"Van Poelenburgh", "Van Cuylenborch", what's the difference?

Galerie Moderne, from Belgium, sells on 16 October 2018 an "attributed to Cornelis van Poelenburgh" Antique ruins with Diana, on oil on panel estimated at 3,000 to 5,000 Euro.

The attribution to Van Poelenburgh (1594-1667) is understandable, he is known for similar nudes in landscapes, but they are usually situated in the open, with rather different colouring. These cave or grotto scenes in brown are much more typical of the work of Abraham van Cuylenborch (1620-1658), and this fits nicely in with his known works.

The above  "Nymphs in a grotto" from the Statens Museum for Kunst in Copenhagen has the exact same left side of the painting, and seems to be comparable in quality (but the image is too small to be certain).

The work for sale is actually very well executed, and is at least a good workshop version.

A lot of paintings attributed to Cuylenborch (but of varying quality) appear at auction though, and many remain unsold, so the market for his work is not very strong at the moment. Despite the real quality here, and the direct link to a museum piece to strengthen the attribution, it may struggle to get much more than the estimate. Which is a shame really, as it should be worth 10,000 Euro.

"In the manner of Brueghel" is (workshop?) copy after Jan Breughel the Younger

Brussels Art Auctions, from Belgium, sells on 9 October 2018 a "17th century Flemish School, in the manner of Brueghel" village market, a small work (28 by 37) estimated at 3,000 to 3,500 Euro.

While they probably intended Pieter Brueghel with the reference to a Brueghel, the work is actually based on a painting by Jan Breughel the Younger (1601-1678).

I first noticed it through this study, sold at Sotheby's in 2008 for £115,000. The work for sale is a quasi identical copy, down to many of the colours, and has about the same size (24 by 35)

But only the lower portion (the part below the yellow line) is copied completely, and as far as I can see nothing from above the line.

A monotype drawing for this work also exists, as can be found on the website of Onno Van Seggelen, a major dealer in Old Master drawings. This drawing lacks some figures which can be seen in the Sotheby's painting, and a few of those appear in the work for sale, so this drawing has no direct bearing on this copy, but is unusual and interesting to show anyway. That page gives us a date for the study: ca. 1620.

Sotheby's sold in 2009 one other version of this painting, now attributed to Jan Brueghel the Elder and Joos de Momper. A much larger work (59 by 87), it fetched £85,000. This one includes all of the study, and has the same winter setting.

So where does this land the work for sale? At first sight, it looks a lot worse than the Breughel, but this seems at least partly due to dirt on the painting, and the change of a winter setting to an autumn(?) setting, which makes everything a lot more brownish.

Identical details from both show how close the execution of the work for sale actually is to the original, down to most details and to the precision in it (remember that this isn't a large work).

To follow this work so closely, the artist needs to have had the original (the study or another version) in front of them, which coupled with the clear quality of the work increases the chances of this being a workshop copy, and not some random later copy. It should then be worth closer to 10,000 Euro.

UPDATE: the work has been thoroughly cleaned, and doesn't really look better. I don't know if the cleaning has revealed pre-existing problems, or whether some new ones have been created, but it hasn't become more attractive, which is a pity. It is now for sale with Githart in Germany on 9 May 2020, with an estimate of 6,500 Euro. The description matches my above analysis (independently, or have they simply used my work, no idea...)

Lost and found: could this be the long-lost original Quentin Massys known through many copies?

Duran, from Madrid, sold on 27 September 2018 a "Flemish School, 19th century" Lamentation, 98 by 68 cm, oil on canvas, estimated at 1,500 Euro.

It immediately caught my eye as it has all the characteristics of a good Early Netherlandish painting from the early 16th century, and looks way too good to be a 19th century copy / fake / pastiche.

I contacted another lover of these paintings, and together we went searching for more information and clues. They soon found other versions of the same composition, attributed to followers of Quentin Massys. These ranged from much reduved ones, e.g. a "Circle of Massys" at Christie's, (sold for an excessive £26,000) to much more similar ones like this "follower of" at Koller (sold for 12,000 Swiss Francs).

Comparing the work for sale with other Massys works, and the copies we found, I got convinced that this was an original ca. 1500 work, either the actual (lost) original by Massys, or a very good workshop copy. My contact pointed out one major problem though; all known Massys works are on panel, and this one was on canvas.

This probably was the reason the auction house thought it to be a 19th century copy, but close analysis of the work (not live, but through detailed images) made it much more likely that this beautiful painting had suffered the dreadful fate many similar works had suffered in the 19th century, and was transferred from panel to canvas. This damages the painted surface and destroys things like the underpainting, and of course removes many aids in actually dating the work, e.g. through dendrochronology.

The closest version we found was through the RKD,  a copy for sale at Charlton Hall Galleries in 1950: it had nearly the exact same composition right down to the details, but the execution was less precise, less convincing, especially in the face of the virgin (work for sale added below it for easy comparison).

