Archives Scrapbooks

This image is a vintage press clipping from Burrelle’s Press Clipping Bureau, dated February 23, 1950. The clipping is from the San Francisco, Calif. Examiner, and is cataloged under Circ. 228,522 and S. 606,349.

The headline reads:
“CRITICS WARY OF ‘MONA LISA’”

The article reports on a major art controversy: A portrait believed to be an earlier version of Leonardo da Vinci’s “Mona Lisa” — claimed to be the “original” — was returned to a New York bank vault to await expert appraisal.

Key details from the article:

• Origin: The painting was examined by Dr. Thomas Macaughty Judson, a former curator at the Vatican’s Gicognara collection. He declared it authentic after studying it visually, with X-rays, and microscopically. He believes it predates the Louvre version by several years.
• Provenance: The painting has been in the Vernon family (American heirs of William Henry Judson) since 1797. They acquired it from France, possibly as a gift from Marie Antoinette. It was later sent to the Fogg Art Museum at Harvard for cleaning, and experts then dated it to the early 16th century.
• Value: The Vernons theorized the portrait could be worth a million dollars.
• Brushwork Analysis: Dr. Judson believed it was painted by Da Vinci himself. He theorized that the sitter in this “Mona Lisa” was the same model portrayed in the Louvre painting.
• Expert Skepticism: Sir Kenneth Clark, a British expert on old masters, declined to comment, cryptically saying, “It’s happened before and could happen again.” He also noted he had never heard of Dr. Judson.

The article notes that a picture will appear on page 22, and includes a parenthetical note: “(In London, Sir Kenneth Clark...)”

Formatting and Layout:

• Header: Light blue-green banner with “Burrelle’s” logo (with scissors), established 1888, Barclays 7-5371, 165 Church Street – New York.
• Subheader: “SAN FRANCISCO, CAL. EXAMINER” with circulation numbers.
• Date: Clearly displayed as “FEB 23 1950.”
• Headline: In large, bold, all-caps typeface.
• Body Text: Two columns with standard newspaper layout, including subheadings like “X-RAY STUDY” and “BRUSH WORK.”
• The paper shows signs of aging — yellowing and slight wear.

Historical Context:

This 1950 article reflects a recurring theme in art history: claims of “lost” or “earlier” versions of masterpieces like the Mona Lisa. Such claims often spark intense debate between scholars, collectors, and institutions, especially when high value and prestige are involved. The skepticism of established experts like Sir Kenneth Clark contrasts with the confident assertions of lesser-known academics like Dr. Judson — a common dynamic in art authentication disputes.

In summary, this clipping is a fascinating historical document capturing a moment of high-stakes art controversy, with claims of a “second authentic Mona Lisa,” expert disagreements, and family tradition intersecting with art science and market value.

The image appears to be a newspaper clipping from the San Francisco Examiner dated February 23, 1950. The headline reads "Critics Wary of 'Mona Lisa'" and discusses a claim that a portrait discovered in New York was declared to be an earlier version of Leonardo da Vinci's "Mona Lisa" than the famous painting in the Louvre.

The article details how the portrait was returned to a bank vault after being exhibited in New York and is awaiting the judgment of international art experts. It mentions that the painting was examined by Dr. Thomas Macoughtry Judson, a former curator of the collection of the Vatican, who declared the portrait authentic.

The article also mentions an X-ray study conducted by Dr. Judson, who examined the canvas visually, by X-rays, infrared rays, and microscopically, and concluded that it was painted by Leonardo da Vinci several years before the Louvre's "Mona Lisa." The portrait has been in the possession of a prominent American family since 1797, and it is theorized that the painting might be worth a million dollars.

The article also discusses the brushwork and the sitter of the portrait, theorizing that the model was the same as the one depicted in the Louvre's "Mona Lisa." A comment from Sir Kenneth Clark, an expert on old masters, is also included, stating that such a scenario has happened before and could happen again.

This image is a newspaper clipping from the San Francisco Examiner dated February 23, 1950. The headline reads "CRITICS WARY OF 'MONA LISA'." The article discusses a portrait that was declared to be an earlier "Mona Lisa" by Leonardo da Vinci than the famous one in the Louvre. The painting was returned to a bank vault to await the judgment of international art experts.

The article mentions that the painting was exhibited in New York and declared authentic by Dr. Thomas Macoughty Judson, a former curator of the Cicognara collection of the Vatican. However, George Salles, the director of the Louvre Museum in Paris, declared the Mona Lisa in the Louvre to be the original by da Vinci.

The article also discusses the various examinations conducted on the canvas, including visual examination, X-rays, infrared rays, and microscopic examination, all of which convinced Dr. Judson that da Vinci painted it several years before the Louvre version. The present owners of the painting are Dr. Ambrose W. Vernon and his sister-in-law, Mrs. Alice C. E. Vernon.

