Hoped for Van Gogh Suicide gun sells

[indy1919a4]

It is possible that Van Gogh was shot by kids Van Gogh did not kill himself, as years later one of the villagers gave a death bed confession that he had shot Van Gogh playing Cowboy games.

Death Bed confessions.. the last vestige of the gutless glory seeker.. ... But just to play the other side you had a day and 1/2 of Van Gogh telling several people that he in fact shot himself. (on his death bed no less).

 

[toivo]

On the subject of potentially collectible guns, I wonder if anybody is ever going to find Nelson Mandela's Makarov:

https://mg.co.za/article/2011-05-09-in-search-of-mandelas-lost-makarov-pistol

 

[Slamfire]

Death Bed confessions.. the last vestige of the gutless glory seeker.. ... But just to play the other side you had a day and 1/2 of Van Gogh telling several people that he in fact shot himself. (on his death bed no less).

The consequences for anyone shooting Van Gogh would have been pretty bad once the guy becomes one of the famous painters ever, so there is some logic about keeping silent about it. And the logic to the story is that Van Gogh did not want to get kids into trouble. But, it is after all, an unverifiable story. Van Gogh could have shot himself, suicides happen all the time.

I read Guy Gibson's book: Enemy Coast ahead. Guy Gibson was the squadron commander for the dambuster raids and a national hero. The official story is that on his last bombing raid he was shot down by the Germans. But, after reading the account of Bernard McCormack, I believe it could have been a friendly fire incident. It was dark, the radio was out on Guy Gibson's plane, he joined a bomber formation on the way back, in the dark his plane had the silhouette of a Ju88, and a rear tail gunner knew it was not a Blenheim, and shot it down. No one wanted to admit it, nether Bomber Harris in the preface of the book, Enemy Coast Ahead, or the guy who shot Guy Gibson down, till his death.

From Wiki:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Gibson

In October 2011, the Daily Mail published an article asserting that the cause of Gibson's death may have been a friendly fire incident. Rear gunner Sergeant Bernard McCormack flew on the raid. Before he died in 1992, he left a taped confession with his wife that he had seen what he thought was a Ju 88 flying near his plane and had fired 600 rounds at it when in the vicinity of Steenbergen. He saw the plane go down. During the debriefing after the raid he explained what had happened and was asked again about the incident by an Intelligence Officer the following day. McCormack came to believe the plane shot down belonged to Gibson.[168]

Before you say that was absurd, a WW2 veteran I worked with, told me of a unfriendly fire incident by his squadron of B17's. High Command became aware of flights not going over target, but rather flying to a nice safe area of Germany and dropping their bombs there, and then heading home. Higher Command wanted Squadron Commanders to check up on their men, to see that they were going to where they were supposed to be going. The squadron commander of bud's unit followed up in a Mosquito bomber, which was a very fast plane. As he approached the formation head on, his men started shooting at him. Assuming they did not recognize his plane, the squadron commander turned his plane so the roundels and silhouette were very clear in the daylight. That should have worked except for the fact, he was not popular and the maneuver made it easy for his men to shoot the plane down. Now that did not go anywhere in any book or report, but things like that happened. The US was experiencing 65,000 casualties a month during the war, with 20,000 of that as dead men, so a missing squadron commander or two was just one of those things. The British were losing a similar number of men.

 

[boom boom]

It is possible that Van Gogh was shot by kids Van Gogh did not kill himself, as years later one of the villagers gave a death bed confession that he had shot Van Gogh playing Cowboy games. Impossible to know, as is whether the pistol was the lethal weapon or not. Just because a pistol happens to be found 50 years later in the same field that Van Gogh was shot would not make it worth $182,000 to me. The article claims it was in the ground since 1890, and I wonder how they determined that.

Van Gogh's paintings are much better in person than in pictures. This painting, Iris's, has a three dimensionality to it. Van Gogh built up layers of paint to make the pedals above the base layer of canvas. For unknown reasons, blue and green are particularly loved by humans and this picture has a lot of these colors. At one time this was the most expensive painting purchase in the world, now it is probably worth $250 million to $500 million. It is the value of Van Gogh's paintings and wishful thinking that made the pistol sell for so much.

