"Attributed to Van der Weyden": can this be a youth work by Bouts?

Deutsch, from Austria, sells on 4 December 2018 an "Attributed to Rogier Van der Weyden" Virgin and Child, an oil on panel estimated at 2,800 to 5,500 Euro. The combination of "attributed to Van der Weyden" and a 2,800 Euro estimate makes me believe that one or the other is wrong...

The composition is by Van der Weyden, as can be seen in this workshop version in the Art Institute of Chicago. The one for sale is, apart from the background, an extremely close copy of the Chicago one. Only the face of the virgin is less well executed, and the condition of the work (while still remarkably well preserved for a 500 years old painting) is somewhat lacking, although a removal of the yellowed varnish may solve most of this.

I can't find any examples of Van der Weyden himself using such a background in a Virgin and Child. A similar window and landscape is used by a Follower of van der Weyden in the Saint Louis Art Museum.

Even more remarkable are the similarities with a Dirk Bouts Virgin and Child in the National Gallery.Not only does the window have the same general appearance as the other two examples, the crisscrossed windows at the top seem to have the exact same pattern of coloured elements round the border.

Which leaves me rather puzzled. Is this an early Dirk Bouts, who is supposed to have been a pupil of Van der Weyden? A version from the workshop of Van Der Weyden executed by Bouts, who later in his own work reused elements he invented then, like the window? The work isn't good enough to be a mature Bouts (or a Van der Weyden), but it is close enough in quality to be a work of Bouts as an apprentice, a pupil.

Or is it a work by someone who copied a Van der Weyden composition but added a Bouts window to it? That seems strange, certainly if it is contemporary (late 19th and 20th century forgers are more known to combine elements to create "new" works or new copies). Of course, it may also be a copy after a lost (or to me unknown) Van der Weyden or Bouts.

I would love it to be by Bouts, but I know that I sometimes get carried away when I am duped by a good fake. It certainly seems to be worth the gamble at the very low estimate. If it turns out to be the best-case scenario, the value is immense. If it is a good follower of Van der Weyden and Bouts, from around 1500, then it still is worth 25,000 Euro (well, the value depends also on what the cleaning would reveal, if the painting is even better below the yellowing, it only gets more valuable).

UPDATE: it sold at the time for 10,000 Euro. I since have become more wary of Deutsch, which has an unlikely rich offering for low prices time and time again, as if they have some unlimited supply somehow. 

"Antwerp School" is by or after Laurence Neter

Deutsch, from Austria, sells on 27 June 2018 an "Antwerp School, ca. 1700" Adam and Eve, estimated at 1,800 to 2,800 Euro.

It is a copy after a painting I already discussed at some length in February 2017, when another (worse) copy appeared at auction. This one stays much closer to the original by Laurence Neter from 1639, but lacks finesse in e.g. the Adam (who has a nice moustache!)

There seems to be some inscription on the rock to the left, but I can't decipher it. Possibly it's simply an indication of the Bible verse, it it is very short and seems to start with "G" (for Genesis)?

The estimate seems about right.

Pieter Brueghel II copy

Deutsch, from Austria; sells on 21 November 2017 a "'School of Pieter Brueghel the Younger" Farmers' couple, estimated at 1,400 to 2,800 Euro.

Johnny van Haeften version

Christie's version

This is cheap, if it really is an old Brueghel copy, as these are much sought after The same composition (with minor differences) is known in other versions: one which was with art dealer Johnny van Haeften (but which I can only find now through some art reproduction sites), and one sold at Christie's in 2011 for £37,250 (as Studio of P. Brueghel II, picture via RKD).That one is the best version, here at least you can see that the woman is working with a spindle and not just holding some strange ornaments in her hand, and has extra details like the second chicken on the ground.

The work for sale is a bit more rudimentary, and needs a good cleaning to get rid of the yellowih varnish; but if it is old, it should easily fetch the upper estimate and may go to some 5,000 Euro instead. Could it be the work of Pieter Brueghel III? Does anyone know of a way to recognise his work even?

UPDATE: apparently sold for 46,000 Euro instead! This seems way too much, but indicates how popular anything related to Pieter Brueghel is.

