Fake or Fortune fans have A LOT of complaints about Fiona Bruce antique show – fuming ‘what a load of c**p!’

FAKE or Fortune viewers had a lot of complaints about Fiona Bruce’s antique show – with many raging “what a load of c**p!”.

The latest episode saw the BBC host, and Philip Mould travel to North London to meet a gentlemen called Glyn Hopkin, a car trader who has a passion for art.

He’s took a chance on a painting he hoped was by Sir Joshua Reynolds, a towering figure in 18th-century art.

Glyn purchased the captivating image of a boy on a whim from a Monaco online auction.

He decided to take a chance on the painting, which was described as “in the style of Sir Joshua Reynolds,” and paid £2,700 for it. If it is found to be authentic, it may be worth £100,000.

Fiona investigated the painting’s provenance and discovered that it was owned by a Monaco family in 1950.

After careful examination by several experts the painting was declared inauthentic at the end.

Expert, Martin Postle told Glyn: “I have a verdict. Well we are talking about an artist who is constantly copied and replicated, and I think what has been produced here, and this is my hypothesis, is that somebody, an artist has produced a pastiche of a Reynolds subject picture.

You could even call it a homage, so that he is sitting and thinking, I’m painting something that feels in every sense, like a painting by Joshua Reynolds. There are too many factors to make me think that this is by Joshua Reynolds. I guess that’s the bottom line.”

Phillip Mould then said: “But Martin can you totally discount the possibility that there is a Reynolds of sorts beneath the later paint?”

Martin responded: “You could paint any number of scenarios. A scrap of canvas gets picked up, gets reused. Reynolds does a little sketch. So it’s not beyond the bounds of possibility, but it is I think simply about 5% max if that.

Viewers were not happy with the episode with some fuming that it was a “load of c**p”.

Taking to X, formerly known as Twitter one fan wrote: “Can’t believe the way they’re just clumsily flicking and fumbling through Reynolds’ own pocket books, without even being careful let alone wearing gloves!”

Another added: “is always interesting but so repetitive. There are daytime soaps which move faster.”

A third fumed: “What a c**p episode. None the wiser after a very poor analysis.”

A fourth raged: “It’s probably not a good idea #fakeorfortune to explain erreur sur la substance to more people than already know…there are other pictures at risk. Phillip Mould.”