McCrone Associates, McCrone Research, McCrrone Group, Inc., McCrone Associates, Dr Walter McCrone, Joesph Barabe, used subjective reasoning to fill in the holes in an important scientific report, then McCrone rejected their own report, and never replaced it or returned the customer's moneys.
Joe Barabe had me cut the mat of the original framing to mislead me when the question of titanium was only found in little quantities on the edge of the art discovered by a different bone black pigment found in the McCrone data than the charcoal in the center.
Mr Barabe never told me there was a different black present to showing there was restoration.
Instead incompetent and destructive Joesph Barabe ordered me to curt a big corner of the mat and for him to examine to see of the reason of the little titanium found.
Sadly i trusted this guy, he seemed to be honest.
How did Joseph Barabe miss a different black found on the edge on a work of art in the McCrone data sheet and not tell me?
It breaks my heart how destructive Josph Barabe was on an imprtant work of art.
Repeat Joe Barabe never used a photograph in a 5 page report that was found to have full of defects, so many defects Dr McCrone came to my house to try to fix things. Dr McCrone admitted Joe Barabe made mistakes writing the McCrone Renoir Pastel Report. I have it on tape and a book signed by him when he came to my house saying I was right. Sadly McCrone Associates covered up the mistakes not fixing them.
Joe Barabe is a photographer but never used any photo while writing the Renoir report and lost the photo I gave him. I wonder if he did that on purpose.
Francis Daulte the well documented Renoir expert called the pastel I found
a high quality Renoir pastel for many years before dying and Wildensteins asked for testing.
I told Joe Barabe that there was French ownership on the back. I guess it went in ear and out the other, sadly.
There are new safer ways of finding out about the make up of art materials by means of safer and non destructive ways other than the McCrone Associates way. Warning go them as a last resort. There are art scientist conservators who are more qualified to do any pigment samples than McCrone Associates.
McCrone Associates McCrone Research, McCrrone Group, Inc. McCrone Associates used subjective reasoning to fill in the holes in an important scientific report, then McCrone rejected their own report, and never replaced it or returned the customer's moneys.
McCrone Associates used subjective reasoning to fill in the holes in an important scientific report, then rejected the report, and never replaced it or returned the customer's moneys. Although McCrone Associates promised client would only be charged $400 and take only two weeks, if they could not supply information to prove the Renoir Pastel to be of correct date and materials for authentication, the moneys were not
returned.
McCrone Associates insisted the client pay for scientific results, that McCrone Associates were never able of compiling. The payment in advance was compulsory. After admitted mistakes, the McCrone Associates were unable to provide new complete 'certified tests results' to correct errors. Subjective reasoning was mixed with scientific reasoning, for lack of facts, errors admitted in original data, but never corrected.
McCrone Associates, Chicago Illinois, swore to me they could recognize Pierre Augusts Renoir's paints, pastels and paper,"no problem" says Joe Barabe, in a fax, August 25,1999.
Joe Barabe and Dr. McCrone of McCrone Associates, started research in September 1999, when Joe Barabe came to my home and collected a five hundred dollar deposit, took pigment samples, cut a corner from the paper of a Renoir Pastel and told me, only if McCrone Associates totally proved the picture was a real Renoir, would they collect the full $2,000. In December, 1999, Joe Barabe informed me that the tests were positive in his faxes, and requested another $1,000. On March 1st, 2000, in order to receive the data I had to pay the final $500, making a total of $2,000 in up front payments.
Joe Barabe started the new investigation, but found it too time consuming to understand vast implications of 19th century pastels and their differences and gave up. I made Joe Barabe aware of
his mistakes. He admitted he needed to do an investigation into the different type of pastel.
On March 22nd, 2000, they sent me a written final data report full of mistakes, involving the dating materials.
I discovered black pigment restoration on the edges which was being mistaken for "matt burn" by McCrone Associates. Also McCrone Associates also did not know Renoir used coated artist's paper or lithopone pigment, proven by Netherlands experts lithopone was used as his white pigment, in nineteenth century European pastels nor did I.
The technical dating of the paper in Joe Barabe's original mcCrone assoc. was without proof or technical reason, and McCrone Associates were proven wrong by the Dutch and American and European Conservators, but ignored this.
Bonnie Betty, Vice President of McCrone Associates, March 29, 2000, told me to burn all their reports to cover their mistakes and forget I ever saw McCrone Associates.
Dr. McCrone promised to correct these mistakes after a pattern of restoration on the edges was found, that explained the "mat burn" mistakes.
Dr. McCrone, May 8th, 2000, admitted, in my home, on tape, that the McCrone Associates Report was flawed. Dr. McCrone, May 8th, 2000 took new samples, but never sent an official certified data report, but threatened me that he would make me look bad if I made him look bad.
