• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Rip

  • Boards Title

Personal Information

  • Hobbies
  • Location
    West Coast
  1. I think of the Star Wars universe as DC or Marvel. Why just have Superman or Spider-man stories. There's a whole universe of stories out there to explore.
  2. I have to wait until 6:00 on Wed to see this one. No early passes. Very excited. Some really good internal buzz about this one.
  3. Was hoping to be blown away, but wasn't. Still liked it though. Reminded me a lot of Justice League. Still will likely love the movie.
  4. Detective Comics 54 CGC 9.0 White. $2850.00 Paypal or personal check Just got it back today
  5. Showcase 80 NM- $340 First Silver Phantom Stranger
  6. (NM- 9.2) Near Mint minus $1495.00 Free shipping Paypal only Really nice copy. Has not been pressed. Some minor creases and marks near the staples. Moved to e-bay
  7. Most certainly. If you look at the close up, you can see that there is a lot of what looks like poor restoration still on the cloth and in that area of the orb. The face also had a lot of work clearly done. The black background looks off as well. The black looks too fresh and rich IMO. Also various areas of the painting has been scrubbed down showing base layers. It certainly not as Leonardo painted it. Or that is if he finished it. He was well know to have a tough time finishing his stuff. As I mentioned before there has been a lot of overpainting (restoration) and underpainting exposing underlining layers (pentimenti). Every time a painting was scrubbed, “when you clean something like that orb, which is delicately painted, you end up taking something away from it,” Beddington continues. “And that’s normal.” For years people thought it couldn't have been from da Vinci because heck frankly it didn't look like his work with all of the horrible resto. Bloomberg has a couple pics from Christies featuring a black and white what the painting looked like in 1903 when it still had a poorly added mustache. Then a more recent pic in the process of removal. I can't say I know the true answer of the globe, depending on which scholar you talk to, it gets different answers. Some state that he simply didn't want to detract from the rest of the piece. There are various books, and other media coming out talking about these aspects in more detail. Hollar's engraving from 1650 have a bit more optical deflections so that's interesting also. I would say its the most mysterious & interesting aspect of the piece next to the straight-on pose.
  8. Here is what I think is the best theory behind the rock crystal ball. But there's numerous ones out there. The orbs in other Salvator Mundis, often they're of a kind of brass or solid. Sometimes they're terrestrial globes, sometimes they're translucent glass, and one or two even have little landscapes in them. What this one had was an amazing series of glistening little apertures — they're like bubbles, but they're not round — painted very delicately, with just a touch of impasto, a touch of dark, and these little sort of glistening things, particularly around the part where you get the back reflections. And that said to me: rock crystal. Because rock crystal gets what are called inclusions, and to get clear rock crystal is very difficult, particularly big bits. So there are these little gaps, which are slightly irregular in shape, and I thought, well, that's pretty fancy. And Leonardo was a bit of an expert on rock crystal. He was asked to judge vases that Isabella d'Este was thinking of buying, and he loved those materials. So when I was back in Oxford, I went to the geology department, and I said, "Let's have a look at some rock crystal." And in the Ashmolean Museum, in a wunderkammer of curiosities, there is a big rock crystal ball, and that has inclusions, so we photographed it under comparable lighting conditions I also began to look at the heel of the hand underneath the globe in the "Salvator Mundi"; there are two heels. The restorer thought it was a pentimento, but I wondered if he was recording a double refraction of the kind you get with a calcite sphere. If this proves to be right, it would be absolutely Leonardesque. I like these things when they're not just connoisseurship. None of the copyists knew that. They just transcribed it. Some of them do better than others, but none of them got this crystal with its possible double refraction. And one of the points of the crystal sphere is that it relates iconographically to the crystalline sphere of the heavens, because in Ptolemaic cosmology the stars were in the fixed crystalline sphere, and so they were embedded. So what you've got in the "Salvator Mundi" is really a "a savior of the cosmos", and this is a very Leonardesque transformation.
  9. There are few theories out there. A lot of underpainting, and overpainting in that area. Here is a massive pic showing the rock/glass mark detail. Zoom in. It's really amazing. Check out the ultra detail in the bottom lower right. To me at least that area smacks of da Vinci style detail.
  10. The artwatch article linked in the piece is a bit better and more tempered. I've read it (earlier today) and disagree with various claims which Saltz cut and pasted in one of his other articles where he posts a small list of complaints. But the vast majority of the debate comes from Zollner. Zollner is 1 of over a dozen various experts used as sources in the field. He's in the far minority and much of what he states is highly subjective. The biggest 2 complaints I see are : Straight forward pose: The Glass Globe: To me it doesn't seem unusual that da Vinci would paint a Salvator Mundi face straight-on for various reasons. While da Vinci is usually more dynamic, it's a face forward established pose. (even before 1500) Da Vinci didn't have a face forward Jesus in his other paintings, however he does have various face forward poses in his notebooks. Not many paints are still around either, so its hard to establish a strong pattern especially with one so experimental. Behind the Globe shows little distortion and some suggest da Vinci would have done it different because of his studies. Hollar's piece is different, however its different in various aspects, not just the globe/hand. The restoration artist and others have written a more detailed analysis on the globe, which is somewhere on the internet. I love this stuff. I guess its certainly more exciting when there's debate.