Marten van Valckenborch or Gillis Van Conincxloo

Bremens & Belleville, from France, sells on 16 June 2019 an "Attributed to Marten van Valckenborch" Alexander and Diogenes, estimated at 5,000 to 7,000 Euro.

The RKD lists two other versions of this work, both attributed to a "Follower of Gillis Van Coninxloo II".

The first is a drawing in the British Museum, with some detail differences in the composition but basically showing the same work, but by a different hand.

The second work was sold at Tajan in 2008, according to the RKD. At first I thought it was this work (but cleaned) that reappeared at auction now, as it has the same dimensions (50 by 66 cm) and the same crack in the middle. However, closer inspection show some differences, e.g. in the castle at the right (more elegant in the Tajan version), or in the people directly to the left of the central tree, which can't be explained by cleaning only. So it looks as if these are two versions of this work by the same hand or workshop.

"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.