"Manner of Jean Fouquet" is copy after Fra Angelico

Deutsch, from Vienna, Austria, sells on 27 September 2016 a Lot 009 a "Manner of Jean Fouquet" watercolour on parchment on oak panel Death of a Bishop or Saint, estimated very widely at 600 to 1,800 Euro.

The work has nothing to do with Jean Fouquet and is a close copy after Fra Angelico, the "Death of Saint Nicholas" from the National Gallery of Umbria, in Perugia. It's a work from about 1450, so at least the date was right for Fouquet...

As a probably very recent copy, it's only worth decorative value, if that.

"Attributed to Jan Brueghel the Younger" is a copy after him

Deutsch, from Austria, sells on 31 May 2016 an "Attributed to Jan Brueghel the Younger" Allegory of Flora, estimated at 1,200 to 2,500 Euro.

It is a good, partial copy of a genuine Brueghel, an "Allegory of Spring" from a private collection. But it seems highly unlikely that Brueghel has had a hand in that copy, it lacks his finesse and style.

Still, as a highly attractive painting with a Brueghel composition and colouring, it should easily fetch the upper estimate.

"Dutch School around 1700" seems to be from the School of Mytens

Deutsch, Austrian auction house, sells on 31 May 2016 a "Dutch School, around 1700" portrait of a lady, estimated at 500 to 800 Euro.

It is a nice enough portrait for that price and reminds me of the works of some of the Mytens, especially Jan or Daniel Mytens the Elder (pictured: work by follower of Daniel, and portrait by Jan), and should probably be dated a little bit earlier than 1700.

The painting is far from good enough to be a real Mytens, but should still be worth more than the estimate and fetch at least 1,000 Euro. It could do with some cleaning to bring out the colour again though.

"Follower of Van Dyck" is copy of Van Dyck's portrait of Jean de Montfort

Deutsch, from Germany, sells on 31 May 2016 a "Follower of Van Dyck" portrait of a man, estimated at 600 to 1,500 Euro (quite a wide range, that).

It is a badly damaged copy of the portrait of Jean de Montfor from the Uffizi. Without the damage, it should be worth a lot more, as it seems to be well painted; but restoring that damage will add some cost to the work of course. Still, at 600 Euro it would be a cheap buy.

"School of Nicolaes Eliasz Pickenoy" is probably by Anthonie Palamedesz

Deutsch, from Austria, sell on 24 November (in an auction I have already posted on a few times) a "School of Nicolaes Eliasz Pickenoy (1588-1655)" Portrait of a gentleman, estimated at  400 to 800 Euro.

It is almost certainly the same painting that was sold at Pierre Bergé in 2009 as "Anthonie Palamedesz", Portrait of Anthonij Pietersz van Bronckhorst, with a long provenance. It fetched 2,500 Euro at the time. Sadly, since then it has suffered very serious damage, which explains the low estimate but not the lack of provenance or correct attribution.

The RKD also shows the pendant of the painting, which were kept together across many auctions before finally being separated after more than 300 years (rather sad, that).

While there are copies known of both paintings, none have the same quality (and dimensions) as in this case. How the attribution, subject, and provenance were lost (or why the auction house or owner decided not to note these) is not clear. What the actual value is of a painting which fetched 2,500 Euro before but is now heavily damaged (though luckily mainly in the background parts) is hard to tell. It should be worth between 500 and 1,000 Euro probably, if one goes with the (very low) price achieved in 2009. UPDATE: sold for 2,000 Euro.

New attributions are always possible of course, but it is nearly certain not to be by Pickenoy, as the painting was dated 1660 and Pickenoy died in 1655.

"Venetian School" is copy after Lambert Sustris

Deutsch sells on November 2015 a "Venetian School, 17th/18th century" Baptism of Christ, a large canvas (116 by 155cm) estimated at 1,600 to 3,500 Euro (quite a wide range, that).

It is in fact a good copy after Lambert Sustris (1520-1584), a work now in the Prado.Like with many Sustris works, it used to attributed to Christoph Schwartz instead. I don't think the work for sale is an original, it is a bit too stiff, too much following the original and not enough evidence of a talent comparable to Sustris, but if so it is a very good copy. As an original, it would be worth considerably more; as a good copy, the bottom estimate is way too low, and even the top estimate seems still too low for such a large work. I would be amazed if this didn't fetch at least 5,000 Euro, and considering the chance that it is a sleeper, it might go way beyond that.