January, 2001, Jim Few, a known American pastel expert told me pastel migrates, and this is something McCrone Associates never discussed at any time or in the McCrone report. Fredder Schmidt, a paper expert, faxed me to say there is no technical reason for the paper date of 1900 MCCrone Associates made in the their final report.
February 11th, 2001, a year and half after McCrone Associates cut the first corner, Mccrone Associates and Dr. McCrone cut a second corner from the paper in Chicago.
February 20, 2001, McCrone Associates and Dr. McCrone said they would get information from the paper, and needed more time to "analyze." But I never heard any more information from them.
Mccrone Associates still do not know about the proper dating of and use of lithopone during the nineteenth century, or understand the paper itself and the paper Renoir used. In June of 2006, Lucy mcCrone said McCrone Associates have all samples taken form the pastel. These samples have not been returned.to me
I can send the Better Business Bureau any faxes sent by McCrone Associates, any reports, any conversations mentioned recorded and photographs of negligence. The corners they cut from the paper were far too big for any professional and McCrone Assoc. never concluded anything in their final letters.
All this adds up to bad damages on my side, and I should be paid for
the year and one half of my time, $5,000 and the amount their illegitimate claims to knowledge that they did not have, is truly a reason for McCrone Associates to be held liable for their lies.
I have only listed some of the insults and and liable actions created by McCrone Associates. Mccrone Associate and Dr Walter McCrone admitted working together on the Renoir pastel from the very beginning in September, 1999 to February 20, 2001. Dr Mccrone, McCrone Research and McCrone Associates colluded together for a year and half on every aspect of sample taking and reporting. I have all their faxes stating this.
When i called to complained all the mistakes i the McCrone report, Ms Bonnie Vice president of McCrone said " burn the McCrone Report"
When I spoke To Mrs. Lucy McCrone she said that she and Dr. McCrone never cared about me or my art work.
I hope McCrone will do the right thing and be honest, learn about the their mistakes in my complainant and refund my money.
To Get my money Joe Barabe said he knew Renoir's paper but never told me . To this day McCrone Associates refuses to tell me or investigate the paper Renoior's used, which was very special. You have to be some kind of mean hurtful person to withold important information for authentication, Joe Barabe knowing and keeping this information from a person who paid MCCrone Associates $2000.00 just to do that, investigate Renoir's paper and never did to intentionally hurt the history of Renoir.
That is when I went to Europe in 2001. I was suggested by the University of Maine to contact: the INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF PAPER HISTORIANS and and was referred to Dr Henk Porck who has made great discoveries to preserve books and other paper discoveries. Dr Pork's reply to my request was that he would help. Mr. Adriaan Kardinaal made a team of 20 people in 2002 to do the testing and research on the paper. It took one year to finish the report.
For the full Dutch 30 page Renoir paper report on the paper the pastel is on go to: http://www.onderzoeksbureau-defacto.nl/index_en.html
Joe Barabe says on his web site all mediums are basically the same. What Joe Barabe said is flat out false. Pastel will blow away, fall off due to vibration. Oil paint does not do this. Joseph Barabe or Dr McCrone never told me about pastel dust and how it effects testing art. In fact they denied that pastel dust occurs
When I asked Dr. Walter McCrone aboue about pastel and pastel dust migrating or moving around on the surface of the art work and falling off, (un-like oil paint or acyclic that is stable), how this affects dating art work? Dr McCrone faxed me and wrote that pastel does not blow away. Dr. McCrone intentionally tried to persuade me that pastel does not move around or blow to hurt a work of art I own. McCrone Associates would not even admit there is pastel dust.
One last note about the McCrone Associates Renoir reports. In the reports it's suggest to research Renoir' paper. Why did they not to do it? They promised they would when they took my money. McCrone Associates should know the paper Renoir used. M
For the full Dutch 30 page Renoir paper report on the paper the pastel is on go to: http://www.onderzoeksbureau-defacto.nl/index_en.html
The Dutch Renoir paper report discovery by Adriaan Kardinaal and Dr. Henk Porck, Amsterdam, is so precise that Dr. Margaret Peggy Ellis of New York University and International Foundation for Art Research can not dispute the great art discovery and thanked me for the the Dutch report.
Joe Barabe, why did i have go to Europe to learn about Renoir's paper and why did you make make up date of 1905 with a technical reason, he created a date out of thin air and put it in a scientific report . i am shocked at Joe for being so imprecise. Why did he do it? I never got a reason.
I am very hurt by it because I trusted McCrone Associates and McCrone Associates did this weird science on a very important work of art that was attributed to the artist by the experts.
Strange the McCrone data they produced was excellent, it discovered restoration but they never said that in McCrone report. Dr. Walter McCrone and Joe Barabe covered up important information that would have helped authenticate an important Renoir pastel study. I have no idea what the motive is behind it. Perhaps to protect their friends who are art experts.