O/T.
Managed to see several Van Gogh's in museums over the years and the colors of prints/photos/etc. do not really do the original paintings justice as Slamfire says. The colors and the three d effects especially stand out in the originals. Starry Nights is simply spectacular in person as are his other various landscapes that I have seen. Do not recall seeing his portraits however. FWIW, Art museums are generally a cheap way to pass the time in various cities compared with other recreations.

 

[indy1919a4]

On the subject of potentially collectible guns, I wonder if anybody is ever going to find Nelson Mandela's Makarov:

https://mg.co.za/article/2011-05-09-in-search-of-mandelas-lost-makarov-pistol

Wow, would not think that pistol would be valued that high, but guesses and estimates are far from genuine coin of the realm..

But just on the treasure hunt aspect of the story.. They know where the building is.. Would not 2 guys with basic metal detectors turn that pistol in a few hours..???

Thanks for posting, never heard of this before, cool story..

 

[40-82]

Buy the gun, not the story...

Undoubtedly, a smart move for the buyer, but it kinda takes the sport out of it for the seller.

 

[toivo]

Wow, would not think that pistol would be valued that high, but guesses and estimates are far from genuine coin of the realm..

But just on the treasure hunt aspect of the story.. They know where the building is.. Would not 2 guys with basic metal detectors turn that pistol in a few hours..???

Thanks for posting, never heard of this before, cool story..

I guess the estimate is based on the unique historical profile of the pistol's owner, especially since he was a one-time armed revolutionary who later became a head of state who advocated reconciliation.

The story does say that it was buried "deep enough so a plough could not uncover it" -- I don't know how deep a metal detector goes. And he says "we" buried it, so he wasn't alone. Maybe whoever was with him went and got it later, and it's all a wild goose chase. Who knows?

 

[Zaydok Allen]

You know, in general I've never really understood the idea that a famous person from history using something somehow made that item more valuable. I mean people pay millions to own the hat that Michael Jordan wore while accepting this award, and the pen that Mark Twain used to write some such story. All I can think is, who cares? History, while obviously very important and a critical part of learning, lest we repeat our mistakes, is based on events and actions. The outcome is what matters. Whether it be world changing leaders actions, or Evil Kenevil's jump suite while he jumped over 25 burning cars, I don't attach material value to an object just because someone used it. I mean there are people starving and dyeing from diseases all over the world, and someone paid $182,000 for a gun that was maybe used to commit a terrible act? It's their money, but I just don't get how owning a maybe historically relevant object will actually improve their lives, nor how someone would want that item enough to pay crazy money for it.

Don't get me wrong, I own a few old revolvers that I don't need at all and rarely shoot, but I bought them because the evolution of the design of the revolver interests me. I do derive some joy and knowledge from looking them over and observing the machining and fitting, along with how the development of revolvers changed over time. It's educational. But honestly, I don't care if I have a time machine and could go back and watch Hitler shoot himself with a gun, see it get stored in a box for decades, and then buy it knowing it's authentic. What does it matter? Why is a horrible act committed with a particular object by a horrible cowardly person a valuable object?

I know, I know, it's the collectors market. I just don't understand it is all I'm saying. If I found ANY object in my ownership that someone was willing to pay that kind of money for, I'd sell it immediately to the highest bidder and actually improve my life.

But I'm the same way with professional sports. They don't actually impact my life, so I don't understand the emotional attachment some people place on "their team" winning. Who cares? What happens Monday if your team wins? You go to work. What happens if they lose? You go to work.

But then again I haven't paid for internet or TV at home for almost 12 years either. So I guess I'm in the minority on several things.

Just thinking out loud.

 

[boom boom]

You know, in general I've never really understood the idea that a famous person from history using something somehow made that item more valuable. I mean people pay millions to own the hat that Michael Jordan wore while accepting this award, and the pen that Mark Twain used to write some such story. All I can think is, who cares?