UPDATE: sold for 4,000 Euro, above the highest estimate but still below mine.

UPDATE 2: now for sale at Christie's South Kensington (28 April 2016) described as follower of Pauwels Franck and estimated at £12,000 to £18,000! So my guess that this was worth more than 5,000 Euro seems to have been validated. Strange that they still don't reference Lambert Sustris though, the link is quite obvious and my blog quite visible :-) 

UPDATE 3: not sold apparently, can't find it in the results.

"Florentine School, 17th/18th century" is Workshop of or Copy after Sebastiano del Piombo

Deutsch, from Vienna, sells on 24 November 2015 a "Florentine School, 17th/18th century" Visitation, a large canvas (150 by 148 cm) estimated at 4,000 to 6,000 Euro.

A simple search makes it clear that it is the same work as Sebastiano Del Piombo's "Visitation" from the Louvre, though with minor differences (somewhat different colours but in the same palette, a square instead of a vertical orientation which means the removal of a few elements and more importantly the addition of a few others).

Is it a workshop version or a copy? Hard to tell, the Louvre version is very effectively painted (and well composed) but visually not that hard to copy probably (for a skilled painter, not for me). Even so, the copy is apart from a few details (especially in some of the faces) very well done, perhaps a tad more linear, more drawn than the more colour-based original. It is obviously darker, but as that is an overall effect, it probably needs just a thorough cleaning (or perhaps the Louvre one is overcleaned).

Piombo (1485-1547) has often been copied, especially his Lady with the Fur, but this work seems to be missing from the common copies. There is, apart from the Louvre version, a frankly better version of the two central heads. I have no idea where it is kept, it was exhibited a few years ago though. I'll leave that one out of my comparison, or I'll start thinking that the Louvre one is a copy as well...

The central heads in the two versions are very similar. The Louvre one has much clearer colours, but that seems largely to be due to discoloured varnish or other dirt on the painting for sale.

The figure on the top right is more complete in the version for sale. The added bit doesn't look out of pace with the rest of the painting or figure. Whether that is because it is copied from a larger version, or made by the same artist, or done by a competent copyist, is up for debate.

On the left is the main difference in the face of the right woman (with open eyes and a slightly more joyful face in the Deutsch version), and again in the minor additional elements on the far left.

All in all, based purely on these pictures, I can find very little qualitative difference between the two paintings (apart from some condition issues which probably can easily be solved by cleaning). The Louvre version looks slightly better, but I can't find a good argument to dismiss this simply as a copy (nevermind a 17th/18th century Florentine School) and would consider it (lacking better scientific research nor having a thorough knowledge of Sebastiano del Piombo) as a good version from the Workshop of Del Piombo, and accordingly worth considerably more than the estimate. If more people feel the same, this is the kind of sleeper picture that may easily go to 50,000 Euro.

UPDATE: sold for 6,500 Euro, I seem to be alone with the opinion that it might have been a workshop version.

"Attributed to Jan Brueghel II" is just a copy

Deutsch, from Vienna, sells on 24 November a "Attributed to Jan Brueghel II" allegory of the elements, an oil on copper estimated at 1,000 to 2,000 Euro.

I like Jan Brueghel, even II, and I like copies, as regular readers of this blog will know. But this should never be "attributed" to Brueghel, it is a poor and rather boring partial copy of an easily identifiable work, "The element of Air" or "Allegory of the air with Uranus" (one version, not pictured, now in the Kingston Lacy Estate, Dorset), in itself a copy of a work by Jan Brueghel I (first image Brueghel II, next image Brueghel I).

Perhaps it is a good work in a terrible condition, and can it be salvaged with lots of TLC. But I doubt it, it looks to me like one of these works deliberately kept dirty to entice sleeper hunters, but with no happy end in this case.

UPDATE: sold for 2,600 Euro, someone believes there is a salvageable work beneath all that!

Follower of Joos van Cleve: has it been cut down recently?

Deutsch, auction house in Austria, sells on 23 June 215 an "Attributed to Joos van Cleve" Virgin and Child with Cherries, 61.5 by 43 cm, estimated at 2,600 to 4,500 Euro.

