Circle of Dirk Bouts, "Coronation of the Virgin"

A painting of the "Coronation of the Virgin", attributed to the Circle of Dirk Bouts, is for sale at Vanderkindere on 10 February 2015. While far removed from the quality of an actual Bouts, it is a charming picture with some quality, and in a decent state of conservation. The influence of Bouts is obvious in the overall composition, the elongated figures and elements (obvious in the detail pictures of the heads and hands)

I couldn't find any examples of a composition this one may be based on directly. It combines elements from different compositions, similar to these two from the circle of or after Dirk Bouts (pictures courtesy of the RKD)

Estimated at 10,000 to 15,000 Euro, this seems more than enough, but the picture is interesting and rare enough to highlight it here. UPDATE: it sold for 16,500 Euro, so slightly above the highest estimate.

Frans Francken II

For sale at Prunier, lot 118, 15 February 2015: a "Banquet" scene attributed to Frans Francken II. Estimated at 4,000 to 5,000 Euro. The same lot was sold in December 2012 at Alde for 2,200 Euro as "Circle of Frans Francken I". Someone hopes, rightly or wrongly, to make a nice profit by providing a more precise attribution, and probably after having cleaned the picture (it certainly looks brighter now).  I would personally not attribute it to Francken, it isn't good enough in nearly all aspects. Not that Frans Francken II the best of painters is, but even for him this seems too awkward in pose. 

To avoid: attributed to Gerard van Berleborch

Normally, a painting attributed to Gerard van Berleborch would be quite interesting, and certainly with a very low estimate. But in this case, the auction tries to sell it as "(attributed to) Gerard van Berleborch", but with an estimate that correctly reflects that this painting hasn't been touched or probably even be seen by Berleborch ever... It's a very poor copy, but dirty enough that some people may hope that beneath all that dirt a shining masterpiece is hidden. This seems, well, highly unlikely. Not a single thing in that painting points to the quality of a real Berleborch (even though he was a limited painter, his works have a realistic quality that is sorely lacking here). I just don't understand why an auction would accept an attribution in the title, but reject it in the valuation (a real "attributed to Terborch" would be at least 5,000 Euro). UPDATE: it sold for 1,500 Euro, which is way too much for this poor copy and very cheap in the unlikely event that a real Berleborch is hidden beneath this. Not the kind of gamble I'ld like to take...

If you believe that someone is trying to sell a painting through your auction house with an incorrect attribution, then get him to change the attribution or refuse to sell it. Don't jeopardize your own reputation though.

Popular Flowers from Brussels

At Baratoux, on 11 February 2015, they are selling a Dutch still life of flowers, ca. 1820, signed FUB (more likely FVB). Estimated at 1,500 to 2,000 Euro, I considered it a rather striking composition, with the blue flowers and the birds' nest. Turns out it is a copy (one of many) of a composition by Paul Theodor van Brussel, from the late 18th century.

The above better copy was sold at Bukowski's for some 4,100 Euro. A similar one below at Sotheby's failed to sell for $60,000 to $80,000 though. A huge price difference, but this version was significantly superior once one starts to look at the detailing. The one for sale now is rather mediocre, with an estimate that reflects this. But at least now I know who made the very good composition.

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.

Abraham or Sebastian Pether

For sale at Il Ponte as simply a "19th century master", this painting is (a copy after) an Abraham (or perhaps Sebastian) Pether landscape. Estumated at 550 to 600 Euro and auctions ends on 9 February 2015. The painting is often copied, but I haven't found the location of the original. Could this be it? It certainly is better painted than some other copies or variations I found, but I'm not certain it has the actual quality a Pether should hav (e.g. the reflection in the water). 

This copy is from the York Museums (found throught the BBC "your paintings" site) and looks more like a sketch, not a finished work.

At Christie's, a work described as "Follower of " was sold in 2007 for £475. It features the same ruin on the right (with an extremely unrealistic rose window preserved in it!), and the same body of water. The image is too small to compare the quality though.

Looking at works by the Pethers, the current lot is a typical one (they seem to be the kind of painter who stuck to a succesful theme a bit too much), not worth a huge amount of money even if an original, but not a bad buy at the estimate in any case.

After Pompeo Battoni, Magdalen

An unrecognised copy of the Magdalen by Pompeo Battoni. Often copied, but rarely can one find a decent copy so cheap as this one is now. For sale at Kamelot Auctions, 7 February 2015 (which made me chuckle, as "Kamelot" is Flemish Dutch for "rubbish"). Only $200, it's a steal. Simply described as "An antique oil on canvas laid on board of a recumbent woman reading." though, which makes it harder to find! UPDATE: it was indeed a steal, it sold in the end for $1,600!