Van Gogh ... or a gun without DNA tests ...

[Jim McDougall]

This is a really interesting topic, and one that has bewildered art historians for years, if not generations.
It seems that while Van Gogh has long been thought to have been an absinthe addled madman, though he did have some psychological issues, he does not appear to have been suicidal.

The 'ear' issue of 1888 is still a matter of debate, why, how and even whether it was just the lobe or entire ear removed. Despite the irrationality of this bizarre action, it does not seem to have bearing on his death in July, 1890.

It is believed he went to the fields near the Auberge Ravoux Inn, in Auvers-sur-Oise on that day to paint. It is unclear whether he had a gun (one reference said to shoot crows) or not, but it seems there were two young guys he knew at the field as well. Some say they were adversarial to him, but other accounts suggest there was some horseplay with a gun having to do with the 'wild west' fascinations which were popular at the time.

The thing is that he went back to the hotel after being shot in the abdomen, and died two days later. There does not seem to have been an investigation as he had claimed his wound was self inflicted. It is believed he intended to shield the two guys. The thing is that forensically the wound entered his body at an oblique angle, contrary to a self inflicted shot. Then why would he shoot himself in the abdomen, the most painful and often lengthy types of mortal injury?

It seems either nobody thought to collect the gun, or it was lost in the fields at the time. As he died he could not have gone to find the gun, and the boys probably could not find it either, likely staying away from the scene.

With that being the case, and given the excavated condition of the now relic gun, this may very well be the gun involved in this accident/event. As always provenance is key, and the gun is said to have been discovered c. 1960. This is really not surprising, the battlefields of WWI are still full of relics that have been undisturbed since then.

[fernando]

The way i, for one, view it...

In the absence of forensic evidence or documental proof that the gun auctioned is the one used in that sad episode, all we may admit is that it is possible, or plausible if one prefers that, such is in fact the very one. As it is also possible, not to say plausible if we stirrup a theory on the money involved that, in an extreme situation, the person that found the real gun, assuming that such has occurred, kept it for himself and his heirs, submitting a copy (from which type there are zillions) to the auction.
At such stage one is compelled to admit that, the difference in value between that of an object which possibly made part of an historical event, and that of the irrefutable real thing, ranges a span from here to the skies.
As to whether the killing was self inflicted or (even accidentally) caused by the two young men while playing Far West gunmen, this uncertainty may be paired with the spot where the gun is said to have been found. Whether the film writer was well documented or he only used his fictional imagination, we can see in the movie "At Eternity's Gate" (starring prize winner Willem Dafoe), the 'Lefaucheux' being tossed to nearby river, as per extracted image attached.


.

[Jim McDougall]

Well said. As with so much of 'history', it becomes embellished by the writers, novelists and of course 'fake news' (in todays parlance).
The true story of Van Gogh has been deeply clouded in the book "Lust for Life" (Irving Stone, 1934) which was made into a movie starring Kirk Douglas in 1956. This was apparently where the suicide notion developed and most of the other distorted or embellished perspectives evolved. The movie you mention is yet another version, and while like the others fascinating and entertaining, not necessarily historically accurate.

As with most such cases, there are grains of truth which grow into crops of rich lore, and the industry of related or key antiquities thrives with innovative dealers and their concocted descriptions.

Without irrefutable chain of custody or provenance, such items can only be presumed 'of the type' or illustrative dimensionally in portraying the elements used in historic events.

[Jim McDougall]

More thinking on the perspective of the 'wild west' play scenario:

In the first place, the suicidal notion seems unlikely as Van Gogh in various writings abhorred the idea of such an act. From accounts of his abdominal wound, the point of entry was oblique, not straight forward as would be characteristic of a self inflicted shot. The idea that someone intent on suicide would shoot themselves in the stomach is unfathomable. Such a wound, especially from such a small pistol, would result in lingering and painful sepsis and death, as was the case with Van Gogh, who lasted only two days.

The story of two young boys 'playing' wild west', especially with the diminutive revolver in question seems unlikely. These small pinfire revolvers are nothing at all like the guns of the west, and cannot possibly be construed in such sense. The fancy gun actions popularized in the famed Buffalo Bill wild west shows on 1870s and later used full size guns with trigger guards and large calibers. These pinfire revolvers were the size of the palm of the hand, small caliber and NO trigger guard, easily concealed.

I would suspect these young men had some interaction with Van Gogh, and threatened him, and accidentally shot him during the issues. He apparently knew them, and probably did not expect to die, trying to cover the action by saying he had done the deed himself. He may have been trying to shield them, or could he have feared reparations if he exposed them?

There was an evolution of criminal activity well in place in 'La Belle Epoque' Paris,near the turn of the century,as would be expected in large cities. While such activity in gangs seems a modern phenomenon, it most certainly is not, and extortion and such things may well have crept into outlying regions even in 1890. This criminal gang activity which involved mugging, extortion and all manner of such crimes, in about 1900, the term 'apache' was applied to these brutal gangs. This of course likely lifted from the influences of the forementioned 'wild west shows and romanticized violence of the Indians portrayed'.These gangs were even known for a distinctly unique weapon that they evolved from PINFIRE revolvers, a kind of 'saturday night special, with brass knuckles and stabbing blade.

