Hacker News Reader

I'm confused by your comment. The article mentions an entirely different person (now deceased) with that name (Peter Doige) and his sister has supported the whereabouts (high school, prison, etc). Are you suggesting that the painting is (a) authentic Peter Doig, but he is lying about it, or (b) that it is a bad forgery?

View on HN

I'm suggesting it is the wrong person. With the suggestion that due to the amount of money involved there is motivation to pass off artwork as Doig's when it is not.

People have a history of scamming for a personal profit. Throwing some artist's name on a painting when their paintings are worth millions, claiming they painted it decades ago, and trying to sell it for millions isn't too far-fetched of a scam. Maybe the artist doesn't remember 40 years ago and just says "Yeah, sure, whatever. I painted that 40 years ago." and you just made yourself $8,000,000 for paying someone down the street $80 for a painting.

Your original comment seems very much to suggest anything but that you believe it is the wrong person. That is the source of my confusion and I think possibly the others that replied.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com