"Unknown, 16th century": Close to Barthel Bruyn, or a Flemish Master?

Duesseldorfer Auktionshaus, from Germany, sells on 25 November 2017 as lot 178 an "Unknown master, 16th century" portrait of a lady, estimated at 800 Euro.

It looks definitely German, and seems to be close to the works of Barthel Bruyn the Elder (1493-1555) or the Younger (ca. 1530-1610). They often portrayed similar women with elaborate headdresses, large jewels, and fine hands with flowers in them.

Details show that the work is finely painted, but seems to lack some finish, perhaps due to too much cleaning. It could also be a later copy, but it seems rather well done in that case. The jewel shows some seated figure, perhaps a Christ child?

Most Bruyn portraits of woman (and most woman portraits from the period in general) look to the left, as they were the rightside panel of either a diptych (with the portrait of their husband) or a triptych (with the husband as the left wing, and central some religious scene). A woman looking right is probably some unmarried woman (e.g. a widow). 

Comparable works by Bruyn are e.g. this portrait of a woman from the San Diego Museum: she is also holding a flower and has her hand on the lower frame, which gives a realistic, lifelike effect loved by e.g. the Early Netherlandish painters as well.

Other portraits also show similarities, but somehow the artist doesn't seem to match with the work for sale. Bruyn's works almost always have a monochrome background, the figures look horizontally ahead (not somewhat downward like in the work for sale), and some elements are done somewhat differently (like the shadows).

Looking further, and a bit more in the direction of Early Netherlandish painters, brought me first to Jan Provoost (1462-1529). Especially the above 1505 portrait has some clear links to the work for sale, e.g. in the headdress. This may help to better date the work for sale (which would then be a very early 16th century work), limiting the number of possible named artists. However, other works by Provoost don't really remind me of the one for sale.

Jan Mostaert

Jan Mostaert, ca. 1515-1520 

Master of Frankfurt, detail of Saint Catherine

Joos van Cleve

Better possibilities seem to be some contemporaries like the Master of Frankfurt (1460-1533), Jan Mostaert (1475-1555) or even at a stretch Joos van Cleve (1485-1540), who is probably a bit too late for this.

In summary: this work is probably Flemish, first quarter of the 16th century. Artist and sitter are unknown, but the position of the woman, facing right instead of left, is unusual and may point to some form of independent status. The work has had some damage (overcleaning), but even so the estimate is way too low and even as an anonymous work this should be closer to 5,000 Euro.

UPDATE: no idea how I missed this, but the work is a clear copy after the late 15th c. French (?) "Dame aux Pensées" from the Louvre. 

Early Flemish or 19th century?

Rops, from Belgium, sells some early Flemish paintings on 12 November 2017.

First, there is this 16th century copy of Van der Weyden's Deposition, estimated at 1,000 to 2,000 Euro. To me, it looks like a 19th century one instead, e.g. the face of the Virgin, and not a good one at that. No 16th century Flemish work I know is painted like that.

UPDATE: sold for 850 Euro, seems still too much for me but at least didn't make the lower estimate.

The second is a "Salvator Mundi" from "Flemish School, 16th century: Claeissens", estimated at 400 to 600 Euro. I'm not convinced about this one either, but it seems more likely that it has been restored in the 19th century and that an old original is hidden beneath it. Antoon and Pieter Claeissens were prolific Bruges painters from the 16th century, continuing the work of the great 15th century masters like Memling with works in an archaic vein and with a lot less talent.

This one is not a Salvator Mundi, simply a Head of Christ, and is in the vein of the works of Quinten Messys and the like. It is way better than the first work I showed, but there are many, many versions of this one, which explains its relatively low value. Even so, this should be closer to 1,000 Euro if people believe it to be original, and is probably the cheapest type of authentic 16th century Flemish painting of some (though limited) quality one can acquire nowadays.

UPDATE: sold for 1,700 Euro, which seems to be the correct price for this.

"17th century Descent from the Cross" seems to be earlier

Horta, from Belgium, sells on 20 February 2017 a "Flemish School, 17th century" Descent from the cross, estimated at 1,500 to 2,000 Euro.

It has what looks to be the original frame and text, which makes it extra interesting.

"O heere, in uw vijf wonden
hebben wij gratie gevonden"

"Oh lord, in your five wounds
we have found grace"

The painting looks to me as if a miniature painter suddenly was asked to worked on a larger scale (well, only 28 by 16 cm, clearly a work for private devotion), and had some trouble scaling everything. Especially the head of the Virgin is somewhat strange. But the painting overall remains a good work, even when seen up close, and should be the work of a good draughtsman (as it is more a coloured drawing than a real painting). It looks to me more like a work from the second half of the 16th century than an actual 17th century work though.

This Lamentation (the scene right after the Descent from the Cross, but they are often given the same title). reminds me of the works of Gerard David. If it really is 17th century, it is extremely archaic: most similar scenes were painted around 1570 at the latest.

I would estimate it at 3,000 Euro.

UPDATE: sold for 2,000 Euro.

"Circle of Lely" portrait: a 1665 version of a 1630 portrait?

Mallams, from the UK, sells on 19 October 2016 a "Circle of Peter Lely" portrait of Elizabeth Cockayne, estimated at £700 to £900.

There are a few mysteries around this work. Mallams correctly point out that a portrait of the same sitter together with her husband is housed in the Valence House Museum in London.

The sitters in the two works are clearly the same, with the same pose and the same dress. Normally I would conclude that the solo portrait is a copy after the portrait of the couple, but as the solo portrait is better and considerably larger (65 by 56cm, compared to 40 by 50 cm for the full couple painting), it may well be that the portrait now for sale is the original and the one at Valence a composition of two individual portraits.