Perhaps these young men were in some fashion, a kind of proto-apache element who were indeed carrying one of these small pinfire revolvers.
In such case, the gun would certainly not have been dropped or left, so the probability of this gun in discussion being 'the one' of Van Gogh, is not remotely possible,

Pictured is an actual pinfire revolver similar to the one sold, and shown with a pen and quarter to illustrate its diminutive size
Next is a pinfire combination weapon of 'apache' type from early in 20th c.

[fernando]

Applying logic to how a fellow commits suicide, or suffers homicide, meets more coherence within CSI series than within reality. Such episodes can happen in the most bizarre conditions and circumstances. For example, suppose the man, against all odds, decides to kill himself, as in actual life such unpredictable episodes occur, and the young men tried to prevent him from such desperate act, ending up triggering themselves the shot, as a result of such struggling, giving (i) logic to the odd place & angle in which the projectile entered Van Gogh's guts. The caliber of the bullet doesn't necessarily determine how long one resists to death ... only potentially. There are 'good' and 'bad' shots.
On the other hand, we are hypothetically assuming that the gun auctioned was actually the one used, which could have not. To say that, there also large pinfire (Lefaucheux system) revolvers (i had some), with so large, or even slightly larger caliber than cap & ball system .44 Colts (which i also had); and not only small versions, some even rather tinier than the show off but reportedly clumsy 'Apaches'.
On yet another hand, when you play Wild West, you do it with what you have at hand; even wooden guns. It's imagination that counts, not the caliber; to be (or not) ridiculous is not in the plans, i guess. When i was young, like others, so poor as not able to have a toy revolver, i used my forefinger to order 'hands up' to my foe and bring him into custody. But i am digressing .

[Jim McDougall]

Very good detective work, and of course logic is not always applicable in cases where something illogical is being investigated, suicide being far more so than homicide. Of course both can be irrational acts, but all things much be considered from various angles.
You have carried my suggestion of 'interaction' with these boys further, and I had not thought of the possibility they well might have been trying to stop him from suicide. A struggle ensued, and the gun discharged. That would explain the uncharacteristic angle of the wound, and that it was aimed at his stomach.
So, Inspector Poirot, I think you might have solved the case?

Then what of the pistol. I have illustrated a pinfire of the same size and presumably caliber of the one auctioned. The 'apache' theory is tenuously applied to suggest only ruffians of the times who indeed carried pinfire revolvers.
In the scenario you suggest, it well might have been dropped, and the boys frightened by the resulting shot, the gun not theirs, might simply have run. Van Gogh, knowing their intent and not wishing to implicate them, would have taken the blame. Not expecting to die, and incapacitated, he never thought more on the gun, so it remained in situ for years until c. 1960, covered by whatever vegetation was there in the field.

[Jim McDougall]

With interest in this curious case, I found more on the gun used, or alleged to have been:
In the book "Van Gogh: The Life" by Steven Naifeh and Gregory White Smith, the authors have meticulously researched and brought in forensic research assistance in subsequent rebuttals.

There seems to have been a great deal of competition (other artists acquainted with him) and opportunism with some of the rather inflated and contrived accounts of Van Gogh, his 'ear incident', his drinking and illnesses and of course, his alleged suicide.

Apparently he was often ridiculed by a local bully and his brother and small group of local miscreants. The main character was named Rene Secretan, son of a well to do family and who was intrigued by the 'wild west' after seeing the Buffalo Bill show in Paris the year before.
He bought costumes including chaps and western attire as well as outfitting himself with a SMALL CALIBER pistol, which 'looked menacing, but often misfired'.
This sounds very much like the 7mm Lefaucheaux pinfire revolver I was referring to. These were known for misfires, much as many of these small pocket pistols, which were cheap and profusely manufactured.

The boys taunted Van Gogh (calling him Toto) and he was acquainted with them despite that. Years later, Rene claimed that Van Gogh had gotten his gun, as he insisted he was not involved in the shooting.
There was no investigation records, however it was said that the gendarme who talked to him asked if he had intended suicide, to which Van Gogh said, "I think so".

The doctor who attended him did not note any black powder debris or presence near the wound, and the angle of the wound as well suggested he was not shot point black, but from a distance. Much of that information was obtained from him in 1920s as well as his son.

Apparently not only was the gun never found, but there were no paints or easel which indicated he was going to paint...in fact it was said he was not in the fields at all, but on the road to the Secretan villa.

While he was troubled with some obscure medical maladies, including the use of absinthe, popular with artists, medications used, lead poisoning, and others.....but a letter found in his coat was highly upbeat and inconsistent with suicidal tendencies.

These things suggest it was a small caliber pinfire used, but unlikely that it was dropped in the field by Van Gogh and probably kept by Rene. Rene had noted he was surprised the gun even fired with its unreliability, but not saying more on its whereabouts....still claiming Van Gogh had 'gotten' the gun from him.

The images are the "Auberge Ravoux" in Auvers-sr-Oise where Van Gogh was staying when he died. Here he returned after his 'wounding' which was how it was referred to at the time of the event.
Another image of the pistol of the discussion.