Does size really matter?

I picked up the painting from Sotheby's this morning. While I was there, Geoffrey Cassidy, the Deputy Directory came out to have a look at it. He agreed that if it was a Drysdale that it was probably early 1940's. He mentioned that the size was about the right size for what he was painting at the time, which reminded me that I had seen another Drysdale painting in an auction catalogue that was exactly the same size. I mentioned that to Geoffrey, who thought that was interesting.

When I got home this evening I found a reference to the painting that was the same size. It was a portrait of a girl (Drysdale's daughter, Lynn). It was listed as being 50x39.5, whereas the exact size of my painting is closer to 51x39.5. Still, fairly close. It will be interesting to research if any of his other paintings are this size, and then to see if this is a common partical board size for any other artists of the time.

Expert Opinions

Took the painting over to Sotheby's for Georgina to have a good look at it. She confirmed again that there we certain qualities about the painting that suggest it could be a Drysdale from the early 1940's, but that the composition was atypical. As far as she is aware, there are no other Drysdale paintings or sketches of inner city scenes, and that such a scene is more often done by fellow George Bell art school student Sali Herman.

I had previously considered that Herman did many of these terrace house scenes, but after studying many of Herman's paintings, the only similarity seems to be the topic. I couldn't find any other similarity in style, colour and technique. And why would someone sign it as a Drysdale, when a Herman would still have been of some value?

To answer any questions about the signature, a blue flourescent light was fetched and we proceeded to the forensics room (also known as the storeroom). Under the light there was no flaring around the signature, which suggested that the signature was added at the time the painting was painted. Phew!! I was a bit worried that this test would result in a negative conclusion, and my fun would be over.

This test wasn't conclusive though, and Georgina has other questions, mainly around why Lawson Menzies either didn't notice the signature, or if they did, why they didn't disclose it. And also, why didn't they consult the leading Drysdale expert - Lou Klepac - to get his opinion on its authenticity. Luckily, Lou would be dropping by Sotheby's this afternoon, and was keen to have a look. I leave the painting there, return home and wait for the phone call.

The call eventually came from Georgina, and the news was neither good nor bad. Lou had seen the painting and couldn't confirm it as a Drysdale, nor rule out the possibility that it could be. I was given Lou's number and followed up with a call. Lou's main concern is that he thinks that Drysdale would not have painted a scene of poverty stricken inner city houses, as he was from a wealthy background. My thoughts on this are that his background didn't stop him from painting scenes of poverty in country towns. He also thinks that it is not Bayswater Road in Sydney, which reminds me that I need to get my hands on some old photo's of the street to see if anyting matches. It is clear from my phone conversation that Lou will not 'baptise' the painting until he can see some solid evidence to suggest that it is genuine. This all seems qute reasonable, because as an expert in the field he could not risk his reputation by certifying something unless he is 100% sure.

Response from Sotheby's

Sotheby's have just called in response to my email. Georgina, the Australian Painting consultant, says that from the image I emailed it does have some Drysdale qualities, but she would like to have a better look at it. Have made an appointment for tomorrow morning. The fact that they called back so soon gives me some hope that I may have a real Drysdale here, but I don't want to get my hopes up too high.

Where do I start?

After admiring the painting for a few days, I decide that it is time to start researching it. My first step is to email the bigger auction houses - Christie's and Sotheby's - to see if they would be interested in having a look. Their painting experts may take one look at it and tell me straight away that it is a fake.

The Auction

I spent this afternoon nervously waiting for lot 109 to come up. So many questions were running through my mind. Would there be any bidders other than me? How how would the bidding get? If the bid goes well beyond the estimate does that mean that there are some experts bidding who are convinced that it is a Drysdale, or does that just mean that there are other suckers out there like me? If I can get if for below the estimate, does the lack of interest provide further evidence that it might be a fake?

The auctioneer starts off with an absentee bid of $900. I wait a few moments before raising my hand (don't want to show that Im too keen!) for a bid of $1000. The auctioneer takes my bid and scans the rest of the room for a better one. She is about to drop the gavel when someone chimes in with a bid of $1100. Bugger! I think its the dealer at the back who has been buying just about everything. Oh well. At least I may not be the only fool. We battle it out for a minute or so and the gavel finally drops at $1600 - to me! A bit more than I wanted to pay, but I was willing to go a bit higher so not a bad result in the end.

Bayswater Road

A street sign in the painting appears to read 'Bayswater Road', so I decided that my research today should focus on this. Considering that the known paintings that are similar to this one are all painted from 1942-1944, and because Drysdale was living in Sydney at this time, I think that this 'Bayswater Road' is probably in Sydney. There are a few Bayswater Roads in Sydney, with the most likely suspect being the one in Kings Cross/Darlinghurst because Drysdale lived in nearby Rose Bay.

I take a drive down this road, to discover that it is nothing like the Bayswater Road in the painting. There are no terrace houses here, although it is possible that there were terrace houses here when the painting was painted. I will need to go to the state library to see if I can find some photos of what this street looked like in the 1940's.

Some initial research

I spent my lunch hour today in the Art Gallery's research library comparing a photo of the painting with Drysdale's known works, and also brushing up on my general knowledge of the artist. My thoughts at this stage are that there are some strong similarities in parts of this painting to some parts in his other works. For example, the clothes lines are similar to the clothes line in 'Sunday Afternoon' , the blue sky is similar to the sky in 'West Wyalongi', the red doors in the foreground are similar to the red in many of his paintings and the distinctive green colour is also found in 'The Cricketers' and 'Home Town'.

However, although parts of the painting can be related to parts of his known works, the painting as a whole can not be related to another work. I can't find any reference to another painting of an inner city street scene. I will hopefully be able to come back to the library during the week for some extra research.

ooh - that's a nice picture

While browsing through the paintings on offer in the next Lawson-Menzies auction, I notice the above painting of a street scene with terrace houses. Referring to the gallery copy of the auction catalogue (I am too cheap to purchase my own copy at $15) it states that the painting is 'attributed' to Russell Drysdale. In 'fine-art land', this means that they think that it is by the artist, but they are not 100% sure, or something like that. Basically, it means that the auction house won't guarantee that it is by the artist, so if you later confirm that it is a fake there is no recourse you can take.

As I could never afford a confirmed drysdale oil, the possibility of picking one up cheaply is quite exciting. I enquire further. A young lady working for Lawson-Menzies tells me that their experts think that it is a Drysdale based on the colours and style, but because it is not signed they can't confirm it. Fair enough.

I take it down from the wall (after asking of course) and give it a closer inspection. After about 30 seconds I notice that in the lower right hand corner it is actually signed 'R. Drysdale'.


As well as being a small signature, it is signed in black paint on a dark background, so could the auction house have missed this? Or did they see it, and, for whatever reason, decide not to mention it? In any case, Im not going to be the one to point it out to them. I decide I'll have to do some research of my own.