I loved the painting, but didn't dare to believe that it was the actual original. Perhaps the hands of the virgin weren't executed with enough skill? But it seems that at least a few buyers went all the way as it sold for 110,000 Euro. Which would be escessive for a relined good copy, but for an actual original, even with these problems, would be a good buy, whether it is for a collector, a museum, or someone hoping to make a profit by bringing it to a major auction house with a better description.

We weren't the only ones to spot this good Francken...

La Suite, from Spain, sold on 27 September 2018 a "16th century Flemish school" Moses striking the rock, a nice-sized (51 by 39) oil on copper estimated at 2,000 to 2,500 Euro.

It was a very good version, in reasonably good condition as well (could do with a cleaning), of a work by Francken (either Frans Francken II or Hieronymus Francken III), and as such worth a lot more than the low estimate (and dating to the first half of the 17th century instead of to the 16th century).

The RKD showed a worse version, attributed to the Circle of Frans Francken II, from the Museum of Quimper. The landsdcape aspect turned it into a much less impressive composition

A much more comparable version is in the Liechtenstein Museums (part of the Hohenbuchau collection, a very nice private collection containing works by Rubens, Mandyn, Jan Brueghel, ...). The main difference is on the left side, where the addition of a woman getting water out of the brand-new stream explains the look of the other two (here three) women to the left: in the version for sale, they seem to stare at nothing instead of caring for the swooned maiden on the right. The Liechtenstein version also has an additional group of three persons in the middle.

But the quality of painting is very close, with the version for sale perhaps a tad less brilliant. This is far removed from the many, many Franckens from the school of, circle of, followers of, and so on which appear in every old master sale for, depending on the quality, 2,000 to 10,000 Euro. This is a work of 20,000 Euro or more, the best undiscovered Francken I noticed since the one at Horta in 2016.

Great find, but not too hard: the auction house had 10 (ten!) telephone bidders for this one...

UPDATE: sold for 18,000 Euro, close to what I thought it would be worth!

Dutch still life is copy after Pieter Jansz.

Hampel, from Germany, sells on 26 September 2018 a "Dutch still life in the style of Willem Heda" estimated at 6,000 to 8,000 Euro.

It is actually a copy (with alterations) after Pieter Jansz., the main competitor of Heda. The bread, fish and salt container all are identical. It doesn't look to be good enough to be by Jansz. though, but should fetch the estimate anyway. The one above is in the collection of the Los Angeles County Museum.

The version in the Rijksmuseum even has the same tilted porcelain dish, and the same lemon...

Another Susteren portrait, this time perhaps by Gerard ter Borch

DVC, from Belgium, sells on 29 September 2018 an "attributed to Gerard ter Borch" miniature (8 by 7 cm) portrait of Abraham van Susteren, estimated at 1,500 to 3,000 Euro.

Nothing remarkable (well, a miniature by Ter Borch is remarkable enough, but nothing I would normally spend blog space on), but this caught my attention as I have posted about a portrait of the same sitter (and one of his wife) in May of this year already. I guess some descendant is slowly cleaning out the old stuff from their house... I have described what we know about Van Susteren at length in that post, so I'll not repeat it here.

This portrait clearly shows the same man, but at a younger age, which fits with my lengthy analysis of the date of that other work. This one was painted when he was still in the Netherlands, i.e. before 1665. Abraham van Susteren was born in 1628, so the painting is probably from the 1650s.

Whether it is by Ter Borch is hard to determine, he certainly has made better miniature portraits but some others are of comparable quality, and the artist who created this one clearly had considerable talent. And on the other hand Van Susteren clearly had the wealth to pay for a good artist. The estimate for this miniature seems a bit conservative.

"16th c." painting is copy after Gillis van Coninxloo

Carlo Bonte, from Belgium, sells on 26 September 2018 a "16th c." Moses found by the daughter of the pharaoh, a rather large work (89 by 138 cm) estimated at 1,000 to 1,500 Euro.

The work is a rather early depiction of this story, and in the landscape and colouring has elements of 16th century Flemish works. But the execution is not up to par with the composition, a sure-tell sign of a copy.

The original (which seems to be lost?) was made by Gillis van Coninxloo (1544-1607), a painter from Antwerp (though his family lived close to Brussels), active in the circle of Pieter Coecke and the Brueghels; he is especially important as a landscape painter, the leader of the generation after Patinir and Herri met de Bles.

This work was widely known through the large engraving made by Nicolaes de Bruyn in 1601 (copy from the Rijksmuseum).

A much better painted version was sold at Christie's in 2013 for £11,875. It was attributed to Gillis Van Coninxloo III, son of the original creator (who is usually indicated without the "II" after his name), and may well have been made directly after the original painting instead of after the engraving.

The work for sale is probably not worth more than the estimate, certainly when one considers that it is likely early 17th century, and not a 16th century work. But for 1,000 Euro you get a nice enough version of a work by a lesser known but important painter who I hadn't tackled yet.