This part of the painting on the left looks out of place, like it is covering a mistake. X-ray this on all and find the original.pic.twitter.com/AJXWZeMPpn
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
This part of the painting on the left looks out of place, like it is covering a mistake. X-ray this on all and find the original.pic.twitter.com/AJXWZeMPpn
That is a lion's head. This is St. Mark. The copyist doesn't seem to have understood that, and got the eye wrong.
What makes it "clearly a copy", because it looks more detailed?
Isn’t this a problem in general with paintings from Old Masters (pre-1800)?
The world of art is very strange. The number of flawless copies & the number of people who can’t differentiate, is very high. Given the amount of wealth stored in form of art, it’s more likely that the anonymous artist’s copies end up being as valuable as the originals
I'm curious, what makes it obviously a copy? It the left looks more detailed but couldn't that be added later? not trying to criticize; wondering
It's not simply the degree of detail, but that they are the sort of details you'd see if you were looking at an actual man's head. Those would be very hard to add convincingly later.
There is no original... ;)
Unpopular opinion: does it matter? 

Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.