as light meets matter under scrutiny

collector of art

initially"feels" that it is infact the work of Cézanne

doubtfull initially

resorted to science in order to falsify painting

UV a. spectroscopy

dates pigments

X-ray

examines composition of pigments

IR spectroscopy

tests for anomalies beneath the paint

Visually

not scietifically accurate as style could be imitated

Does not use science, rather uses history, artistic analysis and visual analysis of painting to conclude that it is a genuine piece of art

uses microscope to determine a smilarity in style with Cezanne

in 1995 concluded that there is likely to be no more works by Cézanne

Pruschy (claims fake)

used UV spectrometry to determine the absorbtion of polyenes, which shows that it is not 100 years old

Wandless argues that polyenes residue may have been added after the painting was drawn

Andersen (claims fake)

Cadmium Yellow Lithopone was used in the painting which was not discovered until After Cezzane died

Binder used is animal glue, which was also used widely after the death of Cezzane

Cezzane was known NOT to have underdrawings, this painting had an underdrawing

Montoya (claims genuine)

absence of titanium, cadmium, barium, and manganese lines

pigments were used between pigments used during the period 1839-1906, he was alive in that period of time

Simpkins (claims genuine)

the green used in this painting is very similar to a previous painting

uses fluorescence data to back his arguement, saying that the UV data of Pruschy may be not true because the artist would often revisit his works of art

shows that the paint used in previous piece of art is also used in this piece of art, paint was made in the same room at the same time