Strange attribution to Dominicus Van der Smissen

At Eppli, they sell a painting is "Probably Dominicus Van der Smissen" (1704-1760), an allegory of autumn, for 2,200 Euro.

The work is not described as what it is though, a copy after a "Portrait of a Lady as Pomona" by Nicolas de Largillière. I see little to no similarities with the work of Van der Smissen, but in copies that isn't always easy to spot. But in the works by him I have seen, he seems to be a better painter, with more detail and more realism in the faces.The above photograph is from a much better copy of the Largillière painting, in the Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco. I haven't been able to find a picture of the original.

The above is another portrait by Largillière, for anyone who would think that the painting for sale perhaps is the original. No, it isn't. It's a decent copy, which I wouldn't dare to attribute to any painter (perhaps the auction house has more information than what they have put online?). What's it worth? Depends on your taste, but not much more than the estimate certainly.

Wouldn't Rubens be better in pastel colours?

At Iori, an auction hosue in Modena, they sell a painting as "School of Rubens", 60 by 78 cm. At first glance, it has nothing to do with Rubens, but this time they are actually right as it is a reverse copy of a Rubens composition, "The Triuph of the Church". However, reverse copies are usually after engravings, which means that not only many details and the typical Rubens style are lost, but the copiist also has to invent the colours. In this case, they are quite un-Rubens-like. Estimated at a rather excessive (and wide) 10,000 to 20,000 Euro! But fun to see and discuss, even though it's way too expensive for a not so brilliant copy.

The original above can be seen in the Prado.

Copy of recently rediscovered Guercino

At Dams (Italian auction house), they sell next week a 17th century Saint Sebastian. They don't seem to realise that it is a copy of a work by Guercino which was only rediscovered (or correctly attributed) in late 2014. The estimate of 1,800 Euro seems rather steep for a fairly mediocre copy though, but it makes for an interesting story. I don't know whether other old copies of the same work are known.

Your chance to own an original painting by an artist who fetches millions

For sale at Vanderkindere, a work by Lawrence Alma-Tadema (according to a label on the back, unverifiable by me but not unlikely). Estimated at only 400 to 600 Euro, while other paintings by him have literally fetched millions! Then again, this is a quick copy after Rubens, not a huge, elaborate, finely detailed own composition. But still, one couldn't buy a similar Van Gogh, Manet, Turner, ... for that kind of money. UPDATE: sold for 750 Euro, so at least it beat the highest estimate!

The original by Rubens is "The last communion of Saint Francis", here strangely titled "le renonciation des biens". It is kept in the Royal Museum of Fine Arts in Antwerp.

Optimistic valuations

Eternity Gallery, who don't seem to have a website, are selling through Invaluable a presumed portrait of Girolamo dai Libri, Italian painter from the first half of the 16th century. Great, but the painting is not really good to put it mildly, and the sitter interesting but not a major figure; so why the estimation of $100,000 to $200,000? Even stranger, why estimate it so high and then put it on Ebay as well with a $80,000 "buy-it-now"? If you don't believe in your own estimate, why should we? This one should be estimated at a few thousand dollars, nothing more.

I also find it hard to believe that the experts who viewed the picture (or at least photos of it) didn't know what the "...tribu Veronese" could mean. "Attribu" seems to be quite logical (attributed, attribué, attribuito, ...) Not that the painting has come close to Veronese in any part of its life.

I'll not start on their portrait of Leopold I of Belgium, 1815, which has a Belgian flag on it (in 1815? strange...) and the name of a different sitter. It's a strange one, but they radically choose the most optimistic option and estimation for it. Not really very convincing... Much more likely that someone took a painting of the named English sitter, and tried to make it look like Leopold I (who looks similar) to make it more interesting or saleable.

Censoring art while teaching history?

Stumbled across the site Totallyhistory.com, a site intended to help (young?) people who study history. For some reason, they fell the need to censor artworks which have nudity in them, making them actually look a lot more pornographic than they really are. See e.g. their page on the Danaë by Rembrandt or the Samson and Delilah by Rubens. Durer's Adam and Eve even has a page but no illustration at all. Of course, the rather graphic violence in Judith beheading Holofernes by Caravaggio doesn't need to be censored. Strange priorities, strange way of teaching about history.

Portrait of General Darnaud at Myers

Myers sells a portrait painting of General Darnaud, a Napoleonic general with a long career and many decorations. Not so much interesting for its artistic qualities, but for everything that surrounds it; for the many Napoleonic collectors, this seems to be a unique chance to get a painted portrait of this general. It also is a relatively rare portrayal of a man with a pegleg (outside of the marine portrayals of pirates or other "unimportant" or "folkloristic" personae). Remarkable is also that the depictions one could find of this general on the internet so far, were drawings or etchings after this painting; so the composition was well-known, but the painting seems to be fresh on the market, as far as I can tell.

Estimated at $600 to $800, this seems to be cheap. UPDATE: indeed, it went for $9,000 instead!