A group of scientists conducted various tests to determine the authenticity of a painting attributed to Paul Cezanne. Dr. Montoya utilized x-ray fluorescence, discovering that the pigments used were consistent with those from Cezanne'
- There was no clear conclusion , Dr. Wandless had to make a quick descion since she might lose her job.
Art Historians Assumptions
- Historians assumed that Cezanne's painting was painted in 1880s.
- Cezanne did from nature, he skteched them sepratley.
- This painting was simillar to another one in Barnes Foundation in Merion, Pennsylvania but smaller.
- Cezanne did not sign all his paintings.
Scientists Assumptions
Dr. Simpkins
- He examined fluorescence from the surface of the painting using both short-wave and long-wave UV excitation from a mercury lamp.
- Some areas in Cezanne's painting were brighter than the rest, he added that it matched another painting by Cezanne in Brooklyn.
- He Concluded that the painting isn't fake.
Dr. Montoya
- Used x-ray fluorescence (XRF).
- She discovered that all the pigments that were used matches the time when Cezanne lived.
-She concluded that Cezanne might have drawn this painting.
Dr.Andersen
- Used infrared spectroscopy (IR) to detect anomalies beneath the paint.
- she assumed it might not be Cezanne's work at all.
- IR refractography detected that there is another painting with Charcoal underneath Cezanne's painting.
- There were singals of an animal glue used in this painting whereas Cezanne was not famous of doing any underdrawings.
Dr. Pruschy
- Pruschy used Ultraviolet (UV) spectrum to know whether Cezanne drew this painting or not.
- He assumed that Cezanne's painting was supposed to be older.