The article concludes by mentioning the opinion of Sir Kenneth Clark, a British expert on old masters, who cryptically stated that such discoveries have happened before and could happen again.

The image depicts a clipping from a newspaper or magazine article, likely from the early 20th century, as indicated by the vintage style and black-and-white photograph. The clipping is attached to a piece of paper with a header that reads "Buffelles Press Clipping Bureau" and "San Francisco, Cal. Examiner." The article is titled "Critics Wary of 'Mona Lisa'" and discusses the controversy surrounding the authenticity of a painting believed to be the famous "Mona Lisa" by Leonardo da Vinci.

The article mentions that the painting was returned to a bank vault in Paris after being declared a forgery by experts. It also highlights the involvement of Dr. Thomas Macouchy Judson, a former curator of the Gicorama collection of the Vatican, who examined the painting and declared it inauthentic. The article further discusses the painting's history, including its ownership by a prominent American family and its eventual donation to the Fogg Art Museum at Harvard University.

The clipping provides a glimpse into the art world's fascination with the "Mona Lisa" and the ongoing debate surrounding its authenticity, showcasing the importance of expert opinions and the impact of such controversies on the art market and public perception.

The image is a clipping from the San Francisco Examiner, dated February 23, 1950. The clipping discusses the controversy surrounding a portrait called "Mona Lisa," which was exhibited in New York City and claimed to be an earlier version of the famous "Mona Lisa" by Leonardo da Vinci. The clipping includes a headline "CRITICS WARY OF 'MONA LISA'" and provides details about the portrait's authenticity and its return to Paris for expert evaluation. It mentions Doctor Judson, a former curator of the Cigognara collection, who examined the painting and expressed skepticism about its authenticity.

The image shows a scanned newspaper clipping from the Burlington Press Clipping Bureau, dated February 22, 1913. The article is titled "CRITICS WARY OF 'MONA LISA'" and is sourced from the San Francisco Examiner. The article discusses the famous painting Mona Lisa by Leonardo da Vinci and provides details about its history, authenticity, and recent events.

Key Details from the Article:

1. Headline and Context:

   • The headline, "CRITICS WARY OF 'MONA LISA'", suggests skepticism or caution regarding the painting's authenticity or condition.
   • The article references a New York Dec. 22 (INS) report, indicating the source of the information.

2. Portrait of Mona Lisa:

   • The article notes that a portrait declared to be an earlier "Mona Lisa" by Leonardo da Vinci was exhibited in the Louvre Museum in Paris.
   • The painting was returned to a bank vault after a general judgment of international art experts.

3. Exhibition and Authentication:

   • The painting was exhibited in New York by Dr. Paul Joseph Judson, a former curator of the Cloegora collection of the Vatican.
   • Dr. Judson claimed the painting was the original Mona Lisa as described in the Louvre, but it was identified as a ray study by Dr. Judson himself, a fellow of the American Academy in Rome.
   • Dr. Judson stated that the canvas had been rayed and microscopically painted and was convinced Da Vinci painted it several years before the famous Mona Lisa in the Louvre.

4. Ownership and Value:

   • The portrait was owned by Dr. Ambrose W. Vernon of Hanover, N.H., and his sister-in-law, Mrs. Alice C. R. Vernon.
   • The Vernons theorized the portrait might be worth a million dollars.
   • The painting was brought to the Fogg Art Museum at Harvard University for cleaning, where it was sold to the Louvre. However, the Louvre believed the canvas belonged to the early sixteenth century, contradicting the claim of being an original by Da Vinci.

5. Expert Opinion:

   • Dr. Judson defended his examination, stating that the painting was convinced to be Da Vinci's work.
   • Sir Kenneth Clark, an outstanding British expert on old masters, commented that he had never heard of the painting again and could not comprehend its reappearance. He suggested that if an intelligent man said he never heard of Judson, that would be sufficient information.

Visual Elements:

• The top of the clipping features the Burlington Press Clipping Bureau logo, indicating the source of the clipping.
• The article is neatly formatted with a clear headline, subheadings, and structured paragraphs.
• The text is in black ink on a white background, typical of newspaper clippings from the early 20th century.

Summary:

The article highlights controversy surrounding a purported earlier version of the Mona Lisa, with conflicting opinions from experts. It emphasizes the skepticism of critics and the involvement of notable figures like Dr. Judson and Sir Kenneth Clark, underscoring the debate over the painting's authenticity and historical significance.

The image depicts a newspaper clipping from February 23, 1950, featuring an article titled "CRITICS WARY OF 'MONA LISA'". The article discusses the authenticity of the Mona Lisa painting, which was declared to be an earlier "Mona Lisa" by Leonardo da Vinci than the famed Da Vinci "Mona Lisa" in the Paris Louvre. The painting was exhibited in New York yesterday and declared by Dr. Thomas Macaughty Judson, a former curator of the Geognara collection of the Vatican, to be authentic.

