollock case fleetingly as if the fingerprint identification was an established fact.

Fingerprint Whorld, 31:120 (April 2005) has a newspaper article from Rome that discusses the use of Da Vinci's fingerprint to authenticate his paintings. There is mention of a 'standard/record' Leonardo Da Vinci fingerprint in a painting in Krakow, Poland.

About ten years ago a curator at the Getty had me look at some paintings and some of his photos of details of some other paintings. These were paintings by two brothers, and he was hoping that one might find consistent prints in the paintings and perhaps determine which brother painted which. Apparently the brothers didn't sign their first names, or didn't sign their names at all, or there was controversy regarding who painted a few paintings (I can't remember the details). The project seemed interesting, but I didn't see any decent prints at the time. I agreed to work on a project with him on it, but it never developed.

George

I also share some of your concerns regarding the quality and quantity of detail that was shown. The odd thing is that my degree is in ART HISTORY and I have studied the old master's techniques. I have also been a latent print examiner for the past 19 years. I do believe that any work in the visual field can help you be a better latent examiner. I do not agree on how they came up with some of their known prints or assumed known prints. Nor can I see how some of the very small partial prints can positively be attributed to one artist to the exclusion of others. I am very interested in working on a data base of known prints of artists and utilizing my abilities in the art field for the good of both art and fingerprints. Does anyone know where this perfect job exists? I'm interested.