Talk:Bathing Venus

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 6 January 2020 by reviewer Robert McClenon (talk · contribs).

Accuracy of central claim

Disclaimer: I created an account specifically to tackle this article, because I was really disturbed to find it.

The articles central conceit is that the statue is a genuine Giambologne cast; however, this is by no means scholarly consensus. It seems that the only one pushing for that interpretation is the part owner of the piece, who is (by his own admission) hoping to sell it, and has an interest in it bearing the bigger name, thus inflating the price. There is a quite thorough article on the situation here, another one even more critical in German, and the newest Burlington Magazine has a review that quite dismantles the theory of it being a Giambologna. After reading up on it, it seems much more probable that the sculpture was cast by Gerhard Meyer in 1697 (as it is, btw, stated in the Wikipedia article on the marble original).

Given that, the whole article seems strange - could it be that the owner of the Bronze has written or commissioned it himself...? What do you think? Glad to make my case with more specifics if needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulBremen (talk • contribs) 20:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found a few more citations that appear to validate the authenticity of the sculpture. Hope this is helpful! CourtauldGill (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]