Fiona Bruce left 'gutted' over Fake or Fortune £80,000 verdict 'That's a bit harsh!'

2's Fake or Fortune? was back for another episode on Thursday (10 April). and art dealer Philip Mould teamed up once again in a bid to discover the truth behind a painting with a mysterious history. This time, the duo were investigating a painting that depicted the terrible aftermath of a battle and showed the gruesome reality of what happens to animals in a warzone.

The owner had suspicions it could be a work by Victorian artist Edwin Landseer and wanted to uncover the truth. The painting in question is owned by Kathy and Barry Romeril, who bought it in 1987. Not knowing much about the painting when she first bought it, Kathy recently became suspicious that it may be a famous Victorian work of art.

She came to Fiona and Phillip in the hope they could decipher whether or not it was a painting by Edwin Landseer. The pair quickly identified the scene as a work of art called Time of War, however they were unsure if it was the original or a copy.

Fiona looked back at the history of the painting that had once hung in the Tate Gallery in London. However, she soon discovered that the painting was previously thought to have been destroyed by a flood in 1928. Along their journey of investigation, both Fiona and Phillip discovered a number of signs that the painting could, in fact, be the real thing.

Phillip found out that the pigments of paint used in the artwork would have been used at the time by the Victorian artist. The pair also found evidence of moisture damage, which led them to believe it really could have been in the famous 1928 flood.

While debating whether or not the painting was real, Phillip told owner Kathy the painting could potentially be worth as much as £80,000. However, when Fiona read out the official verdict from Landseer authority Richard Ormond.

The BBC presenter read Richard's analysis aloud: "Having reviewed the evidence I have come to the conclusion that the painting Time of War is not by Sir Edwin Landseer."

Clearly devastated by the verdict, Fiona attempted to console owners Kathy and Barry. "I'm really sorry. Oh it's gutting isn't it?" she commented.

"Does it give any indication of why?" Barry asked, keen to know more. "Well, it goes on to say 'The picture lacks the artist's spirited brushwork. It is summarily painted in the details and it presents a flat rather bland surface.' That's a bit harsh!" Fiona remarked, before continuing to read the analysis.

Richard's verdict went on to explain that there was not enough flood damage on the picture for it to have been the original. He also added that although the pigments are compatible with genuine Landseer's, they are not unique to the artist.

Fiona commented: "Oh it's so disappointing. But, certainly Richard Ormond, and he is the man when it comes to Landseer, he's absolutely categorical it's not." Kathy agreed: "I am a little disappointed. One can't argue if he is a Landseer man."

"Obviously there's an element of disappointment there has to be. It would be crass to say there isn't," Barry confessed.