Hacker News Reader

That's...kinda weird, right? The before and after are clearly two different paintings. Hair is different, mouth is different...I would assume, as a layman, that restoring a piece of art the goal should keep it looking nearly the same just cleaning it up and removing damage. This looks like they just straight up painted over it.

View on HN

Christie's has more details here: http://www.christies.com/features/Salvator-Mundi-timeline-86...

That BBC quote is a bit misleading. The photo on the left is what the painting looked like before restoration, not what it looked like when it was originally painted. Parts of it had been damaged and repainted over multiple times in the past which is why the restored version looks so different.

That was an excellent article and dialogue. Thank you.

Bearing in mind here, that Christie's had a vested interest in the painting selling for as high as an amount as possible. So interesting this may be, it's hardly unbiased.

Personally, I'm a believer. :)

The restoration removed the previous painted-over-it paint.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com