Rubens, "Virgin and Child" (without Saint Anne)

This is an interesting one. At Vanderkindere, 10 February 2015, they sell a "Workshop of Pieter Paul Rubens" painting of the "Virgin and Child". Looking at the clothes and so on, I would call this a rather weak copy (the folds in the sleeve of the Virgin!), but especially the faces are actually much, much better, even if they are not really up to Rubens' standards. Whether this is due to different hands in the original, or rather poor overpaintings is not completely clear, although judging from the overall condition I guess there has been a fair amount of "restoration" to this painting in a distant past, resulting in some strange discolourations in the faces. 

The Hermitage Museum has another version of the same painting, also described as "Workshop of Rubens". Some details in it are a lot better (e.g. the hair of the child is much more loosely and lively painted than the rather stylised hair in the version for sale), but e.g. the face of the Virgin is at first glance actually less Rubens-like than the one offered here.

The Metropolitan Museum has another version of the same painting (also "Workshop of"), where the hair of the child is a lot closer to the one for sale here. The Met version seems to be of higher quality, the love between the motther and child is captured much better here, with the two actually looking at each other instead of past each other.

So, the one for sale is, even in its best parts, not as good as the Metropolitan Museum version; but is it good enough to be called a "Workshop" version, or is it a very old copy (assuming this hasn't been faked, then the panel has been prepared before the death of Rubens already)? My guess would be that the auction house is right, and that the damaged and probably overpainted picture is in origin a decent workshop version of this painting. If so, the 4,000 to 5,000 Euro asking price is a real bargain, and it should fetch 10,000 Euro or more, from a buyer prepared to have the painting then restored to its former glory. UPDATE: it sold for 11,000 Euro! I'm glad that sometimes I do live up to my "augur" handle and predict the outcome quite accurately :-)

Strangely, there also exist copies (1, 2) of the same picture but with a Saint Anne added. As this distorts the composition rather badly, I believe that the one without Saint Anne is the original, and the one with Saint Anne is an afterthought or a later version.

After Rubens, Epitaph of Jan Michielsen ("Christ in the Straw") left panel

At Rops, 1 February 2015: an 18th century "Virgin and Child". Estimated at just 200 to 300 Euro, it doesn't seem to have been recognised as a really nice copy after the left panel of the Rubens triptych "Epitaph of Jan Michielsen and his wife Maria Maes", also known as the "Christ on the Cross", which is kept in the Royal Museum of Fine Arts in Antwerp. The copy has one major problem, the serious damage right in the middle, in the faces, otherwise it would have been worth a lot more. As it stands, it still is a very nice copy and not the most common of Rubens-copies. UPDATE: it sold for 460 Euro in the end, so at least it clearly exceeded its highest estimate...

Seen in detail, it lacks of course the genius of Rubens, the free brush strokes, comparable in e.g. the collar of the Virgin; the Rubens is more vigorous, vibrant, life-like, compared to the later, more soft and sweet copy. But compared to the dozens of copies after Rubens that come on the market each month, it is one of the better, and certainly for that estimated price.

Another copy (or a study?) of the same panel and of nearly the same dimensions was sold at Christie's as "Studio of Rubens" for £79,000. The different position of the right hands of the Child and the Virgin suggests indeed that this was a study, while the version for sale is a closer copy, although wider than the original version. The lot comment at Christie's suggests that this is a copy or variation on a work in Washington, which has the same hand position now, but had the "triptych" hand position originally. Intriguingly, the version for sale also is wider version than the triptych version, but follows the dimensions of these copies quite closely; but the position of the hands is much closer to the original version. Is it a copy of some unknown intermediate version, or a copy of the Washington version before it got changed, or was the triptych version originally wider as well and has it only been later (Napoleonic times?) been reduced to its current size? Other copies for sale at Christie's include this one (again the variant, circle of Rubens, nearly 40,000 Euro) and this one (variant, Follower of Rubens, 6,500 Euro) or one of the full triptych (18,000 Euro). But none of this particular version...

The Corpus Rubenianum lists some further copies, but this was not available to me and I don't know whether the current painting for sale is included therein. It clearly isn't a Rubens, but it seems a rather important painting anyway and worth more than a few hundred Euros, if you can see the art historical value through the damage.

And if you really want, you can buy a copy of the central panel as well, 5 February at Carlo Bonte. Estimated at 800 to 1200 Euro, and also dated at the 18th century and with a similar height, you'ld only need to find a copy of the right panel to get your very own triptych... It's a decent copy, but I prefer the first one which is less sketched and more painted.

UPDATE: I received a nice reply from a scientist at the Royal Museum of Fine Arts of Antwerp; the copy for sale has most likely simply been widened relatively clusmily by the copiist to make it more attractive (a "complete" figure instead of a cut-off one). The triptych has never been altered in size, and there is no reason to believe that another Rubens version closer to the one for sale here exists. That's the difference between speculating at a blog and actual science, of course. The first may be entertaining, but eventually reality kicks in :-)