The portrait at Valence is described as "This is Thomas Fanshawe's second marriage portrait (there is another portrait in the Collection of him with his first wife Margaret Heath, painted by Peter Lely). The exact date of the marriage between Thomas and Elizabeth is not known, but it must be after 1682 when Elizabeth is mentioned in documents relating to Thomas. Elizabeth was one of the 16 children of Thomas, 1st Viscount Fanshawe, and Elizabeth Cockayne, and her husband Thomas was a distant cousin of hers, as they shared a great grandfather in Thomas Fanshawe, second Remembrancer, although through different great grandmothers."

However, the one for sale has the above label identifying the sitter. If the label is correct, the above double portrait is not of Elisabeth Fanshawe, daughter of Thomas 1st Viscount Fanshawe, wife of Sir Thomas Fanshawe of Jenkins (dating the portrait after 1682), but a portrait of Elizabeth Cockaine, 2nd wife of Thomas 1st Viscount Fanshawe, dating the portrait at ca. 1631 (their first child was born in 1632, and this is probably a marriage portrait).

We can compare the portrait at Valence with the known portrait of the 1st Viscount by Mary Beale; the Beale portrait is probably closer to the end of his life, and certainly after 1650. They could be the same person, but it's hard to be certain.  The third painting is by Sir Peter Lely and dates from ca. 1660. Again, could be the same, but far from certain.

Mary Beale also helpfully painted a portrait of the second candidate: Thomas Fanshawe of Jenkins, the supposed sitter in the Valence portrait. To me, this one seems less similar to the Valence portrait than the 1st Viscount.

The Valence Museum itself has another portrait of Fanshawe of Jenkins, by Peter Lely. This matches the above (somewhat later) Beale portrait, but doesn't seem to match the Valence mariage portrait.

Another problem with the Valence double portrait is that Thomas Fanshawe of Jenkins was born in 1628, and only married his Elizabeth Fanshawe in 1682, when he was 54 years old. The above portrait is not of someone of that age, and while portraits often were idealized, this seems a bit farfetched as an explanation in this case.

So, to me it seems quite certain that the portrait for sale and the double (marriage) portrait in the Valence House Museum are of Elizabeth Cockaine / Cockayne and Thomas Fanshawe, the 1st Viscount, as the label on the portrait indicates. This would date the portrait to ca. 1630, removing it from the circle of Peter Lely (born in 1618)

With such a date, one automatically comes to the Circle of Anthony Van Dyck instead. The first wife of the st Viscount, Anne Alington, was encore painted by Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger, probably the best portrait painter in England of the previous generation, indicating (together with the other portraits shown here) that the family of Fanshawe employed only the best. 

The portrait for sale is obviously much more modern than the Gheeraerts above. Interesting is the portrait of Anne Cockayne, sister of Elizabeth. Their father was Lord Mayor of London and obviously very wealthy. The portrait is attributed to a Follower of Van Dyck.

The main problem with my whole theory is that the painting would be very modern for ca. 1630, and more in style for 1680. Enigma! Perhaps it is a portrait of the 1630 Elisabeth Fanshawe née Cockayne, painted ca. 1680? Not impossible, but a bit strange nevertheless.

It should be worth the estimate as a 1680 portrait, and a lot more as a 1630 portrait.

UPDATE: I've been thinking about this some more, and am not really comfortable describing it as ca. 1630 either, because the style of painting doesn't fit. So, on second thoughts (and considering the label on the painting), perhaps this is a portrait of Elizabeth Cockayne, based on the marriage portrait, but painted shortly after her death by a Lely-esque painter (this would also match the more greyish mourning colours of the dress)? I've changed the title of this blog post accordingly.

UPDATE: sold for £6,800 or nearly 10 times the estimate, so I'm clearly not the only one who noticed this painting.

Supper at Emmaus reuses elements from Rubens, but is it really 17th century?

Vanderkindere, Belgium, sells on 19 January 2016 an "Antwerp School, second quarter of the 17th century" Supper at Emmaus, a large panel painting (106 by 151) estimated at 5,000 to 7,000 Euro.

The central figure of Jesus and the old woman behind him are copied from a well-known Rubens painting of the same subject (image from the RKD). Other elements, like the man pouring a drink on the left, also seem very familiar, with elements reminiscent of Bloemaert or Wolffort. I wonder if this isn't a much later pastiche (the woman on the far left seems more like a 19th century painting to me) instead of an original Antwerp painting close to Rubens' period.

If original, it is easily worth the estimate, but I don't really trust this one.

UPDATE: sold for 5,000 Euro, the bottom estimate.

17th century Columbus portrait is neither

Lewis & Maese, from Texas, sell on 1 July 2015 a "17th century oil on canvas of Christopher Columbus", estimated at just $500 to $800.

Which would be a bargain for an old and quite well preserved portrait of such an iconic figure. Problem is that the portrait doesn't look 17th century at all, but is more likely 19th century; and worse that there is no reason at all to believe this is Columbus. The inscription is "1552" (or at least a date in the 1550s) when it is known that Columbus died in 1506; and it states "Aeta. 72" or aged 72, when he died aged 54 or 55 years old... The painting also bears a heraldic shield, which is totally unlike the Columbus shield. The portrait does have a vague resemblance to some known Columbus portraits, that's as far as it goes. But it is totally unclear why the subject is described as Columbus, perhaps some inscription on the back, or some family legend from the previous owner?