Episode 1.3, "The Great Game"

[Van Buren Supernova]

There is a bigger question too: Jim uses a phrase: "if you won't stop prying…" But we know that the Cabbie was hired to get Sherlock's attention. So why is Jim showing himself to Sherlock and then wanting him to stop? Any ideas? If there was a case BEFORE ASIP, we should have known it… Was there anything in the S1 about a case from the past?

Your question is actually answered in TGG, from the mouth of Moriarty himself.

 

Here is the direct quote: I am soooooo changeable!"

 

[J.P.]

Nah. Just realized that Sherlock also interrupted the activity of The Black Lotus, which was linked to Moriarty somehow. And, actually, did Jim want the Cabbie to kill Sherlock?

[Arcadia]

No, I think killing Sherlock was all the cabbie's idea. Jim was paying him to commit murder but not picking the targets, was what I got out of the dialog.

[J.P.]

But wasn't "you've got a fan" referring to Jim being interested in Sherlock in some way?

[Boton]

I agree with JP.  I think the other murders were the cabbie's choice, probably because Jim knew Sherlock would take the bait of solving the mystery, but I think it was all leading up to getting Sherlock in a deserted place and trying to kill him.

[Boton]

Just started my rewatch of all the episodes last night in prep for S4.  I never realized how many times in SiP it looked like John was about to haul off and just *deck* Sherlock for being a git, and he'd just met him.  

 

I just love how clean and honest their relationship seems for this first season.  NO overt angst, just a couple of guys forming a friendship.

[Arcadia]

Wahh, I'm still stuck in the middle of Blind Banker, can't find time to watch unless I do it in (ugh) 10 minute increments..... I suppose I could use the time I spend on this forum instead .... :d

[Arcadia]

Okay, made it through TGG by goofing off and not doing the other 3000 things I'm supposed to do. Question; who hired the Golem? Ms. Wenceslas denied having anything to do with him, and Sherlock seemed to believe her. Are we supposed to think JM had those people killed? But why would he? Unless he was getting a cut of her proceeds ... hmm.

Also I note that the Golem escaped. Maybe he's the 3rd brother! :D

[Carol the Dabbler]

Maybe Moriarty was using the Golem to test Sherlock's abilities -- to better prepare himself for their final showdown.

[J.P.]

Golem killed the ward guy and the professor. They both found the truth and surely wouldn't keep it to themselves. The other cases could be easily staged, so that they were solvable for Sherlock. But this one would include someone giving the clue to the guy, to ensure he called the professor, so there was a reason for them both to be killed. Quite elaborate. Probably Jim also had his 13 possible scenarios for this.

 

But you are right - Golem escaping is something that doesn't fit into the pattern.

[Arcadia]

So you're saying Jim was still helping Ms. Wenceslas by offing anyone who could expose her scheme ... then directed Sherlock towards her so HE could expose her scheme?

 

Wow, Moriarty really is a nut case, isn't he? The really scary part is ... that scenario actually makes sense to me.

[J.P.]

It must have been. It was the part of his game. If the cases were unsolvable, there would be no fun - also for Jim.

 

But maybe he had a load of consulting going on, and picked only those cases that worked out in a special way.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I don't think he was ready to beat Sherlock yet (and besides, why bother beating him at penny ante stuff?). He was putting Sherlock through his paces, to learn more about his strengths, weaknesses, and general ways of doing things.

[Arcadia]

The other thing that occurred to me ... if the forger was as awesome as Ms. W said he was, why on earth did he add something to the painting that wasn't originally there? Unless he wanted to be caught......

[Carol the Dabbler]

The other thing that occurred to me ... if the forger was as awesome as Ms. W said he was, why on earth did he add something to the painting that wasn't originally there? Unless he wanted to be caught......

 

Nope, because he was paid to do it that way.  Not by Ms. W., obviously, but by Mr. M.  It was another test for Sherlock.

 

[J.P.]

My initial thought was - because the painting wasn't a copy but a "unknown" work, the painter had to make it up. But he used a contemporary star map instead of historical one, and as a layman he thought the stars don't change. Which plays nicely with Sherlock's lack of knowledge.

 

But maybe I'm wrong - Lost Vermeer: is there any hint about when the painting was lost?

 

BTW, I suspect that today an investigation about such a painting doesn't end with brush strokes. It surely includes things like chemical analysis of paints, or C4 method for the canvas or even DNA analisys of the plants it's made of, or the pollen caught in it. Another nice plot thingy. :P But probably only experts are cringing at it.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I doubt that the stars have changed position enough over a few hundred years that the difference would be noticable in a painting. The key was the Van Buren Supernova, which took place a couple hundred years before/after (I forget which, but it's fictitious anyhow) the painting was supposedly done.

 

So it pretty much had to be an intentional error. The forger would presumably have been inclined to show just the usual stars, and likewise Ms. W. -- so the addition pretty much had to be Moriarty's idea

[J.P.]

That's what I tried to say. VBS was on the picture, but it couldn't be, because it appeared after the year when the painting was supposed to be made. That was the change I was talking about. The painter didn't check, or - which actually also makes sense - was told to paint it wrong.

[Arcadia]

Okay, that's the detail I forgot ... it wasn't a copy of another painting. Usually I think of a forger as making a copy, but of course this was a "previously unknown" work masquerading as a Vermeer. Duh.

 

As I understand it, forgers have ways of faking the age and chemical content of the paint, etc., and I just assumed all those kinds of tests had been done before it was installed in the museum.

 

Another puzzling thing ... on the wall of the museum there was a sign that said "I Meer", or possibly "1 Meer". Any thoughts on what that might mean? I thought it might mean "One Vermeer", since that seemed to be the only painting in the whole gallery (which in itself would be weird in a real gallery) ... but I've never heard Vermeer referred to as just "Meer." I don't think it's important, just thought it was weird.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I have the impression that it was more or less a copy of a painting that had disappeared some time ago, apparently without having been copied before, and before the invention of cameras -- so that nobody knew exactly what it had looked like, just a verbal description.

[Carol the Dabbler]

That's what I tried to say. VBS was on the picture, but it couldn't be, because it appeared after the year when the painting was supposed to be made. That was the change I was talking about. The painter didn't check, or - which actually also makes sense - was told to paint it wrong.

OK, now I see why I misunderstood you.

 

It is the nature of supernovas to flare up suddenly and then fade over the course of a year or so. Even if the Van Buren Supernova were real, it would no longer be visible to the naked eye, you'd need a telescope.

 

So assuming that the painter was working from photographs of the night sky, either he was told to add one star in a certain place, or else the photos were doctored before they were given to him.

 

In short, it was deliberate.

[Arcadia]

I have the impression that it was more or less a copy of a painting that had disappeared some time ago, apparently without having been copied before, and before the invention of cameras -- so that nobody knew exactly what it had looked like, just a verbal description.

 

That is also a distinct possibility.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Undoubtedly this has been mentioned before, so apologies in advance!

 

Just noticed that Moriarty's two Clostridium botulinum victims were Carl Powers and Connie Prince -- same initials. Wonder what that might mean?

[Arcadia]

That The Moftisses are just as prone to laziness when naming their characters as ACD was?

[SherlockedCAMPer]

Maybe if there is another episode something will come up explaining it as the universe is rarely so lazy.