Art forgery is a complex subject; it has as much to do with the personality of the faker or the salesman who markets the spurious work as it has to do with the recapturing of some past technique or mood. And it is a subject that is still highly active today, despite the unquestionably improved art historical scholarship of recent decades: the controversy over the gold from Ziwiye, the stir caused by the forgery of Fragonard and Samuel Palmer, and the impact of the Beirut school's pressure‐cast counterfeits of early English coinage—all headline‐makers over the past five years—affirm that clearly enough.

Topics
Transition metals, Scholarships, Education
1.
S. J. Fleming, Authenticity in Art, Crane Russak, New York (1975).
2.
S. J. Fleming, in Authentication in the Visual Arts, H. L. C. Jaffe, L. H. van der Tweel, eds; B. M. Israel B. V., Amsterdam (1979).
3.
J.
Folie
,
Bulletin de l’Institut Royal du Patrimonie Artistique
12
,
195
(
1963
).
4.
A. Gilardoni, R. A. Orsini, S. Taccani, X‐Rays in Art, Girlandoni S.p.A., Como (1977).
5.
R. D. Harley, Artists’ Pigments, c. 1600–1835, Butterworth's, London (1970).
6.
J. P. W. Hartman, J. Turkstra, Radiochemical Methods of Analysis, Volume 85, IAEA, Vienna (1965).
7.
J.
Plesters
,
Studies in Conservation
2
,
110
(
1956
).
8.
S.
Rees‐Jones
,
Bull. Inst. Phys.
12
,
157
(
1960
).
9.
E. V.
Sayre
,
H. N.
Lechtman
,
Studies in Conservation
13
,
161
(
1968
).
10.
J. R. J.
Van Asperen de Boer
,
Studies in Conservation
19
,
97
(
1974
).
Crossref
Search ADS
 
This content is only available via PDF.
© 1980 American Institute of Physics.
1980
American Institute of Physics
You do not currently have access to this content.