The Truth About Scientific Analysis in Art Authentication: What It Can (and Can’t) Prove

Many people believe that scientific analysis can instantly determine whether a painting is authentic or fake—as if there’s a simple lab test that provides a yes-or-no answer. But the reality is far more complex.

At Signature, we regularly work with leading scientific art experts, including Dr. Nicholas Eastaugh, CEO of Vasarik and author of the widely used Pigment Compendium. His expertise in pigment analysis and material "signatures" has helped identify specific artists by their unique use of materials. However, the number of artists who can be definitively identified this way is limited.

While scientific testing can provide strong supporting evidence, it is most powerful when combined with traditional connoisseurship and provenance research. So before investing in costly laboratory analysis, let’s explore what scientific methods can and can’t prove in the authentication process.

What Scientific Analysis CAN Reveal About an Artwork

The #1 way scientific testing exposes forgeries? When the materials don’t match the time period.

If a painting claimed to be from the Renaissance contains modern titanium white, it’s obviously not authentic.

Here’s a breakdown of key scientific techniques used in art authentication—and what they can tell us.

1. Pigment Analysis & Material Signatures

How it works:

Pigments and binders are analyzed to determine their chemical composition and whether they were available during the claimed time period. Experts like Dr. Nicholas Eastaugh specialize in tracking an artist’s unique material choices—their "material signature."

What it can prove:
- If an anachronistic pigment is present, the painting is a forgery.
- Some artists had unique pigment mixtures, and if those materials match, it supports authenticity.

Limitations:
- Only a small number of artists have well-documented material signatures.
- Even if the materials match, a forger could still be replicating them.

When We Use It: If we suspect that an artist used a unique pigment blend, pigment analysis can provide critical supporting evidence.

2. Carbon Dating (Radiocarbon Dating)

How it works:

Organic materials like canvas, wood, and paper are dated by measuring carbon isotope decay.

What it can prove:
- If the canvas or panel is from 1950 but claimed to be from 1700, it’s a fake.

Limitations:
- Old materials don’t mean the artwork is authentic—forgers often reuse antique canvases and wood panels.

When We Use It: If the canvas or panel’s age is in question, this test can rule out anachronistic materials.

3. X-ray & Infrared Imaging

How it works:

Underpaintings, artist sketches, and hidden alterations are revealed beneath the surface.

What it can prove:
- If a known artist’s painting process matches, it strengthens authenticity.
- If another image is hidden underneath, it could match the artist’s known working methods.

Limitations:
- X-rays don’t confirm authorship—only how the painting was made. A skilled forger could still mimic the technique.

When We Use It: If we suspect a work has been painted over or altered, X-ray analysis can reveal hidden details.

4. UV Light & Chemical Analysis

How it works:

UV light detects varnish layers, repairs, and overpainting, while chemical analysis identifies binding agents and solvents.

What it can prove:
- If a synthetic varnish is found on a “centuries-old” painting, it’s a red flag.

Limitations:
- Just because the materials match the time period doesn’t confirm authenticity.

When We Use It: To check for recent restorations, touch-ups, or suspicious alterations.

What Scientific Analysis CAN’T Do

• It can’t unequivocally “prove” who painted something.
  Scientific testing only verifies materials and techniques—not the artist’s hand.

• It’s not a magic authenticity test.
  There’s no single scientific test that will stamp a painting "authentic" or "fake" in one go.

• It doesn’t replace provenance research.
  Even if the materials match, an artwork without a traceable history is still questionable.

Why We Start with Comparative Analysis & Provenance Research

At Signature, we take a methodical approach to authentication. Here’s why we don’t start with expensive scientific testing:

Comparative Analysis Comes First

• We compare an artwork’s stylistic features, brushstrokes, and composition to known works by the artist.

• If the style is completely inconsistent, there’s no need for costly scientific testing.

Provenance Research Can Tell Us More Than Science

• If an artwork has no traceable history before the last 20 years, that’s a huge red flag.

• Even if it passes scientific tests, without historical documentation, it may never be accepted as authentic.

Scientific Testing Is a Last Step, Not a First Step

• If an artwork passes stylistic and provenance checks, then scientific analysis can provide final supporting evidence.

• But if a simple stylistic comparison or historical research debunks the claim, why spend thousands on testing?

The Bottom Line: Science Can Expose Fakes—But It Can’t Confirm Authenticity Alone

Scientific testing is an essential tool in art authentication, but it doesn’t work in isolation.

• It’s great for proving something is fake—by revealing anachronistic materials.

• It’s limited in proving something is real—because forgers can use old materials.

That’s why at Signature, we start with comparative analysis and provenance research—because if an artwork fails these tests, scientific analysis is unnecessary.

Have an artwork you’d like to authenticate? Let our experts determine the best approach for verifying its authenticity. Contact us today.