5 ms·
You mean, did the thing they were assumed to be have value all that time? Yes. But then it was discovered that they were not that thing.
by gilrain 6y ago
You mean, did the thing they were assumed to be have value all that time? Yes. But then it was discovered that they were not that thing.
- JoeAltmaier 6y agoDoes 'value' mean what people would pay for the thing? They paid lots for those 'fake' paintings. Ergo, they had value. The value was destroyed by looking a little too carefully at their provenance. I simply observe that the value was destroyed not by the artist that created them, but by the investigator. That much seems obvious. But whom to blame? That's a human moral issue. I suggest we could reasonably blame the investigator.
- goto11 6y agoYou are basically rejecting the idea that something can be fake. If I faked a letter from Albert Einstein where he confessed to secretly being a Christian I'm sure people consider it of great value. Would it "destroy value" if someone figured out it was actually a hoax?