Although people are free to claim copyright to anything, it is actually ILLEGAL to claim copyright to a public domain work. Museums have to consider this after the Bridgeman v Corel ruling.
All you do is respond with rantings rather than prove me wrong by citing case law or statutes.
As I wrote, I am not taking a position on whether or not the art in question is PD or not.
All I'm saying (and a legal fact) is that:
Regardless of the author's lifespan, if the art was published before 1923, it is PD. (published means published in a magazine, book, review, etc. or exhibited before 1923 in an area accessible by the public.)
If the artist died before 1934, it is also PD.
Moral rights do not apply in the U.S. unless the artist is alive. Even then, the law does not afford as much protection as Berne. And I believe the U.S. didn't sign that part of Berne. Even if it had, U.S. title 17 trumps Berne.
"When you've been buying art and antiques for 30 years and dealing with Christies and other auction houses around the world then come back and talk to me."
Irrelevant. They, nor you, make the law. If the poster can prove that the artist died before 1934, or the art was published before 1923, it is PD. Moral rights won't apply either. Copyright in a slavish reproduction won't hold up either and they would be ill advised to sue over it anyway.
"you fight the good fight! I'll be back in three or four weeks or so -- I need a vacation!"
What fight? Practising law without a license? Giving everybody the false impression that nothing is PD? What a forum this is.