It is a nice enough picture, but was it some 6 cm wider until a few years ago? And if so, has part of the original been removed, or was it a later addition? The former would be a severe case of vandalism, common in earlier times but I hoped eradicated by now. The latter is of course more debatable.

At Fivecenturies, a Russian art seller, one can still see a now sold painting which looks very familiar, apart from the right side where some rather poorly painted donor portrait makes the painting less attractive. This painting measured 61 by 49 cm, so the same height but 6 cm extra width. Could it be that someone has removed 6cm on the right, and repainted the remainder of the right side to remove all traces of the donor? I can find not a single difference between the painting for sale and the Russian one. It's fairly common to have multiple copies of the same painting, but usually they differ in the details...

The painting is now attributed to Joos van Cleve, but despite its good quality is more likely to be by a Follower. All versions of this painting which are accepted as original (e.g. the one from the Suermondt-Ludwig Museum in Aachen, or the one sold at Sotheby's in 2002), and most of the known copies (some 20), face to the left, just like the Italian (Da Vinci) original of the composition. Only some 5 copies, all attributed to followers of Cleve, face to the right, like this one.

While it is worth the estimate, I would put it back to a Follower of Joos van Cleve, not attributed to him, and have serious reservations about the removal of the right part, which can't be undone anymore.

UPDATE: sold for 17,000 Euro, so some people believed in it or didn't know (or care) about the history.

UPDATE 2: now for sale at Lempertz (14 may 2016) as "Antwerp School, ca. 1560" with an estimate of 20,000 to 24,000 Euro. Looks like someone's gamble didn't pay off, no artist could be linked to it (as expected), and now they hope to recuperate their investment.

UPDATE 3: the first attempt to get their money back failed, so it is again for sale at Lempertz on 21 September 2016, now estimated at 16,000 to 18,000 Euro. 

Rubens

At Deutsch Auktion in Vienna, they sell (as lot 14) a painting attributed to Rubens. While it undeniably has quality,  it is too simple, too tame, to be a Rubens. It's a nice portrait by an unknown and probably hard to identify late 17th century Flemish painter, worth more than the $50 it stands for at the moment (with 3 bids so far). The painting is described as "Portrait of a bearded man in front of dark background", it seems rather clear that it is some monk, but beyond that not much can be said. Worth a few 1,000 Euro, but not the prices a real Rubens would fetch.

UPDATE: sold for 3,900 Euro, as expected.

Veronese, finding of Moses

Always the most fun, when the auction house points in the right direction but doesn't know (or give) the essentials. Here, at Deutsch, sale of 24 February 2015, lot 34, we have a work described as Painting: Italian artist 18th century. Well, it may be 18th century, it may be 16th century. What is certain is that the original of this composition is a famous work by Paolo Veronese in the Gemaldegalerie of Dresden. Now, is this a Veronese, a workshop of Veronese, a copy by someone well-known like Sebastiano Ricci (which would indeed make it 18th century) or even Tiepolo, or an inferior copy?

The original is significantly larger, the copy (if that is what it is) focuses on the essence only and drops the more anecdotical figures to the right completely.

But some elements in the one for sale are better (as far as one can see on these images) than in the Dresden version, e.g. the rushes on the blanket of Moses, or the feathers on the hat of the dwarf on the left, or the sky (the Dresden version has these rather simplistic pinky sunrays, the one for sale has much more "realistic" sky).

Veronese painted multiple versions of this subject, like this one pictured above, so it's not impossible
that another real Veronese version would appear.

So, is the one for sale an actual, and better, Veronese? Doubtful, although one never knows. Is it an inferior copy? Certainly not, it is a very high quality one. Author?  Not Tiepolo, whose copies weren't as faithful. Perhaps Ricci, perhaps someone else. But at an estimate of 3,500 Euro to 5,500 Euro, and a starting bid of only 1,700 Euro, this seems to be a so far unrecognised bargain. It's huge as well, at 165 by 147cm it is considerably larger than most copies on the market, indicating the ambition of the painter and the supposedly upper-class market. I wouldn't be surprised, if a few others recognise this, to see this pass the 10,000 Euro mark.

UPDATE: sold for 6,000 Euro, I was again too optimistic.

In 2004, at Christie's, another (complete) copy after Veronese, high quality but smaller (about 100 by 150cm) sold for $13,000.