One, some folks use it to launder money whether it is income tax evasion, money from illegal activities, for inheritance purposes, and so on. In particular, given that the art world is international, some shady money is exchanged for something that will be sold in the future to someone else and clean money is obtained from the sale for the authorities in their country. A second reason is that very rich individuals use them as a tax shelter--they buy low and then donate the item and take the appreciated value as a deduction against their taxes. A third reason, is that some folks speculate on these just like you would on stocks or bonds. Fourth, some people are simply rich enough be be eccentric and do what they like--e.g. the Winchester Mystery House. Fifth, some people want a connection to a famous person or event in some way and are willing to pay what it takes to get it whether it is for bragging rights or some other perceived psychological need.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

One, some folks use it to launder money whether it is income tax evasion, money from illegal activities, for inheritance purposes, and so on. In particular, given that the art world is international, some shady money is exchanged for something that will be sold in the future to someone else and clean money is obtained from the sale for the authorities in their country. A second reason is that very rich individuals use them as a tax shelter--they buy low and then donate the item and take the appreciated value as a deduction against their taxes. A third reason, is that some folks speculate on these just like you would on stocks or bonds. Fourth, some people are simply rich enough be be eccentric and do what they like--e.g. the Winchester Mystery House. Fifth, some people want a connection to a famous person or event in some way and are willing to pay what it takes to get it whether it is for bragging rights or some other perceived psychological need.

And sixth I suppose, is that many people have a lot more disposable income than I do.

Those are all excellent points, and I believe you are correct on all of them.

I can understand paying a lot for a painting that a master produced, because originals are one of a kind and perceived by many to be beautiful. I guess without the reasons you've stated though, to me a "historically significant" item used by a famous person is just a thing. No value to me.

But the market is there, regardless of my personal opinion.

 

[indy1919a4]

I guess without the reasons you've stated though, to me a "historically significant" item used by a famous person is just a thing. No value to me.

But the market is there, regardless of my personal opinion.

So let me ask you walk into sale and there is a Winchester rifle and you are willing to pay x for it no more. You can get one on Gunbroker for that. Then underneath the gun there is a letter from Winchester arms saying .. Thanks John Moses Browning for all your work you have done for this.. So we pulled this rifle off the line as one of the 1st made and sending it to you.. Then under that note there is a photo underneath it with John Moses Browning holding that rifle and on the back is a note saying to his brother that he was going to show this to Matthew Browning to see how well the likes our work..

You would not kick in anything else for that rifle??? even 100 dollars.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

So let me ask you walk into sale and there is a Winchester rifle and you are willing to pay x for it no more. You can get one on Gunbroker for that. Then underneath the gun there is a letter from Winchester arms saying .. Thanks John Moses Browning for all your work you have done for this.. So we pulled this rifle off the line as one of the 1st made and sending it to you.. Then under that note there is a photo underneath it with John Moses Browning holding that rifle and on the back is a note saying to his brother that he was going to show this to Matthew Browning to see how well the likes our work..

You would not kick in anything else for that rifle??? even 100 dollars.

Well $100? Sure. But that isn't realistic at all is it, and the only reason I would is because I know it's worth more in the market I'm questioning. But I see your point. If I'm willing to drop $100, and the next guy is willing to drop $150, well it just goes up from there, and that's why the collector market exists. If that market didn't exist, then no, I wouldn't spend the money. Value is a perception. I don't really perceive there to be any material or measurable value of a Browning owned rifle over one owned by Joe Shmoe. The value by the market is perceived due to a minority of people who can afford to pay silly amounts of money for something they just plain want. I am just not one of those people. The collector market for "historically relevant" objects exists simply because people decided to make it exist. So here it is with a very expensive maybe on the market.

But the truth is I'd be a lot more interested in the rifle and what it does than who owned it. It's not like John Browning is going to come home and have lunch with me because I bought this rifle. Because ultimately, it's just a rifle.

Measurable and material benefits I am willing to pay extra for as I perceive greater reward for owning them. I bought a CZ Shadow 2 rather than a CZ 75b because there are measurable benefits that improve the performance of the Shadow 2.

But ultimately, people get to spend their money how they want, and if they make enough to do it, then it's none of our business.

I guess it’s just an aspect of human behavior that’s a bit funny to me. But as Boom Boom pointed out, there are measurable benefits to the buyers in some cases as a way to clean money.

 

[indy1919a4]

We all have our jelly spots...