The $50,000,000 Mystery

The possibility of finger print evidence should be enough to authenticate the painting. The fact that no one is willing to listen to Teri just because she's on the outside is ridiculous. I hope she gets her chance to say, "I told you so...."

agree with TURBO99MIATA. assuming the fingerprint evidence is correct (and it should probably be verified by another party), what are the chances that a fingerprint found on a paint can in JP's studio and a fingerprint found on the back of Teri's painting were randomly put there by Jackson Pollock?

I absolutely second that. Why? Had it been someone else not in *working class* who had found this painting, the media and Elitist would be all over it and its discovery. But its not the case, because, as mentioned before... they are not willing to accept this painting only because its owned by a working class citizen. I too, wait for her to "neener neener" those who misjudged.

Jackson Pollock was a notorious drunk that would trade paintings to pay for grocery bills at the local store. The fact that this painitning has come out of the woodwork is not a surprise. Like most artists, his work varied over time, & how the "experts" can conclusively say it is or is not genuine without additional scientiffic study is beyond me.

That fingerprint is pretty damning evidence. Not to mention her painting looks nearly identical to the one that recently sold for $140M. They are so quick to accept these other paintings that have been found in random places - I think the art community is just put off by her "earthy" style, which is a shame. Given that, I don't think she should hold out for too much for too long - something could happen that would prove it isn't genuine, and then she'd be out in the cold.

I think Teri is money-hunting and Super-greedy. She don't even care who Pollock was. Real or not, she turned down 2 million, because it wasn't enough,.. heh.. That is more then most Americans will make there entire life. I hope she doesn't get anything, not even the five bucks she paid for it.

Yes Teri is right, the art world & it,s people are a bunch of `````` snobs!!

I think that Pollock never intended for that painting to be displayed. I do believe he painted it based on the fingerprint evidence. That being said, I am going to my studio to destroy the canvases that I also do not intend to show. They are not indicative of my show pieces. I believe that is why the Art Critics can't see Pollock in it. We all have off days. She has what Pollock didn't see as his vision.

I believe the Art World lost any credibility by not taking a second look after being told of the finger prints. Makes one wonder what criteria they use to certify anything? Take the painting to the Antiques Road Show, plus she won't have to pay for the appraisal % $$$. I think it's great when an average working person stumbles across something like this. One could ask is she average? No, she tells it like she sees it and not afraid of being wrong. Give her 200,000,000.

Ultimately, it does not matter if the painting is a Pollock or not. The value of it is determined by what someone is willing to pay for it. There is no intrinsic value of any "Art" piece. There is no MSRP in the art world. She was offered 2 million dollars for it, so that is what it is currently worth (if that offer even still stands). If she rejects that offer and /or it is rescinded, and there is no other offer, the painting is worth 5 dollars. plain and simple. This is economics 101. "Art" is no exception.