The exhibition of the painting in New York was called to the attention of George Salles, director of the Louvre Museum in Paris. Salles declared the Mona Lisa in the Louvre to be the original one by Da Vinci.

X-RAY STUDY:

Doctor Judson, a fellow of the American Academy in Rome, said he had examined the canvas "visually, by X-rays, infra-red rays and microscopically," and is convinced Da Vinci painted it several years before the "Mona Lisa" in the Louvre.

The portrait shown to news-men by Doctor Judson has been in the hands of a prominent American family since 1797. Its present owners are Dr. Alrose W. Vernon of Hanover, N.H., and his sister-in-law, Mrs. Alice C. E. Vernon.

Mrs. Vernon theorized the portrait might be worth a million dollars.

The Vernons are heirs of William Henry Judson, who bought the picture from France as the gift of Queen Marie Antoinette. They sent their painting to the Fogg art museum at Harvard University for cleaning in 1934, but technicians there said only that they believed it belonged to the early sixteenth century.

BRUSH WORK:

Doctor Judson said that his examination of the work convinced him it was from the brushes of Da Vinci.

The sitter for the Vernon "Mona Lisa," Doctor Judson theorized, was the same model portrayed in the Louvre.

(In London, Sir Kenneth Clark, an outstanding British expert on old masters, said he was "happened before and could happen again." He declined further comment on the ground that insufficient information was available to say that he never heard of Judson.)

The image presents a newspaper clipping from the San Francisco Examiner, dated February 23, 1950. The clipping is titled "CRITICS WARY OF 'MONA LISA'" and features a bold headline in black text on a light brown background. Below the headline, a column of black text provides details about the painting, including its exhibition in New York and the opinions of art experts.

Key Features:

• Newspaper Clipping: The clipping is from the San Francisco Examiner, dated February 23, 1950.
• Title: The title "CRITICS WARY OF 'MONA LISA'" is displayed in bold black text on a light brown background.
• Content: A column of black text provides information about the painting, including its exhibition in New York and the opinions of art experts.
• Layout: The clipping has a vertical layout, with the title at the top and the text below.
• Background: The background of the clipping is a light brown color, which provides a neutral contrast to the black text.

Summary:

The newspaper clipping from the San Francisco Examiner, dated February 23, 1950, features a bold headline and a column of text that provides details about the painting "Mona Lisa". The clipping is laid out vertically, with the title at the top and the text below, and has a light brown background that provides a neutral contrast to the black text.

The image is a scanned newspaper clipping from the San Francisco Examiner, dated February 23, 1950.

The clipping is from the front page and features a headline that reads "CRITICS WARY OF 'MONA LISA'" in large black text. The article discusses a portrait of "Mona Lisa" that was declared to be an original Da Vinci painting by Dr. Thomas MacCauley Judson, a former curator of the Coogmans collection of the Vati-can.

The article states that the painting was exhibited in New York and was declared authentic by Dr. Judson, who examined it using X-rays, infrared rays, and microscopy. The article also mentions that the painting was owned by a prominent American family since 1917 and was believed to be worth a million dollars.

The clipping is yellowed with age and has a worn appearance, suggesting that it is an old document. The background of the image is a plain gray color, which helps to highlight the clipping.

Overall, the image appears to be a historical document that provides insight into a controversy surrounding a potentially valuable artwork.

The image presents a vintage newspaper clipping from the San Francisco Cal Examiner, dated February 23, 1950. The clipping is titled "CRITICS WARY OF 'MONA LISA'" and features an article discussing the authenticity of a portrait declared to be an earlier "Mona Lisa" by Leonardo da Vinci than the famous one in the Paris Louvre.

Newspaper Clipping Details:

• Title: CRITICS WARY OF 'MONA LISA'
• Date: February 23, 1950
• Newspaper: San Francisco Cal Examiner
• Content: Article discussing the authenticity of a portrait declared to be an earlier "Mona Lisa" by Leonardo da Vinci

Article Summary:

The article reports on a portrait that was declared to be an earlier "Mona Lisa" by Leonardo da Vinci than the famous one in the Paris Louvre. The portrait was exhibited in New York and declared authentic by Dr. Thomas Macaughtry, a former curator of the Coogers collection of the Vatican. However, critics are wary of the portrait's authenticity, and experts have raised questions about its origins.

Key Points:

• The portrait was declared to be an earlier "Mona Lisa" by Leonardo da Vinci.
• The portrait was exhibited in New York and declared authentic by Dr. Thomas Macaughtry.
• Critics are wary of the portrait's authenticity.
• Experts have raised questions about its origins.

Additional Information:

• The clipping is attributed to Bufrelle's Press Clipping Bureau, established in 1888.
• The bureau's address is listed as 165 Church Street, New York.
• The clipping is a yellowed, aged paper with black text.

Overall, the image provides a fascinating glimpse into the art world of the 1950s and the ongoing debate about the authenticity of famous artworks.