Our Thoughts on Elimar: The $50 Garage Sale 'Van Gogh' at the Center of a Heated Controversy

Feb 5

A garage sale discovery, a $15 million claim, and a growing authentication battle—the story of Elimar has sparked widespread debate in the art world. The painting, which depicts a fisherman mending his net, was purchased from a Minnesota garage sale for $50 in 2016 before being acquired by LMI Group International, a New York-based research firm, in 2019. Since then, LMI has led an aggressive push to have the work authenticated as a long-lost Vincent van Gogh, citing scientific analysis and material testing as evidence.

However, the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam remains unconvinced, standing by its rejection of the painting’s attribution. Meanwhile, independent experts have put forth a compelling counterargument: rather than being a van Gogh, Elimar may be the work of Henning Elimar, a 20th-century Danish artist.

As an art authentication firm, we specialize in unbiased, research-based evaluations—and while we have not formally studied Elimar ourselves, we find the case for its authenticity deeply unconvincing. Based on stylistic inconsistencies, questionable research motives, and an overreliance on scientific evidence, we align with the Van Gogh Museum and other independent experts who reject the attribution. Here’s why.

The Case for Authenticity

At the center of Elimar’s authentication push is LMI Group International, a research firm that not only investigated the painting but owns it—creating an inherent conflict of interest. While their 450-page report presents scientific findings supporting a van Gogh attribution.

LMI’s argument is based on several key findings:

Material Analysis: Pigment tests show 95% alignment with colors available in van Gogh’s era.
Canvas Examination: Thread count matches known late 19th-century production methods.
Stylistic Elements: Some aspects of the brushwork and glazing techniques resemble van Gogh’s methods.

However, the Van Gogh Museum—the foremost authority on the artist’s work—has firmly rejected this conclusion, stating: "We maintain our view that this is not an authentic painting by Vincent van Gogh."

The Alternative Theory: Attribution to Henning Elimar

Further complicating the attribution, in a recent Artnet article, experts like Dr. Martin Pracher from Würzburg, Germany, weighed in with an alternative theory. Upon researching, Dr. Pracher discovered other paintings signed "Elimar" by Henning Elimar, a little-known Danish artist born in 1928. He noted, "I thought it was odd that a claimed title was in the area where usually the signature sits." This observation led to the hypothesis that the painting might be the work of Henning Elimar rather than van Gogh.

Supporting this perspective, Wouter van der Veen, former scientific director of the Institut Van Gogh and current president of the Van Gogh Academy, expressed skepticism about the van Gogh attribution. He stated, "The so-called Van Gogh painting of a fisherman is a farce," attributing the work instead to Henning Elimar. Van der Veen emphasized the importance of thorough research, telling Artnet, "Somehow, a team of 20 so-called experts, backed by a $30,000 budget, failed to notice ELIMAR is a signature."

This alternative theory is far more logical—a case of mistaken attribution rather than a missing masterpiece.

Burden of Proof: Why the Case for Elimar Still Falls Short

In response to these critiques, LMI Group defended their attribution, highlighting their rigorous scientific examination, which dated the painting's materials to the late 19th century. They argued that Henning Elimar, active in the 20th century, was unlikely to have created the work, stating, "The painting introduced by LMI Group is wholly consistent with a 19th-century palette and shows no evidence of 20th-century innovations. Those claiming otherwise have not seen this painting in person.”

We remain skeptical of LMI Group’s conclusions, particularly given their vested financial interest in proving the painting’s authenticity. Any organization that both owns and authenticates an artwork is inherently biased, no matter how thorough their research appears to be. It’s important to recognize that any organization that both authenticates and stands to profit from a painting’s acceptance is not operating from a neutral standpoint.

While there are certainly cases where an in-person inspection is essential, most seasoned experts can determine whether a painting is inconsistent with an artist’s known body of work using high-resolution images alone. The claim that the museum’s opinion is invalid without a firsthand viewing feels more like a diversion than a legitimate defense.

Additionally, LMI’s reliance on scientific analysis over connoisseurship raises concerns. Scientific testing is an important tool, but it cannot be the sole foundation of an attribution claim. Many collectors assume that a pigment match or a correctly aged canvas automatically confirms authenticity, but this is not the case. Forensic evidence can rule out a painting, but it cannot definitively prove authorship—especially when the stylistic and compositional elements raise red flags.

Finally, the tendency of collectors to believe so strongly in an artwork’s authenticity that they expect researchers to share their enthusiasm is a familiar pitfall in authentication. True research requires detachment and impartiality—not the emotional thrill of a “discovery.” It’s clear that Elimar still has a long way to go before being widely accepted, and in our opinion, the burden of proof remains firmly on those advocating for its authenticity.

Where we stand on Elimar

While it’s important to note that we have not conducted an independent investigation into the piece, our gut reaction—based purely on its overall style and composition—aligns with the Van Gogh Museum and other independent experts who question the attribution.

Our director, Lindsey Bourret, said “One of the defining features of van Gogh’s paintings is the precision within his expressive brushwork—his strokes may be bold, but they are purposeful, creating movement and depth that feel both instinctive and masterful. Elimar, by contrast, lacks that balance. The brushstrokes feel disjointed rather than intentional, the layering of paint does not build form in the way van Gogh typically worked, and there is an overall lack of refinement in execution. While scientific analysis can date materials, it cannot account for an artist’s touch—and in this case, the stylistic weaknesses strongly suggest that this is not a van Gogh.”

The Future of Elimar: A Painting Without Consensus

For now, Elimar remains in a state of limbo, caught between a determined owner looking to prove its authenticity and a growing body of expert opinion rejecting the claim. While LMI Group stands by its findings, their financial stake in the painting’s acceptance raises questions about the objectivity of their research. Conversely, the Van Gogh Museum and independent scholars have been unequivocal in their rejection—and in the art world, institutional consensus carries significant weight.

The unresolved status of Elimar highlights a larger issue in art authentication: scientific testing alone is not enough. Material analysis can confirm that a painting is old, but it cannot verify authorship without strong stylistic, historical, and provenance evidence. True authentication is a multi-layered process, requiring connoisseurship, comparative research, and an understanding of the artist’s techniques—elements that, in this case, appear to have been overlooked or deprioritized in favor of scientific findings.

At Signature, we take a balanced, research-driven approach to art authentication, utilizing comparative stylistic analysis, provenance research, and, when necessary, scientific testing to build a case for or against authenticity. No single method is definitive on its own, and we carefully weigh all available evidence before forming an expert opinion. Our process is rooted in impartiality and rigor, ensuring that every attribution we make is supported by conclusive, multi-disciplinary research. By integrating traditional connoisseurship with modern analytical tools, we provide collectors with a clear, credible assessment—one that holds weight in the art market and stands up to the highest levels of scrutiny.

Lindsey Bourret