
Is It a ‘5’ or a ‘6’? The Answer Could Make an Art Fortune - prismatic
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/26/arts/bathing-venus-uffizi-giambologna.html
======
sojmq
Don't worry, there is a patch for that
[http://www.snakebytestudios.com/projects/mods/diablo-2-mods/...](http://www.snakebytestudios.com/projects/mods/diablo-2-mods/#fixedfont)

~~~
mcphage
Oh man, I wish I knew about that back in the day...

------
JohnTHaller
It's a 6 that the owner wants to be a 5 so it's worth more.

~~~
dna_polymerase
It's a 5, look at the 5 below, same number. Also it's carved if it was a 6
there would be a visible notch.

~~~
abrowne
Close-up:
[https://static01.nyt.com/images/2019/11/27/arts/00venus7/mer...](https://static01.nyt.com/images/2019/11/27/arts/00venus7/merlin_164332638_f2263b3e-fd38-4c07-910a-8f2ea0ac84bc-
superJumbo.jpg)

The 5 below has an extra rightward-facing part on the top that the 5/6 doesn't

And then why does it say it was made in Stockholm?

~~~
mc32
The curve on the 5 tapers off, that same hook on the 6 does not. It looks more
like a six to me, but I can see how it might look like a five but without the
top cross.

~~~
Enginerrrd
To me it looks like it actually does have the top cross that's been stamped
over by the loop of the 9. Look closely.

~~~
mc32
Kind of; but there is no evidence of a serif (as in the five in the other
number).

------
tmearnest
Oh man, finally a use for that network I trained on MNIST!

------
hakfoo
Look at the coinage of Elizabeth I for an unambiguous contemporary example.
The top sections of the "5s" vary substantially-- some are nearly square, some
are an obtuse angle which looks not that far from this figure.

The Arabic numbers took a long time to standardize-- you were still seeing the
weird early "4" that looks like the nodern one tipped back 45 degrees not that
much earlier.

------
manicdee
Giambologna 1529–1608

In 1597 the artist would have been 68. In 1697 he would have been 168.

What is actually the topic of debate here? Surely not whether this bronze
casting was created by this artist?

------
neonate
[http://archive.is/AX6RU](http://archive.is/AX6RU)

------
mself
6

------
croisillon
totally a 5

------
PhasmaFelis
I'm always bemused that art aficionados seems to care much more about
provenance and prestige than about the art itself. Whether this piece was made
by a revered master or a no-name should have no bearing on whether it's
"clunky" or "exquisite."

If it's a copy rather than a wholly original work, I can see that affecting
the perception of its uniqueness, at least. But I've seen discussion of
"rediscovered" paintings from masters that are worthless if they turn out to
have been original work from a different artist, even though the quality was
good enough to fool professional appraisers.

~~~
jonahrd
Think of it this way. Say you were trying to piece together the life story of
Stephen Hawking. You'd be happy to come across an unknown/unpublished paper of
his, which would be a new plot-point to demonstrate his intelligence and
talent in a specific way that was previously unknown. Sure, it may not be his
best work. It may not even be that different from other work going on at the
same time. But because we are interested in Stephen Hawking's story
specifically, it would still be a very valuable piece to keep track of. If you
later found out it was an imposter's paper, it would be worthless.

~~~
lisper
That's not at all comparable. The value of art is purely subjective. The only
reason we're interested in (say) Giambologna _at all_ is because his art has
some ineffable subjective quality that the art of his competitors lacks
--better "aesthetics" (or whatever you want to call it). So if you can't tell
the difference between a Giambologna and an Arglebargle based on its
aesthetics, what difference does it make whether it's a Giambologna or an
Arglebargle? It's like arguing over whether Shakespeare's plays were really
written by Shakespeare or by someone else with the same name.

The reason we're interested in Hawking has nothing to do with aesthetics, it
has to do with _science_. The original works of a scientist may be of
_historical_ interest, but they are of no _scientific_ interest. The reason
we're interested in Hawking in the first place has nothing to do with the
details of his original works, whereas the reason we're interested in
Giambologna has everything to do with it.

~~~
daveFNbuck
People were interested in Hawking more because of his disability and public
outreach efforts than his scientific papers. Most people who are interested in
him can't understand his work, and the people who do understand his work have
higher regard for scientists that the general public shows no interest in.

~~~
lisper
Yeah, whatever. The point is that no one is interested in Hawking because of
the physical details of any artifact that he produced.

------
dajonker
If you need an easy way to bypass the "login" wall, just click the "reader
view" icon on Firefox (and probably Safari).

~~~
throwaway744678
Direct link to the picture
[[https://static01.nyt.com/images/2019/11/27/arts/00venus5/mer...](https://static01.nyt.com/images/2019/11/27/arts/00venus5/merlin_164332665_b5521880-e2ed-49ad-a9d4-473a55740684-mobileMasterAt3x.jpg)]

~~~
IshKebab
Pretty clearly a 6.

~~~
dagav
It could just as easily be a 5 considering the "bulb" isn't connected

~~~
remarkEon
It's definitely a 5. I would expect that they'd use the same tool to cast the
'9' as they would the '6' (just turned 180 degrees), and the character in
question pretty clearly has a different angle connecting the "bulb" to the
"feather" than the '9' in the year.

~~~
meowface
Plus it looks like the "5" in the "25" below it.

